Glad you like it! I could definitely see myself making longer videos down the line, but in the near future I'm probably going to keep to the 5-10 minute format.
What's the difference between a cult and a religion? In a cult, there's someone at the top who knows it's all bs. In a religion, that person has died long time ago.
If you're convinced that the existence of God can't be shown from reason, I would recommend checking out some of the arguments covered on this channel.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl A simple question for you: Animals want to live their lives just like You do. You thank God for giving life to you & also thank God for giving life to animals for you to take their lives & eat them. Don't you see how they've tricked you to believe in an imaginary God by fooling you to arrogantly ignoring your hypocrisy & narcissism??? No offense, just asking.
You cant say that "being" comes from the fact that something exists and then go on to say that a human has more being than a rock because it can move. Rocks and humans exist the same amount in the universe. "Good" and "Truth" also are not transcendentals because they exist as human made concepts to analyze our own actions and ideas. We measure "truth" by the accuracy of a statement and "good" as being what ultimately causes the least pain. I would not in 1000 years look at a asteroid floating through space and say that it is good or true. Things that do not directly affect humanity cannot be labeled as good and things that are not an an idea expressed as an analysis of the real world cannot be labeled as true (or untrue). And I would not say that goodness and truth are the default for things that they can be applied to. I don't think that a deadly virus is good simply because it exists. Even if we were to consider these ideas like "good" and "truth" to be transcendentals, we would most likely not need god as an objective standard to measure them against. I propose that the "objective standard" for good is an action that causes more positive effects for all organisms than negative effects. The way we measure these effects is through pain. I can fully determine that an action is good if I see that it causes more happiness in people than pain. These measurements for good are not connected to god whatsoever instead are determined by chemical signals in our body. For determining good our gut reactions like empathy (derived from us evolving in groups) is sufficient. Summary: I disagree that the transcendentalism argument proves gods existence but I applaud the effort :D Seriously tho though it seems like you've put a lot of thought into your beliefs which I love Im just trying to introduce new arguments.
"I propose that the 'objective standard' for good is an action that causes more positive effects for all organisms than negative effects" So... do you not use hand sanitizer? That kills millions of bacteria, so is it morally evil?
Thanks for your well-thought out and well-articulated comment, I really appreciate it. I think I disagree that rocks and humans exist to the same amount. Existence comes in degrees - two things can both exist, but one exists more than the other. A dog with four legs, for example, exists more than a dog which (tragically) only has three legs, because the second dog is less what a dog is supposed to be. I also think I disagree with your definitions of "truth" and "goodness." To take goodness first, I disagree that a thing is "good" inasmuch as it doesn't cause humans pain - I would say instead that something is good to the extent that it fulfills its nature as the kind of thing it is. A "good asteroid" is one that most perfectly embodies what an asteroid is. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to define "truth" the same way - a thing is a "true" example of that thing to the extent that it embodies what that thing is. Truth and goodness, then, are just "being" looked at under different lenses.
It's not clear to me what exactly you mean by "truth" here. Is truth simply a subjective attitude we have towards the "accuracy" of things? What does truth consist in, according to this account of truth? Traditionally, truth has been viewed as a property of propositions (or sentence tokens) or thoughts. There are things which can possess truth (truth bearers), and things that make those other things true (truth makers). Those might be facts, states of affairs, etc. And these two things are related by some sort of relation (correspondence, representation, whatever). If you think thoughts are the primary or only truth bearers, a serious problem about necessarily true propositions arises. It's also not clear what it means for someone to believe the same truth if truth simply consists in thoughts - no one shares the same thoughts, we share the content (propositions) of our thoughts, but our thoughts are our thoughts. If truth is an actual property of things, you need to offer an account of it. You need to offer an account of properties in general.
One of your arguments is self defeating. If some particular action improves the quality of life for everyone, there are two potential attitudes we can take towards this action (not counting a suspension of belief). We can describe it either as good or bad. But either good has a referent external to the action, or it simply is defined in reference to the action. If it's the latter, we can simply define anything as good. Goodness becomes a vacuous concept. If it's the former, goodness is a (moral) property that is instantiated by certain particulars. But then "goodness" is an actual property that needs to be accounted for. What are the things or objects that can be plausible candidates for properties that can be multiply instantiated in various particulars? Universals/Forms.
Sure, I think it would be correct in my understanding to say that truth and goodness are "properties" of a thing. I don't see how this is a contradiction in the argument; it seems instead to be exactly what the argument is using as a starting point. If goodness and truth are properties, they need an objective standard - Goodness Itself and Truth Itself, and these things must ultimately be one thing, God.
@@Thomas-Cahill - Unproven premises. - Equivocation of the word "exist". - Breaking the law of conservation of energy. - Making the unproven assumption that something non-physical, whatever that is, can exist autonomously. - Making the assumption that something can exist outside of space and time (hence my 2nd comment). This Argument from Degrees of Being is exceptionally specious. "Adjectives exist therefore god".
@@lewis72 For what it's worth, this video was intended as a summary, not a complete explanation of the topic. There's more that goes into each step of the argument than I went over - it's not necessarily that the "premises" are "unproven," just that I didn't take the time to explicate the proofs for the premises. I would be interested to know where you see equivocation and a breaking of the law of conservation of energy in Aquinas' Fourth Way. As for the last two points, I don't think Aquinas can be accused of "assuming" that immaterial, atemporal being exists, since the whole point of the proof is to show that an immaterial, atemporal being does exist. As for assuming that immaterial, atemporal being "can" exist, Aquinas' doesn't have to proof that this kind of existence is possible - it is the person making the positive claim that it is impossible for immaterial, atemporal being to exist who has the burden of proof.
Your explanation of being leads to some real problems. Your saying the smarter you are the more being you have (humans have more being than dogs). What about a person in a coma? Do they now have just as much being as a plant and not a human, would be ok just let them die because it would be like pulling a weed? This also means that a fetus as way less being than anybody born. Being is just existence, you have the same amount of being as the rock, because can you exist more than the rock? Answer is no, you and the rock have the exact amount of being.
Thanks for your questions. Let's start with the man in a coma question. I think this analogy will help answer it. Think of a dog which has tragically lost one of its legs. This three-legged dog, unfortunately, has less being then a four-legged dog - it's missing one leg worth of being. And because I believe goodness and being to be interchangeable, I would say that the dog is less good because of it. This obviously isn't a moral failing on the dog's part, just a physical one, but it's a failing nevertheless. The same goes with someone in a coma or crippled in any other way. The man who can't exercise his rational faculty has a little less being than a man who can, just as a man who is (very tragically) missing a limb has one less limb worth of being. The only difference between the one-legged dog and the one-legged man, in my opinion, is that the man - even the injured man - has infinite dignity in virtue of his infinite potential (I think that it's possible to prove from philosophy that man has an eternal soul). For that reason, any kind of loss of physical being in a man is insignificant compared to the far more massive amount of spiritual being he has. The same would go with a human fetus, newborn, toddler, etc. Even though these human beings, because of their age, can't yet exercise their rational faculties fully, they're still human beings with eternal souls a massive amounts of spiritual being, and therefore very high on the hierarchy of being.
In your video you say you have more being (goodness) than the dog because you can do more, like think and grasp immaterial concepts. So a fetus can't think or grasp immaterial concepts, we know great apes can also think and grasp immaterial concepts, like counting. So the ape has more being than the fetus? Anyway you shake it fetuses are on the bottom of the goodness barrel with every other human out there. You throw in spiritual being? What is that?
@@hasone1848 A human fetus is the kind of creature that can think and grasp immaterial concepts, even though it won't exercise that function for a few years. An ape isn't that kind of creature ("counting" in the sense of recognizing one group to have more things in it than another one isn't thinking or grasping immaterial concepts, it's all instinctive).
@@Thomas-Cahill The entire time the human fetus is a fetus, it can not grasp immaterial concepts plus any reactions they have to touch is all instinctive (unless you have research that shows different) you say they wont exercise this for a few years, but in less than a year the fetus is no longer a fetus. The brain and nervous systems in humans and animals work the same, so how can you say that humans are not using their brains by pure instinct? It seems like you are saying that the human brain is some how different than a chimpanzee's or orangutang's brain, how can you demonstrate this?
Keep going ! This seems to be a new channel and I love it already !
Very interesting 😮
This channel is great, keep it up!
Just a question, do you plan to make longer videos?
Glad you like it! I could definitely see myself making longer videos down the line, but in the near future I'm probably going to keep to the 5-10 minute format.
@@Thomas-Cahill Okay 👍
Neato!
What's the difference between a cult and a religion? In a cult, there's someone at the top who knows it's all bs. In a religion, that person has died long time ago.
If you're convinced that the existence of God can't be shown from reason, I would recommend checking out some of the arguments covered on this channel.
Theism is not a religion. Theism is a belief that the proposition "God exists" is true. That's it.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl
True !
@@Jimmy-iy9pl A simple question for you: Animals want to live their lives just like You do. You thank God for giving life to you & also thank God for giving life to animals for you to take their lives & eat them. Don't you see how they've tricked you to believe in an imaginary God by fooling you to arrogantly ignoring your hypocrisy & narcissism??? No offense, just asking.
You cant say that "being" comes from the fact that something exists and then go on to say that a human has more being than a rock because it can move. Rocks and humans exist the same amount in the universe. "Good" and "Truth" also are not transcendentals because they exist as human made concepts to analyze our own actions and ideas. We measure "truth" by the accuracy of a statement and "good" as being what ultimately causes the least pain. I would not in 1000 years look at a asteroid floating through space and say that it is good or true. Things that do not directly affect humanity cannot be labeled as good and things that are not an an idea expressed as an analysis of the real world cannot be labeled as true (or untrue). And I would not say that goodness and truth are the default for things that they can be applied to. I don't think that a deadly virus is good simply because it exists.
Even if we were to consider these ideas like "good" and "truth" to be transcendentals, we would most likely not need god as an objective standard to measure them against. I propose that the "objective standard" for good is an action that causes more positive effects for all organisms than negative effects. The way we measure these effects is through pain. I can fully determine that an action is good if I see that it causes more happiness in people than pain. These measurements for good are not connected to god whatsoever instead are determined by chemical signals in our body. For determining good our gut reactions like empathy (derived from us evolving in groups) is sufficient.
Summary: I disagree that the transcendentalism argument proves gods existence but I applaud the effort :D
Seriously tho though it seems like you've put a lot of thought into your beliefs which I love Im just trying to introduce new arguments.
"I propose that the 'objective standard' for good is an action that causes more positive effects for all organisms than negative effects"
So... do you not use hand sanitizer? That kills millions of bacteria, so is it morally evil?
Thanks for your well-thought out and well-articulated comment, I really appreciate it.
I think I disagree that rocks and humans exist to the same amount. Existence comes in degrees - two things can both exist, but one exists more than the other. A dog with four legs, for example, exists more than a dog which (tragically) only has three legs, because the second dog is less what a dog is supposed to be.
I also think I disagree with your definitions of "truth" and "goodness." To take goodness first, I disagree that a thing is "good" inasmuch as it doesn't cause humans pain - I would say instead that something is good to the extent that it fulfills its nature as the kind of thing it is. A "good asteroid" is one that most perfectly embodies what an asteroid is. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to define "truth" the same way - a thing is a "true" example of that thing to the extent that it embodies what that thing is. Truth and goodness, then, are just "being" looked at under different lenses.
It's not clear to me what exactly you mean by "truth" here. Is truth simply a subjective attitude we have towards the "accuracy" of things? What does truth consist in, according to this account of truth? Traditionally, truth has been viewed as a property of propositions (or sentence tokens) or thoughts. There are things which can possess truth (truth bearers), and things that make those other things true (truth makers). Those might be facts, states of affairs, etc. And these two things are related by some sort of relation (correspondence, representation, whatever).
If you think thoughts are the primary or only truth bearers, a serious problem about necessarily true propositions arises. It's also not clear what it means for someone to believe the same truth if truth simply consists in thoughts - no one shares the same thoughts, we share the content (propositions) of our thoughts, but our thoughts are our thoughts.
If truth is an actual property of things, you need to offer an account of it. You need to offer an account of properties in general.
One of your arguments is self defeating. If some particular action improves the quality of life for everyone, there are two potential attitudes we can take towards this action (not counting a suspension of belief). We can describe it either as good or bad. But either good has a referent external to the action, or it simply is defined in reference to the action. If it's the latter, we can simply define anything as good. Goodness becomes a vacuous concept. If it's the former, goodness is a (moral) property that is instantiated by certain particulars. But then "goodness" is an actual property that needs to be accounted for. What are the things or objects that can be plausible candidates for properties that can be multiply instantiated in various particulars? Universals/Forms.
Sure, I think it would be correct in my understanding to say that truth and goodness are "properties" of a thing. I don't see how this is a contradiction in the argument; it seems instead to be exactly what the argument is using as a starting point. If goodness and truth are properties, they need an objective standard - Goodness Itself and Truth Itself, and these things must ultimately be one thing, God.
Aquinas' arguments for God are about as convincing as someone wearing a bedsheet pretending to be a ghost.
This 4th one is especially dumb.
How so?
@@Thomas-Cahill
- Unproven premises.
- Equivocation of the word "exist".
- Breaking the law of conservation of energy.
- Making the unproven assumption that something non-physical, whatever that is, can exist autonomously.
- Making the assumption that something can exist outside of space and time (hence my 2nd comment).
This Argument from Degrees of Being is exceptionally specious. "Adjectives exist therefore god".
@@lewis72 For what it's worth, this video was intended as a summary, not a complete explanation of the topic. There's more that goes into each step of the argument than I went over - it's not necessarily that the "premises" are "unproven," just that I didn't take the time to explicate the proofs for the premises.
I would be interested to know where you see equivocation and a breaking of the law of conservation of energy in Aquinas' Fourth Way.
As for the last two points, I don't think Aquinas can be accused of "assuming" that immaterial, atemporal being exists, since the whole point of the proof is to show that an immaterial, atemporal being does exist.
As for assuming that immaterial, atemporal being "can" exist, Aquinas' doesn't have to proof that this kind of existence is possible - it is the person making the positive claim that it is impossible for immaterial, atemporal being to exist who has the burden of proof.
Your explanation of being leads to some real problems. Your saying the smarter you are the more being you have (humans have more being than dogs). What about a person in a coma? Do they now have just as much being as a plant and not a human, would be ok just let them die because it would be like pulling a weed? This also means that a fetus as way less being than anybody born. Being is just existence, you have the same amount of being as the rock, because can you exist more than the rock? Answer is no, you and the rock have the exact amount of being.
Thanks for your questions.
Let's start with the man in a coma question. I think this analogy will help answer it. Think of a dog which has tragically lost one of its legs. This three-legged dog, unfortunately, has less being then a four-legged dog - it's missing one leg worth of being. And because I believe goodness and being to be interchangeable, I would say that the dog is less good because of it. This obviously isn't a moral failing on the dog's part, just a physical one, but it's a failing nevertheless.
The same goes with someone in a coma or crippled in any other way. The man who can't exercise his rational faculty has a little less being than a man who can, just as a man who is (very tragically) missing a limb has one less limb worth of being. The only difference between the one-legged dog and the one-legged man, in my opinion, is that the man - even the injured man - has infinite dignity in virtue of his infinite potential (I think that it's possible to prove from philosophy that man has an eternal soul). For that reason, any kind of loss of physical being in a man is insignificant compared to the far more massive amount of spiritual being he has.
The same would go with a human fetus, newborn, toddler, etc. Even though these human beings, because of their age, can't yet exercise their rational faculties fully, they're still human beings with eternal souls a massive amounts of spiritual being, and therefore very high on the hierarchy of being.
In your video you say you have more being (goodness) than the dog because you can do more, like think and grasp immaterial concepts. So a fetus can't think or grasp immaterial concepts, we know great apes can also think and grasp immaterial concepts, like counting. So the ape has more being than the fetus? Anyway you shake it fetuses are on the bottom of the goodness barrel with every other human out there. You throw in spiritual being? What is that?
@@hasone1848 A human fetus is the kind of creature that can think and grasp immaterial concepts, even though it won't exercise that function for a few years. An ape isn't that kind of creature ("counting" in the sense of recognizing one group to have more things in it than another one isn't thinking or grasping immaterial concepts, it's all instinctive).
@@Thomas-Cahill The entire time the human fetus is a fetus, it can not grasp immaterial concepts plus any reactions they have to touch is all instinctive (unless you have research that shows different) you say they wont exercise this for a few years, but in less than a year the fetus is no longer a fetus. The brain and nervous systems in humans and animals work the same, so how can you say that humans are not using their brains by pure instinct? It seems like you are saying that the human brain is some how different than a chimpanzee's or orangutang's brain, how can you demonstrate this?