For those who believe in the contingent being argument, I recommend you to read "About Machines and Living Beings" written by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela.
Those that are concluding that Copleston destroyed Russell or defeated him or anything are only basing this on who spoke for a longer time. The more one speaks the truer he is, eh?
@TheJamezMan Sorry to shatter your own little world but its easier to accept in silence, without thinking just running blindly because someone told you so.
@TheJamezMan How can it be easier to deny if silence seems to be easier than critical thinking? I guess it's easier to comment without thinking than to comment with actually giving some thought.
@Omnicron. Subtle difference. The debate is the rhetorical, dialectic part, to my mind. The argument is the substantive, logical dimension which matters more.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Russell destroys Copleston: "contingent being" or "contingent existence" is meaningless tautology, and so Copleston's entire argument makes no sense at all. Its this application of the terms of propositional logic to the material world that Russell rightly finds bizarre and unintelligible.
just to say god exists is not enough... one has to DEFINE god first... i do believe in Spinoza's God for which, the existence of the universe itself is indeed proof enough... the biblical god on the other hand... ;-)
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 really? that's interesting. thanks for the info. btw, was the definition different from the biblical god? if so, i wonder why a clergyman would argue for anything other than the existence of a biblical god.
Copleston- "As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"? Russell- Yes, I accept this definition
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 seems like a very ambiguous and feeble definition that does not say very much. it's still interesting to me why a clergyman would argue for anything less than the biblical god. i suppose it was pragmatic to do so.
@earthypig Well I think Copleston first wanted to see if Russell would accept the 'casual argument' as a proof of the existence of a necessary being." Having got him to that point, they would then have gone on to discuss the nature or essence of that being, to see if it contained ideas which are associated with the God of Bible. But as Russell didn't accept the argument they couldn't go any further.
@earthypig I'm sure the Christian, Jew, and Muslim would accept this definition, probably the Hindu as well, I doubt the Buddhist would. Because he used the word "Personal" I think it's not the same as Spinoza's God, which seemed very close to Pantheism to me.
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 so clearly he was not arguing for the God of the old and new testament, ie. the god of the bible that the christians specifically believe in. Spinoza was a deist, and did not believe in personal god, same as Einstein.
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 so clearly he was not arguing for the God of the old and new testament, ie. the god of the bible that the christians specifically believe in. Spinoza was a deist, and did not believe in personal god, same as Einstein.
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 Well I think Copleston first wanted to see if Russell would accept the 'casual argument' as a proof of the existence of a necessary being." Having got him to that point, they would then have gone on to discuss the nature or essence of that being, to see if it contained ideas which are associated with the God of Bible. But as Russell didn't accept the argument they couldn't go any further.
Can people just stop arguing and make your points. I need help with understanding Russell and Copleston's views. I know everyone has different beliefs but this really isn't helping. Lool :S
I agree with Russell. The universe just is. It has no beginning or end and therefore cannot be contingent upon a creating force external to itself . The particularistic laws of cause (the creator/necessary being) and effect (created/contingent being) which Copleston uses to make his argument can't apply to this totality which has and will always exist ad infinitum.
Hmmm. I am convinced that Russell is equivocating in this first section of the debate. It is seems to me that Copleston is correct to maintain that if one acknowledges contingent being, there must necessarily be a necessary being- that is, something whose non-existence is impossible. Kant held the view that there must be a non-contingent reality as well.
@manatsunoshi What did you mean by this comment? I would be interested to know. If you meant by this remark that philosophy since 1950s has somehow negated the existence of God, I would argue that you are mistaken.
@me5o There is no comparison between "fairies" or any other folkloric being and God. You have probably been listening to the nonsensical pseudo-philosophical rants of Mr Dawkins. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of "fairies" or "tea pots" orbiting Jupiter, but there is evidence for the existence of God. Copleston is here articulating such an argument. Furthermore, "fairies" explain precisely nothing, whereas the God hypothesis explains why there is being rather than non-being.
You're weird even for a theist, claiming there's evidence. If there's evidence for God, then it's not a matter of faith anymore. You're either educated and smart enough to understand God exists or you're damned for an eternity. Stupid and uneducated people will be tortured forever.
@me5o I was educated at Cambridge. You are misrepresenting the tradition with respect to hell. Hans Urs Von Balthasar thought that we can hope that all people will be saved. This is my own position. Karl Barth thought that everyone would be saved, as did Origen. There are theologians who have taught some harsh things regarding hell; but these are not binding (like councils).
Now we're getting somewhere (btw I'm not misrepresenting anything, I've read the Bible and the Koran).
Yes, you can HOPE that all people will be saved. You can hope that YOU will be saved. But if you actually BELIEVE it, you fail at critical thinking, plain and simple.
@me5o In order to "hope" for something you have to believe it's possible. If you don't believe it's possible, you can't hope for it. You can't hope without believing.
You went too far with the last sentence. I was with you until that point.
Yes, you have to believe it's possible. You don't have to believe it's true though or even that there is a high probability it turns out to be true. Even if it seems highly unlikely, I'll still hope that my footy team wins the title. Also, even though there's no reason to think I'll see any of my dead friends or relatives again, I can still hope it happens.
@me5o If you are totally convinced something is not true, you can't place possibility behind it. You can't know for sure whether or not the team will win or lose, and that is why you are able to hope they win.
Also, according to you, it's okay to believe that being saved is possible, yet you believe that it is a failure in critical thinking to believe that you actually will be. Where does your failure in critical thinking lie?
I have no idea where you got that I'm "totally convinced something is not true". This isn't rocket science so just stop making shit up.
I'm not totally convinced fairies don't exist. That doesn't mean I believe they do. And yes, belief in fairies=failure in critical thinking. Try to comprehend this already. It's incredibly simple.
@me5o I'm not making anything up, just re-read your previous comment. You also never answered my question. If this is as "incredibly simple" as you describe, one would think you would be able to explain it without acting so immature and childish.
OK. 1. Thinking something is "highly unlikely" does not mean the same as thinking something is not possible. Got that now? OK, moving on.
2. The failure in critical thinking lies in believing in an afterlife when we have no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis. Belief without evidence=fail.
Now, if you don't understand those two points, please don't reply anymore. I'm not interested in discussing with a retarded person. No offense.
@me5o 1 Re-re-read your comment. Before "highly unlikely".
2 That's where you're not understanding you're own argument. If you're belief is entirely empirical you can't believe in it's possibility either. Your original argument was that hoping in the afterlife is possible, yet believing in it wasn't. Yet you admit that hope is based on its possibility.
OK, I guess English isn't YOUR first language or something since YOU'RE completely misrepresenting me here.
My argument was and is that you can hope for things without evidence (and you can believe things without evidence too) but you SHOULDN'T believe in things without evidence. I said nothing about believing not being possible or any such nonsense.
Thinking X is possible DOES NOT mean you believe X. You merely think it's a possibility. Like fairies. OK?
@me5o I'm an atheist, but you must see that exploring the possibility that the universe was created is a valid philosophical endeavour. With fairies, we've only a very vague idea of what phenomena the term would be attributed to, and differing ideas of what they would do if they did exist. That is one of the reasons - among others - that we DON'T explore the possibility of fairies. However, the possibility of a creator - although I personally don't believe that one exists - is a valid one.
@me5o 'God - the creator of the universe'. As a concept, God in it's deistic sense is quite straightforward. You are clearly just plugging your fingers in your ears, so to speak. I agree with Dawkins' comparison in it's intended sense - that is to say that belief in God because it cannot be disproved is illogical. However, this does not mean - nor does it imply - that the concept isn't worth exploring philosophically.
Let's see: With GOD we've only a very vague idea of what phenomena the term would be attributed to, and differing ideas of what they would do if they did exist.
^^^^This is clearly true. Talk about plugging fingers in your ears.
Like I said, you can waste your time philosophically exploring silly concepts all day long. And you can pretend it's a "valid" endeavour, but that's just your opinion and I happen to disagree.
I'm a great fan of Russell, and an atheist who believes the cosmological argument fails. But I can't help but think that he answers this first section very poorly indeed. Copplestone's argument is an argument FOR a non-tautologous necessary proposition. Russell can't simply reject this by saying "all necessary propositions are tautologies" without begging the question!
@BalladoftheWindfish playing dumb. i cant understand half of what either one of them says. but i think i was able to keep up with copplestons opening statement. and it makes no sense to me. i can see where russel would be like "wtf?!" also.
@sebastianquilt Nice try Copleston.You had a Christian society on your side,it was 1948 after all.Russell was humoring you and as the years rolled on,more and more people agreed with Russell.By the nineties,when Copleston died,Monty Pythons 'Life of Brian' had become a cult classic and Copleston must have felt a fool for wasting his life on childish nonsense.
They both had some serious flaws, but I thought Copleston was more logical. I'll try to outline some of their big flaws.
Copleston: He claims to have "a posteriori" knowledge of Gods essence, which he has derived from the world around him. He isnt however proving his claim of evidence, hence he is begging the question. In short, he has a priori knowledge of a posteriori knowledge (which he hasnt proved is proof of nothing else). However this is minor to Russells flaws, which I'll outline next
@planetpiss17 I respectfully beg to differ. Yours is the critique Kant offered, that it assumed the Ontological argument. It doesn't. There is no apriori assertion of God's nature here. He is simply showing as Robert J Spitzer in his book "New Proofs for the Existence of God" shows, that an infinite series of conditioned or contingent causes is absurd, in the immediate here and now in which we live. At this moment at the end of the day the ultimate princple of cause can't be composite, or simple
Instead of asking someone else if God exists, why not ask God himself, if God say yes well there you have it, EASY
I wonder why religious people allways have to act and talk on behalf of God, l mean it is a God we are talking about here for heaven sake, is he handicapped or what ?
Copelston's History of Philosophy is astounding, at least particularly in its fair treatment of sociology and anthropology in the latter stages of the series. I've never known a more philosophically erudite Christian.. I can scarcely comprehend how he still manages to uphold his views.
@tomsega etienne gilson, jacques maritain, soren kierkegaard, immanuel kant, thomas aquinas, renee descartes, thomas aquinas, thomas aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Paul Tillich, Edmund Husserl, thomas merton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Aquinas, meister eckhart, augustine; I can go on and on.
@hexagondun - In your response you pretty much infer the question "Which 'great' philosophers are Christian philosophers?" - And in answering that it's not quite relevant to cite Augustine, Aquinas and Descartes, as of course if you go far back 300+ years of course ALL philosophers were religious. Most of the Enlightenment philosophers were deists; demonstrably, I'd say, stepping stones towards atheism. Post 1859, however, the names of 'great' Christian philosophers dry up considerably.
As long as we operate within the realm of thought, which logic is a part of, we cannot understand this issue. The arguments are academic and some of the comments are biased. The apparently logical theorem given in the explanation of this posting has questionable premise and untenable propositions. "Bertrand ... took three shots to the head?" When? I didn't hear them! You haven't followed the subtleties, Sir. A looking into is not 'evading' and repeating the same statement is not conviction!
They are arguing one key idea: If God exists, did he create himself? If he did then that is sufficient reason for everything else. If God did not create himself, then there is probably an infinity of causes, but it's not necessarily so. In any case, these ideas cannot be tested in the field or in a laboratory. So, they must remain speculative ideas, without any final proof one way or the other. Rest assured of this, either Russell or Copleston would be a formidable opponent in any debate!!
@ejgiv Well, Russell basically just says "the universe's existence is a brute fact". All he really does is fail to question why it's there. Not that incredible.
@rumpranger65 The universe could exist as a brute fact, but I don't see how atheists can decry theists for being unreasonable when they [atheists] reject the principle of sufficient reason for the universe.
@djsmurfie Certainly Russell can't decry theists for being unreasonable. He was also extremely hypocritical in claiming an emotivist meta-ethics, yet decrying religion and theism and all its "inherent evils".
@rumpranger65 His own positivism compelled him to emotivism - I think most positivists were emotivists? Clearly a very dated view.
A difficulty in theistic arguments is not that they can't convince atheists - which they rarely do - but convincing lay atheists that they are reasonable and rational arguments that can conclude belief in God. Case in point: from reading some replies it seems that individuals think Russell annihilated Copleston and that Copleston's arguments were irrational.
@djsmurfie Yeah, that's what I meant in my first post by saying that Russell is a bit aged now. And yes, I think that the reason most of the atheists commenting think that Russell did so good is because, even though he was one of the early analytic philosophers, his arguments more complicated than they really are.
Stupid Russell. This guy seriously thought emotivist ethics was a tenable defense. Read the rest of the debate. This part is good though, though Russell is a little bit aged.
The sooner man apprehends that the "eye which looks" for the object it yearns "to see" is in fact both the "object to be beholden" and "that which beholds." Thereupon, he shall liberate himself from the levity of seeking God "out there" or up in "the firmament."
This is absolutely typical; I'd have expected nothing more from a discussion between a christian and an unindoctrinated thinker. Russell is thinking at a level involving subtleties of Philosophy that Copleston just cannot appreciate; he's like *bang* cosmological argument, yes or no? And Russell is, you can tell, just baffled at the intellectual immaturity and lack of periphery of the statement, and every one subsequent. Copleston has an interest to protect; he uses words under personal duress.
@jezmuff ??? Russell pretty much states that the universe exists as a brute fact and denies the principle of sufficient reason. I don't see how you can think Russell and is 'head and shoulders' above Copleston.
I must acknowledge the good will in these two intellectual giants, which agree to dialog about such a controversial question with high respect. Can you imagine a TV program of this caliber in our days? Perhaps we could return to this kind of trascendental discussions, in honour of human knowledge and philosophy.
The clash of the Titans! Father Copleston talks even better then he wrote.. Get his History Of Philosophy it is brilliant.. Is it just me or did the good father have Bertrand squirming at the end? His conviction never wavered, but at the end Bertrand sounded like he just took three shots to the head!! Thanks for sharing this with the world...
I find it hilarious that people are actually claiming such and such won, when half the time they both were squabbling over the definitions of the words and phrases, and at other times not fully following the other's line of reasoning.
Good debate for the most part however, it goes to show how important the initial conditions are, which many of us assume.
I don't think Copleston lacks substance at all, neither does Russell, good debate.
Russell did make some mistakes here, especially in regards to his matchstick example. Copleston was right, it was not an adequate example, to imply that because something can't be got because a total explanation isn't (supposedly) possible is to make some major assumptions in the argument that follows.
Firstly, what if reason develops further to the point a reasonable explanation can be regarding adequacy (for whatever?)
They are arguing over one key idea: If God exists, did he create himself? If he did then that is a sufficient reason for everything else. If God did not create himself, then there is probably an infinity of causes, but it's not necessarily so. In either case, these ideas cannot be tested in the field or in a laboratory. So, they are, and must remain speculative ideas for us, without any final proof one way or the other. Either Russell or Copleston would be a formidable opponent in any debate!!
@gilbertgodlyddd I remember listening to this and thinking it rather ponderous that Russell, for all his intellect, rejects the principle of sufficient reason for the universe, that it has no explanation.
The universe around us is the cause of an infinite regression of causes. Once again Copleston hits the brick wall where he cannot come to address Russell's argument on the grounds of his committed faith.
However the protracted debate over the religious terminology of 'contingency' and 'necessity' seem to litter the debate with allegations of 'wordplay'. The crooks of the argument, is simply that God cannot be empirically proven, therefore - in support of Russell - remains synthetic.
If the present universe is the cause of an infinite regression of causes, then wouldn't that be the same as saying that the totality of causes which have at some point been present and are now past constitutes an actually infinite quantity? You'd have to demonstrate how this avoids the logical contradiction of having an actually infinite number of things.
Copleston's arguments, while more polished than todays believers, is still lacking in substance. All these vague references to a being who has in itself its own reason for existence solves nothing. It is just a better package for the same bullshit Ken Hovind spews forth today. It is also amazing that they pretend to be logical, yet go on to make the jump from their ill formed conclusions to a belief in a specific anthropomorphized deity. Nice try at countering infinite regression though, lol.
@sfmike20 Your vulgarity is typical of the new atheists. I believe both philosophers defended their points well. There are other arguments which unfortunately there would not be time to address in a radio debate. Your essential confusion stems from your inability to distinguish the God of philosophers which depends on logical debate from the God of religious believers which depends on the possibility of revelation which is not the subject of this debate.
Be kind enough as to show which argument lacks substance?
I suggest you listen to the argument again, and read the transcript, what he was arguing about was much further elaborated on than by the mindless summary you just did there.
The very concept of a transcendent being perhaps? You cannot disprove a negative, and any argument that cannot be proved, or disproved is lacking in substance. If one were to try to prove god(s) does(do) not exist, that would be lacking in substance as well. The only logical thing to do is admit that none of us knows, and any more certain stance is a matter of groundless faith. I take it you do not study science, based upon your comment.
@sfmike20 Ok this new youtube look is very annoying and i mistakenly marked your previous comment as spam, and now I can't see it! From what I remember seeing there: A concept on its own, can't just be dismissed because you disagree with it; transcendence. How about Russell's? He disagreed with the very question of a cause, as Copelstone said, explaining away is not an explanation. I fail to see why the question can be just dismissed.
Just so we know where we are both coming from, I think it is ridiculous to try to disprove god as well.
The way I see it, granted that I could be wrong here, is that trying to use pure rationalism to (dis)prove divine existence is ridiculous when no empirical knowledge base can be drawn upon. Without empirical knowledge to help their cases, they are arguing about air. The only reason I thought Russel won was because of infinite regression. No one can counter that without transcendence.
That's too much like logical positivism and which is dead for the most part; the idea that only empirical evidence warrants knowledge. All of science rests on the foundation of logic that uses pure rationalism, further mathematics is not at all empirical. I do research in theoretical physics but I wouldn't for a second entertain the idea that empiricism or the scientific method is our only way of acquiring knowledge.
@Jim1905, I do not say that rationalism is the only means of acquiring knowledge, but without any empirical evidence to draw upon, the argument that a specific interpretation of god exists or does not exist is meaningless. The evidence is entirely neutral, and a scientific question of this sort requires some kind of empirical evidence to draw on, assuming that we want to answer this question in an intellectually honest way. The only thing we can do is falsify specific versions of god in debate.
Yes but empirical evidence is not the only way to prove/disprove a theory. In mathematics there is no physical evidence for the complex numbers or n-dimensional topological structures, even though they may have some founding in reality. As such the same idea applies to arguments for or against the existence of God, it can be treated rationally with logic to see if a contradiction arises. Science has no authority in such questions just as science has no authority in mathematics.
@Jim1905, if one treats it merely as a matter of logic, then you could come up with many valid arguments. The validity of the arguments does nothing to help prove/disprove god without some sort of empirically based deductive argument that lets us know if the conclusion is sound. An argument of that sort is entirely impossible when all the evidence is, by its very nature, neutral. This is why I feel that the topic is irrelevant. What we can debate on are specific interpretations of god.
If you think my responses vulgar in any way, I apologize. Five hundred characters is not enough for me to discuss the scientific reasons for my views.
This debate seemed to be a conversation about semantics; they didn't seem to directly address the existence of a god as much as they were discussing the definitions of the words used to postulate his existence.
I'm unfortunately at a layman's level when it comes to this sort of thing so I didn't get much out of it.
the reason for an existence must be another existence!? how was it observed in our experience?! we see one event after another but never one existence "causing" the existence of the other!!
Yes. It is the first entry in the Related Video section, and I put an annotation in Part 1 at around the 9 minute mark with a link to Part 2. Alternatively, you could go to my channel and view my uploads list.
@PostITnoteGUY: - I don't admit from you or anyone else the preposterous accusation that I'm threatening people with the possibility of sufferings.
The wild conjectures you have been drawing from my own words denounce you as a deeply dishonest person.
For that reason, I'm going to put an end to this dialogue right away. I'm in 'YouTube' to entertain and enlighten myself - not to be bored by liars like you.
"I have no rebuttal to your demand for evidence to the veracity of my claim, so instead, I will now immediately end the conversation, in an effort to maintain my compartmentalized and dissonate mind; and in the process move the attention away from my own disingenuous ways, by way projection."
Rated from 1 to 5 stars, how well did I fare? Or do you think that by replying to this comment, you will somehow concede to my interpretation of your ending remark?
For those who believe in the contingent being argument, I recommend you to read "About Machines and Living Beings" written by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela.
noahova 3 weeks ago
(2) The universe exists contingently.
This premise has not been demonstrated; and without it, the whole argument falls apart.
brangelito 1 month ago 3
Those that are concluding that Copleston destroyed Russell or defeated him or anything are only basing this on who spoke for a longer time. The more one speaks the truer he is, eh?
Biyer11 1 month ago
Comment removed
valarmanwe 1 month ago
It's always easier to deny than to accept. The awakened accept, in silence.
TheJamezMan 2 months ago
@TheJamezMan It's easier to accept, without thought, and become a sheep to other people's teachings.
ViciAmbience 1 month ago
@TheJamezMan Sorry to shatter your own little world but its easier to accept in silence, without thinking just running blindly because someone told you so.
milosQaX 1 month ago
@TheJamezMan How can it be easier to deny if silence seems to be easier than critical thinking? I guess it's easier to comment without thinking than to comment with actually giving some thought.
stealspell 2 weeks ago
@stealspell Your cluttering your mind with conditioned thoughts.
TheJamezMan 2 weeks ago
@TheJamezMan Yes, I'm cluttering my mind with thoughts conditioned by reason. Do you have non-conditioned thoughts of square-circles?
stealspell 2 weeks ago
Copleston destroyed Russell in this whole debate. Getting Bertrand Russell to concede to the thought that he should not even be talking about it LOL!
ssssaintmarcus 2 months ago
@Omnicron. Subtle difference. The debate is the rhetorical, dialectic part, to my mind. The argument is the substantive, logical dimension which matters more.
mikemckv 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Go freddy, he's my great (great) uncle :D
1pnoe 5 months ago
@1pnoe wow, I'm reading his book "A history of philosophy, Greece and Rome" right now.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 Nice, he is in my Religious Studies GCSE course.
1pnoe 4 months ago
I read this in Hick's book about 30 years. My verdict then and now is that Coplestone won the debate but Russell won the argument.
mikemckv 5 months ago
Russell destroys Copleston: "contingent being" or "contingent existence" is meaningless tautology, and so Copleston's entire argument makes no sense at all. Its this application of the terms of propositional logic to the material world that Russell rightly finds bizarre and unintelligible.
lordhargreaves 6 months ago
Comment removed
lordhargreaves 6 months ago
just to say god exists is not enough... one has to DEFINE god first... i do believe in Spinoza's God for which, the existence of the universe itself is indeed proof enough... the biblical god on the other hand... ;-)
earthypig 6 months ago
@earthypig This is only an edited part of the debate, before it began Copleston & Russell agreed on a preliminary definition of God.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 really? that's interesting. thanks for the info. btw, was the definition different from the biblical god? if so, i wonder why a clergyman would argue for anything other than the existence of a biblical god.
earthypig 4 months ago
@earthypig His defintion was as follows,
Copleston- "As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"? Russell- Yes, I accept this definition
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 seems like a very ambiguous and feeble definition that does not say very much. it's still interesting to me why a clergyman would argue for anything less than the biblical god. i suppose it was pragmatic to do so.
earthypig 4 months ago
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@earthypig Well I think Copleston first wanted to see if Russell would accept the 'casual argument' as a proof of the existence of a necessary being." Having got him to that point, they would then have gone on to discuss the nature or essence of that being, to see if it contained ideas which are associated with the God of Bible. But as Russell didn't accept the argument they couldn't go any further.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
@earthypig I'm sure the Christian, Jew, and Muslim would accept this definition, probably the Hindu as well, I doubt the Buddhist would. Because he used the word "Personal" I think it's not the same as Spinoza's God, which seemed very close to Pantheism to me.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 so it seems clear that he was not arguing for the biblical God that the christians specifically believe in.
Spinoza's god is not a personal god. Spinoza was more of a deist.
earthypig 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 interesting. it seems clear that he was not arguing for the biblical God that the christians specifically believe in.
Spinoza's god is not a personal god. Spinoza was more of a deist.
earthypig 4 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 so clearly he was not arguing for the God of the old and new testament, ie. the god of the bible that the christians specifically believe in. Spinoza was a deist, and did not believe in personal god, same as Einstein.
earthypig 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 so clearly he was not arguing for the God of the old and new testament, ie. the god of the bible that the christians specifically believe in. Spinoza was a deist, and did not believe in personal god, same as Einstein.
earthypig 4 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 so he was not arguing for the biblical god that the christians specifically believe in.
earthypig 4 months ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 theistic religions believe in "personal god" the existence of the universe is no proof of a personal god.
earthypig 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 Well I think Copleston first wanted to see if Russell would accept the 'casual argument' as a proof of the existence of a necessary being." Having got him to that point, they would then have gone on to discuss the nature or essence of that being, to see if it contained ideas which are associated with the God of Bible. But as Russell didn't accept the argument they couldn't go any further.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
Seems to me that the priest is the only one using logic while the atheist keeps referring to his personal opinions.
MrR1D3R 7 months ago
Russel pwned him up to this point.
PaperNun 7 months ago
wow that was intense
AndysEdits 7 months ago
the universe is just there and that is all
89sweetsweet 8 months ago
Can people just stop arguing and make your points. I need help with understanding Russell and Copleston's views. I know everyone has different beliefs but this really isn't helping. Lool :S
Henabee 8 months ago
@Henabee Look up the transcripts then.
GiantSandles 7 months ago
I agree with Russell. The universe just is. It has no beginning or end and therefore cannot be contingent upon a creating force external to itself . The particularistic laws of cause (the creator/necessary being) and effect (created/contingent being) which Copleston uses to make his argument can't apply to this totality which has and will always exist ad infinitum.
ramonalejandrosuare 8 months ago
Comment removed
ramonalejandrosuare 8 months ago
2 genious, these guys are in the vanguard of contemporary phylosophy.
shadow0106 9 months ago
Russel is an idiot.
2000deg 10 months ago
Hmmm. I am convinced that Russell is equivocating in this first section of the debate. It is seems to me that Copleston is correct to maintain that if one acknowledges contingent being, there must necessarily be a necessary being- that is, something whose non-existence is impossible. Kant held the view that there must be a non-contingent reality as well.
bayreuth79 10 months ago
to be honest, everything that happened in philosophy AFTER the 1950ties makes this god-existence debate seem like a total waste of time.
sincerely
a disgruntled philosophy student
manatsunoshi 11 months ago
@manatsunoshi What did you mean by this comment? I would be interested to know. If you meant by this remark that philosophy since 1950s has somehow negated the existence of God, I would argue that you are mistaken.
bayreuth79 10 months ago
@bayreuth79
We haven't negated the existence of fairies either. Doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe in fairies.
me5o 10 months ago
@me5o There is no comparison between "fairies" or any other folkloric being and God. You have probably been listening to the nonsensical pseudo-philosophical rants of Mr Dawkins. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of "fairies" or "tea pots" orbiting Jupiter, but there is evidence for the existence of God. Copleston is here articulating such an argument. Furthermore, "fairies" explain precisely nothing, whereas the God hypothesis explains why there is being rather than non-being.
bayreuth79 10 months ago
@bayreuth79
Just because you say they can't be compared,doesn't make it so. Fairies and gods are both supernatural beings for which we have no evidence.
Oh wait, you think there is evidence for God!
And then another assertion that "my magic man provides an explanation".
I'm sorry I took you seriously even for a second. Moving on...
me5o 10 months ago
@me5o Ok. You are a typical fundamentalist atheist.
bayreuth79 10 months ago
@bayreuth79
You're weird even for a theist, claiming there's evidence. If there's evidence for God, then it's not a matter of faith anymore. You're either educated and smart enough to understand God exists or you're damned for an eternity. Stupid and uneducated people will be tortured forever.
Lovely God you have. LOL.
me5o 10 months ago
@me5o I was educated at Cambridge. You are misrepresenting the tradition with respect to hell. Hans Urs Von Balthasar thought that we can hope that all people will be saved. This is my own position. Karl Barth thought that everyone would be saved, as did Origen. There are theologians who have taught some harsh things regarding hell; but these are not binding (like councils).
bayreuth79 9 months ago
@bayreuth79
Now we're getting somewhere (btw I'm not misrepresenting anything, I've read the Bible and the Koran).
Yes, you can HOPE that all people will be saved. You can hope that YOU will be saved. But if you actually BELIEVE it, you fail at critical thinking, plain and simple.
me5o 9 months ago
@me5o In order to "hope" for something you have to believe it's possible. If you don't believe it's possible, you can't hope for it. You can't hope without believing.
totaljking12 9 months ago
@totaljking12
You went too far with the last sentence. I was with you until that point.
Yes, you have to believe it's possible. You don't have to believe it's true though or even that there is a high probability it turns out to be true. Even if it seems highly unlikely, I'll still hope that my footy team wins the title. Also, even though there's no reason to think I'll see any of my dead friends or relatives again, I can still hope it happens.
me5o 9 months ago
@me5o If you are totally convinced something is not true, you can't place possibility behind it. You can't know for sure whether or not the team will win or lose, and that is why you are able to hope they win.
Also, according to you, it's okay to believe that being saved is possible, yet you believe that it is a failure in critical thinking to believe that you actually will be. Where does your failure in critical thinking lie?
totaljking12 9 months ago
@totaljking12
I have no idea where you got that I'm "totally convinced something is not true". This isn't rocket science so just stop making shit up.
I'm not totally convinced fairies don't exist. That doesn't mean I believe they do. And yes, belief in fairies=failure in critical thinking. Try to comprehend this already. It's incredibly simple.
me5o 9 months ago
@me5o I'm not making anything up, just re-read your previous comment. You also never answered my question. If this is as "incredibly simple" as you describe, one would think you would be able to explain it without acting so immature and childish.
totaljking12 9 months ago
@totaljking12
OK. 1. Thinking something is "highly unlikely" does not mean the same as thinking something is not possible. Got that now? OK, moving on.
2. The failure in critical thinking lies in believing in an afterlife when we have no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis. Belief without evidence=fail.
Now, if you don't understand those two points, please don't reply anymore. I'm not interested in discussing with a retarded person. No offense.
me5o 9 months ago
@me5o 1 Re-re-read your comment. Before "highly unlikely".
2 That's where you're not understanding you're own argument. If you're belief is entirely empirical you can't believe in it's possibility either. Your original argument was that hoping in the afterlife is possible, yet believing in it wasn't. Yet you admit that hope is based on its possibility.
3. You're still acting childish.
totaljking12 9 months ago
@totaljking12
OK, I guess English isn't YOUR first language or something since YOU'RE completely misrepresenting me here.
My argument was and is that you can hope for things without evidence (and you can believe things without evidence too) but you SHOULDN'T believe in things without evidence. I said nothing about believing not being possible or any such nonsense.
Thinking X is possible DOES NOT mean you believe X. You merely think it's a possibility. Like fairies. OK?
me5o 9 months ago
@me5o The whole point of philosophy is to logically explore the possibility of that which cannot necessarily be proven.
GiantSandles 9 months ago
@GiantSandles
Well, you can logically explore the possibility of fairies if that's what you wanna do.
And people say philosophy is often just a waste of time...
me5o 9 months ago
@me5o I'm an atheist, but you must see that exploring the possibility that the universe was created is a valid philosophical endeavour. With fairies, we've only a very vague idea of what phenomena the term would be attributed to, and differing ideas of what they would do if they did exist. That is one of the reasons - among others - that we DON'T explore the possibility of fairies. However, the possibility of a creator - although I personally don't believe that one exists - is a valid one.
GiantSandles 9 months ago
@GiantSandles
No, you've said nothing to convince me that god is in any way a more valid concept than fairies.
Everything you said about fairies also applies to gods.
me5o 9 months ago
@me5o 'God - the creator of the universe'. As a concept, God in it's deistic sense is quite straightforward. You are clearly just plugging your fingers in your ears, so to speak. I agree with Dawkins' comparison in it's intended sense - that is to say that belief in God because it cannot be disproved is illogical. However, this does not mean - nor does it imply - that the concept isn't worth exploring philosophically.
GiantSandles 9 months ago
@GiantSandles
Let's see: With GOD we've only a very vague idea of what phenomena the term would be attributed to, and differing ideas of what they would do if they did exist.
^^^^This is clearly true. Talk about plugging fingers in your ears.
Like I said, you can waste your time philosophically exploring silly concepts all day long. And you can pretend it's a "valid" endeavour, but that's just your opinion and I happen to disagree.
me5o 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@me5o >'God - the creator of the universe'. As a concept, God in it's deistic sense is quite straightforward.
What part of that was complex, or vague to you? When we ask the question 'does God exist?', we need only look at God in a deistic sense.
GiantSandles 9 months ago
Copleston rocks!
colingaj1 11 months ago
I'm a great fan of Russell, and an atheist who believes the cosmological argument fails. But I can't help but think that he answers this first section very poorly indeed. Copplestone's argument is an argument FOR a non-tautologous necessary proposition. Russell can't simply reject this by saying "all necessary propositions are tautologies" without begging the question!
ORAKAR 11 months ago
Dayumn, Fr. Copleston pretty much insults him towards the end, and rightfully so, Betrrand is playing dumb.
BalladoftheWindfish 11 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish playing dumb. i cant understand half of what either one of them says. but i think i was able to keep up with copplestons opening statement. and it makes no sense to me. i can see where russel would be like "wtf?!" also.
icebreaker753 10 months ago
Win one for Copleston here -- better luck in Part 2, Bertie! xx
sebastianquilt 11 months ago 7
@sebastianquilt Nice try Copleston.You had a Christian society on your side,it was 1948 after all.Russell was humoring you and as the years rolled on,more and more people agreed with Russell.By the nineties,when Copleston died,Monty Pythons 'Life of Brian' had become a cult classic and Copleston must have felt a fool for wasting his life on childish nonsense.
henryporter101 11 months ago
haha this is my homework for tomorrow to research this shit ... score !!
21manutdfan 1 year ago 5
I'm taking philosophy this semester and it's great to know you have this program on. Thank You!
artrock1970 1 year ago
They both had some serious flaws, but I thought Copleston was more logical. I'll try to outline some of their big flaws.
Copleston: He claims to have "a posteriori" knowledge of Gods essence, which he has derived from the world around him. He isnt however proving his claim of evidence, hence he is begging the question. In short, he has a priori knowledge of a posteriori knowledge (which he hasnt proved is proof of nothing else). However this is minor to Russells flaws, which I'll outline next
planetpiss17 1 year ago
@planetpiss17 I respectfully beg to differ. Yours is the critique Kant offered, that it assumed the Ontological argument. It doesn't. There is no apriori assertion of God's nature here. He is simply showing as Robert J Spitzer in his book "New Proofs for the Existence of God" shows, that an infinite series of conditioned or contingent causes is absurd, in the immediate here and now in which we live. At this moment at the end of the day the ultimate princple of cause can't be composite, or simple
Youdamana 11 months ago
Comment removed
planetpiss17 11 months ago
Comment removed
planetpiss17 11 months ago
Comment removed
planetpiss17 11 months ago
Comment removed
planetpiss17 11 months ago
Comment removed
planetpiss17 11 months ago
Comment removed
planetpiss17 11 months ago
I like how this debate is quick and back and forth, point to point. Not the typical speech after speech.
zzzak123 1 year ago
Instead of asking someone else if God exists, why not ask God himself, if God say yes well there you have it, EASY
I wonder why religious people allways have to act and talk on behalf of God, l mean it is a God we are talking about here for heaven sake, is he handicapped or what ?
matforsbon 1 year ago 2
@matforsbon my thoughts exactly
erikahawkins 1 year ago
Copelston's History of Philosophy is astounding, at least particularly in its fair treatment of sociology and anthropology in the latter stages of the series. I've never known a more philosophically erudite Christian.. I can scarcely comprehend how he still manages to uphold his views.
tomsega 1 year ago
Comment removed
hexagondun 1 year ago
Comment removed
hexagondun 1 year ago
Comment removed
hexagondun 1 year ago
@tomsega etienne gilson, jacques maritain, soren kierkegaard, immanuel kant, thomas aquinas, renee descartes, thomas aquinas, thomas aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Paul Tillich, Edmund Husserl, thomas merton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Aquinas, meister eckhart, augustine; I can go on and on.
hexagondun 1 year ago
@hexagondun - In your response you pretty much infer the question "Which 'great' philosophers are Christian philosophers?" - And in answering that it's not quite relevant to cite Augustine, Aquinas and Descartes, as of course if you go far back 300+ years of course ALL philosophers were religious. Most of the Enlightenment philosophers were deists; demonstrably, I'd say, stepping stones towards atheism. Post 1859, however, the names of 'great' Christian philosophers dry up considerably.
tomsega 1 year ago
As long as we operate within the realm of thought, which logic is a part of, we cannot understand this issue. The arguments are academic and some of the comments are biased. The apparently logical theorem given in the explanation of this posting has questionable premise and untenable propositions. "Bertrand ... took three shots to the head?" When? I didn't hear them! You haven't followed the subtleties, Sir. A looking into is not 'evading' and repeating the same statement is not conviction!
musk062 1 year ago
Comment removed
musk062 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'M BEAUTIFUL IN MY WAY, CAUSE GOD MAKES NO MISTAKES. I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK BABY I WAS BORN THIS WAY!
Siaaaaan212 1 year ago
Comment removed
Siaaaaan212 1 year ago
Comment removed
Siaaaaan212 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I WANT YOUR LOVE AND I WANT YOUR REVENGE, YOU AND ME COULD WRITE A BADDDDDDDDD ROMANCE!
Siaaaaan212 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LETS HAVE SOME FUN THIS BEAT IS SICK, I WANNA TAKE A RIDE ON YOUR DISCO STICK!
Siaaaaan212 1 year ago
Comment removed
Siaaaaan212 1 year ago
Comment removed
Siaaaaan212 1 year ago
They are arguing one key idea: If God exists, did he create himself? If he did then that is sufficient reason for everything else. If God did not create himself, then there is probably an infinity of causes, but it's not necessarily so. In any case, these ideas cannot be tested in the field or in a laboratory. So, they must remain speculative ideas, without any final proof one way or the other. Rest assured of this, either Russell or Copleston would be a formidable opponent in any debate!!
BeadStallcup 1 year ago
Does Russell always evade like this?
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
copleston won, have to admit. what a legend! x
bobjim3000 1 year ago
Such beauty in their use of language and etiquette.
MonsuerLePlague 1 year ago 2
Methinks Copleston had the better structured argument.
DrDeist 1 year ago
This is really helpful... but my head hurts.
Fomas5932 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Yes.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
Copleston blows him out of the water, right`?
ejgiv 1 year ago
@ejgiv Well, Russell basically just says "the universe's existence is a brute fact". All he really does is fail to question why it's there. Not that incredible.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 The universe could exist as a brute fact, but I don't see how atheists can decry theists for being unreasonable when they [atheists] reject the principle of sufficient reason for the universe.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie Certainly Russell can't decry theists for being unreasonable. He was also extremely hypocritical in claiming an emotivist meta-ethics, yet decrying religion and theism and all its "inherent evils".
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@rumpranger65 His own positivism compelled him to emotivism - I think most positivists were emotivists? Clearly a very dated view.
A difficulty in theistic arguments is not that they can't convince atheists - which they rarely do - but convincing lay atheists that they are reasonable and rational arguments that can conclude belief in God. Case in point: from reading some replies it seems that individuals think Russell annihilated Copleston and that Copleston's arguments were irrational.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie Yeah, that's what I meant in my first post by saying that Russell is a bit aged now. And yes, I think that the reason most of the atheists commenting think that Russell did so good is because, even though he was one of the early analytic philosophers, his arguments more complicated than they really are.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
Stupid Russell. This guy seriously thought emotivist ethics was a tenable defense. Read the rest of the debate. This part is good though, though Russell is a little bit aged.
rumpranger65 1 year ago
The sooner man apprehends that the "eye which looks" for the object it yearns "to see" is in fact both the "object to be beholden" and "that which beholds." Thereupon, he shall liberate himself from the levity of seeking God "out there" or up in "the firmament."
Ynnel155 1 year ago
Did anyone else find this hilarious? A necessary proposition, being a proposition of a necessary suppositionary proposition unnecessarily...
duppyconquerour 1 year ago 3
This is absolutely typical; I'd have expected nothing more from a discussion between a christian and an unindoctrinated thinker. Russell is thinking at a level involving subtleties of Philosophy that Copleston just cannot appreciate; he's like *bang* cosmological argument, yes or no? And Russell is, you can tell, just baffled at the intellectual immaturity and lack of periphery of the statement, and every one subsequent. Copleston has an interest to protect; he uses words under personal duress.
jezmuff 1 year ago
@jezmuff ??? Russell pretty much states that the universe exists as a brute fact and denies the principle of sufficient reason. I don't see how you can think Russell and is 'head and shoulders' above Copleston.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
Comment removed
gator153 1 year ago
Comment removed
gator153 1 year ago
Comment removed
gator153 1 year ago
Copleston is a fucking idiot.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@GeorgesBarras
Both are. This is circular bullshit logic. God can neither be proved nor disproved. What?
Nietzsche made the sweep on this argument in his Parable of the Madman .
Nobody believes in God anymore.."God is dead"--even if he does exist.
gator153 1 year ago
This is great thank you! AS Philosophy & ethics exam in 3 hours!! This is fantastic!
mactasticpimp 1 year ago
@mactasticpimp
what does this argument have to do with ethics???
gator153 1 year ago
I like this. I can revise and paint my nails at the same time :') Good Luck, AS Philosophy and Ethics crew!
IRLpirate 1 year ago
Just like to say thanks very much for posting. Genuinely fascinating. Any further listening you can suggest?
gits4eva 1 year ago
Here are is the another couldn't remember.
HaligonianType1 1 year ago
I must acknowledge the good will in these two intellectual giants, which agree to dialog about such a controversial question with high respect. Can you imagine a TV program of this caliber in our days? Perhaps we could return to this kind of trascendental discussions, in honour of human knowledge and philosophy.
logica10 1 year ago
@logica10 absolutely
gandy2392 1 year ago
The clash of the Titans! Father Copleston talks even better then he wrote.. Get his History Of Philosophy it is brilliant.. Is it just me or did the good father have Bertrand squirming at the end? His conviction never wavered, but at the end Bertrand sounded like he just took three shots to the head!! Thanks for sharing this with the world...
oracleofottawa 1 year ago 3
Notice Copleston's nod to idealists towards the beginning: the world is the "real (or imagined) totality" of extant objects.
Sneaky.
naannyms 1 year ago 2
I find it hilarious that people are actually claiming such and such won, when half the time they both were squabbling over the definitions of the words and phrases, and at other times not fully following the other's line of reasoning.
Good debate for the most part however, it goes to show how important the initial conditions are, which many of us assume.
I don't think Copleston lacks substance at all, neither does Russell, good debate.
Shadesofblue1988 1 year ago
Russell did make some mistakes here, especially in regards to his matchstick example. Copleston was right, it was not an adequate example, to imply that because something can't be got because a total explanation isn't (supposedly) possible is to make some major assumptions in the argument that follows.
Firstly, what if reason develops further to the point a reasonable explanation can be regarding adequacy (for whatever?)
Shadesofblue1988 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Russell comes across as an ass.
celerant 1 year ago
They are arguing over one key idea: If God exists, did he create himself? If he did then that is a sufficient reason for everything else. If God did not create himself, then there is probably an infinity of causes, but it's not necessarily so. In either case, these ideas cannot be tested in the field or in a laboratory. So, they are, and must remain speculative ideas for us, without any final proof one way or the other. Either Russell or Copleston would be a formidable opponent in any debate!!
BeadStallcup 2 years ago
Copleston is amazing. His History of Philosophy is a labor of love and perseverance--I'm so thankful we have it!
Russell, however, obviously won the debate.
Aspire2RationalAgent 2 years ago
Having listened to this, I find my self thinking that Bertrand Russell is something of a genius... thanks for uploading.
gilbertgodlyddd 2 years ago 4
@gilbertgodlyddd I remember listening to this and thinking it rather ponderous that Russell, for all his intellect, rejects the principle of sufficient reason for the universe, that it has no explanation.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
The universe around us is the cause of an infinite regression of causes. Once again Copleston hits the brick wall where he cannot come to address Russell's argument on the grounds of his committed faith.
However the protracted debate over the religious terminology of 'contingency' and 'necessity' seem to litter the debate with allegations of 'wordplay'. The crooks of the argument, is simply that God cannot be empirically proven, therefore - in support of Russell - remains synthetic.
CapitalistPolitician 2 years ago
@CapitalistPolitician
If the present universe is the cause of an infinite regression of causes, then wouldn't that be the same as saying that the totality of causes which have at some point been present and are now past constitutes an actually infinite quantity? You'd have to demonstrate how this avoids the logical contradiction of having an actually infinite number of things.
grandampersand 1 year ago
Copleston's arguments, while more polished than todays believers, is still lacking in substance. All these vague references to a being who has in itself its own reason for existence solves nothing. It is just a better package for the same bullshit Ken Hovind spews forth today. It is also amazing that they pretend to be logical, yet go on to make the jump from their ill formed conclusions to a belief in a specific anthropomorphized deity. Nice try at countering infinite regression though, lol.
sfmike20 2 years ago
@sfmike20 Your vulgarity is typical of the new atheists. I believe both philosophers defended their points well. There are other arguments which unfortunately there would not be time to address in a radio debate. Your essential confusion stems from your inability to distinguish the God of philosophers which depends on logical debate from the God of religious believers which depends on the possibility of revelation which is not the subject of this debate.
trajan75 1 year ago
Be kind enough as to show which argument lacks substance?
I suggest you listen to the argument again, and read the transcript, what he was arguing about was much further elaborated on than by the mindless summary you just did there.
And no, I'm not religious.
Shadesofblue1988 1 year ago
The very concept of a transcendent being perhaps? You cannot disprove a negative, and any argument that cannot be proved, or disproved is lacking in substance. If one were to try to prove god(s) does(do) not exist, that would be lacking in substance as well. The only logical thing to do is admit that none of us knows, and any more certain stance is a matter of groundless faith. I take it you do not study science, based upon your comment.
sfmike20 1 year ago
BTW, lets try to keep this discussion civil. Any more comments like "mindless summary" , and I will not bother responding.
sfmike20 1 year ago
Shadesofblue1988 1 year ago
Just so we know where we are both coming from, I think it is ridiculous to try to disprove god as well.
The way I see it, granted that I could be wrong here, is that trying to use pure rationalism to (dis)prove divine existence is ridiculous when no empirical knowledge base can be drawn upon. Without empirical knowledge to help their cases, they are arguing about air. The only reason I thought Russel won was because of infinite regression. No one can counter that without transcendence.
sfmike20 1 year ago
@sfmike20
That's too much like logical positivism and which is dead for the most part; the idea that only empirical evidence warrants knowledge. All of science rests on the foundation of logic that uses pure rationalism, further mathematics is not at all empirical. I do research in theoretical physics but I wouldn't for a second entertain the idea that empiricism or the scientific method is our only way of acquiring knowledge.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905, I do not say that rationalism is the only means of acquiring knowledge, but without any empirical evidence to draw upon, the argument that a specific interpretation of god exists or does not exist is meaningless. The evidence is entirely neutral, and a scientific question of this sort requires some kind of empirical evidence to draw on, assuming that we want to answer this question in an intellectually honest way. The only thing we can do is falsify specific versions of god in debate.
sfmike20 1 year ago
@sfmike20
Yes but empirical evidence is not the only way to prove/disprove a theory. In mathematics there is no physical evidence for the complex numbers or n-dimensional topological structures, even though they may have some founding in reality. As such the same idea applies to arguments for or against the existence of God, it can be treated rationally with logic to see if a contradiction arises. Science has no authority in such questions just as science has no authority in mathematics.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905, if one treats it merely as a matter of logic, then you could come up with many valid arguments. The validity of the arguments does nothing to help prove/disprove god without some sort of empirically based deductive argument that lets us know if the conclusion is sound. An argument of that sort is entirely impossible when all the evidence is, by its very nature, neutral. This is why I feel that the topic is irrelevant. What we can debate on are specific interpretations of god.
sfmike20 1 year ago
If you think my responses vulgar in any way, I apologize. Five hundred characters is not enough for me to discuss the scientific reasons for my views.
sfmike20 1 year ago
this is perfect as im doing my AS RE exam tomorrow..thanks for uploading
SparklingDiamondz 2 years ago 14
You're welcome. And good luck!
riversonthemoon 2 years ago
@SparklingDiamondz I HAVE IT IN 6 DAYS!!!
32wallace 1 year ago
the universe, with its sentience, is a necessary thing. because nothing cannot exist.
geodesicks 2 years ago
... Exactly! *points*
DaveO15 2 years ago
This debate seemed to be a conversation about semantics; they didn't seem to directly address the existence of a god as much as they were discussing the definitions of the words used to postulate his existence.
I'm unfortunately at a layman's level when it comes to this sort of thing so I didn't get much out of it.
vedasisme 2 years ago
Oh awesome I've been looking for a recording of this for a long time! Thanks. :)
Ormaaj 2 years ago
the reason for an existence must be another existence!? how was it observed in our experience?! we see one event after another but never one existence "causing" the existence of the other!!
dreamy2 2 years ago
Oh my god!!!! Thank you:)
Timurito1 2 years ago
Merry Christmas, Timmy!
riversonthemoon 2 years ago
is there a part 2?
michalchik 2 years ago
Yes. It is the first entry in the Related Video section, and I put an annotation in Part 1 at around the 9 minute mark with a link to Part 2. Alternatively, you could go to my channel and view my uploads list.
riversonthemoon 2 years ago
@PostITnoteGUY: - I don't admit from you or anyone else the preposterous accusation that I'm threatening people with the possibility of sufferings.
The wild conjectures you have been drawing from my own words denounce you as a deeply dishonest person.
For that reason, I'm going to put an end to this dialogue right away. I'm in 'YouTube' to entertain and enlighten myself - not to be bored by liars like you.
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago
Your last reply rephrased:
"I have no rebuttal to your demand for evidence to the veracity of my claim, so instead, I will now immediately end the conversation, in an effort to maintain my compartmentalized and dissonate mind; and in the process move the attention away from my own disingenuous ways, by way projection."
So, how did you like my interpretation?
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Keep trying.
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago
Rated from 1 to 5 stars, how well did I fare? Or do you think that by replying to this comment, you will somehow concede to my interpretation of your ending remark?
Aaberg123 2 years ago