Deconstructing Ben Shapiro on Religion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 มิ.ย. 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
Ben Shapiro believes that atheism is a delusion, and I paid for a Daily Wire Plus membership to find out why. Blitzing through arguments from reason, morality, free will, change, fine-tuning, consciousness, and biology, Ben takes us on a whistle-stop tour of philosophy, which I've tried to break down and respond to in today's video.
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
"The Atheist Delusion" on Daily Wire Plus: www.dailywire.com/show/debunked
Genetically Modified Skeptic's video: • I paid for Ben Shapiro...
My podcast with Joe Schmid: • Arguments For God's Ex...
My video, "Why Free Will Doesn't Exist": • Why Free Will Doesn't ...
Ed Feser’s book, Five Proofs of the Existence of God: amzn.to/3wnkskh
William Lane Craig on Hilbert’s hotel and actual infinites: • Hilbert's Hotel and In...
My podcast with William Lane Craig: • William Lane Craig and...
Chico the Philosurfer: / chicothephilosurfer
Graham Oppy and Ed Feser discuss God's existence: • Can We "Prove" that Go...
My podcast on the problem of evil: • A Catholic, Protestant...
------------------------TIMESTAMPS--------------------------
0:00 Introduction
2:12 No such thing as a real atheist
6:23 Getting an "ought" from an "is"
8:20 A dishonest edit of Neil deGrasse Tyson
9:55 God is necessary to trust reason itself
14:21 God is necessary to ground morality
19:46 The Argument from Change
39:22 Gödel's incompleteness theorem
41:00 Evolution and God
43:00 The fine-tuning argument
46:38 Human consciousness proves God?
47:59 Outro
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
John Early
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
Adam Gray
Nolan Kent
Seth Balodi
Citizens of Civilization
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![[100일 일어]✨일본여행 중 바로 써먹는 실용적인 일본어 회화 필수 표현 (쇼핑관광/편의점편)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DKISYQt87B8/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch my in-person debate with Ben Shapiro here: th-cam.com/video/yspPYcJHI3k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=JtX-1Q6Rj5GPi3mI
Another well done video. IMO your claim that natural selection selects for survivability not truth is incorrect though.. The issues are intertwined. it's choosing truth that allows organisms to survive and, given enough time, to develop high levels of cognition capable of uncovering even greater truths. Truth is a driver of successful evolution because it makes it more likely for an organism to continue to exist.
While someone can claim well then why does belief in falsehoods exist then? Or why do simple lifeforms vastly outnumber complex ones? Or why am I still single while some religious fundimentalist has ten kids?. And the answer is that this is a statistical probability over vast periods of time not an absolute that applies to any given circumstance or individual On an individual level someone can get into a car accident and meet their signficant other in the hospital while the more cautious driver missed the opportunity.
Someone contrarian might point out bacteria on Earth has been around longer than mankind and might outlive us. This does not consider that without intelligence even bacteria. along with all life on earth, is eventually doomed when the sun starts its final journey to red giant or some other cosmological level catastrophe completely sterilizes the earth. It's not something we tend to think about in our daily lives but it will one day happen unless we do something about it. The average density of the universe is just a few atoms per square meter. It's a harsh cold universe mostly extremely inhospitable to life other than in tiny zones for brief moments in time. An Intelligence uncovering truths about the universe to work through these sorts of extinction level problems is the only chance for survival any life on earth has.
One other inaccuracy... you claimed your coffee doesn't have the potential to become a chicken. According to modern physics it does. The reason why you've never experienced such a seeming miracle is because the chances of all the atoms in your coffee randomly reorganizing themselves into a chicken is extremely unlikely. We are talking a denominator so huge it would be hard to expresion using normal number notion..
@@mydogsbutler I disagree. Our brain is wired for survival, not for truth.
Think in all the cognitive bias that we have, they are good for survival, but awful to discover the truth
Any optical illusion is a lie.
Seeing faces in random spots or patterns is false... But look for patterns and faces help you survive
@@nit11 You can certainly disagree but it will not change in a billion years our sun will begin its progression to red giant. The only chance of survival any life has on this planet has is intelligent life. And one of the properties of intelligent life is the ability to descern truth.
Or put another way, any planets with lifeforms that took branches down the evolutionary tree that didn't involve a branch that seeks truth are eventual doomed to extinction unless by grace of intelligent life saving it.
@@nit11 From an evolutionary standpoint any planet without intelligent life is doomed to extinction. Due to the immense timespans involved, we usually just don't think about evolution this way. Its a funnel leading all life to extinction with the sole exception of intelligent life that has the possibility, not certainty, of avoiding it.
Ben Shapiro got to age 12 and said "I have reached my final form."
@angelmakersweetrolls IVE GOTTA ask my fellow Atheists: Do you have any idea that an Army is build right-now? A Theocracy isnt just wished-up by some 'random Extremist-Dudes' in 'some random Basements'. Watch the new video of
The New York Times "The Real Threat to Democracy" and at least the Third GOP-Video of "Some More News".,
if not all 3.
MAGA and ALSO Christian-Nationalists
are literally on a Recruitment-Spree and planning Sabotage
that my fellow Leftists are unaware of and my fellow Atheists
are unaware of. Maybe you understand why my i panick-coment
trying to make People understand the Kent Hovind's of this
world are in-FACT more ORGANIZED than People know.
lmfao bro true
🤣
was he a pokemon at the time.
@@joannware6228 I'm not impressed.
Ben Shapiro be like : "Facts don't care about your feelings"
Also Ben Shapiro: "God is real because I feel like it"
you'll be in my prayers. lets hope you can find god.
@@devecs you'll forget about me in less than 72 hours
😂😂
@@devecs😂
@@Shrektus still praying, hope you get better.
I’m an atheist and I am not angry at all. I am 72, and have had a fine life with good health, love, and safety. I am a morally good person who doesn’t need any made-up religion and god to tell me how to lead my life.
I hope you'll open your heart before it's too late
Any advice on what makes you content? Or what gives you purpose?
@@AverageMitch1987 Thank you for your questions. By "content", I'm going to assume you mean what makes me happy. The answer is a long list of things that include my family and friends, reading, music, humour, my hobbies, and nature just off the top of my head.
Your question about purpose is very interesting. I believe that the universe has no purpose for us because it doesn't even know we exist or care that we do. The only purpose nature seems to have for us is to reproduce and continue the species. But because we are evolved to the point where we can understand our reality and the finality of death, humans have developed religion and gods as a way to explain the universe and a way to pretend that we will go on forever, even after death. Of course, there has never been any evidence for any god in the history of mankind or for any afterlife. So what is someone's purpose? That is up to you. You decide what you want to do with your life. You can make the best of your life or you can waste it using drugs and booze to mask your poor choices and decisions. Some people rise above their bad circumstances and others squander the best opportunities. In the long run, you do what you do until you die.
There is no purpose without God. There is no good without God. Those are two basic facts. When you eliminate God from the equation, all you have left is constant consumption, constant pleasure seeking, constant self-absorption. After all, that's what Epicurus believed. When God is part of the equation, then it flips to sacrificing, selflessness, seeking eternal life. Trading this life for the next. Good can't exist without God. In a godless world, me stabbing you in the back is just atoms rearranging itself. So if you're looking for the ultimate purpose, seek out God. The journey alone will give you some sense of purpose....
I think the most frustrating thing with Ben is his ability to communicate very effectively. So even if he's wrong he can make it feel like you are the one who is wrong.
hes manipulative and hostile. I sense the belt sometimes
"Communicate very effectively" = "talk very fast and never shut up even when he's wrong". Although otherwise I agree.
I actually wanted to hear what he says to at least hear the arguments, so approached him with an open mind...but I couldn't bear the sound of his voice. To communicate ANYTHING effectively I'd have to get past that first!
I mean, he's a smart guy. Even if you disagree with a lot of what he says or you personally dislike him for honest/dishonest reasons, he knows how to make an argument.
What bothers me about him (I am definitely being hypocritical here, because I feel like everyone is guilty of this on some level), is his level of confidence that his reason/logic is sound about the topics he covers. For example, in this video he seems pretty confident he can debunk atheism in 15 minutes, yet Alex does a better job at explaining Ben's arguments than he does himself.
That is a common factor for many such people like Jordan Peterson, Zakir Naik and Sadhguru (I am Indian so these guys end up popping up a lot more). The thing is, like you said, their confident manner of speaking makes you consider that maybe this person is saying something that makes sense.
Moreover, when it comes to videos where the two of them "show SJWs" their place, one thing to take note is that in most of these videos, they go against college students who do not have as much confidence as he does. Moreover, there is also the factor of the crowd that is present that cheers on as they "dismantles the arguments", not only solidifying the power dynamic, but also either drowning the person asking the questions arguments or shatters their confidence and makes them anxious and whatnot.
Another classic example would be the entire Jordan Peterson Gender Wage Gap interview. Even though he claimed that he read studies and never gave us the sources, the fact that the interviewer was not able to rebut him brutally, got nervous and made strawman arguments makes it appear that he completely won the debate while Newman did have some good points, but she wasn't able to explain them well and rebutt him
On the other hand, just like Alex pointed out, everytime they have gone against people of similar confidence, they have chickened out, like Ben during the BBC Interview and Jordan when he was on stage against Matt Dillahunty in which he choked a lot and tried to confuse Matt because he was unable to actually answer the questions and ended up beating round the bush.
Hearing Ben's fast-talking, urgent and aggressive voice mixed over a tranquil piano piece induces more cognitive dissonance than any religios claim ever could.
HAHAHaha !! Well Said !
If you slow him down, he sounds super drunk.
Makes him much more bearable :)
@@hellomynamesninooo6017 if you slow him down he actually sounds like a normal human being.
He normally talks not just fast but like he learned to speak by watching videos on fast forward.
bjorsa M if I ever want to kill myself but I can't quite do it I am just going to listen to Ben Shapiro for five minutes and I'm pretty sure I'll be dead soon there after lol
I wouldn’t call Ben's voice aggressive. Maybe a premature boys one with some nerves
"Being a religious believer is a consistent struggle with logic" Can't argue with Ben on that (if he'd stopped there).
Logic of the universe*. If you're gonna dunk on someone, at least quote them correctly.
@@unamusedcaveman9235 that's the joke
He is indeed bang on there, that ought to be repeated on every atheist channel. You can't consistently be logical and be religious.
@@ziploc2000 Secular society is breaking down obvious realities left and right. I've seen more accusations of "wrong think" and blatant disregard for physical realities by secularists in the last 5 years than by religious people over the span of my whole life.
@@marcuscaballarius2159 for example?
Feser was one of my professors while I was studying in Pasadena. If you ever had him on I would definitely watch he’s great. I had him for 3 classes and every time, without fail, he would introduce himself and say “My name is Ed Feser, pronounced Phaser, like set phasers to stun. Or as I like to say it ‘set phasers to FUN!”
Such an awesome teacher.
That sounded so lame tho
It probably sounds cooler in person.
For the longest time the “fine-tuned universe” theory had me believing in a higher power, but I think that the best explanation for this is that if any part of the universe turned out differently, we would not be able to observe it. The only universe that can exist from our perspective is this one.
It wasn't that the universe was "finely tuned" to us, it was that we developed and evolved to be the most successful under the conditions of this universe.
@@bt3750 THIS! I don't know why this isn't obvious. Sure, if the gravitational constants had been even slightly different, THIS universe may not have existed. But some other one surely would have, and different forms of life could have potentially existed. In principle, those forms of life could have been more adaptable, more intelligent, stronger, etc.etc. It's a ridiculous argument that assumes complete knowledge of the conditions for the concept of life to exist and I'm so glad someone finally put this to words.
The Shapiro paradox: trying to figure out when he’s being disingenuous versus when he’s just not nearly as bright as he pretends to be.
What’s the difference?
Being an intentional piece of shit and just being a dumbass and also still a piece of shit
@@ThePostmanRUSA One is him being disingenous on purpose and one is him not doing it on purpose.
As far as I can see Benny is always being both
More so the latter.
The Dunning-Kruger effect
Ben: “Believing 2 + 2 = 4 is not evolutionarily beneficial.”
Me: “Ah, yes! Because a caveman who sees two lions approaching from the left and another two approaching from the right yet only takes enough friends and weapons to defeat three lions would have definitely survived and passed his genes to the next generation.”
Up Shapiro's ass... Bravo!
So as the lions approaches he leaves with his friends to fight them? Also what difference does people make vs fricking lions, does he round up 20 people vs 25, this analogy is horrendous.
@@theologicalintrospection The analogy works better with other examples. A group of people who learn to count how much food each person needs per certain amount of time can have a goal to collect towards, and not risk themselves striving for excess or risking falling short of enough food to feed everyone. A group of people who learn a system to count days and years will have a better understanding of seasons, and thus better be able to farm and grow crops, as they would be more able to accurately predict how long crops take to grow, how many days they have to grow them, when to grow them, and which crops can be grown in certain parts of the year. You could go on. Knowing even the most basic math is an evolutionary advantage.
@@Rose-bc3ll now that is a beautiful analagy
@@Rose-bc3ll it was never the premise I was opposing, would be foolish to do so imo, no just the ops analogy.
Alex I am becoming more impressed with your sincerity and adherence to rationality every time I watch one of your pods
I wonder if you could suggest a reading list for those of us interested in exploring your ideas in greater detail
I have watched your videos for years!! You have helped me tremendously get out of the rabbit hole. Thank you!
The "selling your house before it gets under water" should have been enough for everybody to never take this guy seriously.
sell it to the benevolent housing magnates who will buy underwater properties. Such as aquaman, namor and andrew ryan.
Has anybody checked to see if any of the loudest mouths about rising sea levels have invested in the new projected waterfront properties?
@@josephcoon5809 I would expect the rich would've... Ocean front properties still high value and good investment in the short term. And also cities in florida are building sea walls to prevent property damage. This is not a good indicator to the veracity of climate change. Check out poorer neighbourhoods in coastal cities they are the ones affected first, Or island nations third world countries like bangladesh. The oceans are rising whether you believe in climate change or not.
@@jonathangeorge787 “They are the ones affected first…”
Affected by what? No city has fallen into the ocean yet…
@@josephcoon5809- It's called flooding, and numerous cities have suffered serious inundations in recent years. If you haven't noticed, coastal areas around the world have been devastated during storms, and inland regions are also dealing with flooding. Yellowstone had flooding. So did Australia. Bangladesh has been hit since forever and now it's worse for them.
But you won't accept climate until an entire city is uninhabitable through flooding and storm damage--and maybe not even then. You have to be driven out of your home for that to happen.
"Facts don't care about your feelings"
"I don't feel comfy if I'm not god's special boi"
@Packe76 Not to mention that facts are not life forms with emotions. They are a bit of correct information that does not care about ANYTHING.
Yup, opinion has over rushed facts, but more and more people are noticing it at least, and may change for better. As far as we know we have only one life and one chance, people must stop wasting time worshiping imaginary friends and live freely
Too funny!!
religion may help you sleep better at night, while rationalism wants you to wake up
I always thought his use of your here was deliberately leaving room for his own feelings.
I think I adore the humour in the video even more than the arguments, and that's saying something. New subscriber here, thanks!
Alex has got the warm armchair and already had the beard, now he’s a real philosopher.
It's all about the chair and beard combo, truly
need an aesthetic mug beside him on the table there
All he needs now is a top hat and a monocle.
His beard needs to be a little bit longer and only then will he be, let's say, complete!
Needs an open fireplace and leatherette wingback chair.
I love the leap in logic from "Well every change has to come from something" to "therefore there's this very specific deity I believe in"
you would've think christians, specially influencial ones, and think in a way work better around or surpass this leap, but instead they double down.
@@dinamosflams I mean they don't need to think in a work around. That would assume that what they believe is evolving or changing at some rate, which it isn't. It just is what it is
Indeed. I was suprised Alex didn't mention this leap, too. That being said, there was something in the way Ben phrased his final step: he said something akin to 'And this is what we might call God'. He gave himself a slight bit of room there by not saying 'And this is the Abrahamic God of the Bible'. If we were to be very generous to Ben, we could even argue that simulation theory or other first clauses could still fit into this slighlty vague sentence of 'And this is what we might call God'.
Every river has a river maker according to the religious.
Not everything has to be intelligently designed.
Things can be derived from natural processes. Actually, the mind and intelligence is something that is derived from nature. To claim it is a prerequisite to start the very natural processes that created it seems nonsensical and shows the arrogance of the mind.
A watch is designed by a human brain but the human mind comes from a nature so the watch itself is still a natural phenomenon.
Eveeything in existence came from nothing .
NEVER STOP MAKING VIDEOS ALEX! You are a real one. 💯
This is an excellent video! I just love how calm you were when discussing this. also the cinema sins bit at 15:26 is Genuinely awesome.
Ben Shapiro is the epitome of the "I'm doing 1000 calculations per second and they're all wrong" meme
Keep worshiping logic and reason, you won’t find any answers.
@@Earthad23
You mean, blatantly wrong answers that you believe in on faith?
@@Conserpov What’s your myth? What do you worship? Logic and reason? Where did the universe come from? Why are you conscious? These things aren’t so obvious unless you’re an arrogant child who thinks his brain is better than all the other brains.
That made laugh so hard :D thanks man :D
@@Earthad23
_> What do you worship_
Psychologists call that "projecting".
No, I do not have imaginary friends nor do I worship anything. Adults don't do that.
_> Why are you conscious?_
Consciousness is no more than a function of the brain, like digestion is no more than a function of the stomach. All physiology and no magic whatsoever.
Grow up.
Reminds me of an old joke.
3 people are taken a kilometre away from from a perfect cake. The demon who's telling this joke says, "you may approach the cake by half the distance between you and the cake per hour".
The first is a mathematician who throws their hands in the air and declares it to be infinite, and therefore impossible.
The second is a philosopher who waggles their finger at the demon, declaring it to be Zeno's paradox, and impossible.
The third, an engineer, starts out in the journey. The other two shout their derision, "you'll never reach it". The engineer responds, "in less than half a day, I'll be close enough for all practical purposes".
That made me LOL, thanks 😄
I heard a very similar one, but widout the philosopher and a bit more sexist (it would have been a beautiful woman instead of the cake.
Good joke, but the first isn't a very good mathematician.
@@biggerdoofus wdym, from a mathematical point of view it would take an infinite amount of time to get to the cake, its just that in practise humans have these things called arms
@@llamahguy7229 I get that. What I mean is that there's a thing called "applied mathematics", as well as the issue of actually looking at the problem at hand rather than just blindly sticking it into a category. Even without the sloppiness that is attributed to engineers within the joke (which is itself actually valid math), the infinite amount of time solution doesn't make a lot of sense when you realize that both the cake and the people are 3d forms rather than points. In that sense, the engineer is actually a better mathematician than the mathematician, because the engineer understood what level of approximations is being used.
Alex, you are wonderful. I admire your humor, your honesty, your incisive argumentation, and your hilarious editing skills. Your admission that you wouldn’t want to use the multiverse theory simply to explain the fine-tuning argument is a perfect example of how forthcoming you are.
With all of this content being put up on youtube, it's so refreshing to see somebody actually provide a calm and reasonable retort
“Facts don’t care about your feelings” -a religious man
lol. Yeah. Reason despite quite robust, far from able to generate facts on that alone.
the ultimate irony
Yeah. I mean, I agree with that statement, but he’s hypocritical since religion mostly relies on feelings.
@@dammitiwantweed why yes, I believe that's the joke
@@domx7zero157 Elborate
I love when genetically modified skeptic and Alex make videos on similar topic, it's great to hear two takes on something.
And they’re both awesome!
Jon Perry from stated clearly and stated casually also made a video about this subject from a more scientific and biological perspective
They are the same person.
@@MurshidIslam Genetically modified skeptic and Alex aren't the same person. Alex is cosmic skeptic I don't know GMS's name.
@@allthingsconsideredaa Drew
A year later, you're channel is back on top!
"I have two sticks. I pick up two more sticks and put them next to my two sticks. I now have four sticks. Therefore God"
-Ben Sharpie
Ben Shapiro: Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Also Ben Shapiro: *subscribes to an ancient faith based belief system that relies solely on feelings
Explain the (corrected)statement "subscribes to ancient belief system that relies solely on feelings"?.....the correction is in relation to the fact every system is a system requiring faith. That labeling "faith based" is an attempt to smear its understanding implying people believe for no objective reasoning. I'll wait for an honest answer
@@cephas888 There is a level of accountability in ideas established via collective observation and demonstration. Superstitious ideas have no comparable measure of accountability. They rely solely on faith. That is a massive difference.
@@edgecrusherhalo Judaism is "how do we do things as jews". That can include superstition and belief in a Supreme Being, and also atheism. God-faith is not required to be a Jew.
"what is change" was expecting the vsauce music to kick in
I think he's more : My feelings don't t care about your facts. He just turns the table.
There's a very telling interview Ben gave some years ago, where he basically explains the process by which he arrives at his opinions: He starts with the conclusion that his religion leads him to, then works backwards to try and find evidence to support those conclusions. It's pretty disappointing that someone who champions himself as a warrior of logic and reason bascially finds his world views through a process I can best describe as antiscientific.
Edit: I think this th-cam.com/video/1rQ_mphb7HU/w-d-xo.html is the interview he gave to Dave Rubin. The part I referenced is at around 7 minutes 10 seconds.
It's called "post-rational justification" and most humans do it. It's something scientists are taught to recognize and avoid.
"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written:
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the learning of the learned I will set aside.
Where is the wise one?
Where is the scribe?
Where is the debater of this age?
Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
For since in the wisdom of God
the world did not come to know God through wisdom,
it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation
to save those who have faith.
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
but we proclaim Christ crucified,
a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom,
and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength"
1 COL 1:17-25
@@jaykanta4326 I probably would have called it a kind of confirmation bias but what you describe seems more accurate
@@yetanotherrandomyoutubecha4382 same thing, pretty much
Rather odd that you think that the metaphysical ground of being and existence is a subject amenable to science. The sciences, the fruit of western Christian culture predicated upon the revealed intelligibility of nature by monk scholars, are themselves approaches to reality grounded in Aristotelian realism and his rational foundation for final causality. Prof Ed Feser is a very good source for insight as is Prof Peter Kreeft. God literally is REASON. Metaphysics transcends the merely natural sciences wonderful as their insights are.
Your arguments are surprisingly well thought out. Would love if you two could do an in person debate!
Let me give you the best argument.
Theist: God exists because (premise, logic, logic, conclusion)
Atheist: you lost me, none of that matters. You think logic can show that something exists?
@@MugenTJI’m a theist but the thing is that there’s either a false premise or the premises don’t lead to the conclusion or may not have to do with it at all.
@@jotarokujo9587 in the case of proving god, I think they have the definition and logic down. That’s why they can’t see how something so “true” yet isn’t a reflection of reality.
Great video. I appreciate the clarity and calmness Alex brings to the topic.
Quick Correction: 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀. Because temperature is fundamentally a measure of a molecules motion, and the continuity of motion is limited by Planck's constant, measures of temperature are fundamentally discrete (at least according to the current model of physics). Therefore the cup of coffee wouldn't need to contain an infinity of potentially warmer or cooler cups of coffee.
I would be interested to know if there are other physical phenomenon which 𝗮𝗿𝗲 infinite and if that argument can be salvaged. Are there infinitely many configurations of matter maybe? Could someone who knows about quantum physics chime in here?
EDIT: To be clear, the fact that temperature is discontinuous means that temperature is not infinitely dense in the way Alex suggested. Temperature also does not extend infinitely.
Does this mean that temperature isn't linear and there isn't like a range that you can indefinetelly reduce it's size (as for example distance or space) but instead is separeted points? or am I interpreting it wrong?
Because if it isn't the case, couldn't you still separete the line between say 5 to 6 degrees an infinite amount of times and therefore have the temperature to possibly exist at any of those infinite spots?
What am I wrong about?
By definition, nothing manifest is or can be infinite; applying that mathematical formalism to physical actuality immediately forms a false analogy. The real numbers are uncountably infinite, but every atom in the universe can be put into a one-to-one relationship with the real numbers. As a finite set, even the power set of configurations or permutations of atoms in the universe would be countable.
But way too big to bother.
Couldn’t the temperature stretch infinitely upwards, which leads to a countable infinity?
You have no clue what you're talking about. It seems you're trying to argue "energy is discrete, hence temperature is too" when
1) Energy is not discrete.
2) Even if it were, that would not imply temperature is.
So, bound states have quantized energy levels. More accurately, a "bound state" is a stable point, but even that implies there is a whole region of stability around that point. I.e. even with "quantized" energy levels, energy is not discrete. The one exception is at zero temperature but... that doesn't happen.
Now, what is temperature? In statistical mechanics, you have entropy and energy terms:
S = sum p_state * ln(p_state) (entropy)
E = sum E_state * p_state (energy)
It turns out that entropy tends to always increase. If you assume S is maximized, then Lagrange multipliers gives you
p_state = e^(beta * E_state) / Z
for some constant Z (called the "partition function"). That term beta is called the "inverse-temperature" as 1/beta = T * k_b (where k_b is just the Boltzmann constant to go from natural units to Kelvin). I think inverse-temperature makes more sense than temperature; anyway, it measures how ordered your system is, and importantly .
So basically, temperature is distinct from energy, and *they are both continuous*. If the idea of high-energy but low-temperature is confusing you, then imagine forcing two magnets together so their north poles are touching. It has a lot of potential energy, as they're trying to push each other apart, but each of the electrons within are very ordered. However, if you "denatured" the magnet (e.g. by heating it up until the Ising model breaks down), you'd just have two lumps of metal. The electron spins would be random, so the temperature is higher, but the magnets no longer repulse each other, so the energy is lower.
@@jamescamacho3403 According to quantum mechanics energy is quantized and can only exist in discrete packets or levels. The very word Quantum means a discrete quantity of energy. This is different from the classical view of energy, which thought energy was continuous and could take on any value. This is Einstein's insight that led to his Nobel prize for the Photoelectric effect.
This is also what allows us to do spectroscopy and identify the makeup of stars.
Ben’s point, on the Big Bang, is basically: if things were different, they wouldn’t be the same. Pretty insightful Ben.
H😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 so true. Still he owns the Art of talking without saying anything. 😂😂und
I'm new to this channel and I was about to unsubscribe if he started praising Ben.
"Facts don't care about your feelings." Correct Ben, just like facts don't care about your beliefs.
Nothing is "factual" about atheism, so you can't act like Ben is engaging in hypocrisy with this statement. There are arguments on both sides which are formidable. Don't act like religion is non-factual; also, "belief" is not indicative of factuality. Beliefs can be both factual and non-factual, I can't believe you default "beliefs" to opposing factuality or actuality. The notion that "facts don't care about your beliefs" is asinine, since your "beliefs" could _actually_ be the case. In other words, "beliefs" could be factual, thereby making the facts not only concern your beliefs, but complement your beliefs.
@@allittakesisonebadday4957 Sure, beliefs COULD be factual, depending on the belief. But in Sharpio's case, and in many fundamental beliefs, his belief that marriage is defined by God for one man and one woman is not a fact. It's the fact that denying gay people the right to marriage is denying them equality under the law. Hence, facts don't care about his (and any other religions) beliefs.
@@loganray3503 How do you judge between right and wrong? Are you an atheist?
@@trustthetruth2779 My conscience. How actions affect others and repercussions from such actions. Experience from life. Using logic. Really all kinds of things.
@@loganray3503 Do you believe in an objective morality?
You know what I hate about listening to thought provoking philosophical concepts? That it just proves that all of my potential ideas are actually going to be unoriginal forever, and it frustrates me everytime
I think you’ve just accidentally pointed out something quite interesting about human psychology and learning whilst worrying you won’t have an original thought 😃
@@thomascobbett well, wdym? Can you elaborate?
I, as a religious person find these Videos very interesting and thought-provoking so please continue :)
I'm an atheist but good on you for being open minded not shit talking like most would watching this
Watch out everyone we got a real life “religious person” here!
@@jimreplicant Nothing wrong with that.
@@dyflin3246 The endless virtue signalling🤦♂️
@@jimreplicant ?
The fact that Ben thinks that the reason that people don't believe in god is because of personal pain shows how completely out of touch he is. He's the kind of person that doesn't listen to what other people say and consider it, he only listens to try to find something he can argue against.
Ben is a narcissist.
If anything, lots of people believe in God *because* of the emotional pain they have suffered.
Aww, thanks for the shoutout!
I know it sort of sucks when you see someone else just did a video on the same topic you chose but I actually love seeing multiple takes from different thinkers.
Who are you?
Your channel suggests you know about genetics and evolution.
How about origin of life? Are you well-educated in that?
@@20july1944 depends on what you mean by origin of life. Do chemical reactions between molecules that replicate qualify? I'm assuming you have an answer to your own question and I'm super excited to hear it. I'm sure it'll be good for a laugh at least.
@@grabka1984 No, I'm looking to someone with some familiarity if not expertise.
Are you familiar with the issue?
@@20july1944 Check out his other channel Jon Perry - Genetics & Evolution Stated Casually, there's a lots more info there. Or you could start by reading Nick Lane's book called Vital Question.
Ben Shapiro is a good example of what happens when you don’t pay attention in school
Your ability to talk about a literal cup of for about 20 minutes and not lose my interest is absolutely mind blowing. Your ability to dissect actually questions all the way to the very last detail is so refreshing and unique, keep it up.
As a computer scientist, I would like to say that the way Ben has interpreted Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (among other incompleteness theorems) is completely inaccurate and disingenuous, especially when he disregards the advancements since Gödel (such as Turing completeness for example). I would also like to applaud you because this is one of your best (if not the best) videos you've ever done. Very well put together. Congrats, and keep up the good work! ❤
computer scientists, rise up!
@@krypto-s-olus RISE! There are far more of us than people realise :) (Myself being one of yall! Hello brethren!)
@@staticinteger We rise
Yeah, Godel's incompleteness theorems (of which there are two, not one) primarily works over logical systems (with a particular emphasis on first-order logic), and what is possible to have proven based on these logical axioms and structures, such as the existence of the set of natural numbers. This is all very physical, and mechanical, and completely outside the realm of metaphysics that the religious folk like to extend towards. It feels as ridiculous as stating something like: "these set of equations are unsolvable, even though they are derivable, and therefore there must exist a god, because I cannot solve them, but I am sure someone can". It's bizarre. Like wot m8.
Everything that comes out of Ben's mouth is inaccurate and disingenuous. Like most apologists he opens his mouth and lie just spill out. It's all they're good for.
Ben's degrees are in political science and law. If we made a drinking game of all the subjects he touches on here where he attempts to speak as an expert, but has never professionally studied the topic, we would need someone with a law degree to get us out of jail and someone with a political science degree to spin the media coverage regarding it.
*Everything* is political, you know. So "of course" he's an expert of everything...
Though to be fair, many influential thinkers and speakers throughout human history have been more than capable of injecting novelty and progress in all manner of areas they didn't necessarily specialize in. I mean, Shapiro is a partisan hack, but this isn't an argument by itself, it's just an elitist thing to say. His arguments fall apart just fine of their own accord without pretending one has to be properly qualified to have an opinion on something
More importantly, he can be quoted as being "proud of not having learned anything in college".
Degrees in 2 useless subject which make dim people think they are smart.
@@theparagonal ha!
I’m high af and can’t stop laughing about Alex talking about his coffee 😂
You're so easy and enjoyable to listen to ❤😊 big up
Everytime Ben says "Let's say", a unicorn dies.
An angel drowns it
😂
Can confirm, I'm the angel
Since Unicorns don't exist as living animals, does this mean that Ben Shapiro never says "Let's say"?
@@rovsea-3761 No it means that he said it WAY too often.
Ah, the fine tuning argument. When the water in the puddle counts itself lucky that the pothole was just the right shape.
That’s ridiculous.
It’s more like the fact that evolution ever exists from a bunch of atoms bouncing around it the void.
The fact that there is qualia and a first person perspective. Is sentience a fundamental property of a universe made if inanimate objects? There’s no reason in a materialist universe for the lights to be on.
If emotions are possible, they must be a fundamental property of the universe. Apparently the universe can be happy, sad, angry, and horny.
Why would species evolve if there’s no universal intelligence to guide inanimate systems to do so? The only reason living systems are pulled toward becoming more and more complex is because God wants to know itself fully.
Actually my argument assumes current physics in our current universe before life started. I avoid some of the idiots arguments if I give them that to start. All I need
I'd say the universe is a bit more complex than a puddle. I've recently found Jesus Christ and am seeking to test the logic of my faith. If you have the time and desire I'd like to answer any questions you many have if I am able to. Your time would be much appreciated! God bless 🙏
@@Yacobsters What made you believe in Jesus Christ?
@@Yacobsters Where did you find him I bet his dad's pretty worried rn
The part related to potential infinite reminds me of Calculus. We tend to forget in mathematics that the derivatives that form the base of Calculus is derived from Limits. We find the instantaneous rate of change by having the distance between two points approach infinitely close to 0.
I think it's a really great sign of your integrity that what I got most out of this wasn't reinforcement of my beliefs, but just a deeper understanding of scientific and philosophical thought
As someone currently struggling to figure out their own beliefs and religion, I found your video super helpful. As someone raised Christian, I will admit, I was a bit surprised by how non-agressively and methodically you presented your arguments, but I'm certainly grateful for it. I think videos like these are very helpful.
The Jews really don't want non-ethnic Jews to join. You never see them street preaching and recruiting, for good reason. No Jews at the door unannounced as far as I have ever heard. The Hollywood type Jews are actually a religion newer than Christianity. Their Talmud was written in the 3rd century and has some disgustingly insulting things to say about Jesus. Written by scholars opining about their faith. I am a Christian and love the peace I have discovered. Stay away from Catholicism. It actually is not a Christian faith because they have aspects not allowed in the Bible and pray to Mary, who is not God. Praying is Godly worship, and to nobody but God.
Nurture, conformity, mental health issues, take those away and you take away religion, simple really
I spent an amount of time as agnostic, and I do appreciate the honest conjectures that come from the agnostic atheists.
Through history, philosophic ideas and science I have come to be a believer, however strictly from the Catholic perspective, as it includes the science behind the belief.
I enjoy the conversations that these videos create.
This is why on our interfaith podcast we include Christians, Islam and atheists.
It's rather fun to hold conversations, rather than merely argue and name call.
@@krujuice Where can I listen to your podcast?
Watch his debate withMohammed Hijab
What a class act of a channel!
Question: why would something require potential to remain the same? My understanding of potential is any possibility that a thing could be excluding what it currently is since we are talking about change. Something doesn't require an actualiser to not change so if we're talking about different potentials, something can't be considered a potential if it does not require an actualiser
I've suffered from oughtism all my life, thank you for helping me in my struggle to understand existence.
Underrated comment here everyone.
lol that's punny
I'm ought to give you props for that
Existentialism is a joke
I wonder how they translated Hume into other languages. I speak modern Hebew. There's no good word for "ought" and no word at all for "is" (no verb to be in present tense.)
My favorite response to the question of free will was by Dan Dennett. When asked if he believed in free will, his response: "I have no choice"
IVE GOTTA ASK my fellow Atheists: Do you have any idea that an Army is build right-now? A Theocracy isnt just wished-up by some 'random Extremist-Dudes' in 'some random Basements'. Watch the new video of
The New York Times "The Real Threat to Democracy" and at least the Third GOP-Video of "Some More News".,
if not all 3.
MAGA and ALSO Christian-Nationalists are literally on a Recruitment-Spree and planning Sabotage
that my fellow Leftists are unaware of and my fellow Atheists are unaware of. Maybe you understand why my i panick-coment trying to make People understand the Kent Hovind's of this world are in-FACT more ORGANIZED than People know.
@@masterofpuppetz5790 You are correct.
This reminds me of a conversation the Matt Dillahunty reported having had with a hard line five point Calvinist who admitted to not believing in free will. Matt asked why the Calvinist continued to evangelize, if people didn't have the capacity to change their beliefs. The Calvinist responded that he had no choice on the matter.
@Honest Citizen Pathetic, whiny fundie is your new name.
+Luke Cartner Shame on him! That's stolen from Hitchens.
My problem with much of the infinite regress talk, including all of the objections I’ve heard against the notion, is that we tend to talk about the notion as if we really understand what it entails. That what we imagine when we imagine an infinite regress corresponds in any way to what the actual thing might be. The most common way is to imagine the universe as a super long string upon which causal beads are threaded - eventually the string has to end and there must be an ultimate, capital B bead that accounts for the other baby beads. But why think this even comes close to capturing the complex nature of reality? For all we know, the universe just is Existence and Existence just is and cannot not be.
Not only that they talk like caveman (potential and actualize) while trying to sound smart as if we didn’t know that matters simply arrange different ways at different points in time. They have to babble to talk about something unknown instead of admitting: I don’t know!
super insightful. great video.
it's baffling how Ben Shapiro coined the catchphrase "facts don't care about your feelings" and then has to have a magic spell performed over his food before he's allowed to eat it.
And even more baffling how the same guy can talk about his choice to believe in religion and 'struggle with the logic of the universe' because he finds it more fulfilling. In other words he disregards the observable facts about the universe and chooses a religious view of the cosmos because it makes him FEEL better. But, Ben, facts don't care about your feelings, remember?
Not baffling at all.The spell you refer to is gratitude.I guess if you feel self entitled ,it would be baffling.
@@LarsPallesen Nah,his point is its not making him feel better,its more fulfilling.Knowing one is a meat puppet with no free will is far easier.No guilt for starters
@@daviddeida 🙄🙄🙄
"facts don't care about your feelings. they only care about *MY* feelings."
Ben: "Facts don't care about your feelings"
...
"They only care about mine"
Howdy, O'conner! I really appreciate how present both sides of the debate fairly. I think you and I can agree there are very intelligent people on both sides with vaild arguments. I have a question for you. You said you don't believe you don't have free will is possible. Why even argue for any side then? Why not rather physically alter our brain chemistry to change each others minds? Would there be any point in doing so? Anyways, I'm really curious with your response.
Brilliant. No other words for this. Thank you, Alex.
I also intensely took notes on Skydive Phil's 2nd video on the Kalam Cosmological Argument today, which was in response to William Lane Craig, whose response came from Phil's 1st video on the matter. As it happens, we simply do not have any more reason to assume an Uncaused First Cause than we do that the universe is infinite, and othe physicists and philosophers in the 2nd video made very astute points about the idea of subtracting a [set of infinity] from [infinity] as a logically consistent way to get a definitive answer, despite it still being [infinity], unlike trying merely to count back from [infinity] ad infinitum, which makes the mistake of assuming a starting point of [infinity]. In short, this "purely actual" God / Mind / Uncaused First Cause again assumes that time had a starting point: t = 0, whereas there are legitimate and mathematically consistent physical theories that posit the universe itself as infinite, and therefore the universe being "purely actual"; just because we see a chain of causal events which bring about change (actualisation) within the universe, to assume the universe itself is subject to the same chain of causal events is to make an assumption we cannot prove to be the case. Not sure if I've scribbled this down coherently, but in short, we're way more clueless than anyone realises! And whilst physics can provide workable models of how the universe may have come to be without the supernatural (still without solid proof, nevertheless), theism takes a leap (of faith) that because we haven't all the answers, God is the answer. It will be interesting to see if the 6-decades-long promise of a new fundamental scientific breakthrough occurs in our lifetimes and shakes things up.
As a student of maths, your analysis of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is pretty much spot on. It's about what can be proved, not about the truths themselves.
And what has that to do with Ben's quote from Gödel about Platonism and Alex on the incompleteness theorems?
@@TBOTSS What can we do?
-Join or Found a Union.
-Read-up on Class-Struggle.
-Make Movie-Nights with Codys Johnstons (and Second-Thoughts?) Videos as the Movies.
-Discuss the GOP and various other Stuff on Barbeques, maybe even
with Videos.
-Ask Slevin-Channel, a Guy whos literal Hobby is to; i kid you not;
give Watch-Suggests, to give you Cody-like Channels and/or Climate-Change-Coverage
and/or various-other-stuff.
-Maybe, if you have the money, buy some Neighbour-Kids Brilliant or Nebula.
-Meddle with School-Boards and EPA's!
@@slevinchannel7589 Go back on your meds - you are relapsing.
@@TBOTSS yeah wtf was that reply? Seriously.
You’ll always be the “most subscribed atheist TH-camr” in my heart, Alex! 🍺
On a serious note, is DarkMatter2525 actually the most subscribed? Or is there someone else I'm not aware of? AronRa's pretty underrated too, I might add.
Someone needs to help Alex make his pitch to new viewers. The line at 21:34 could have been read more like: "A less subscribed TH-cam channel could become the most subscribed channel (hint to those who appreciate what I am doing here)."
@@YokaiX Matt Dillahunty on the Atheist Experience is brilliant.
are we all forgetting the amazing atheist?
The free world only exists thanks to the bible that's a fact slavery was part of human history wasn't morally wrong back then there's more slaves now than any time in history outside the Christian world real slaves not modern day slaves also slave means Slavic white people.
If it wasn't for the bible the Romans would still be feeding people to lions cannibalism in Africa and the America's they were eating each other and cultures don't just stop wife burning in India when a husband died his usually younger wife was burned alive stopped by Christians as well as the international slave trader's all over the world stopped by Christians the British empire.
.
The evil in the world China committing genocide north Korea a slave nation both atheist USSR before they went back to Christianity mass genocide look at the new religons veganisum new Hinduism or infinite gender theory where gender is a feeling outside of biology like a spirit and biology is bigoted or blasphemy.
Or socialism killed more than any war also slavery and stealing not free.
The atheists in the west want to tell you what you can do eat and even think denying science as bigoted.
I'm a Christian because I believe God is more intelligent than any people who can't progress without guidance and will always lead to suffering and slavery.
The bible gave us free will it favoured the good but had to allow evil or evil people would have replaced it evil like we see all around us TODAY
I love that the potential of Alex‘ channel becoming more subscribed than Drew‘s became actual
@Alex O'Connor:
Descriptive: Party A has agreed to do certain things for party B if a set of conditions are met. This agreement constitutes on the part of party A an obligation, which did not exist before the parties entered into the agreement.
Prescriptive: Party A ought to do the agreed upon things if the agreed upon set of conditions are met, simply because the word ought pertains to obligation.
Hence solving the is-ought problem.
Something that always bugs me about the fine tuning argument is the misuse of probabilities. Probablities are a tool to make predictions when crucial information is missing. Once something happened the probability is meaningless, since there is no more uncertainty
The probability arguments are precisely based on what ~is~ on earth as opposed to what could be (i.e., the actual state of the rest of the known universe).
Well this depends on your probabilistic philosophy. The Bayesian would agree with you, the frequentist perhaps not so.
@@theflaggeddragon9472 And the infrequentist perhaps not so often.
Observations give you an estimate for the underlying process. If a coin lands on heads 20 times in a row, what's more likely, that it was just a coincidence, or that the coin is not a fair coin?
The same goes for the universe. If the universe exists, is it more likely that the "underlying process" was truly random, or that it was not random, e.g. it was created by a God?
@@MsJavaWolf
But we have no way of knowing what repeated coin flips would actually look like since we can’t observe other universes and we don’t know what actually determined the fundamental constants that are supposedly fine tuned.
For all we know, everything about how the universe formed was predetermined and it happens this way every time one is formed. It’s a pointless quandary to waste your time with imho, and opens you up to irrational thinking.
"For people like Ben, the only person you should be getting on your knees for is a more supernatural kind of daddy." I'M DEAD
Well, what's so strange about this?
You choose to bend your knee to the capitalists and implement their principles, values and everything they want from you like a slave, while believers chooses not to submit to any creature, and to submit to the One who created him, provided him, and bestowed upon him
@@SilumesiiLunda-pu1qh
The purpose of my comment is not to prove the existence of God, but rather the purpose is to prove that no creature deserves to be followed and worshiped, meaning that what atheists do is ignorance
@@user-re8bw2js6p - God enabled Capitalism because Capitalism made the USA truly GREAT - - among so many countless other reasons . . .
Capitalism is last on the list of "evil" economic systems.
As bad as Capitalism is, well ... Socialism and Communism, along with Marxism, are 100 times WORSE -
@@user-re8bw2js6pHave you even watched the video?
@@user-re8bw2js6p ah yes the famously anti capitalist religion. That never collected money from believers for luxury and power of few individuals. The famously anti capitalist mega church preachers. They're nothing like those capitalist atheists like .... Karl Marx?
I have you subscribed with the "ALL" icon hit, and Drew's with simply "Personalized" hit, and if more people move in this trend, we can balance the playing field...potentially.
Hey Alex, just wondering if you could shed some light on this for me (whether by a link to further reading or an explanation): 32:32 , here you just finished talking about how assuming potential is a real property runs into a problem with real infinities.
What is the problem with real infinities and why can’t an object have an infinite number of properties? if you allow the definition of a property to include an interaction with something else then everything has an infinite number of properties (I can think of an infinite number of possible matter + position in space combinations and thus every object that could interact with matter has an infinite number of properties).
I should say that I’m not actually convinced by the fact that something can’t come from nothing, because in quantum physics that does seem to happen relatively frequently (at least in the conventional sense).
I'll never NOT laugh about how sad it is that Benny struggles with the concept of WAP.
Hahaha... Same here
His poor, poor wife..
Please, hypothetically speaking, grab a bucket and a mop
The fact you act like that was not sarcasm is kinda sad.
@@danh.5998 where was the sarcasm? And do you know what sarcasm means?
I love that this was a legitimate response video, rather than a "lemme dunk on a famous dude" video. I also really appreciated how you took the arguments seriously, and even steelmanned the arguments when Ben didn't carry them through fully.
Can't speak for legitimacy, but this response says more about how little Alex actually understands Ben Shapiro, that it discredits the latter's points.
@@stormbytesI agree, can you elaborate on your point?
@@stormbytes Whether Alex understands Ben Shapiro is irrelevant. He's addressing Shapiro's arguments.
@@stormbytesi have the same criticism as the above comment, but i have a question. Who is the latter? Alex or ben?
whats 21:14 if he didnt dunk on a famous dude lol
I lost all confidence in arguments when I learned about quantum mechanics. The universe doesn’t need to make sense to be true.
Your content is legendary!
Hey man, I basically never comment on youtube, but I wanted to say that your intellectual rigor is *so* refreshing. Even if the articulacy is (and I'm not proud of feeling this way) sometimes over-dry for what is ostensibly entertainment, the fact that you phrase things in such a way that your arguments cannot be reasonably misunderstood is a delight to listen to.
Same , but this was worth making the exception
Agree!
Great video
Says the guy using the big words! :P
@@undead.rising lol. When in Rome...
I'll say this much, a year ago I was in the middle of a "faith crisis" as a JW and started watching Shapiro as I thought he had some fairly decent arguments... I also started watching you at the same time to be objective. Both you and Shapiro were able to help me reason that I was in a cult, while your logic defeated his. Plus I just can't stand his voice. Anyhow, thanks. Now to get out of this cult...
the word cult as a specific meaning, dont use it lighty
@@polpol2739 I wouldn't say I'm using it lightly. I've been an elder and seen the inner workings of the religion and it's 100% a cult. You don't realize it until you want to leave and then people threaten to make your life miserable just for expressing a doubt.
@@thedemysticist6730 I dont know where you were specificly or how you been treated, so I cant react on that but if i talk about christianity itself Jesus does not fit the conditions of a cult - a leader who did not ask anything matirial for himself, just wanted belief, claim to sacrifice himself so other could gain and told people to be very compassionate, loving and altroistic.
thats not a cult leader by defenition who usually focuses on personal gain.
@@polpol2739 Not saying Jesus was a cult per se, but Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult.
@@polpol2739 jw = Jehovah's witness
I hope I get an answer from you . I want to ask why can't the universe be a circle . Like when it ends it restarts from the same matter . And even though it is infinite ,because of the circular flow every thing will always exists at any moment .
Ben's turtle argument is turtles all the way down until there's a "special" turtle.
"My belief is comforting and fulfilling, so reality must be wrong."
Why would you need reality in the case of the former then?
@@camdencook9793 Some prefer to live in reality, regardless of comfort.
@@nathanmiller9918 The universe leaping out of the void, completely of it's own accord, then proceeding to build itself in to increasingly complex structures (again, completely of it's own accord) is not reality. It is modernist fantasy. You aren't more comfortable living in what you call reality, you're a coward who refuses to live in accordance with the will of God.
@@j.knight9335 Feel free to provide evidence for your imaginary friend. Everything that we observe is the product of time and natural processes.
@@j.knight9335 S really is hilarious. Things like Gravity, chemistry, and universal forces never affect anything without someone somewhere pushing a button. Lol. Gravity and chemistry require zero "accord."
Hey, Alex, thanks so much for the kind words about my channel! I started checking out your videos and really enjoyed them. You do great work over here!
How do you answer the argument from change besides these objections?
For someone who's second language is English, understanding this video is A level. My mind feels open 👐
I was having a sad and lonely evening. And I came across this video, and watched some of Ben Shapiro. My sadness and loneliness has been swept away by Ben. I havent laughed out loud for a long time.
fr! i went to sleep with a fever and woke up with my body stiff. on the way to the hospital, i fainted lmfao. now that i'm back home, feeling better, and resting, not allowed to do anything except lay in bed- i went on TH-cam and this is what i came across. feeling a lot better than the capsules they gave me
He has that ability on people…it’s his superpower.
@@euphoria.yunjin The development of organized hospitals in the Christian tradition took place over centuries and was shaped by various historical, cultural, and religious factors. It was not until the Middle Ages and the Renaissance that hospitals in Europe began to resemble the modern healthcare institutions we know today. The role of early Christians in providing care and charity to the sick and needy laid the foundation for the later development of the healthcare system in Christian-majority countries.
@@alexkane84 Are you saying that humor was or was not included in ancient Christian health care?
The best recommendation ever. Now let see if it works for me too.
"a more supernatural kind of daddy" pretty much covers everything i read on wattpad.
I would argue that there actually aren't infinite possible temperatures of a coffee (50.111111...°C), because on an atomic level (and you could go down to the quantum level, where we are finding numbers such the planck-lenght (the "smallest decernable" - perhaps smallest "physically possible" distance)) temperature is bascially describing with how much energy atoms are shacking/bumping into each other (Again, these energy-exchanges - really "packages" - are quantifiable if you go down to the quantum level). We could also practically count all the atoms in the coffee. So adding another decimal to the temperature might only make sense in a mathematical sense, but in physical reality - with a certain amount of atoms at a given instant with a certain amount of energy - there might not be a possible temperature between
50.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 °C
and
50.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111231 °C
because the smallest next temperature value is dictated by a single of the quadrillion atoms having +1 "Planck-energy" (smallest "meaningful"/"physically possible" package of energy) which in my thought-experiment would for example translate into an increase of 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000120°C, and could not be broken down any further.
Hence I believe there might not be infinite possible temperatures of the coffee.
I cry whenever I remember when I was younger and so easily influenced that I enjoyed watching he’s videos.
People like Shapiro and Peterson are the kind of people you can agreed with if you don't really pay attention to what they are saying.
Dont put peterson on the same level as shapiro
@@sososoawesome1 Peterson is slightly more interesting but he’s around the same level of reasoning.
God exists. If you reject him, you will have an abysmal eternity.
@@thirst4wisdom can you prove it?
@@thirst4wisdom fear base program is exceptionally I have been rejected better just cry all day being look pathetic to anyone begging them to believe God when in fact you don't even have any evidence to support this abysmal bullshit
This is a fear base programming I have been deconstructed it totally ruined my life bound to guilt and fear I almost felt like Christianity is the biggest mind trap acroos the globe they weaponize fear to destroy thorough logical analysis to anyone and inducing guilt by exerting them fear of eternal hell fire of fantasy I have been deconstructed it now I am free of it
Stop spreading bullshit it doesn't work as always
Ben is a smart person, despite the early montage in this video. When he misrepresents atheists and atheism, it's not done out of ignorance.
He's heard the actual atheist positions before on all his claims before, but he knows what his audience wants to hear him say about atheists.
That video was not meant to convince atheists that they are wrong to be atheists. It was meant to give his audience an endorphin release.
💯
He's a dishonest pos. He utters "facts don't care for your feelings" yet look at what he does..
But why would he knowingly withhold the truth and instead feed his audience what makes them feel good? Where is the good old offensive Ben?
@@FactStorm From what I can gather from watching Ben Shapiro, he seems to be the human equivalent of a knee jerk reaction. He more often uses whit than reason.
He's manipulative, but not smart
I am reading the book Biocentrism by Robert Lanza and really enjoying it ... I was wondering if you had read it and had a take on it?
The thing you did with the hand is the sum of 1/2^n as n goes to infinity, but equals 2, so it doesn't diverge but it converges
Your reasoning is getting better and stronger year after year. I find it inspiring to see you change and progress when others just dig in deeper.
“We’re being SILENCED! We’re being OPPRESSED” _Ben Shapiro roared into the microphone, speaking to an audience of millions on one of the most well funded media platforms in the world_
Sounds like every conservative ever. Except when THEY cancel someone…….
It's only because he built up an independent platform that he can do this. incidentally, I find Shapiro very annoying.
Though there are many groups that feel this way in the same position. Many of those people me and you would probably agree with on other points.
@@definitelynotcole like feminism, BLM, and the illuminati
@@maolsheachlannoceallaigh4772oh yeah no totally, he 100% built it by himself and it had nothing to do with the Koch brothers and their untold millions. No siree bob. Self-made.
46:19 till 46:38 This is why I have always liked the way you are as a speaker/thinker, right from the start. Also when you go into detail do not apologize, I love that shit, I been kicked out of 9 schools when I was young, had my parents killed by this insane sick slave life at age 16 so not unfamiliar with the street life as a white kid in the Netherlands
Yet it's so easy to understand you, especially when you come with those details I love it, keep up the real interest of what is as it is without ones ego blocking the view of what is, and oh man do some people get triggered by you, the same for me in my life.
Especially childish adults need to get over themselves and check their ego, see the deeper truth / reality of life, they forgot the brain functions best like an umbrella, but keeping it closed just makes you get wet and look stupid.
"this coffee is not cold. And it's also not a chicken"
Taken out of context these reflections are hilarious
Shapiro's depiction of religion is literally like trying to imagine, love and admire the father who left to buy milk before you were even born, just because someone told you need a father figure to grow up.
Ben's version of the Thomas Aquinas argument is essentially: "change is a mythical and therefore unexplainable phenomenon, therefore a mythical and unexplainable creator exists". But if we don't conceive all change as inherently "mythical and unexplainable" but rather, "complicated and/or currently unexplained", we don't have to rush to the premise that god exists.
Yes, the universe is wacky and there are lots of things we don't know yet. But there are lots of things in the universe we previously considered unexplainable, but now we have better theories for. Just because the universe is complicated, doesn't mean a mythical creator made it.
This is a straw man.
Neither Ben, Aquinas, or Aristotle claim that “change is a mystical, therefore, unexplainable process”.
@@peterglynn9924 fair enough. So what is Ben's take on this argument?
@@joshuaboelsche7684 He takes up the Aristotelian/Aquinas argument from Change.
CS goes through it in the video.
@@peterglynn9924 ok but what is it about "change" that necessitates the existence of god
@@joshuaboelsche7684 It’s postulative. It merely presents an argument for a prime mover, a “first cause”, so to speak. Then they proceed to other arguments to defend that this would be God. Aquinas is pretty technical, so it’s probably best to just go pick up Summa Contra Gentiles and learn his argument yourself.
About Gödel's incompleteness theorem, it applies to only some systems:
"Using his axiom system, Tarski was able to show that the first-order theory of Euclidean geometry is consistent, complete and decidable: every sentence in its language is either provable or disprovable from the axioms, and we have an algorithm which decides for any given sentence whether it is provable or not."
How do you explain/define randomness in the "B" theory of time? If we maintain that everything in the universe is consequential or random. Would it be like an endless ramification, like a tree?
I am a Muslim, and I admire the relatively impartial way you discuss these subjects. I feel that you are honest and actually seeking truth instead of trying to be right all the time.
You should watch his videos on Islam lol
@@kasdcomoa5567 ah yes islam the well known historical battlefield of logical non violent discourse
damn these comments responding to you are pretty disrespectful. i really appreciate your effort towards seeking the truth and even if i do not agree with your conclusion your search for the answers to reality is admirable :)
as for the Ben Luke, the whole point is to not generalise. historically islam may have not been about violent discourse, but that doesn't mean every Muslim is inherently violent. we should encourage anyone of any religion to seek truth, not vilify them simply for being raised in a different religious culture, and I appreciate Nasim for being someone to watch people who disagree with him and at least think about it
@@svucozixean1989 I'm sorry if you have me mistaken but I'm not making a generalisation of the people that follow Islam but Islam as an Idea I don't believe Muslims are inherently violent but I do belive the purest form of Islam is inherently violent so I don't believe in treating the topic with indifference
I apologise if it seemed as if I was making a point against Muslims as people as that isn't what I intended
@@Lukey111 fair enough, i also apologise for my misunderstanding and accusation then
As a mathematician I must say that watching "non-maths" people talking about mathematics cuses me an enormous pain (:
Werner Heisenberg: Heisenberg, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, was known for his spiritual and philosophical interests. He believed that science and religion could coexist and once said, "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you."
Max Planck: The founder of quantum theory, Max Planck, also had spiritual beliefs. He believed in a "divine being" and thought that science and religion complemented each other.
Albert Einstein: Einstein is famous for his contributions to physics, including the theory of relativity. While he didn't adhere to traditional religious beliefs, he often referred to a sense of awe and wonder at the universe, which he described as "cosmic religion." He rejected a personal God but believed in the existence of an impersonal, pantheistic deity.
It just doesn't add up
how about we look at the entirety of scientists instead of a hand picked selection?
@@notmelagain sure go ahead. Christianity was one of greatest contributors to modern science.
@@alexkane84Why? Is this the medieval argument?
"The only person you should ever get on your knees for is a more supernatural kind of daddy" 😅
Great appreciation on the video, although there are things I didn't realize or I disagree on.
1. I didn't realize why an infinite amount of actual things can't happen(I searched youtube and google and didn't find anything).
2. Sure we need to assume potential is real but I would argue that there isn't an infinite amount of potential in present. Potential is only determined by the now actual thing(which is finet) which is the potential it had which acurd and so on and so on and we need a cause(there is a god)... In everytime(past,present,future) everything have one potential. Because the room is 20c° the cup can only turn 20c°
Always love your work. From 2017 to now, it's great to hear well reasoned arguments
Hey it's that persona 4 guy