Causation and Infinite Regress

[KatieTaylor24]

I appreciate that you observe multiple arguments and don't just research those in favor of your stance. It's the healthy way to approach this. I think you stated things fairly and logically, without imposing your belief on others. I lean towards deism. I love that you are not preaching, just making us think.

[dkthg]

In my opinion the "uncaused cause" is the universe itself.

[suthezcian]

The universe could be cyclic - probably is. A naturalist doesn't assume an uncaused cause. They simply say they don't know yet, which is a reasonable response.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

What if there is a dimension outside of god and eternity?

[40gabe]

I do not agree that there was an uncaused cause. The only logical model that I can figure is this; an infinite universe with an inherent quantum. To my thinking, it is the quantum that is the creative principle, the logos if you will. Outside of magic, there is no logical model for a universe to come into being either from a will-power (god), or a singularity (big-bang). Infinity with an inherent quanta is the only logical model I can understand. What do you think?

[lacontrabasse]

Neither of these positions, a God that caused a singularity or a singularity that caused the Big Bang, provide any justification for belief in a personal God who loves you.

However, the Creator has shown some empathy, by posting a video on YouTube. It explains your place in the Universe, and the meaning of your life.

Take a look at ' God says sorry. '

[bjl34565]

The fact remains that a finite being cannot fully understand the infinite concept

[Bakmoon]

"nobody agrees that there is an infinite regress. Everybody agrees that there had to have been an initial starter, an initial cause." That's not really true. Various theories such as quantum loop theory and string theory posit that the big bang was caused by a previous big crunch (i.e. the universe collapsing in on itself.) Interestingly, that is also what Buddhism teaches.

[caruya]

@Bakmoon

You just don't get it, there has to be a first cause for everything. If you keep bringing caused causes, you'll never get the answer, so it would the same as thinking infinite regress is logical, which is not, because it does not solve the problem of existence. Nothing can cause itself to existence.

[Bakmoon]

@caruya Why can there not be an infinite series of events each dependent on the one before it? How is that inconsistant with the laws of nature? Can you demonstrate that such a senario violates the laws of physics?

[Bakmoon]

@caruya Could you please respond? What's wrong with an infinite regress?

[caruya]

@Bakmoon Because it is still under the issue of existence. Even thought there would be some "infinite regress" which does not make sense by itself. Matter had to come from somewhere, which is not matter itself. Otherwise I raises again the question, where it came from? get it? It is not logical to begin with that matter came from absolutely "nowhere". So unless that "nowhere" did not was the cause, that is something outside matter. Existence from absolutely nothing is not logical.

[Bakmoon]

@caruya What do you mean matter has to come from somewhere which is not matter itself? ? It seems to me that such a thing would violate the conservation of mass. Can you demonstrate that the laws of physics demand such a thing?

[caruya]

@Bakmoon Dude you are just dragging the question back to physiques, maths, biology etc. aka science. That is logic too as well no doubt. But as long as you think "inside" matter and or existence of something that is without an explanation for its cause even if it's just pure absolute void aka singularity, It cannot go back forever because there's no initial cause, which conflicts the brain cells of the even very most stupid person in the world. The question is pure philosophical and theological.

[Bakmoon]

@caruya But you claim that infinite regress is physicaly impossible, so I am asking you to give me a demonstration of that from physics. You are just begging the question, backing up your claim by just saying "It has to come from somewhere" which isn't precise enough for me to respond to. By that do you mean that ultimately matter must derive from non-matter?

[Hufflewaffle]

'Infinite causal regression' and 'uncaused cause' are essentially the same thing!

Temporal events cannot occur in either infinity or timelessness. Neither have a 'beginning'. Its ridiculous to just dismiss one but accept the other.

[prodprod]

No naturalist, and certainly no physicist would use an expression like, "outside of space and time" -- it's simply an expression that has no meaning. Where, exactly would the "outside" of space be? For that matter, to speak of "before" the beginning of time -- "when" exactly was that? These are simply incoherent expressions.

To speak of "beginning to exist" in reference to things within the universe is to speak of entities that change from one prior existing form to another.

[prodprod]

(cont'd) (2) Even things as amorphous as ideas or concepts in our minds do not emerge from nothing at all, but are identifiable as particular patterns of matter and energy that emerge from prior patterns of matter and energy.

Yet the cosmological argument would have us make the leap from these "changes of form" sorts of "beginnings to exist" to inferring something fundamentally different - namely that the universe as a whole began to exist --

[prodprod]

(cont'd) (3) -- not in the rock, galaxy, or baby sense of emerging from some earlier state of matter, but rather in the sense of coming, in some fashion, out of nothing at all.

But nothing in our experience within the universe begins to exist in the sense of coming from nothing at all. Everything that begins to exist does so only in the sense of emerging from some prior state of existence.

How then can we infer from that that the universe emerged from *no* prior state of existence?

[prodprod]

(cont'd) (4) We are bound to conclude that there could never have been a state of total "non-existence" at any point in the past.

There has always been a state of "existence" of some kind or character. Whether that state of existence embodied space/time or causality as we understand it or not, it must have possessed, at a minimum, the potential for space, time, matter, energy and the universe to come into being.

If there was less than that, then we would not exist.

[Frankagator]

This just summarise about 7 pages of crap in my AS religious studies book. Cheers!

[TheDarthHomo]

both arguments are exactly the same...

[Rostos1978]

Asking "who created God then" is an incoherent question. The statement that "out of nothing comes nothing" is a premise BASED ON THIS PHYSICAL / NATURAL WORLD / UNIVERSE we live in. God's realm is in the supernatural world, what do humans know about the properties or premises of the supernatural world? NOTHING. So a statement that is applied to this PHYSICAL UNIVERSE CANNOT BE APPLIED to the supernatural. People think this natural world is the same as the supernatural, its not.

[XXXFirebird76XXX]

@Rostos1978

Exactly! I was about to type up the same exact thing. I have never had a problem with the "who created God" question when I'm debating Atheists online.

[Amritizcool66]

Love the video! Its hilarious how many atheists think "who created the creator" is a logically sound question. I will send this to those atheists who ask :)

Keep up the Good work!

[funincluded]

First, I'm amazed that you haven't blocked comments. Thank you.

Your reference to Thomas Aquinas is circular. You can't argue against an infinite regress by saying "But I gotta have a first cause, because otherwise I would be wrong"

The singularity is not an 'uncaused cause' the same way your god is. We know the universe exists, the same doesn't go for your God. Also, the universe doesn't have a beginning- but it did begin to exist in its current state. There's a difference.

[lockdown260]

@funincluded Actually modern science does say that the universe does have an absolute beginning. Many notable scientist like steven hawking supports this theory.

[funincluded]

@lockdown260

Note the difference between what Steven Hawking says (the universe had a beginning in the sense that it began to exist in its current state but has always existed in some form) and what YOU have said, which no science support; that the universe popped into existence from nothing- an "absolute beginning"

Don't get your science, or your quotes of scientists, from Randall Niles. He's wrong.

[lockdown260]

@funincluded No science supports an absolute beginning? Really?

"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang"-Steven Hawkin, "The Grand Design"

Steven says your wrong.

[funincluded]

@lockdown260

Haha, you can't use the phrase "the universe had a beginning" to prove your point. We both agree that it did. My point was that you are misinterpreting that quote! Time, gravity and other laws of physics are what began at the big bang.  Read further and see that 'beginning' does not 'poof!' When a physicist speaks of "the beginning of the universe" you need to understand what that means. For every video where SH says "beginning" there are 10 Christian videos misinterpreting it

[OccasionallyBearded]

@funincluded Many esteemed scientists DO say that the space-time arena we call "our universe" DID have an absolute beginning, including Alex Vilenkin (though he suggests that space, time, and matter were produced by platonic laws that exist "logically prior" to the universe itself). Also, please quote Hawking where he says that the universe "has always existed in some form".

[funincluded]

@OccasionallyBearded

The word "universe' means everything...so if you're saying God created the universe, you aren't really saying anything

I don't feel like searching the internet to parse words. Google search if you want

The important thing is understanding that the word 'creation' as SH uses it is not the same as the Bible, and 'time' is far more weird that we usually think of it, and our understanding of causation and time completely break down was discussing the origin of the universe.



[OccasionallyBearded]

@funincluded I wasn't talking about "everything". I very carefully said "the space-time arena", which is also a definition for "universe". Don't play semantics games.

[funincluded]

@OccasionallyBearded

Re-read what you said, and try and determine if it makes any sense.

You said universe. I said "universe" means everything. That's not a semantical game. That's a clarification I am making for your benefit.

I assume your argument is about showing that God could have created the universe. But in science, universe means everything- including god. You can't use science to prove your idea simply by playing, as you put it, semantic games.

[OccasionallyBearded]

@funincluded Not all cosmologists mean "everything" when they say "universe". For example, during his interview with Robert Kuhn, the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin talked about "laws of physics that have some platonic existence that is **independent of the universe itself**". Some scientists do indeed mean "everything" when they say "universe", but that is not the only way it's used.

[funincluded]

@OccasionallyBearded

That quote means nothing because laws are abstract things; it's like refering to a characteristic that is not manifest, but "exists"

I don't feel you appreciate how careful you have to be when using words like 'existence' when dealing with such abstract notions of epistemology :/

[OccasionallyBearded]

@funincluded I've been studying philosophy since 2005. I do appreciate how careful you need to be. My point was simple: Many cosmologists do not mean "everything" when they say "universe". Some do. Some don't. Vilenkin is one example of a cosmologist who does *not* mean "everything" when he says "universe".

[funincluded]

@OccasionallyBearded

I don't think your quote shows that at all. That's why I said hewhat I did. Congrats on your undergraduate degree in philosophy. I don't see how that's relevant :/

[OccasionallyBearded]

@funincluded (1) You suggested that I don't appreciate how careful one needs to be when talking about existence because I merely quoted Vilenkin, who talks about the idea of "platonic existence independent of the universe". I didn't say that I agree with Vilenkin. My point was that Vilenkin does NOT define the universe as "everything". I brought up my philosophy background to reassure you that I DO appreciate how careful one needs to be when talking about existence.

[OccasionallyBearded]

@funincluded (2) Cosmologists regularly talk about "universe" in the sense of our space-time arena. Let me know if you want me to get more quotations for you. In his 2006 book Vilenkin wrote: "It is said that an argument is what it takes to convince a reasonable man and a proof to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".

[OccasionallyBearded]

@funincluded Moreover, I believe the first Vilenkin quoation I provided is enough. He believes that the laws of physics exist in a way that is (in his words) "INDEPENDENT OF THE UNIVERSE ITSELF" (by which he meant our space-time realm... I can send you the whole interview if you want the context). I'm not saying I agree with him. My point is that Vilenkin refers to existence beyond our space-time realm. Maybe he's wrong, but my point is that some cosmologists use "universe" differently from you.

[OccasionallyBearded]

@funincluded (3) All of this was to get back to the main issue in this video. Many cosmologists agree that there is *not* an infinite regress of successive causes in the past. In other words, many cosmologists reject the following scenario: Event 1 came from cause -1, which came from -2, which came from -3, ad infinitum. THAT was the point in this video (that time does not extend backwards forever). Alan Guth also rejects a past infinite regress, though he does believe in an infinite future.

[funincluded]

I'm kind of done with this discussion... I'm in law school and I need to concentrate on this more than utoob

sorry if this is my last response

[funincluded]

To clarify, you weeere talking about 'everything' by saying 'universe.'

[0koreanbeast0]

@funincluded then wat caused the universe to change states into its "current existing state"? just asking...

[funincluded]

@0koreanbeast0

HAHA- ask a physicist in 30+ years

until then, let's not assume it was a god that contradictorily exists inside and out of the universe while not physically existing but apparently having effects in both

[funincluded]

Cause =/= kaz

[itsVINCEC]

This guy has to be the dumbest ass clown i have ever seen in my life. quit with these videos. your leading a life thats not real. your like watching cartoons

[BigG99]

@itsVINCEC do you have anything intelligent to say about the actual argument at hand? he covered this topic very well. he expressed both sides of the argument.. so can you expand as to why you think hes dumb? or is it just because you dont like how it goes against a fundemental belief of yours?

[itsVINCEC]

@BigG99 So the cause of the universe is this "god" that you call it. of coure a cause is the effect of creating something. the cause of our universe is actually the big bang theory, its proven. but the universes are in layers, our universe is just OUR ONE universe, there is a new level of what the space is called, multi-verse. go watch someone with more fucking credentials. michio kaku. explains everything to the exact T. not jut this simple answer of god. there is no logic

[BigG99]

@itsVINCEC first of all nobody denied the big bang theory at all.. in fact its the big bang theory that helps us to say there is a God, because big bang means beggining. furthermore your multi verse is theororized but isnt a fact. this isnt rocket science or even slippery in the least. scientists say that the universe could be caused by a singularity that is outside of time and space. thats the very definition of the God of the bible. why is this a problem for you?

[okzoia]

Does Aquinas say that "every EFFECT has a cause" or that " every EVENT has a cause"?? There is a Big difference here! The latter needs argument; the former is a trivial tautology.

Rick

[bass109]

Jesus is future king of earth, repent for his judgement comes. Jesus loves you

[extremeeXrement1]

all of the cosmogenic theories thiest or other are subject to infinate regress

[leanuue]

but the singularity is just something that shows up in the math of particular Big Bang models & isn't even real. its a break down of the theories, meaning we need a new one. this video is just like the argument googol is no closer to infinity than 1 is.

[JoshuaHults]

lol if you opened your heart you can experience God, you will never find God with your brain ! The brain is for this world

[itzahazylife]

@JoshuaHults

by open your heart, u mean open your emotions..but, when u open your emotions, u experience many profound feelings..who is to say those feelings are some magical god, transcendent of reality?..how the hell do u or could u ever know that what you're experiencing, is the god of the bible?

[TheWordsNotSpoken]

W00T for God of the gaps!

[babykakes623]

no one knows anything for certain, not scientist, no one, we can't go back in time and see how everything came about so it's all speculation. You can't say the Big Bang Theory is a fact that's why "theory" is at the end of it, hello. I do believe that life is too complex to just suddenly of happened, when you think about it, it doesn't make that much sense, that things could just suddenly happen out of no where one day randomly, come on, I support this.

[breaneainn]

@babykakes623 The large Hadron collider at CERN recreates to a few trillionths of a second the conditions of the big bang. Tell those guys it's "just a theory". Think about what you are asking, especially when you say "came about" and "out of nowhere". The flawed assumption is a "transition" between nothing and everything. You're asking what is north of the north pole, the question makes no sense so the answers make no sense. non sequiteur.

[itzahazylife]

@babykakes623

science isn't about certainty..science isn't about proof..only math deals with proof..science is about following the evidence and discovering what the most probable answer is based on the evidence..now u must realize, that the big bang has A LOT of evidence in favor of it, and has yet to have any evidence against it...which is why it is so supported.

[raoskaos]

Nice contradictory argument...

[AgentSpetznaz]

If you actually look at thomas aquinas argument for an infinite regress as a proof for god you find that it is vacous and really useless. If "God" can be defined as a creater for the universe you can infer that "God" would have to be sufficiently complex enough to be created itself, therefore you dont escape the infinite regress nor do you prove god. QED

[lipoicacid]

The reality [real application] of quantum physics destroys this argument.Additionally there are no ultimate causes in our limited experience of reality.

[billdaddy26]

It is very difficult to know what the beginning means. Moreover, it is very hard to imagine anything infinite. Striving to solve a riddle which we can hardly comprehend on a large scale is nearly useless, but that is no reason to write off logic and scientific process with willingness to just simply declare.

[billdaddy26]

In the natural world you can't just declare something. You can't just say there MUST of been something. Especially if your trying to appeal to logic. If Aquinas did more searching instead of rationalizing he would have understood this. And the fact that you say "by math. certainty" is false, because nothing in math would point to that, 0 does not equal 1.

[billdaddy26]

logical fallacies, the first domino has a cause...the finger that forces it. The finger has a cause, the synapses that tell it to force the domino over. And on and on....The infinite regression paradox is not simply answered by, this is what I choose to believe. That is the way everything else under god is explain, by blind faith. It would of been nice for you to actually try to summon scientific method in this video. Since science and logic are basically the same.

[undrgrndthnkr]

Scientific philosophers arguing w/ xtians about prehistory is an insult to intelligence but then again, we've got many lazy thinkers among us today and so we fall prey to that type of sophistry...

[undrgrndthnkr]

If the uncaused cause, the singularity, if you will, could produce intel life, then would it not be prudent to suggest that that uncaused cause was - and indeed is - intel life?

[JackHDiamond]

1:32

Thomas Aquinas is mentioned in Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" if you wanted to read a chapter on that.

[xpostal1289x]

This is a text-book example of special pleading...

[eyeammi]

You've not solved the problem of infinite regression by throwing a god into the mix, you've only justified your circular logic by falsely attempting to break the loop by ignoring the same question that you pose as proof for the creation of the universe. What I would like to know is how believers then make the quantum leap from the idea of creation to thinking that their world view has been ordained by a god, that the creator even cares about what we do, & that all others deserve to burn in hell.

[undrgrndthnkr]

@eyeammi He is an angry and vindictive God who owns hell now doesn't that just f%$k w/ your mind?! lol

[Banvards]

Why cant the universe be that uncaused cause? Like your God can be an uncaused cause?

[hfinity]

For someone that can not ever think of the notion of God for the couse he could still use some philosophy and science.

We know for a fact that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. We know that Matter started forming at the time of the Big Bang so now there is Space and becouse there is Space there is also Time. We know that there was a Singularity and at that time there was no matter.

? Energy? Can it be unbound to Time and Space? That is scientifically accurate assumption ^^

[TheScienceFoundation]

So basically the argument is 'if god isn't the uncaused cause then my argument is useless'

[philnoll]

okay, fine. There has to be an uncaused cause. You can refer to it as God, but it wouldn't provide evidence of a theistic God. It might be a deistic God. It might be that you're referring to a space time singularity as God. That doesn't change the fact that its not a conscious creator. What's the point of all this.

[viralarchitect]

I am not seeing any evidence whatsoever to contradict this video. I suppose I've been asleep for 20 years and the rules about providing a source to support your claim is no longer important.

[cosmogenes]

See: THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPENED by Eric Lerner. The Plasma Theory is an excellent alternative explanation of the Universe without any hypothesized beginning!

[cosmogenes]

NONSENSE! Not "everybody" agrees. That argument is based on the Big Bang theory, but there are hundreds of scientists, astronomers, cosmologists who do not believe that theory and insist there is an eternal Cosmos.

Heraclitus of Ephesus said some 2600 years ago "The cosmos is universal, created by no man or god, but exists now, has always existed and will always exist as an ever-living fire."

[manu191357]

Common sense and our personal experience appear to postulate that 'everything must have a cause' - like you claim that science says.

Which science are you talking about - maybe theology or antique philosophy?

Natural science does not claim that. Contemporary natural scientists and philosophers more and more favor the opposite notion (Judea Pearl, Causality).

Also, just because most common day actions appear to have a cause, is no argument that the entire universe must have a cause!

[manu191357]

How can you say that everybody agrees, that there has to be an initial cause? I don't agree! I'd give you 5 stars for your video if it ended about half way. So keep on trying ...

And what if the universe was caused by some supernatural(s) - there's just no way to derive anything from this unless you have some empirical evidence - have you seen them lately?

[TheScienceFoundation]

No one agrees the universe had a beginning, not from an evidentiary stand point anyway. The big bang is the expansion of a preexistent singularity

[KineticViral]

Hmmm, a "preexistent singularity" -- What's that? Where did that come from? And we have "evidence" for this infinitely dense cosmic blip that contained all space, matter, and energy that "expanded" into all that we see?

[TheScienceFoundation]

Noone knows where it came from, and yes.

[Adonimtg]

WHO PUSHED THE BUTTON?

[TheScienceFoundation]

Begging the question.

[jesushugger]

Great video! As Ravi Zacharais puts it...

"No physical quantity can explain its own existence and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present. So the entire physical world has to be explained by one self existent cause that is NOT Physical (i.e. not natural = supernatural)."

[SecularEarth]

Great bullshit! As any sensible person puts it...

"Even if the science you were spouting was correct (Which it isn't) why assume the Christian god takes precedence? Retard."

JesusHugger, why are so many scientists atheists if the cause of the universe just HAS to be supernatural? That's bullcrap.

[jesushugger]

Either God does exist or he doesn't, which is it? If he doesn't, your question(s) is irrelevant. If he does, you'd need to read and understand the bible to be clear on why Jesus Christ is the Lebron James of all religions.

"To give truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation." - George MacDonald

[justintempler]

Great and Jesus spoke about Noah's flood.

Enjoy your fairy tales.

[SecularEarth]

I've read the bible. And I've read the Koran, and countless other religious books, none give any real evidence. It was the King James bible for the new testament, and I read the old one in the original Hebrew.

[jesushugger]

If you want evidence, read the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist". I just created a video about it...

/watch?v=w71hhvNmaZ0

If you're seriously searching for truth and evidence for God and would like to eliminate any possibility that God does exist, you should read the book.

[SecularEarth]

Fine I will.

[fraterla93y]

Everybody does not agree that there had to have been an initial cause. Some Cosmologists point to what has been labeled the Big Bounce Theory. This outlines a way by which the universe may exist as a continually collapsing and then re-expanding phenomenon, for which the concept of a beginning is nonsensical.

[jesushugger]

Ah, Big Bang vs. Big Bounce. You would have to fight big bang scientists on that one. Big Bounce is very early in study, speculative and has many issues. But let's assume the Big Bounce is correct, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says the universe is running out of usable energy (which this is not even up for debate, science proves this). So that being said, it points to the universe not being eternal, but a beginning at some point. Still gets you back to who/what caused that beginning? God?

[fraterla93y]

The second law of thermodynamics says nothing of the sort. None of the laws of thermodynamics contradict the law of conservation of energy, which demonstrates that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. There is as much energy in the universe now as there ever was, or ever will be. The second law of thermodynamics tells us about atrophy in systems, which means movement from order to chaos. There is enough disorder in the universe to allow for the earth system easily.

[fraterla93y]

The total energy in the universe is very likely zero. Matter and anti matter etc. most likely being equal. Think of the universe as being represented by the number zero, only expressed as -14 billion and positive 14 billion (canceling one another out).

But even if the universe has a beginning you still have all your work ahead of you. Just because something caused it does not mean the cause was a god (which one?). It may have been an extra-dimensional alien or a non-conscious phenomena.

[awwurdead]

awesome very nicely put, i don't think it's good to jump in and say that causation is a law and refference it to science, since since deals with what occurs in our universe and such prinicple do not have to hold before or outside of it, also there are some problems seen in quantum physics where people ahve observed aprticle ggoing in and out of existance adn behaving unpredictably.

[kuzuboshii]

NO NO NO, a singularity does NOT exist outside of space and time, it WAS space and time, until it expanded. There's a difference between calling it the singularity (which it was) and calling it god (which is made up)

And infinite regress is a logical paradox, just because we can think of a situation doesn't mean that it exists.

[bankyy]

I SEE WHERE YOURE GOING LOL

[TawntheAtheist]

Well I cant argue with his point. Its nice to see a Theist realise that some Atheists attribute first causation to a non-intelligent creator. There are other views I wont bother to mention here.

However, it is usually the Theist who starts this avenue of reasoning in the first place by using the existence of the universe a a proof of god. This video accepts that the Atheist has an equally valid answer to the origin of the iniverse, so the proof of god is still lacking.

[TheHonestTheist]

everybody? He clearly hasn't met some of the people of youtube

[biggbaddjohn]

If I said it once, I've said it 100 times, there has to be a prime mover and that is Jesus Christ !!!

[fernandop1]

Awesome video again Randall. Keep up the good work. Thanks...

[velocityeleven]

the first lie was "Randal Niles thinks"

[ATLpirate]

Har har. You're so funny.

[havock89]

Prove it, smartarse.

[iamleavingchina]

Nice, your comparing god to dominoes, thats about as accurate as it gets.

[havock89]

He was describing causality not God.

[iamleavingchina]

He is trying to compare a first cause to another first cause, one a domino and the other a god. Its a good comparison, both are made up by humans.

[havock89]

And give me one logical thought that isnt made up by humans?

the comparison is of abstract concepts, and does not affect the veracity of the idea simply because a human mind can conceive of it.

[iamleavingchina]

Actually what affects the veracity of an idea is the evidence that supports it, not whether a human tries to manipulate logic to support it.

[havock89]

It is evidence that can be manipulated and misinterpreted, not logic.

[christianthinker]

So you are manipulating your postulation that Mr. Niles is manipulating. You are begging the question havock.

[havock89]

not sure what to do with that comment... lol

[JonathanMcLatchie]

It is the height of irony that those among us who embrace the paradigm of philosophical naturalism often attempt to justify their worldview by appealing to the notion of absolute, objective laws of logic. Anyone care to postulate from whence the laws of logic (which allow you coherence when stringing an argument together) are derived? Surely in an exclusively materialistic universe where absolutes become merely the relative perception of the evolved mind there is absolutely no basis for such

[iamleavingchina]

Your point is unclear, perhaps its the paradigm of using so many big words.

Feel free to postulate whence the laws of logic are derived with evidence to back up the claim if you don't mind.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

The point I am making is that one has no basis for the assumption that matter will invariably behave in a rational fashion, except according to the premise that we live in a logical universe because it was created by a logical creator.

Outside of the worldview of Biblical theism, the foundation for the assumption, by which modern science is predicated upon, is removed (i.e. the assumption of uniformity in nature).

[iamleavingchina]

We a large amount of observed events that form the basis of how we think matter behaves.

We have zero observations of a 'creator' except for the premise of a leap of faith.

Biblical theism is built upon historical fiction, the foundation of science is based on reality.

You seem to be confusing this, perhaps its the amount of philosophy you are imagining.

[havock89]

You are labouring under a number of false assumptions, the most glaring of which is this. The foundation of modern science is based on Christianity. Hence Christianity is the only source of religious truth I can see has been proven in any way leads to the betterment of mankind (a necessary prerequisite for my belief).

Also your assumption was that I was a creationist. Btw - seeing as philosophy is the "love of wisdom" you can't imagine it, you either love it or you dont.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

I do not think this was the point I was making, and moreover your argument is a circular one. While I will grant you that in the past there has indeed been a large degree of uniformity, my challenge to you is to propose how one operating within an exclusively materialistic vacuum can justify an expectation that the future will reflect the past. When you appeal to past experience as your foundation for how you expect matter to behave in the future, you are presupposing uniformity...

[JonathanMcLatchie]

...Thus when you state that you believe there will be uniformity in the future because there has been uniformity in the past, you are attempting to justify uniformity by virtue of assuming uniformity which is a circular argument.

[iamleavingchina]

If you think so yes a reference from the past or experience happens to be how we deal with reality in everyday life. Your arguments are unclear at best so I have no idea what point your making.

But you did mention the bible so if we use your point about the past, the bible is from the past, your point seems to suggest there is no point in listening to it. I agree.

[iamleavingchina]

I noticed you think Hovind has logical thoughts, your comments are now understandable.

[havock89]

I think Hovind is interesting, and I think evolution needs reworking in certain areas. I am not a creationist or a christian fundamentalist. So you are wrong there too. Your batting two for two, sparky!

[iamleavingchina]

Well if u think hovind is correct in anyway that might be interesting and if you think that about evolution without asking someone with a phd in the field you've struck out.

[havock89]

Actually I am simply responding to Assumptions you have made about ME. I neither require nor desire your advice on how to improve my knowledge, and who to talk to, thanks.

[iamleavingchina]

Your channel says you think hovind is interesting, how is that an assumption? If your a christian then someone should point out that the jesus story is based on fiction. You don't need it but its nice to point out.

[havock89]

You would have to prove to me that the new testament writings are inaccurate history for me to discount them. Take William Ramsey for example, a secular historian and a skeptic of new testament writings, had a change of mind after finding Luke to be a first-class historian. "You may press the words of Luke," wrote Ramsay, "in a degree beyond any other historian's, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment..."

Your assertion is seemingly more based on belief than mine is.

[iamleavingchina]

>Your assertion is seemingly more based on belief than mine is.

Are you sure, you seem to imply that you or ramsey know who Luke was. Keep in mind that the gospel writers are unknown.

You can easily research yourself if there is archaeology of the Jesus story. If your honest you will see for yourself, then again not many christians do.

[havock89]

Yes, quite a lot about the Gospel writers are known about the historians. Luke was a doctor and an amature historian, and mark was the son of Simon bar Jonah aka St Peter.

We have excellent histories (although not complete) for early Christianity, being the most pivotal point in history. Wherever origianl documents are not available, the works of those who studied them ARE available and many include text from the original works. Read Eusebius for starters.

[iamleavingchina]

There is limited history of early Christianity but it depends on how you define early. To a Christian early is 200 years after an event, which is when Eusebius lived. So to believe an unknown someone who wrote something unverifiable whether it was 1800 or 2000 years ago doesn't matter, its still not verified as historical fact.

Prove Mark was the son of Simon bar Jonah.

[havock89]

As I have said - Wherever origian documents are not available, the works of those who studied them ARE available and many include text from the original works. Such as Eusebius, who had proof of Mark being the Son of St. Peter. The proof is there, read the book and learn. His works are so very important because in most cases he chose to enter copies of the original text he was alluding to in his own. Now those documents have faded to dust, his preserved workds are a priceless gem.