วีดีโอ

You set up the positions and represent both sides and how they approach this topic very well. Unfortunately might need more characterization of examples that promote your view better. Just because common proteins exist or are conserved and do multiple functions in a cell or even on the same cell doesn’t necessarily translate to an advantageous function especially considering they would have to consistently and continuously remain advantageous for the millions of years or be eliminated. You gave good surface level examples and maybe a longer video would be helpful to expand on these concepts. I still admit IC is a pretty powerful argument against standard textbook evolutionary theory from my biological background. Still there is plenty to consider and both sides tend to make massive assumptions. I’ve noticed a historical trend that the more we study biology, the more complex we find it to be so the goalpost starts moving further away as exponentially more data arises we have to retool and readjust our presuppositions. The globe doesn’t shrink as we observe the mystery it only gets larger is what I’m trying to say and we realize our ignorance after previous generations. Overall good video

Isn't it humanities job to take care of earth so why not remove suffering ourselves instead of blaming God

What if things were opposite then would it still be evidence against God?

God is not the lord of this world.

good vid

Your intellectual honesty is admirable and reassuring. The contingencies of believing is such a great point. I say that as a neuroscientist who is maybe too aware of some of those contingencies. Also, NDE reports are some of the most powerful forces that pull me out of my materialistic deterministic views. So many reports’ components can’t be explained by biology or even physics.

Yeah right. Laws of Mathematics, Logic, Physics, Chemistry, Gravity, and all the other Natural Laws, make the imaginary land of the Atheist, which I call RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM UNIVERSE LAND, a fairy tale. Now children, says the Atheist, now believe me when I say that our Universe came from our God Nothing, and Out of an actual Nothing. And everything you see in the Universe "poofed" into being OUT OF NOTHING, AND BY NOTHING. Then, by the magic of Atheism, one day a "simple" cell creature random random randomly poofed into being, with 43 Million Protein molecules, and a Million nano machines to regulate that cell. Not to mention, the 400 million lines of DNA needed to program all those protein molecules all at the same time. Then, throw in two more complete biological systems beyond our comprehension (replication and translation so that the next cell could replicate). That "simple" cell is a trillion, trillion, trillion times more complex than the space shuttle (based on what we know so far and its getting worse by the day) and built at the microscopic level. ATHEITS ACTAULLY, AND FACUTALLY BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES.

Huemer is really, really good at explaining and clarifying concepts. But he is wrong about morality, which is clearly derivable from facts. Intuition is one way to access some knowledge, but you have to remember: our moral intuitions evolved because there are objective moral truths; they are not necessarily true simply because they evolved. You have to get the relationship right. Indeed, many of the moral intuitions that were correct in small hunter-gatherer groups are not adapted to the modern post-industrial environment (although any others still are adaptive).

Whether they appeal to a god or not, all moral objectivists instantly run into the same problem: They can't even decide what an objective moral truth is.

Right away... Its not a poorly formed question. Its not even necessarily hard to answer. When I was straight out of an introduction to proofs and logic class I could have told you more exactly where 7 > 2 comes from. But the gist is it comes from a couple unprovable axioms we all decided to accept.

The "infinite information" that is supposedly contained in math can be reduced to a finite number of axioms. You dont need to independently explain 1+1=2, 1+2=3... ad infinitum when their truth can just be boiled down to a just a few axioms in number theory

Lmao that person at the beginning is hilarious. There used to be a medical term for it - 'idiot'.

If p-zombies are not only conceivable, but trans-physically/ metaphysically possible, then it seems to indicate that phenomenal judgements are fundamentally relegated to the underlying quantitative substrates which experiences 'mirror'. In other words, the ineffable mode of self-knowledge (direct acquaintance) housed within the "what-it-is-likeness" of mental states could be said to only "qualitatively mirror" the effable modes of self-knowledge pre-inscribed within its quantitative substrates, in that the pre-existent physical substrates of qualia's self-knowledge becomes activated *only* from its "first personally dormant state" upon the occurrence of conscious experience, without undermining the persistence of the *"dormant substrates "* of its own knowledge independent from said experience. If so, then experience would not itself constitute any of the functional substrates which "lay the groundwork" for what is to be known upon first-personal apprehension of such knowledge, and only gets misinterpreted as possessing causal force via the fact that experiences likely fundamentally mirror particular behaviors/functions. Like a shadow casted from an object, before being reflected back onto itself (speaking metaphorically not literally).

Oliver Stone’s JFK came out in 1991. Most 9/11 truthers are definitely NOT lefties.

Trigger Warning: Mandelbrot Set 🤣

A lot of hand wringing to come to the conclusion that extreme pain causes the experience of wanting the pain to end. Philosophy is awesome and insane. (Well, epiphenominalists and materialists are insane. Philosophy should be the cure.)

I’m not sure I agree with the assertion that the universe did not HAVE to be like this. Isn’t it possible that the laws of nature are fixed and there is no other way they “could have been”? Also, I like the multiverse hypothesis better. It seems to have better explanatory value. However, theists could push the goalpost back regarding the multiverse and simply assert that God created the multiverse.

It blows my mind that we're all in line to die soon and there's at least a 50 percent chance of going to hell and there is even one person willing to risk it. And that's if your an atheist. If your a Christian then its 100 percent if your not born again. And that's without considering any evidences or any arguments. As is no matter what, and no matter what you believe you have to admit that there's at least a 50 percent chance of hell after death. It'd either real or its not. With all the evidence in favor if Christianity its 99.99. Please repent before its too late

Lean not on your own understanding. It has to be infinite because it's a divorce on top of punishment. This ain't life. Jesus is the life. And death ain't death. Thats hell the second death. Were just passing thru to make a decision real quick. Life or death. We've sinned against a holy eternal infinite God. And whether you choose life or not you are also eternal. And your saved by your faith. You don't really have free will. Just freedom of choice. One or the other.

Strong emergence is perfectly obvious in the case of consciousness. Every time I wake up in the morning, strong emergence is proven true. Maybe even more dramatic is awaking from full anesthesia where the transition from unconscious to conscious is even more sudden. Caroll just can't see that brain activity involves RELATIONS that are completely abstract and not physical, but computational and/or semantic in nature (i.e. certain brain states correspond to objects or concepts based on evolutionary processes. These correspondences are NOT physical in themselves and are the source of MEANING, i.e. semantic content).

People should focus on being free thinkers rather than attaching themselves to predefined boxes.

We share the same position Emerson Green! :)

DVT does not violate Euthyphro dilemma if his actions/ Commands are grounded is his perfect character - not arbitrary .

Philosophical arguments like the contingency argument do take us to omnipotence, the supreme unbounded necessary being of unlimited power grounding all reality …

Theism do be trying to convince me unrequited love is a good thing

Nope, not buying it. The REAL explanation is based on strong emergence of consciousness from certain EVOLVED physical processes which among other things involve 1) computation and 2) relations between an environment and models/simulations of that environment within the control mechanism ("brain" or "central nervous system") of a creature/agent acting in that environment. If you take evolution seriously, this is all pretty obvious, actually.

Excellent discussion and explanations. I watch a lot of these types of videos, and you have a definite gift. I've always been an agnostic, for the reasons you outline here (though you get credit for articulating these reasons better than I could do it).

Emersons critique is that hes agnostic because he's not sure no gods exist. so where does that leave atheists? Atheists are only those who are 100% or 90% confident no gods of any types exist or are possible? That's not a position most self described "atheists" would claim.

Mormonism sounds silly not only because of contingent factors about our place of birth and culture, but also because of its dubious origins (to put it mildly) in Joseph Smith. Nothing about Christianity for the preceding 1800 years of Mormonism's creation would cause the believer in Jesus to expect a sudden and drastic shift in theology, ecclesiology, and the rest. Especially not through an institution like the LDS church and a guy like Joseph Smith. Again, it's not just my culture that makes me think this way. The nature of historic Christianity in its monotheism and organic ecclesiology (not counting the divinely ordained papacy the medievals concocted to leverage political power) is far removed from the spirit of LDS theology and historicity.

If my shadow moves in a way that correlates with the moves of my body I don't think shadow caused my body to move.

Oh no, now you guys are really reaching. How pathetic.

This guy needs subtitles. Really hard to understand what is he asking Emerson. But as always was interesting to hear you ❤️

You really don't know what you're talking about

Universalism is umbilical

the idea or horror comes from a fictional book as IN Dante's inferno !!!

Are you also agnostic on the claim that Miss Piggy and Kermit are a real couple? If you truly have an open mind, you should go the whole frog ... oops, sorry, I meant to say the whole hog. 🤨

I actually hold both positions as they are not mutually exclusive. And here is why: There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality. Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient). It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle). The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.

For me most of guys who agnostic means they are humble enough to say "I don't know about that"

Claim- God exists...I don't believe it, I don't know it. I'm an agnostic atheist.

There seems to be a profound misunderstanding here by Mr Green and by some of the commenters. Agnosticism is not a weaker or more intellectual or more reasonable form of atheism. They refer to two very different concepts and it is possible to be both at the same time. Agnosticism is about what we know, whereas atheism is about what we believe, or rather do not believe. I prefer not to label myself negatively, in terms of what I do not think or believe because the list of such labels would be never ending and prefer to be called a humanist but, in effect, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not and cannot 'know' there is no God but I do not believe there is.

The most decisive break with atheism occurs when one finally groks that there is indeed a supernormal, if not supernatural, aspect of reality--one that cannot be denied or explained away in normal/natural terms. Short of having a personal experience of this aspect of reality, like an NDE, one might read and ponder something like journalist Michael Tymn's book about the most scientifically scrutinized medium of all time, Leonora Piper. It was the years--indeed decades--of such scrutiny that prompted William James and other luminaries of that era to publicly admit that their prior rationalist worldviews were shattered, and that if they were not communicating with dead friends and family members through Mrs. Piper, then something else equally mindblowing was going on. Good for Emerson in his atheism concerning a god who damns most people--even some, even one--to eternal torment, and also in his coming to realize that there are many more morally and intellectually acceptable theologies.

There is one argument though that Christian’s argue that you haven’t touched upon - one if there arguments is that we all disobey god and because he is an infinitely good being we have kind of unforgivably offended him and deserve this punishment because even though god is loving he is also just and needs to uphold righteousness but to circumvent the punishment we should receive his loving forgiving mercy comes when we accept his sacrifice for us through Christ blood ? He took on all the punishment we should of received by sacrificing himself or Christ in great pain and misery on the cross and if we don’t accept this one great gift of mercy he has provided for us then we truly deserve his punishments . Would like to hear peoples opinions on this .

18:15 "I have no idea how to set my priors, like I don't know how to set the prior probability of different hypotheses" Strongly agree with this! This is one of my main arguments for in-principle agnosticism. I don't think biological and cultural evolution have given us good priors for metaphysical hypotheses like this. Combine skepticism about priors with Oppy's view that none of the arguments on either side are compelling, and you get strong agnosticism.

Objection a) H2O has very important emergent properties (for life on earth and everywhere it may be found) that H and O don´t have. So your idea that it is a "weak" emergence seems very subjective , maybe it is not important for you, Why? I mean emergence is just emergence, weak or strong is a subjective view you are adding. Objection b) It´s not possible to clone mental states because it is not possible to copy the dynamic electric interactions between particles etc (provided it was possible to clone those). It´s not a stationary state of a system, mental states are interactions , and also there is no hard disk or mental palace for memories. Objection C) many things in science like evolution are counter intuitive. You seem to rely a lot on intuition.

prior probability thing was fascinating. maybe it represents a shortcoming of analytic philosophy

I personally am an agnostic when it comes to theism simpliciter and an atheist regarding Yahweh and Allah.

Universalism is not consistent with Christianity if Christianity is based on the scripture though.

Just finished the video. Loved it. About the hypothesis that this is best of all possible worlds, what do you think of the idea that god could create a whole bunch of different universes, with the majority being less than perfect but still worth creating? If these imperfect but valuable universes vastly outnumbered the perfect universes then we wouldn't expect to find ourselves in the best of all possible worlds. To me it seems arbitrary to assume that an omnipotent god would only ever create one universe and nothing else. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this

Credence in theism: 📈📈📈

The brilliant outlaw scholar Edward Fudge already destroyed the fundamentalist Evangelicals interpretation of hell. The Evangelicals called him a outlaw heretic. They told him that was going to be tortured by YAHWEH. Rest In Paradise Mr.Edward Fudge