We take on Bertrand Russell and The Principle of Sufficient Reason!

[Nitelurker1]

ratings disabled lol

[atheismisreligion]

@Nitelurker1 "ratings disabled" Sadly I cannot providing a rating system for Bertrand "nuke 'em all" Russel

[henryporter101]

I enjoyed reading the argument below.I first read this debate twenty three years ago:I could never have envisaged that I'd one day watch a video like this.For my part,I agree with Russell.Like any theist,Copleston is forced to believe in a first cause,so he has a lot of work to do.All Russell has to do is reject the idea:it's much easier to be an Atheist.

[langengro]

Did anybody in the conversation mention the principle of sufficient reason?

The distinction they were talking about was that of contingent and necessary beings: You wouldn't have existed if God had not chosen to create you (you're a contingent being), whereas there is no circumstance under which God himself wouldn't have existed (he's a necessary being). The reason Russell says that he "rejects this logic" is that it (i.e. modal logic) doesn't have the property logicians call extensionality.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro Could you be more specific? The original material and my video are concerned with why the sky is blue. You look outside, and if there are no clouds, it's blue, otherwise, it's grey. This is a contingent proposition. I could really care less about the "God" implications, Russel is and was just plain wrong in much of his "reasoning", however, it is for the same reason most atheists screw up their thinking, but that's neither here nor there.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

(1) Could I be much more specific? To be honest, no. I saw the video in question myself, and I agree that the reasoning seems to be pretty difficult. I won't take the time to try to understand, let alone explain it all. But just because they are using a lot of jargon doesn't mean there is anything to ridicule here.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

(2) If you want a rough analogy of what is going on, suppose I said "All events are caused by other events. But the chain of causes cannot run back to infinity. So there must be a first cause, God". And suppose that you gave me this answer: "The problem with this argument is that it uses notion of cause, which is part of a pre-scientific view of nature that I reject."

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

(3) That hypothetical exchange would would be somewhat similar in structure to what Copleston and Russell are saying here. The disanalogy is that they are actually talking not about cause & effect & science, but rather about necessity & contingency & logic. I'm sure this doesn't help very much to understand the whole point of the discussion - but maybe it helps to see that it is not nonsense.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion (4) A word about nonsense. It appears that you created this video on the assumption that everything you cannot understand is nonsense. And I think this is a good principle to live by. But sometimes one has to put a little effort in it to see whether one can or cannot understand. Looking up unfamiliar words in a dictionary, as you did, might be necessary, but sometimes it's not sufficient. Take a difficult mathematical proof, or even just a single mathematical equation.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

(5) Even if you understand all the terms in the proof individually, you might not yet be able to see what is going on. Is the proof valid or invalid? Maybe it's even nonsense? More often than not, it takes some time to figure that out. And typically some work of your own is required, not a cheap and brief commentary provided by someone else.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro The "proof" fails because of the underlying assumption, that the chain of causes is not circular. It's not a matter of understanding, I am simply aware of a simple counter-example. As an example, imagine letting billiard balls bounce around frictionlessly. Remove the origin of the balls from the discussion, and the clunking of the balls from one to another has no beginning and no end and none to be discerned. Science is like that, a counter-example undoes all presumption.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

Man ... It seems you haven't grasped a single sentence of what I was saying. Look ... I've seen on your channel that you've been told this time and again by others - but if you like, you can hear it from me once again: You REALLY should make an effort to read and listen more carefully. If you then proceed to talk or write a little more care yourself, then your participation in intellectual life will be a more rewarding experience both for you and your conversation partners.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro I'm not too sure why you don't find it rewarding already; I gave you a clear counter-example, but you didn't even reference it, preferring to tell me what I know based on responses to youtube morons I randomly feel like making.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

you provided a "counter-example" to an argument that i only used as an ANALOGY. the similarity is merely in structure, not in content. they are talking NOT about causes and effects, or chains of causes, or billard balls. they are talking about logic. i could've used a mickey mouse story instead for the purpose of just illustrating that structure. now what you did is you gave me a response that is entirely about the beliefs that you happen to have about mickey mouse. 

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro I did not mention Mickey Mouse. In fact, that you generalized my response in this way means you do actually know it was also an analogy. In fact, I almost exclusively refer to the "logic" designated line in the dictionary for most of the terms being discussed here (contingent, necessary, etc.). Try dictionary's web site if you're confused.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

Okay, sorry.

So then why don't you make it simple? Repeat Copleston's argument in your own words, and then give me your reply to it.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro Firstly, I would like to present evidence that Russel was immoral and unthinking: He called for the nuclear annihilation of Moscow before they obtained the bomb. Now, with that out of the way, I would like say that Copleston is arguing that a necessary proposition is a contingent one. I'm sure he has a particular context, but the billiard balls works for me. In that context, the past history of the balls is lost in the ambiguity (and randomness) of the collisions.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro con't therefor Copleston is correct that if you want to go out and see the current state of the universe you have to look at it. Russel is wrong in rejecting this because there will continue be cause-and-effect relationships, however the complete history of them is lost. However with the billiard balls, we can infer logically that some history did exist, and may have existed always. In other words, I give an example where PSR holds, and Russel rejects it.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

I'm aware that you looked up a couple of words in a dictionary. Unfortunately, this is insufficient when the discussion is about a subject matter that one knows little or nothing about. The very fact that you created this video with the obvious intention of ridiculing Russell and Copleston shows that you prefer looking down on THEM to admitting your own ignorance. I don't know how old you are, but this is an attitude that won't bring you anywhere. But I repeat myself.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro Wow, you're an idiot.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

You are quite right, and I've made a mistake. If I had honestly wanted to help you appreciate those vital points about modesty, intellectual care, and respect for others, then first of all I should have tried to treat you respectfully myself. Sorry for my failure. It really seems that I won't be able to help here.

[atheismisreligion]

@langengro Hm, I was all set to pounce on the 'so you read a definition' thing and you've undone it. I spent the evening yesterday wondering why no one starts by utilizing intellectual honesty here. I no longer have conclusive proof that you are as unintelligent as the usual folks who debate me. In which case, before you go, I would like to mention that in addition to reading the dictionary, I am well read on western philosophical topics.

[langengro]

@atheismisreligion

(6) After all, it might well be that the proof in question is not at all lacking in terms of clarity and precision. So if you want to work it out, fine. If you have something better to do with your time, then that's fine as well. Good luck.

[dinkolino2]

lol, i wanted to give you 5 stars but u disabled it :)