@Theatheosis Its only in time if something is being reduced from potentiality to actuality. But since God is not being reduced from potentiality to actuality but is pure actuality in Himself then He is not in motion. therefore the whole talk of priorness in time is irrelevant.
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
@MaximumAxiom So because many people defend the Kalam that males it superior? I think many Christians simply arent familiar with Aquinas metaphysics. But if you think its so easily refutable then why not refute it?
@mrstevenjake22 Aquinas's cosmological argument is very easily refutable. "Defend premise 1". What I mean by that is demonstrate that premise one holds for the situation at hand rather than being an extrapolation to a point where the rule no longer applies. It's impossible to do because by definition causality requires priorness in which the cause to exist which was not there for the first moment (In which case it wouldn't have been the first moment). Boom roasted. Aquinas's argument fails.
@Theatheosis What in the world are you referring to? Aquinas First Way or Unmoved Mover argument has to do with change, or entities being brought from potentiality to actuality.
@mrstevenjake22 Right, "everything has a cause" or is a product of prior motion, etc. Doesn't matter how you want to put it. Things preceded by time required things to be in prior motion. But motion is a change in displacement over time, so if there is no time what does things being in motion even mean? Nothing. Priorness is also required for causality. What is priorness if there is no time? Aquinas might as well have said "What is the square root of the color green? Therefore, God exists."
@MaximumAxiom I was speaking of Aquinas's cosmological argument and not the Kalam. If you would actually research Aquinas metaphysics you wpuld understand why his argument is irrefutable.
I am almost certain you're wrong for 2 reasons. None-the-less, I may be wrong, and I definitely haven't seen the argument's premises.
1) If Aquinas argument is irrefutable, then I have to wonder why any respectable apologist isn't utilizing it, but instead is utilizing Kalam? Especially when Kalam has so much baggage and complexity, Craig saw fit to write an entire book on its two little premises. Something just doesn't seem right here...
2) Secondly, I highly doubt Aquinas's argument is irrefutable because I am fairly confident that any cosmological argument is virtually by definition going to argue from natural causation which is refuted by any block theory of time. The fact that it has to assume A-theory of time, kind of takes it out of the realm of "irrefutable" at the very least. There are other objections like that that should span all cosmological arguments as well.
I'm probably gonna watch your vid a few more times before I make any criticisms or make any additions to your points. But I have to say I mostly agree with what you have said and what I can't put a definitive agreement on comes from my ignorance of detail of the arguements
I regard Santa Clause as self-evident, why aren't you compelled by my argument?
I am tempted to say that I don't know why Christians ALWAYS argue the Christian god from, essentially, a presuppositionilist position; but I do know why you argue this way. Because if you look at the inductive arguments, it becomes quite obvious that Christianity can only exist in the deepest recesses of possibility, and it is not a belief founded upon evidence (and it probably never will be).
@MaximumAxiom Santa Claus is not the sustaining intelligence behind the universe. Ergo his existence is not self evident. Whereas the initial cause is self evident. The question is the nature of the initial cause. Also science is not based on evidence, but on the assumption that every law of nature is the same at all times. Which is an induction fallacy, because we have no right to assume that every law of nature is always the same.
@giorgiv18 But are you also assuming that laws of nature continuously got violated in the antiquity based on some writings of ancients when no such events are recorded after the advent of documented history? Seems like Joseph Smith would have got more acceptance if he lived in first century.
When someone asserts that X claim is self evident, there is an implicit argument that X has an abundance of supporting arguments/evidence. I dispute this, just like you would dispute that X = Santa Clause. Perhaps David should spend a video presenting the implicit argument because I have never heard a good argument that affirms that the universe requires intelligence.
When you say science isn't based upon evidence, you seem to have some sort of misunderstanding. All scientific claims that aren't rejected are supported by evidence via the null hypothesis, by definition. Science itself is merely a logical organization of proper inductive reasoning. Therefore it is absurd to say that it commits some inductive fallacy, that you just made up, when it is itself induction.
Induction is basically the logical bridge we make from saying that if we have seen a sufficient amount of evidence for X then Y. If you want to posit something absurd like that science is committing a hasty generalization, then your problem is at the heart of induction.
I suppose you can dispute the assumption of causation or universal consistency, but that again is something more fundamentally at the heart of induction.
@MaximumAxiom Science being based on logical fallacy is not my idea, it's crackpot Hume's. He stated, that we nave no right to assume that what we perceive as laws of nature, will always be same, no matter how many times it seems to occur. Even Max Plank admitted that. As for intelligence behind the universe, that is just an assumption on personal bias, that must be backed up by historic evidence. Perhaps you should watch David's "God does not exist" to understand his point.
Actually, Aquinas reformulated Aristotle's(as you mentioned) and did an adequate job of answering the objections of how the Unmoved Mover cannot be pluralistic, how you cannot have an infinite chain of change or motion, and how this argument fits the Judeo-Christian concept of God. I recommend you read Aquinas by Edward Feser. As it turns out, the Unmoved Mover argument is pretty much irrefutable.
I am pretty confident an amateur philosopher could find serious flaw in any cosmological argument that wasn't at least on the level of Craig's Cosmological argument. Even then, there are good objections to Kalam, and even Kalam is founded upon inductive premises which will inevitably fluctuate with our current understanding of the universe. Suffice to say, it is a little hasty to say that it is irrefutable.
Somewhere in this series you need to explain what you mean when you say that "God *is* existence." That sounds like white noise to me and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Right. It is obviously not an argument for any God in particular, but 'God' in a general sense. In fact just because it's supernatural doesn't even mean it has to be 'God' in the sense of a conscious Being. If someone wanted to argue for that, they would need to expand on Aristotle's argument.
You have a point that an argument as such won't convince anyone who is not going to be convinced anyways, but I don't think that means it's not a good argument. It's just that when it comes to God and things of the spiritual, a lot more than just the rational mind is involved, despite what many people like to believe. A person's emotions are also a part of the picture (albeit, not all of it), but we are dealing with the person as a whole, their soul here, not just their rational mind.
@davidpwithun The cosmological argument fails because causality necessarily assumes causality already exists for the law of causality to be put in place in order for the causality to come into existence.
The ontological argument fails for the reasons you mentioned.
I'm wondering why you talk about god as being self evident... what do you mean by that? How have you determined that god exists by that metric, and how is that different from me saying 'god doesn't exist is self evident'?
@Theatheosis Read Alvin Plantinga concerning "properly basic beliefs." These are beliefs which we are perfectly rational to hold but for which there can be no empirical verification. God falls into this category of beliefs as do the existence of minds other than our own or the existence of the past. So, when one asserts that the existence of God is self-evident its in the same way that the existence of other minds is self-evident. Avoid the logical positivist/verificationist trap.
Beyond several other foundational objections I have to reformed epistemology and properly basic beliefs, it is overtly circular. The warrant which god belief relies on to be a properly basic belief is founded upon the idea that the entire model is true if and only if theism is true. If I am misrepresenting RE, please call me on it, but otherwise the argument that it is a properly basic belief, assumes that it is true, which is very obviously circular.
@TheOrthodoxSteven Sure. Then by the same logic belief in multiple gods is a PBB. Then you're left with two contrary ideas that both rest on 'this belief cannot be challenged because I said so", like what MaximumAxiom indicated.
Also, PBB adds an additional unwarranted assumption. Pearlism makes: 1) the universe exists and 2) you can learn something about it. The notion of PBB makes those two assumptions with one additional, so it is the inferior ideology, occam's razor would suggest.
@Theatheosis It depends on what you mean by multiple gods. Do you have in mind the antique pagan view, wherein the gods were part of a grand cosmic economy that required both mortals and immortals? If so, then you are incorrect to say it is a PBB. If, on the other hand, you mean Hindu polytheism then you have a point. However, the distinction between that and monotheism is theological, not philosophical. We would both agree that belief in a supernatural reality is properly basic.
@TheOrthodoxSteven My foremost question at this point is why follow this PBB logical freight train off the cliff? How does God being a PBB (and the lack of God being a PBB too, by the way) map to god actually existing? The best I've heard is Plantiga say some people are wired to believe in god therefore he exists. Good argument; tell bigfoot I said Hi. This whole argument of PBB is nonsense anyways because PBB encompasses all of the assumptions of pearlism with at least 2 more.
@Theatheosis Wait a minute, what's wrong with assuming causality? We assume causality during every moment of our lives, beginning with simple natural phenomena ending with complex human relationships. Or are you going to state that true knowledge is unattainable, even if there is any? What kind of argument is that? So causality is fallacious even with natural sciences? If not, what's wrong with assuming it now?
@giorgiv18 Explain to me what is the method by which one acquire true knowledge? I am not claiming that whatever science provides is true knowledge because I am not sure about that. Maybe, maybe not. But science is an attempt to know about the truth in as objective way as possible.
@johnthomas0101 so you don't trust science? Well, I think man can acquire true knowledge by placing his conscious self, syntaxic reasoning and basic 5 human feelings in the centre of his reality and gather the knowledge of universe by maintaining a careful balance between them.
@giorgiv18 It will still be that person's subjective views and intuitions. How do we know for sure that it is objectively true? Hindu sages of Vedantic period meditated for long periods and brought about Vedantic philosophy about the reality around us. Are you going to accept it as true knowledge? What is the criteria that you will put to say which one is true and which one is false.
@giorgiv18 Or if someone tells you that he followed your method and came to the conclusion that God does not exist and nature is the only thing that exist, are you going to accept it? How are you going to refute it?
@johnthomas0101 truth stands regardless of our opinion. And by this method we will gradually start coming closer to objective truths. And I won't accept if by this method someone arrives at a conclusion that there is no God, until he/she explains the reasoning behind the conclusion, nevertheless, I won't nag him. Besides syntaxic reasoning is there to balance intuition and objective truth.
@giorgiv18 I agree that truth stands regardless of our opinion. But how do you access that truth? None of us were alive at that time to say it for sure. All are just assumptions and individual opinions. How do you say that Christian truth is more true than Hindu Vedantic truth? How do you know for sure that a nothing existed before necessitating a supernatural being to create something out of nothing or nature/mass-energy in some form always existed?
@johnthomas0101 There is only one truth with different perspectives. Which one is more correct out of the two, requires more than 500 character limits and 2 doctor's degrees to judge. As for something always existing, well, God is not a being, he is existence. His workings can be observer through nature, however he can not be observed himself. Ergo identifying God through nature is a bit of a problem, we need to turn to history.
@giorgiv18 Even if we take ten doctoral degrees to judge, you will still end up with our subjective views and opinions. Everyone might wish that whatever he believes to be true is the objective truth. Also there is no point in equating God to every attributes you know of, existence, love, truth etc. That only proves that God is such a vague concept that it has to rely on other concepts to define itself. If God is existence, what is existence? It is nothing but semantics.
@johnthomas0101 Syntaxic reasoning, provided with enough information, always leads to objective truth. From two system of beliefs I should choose the one, which is better according to syntaxic reasoning. As for equating God to attributes, I don't equate Him to anything. God is such a complex concept, he can't be expressed well enough. That's why there are so many talking names of God in the old testament. And existence is what enables everything else to exist, being self-existent
@johnthomas0101 (2) oh, I do believe you just made a point, that no matter how hard you try, you can never reach the truth or never be sure of weather you have reached the truth, which I don't share. Human reason will triumph over everything worldly. While human faith will open a path to the unfathomable and unknown.
@giorgiv18 "Human reason will triumph over everything worldly. While human faith will open a path to the unfathomable and unknown."
That is strictly your personal view. I don't see anything that support that view. We are so much limited by space, time and even the amount of sensory information we receive. I don't think our mind knows anything more than whatever sensory information we receive from around us. We can make predictions around that knowledge, that doesn't mean it is true.
@giorgiv18 Sure, you assume causality in every moment of your life. But every moment of your life has one thing in common, they all occurred after the rules of causality were put in place. When you extrapolate that to the creation of that from which causality was born (i.e. the universe), you're extrapolating to where the data don't fit any more. Your argument is like saying that Einstein was wrong because Newton's laws work. But you're extrapolating past linearity.
@Theatheosis Wait, what? Causality is a self-existent abstract concept, that is born along with the causal chain of events. Since causality already assumes either infinity or being finite from at least one side, we can assume that causality had a start along with causal chain of events. Thus the initial cause. Although the reason the argument fails is because there's no telling that this initial cause is either personal, or has anything to do with Christianity.
@giorgiv18 Yes, you fell at "Thus the initial cause". Causality assumes time to exist because there must be time in which things can be caused. So to say that the law of causality says time must be caused is a catch 22. "What caused the first moment?" is akin to asking what the square root of the color green is. It's a nonsensical question. You can't assume causality exists and then say causality had to be caused into being.
@Theatheosis no it's not. Please ditch these analogies, they are irritating. And try putting your arguments in a stylistically correct manner. Causality and time arise all at once. They have a beginning, so if they have a beginning, there must be a cause to it, that is not bound by time. So initial cause is coherent. However it doesn't prove that there is personal God.
@giorgiv18 wow. I refute your argument to get a resounding 'no it's not' out of you. Let me spell it out: 1) Causality once did not exist (you said it yourself). 2) If causality did not exist, then the neither did the requirement for things that begin to exist needing to be caused. 3) if then things did not need to be caused, the universe did not need to be caused. 4) Therefore, the universe is a causeless entity with a beginning. QED.
@giorgiv18 Another refutation: 1) There is no "before the existence of time" because 'beforeness' requires time to exist which is contradictory to it not existing. 2) Causality assumes that time exists for the cause is prior in time to the effect. 3) Thus, causality did not exist for the first moment of the universe since there was no priorness in which for the cause to occur. 4) Thus the universe could not have been caused. 5) "Universe has a cause" must be false. 6) The universe has no cause.
@Theatheosis It's a resounding no, because you don't try to understand my point. The causality and time are something that come around together. Time is just another axis of space. But if there was something before time, as we perceive it, there must have been causality of different nature. If not, then we conclude, that what we perceive as time, had no cause. But that's absurd. And what I've said above, is not a proof of God's existence.
@giorgiv18 "But if there ...different nature" 1) There is no 'before time', because beforeness requires time to exist, so you can't be prior to the existence of priorness. It doesn't work 2) Ok, so do we just make up the rules of this new causality? If so, I make up the rule that nothing needs causing. No, you say? Why not? 3) Sometimes ideas extrapolate to things that turn your view upside down. "Gravity bends space time? That's absurd!" but your GPS would be 6 miles off without it, so, tough!
@giorgiv18 So where are my arguments wrong? Do you still disagree with my conclusions. If so, indicate which of my arguments are unsound or invalid.
I enjoy using analogies to explain things because I feel that's more convincing to people than premise 1, p2, p3 therefore c1, c2, etc. CIP: how many people believe in god because of the ontological argument vs because of a personal experience? Emotive argument is more convincing than logical. If I make the logic emotive, I get the best of both.
@Theatheosis Well, your argument is wrong, when you tie causality to time, as if time were some kind of fundamental property of the universe. I think the difference in our logic lies in what we perceive as universe and God, because I think it's very likely, that what I mean under God, or initial cause, you see as part of the universe. Well, could you do me a little favour? When using analogies, please make them more persuasive. Well, bye.
@giorgiv18 "as if time were some kind of fundamental property of the universe". Step 1: study physics, most notably the notion of space-time as put forth by Einstein. Time is absolutely a fundamental property of space time, as much as space. 2) What I'm saying there is no initial cause, not that I perceive an initial cause as part of the universe. 3) If you're not willing to listen to my argument and understand the material of course you won't be convinced. I could have told you that.
@Theatheosis WTF do you want? I said already, that I didn't express myself very well, while speaking with you and stepped away. Yes, there is no before time, only outside time. We don't make up any rules. And try putting your third point in a more easily understandable way, if you don't want our talk to be more disconnected, than it was. But didn't I say already, that we both messed up a bit in terminology by giving same words different meaning?
@Theatheosis Its only in time if something is being reduced from potentiality to actuality. But since God is not being reduced from potentiality to actuality but is pure actuality in Himself then He is not in motion. therefore the whole talk of priorness in time is irrelevant.
mrstevenjake22 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no evidence of gods or that the bible torah or quran are factual information.
None. Nada. Zilch.
That is all that is relevant.
The rest is ignorant and irrelevant white noise that has been done to death.
Creationist misdirection tactics using irrelevant arguments.
Nothing new here.
Education FTW!
AssassinOfIgnorance 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
You think the nothing more evil than which argument is formidable? However the greatest conceivable being must exist, there is ONLY ONE way, otherwise you get two supposedly greatest conceivable being jostling for the position, but that in itself is a contradictory statement -to say there are two greatest conceivable beings. The reason a greatest conceivable being is good is because goodness is the default state of affairs, no one wills evil onto another until error enters and brings chaos.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@MaximumAxiom So because many people defend the Kalam that males it superior? I think many Christians simply arent familiar with Aquinas metaphysics. But if you think its so easily refutable then why not refute it?
mrstevenjake22 3 weeks ago
@mrstevenjake22 Aquinas's cosmological argument is very easily refutable. "Defend premise 1". What I mean by that is demonstrate that premise one holds for the situation at hand rather than being an extrapolation to a point where the rule no longer applies. It's impossible to do because by definition causality requires priorness in which the cause to exist which was not there for the first moment (In which case it wouldn't have been the first moment). Boom roasted. Aquinas's argument fails.
Theatheosis 1 week ago
@Theatheosis What in the world are you referring to? Aquinas First Way or Unmoved Mover argument has to do with change, or entities being brought from potentiality to actuality.
mrstevenjake22 1 week ago
@mrstevenjake22 Right, "everything has a cause" or is a product of prior motion, etc. Doesn't matter how you want to put it. Things preceded by time required things to be in prior motion. But motion is a change in displacement over time, so if there is no time what does things being in motion even mean? Nothing. Priorness is also required for causality. What is priorness if there is no time? Aquinas might as well have said "What is the square root of the color green? Therefore, God exists."
Theatheosis 1 week ago
@MaximumAxiom I was speaking of Aquinas's cosmological argument and not the Kalam. If you would actually research Aquinas metaphysics you wpuld understand why his argument is irrefutable.
mrstevenjake22 3 weeks ago
@mrstevenjake22 (1)
I am almost certain you're wrong for 2 reasons. None-the-less, I may be wrong, and I definitely haven't seen the argument's premises.
1) If Aquinas argument is irrefutable, then I have to wonder why any respectable apologist isn't utilizing it, but instead is utilizing Kalam? Especially when Kalam has so much baggage and complexity, Craig saw fit to write an entire book on its two little premises. Something just doesn't seem right here...
MaximumAxiom 3 weeks ago
@mrstevenjake22 (2)
2) Secondly, I highly doubt Aquinas's argument is irrefutable because I am fairly confident that any cosmological argument is virtually by definition going to argue from natural causation which is refuted by any block theory of time. The fact that it has to assume A-theory of time, kind of takes it out of the realm of "irrefutable" at the very least. There are other objections like that that should span all cosmological arguments as well.
MaximumAxiom 3 weeks ago
I'm probably gonna watch your vid a few more times before I make any criticisms or make any additions to your points. But I have to say I mostly agree with what you have said and what I can't put a definitive agreement on comes from my ignorance of detail of the arguements
blackjas245 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
I regard Santa Clause as self-evident, why aren't you compelled by my argument?
I am tempted to say that I don't know why Christians ALWAYS argue the Christian god from, essentially, a presuppositionilist position; but I do know why you argue this way. Because if you look at the inductive arguments, it becomes quite obvious that Christianity can only exist in the deepest recesses of possibility, and it is not a belief founded upon evidence (and it probably never will be).
MaximumAxiom 3 weeks ago
@MaximumAxiom Santa Claus is not the sustaining intelligence behind the universe. Ergo his existence is not self evident. Whereas the initial cause is self evident. The question is the nature of the initial cause. Also science is not based on evidence, but on the assumption that every law of nature is the same at all times. Which is an induction fallacy, because we have no right to assume that every law of nature is always the same.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 But are you also assuming that laws of nature continuously got violated in the antiquity based on some writings of ancients when no such events are recorded after the advent of documented history? Seems like Joseph Smith would have got more acceptance if he lived in first century.
johnthomas0101 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 (1)
When someone asserts that X claim is self evident, there is an implicit argument that X has an abundance of supporting arguments/evidence. I dispute this, just like you would dispute that X = Santa Clause. Perhaps David should spend a video presenting the implicit argument because I have never heard a good argument that affirms that the universe requires intelligence.
MaximumAxiom 3 weeks ago 2
@giorgiv18 (2)
When you say science isn't based upon evidence, you seem to have some sort of misunderstanding. All scientific claims that aren't rejected are supported by evidence via the null hypothesis, by definition. Science itself is merely a logical organization of proper inductive reasoning. Therefore it is absurd to say that it commits some inductive fallacy, that you just made up, when it is itself induction.
MaximumAxiom 3 weeks ago 2
@giorgiv18 (3)
Induction is basically the logical bridge we make from saying that if we have seen a sufficient amount of evidence for X then Y. If you want to posit something absurd like that science is committing a hasty generalization, then your problem is at the heart of induction.
I suppose you can dispute the assumption of causation or universal consistency, but that again is something more fundamentally at the heart of induction.
MaximumAxiom 3 weeks ago
@MaximumAxiom Science being based on logical fallacy is not my idea, it's crackpot Hume's. He stated, that we nave no right to assume that what we perceive as laws of nature, will always be same, no matter how many times it seems to occur. Even Max Plank admitted that. As for intelligence behind the universe, that is just an assumption on personal bias, that must be backed up by historic evidence. Perhaps you should watch David's "God does not exist" to understand his point.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18
I sent you a PM on the topic. It was way too much to fit in the comment section as you will see or have seen.
MaximumAxiom 3 weeks ago
Actually, Aquinas reformulated Aristotle's(as you mentioned) and did an adequate job of answering the objections of how the Unmoved Mover cannot be pluralistic, how you cannot have an infinite chain of change or motion, and how this argument fits the Judeo-Christian concept of God. I recommend you read Aquinas by Edward Feser. As it turns out, the Unmoved Mover argument is pretty much irrefutable.
mrstevenjake22 3 weeks ago
@mrstevenjake22
I am pretty confident an amateur philosopher could find serious flaw in any cosmological argument that wasn't at least on the level of Craig's Cosmological argument. Even then, there are good objections to Kalam, and even Kalam is founded upon inductive premises which will inevitably fluctuate with our current understanding of the universe. Suffice to say, it is a little hasty to say that it is irrefutable.
MaximumAxiom 3 weeks ago
Awesome. Looking forward to this series.
Somewhere in this series you need to explain what you mean when you say that "God *is* existence." That sounds like white noise to me and I'm sure I'm not alone.
ObjectiveBob 3 weeks ago
@ObjectiveBob
He said twice that he considers it self-evident, so there is really no need to watch this any further.
Baerchenization 3 weeks ago
Right. It is obviously not an argument for any God in particular, but 'God' in a general sense. In fact just because it's supernatural doesn't even mean it has to be 'God' in the sense of a conscious Being. If someone wanted to argue for that, they would need to expand on Aristotle's argument.
Sophiethefembot 3 weeks ago
You have a point that an argument as such won't convince anyone who is not going to be convinced anyways, but I don't think that means it's not a good argument. It's just that when it comes to God and things of the spiritual, a lot more than just the rational mind is involved, despite what many people like to believe. A person's emotions are also a part of the picture (albeit, not all of it), but we are dealing with the person as a whole, their soul here, not just their rational mind.
Sophiethefembot 3 weeks ago
@davidpwithun The cosmological argument fails because causality necessarily assumes causality already exists for the law of causality to be put in place in order for the causality to come into existence.
The ontological argument fails for the reasons you mentioned.
I'm wondering why you talk about god as being self evident... what do you mean by that? How have you determined that god exists by that metric, and how is that different from me saying 'god doesn't exist is self evident'?
Theatheosis 3 weeks ago 2
@Theatheosis Read Alvin Plantinga concerning "properly basic beliefs." These are beliefs which we are perfectly rational to hold but for which there can be no empirical verification. God falls into this category of beliefs as do the existence of minds other than our own or the existence of the past. So, when one asserts that the existence of God is self-evident its in the same way that the existence of other minds is self-evident. Avoid the logical positivist/verificationist trap.
TheOrthodoxSteven 3 weeks ago
@TheOrthodoxSteven
Beyond several other foundational objections I have to reformed epistemology and properly basic beliefs, it is overtly circular. The warrant which god belief relies on to be a properly basic belief is founded upon the idea that the entire model is true if and only if theism is true. If I am misrepresenting RE, please call me on it, but otherwise the argument that it is a properly basic belief, assumes that it is true, which is very obviously circular.
MaximumAxiom 3 weeks ago
@TheOrthodoxSteven Sure. Then by the same logic belief in multiple gods is a PBB. Then you're left with two contrary ideas that both rest on 'this belief cannot be challenged because I said so", like what MaximumAxiom indicated.
Also, PBB adds an additional unwarranted assumption. Pearlism makes: 1) the universe exists and 2) you can learn something about it. The notion of PBB makes those two assumptions with one additional, so it is the inferior ideology, occam's razor would suggest.
Theatheosis 3 weeks ago
@Theatheosis It depends on what you mean by multiple gods. Do you have in mind the antique pagan view, wherein the gods were part of a grand cosmic economy that required both mortals and immortals? If so, then you are incorrect to say it is a PBB. If, on the other hand, you mean Hindu polytheism then you have a point. However, the distinction between that and monotheism is theological, not philosophical. We would both agree that belief in a supernatural reality is properly basic.
TheOrthodoxSteven 3 weeks ago
@TheOrthodoxSteven My foremost question at this point is why follow this PBB logical freight train off the cliff? How does God being a PBB (and the lack of God being a PBB too, by the way) map to god actually existing? The best I've heard is Plantiga say some people are wired to believe in god therefore he exists. Good argument; tell bigfoot I said Hi. This whole argument of PBB is nonsense anyways because PBB encompasses all of the assumptions of pearlism with at least 2 more.
Theatheosis 3 weeks ago
@Theatheosis Wait a minute, what's wrong with assuming causality? We assume causality during every moment of our lives, beginning with simple natural phenomena ending with complex human relationships. Or are you going to state that true knowledge is unattainable, even if there is any? What kind of argument is that? So causality is fallacious even with natural sciences? If not, what's wrong with assuming it now?
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 Explain to me what is the method by which one acquire true knowledge? I am not claiming that whatever science provides is true knowledge because I am not sure about that. Maybe, maybe not. But science is an attempt to know about the truth in as objective way as possible.
johnthomas0101 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@johnthomas0101 so you don't trust science? Well, I think man can acquire true knowledge by placing his conscious self, syntaxic reasoning and basic 5 human feelings in the centre of his reality and gather the knowledge of universe by maintaining a careful balance between them.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 It will still be that person's subjective views and intuitions. How do we know for sure that it is objectively true? Hindu sages of Vedantic period meditated for long periods and brought about Vedantic philosophy about the reality around us. Are you going to accept it as true knowledge? What is the criteria that you will put to say which one is true and which one is false.
johnthomas0101 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 Or if someone tells you that he followed your method and came to the conclusion that God does not exist and nature is the only thing that exist, are you going to accept it? How are you going to refute it?
johnthomas0101 3 weeks ago
@johnthomas0101 truth stands regardless of our opinion. And by this method we will gradually start coming closer to objective truths. And I won't accept if by this method someone arrives at a conclusion that there is no God, until he/she explains the reasoning behind the conclusion, nevertheless, I won't nag him. Besides syntaxic reasoning is there to balance intuition and objective truth.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 I agree that truth stands regardless of our opinion. But how do you access that truth? None of us were alive at that time to say it for sure. All are just assumptions and individual opinions. How do you say that Christian truth is more true than Hindu Vedantic truth? How do you know for sure that a nothing existed before necessitating a supernatural being to create something out of nothing or nature/mass-energy in some form always existed?
johnthomas0101 3 weeks ago
@johnthomas0101 There is only one truth with different perspectives. Which one is more correct out of the two, requires more than 500 character limits and 2 doctor's degrees to judge. As for something always existing, well, God is not a being, he is existence. His workings can be observer through nature, however he can not be observed himself. Ergo identifying God through nature is a bit of a problem, we need to turn to history.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 Even if we take ten doctoral degrees to judge, you will still end up with our subjective views and opinions. Everyone might wish that whatever he believes to be true is the objective truth. Also there is no point in equating God to every attributes you know of, existence, love, truth etc. That only proves that God is such a vague concept that it has to rely on other concepts to define itself. If God is existence, what is existence? It is nothing but semantics.
johnthomas0101 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@johnthomas0101 Syntaxic reasoning, provided with enough information, always leads to objective truth. From two system of beliefs I should choose the one, which is better according to syntaxic reasoning. As for equating God to attributes, I don't equate Him to anything. God is such a complex concept, he can't be expressed well enough. That's why there are so many talking names of God in the old testament. And existence is what enables everything else to exist, being self-existent
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@johnthomas0101 (2) oh, I do believe you just made a point, that no matter how hard you try, you can never reach the truth or never be sure of weather you have reached the truth, which I don't share. Human reason will triumph over everything worldly. While human faith will open a path to the unfathomable and unknown.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 "Human reason will triumph over everything worldly. While human faith will open a path to the unfathomable and unknown."
That is strictly your personal view. I don't see anything that support that view. We are so much limited by space, time and even the amount of sensory information we receive. I don't think our mind knows anything more than whatever sensory information we receive from around us. We can make predictions around that knowledge, that doesn't mean it is true.
johnthomas0101 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@johnthomas0101 then we must redefine the entire notion of the word "'truth".
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 Sure, you assume causality in every moment of your life. But every moment of your life has one thing in common, they all occurred after the rules of causality were put in place. When you extrapolate that to the creation of that from which causality was born (i.e. the universe), you're extrapolating to where the data don't fit any more. Your argument is like saying that Einstein was wrong because Newton's laws work. But you're extrapolating past linearity.
Theatheosis 3 weeks ago
@Theatheosis Wait, what? Causality is a self-existent abstract concept, that is born along with the causal chain of events. Since causality already assumes either infinity or being finite from at least one side, we can assume that causality had a start along with causal chain of events. Thus the initial cause. Although the reason the argument fails is because there's no telling that this initial cause is either personal, or has anything to do with Christianity.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 Yes, you fell at "Thus the initial cause". Causality assumes time to exist because there must be time in which things can be caused. So to say that the law of causality says time must be caused is a catch 22. "What caused the first moment?" is akin to asking what the square root of the color green is. It's a nonsensical question. You can't assume causality exists and then say causality had to be caused into being.
Theatheosis 3 weeks ago
@Theatheosis no it's not. Please ditch these analogies, they are irritating. And try putting your arguments in a stylistically correct manner. Causality and time arise all at once. They have a beginning, so if they have a beginning, there must be a cause to it, that is not bound by time. So initial cause is coherent. However it doesn't prove that there is personal God.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 wow. I refute your argument to get a resounding 'no it's not' out of you. Let me spell it out: 1) Causality once did not exist (you said it yourself). 2) If causality did not exist, then the neither did the requirement for things that begin to exist needing to be caused. 3) if then things did not need to be caused, the universe did not need to be caused. 4) Therefore, the universe is a causeless entity with a beginning. QED.
Theatheosis 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 Another refutation: 1) There is no "before the existence of time" because 'beforeness' requires time to exist which is contradictory to it not existing. 2) Causality assumes that time exists for the cause is prior in time to the effect. 3) Thus, causality did not exist for the first moment of the universe since there was no priorness in which for the cause to occur. 4) Thus the universe could not have been caused. 5) "Universe has a cause" must be false. 6) The universe has no cause.
Theatheosis 3 weeks ago
@Theatheosis It's a resounding no, because you don't try to understand my point. The causality and time are something that come around together. Time is just another axis of space. But if there was something before time, as we perceive it, there must have been causality of different nature. If not, then we conclude, that what we perceive as time, had no cause. But that's absurd. And what I've said above, is not a proof of God's existence.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 "But if there ...different nature" 1) There is no 'before time', because beforeness requires time to exist, so you can't be prior to the existence of priorness. It doesn't work 2) Ok, so do we just make up the rules of this new causality? If so, I make up the rule that nothing needs causing. No, you say? Why not? 3) Sometimes ideas extrapolate to things that turn your view upside down. "Gravity bends space time? That's absurd!" but your GPS would be 6 miles off without it, so, tough!
Theatheosis 2 weeks ago
@Theatheosis (2) on second thought, I think we are talking with different terminology here. Oh, well.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 So where are my arguments wrong? Do you still disagree with my conclusions. If so, indicate which of my arguments are unsound or invalid.
I enjoy using analogies to explain things because I feel that's more convincing to people than premise 1, p2, p3 therefore c1, c2, etc. CIP: how many people believe in god because of the ontological argument vs because of a personal experience? Emotive argument is more convincing than logical. If I make the logic emotive, I get the best of both.
Theatheosis 3 weeks ago
@Theatheosis Well, your argument is wrong, when you tie causality to time, as if time were some kind of fundamental property of the universe. I think the difference in our logic lies in what we perceive as universe and God, because I think it's very likely, that what I mean under God, or initial cause, you see as part of the universe. Well, could you do me a little favour? When using analogies, please make them more persuasive. Well, bye.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 "as if time were some kind of fundamental property of the universe". Step 1: study physics, most notably the notion of space-time as put forth by Einstein. Time is absolutely a fundamental property of space time, as much as space. 2) What I'm saying there is no initial cause, not that I perceive an initial cause as part of the universe. 3) If you're not willing to listen to my argument and understand the material of course you won't be convinced. I could have told you that.
Theatheosis 3 weeks ago
@Theatheosis well, the disconnect between us is my fault. I should not have used the words "initial cause" to express what I think.
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@Theatheosis WTF do you want? I said already, that I didn't express myself very well, while speaking with you and stepped away. Yes, there is no before time, only outside time. We don't make up any rules. And try putting your third point in a more easily understandable way, if you don't want our talk to be more disconnected, than it was. But didn't I say already, that we both messed up a bit in terminology by giving same words different meaning?
giorgiv18 2 weeks ago
Man, this is going to be a start of a youtube comment war. :)
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago
@giorgiv18 Christians, lay down your arguments!. - Atheists! Come and get them!
zragisha 3 weeks ago 2
@zragisha да, скучно не будет :-)
giorgiv18 3 weeks ago