The argument from possible causes for a necessary being
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ส.ค. 2024
- More modal cosmological arguments:
"Why Is There Anything" (with Weaver), www.academia.e...
"From States of Affairs to a Necessary Being," joshualrasmusse...
"A New Argument for a Necessary Being," www.researchga...
Necessary Existence (with Pruss), www.amazon.com...
Chapter 4 in How Reason Can Lead to God, www.ivpress.co...
Deducing the actual from the possible (from 6a to 6): joshualrasmusse...
Take the survey: necessarybeing.com
More resources at joshualrasmuss...
Thanks for all your questions and comments below. All are valuable. Here I select a few to address.
..
Objection 1. Can you reverse this argument, like with the ontological argument, to give an opposite conclusion?
Excellent question! I considered discussing it in the video (as it comes up a lot).
My answer is that the reversal is okay. An advantage of an argument from possible causes is that it *allows for brute contingency* . It allows for a brute contingent cosmos. Even if our universe came into being from nothing, that's consistent with the actual existence of a necessarily existing thing with the *capacity* to be an ultimate source of contingent things. And it's consistent with every step in the modal cosmological argument.
Incidentally, you can build upon this result to argue against a universe coming from nothing. In my dialogue book with Felipe Leon, I suggest a Sherlock Holmes principle, where if an available explanation actually exists, and no other explanation is possible, then the available explanation is (probably) correct. The modal cosmological argument provides an available explanation of contingent things.
In any case, ruling out brute contingency is not required for there to be a necessarily existent thing.
Objection 2 (related). The argument only works if there is an explanation for all contingent things/types, but contingency is brute.
Reply. See above.
Objection 3. There could be a world without a necessary thing -- because such a world is not contradictory or inconsistent. So nothing has necessary existence, for if something had necessary existence, there couldn't be a world without a necessary thing.
Reply. Another important objection. I discussed this concern with Richard Swinburne in a keynote talk at the APA in 2018. Two fruits came out of that discussion.
First, there are principles about propositions (including ones Richard was -- at least initially -- inclined to accept) that entail the necessary existence of something. See, e.g., joshualrasmussen.com/articles/existence.pdf.
Second, to show that some world is logically possible, it is not enough to show there is no *internal* contradiction. For example, there is no internal contradiction in denying Waring's prime number conjecture. But that doesn't mean that this conjecture doesn't actually follow from the basic principles of number (e.g., Peano's Axioms). Lines of entailment can be out of view. Just as one might not see a pathway around a mountain, one might not see a line of entailment to a contradiction, even if there is one.
Keep in mind that a proposition counts as (externally) inconsistent if it contradicts *any* principle of reason, whether about numbers, shapes, sets, or any other types or natures. The light of reason itself has not uncovered every line of entailment or every principle of reason. (We must not mistake the lines that *have* been discovered for all the lines that *could* be discovered.)
Moreover, attempts to show that the absence of a necessary being is logically possible fall prey to the problem of a reverse argument. I discuss that problem in this published response to Swinburne: www.researchgate.net/publication/314289312_Could_God_Fail_to_Exist. For additional points, see chapter 9 of Necessary Existence (with Pruss): www.amazon.com/dp/B07B53FCP2/
In fact, one could argue that the very principles used in the modal cosmological argument collectively show that there couldn't have been nothing. In other words, one could argue that the possibility of nothing is implicitly contradictory, since it contradicts these independent principles.
A final note: technically, this objection doesn’t target any premise in the modal cosmological argument. Instead, it is an independent argument against the conclusion. So now we have two arguments, one for a necessary thing, and one against. They can’t be both sound, but they can both hold weight in your mind. The question, then, is which argument holds more weight?
The best person to answer that question for you, is you. :)
Btw, for more pathways to a necessary thing, see www.necessarybeing.com.
I hope these notes serve you in your inquiries. Whether you agree with my arguments or not, I hope you come away feeling empowered and curious. If you think an argument fails by the light of reason within you, follow that light. I offer the arguments as a tool for your own exploration.
Best wishes.
We invite you to Islam. Research the name of Allah "As Shomad" = necessary being.
Fantastic as always Josh, can't wait for "How Reason Can Lead To God" to come out!
Fantastic argument. The background music killed me though. Way too hype, epic, and distracting!
Or necessary existences. The infinite regress fallacy assumes at least one necessary existence. There is nothing in the argument to stop us from having more than one necessary existence.
You know how in the Modal Ontological Argument you can just reverse the first premise to say “possibly God does not exist”? Can we not do that here with this argument: “For any contingent type, something might not have an explanation of its instantiation”.
Also, I always wondered what explains why the PSR is true. If it’s possible (metaphysically) that everything has an explanation then what explains the PSR itself? I’m not sure if I’m making sense but any response would be appreciated!
3 is consistent with your parody principle, so I don't think this is an objection to the argument
>> If it’s possible (metaphysically) that everything has an explanation then what explains the PSR itself?
I pinned a reply.
Could it be said that the weak psr you provided entails the strong psr (as shown by oppy), so could be rejected by the atheist? Or am i missing something? Also, what is a 'type' and how do we know that being contingent is a contingent type? Although I do like the idea of a type in the sense that this argument does not rely on the need for a BCCF to be explained, rather just the type of contingent existence.
Thanks for the great video
if the reason is part of the everything thoughts are part of that too so could we really know what is outside the everything ? can we describe it ? or can we even think about that ?
I mean...is it possible, that because we don't know what the mechanics of how God going against the law of non-contradiction would look/operate,mean we can necessarily posit that He CANT go against the law of Non-contradiction?(even with what seems to be a good argument for it)
Respectfully,it seems unreasonable to me,the same logic could be applied to miracles, we don't know the mechanics of how Jesus multiplied 5 loaves and 2 fish yet we could believe it occured.
So,
Is It an inability on God's end to not be able to go against the law of non-contradiction? 🙏🏽
If there were truly nothing there there would be nothing to stop nothing g from shifting into something.
Rats...I thought I invented the idea but here you posted it a year ago. Indeed, if the theist is claiming God is the ontological basis of everything including the very foundation of logic and math, and if it is logic that informs them that something cannot come from nothing then if there is not god, there is no logical reason that something cannot come from nothing.
Mind blown
Nice job Dr Rasmussen.
If there are truly contingent types then 3 is false .. that is, nothing could explain their contingency.Contingency is brute.
Or more simply a brute fact. Existence is a brute fact. No voodoo necessary
It seems the two schools of thought are 1) that the basis of all existence has to be greater than anything that is contingent on it. Nothing can form that is of better design than that which created it. I think the ontological argument is based on that. the alternative is 2) that everything works from the bottom up that complexity and design can come from regular but simple processes working on simple materials to ultimately achieve what we see around us. I think those who tend toward the first school of thought fail to comprehend what, exactly, it is they're imagining when they call it god. They have to imagine an eternal (ie timeless) person which/who would seem to have to think thoughts with no time in which to think.
"Could this answer be true?"
Maybe. But that implies that your answer could also be false. How do you tell the difference? Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your answer is _actually_ true? :)
"Why isn't everything completely blank? ... Why is there something, rather than nothing?"
How do you define "something"? What method would we use to distinguish "something" from "not something" (i.e. "nothing")? Is it a reliable method?
Josh, I'm sure that we both agree that something exists. But you're talking about a situation which is far, _far_ outside of our experience. Indeed, I'm not sure that I _can_ imagine "nothing." What would "nothing" even be _like?_
And if we're talking about "something" existing, what does it even mean to "exist"? Can something "exist" in the absence of time? If something exists for no time, then it doesn't exist, right? But according to cosmologists, time began (in _this_ universe, at least) roughly about 13.7 billion years ago. Before then (and yes, I know that "before" is a meaningless concept here), could anything have actually "existed"?
Obviously, our very words aren't designed for this kind of discussion. A clever wordsmith can always play word games, but... is there a good reason to think that any of this is _true?_ For that, I'd need evidence - *good* evidence. You leap from "possible" to "actual," but that is a _huge_ leap. In fact, I'd even question "possible." I'm not sure I have reason to think it's even _possible_ (though I can't demonstrate that it isn't).
"There cannot be nothing, because some part of reality cannot not be."
You call this the "classic answer." But I wonder if it's not a false dichotomy? (You _know_ I'm not a philosopher, Josh, so maybe my terminology isn't correct. I'm just pointing out my own thinking here.)
To begin with, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" seems to imply that "nothing" would be the default. Obviously, we don't know that. But equally, we don't know that "something" is a necessity, either.
We know that something exists (by any reasonable definition of "something"). But that's it. We can't assume that we need an explanation for that, let alone what that explanation might be. If "something" has always "existed," then maybe something has always existed. Period. (Of course, "always" is a meaningless word in the absence of time, too, huh?)
Maybe "some part of reality cannot not be" is complete nonsense. Maybe "nothing" was _also_ an option - so to speak - but just wasn't the case. We don't know _any_ of this, do we? Aren't you just desperately trying to get to the god you were taught to believe as a child? Is there any other reason to think this is actually real?
Getting to your actual argument:
"X is a contingent type."
OK. So, is the cosmos a contingent type? We simply don't know, right? Any way you look at it, _we simply don't know._
"For any contingent type, something could explain its instantiation."
But that doesn't _have_ to be true, right? Again, I'm not a philosopher, and I'm not familiar with philosophical arguments. But as you point out immediately afterwards, the idea that _some_ contingent types can be explained, doesn't mean that they can _all_ be explained.
Now, if the cosmos ("everything that exists") _is_ a contingent type, then anything that "could explain its instantiation" would have to be something that does not exist. If it existed, it would be part of the cosmos. And as you point out later, that would be circular.
So, _if_ the cosmos is actually contingent (which we don't know), that's one of those things which can't have an explanation. Follow me? Or are we back to the problem with using words (like "something" and "exist") which weren't designed for a discussion like this?
"Contingent things couldn't explain C's instantiation"
That's only circular if you're talking about the _same_ contingent thing, isn't it? Your wording there doesn't make that clear. A contingent thing can't explain itself (though remember that it doesn't need an explanation at all, necessarily). A contingent thing _could_ explain another contingent thing's instantiation. There's nothing circular about that.
"5. Something could be non-contingent. (3,4)"
I don't think I agree with that, Josh. You say that you get there from 3 ("Something could explain C's instantiation") and 4 ("Contingent things couldn't explain C's instantiation"). How? You admitted from the very beginning that contingent things don't _have_ to have an explanation.
No, I don't see how you can logically get to 5 from the rest of this. I'm not claiming that something _couldn't_ be non-contingent, necessarily. I'm just saying that you haven't demonstrated that it _could_ be.
Obviously, the rest of the argument fails from that point (from my point of view, anyway). But I want to get to your final step:
"7. Something is necessary."
No. Even if I _had_ agreed as far as step 5 - and I don't - this is a step too far. All along, you've talked about what "could be." But now, you're leaping to what _"is."_ And that's an enormous leap - a monstrous leap!
I looked at your web page, though I'm not sure I understand it. As far as I can tell, you could 'prove' that _anything_ exists using that argument. Well, as I say, maybe I just don't understand it.
Hmm,... on second thought, doesn't something have to be "necessary" before you can use that argument, anyway? If that's true, you can't use that argument to get to 7. You can't use it to prove that something is actually "necessary" (as you tried to do in 7) , because something has to be "necessary" _before_ you can use that argument.
Again, 7 is a monstrously huge leap. Still, note that it's not a leap to a god, let alone a _particular_ god. Even you can't make _that_ big of a leap. (And clearly, that's the whole point of this argument, isn't it? It seems obvious to me that you _started_ with the conclusion you wanted to get to and then worked hard to get there. That's not a path to the truth.)
But again, I think that your argument failed before then, Josh. Basically, I think it failed at 5 _and_ at 7. But then, what do _I_ know? I'm just wasting time waiting for Part Two of your "evidence challenge." :)
Why do you claim not to know but then give your whole argument and list all your thoughts? You really gotta get deeper into philosophy my guy.
1. Being cannot be explained by something more fundamental, it is the most fundamental.
2. If something exists for no time it doesn't exist? No, unless it's something that only can exist in time.
3. "But as you point out immediately afterwards, the idea that some contingent types can be explained, doesn't mean that they can all be explained." yeah that's literally the central point of the argument.
*skip down a bit*
4. He didn't say one contingent thing causing another, he's lumping all contingent reality together.
5. No it proves a necessary being exists on the basis that it's possible for all contingent reality (not "the cosmos") to have a cause. To go beyond there you need to understand modal logic which you don't...
But yea, spend the time to do the digging and the thinking, but realize that if you're self-admittingly unable to understand a philosophical argument for God, then you're not able to conclude by any means that it's more likely false than true. I'm assuming you're a theist, because otherwise this would just be a case of handwaving away opposing beliefs.
@@journeyfiveonesix
_Why do you claim not to know but then give your whole argument and list all your thoughts?_
I've had a long-running email conversation with Josh, and I was just waiting for his next email. (He had a three-part "Evidence Challenge" to try out on me. I posted this nine months ago, and I'm still waiting for Part Two. Heh, heh.) But I'm always interested in hearing what other people have to say.
_You really gotta get deeper into philosophy my guy._
Thanks, but that's probably not going to happen - especially not at _my_ age! :) But I prefer evidence over argument. I mean, even if an argument sounded convincing to _me,_ so what? I admit that I don't know much about philosophy.
And even Josh admits that most philosophers disagree with him. Most philosophers tend to be atheists: philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl So even if a philosophical argument could convince _me_ (and I haven't heard one that sounded convincing yet), what does it tell you when it doesn't convince the experts?
Of course, it's easy to be convinced of something that you already believe. And the overwhelming majority of religious people worldwide just believe what they were taught to believe as children. That doesn't seem to be a very good reason to me. That's why I ask for *evidence.*
However, since theists never seem to have any good evidence (rarely will they even _try_ to present evidence), I'm still willing to listen to arguments. But when your philosophical arguments don't even convince _philosophers,_ why should I take them that seriously? After all, I'm not particularly interested in philosophy in the first place, and my time isn't infinite.
_1. Being cannot be explained by something more fundamental_
What does that even mean? And what does it have to do with my comments above? Sorry, but you lost me. As I say, I'm not a philosopher, so you might have to dumb it down a bit. :)
Something exists. We all agree about that. But that's as far as we can go, isn't it? You can _claim_ that "something cannot not be," but why should I believe that claim? Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. How could we know? It's not as though we could have any evidence backing it up.
I've heard theists ask, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" That seems to imply that "nothing" _is_ possible. And no, they seem to have no good reason to think that, either. But I don't see how we can reliably make that determination one way _or_ the other.
_2. If something exists for no time it doesn't exist? No, unless it's something that only can exist in time._
My point was that our very language implies time. That's because it evolved over time. We've never known the absence of time. How do I even _imagine_ the absence of time, let alone talk about it?
For example, if I try to talk about what might have existed before the Big Bang, I immediately run into the problem that "before" has no meaning in the absence of time. And there are lots and lots of words like that. As I noted above, a clever person can always play word games with this stuff, but is any of it _more_ than just word games?
_3. ... yeah that's literally the central point of the argument._
Great! That's helpful to know, because these kinds of arguments tend to lose me almost immediately. Heh, heh.
_4. He didn't say one contingent thing causing another, he's lumping all contingent reality together._
OK, thanks. I missed that, the first time.
With that correction, I might have to disagree long before we get to this point, then. He says that being contingent is a contingent type. Is that true? That seems circular to me.
I was OK with "something could explain C's instantiation" when I thought he meant that "C" was an example of a contingent thing. It wouldn't _have_ to exist, and there may or may not be something that could explain it. That's not saying much.
But apparently, he's taking everything that's contingent and then assuming that contingency _itself_ is contingent? I think I'll need some evidence of that. Why should we just assume that this is true?
_5. No it proves a necessary being exists on the basis that it's possible for all contingent reality (not "the cosmos") to have a cause. To go beyond there you need to understand modal logic which you don't..._
Well, that's certainly convenient, isn't it? "Trust me, it works"? No, I don't think so. :)
Seriously, I've heard modal cosmological arguments before. I've also heard them demolished before. Now, I'm admittedly no expert. Heck, I'm not even an _amateur!_ Heh, heh. (I'm serious, though. I'm no philosopher.) But when you can't even convince other philosophers, I'm not sure why _I_ should buy these arguments.
Honestly, if _this_ is all theists have, then they have nothing at all. It's just a bunch of word games. And the whole _point_ is nearly always to get to whatever god they were taught to believe as children.
In other words, they start with the conclusion they want to reach, and then desperately try to get there. The fact that they can convince _themselves_ that they've gotten there isn't too surprising. Indeed, it's pretty much what we'd expect, no matter _where_ they were trying to go, don't you agree?
But they can't seem to convince anyone else - and not just me (I'm sure there's plenty _I_ don't understand about this), but the experts in this particular field of study. So what does that tell you?
_if you're self-admittingly unable to understand a philosophical argument for God, then you're not able to conclude by any means that it's more likely false than true._
Maybe. But I don't _have_ to conclude that. After all, I'm not saying that it _is_ false. I'm just saying that theists haven't made their case.
If you don't convince me, then I just remain an atheist (an agnostic atheist, to be precise). I don't claim to know that you're wrong, but if you want me to believe in a god - any god, let alone a particular one - I'm going to need some good reason to believe that.
Absent a good reason (typically, that means good evidence, but... maybe not necessarily?), I can't believe it - _can't,_ not won't.
_I'm assuming you're a theist, because otherwise this would just be a case of handwaving away opposing beliefs._
Handwaving? I'm not a theist, which is why I _don't_ engage in handwaving. Indeed, I explained exactly _why_ this isn't convincing to me.
And listening to those opposing beliefs - taking them seriously enough to engage with theists - is exactly what we _should_ be doing, isn't it? Would it be more valid if we just ignored everything theists said? (I don't know. If you're a theist, maybe you _do_ think that? Certainly, theists rarely seem to want to talk with people who disagree with them. Josh has been a rare exception, in that respect.)
Admittedly, I'm not sure that a philosophical argument would be convincing anyway, given that none of them have apparently convinced the majority of professional philosophers (not even a _majority,_ let alone a consensus, which is what I'd require in science).
Certainly, I've heard lots of theist arguments which seem to be flat-out wrong, even in my limited experience with such things. (Usually, they rely on premises which they can't demonstrate to be true and on vague words which have more than one meaning.)
But I'm sure it's possible to fool _me_ with a clever argument. That wouldn't be a high bar to cross, I'd think - higher than any theist has been able to cross, but not _that_ high. That's why I tend to ask for evidence. Evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking.
Josh is really the only philosopher I talk to. Typically, I ask Christians (typically, though I talk with Muslims, too, on occasion) for *one piece of good evidence* that their god actually exists or *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible (or Quran) actually happened.
Note that the argument here wouldn't demonstrate a particular god - or even a vaguely theistic kind of god, in general - even if it _were_ valid. (At best, it might get to deism, but even that would be contingent on the argument working, which I don't think it does.)
Thanks for the reply. I still find these discussions interesting, even if I haven't been convinced by them.
@@Bill_Garthright I recommend reading these articles and the book called "The Divine Reality" by Greek Philosopher and Convert to Islam Hamza Tzortzis.
www.hamzatzortzis.com/the-prophetic-truth-why-muhammad-is-gods-final-messenger/
www.hamzatzortzis.com/gods-testimony-the-divine-authorship-of-the-quran/
This is a concise logical step-by-step document: docs.google.com/document/d/1pGJqYnLZNGFE1hOA_sZGNQMklVAymRRYWdfhI-u9VP8/edit
few more really good articles:
spiritualperception.org/fitrah-the-primordial-nature-of-man/
yaqeeninstitute.org/series/proofs-of-prophethood/
yaqeeninstitute.org/mohammad-elshinawy/the-inimitable-quran-the-revelation-to-prophet-muhammad/
renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/everything-other-than-god-is-unreal
www.slife.info/lifes-basic-questions/sacred-texts/117-islamic-holy-books/the-holy-quran/1467-arguments-for-the-divine-authorship-of-the-qur---an-1.html
www.aboutatheism.net/
Heres some Playlists: th-cam.com/channels/CYiQf6i1fVUdONCTVLedUQ.htmlplaylists
th-cam.com/play/PLQxK8hziLFW9OrP-9VVCYQdP1Tyd2jWuW.html
Here are a couple good twitter threads: twitter.com/MidbellSoul/status/1112961198461456389?s=20
twitter.com/TheExAtheist/status/1206349527185330176?s=20
twitter.com/enigmaoftruth1/status/1264224189151694854?s=20
twitter.com/enigmaoftruth1/status/1234493877266063361?s=20
twitter.com/enigmaoftruth1/status/1170492607757205504?s=20
twitter.com/Igbo_Muslim/status/996948832020725761?s=20
twitter.com/Ash55319407/status/1212425501404516352?s=20
twitter.com/Ash55319407/status/1267650212278960130?s=20
twitter.com/Gumnaam_Rehnuma/status/1266287115031072768?s=20
@@Fatima_33
Thanks. But _first,_ I'm going to need *one piece of good evidence,* just so I can take you seriously.
Religious apologists always want to send me somewhere else where someone else can preach at me. But I've got more than enough books to read and more than enough videos to watch, already. If you've got *one* piece of good evidence that your god actually exists, I'll be impressed. If not,... well, you clearly have nothing at all.
If your god is actually real, *one piece of good evidence* shouldn't be such a high hurdle for religious believers, should it?
This is proof of Vishnu
Did you delete and repost your comment?
@@wishyouthebest9222 Yes, it is one of the features of TH-cam.
@@Simon.the.Likeable not a secret. Why did you do that?
@@wishyouthebest9222 Because I could.
@@Simon.the.Likeable that's sad. A pretty cowardly move. Guess you're not interested in challenging opinions. You've made your own God in your image.
Delete this too. That's how you roll, right?!
Take care
God made us so he could have a relationship with us on this planet because out of more planets than the sands of the earth that exists in this universe this was the one planet that he wanted a relationship with. And he wants praise because if you don't praise him he will smite you down. Especially likes praises on Sundays because when he rests he enjoys church music.
I'm sorry, but again arguments are not evidence. People need evidence for the "necessary being" that you are asserting. Think about it, it could be a "necessary natural" cause.
Could you demonstrate how this statement is true? But remember don't present any arguments to justify it because remember arguments don't count as evidence (and you'd falsify your claim).
@@Repentee I should actually have asked the question instead of making a statement. Should read: "How could you demonstrate that a "necessary being" is just as likely, or more likely than a "necessary natural" cause? In other words, what process would you use to figure this out?
@@ronaldmendonca6636 appreciate the correction to your previous comment. Causal arguments aren't really in my wheel house (to be honest I'm a lil thick in the head in that regard), but I do find them interesting, at least what I can understand. To be honest I'm a wanna be philosopher. I understand a lil bit, but some things are just over my head. lol.
Seeing as your question is metaphysical in nature it would seem that one would have pursue philosophical argumentation (inferences to best explanation, deductive proofs, inductive proofs etc.) as the gentleman in this vid is attempting to do.
From what I understand natural causes are contingent (eg. not necessary), so the term necessary natural cause doesn't really compute.
@@Repentee Well, if you're thick, then I'm a brick. Lol. It's just that I don't think one can posit a supernatural cause, much less a PERSONAL supernatural cause. As far as I know, the supernatural has never been proven. Unless you know something I don't.
@@ronaldmendonca6636 Haha. I appreciate your honesty. When you say it hasn't been proven what do you mean? I can think of a number of arguments that prove that God exists, but I dont suspect that atheist would be persuaded by them unless of course God is using the arguments as a means to save.
Do you mean you haven't found them persuasive? Or do you mean there hasn't been a collective consensus about God's existence? (By consensus I mean the majority of the scientific community/ it seems that what you mean).
this is totally worthless. "explanations" and "contibgency" is only concepts that are valid for our mental model of the world. Ut has nothing to do with the real world. you assume that there are a (single) necessary thing but that is what you want to show... so the reasoning is circular.
let me just throw this so called notion right out of the window by asking one question: How would you know that this "anchor of everything" isn't dependent on something else, much bigger and complex than itself and so on and so forth?
That's what I thought. Take that L and accept Atheism or at the very least agnosticism into your lives and stop killing each other over imaginary creatures.
Dude did you even understood the argument??
We have many valid arguments for the existence of God, my favorites are the contingency argument and the moral argument.
@@kenandzafic3948 contingency "argument" is special pleading. Morality is always subjective, even if there was something like a god, it's moral opinions are necessarily subjective and your judgement about those opinions would also be subjective. The claim of an objective moral is necessarily a subjective judgement.
@@LogicAndReason2025 The contingency argument is not a special request, but we will proceed gradually, do you agree that everything must have an explanation, that nothing can exist without an explanation that can be either an external cause, or a necessary existence.
You say that morality is only subjective, but you have presented absolutely no evidence to support it, morality is certainly not subjective, do you really think that there is nothing wrong with rape, or killing babies, or slavery?
Also, God, unlike everything else, offers a basis for objective moral values and duties, his desires are the basis for objective moral values, and objective moral duties are expressed through his commands, so I have a basis for being moral, but you don't.
@@kenandzafic3948 Here we go with the fallacy whack-a-mole.
It is called special pleading (x is impossible except when x is possible.)
Existence needs no explanation. It is just a brute fact. It exists necessarily and always has. Theists claim the same, but add unnecessary elements and personality.
Your moral examples are merely a shared opinion.
By what standard do you judge them as wrong? How did you judge the old writings I assume you are using? If your god told you, directly how would you judge her?
Keep in mind that there is no way to determine if this imaginary god does not prefer everything you think is bad or wrong.
Now watch carefully as the apologists don't actually address the problem with their reasoning, but attack a straw man. Wait for it.....
Is incredible think that you have a PhD, and all you are doing is to make more appealing some old theistic arguments. Which, as few mentioned it. Are not good enough. Since are just conjectures for the possibility of an intelligent designer. Not proof, but simple guesses. What also doesn't even specify which of the thousands of gods out there are we talking about. Clearly you think on the Christian God, but how do you know is not Baal? Or Vishnu? Just to mention some.
Maybe this argument is not valid, but your criticisms are terrible, because there are many valid arguments, say the Kalam cosmological argument, and the point of these arguments is not to prove a religious God, so this was just a strawman.
@@kenandzafic3948 am sorry if you cannot understand that, just because the Kalam argument says it, must be truth.
So, made god? How do you know has to be the god from the Jews and not the gnostic one, Yaldabaoth?
You and your circular arguments lol
@@ivansilva8746 Man, the point of the argument is to prove the existence of God, not religion, this is one of the worst objections to Kalam, also how did you conclude that I am religious, Kalam proves the existence of a timeless, extraterrestrial, immaterial, immutable and very powerful creator with free will .
@@kenandzafic3948 the point of the argument is to keep holding on to the possibility of a god. Is simply keep entertaining to such idea. Believers will keep clinging to a possibility, no matter where this is. Another dimension, reality, in the sewer. It doesn't matter. Is irrelevant if was created or not if this "being" don't want to have a real relationship with its creation. And even if I entertain your desire for a God. Who is this? Why should I care? How is that relevant to my life, right now? Other than "morals"
Go check out, animism and the idea of skyfather. That will answer some of your answers on the idea rewarding superstition.
Hail Satan!
@@ivansilva8746
All this rambling of yours only proves the point because you obviously don't attack any of the premises so you knowingly or unknowingly accept what Kalam proves, the existence of a timeless, extra-spatial, immaterial, immutable, supremely powerful being with libertarian free will.