The argument for God from Reason • Cosmic Skeptic vs Max Baker-Hytch
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ม.ค. 2020
- Can we make sense of our rational capabilities on an atheist naturalist worldview?
Alex O’Connor of the Cosmic Skeptic channel debates Christian philosopher Max Baker-Hytch on the argument for God from reason, which was popularised by CS Lewis in his book Miracles.
For Cosmic Skeptic
/ alexjoconnor
For Max Baker-Hytch
www.wycliffe.ox.ac.uk/people/...
Get the weekly Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
Subscribe to the Unbelievable? newsletter to receive the free e-book ‘In Conversation With...’ www.premier.org.uk/Unbelievab...
Support the show and receive all the videos sessions from Unbelievable? USA 2019 resources.premier.org.uk/supp...
All shades of blue in one episode, unbelievable.
Unbelievable?
Ahaaaaa
Our boi looks so smart in that jacket
Max Baker: Agrees to debate Alex
Me: *So you've chosen ... death*
He’s so cute. Is that creepy to say?
Yes. Yes, he does...
@@MenchieExtrakt its only creepy if you make it creepy. Nothing wrong with a compliment!
Idolizing personalities
What a lovely bunch of chaps from Oxford. All they needed to make this conversation better was a hot cuppa tea and some scones.
If you have two sticks, you can make a cross.
If you have three sticks you can make a triangle
If you have four sticks, you can make a quadrilateral, perhaps a square or a rectangle.
But they are still just sticks. What's going on ? Apollo !
Mind blown ;) ! lol
@Daniel Paulson Man this guy just accused you to be possessed by the spirit of satan, arguing with him it's like playing chess with a pigeon
@@corywiedenbeck1562
We’re just trying to help you.
An amazing episode, dealing with such difficult and fundamental questions. Thank you very much for bringing this out into the world. Lovely discussion truly.
People think it daily. its to much in and we could use some thing more above.
I met Max in real life, he’s a really nice guy :)
Max has recently on twitter made lies about ravi concerning lori Thomson. Sending apologies to her when she was the offender not ravi. Someone need to speak up!!!
Ravi did horrible things to multiple women. The truth hurts. But it’s a truth we must acknowledge.
That was a conversation that definitely deserves to have a Part 2. Thank you
But not really.
2000 years and still nothing....
Funny how natural phenomena are much faster and better explained than "supernatural" ones...
@@WilbertLek I agree with you on the supernatural matter, but disagree with you on the value of a second discussion taking place.
@@Craig_Humphries In which way you think we need a second part ? Honest question by the way.
To me this was an amazing "biting around the bush" excursion by the theist, with no resemblance of any substance in his argument.
Tiago Scherer I think there might be a misunderstanding. It’s not that think another discussion is needed on this topic. All I mean to say, is that when it comes to discussions between believers and non believers - I’d rather listen to another discussion like this, where two people can express their views without one side trying to intentionally misrepresent their opponent’s position to score cheap points.
@@Craig_Humphries I get it now mate, thanks for the clarification and yes, I agree with you.
Alex looking fresh boi 😎
Anybody could debate forever without hitting the core issue. Bring it to the basic question. What were there in the cosmos at the beginning were hydrogen, helium, tritium and dust. If there were no outside source, how life and consciousness emmerged? If naturalist want to argue then let them prove it to do experiment how life and consciousness came about from non living elements, and how they came to have emotions and intentions?
Alex is always a fabulous guest. I can listen to him for hours.
So you can
This is the classic argument from incredulity.
I can't believe three sticks ccould form a triangle
Therefore an intelligent being did it, but how can we explain the intelligent being ?
Well, at that point, I give up. I've come to the end of my reasoning process.
Exactly. Even when he talks about the probabilistic approach his only argument to assign a low probability to the natural gradual process is his incredulity...
I had that problem too. My dad called it brain lazy. It’s more simple than we give it credit for, and more complicated than we think. I’m very sorry you have a stopper there. It’s beautiful and poetic. Someone made everything, He cares about what we do with what we get, therefore consequences. It’s hard to see some of the things as being necessary or even beneficial from our very limited minds and very limited perspectives. We don’t tend to try to think about, even, other people. We’re mean, we’re selfish, we’re callous, and fragile. So, when we’re mean and selfish and callous, we’re also taking advantage of other fragile people. If only God would have come up with a way for us to be drawn out of ourselves... like horror, guilt, sympathy, empathy, love, etc...
Did you seriously not get that his comment was sarcasm? I mean I know that not all religious people are stupid, but you're not helping that case.
Eldritch Knowledge As you can only make ad hominem attacks, I’m not worried about my intellect.
I was being playful. Though you didn’t notice the puns, I won’t bust your jaw with insults.
I guess it’s time to examine my motive now.
@@junelledembroski9183 Haaaaa..... The professional victim role playing of the "gods-believer"....
"As you can only make ad hominem attacks,..."
If the doctor tells you you have cancer, is that an ad hominem attack?.....
Another great talk- love Justin and the way he moderates
It’s always refreshing when a moderator doesn’t pretend to be non biased and is transparent but also highly respectful
The whole point of a moderator is to actually not obviously take a side and let the debaters make their case. Alex was essentially arguing against two people.
Divine Shadow no it’s to moderate the ppl involved when necessary. They can have a view. Also, Alex can take them both it’s really no issue.
Wow, felt like an endless ramble by this Max guy...
I felt bad for thinking the same thing.... For the first 20 minutes. This guy doesn't need a clock, he needs a calendar.
@Sandcastle • Such an issue for me. You should be able to very clearly breakdown your own ideas and perspective, in a simple manner, with an easy-to-understand presentation. A lot of what he said was jumbled and felt only partially developed.
@Sandcastle •: I wonder if he was trying to save face, after having been convinced that his own argument was wrong, but not wanting to admit it. Of course, on probability theory, I'd say it's slightly more likely that he was just struggling to think clearly about certain aspects of it, and struggling with incredulity. But Both explanations strike me as plausible. :)
"There is nothing true or false about two atoms bumping into each other." This may be correct, in a sense, but it does not take away our ability to determine whether those atoms bumping into each other produced a thought outcome that aligned successfully with external reality. Judgements of truth and falsehood are almost always contextual. Suppose I think I can fly. Suppose the etiology of this thought is observable. The processes leading to the thought are therefore 'true' in the literal sense that they physically exist. However, the outcome of the thought if put into practice will show that it does not align with objective reality. I think this is what most people mean by using rationality to determine what is true and false. In this example, I am defining truth as whether the thought will align with reality. That simple.
At the end of 1970s, there was a nation-wide discussion about how to judge a claim to be true or false in China. That's when Mao's era had just come to an end. During Mao's era, everything that Mao said was considered a truth. The new people in power felt they could not break away from Maoist policies without doing some philosophical work. They either started the big discussion or allowed it to happen. Three years later, most people involved in the discussion agreed that "praxis is the sole criterion for judging truths," which was then officially affirmed by the Party. Ask any educated person who experienced that era in China, she or he would remember that significant discussion.
The conclusion of the discussion is really nothing new to Marxists and the Chinese Communist Party is supposed to follow Marxism. Yet, the majority of the party members had taken Mao's words as God's words, which is really anti-Marxist. Anyway, the discussion popularized this idea that a truth must be able to stand the test of relevant praxis. (Praxis is the bridge between the subjective world and the objective world. It brings the two worlds together so we can see whether they align well with each other.)
but it does not take away our ability to determine whether those atoms bumping into each other produced a thought outcome that aligned successfully with external reality.
The issue made in the debate however is that these two things which are not true or false, give rise to truth and falsehoods. Whilst Max did not say it was logically impossible, he said that it is just seemingly far less probabilistic for atoms swerving around in the void to give us the ability to know objective reality, particularly when evolution entails that what "lasts" is what has survived, and thus whilst evolution is not designed for survival, by definition we can on average say that what we have evolved to has been synonymous with what has helped us to survive, and there is no inherit connection between survivability and objectivity on the scale to which we see ourselves investigating the world, with maths, metaphysics, quantum physics, first person subjective perspective and so on.
@@michaeldonohue8870 I am not sure if it is true that first person perspective does not help us to survive at all. I think such a perspective has something to do with our will to live. When people lose their will to live, we say they have a suicidal tendency and they have a better chance to end their lives prematurely.
Even if the perspective doesn't contribute to our survival in any fashion, it can still survive the natural selection process. Not all our features are deemed to be "useful," which is often used as an evidence to show that we are a result of evolution rather than logical design.
When we design something, we usually have clear purposes, still, such a fact doesn't prevent the end product from serving other purposes. Evolution doesn't have any purpose. It's a natural process. Anything goes as long as it can survive. Why do we have a problem with things that are not immediately helpful to our survival?
@@michaeldonohue8870 I have difficulty understanding how one can say a process is less probabilistic than a process that is entirely unknown.
That wasn't the point, it was about intentionality. Atoms in the void should be like pool balls bouncing around, they don't seem to possess any aboutness.
I really enjoy this sort of discussion style as opposed to more aggressive tactics by other sorts of guests. This IS a conversation!
@Joy Bradford Yes...civil and full of REAL content!
I agree, and the title is clickbait. There was no argument. I was curious when they were going to disagree, and have civil discourse. I also think that O'Connor isn't the most suitable defender for Naturalism.
@Joy Bradford, that's the thing; are there no other Naturalism defenders? I'm not very familiar with it, however I wouldn't associate Atheism with Naturalism so easily. Some Atheists are Buddhists, for example.
@@rustlingbushes7678 It's not meant to be clickbait. Argument here is used in the traditional Aristotelian meaning, as in "arguments for God's existence", e.g. the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, etc.
Yes, enjoy the irenic discussion. Mind you, I was jumping off my chair with excitement when Tom Holland demolished A.C. Grayling in a recent encounter on Unbelievable.
Just because one worldview does not have a faultless explanation for any given concept, gives *zero* credence to any opposing view
*You* are not right, therefore *I* am.....is not a rational argument
Yep. False dilemma.
another one is "Fallacy Fallacy", i.e. "Your argument is fallacious therefore you are wrong." ... indeed you can be right in your proposition and still use bad arguments to defend it
@Trolltician Let me try to steelman your argument by offering an analogy, and please correct me if I am mistaken about your argument. Let's say person A believes that Santa Claus exists, person B believes in the Bigfoot, and person C does not believe that either of them exist. If I'm understanding your argument correctly, Person C has the 'least plausible position', in this analogy, simply because they are making no truth claims about the existence of Santa Claus or Bigfoot. Correct?
@Trolltician What do you mean by 'synthetic ontology'? Also, allow me to put forth my original contention, which was that you are committing a fallacy by bringing up atheism. Saying that material/physical causation does not explain abstract reasoning is not the same as saying that a lack of belief in deities fails to explain abstract reasoning. Atheism does not purport to explain abstract human thought, or the capacity thereof, in the first place. In fact, I don't see what any of this has to do with what Fuzzy Blitzball posted. Their problem seems to be with Max Baker-Hytch claiming that naturalism does not explain the human ability of abstract conceptualization, and then not fully establishing how theism, on the other hand, does. The failure of materialism to explain abstract human thought is not the automatic success of the competing theistic worldview. It may just be the case that Baker-Hytch was not afforded the full time necessary to expound his proposition, but for the time being, he has failed to provide an argument for God from reason, which was the object of this discussion.
@@cobraimploder Although atheism is a predisposition, its exponents always argue for it by materialistic assumptions. Things that concur with the paradigm are natural, those that transgress it are supernatural. Arbitrating reality on such a flimsy pretext is doomed to failure. Ordinary and extraordinary depend entirely on whose mouths speak the words.
@Trolltician Atheism can just use any concept, and usually uses those that make most sense and are supported by evidence. Atheism can even use religious concepts. What you are saying is just utterly stupid.
Spoiler: There was no argument.
Dapper Global Never has been
@@zgs12212012, I agree. Reason is etymologically defined as intellectual faculty that adopts actions to ends. We have to understand the end, before we can tie actions to it.
I mentioned in another comment about how the word God is click bait, as it's a specific deity with attributes. In the case of God, the attribute of supremacy is well established. There are deities that are not supreme, as described in the scriptures, and throughout History.
It's not reasonable to argue for something that isn't well-defined. With over 30,000 schisms within just Christianity, the attributes of God are too varied to conclude the end.
@Dapper Global *With over 30,000 schisms within just Christianity, the attributes of God are too varied to conclude the end.*
Precisely. Literally no apologists has ever adequately described or delineated the qualities of their god, yet we have to hear them ramble on at length as if they or others had already proved that gods exist and they were just puzzling out how to prove conclusively that it's their particular god that's real.
@@DeaconShadow, it's definitely a tedious process, like parenting. However, this particular conversation wasn't particularly interesting for me. I like something that challenges my beliefs. I want to remove as much ignorance as possible. I don't want to get to the point where I stop learning. To me, that's intellectual death.
CosmicSkeptic literally never understood the argument.
Great discussion. Three notes/thoughts;
1) I struggle with these 'probabilistic' arguments as, obviously, the hypothesis of 'an all powerful being that has the desire to create the thing we're trying to explain' is always going to have 100% probability of being the explanation if it existed but that doesn't tell us whether it actually existed or not.
2) I suspect they're talking past each other a little bit as the meaning of 'aboutness' is going to be different whether you view the world naturalistically or not. From Alex's point of view, the concept of 'aboutness' can simply be the correlation of a certain pattern of atoms in the world with a certain pattern of atoms in our brains. Whereas I suspect that Max takes it to mean more than that.
3) Where's the demonstration that what's going on in our brains is more than what's going on in the Chinese room scenario? Just feeling as though it is doesn't seem that strong.
Nick Morris 3) hopefully this helps you understand this better. Computers are an a real life example of a more complicated Chinese room experiment. However no one today argues that computers have the conscious experience that humans do or understand semantics. The difference is that computers operate syntactically, while humans operate semantically. This is why the Chinese room experiment poses a really interesting question.
The fact that you can understand the meaning of words is what currently differentiates you from a syntactical machine.
Where, at one point, do syntactical operations become semantic? Or is it even possible? That’s the mystery!
@@Strategotips1 I'm not convinced that I understand the meaning of words in a different way than a computer does. On what criteria are you basing this determination?
If it's about performing some kind of test of understanding then, yes, I'm probably going to perform better than a computer as I have the benefit of millions of years of evolution but I don't see a reason why machine learning algorithms couldn't catch up.
@@nickmorris2250 Professionally, I've been working in the field of NLP for a few years now and have specifically worked on the task of training computers to write. When a computer chooses a word it's because of a sophisticated algorithm that primarily uses mathematics to essentially look at what commonly comes before and after the word. The machine has no conception of the word itself, only where it might be used. The computer can't think about the word from multiple dimensions and then place it. That is the state we are in today. Nobody would argue that this machines understanding of the word even remotely resembles that of a humans usage. However, I can get the computer to write sentences that look legitimate. Here I'm highlighting multiple realizablity. You can get two valid outputs despite completely different methods. One method syntactical the other semantic.
Really, ask yourself, do you think in a computer there's an internal dialogue process resembling the dialogue you're having in your head right now as you read this. Well that dialogue is what's producing the words you are choosing and the computer doesn't have that. This is what Max is referring to when he says mental causation. Your internal dialogue is leading to real decisions being made. The content of the thoughts is effecting reality not just the physical interactions (How would that even work. Would atoms shape themselves like ideas. Where is the content?).
Now you can say the computer isn't programmed yet to have that internal voice dialogue, but this is a trap. If you admit the dialogue isn't there then you are admitting the computer is writing in a different way than a person. Hence, you are seeing the distinction of an algorithm vs a mechanism where ideas have causal powers on other ideas. This is what the Chinese room experiment is trying to show.
Hopefully this helps. This is a very difficult concept to have click. Let me know if you need more explanation.
@@Strategotips1 But where's the proof that we have a 'conception of the word itself' that is beyond what a computer or NLP algorithm can have? I don't see why everything humans do and 'think' couldn't be the result of a complex series of if/thens.
All we have to go on is tests of performance in particular tasks and our own internal experiences. Sure, we can examine a computer and a human and describe their structural differences (biological vs not for example) but does that really prove that our understanding of the world is more than a sophisticated Chinese room?
The internal dialogue is an interesting point which I've thought about before but I don't think 'its a trap' as you say. What's the difference between a human baby waking up with an internal dialogue that was programmed into it by evolution and a computer that is turned on with an internal dialogue program that was programmed into it by someone/thing else?
@@nickmorris2250 , you'll have to define what you mean by proof. Considering we don't have a full explanation of how conscious arises from point a to point b it's hard to imagine how I or anyone can show that b does not equal c conclusively. But just because I can't show that b does not equal c doesn't mean there isn't evidence that b doesn't equal c in our primitive understanding of the mind. If you're looking for the conclusive then you might want to move to a new reality since conclusive evades nearly all human understanding. (Just kidding :P)
Don't forget, "I think therefore I am". Your inner experience is the best piece of evidence that you are different than the clunky box you are typing on.
I like your question in regards to the Chinese room. I think this is the really interesting question. Here's the thing though, we don't know that adding sophistication to the Chinese room will result in a jump from a syntactical process to a semantic process. Maybe when we add enough sophistication the supervening characteristic of consciousness arise? But how much sophistication and what type? Those are two questions we can't answer. It's not clear how the logical leap in type occurs. We've added more sophistication (in the form of computation) however our existing AI still functions purely syntactically, better, but still syntactically. Again, maybe the turning point exists but our mathematical formulas don't point to how, at least yet, but maybe never.
The third point is another good question. We make a lot of analogies between computers and our minds, however while there is some relation, we don't know that our minds, or the matter that composes them, actually function like a computer, let alone a binary representation machine. You're assuming, and maybe correctly (no one knows), that the evolutionary forces in our currently understanding can account for everything that we are. However we are still in our primitive understanding of quantum phenomenon. The mind is the most complex thing in the universe--maybe there have been forces that have shaped it's creation that we don't yet understand or even worse may be incapable of understanding. I'm not appealing to the supernatural, just to the fact that if you're not even close to an explanation you shouldn't assume your existing primitive understanding can explain it. At one point people thought the mind was like a water duct, because that was the most advanced scientific thing developed (also by primitive understanding I'm not referring to you personally, but to human race as a whole.)
Also, if we "could" make a software for an inner dialogue it would assume that doing so is possible. The problem is we have no idea that emulating what we do, the way we do it is actually possible with software. It's not clear from a code perspective how the leap occurs or how introspection arises.
Great Conversation. It's funny that as an Oxford philosophy tutor, these two could have this convo on campus.
We are what we eat.
Sausages and carrots can help to supply nutrients to your brain.
But sausages and Carrots do not think !
So how does that work ? Magic !
Not magic, its even more amazing. Its evolution. Did you know carrots were genetically engineered to be orange?
@Holy Kafir It's not the original source of the argument. "We are what we eat", is more like an accessible title for the argument.
@Holy Kafir
I started out as a single cell that obviously didn't have a brain and couldn't think about anything.
My cells multiplied by dividing (!) and by division of labour, "created" various body parts.
Now I can drive a car, operate heavy machinery and play games on a computer I built.
That is amazing, almost unbelievable, yet it happened, powered by un-thinking food !
@@zapkvr
No I didn't know that about carrots. I assumed, wrongly it appears, they were always orange.
But I do know that bananas were not created by the god of Israel 6000 years ago.
So Ray Comfort has made himself look silly, using the banana to "prove" a god exists.
We "created" the modern banana from a very poor original. They have evolved, albeit, not naturally.
One molecule of water isn't wet.
But if you have enough water molecules, they will be wet.
Where does the wetness come from ?
Apollo.
Wet is a first person subjective experience...so Consciousness is what's is required for wetness. Or anything else actually.
@@TheSaffronasha no, required for the experience of it, yes, but not for it's existence. Just it's conceptualization.
Poseidon, obviously...
Gabriel Martinez You actually presuppose that anything whatsoever could exist without consciousness.... I don’t. Scientists are also beginning to question that initial presupposition. FINALLY. 👍
@@TheSaffronasha You're a solipsist?
Has anyone else noticed that Alex looks like Tom Riddle in the Chamber of secrets film?
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
Well that was out of the blue but amen to that! XD
Very enjoyable debate. Thanks a lot.
I somehow doubt the majority of the comment section followed the discussion.
When it comes to consciousness at least, the problem isnt so much at the level of efficient cause (i.e., the process that brought it about), but material cause (i.e., that which grounds it ontologically). It seems to me that when matt suggests something like "physical brain states are different kinds of things than conscious mental states" he's claiming that naturalism is insufficient to ontologically ground something like consciousness (i.e., it has a problem of material causation); whereas when Alex suggests "consciousness could emerge from evolutionary processes" he's offering an answer at the level of efficient cause only. The two-at least on this point-are completely speaking past each other, and it seems to me Alex failed to really address the crucial question Matt was raising at the level of material cause/ontological ground instead mistaking it for a question about efficient cause. (The same error every commenter claiming this is an argument from incredulity is making).
Exactly. I wish this were addressed more clearly in the argument.
Great channel. Just subscribed in youtube and to the podcast. Keep up the great work.
I am a science person and do believe sincerely that God exist !! With respect to Alex I must say that it dont make a shred of difference what Alex thinks.
If Alex wants to be a skeptic then that's his choice ! its very arrogant for someone to say that ""God doesn't exist"" !!
For clarification, I think Max describes his preferred method of argumentation is that of Inductive Reasoning, where the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based on evidence. I'm not seeing where he commits the argument from incredulity. Perhaps I missed it; can someone provide a timestamp?
Half of me loves this discussion because they were genuinely trying to discussing a difficult topic and come to some understanding of each other.
The other half is pissed that the actual topic wasn't discussed in any capacity and Max's only tactic was to explain how Alex's analogies don't quite fit without giving any of his own justifications for a god to explain it. Correct me if I'm wrong but Max didn't provide a single positive argument, only declared that natural processes can't explain it without justifying that position.
Still need to watch this one, but I'm a bit familiar with the issues (Lewis, Plantinga, Reppert, et al). On your 'Correct me..." I cant speak for Max, but here's the thing. We take our cognitive capacities to be alethic or truth-directed and/or truth-driven as more or less given. We think and act WITH it and less ABOUT it. But THIS is the EXPLICANDUM or the very thing to be explained, that requires a strong, stable, cohesive and coherent justification. Theism, positing an Intelligent Personal Mind as the grounding of reality, nicely provides this justification. Strong atheism (physicalism, materialism) that inevitably must be committed to monist-reductionist ontology and epistemology appears to be contrary to our innate take on reason/cognition, for it has to ground this in simply nonrational/irrational physical electro chemical activity. Even atheists eg, Nagel, Penrose sees a huge gap between the realities of mind and consciousness and nonrational mechanical material processes. Thus, the atheist naturalist has a greater burden to justify its take on reason. Or simply dispense with such things as mere ILLUSIONS (as many do). Take your picke.
All it is is the god of the gaps.
@@zgobermn6895 no logical argument for theism exists.
The whole thing is crazy.
According to my judgement, the argument Max made is quite clear, but Alex was the one who did not address the issue sufficiently. Max argued that the phenomenon of intentionality is such that it is highly improbable to be observed if, ontologically, the world is governed by natural processes only, since the naturalistic building blocks appear to be insufficient for rendering intentionality. His argument can essentially be rephrased as a rhetorical question: how can atoms floating around unintentionally constitute or get to a point of intentionality? Alex responded by effectively saying that it is conceivably possible in an evolutionary process for intentionality to arise over time, but he did not explain how intentionality can actually exist in a world governed by natural processes only. (Alex therefore speaks to the possible cause, which Max does not deny, rather than the logical possibility, which Max does believe to be highly improbable). The logical implication of arguing that a naturalistic worldview is incoherent with the observed phenomenon of human intentionality - Max’s argument - is that reality must entail more than just the natural world. The point is not to argue for the existence of God as such, but to argue that a naturalistic worldview does not sufficiently explain reality. If this point is conceded, it opens the door for making a case for belief in God, but as such it is not an argument for God's existence in and of itself.
@@darksoul479 simplistic. It's not. Rather, it's argument from best inference -- what can we logically infer from, and what best explains our rational capacities as truth-directed and truth-driven (which we take for granted)? Is it better explained in a theistic worldview that posits a Personal Intelligent Mind as the matrix of reality or in atheistic naturalism that posits brute, nonrational, irrational physical processes as bottom-line reality?
God exists because reasons! That’s the best we got folks!
As someone with little more than the vaguest understanding of neurophysiology, I find it incredible that people could find the argument put forward by Max against naturalism (on the basis that it seems impossible that thoughts would be produced by atoms) at all strong.
Tbh though... since the Matt Dillahunty debate this is probably the only Christian channel I will ever sub to. Pretty civil and informative conversations (even though atheism and naturalism are STILL being conflated in 2020)
Joshua McGillivray being an atheist doesn’t commit you to saying anything about what composes the universe although philosophical naturalism probably does. Atheism doesn’t even commit you to naturalism, it’s just not holding a belief in a god, other supernatural claims are still fair game.
@@jr_1742
it's true atheism doesn't commit you (or any atheist) to naturalism, but atheism fundamentally logically entails/leads to naturalism whether you want it to or not. it's not like atheism has all these different and distinct alternatives/possibilities available to it.
A P Atheism really does have more than just naturalism as a complimentary position.... because an atheist can still believe in the supernatural... just not in a god. I really don’t know why people think that god claims hold a monopoly on the ‘supernatural’.
A P .... I’ve just noticed how your entire comment is just a contradiction. If you’re other position (atheism) ‘fundamentally logically entails naturalism’ (which it doesn’t btw), then it follows that you are committed to naturalism if you are an atheist... But according to the very first clause in your comment, you aren’t committed to naturalism if you’re an atheist. Which is it? You can’t have both.
@@jr_1742
the problem is you don't have a coherent alternative of the supernatural. you're just pretending you have all those different possibilities but I've debated atheists for years and I haven't heard one that is remotely coherent or one that doesn't merely substitute God for another label.
Any arrangement of leaves in your garden is just as unlikely as any other.
So an intelligent being must be arranging the leaves all the time.
He must be very very busy.
tedgrant2
This is exactly what I thought as soon as he brought up that analogy.
@@gerhardvonrabenau1603
It's the old deck of cards analogy.
A random hand of 13 cards is just as likely as thirteen spades.
We like to interpret signs as significant for us.
The lines on my hands are very poor predictions of the next stranger I happen to meet.
@@tedgrant2 Thirteen spades is easily describable in two words. On the other hand, to describe a random hand you have to enumerate every card.
@@HarshDeshpande91 A non sequitur can also be described in two words. Did you have a point with your observation?
@@indigobunting2470 huh? Thirteen spades is more than just a random hand.
A discussion with Andalusian Project would be brilliant! I'm really hoping I get to see it happening one day.
It’s cool seeing Justin and Alex becoming mates
Love how this guy has a PhD in Philosophy and can't even spot his own argument from personal incredulity. All that pointing to a table not being "about" something is a demonstration that THOSE PARTICULAR atoms in their current configuration ARE NOT "about" something, it in no way demonstrates the premise that a particular arrangement of atoms CANNOT be "about" something. It's "the black swan" fallacy. INB4 listening to Alex's rebuttal.
To me it's analogous to a whole field of mathematicians being skeptical of a pure genius producing complex proofs and advancements. Essentially there is those who follow and those who lead and they all have the same titles, which is a shame.
Yes, the objection sounds very like the fallacy of composition. Just because the atoms themselves do not discernibly have a final cause (a 'meaning,' which in fact they may have, depending on one's definition of 'meaning') does not mean that the table does not. Tables manifestly do have meaning, they are 'about something,' which we can find when we sit down to dinner or to write a letter. The 'final cause' is most often left out of our debates in the modern world, because of the fallacy of personal incredulity.
Hmm... I thought it was just a sloppy attempt at explaining the problem of qualia.
Maybe he should have gotten a degree in linguistics, because his argument seems entirely semantic. He’s saying that if he walks up to you and says, “London,” the chemical reactions that are now happening in your head have nothing to do with London, him saying it, etc. Where does he imagine the causal chain is broken? What makes the result “not about” the cause? 🤓🤔🤷♂️
@@serversurfer6169 _his argument seems entirely semantic. He’s saying that if he walks up to you and says, “London,” the chemical reactions that are now happening in your head have nothing to do with London, him saying it, etc. Where does he imagine the causal chain is broken?_
That's not semantics, but logic. Are you certain that you have an argument?
Great. arguments FOR god. Where you NECESSARILY start with the conclusion.
Isn’t that the way all arguments work? You make a statement which is your conclusion and then lay out a number of arguments and pieces of evidence as to why your statement and conclusion is correct. I don’t understand what your point is. Both start from conclusions, one has a belief that God does exist and one has a belief that God does not exist. Both are conclusions already which are fleshed about by arguments and reason as to why they are correct.
Daniel Astle You can not argue something into existence. It needs to be demonstrated. But first it needs to be described and also be distinguishable from other proposed gods.
The Kalam for example: this argument does not conclude ‘therefore a god exists’ let alone any particular proposed god. The Christian arguing starts with the conclusion of what they are trying to argue for.
Since everyone already knows God exists, it was all pretty pointless.
Martin Ploughboy so it’s a matter of dishonesty?
Daniel Astle No response?
What a lovely young man
Love how the Max Baker-Hytch has a whole binder of notes and writes a response to everything Cosmic states, off the cuff.
Too bad that binder has no imaginary friends in it to demonstrate...
Academics are more likely to be pulled up for incorrect citation. Off the cuff comments and playing to the gallery make interesting TH-cam shows, but poor philosophy.
@@borderlands6606
Since when is "philosophy" science?!?....
@@WilbertLek The discussion in the video is a philosophical one. Philosophy is the study of what it is possible to know. Science is a method for observing the habits of nature.
I love Alex and am a huge fan. But it seems like he was talking past the argument that was provided. I struggle to see how these two brilliant people can't see the flaws in their own argumentation. For one, Max was asking how does (matter) have consciousness. Where as Alex was essentially talking about the development of our complex consciousness from its more primitive form. The best analogy is one I often consider about computers. As an IT person, I realized (in a sort of Dunning-Krugeresque effect) that the more I learned about computers, the less I ACTUALLY KNEW. So the question that Max (in analogy) is essentially asking is how does little nodes of metal and wire with certain electrical charges "calculate" anything. HOW does a computer "follow instructions" at all. And what Alex is doing is essentially explaining programming. Where saying when I "input lines of code the computer then does this" where as the question was actually a layer deeper than that and was essentially How does conscious interface with the physical world on a fundamental level at all. The answer to that may be, "we don't know" but that doesn't then give us plausibility to say that "matter CANNOT produce consciousness". Probabilistic arguments are garbage too. Even his example Max gave is trash. A particular arrangement of leaves to spell out someone's name can "probabilistic" come down to the man's wife or the wind. While I would agree that the wife is a more likely explanation than the wind, it doesn't demonstrate anything about the truth. You see the man himself could have spelled his own name, aliens could have come and done it. It could have been the neighbors, perhaps a specially trained dog did it. To limit the possibilities to two outcomes and then try to assert that one is the case because its more likely than something that isn't the case is fallacious unless you demonstrate those are the ONLY two possibilities. Max is also making a black swan fallacy to state that matter cannot beget consciousness. Because we don't KNOW of any other matter than begets consciousness. That argument sort of defines itself out of rationality sort of like "I don't know of any fish that can breathe out of water, therefore fish do not exist". Fish are defined by the fact that they breathe(filter and extract oxygen from) water. We don't know of matter (other than brains) that produce consciousness therefore brains must not only be made of matter. A Brain is sort of defined by its ability to produce consciousness and the ability to produce consciousness is generally defined into a brain. By ignoring Brains in the mention that an "arrangement of matter cannot produce conscious" is just simply ignoring the thing that refutes your argument in that a brain is an arrangement of atoms that refutes your argument. What he means to say, that would be more accurate, is that we do not know how brains produce consciousness. To which I would agree, but that doesn't mean "God did it".
*I struggle to see how these two brilliant people can't see the flaws in their own argumentation.*
That they clearly cannot see the flaws makes "brilliant" an unearned descriptor. At least in this subject matter.
*How does matter have consciousness*
You outline some problems with this, but there are more.
For instance, no one claims an atom has consciousness, so reducing things to that level in the discussion is disingenuous. Instead, consciousness doesn't appear to arise unless there are very specific collections of matter.
Furthermore, atoms can't see, either, yet no one ever questions whether vision is rooted in the physical brain. Same for other senses and things like memories and speech processing. Why? Because we have ample evidence of a direct link between brain function and the ability to do any of these things.
Well, if _"particles can't X, so we have no reason to believe a collection of particles can X"_ was a legitimate line of reasoning, it would apply equally well to these. That they don't go there makes clear that it isn't about the rationale, it's about exploiting a gap.
A good response but lacking in some things, I think:
There is no causal link between consciousness itself and matter. There is no reason to believe that would be the case. There is no mechanism through which that happens and I would argue the mechanisms cannot explain it; at best, they would explain the contents of consciousness but not consciousness itself because consciousness is not a material object. If I prod you with an electric rod you will suffer, that suffering is brought on by a physical reaction in part, but the reaction itself does not explain the qualitative experience of suffering. This is known as the hard problem of consciousness and I've seen nothing that even comes close at solving it(a hard problem only for materialism).
On the other hand, we also know consciousness(at least as we know it) cannot be caused by matter because matter is in a constant flux, it is always shifting. The brain within my body this second won't be the same brain and the same body in the next second, for there are no essential metaphysical center under which those can retain their essences and only change their accidental attributes. A brain is only a brain because we are definining it as such, in reality it simply is, and the "is" that is the thing I call my brain at minute X will be a different "is" than the thing I call my brain at minute Y. I am still referring to them as my brain, for practical reasons, but it is not the same thing. However, the individual, me, my consciousness, has remained constant even throughout those shifts. Hence, the consciousness, the root of me, cannot be physically rooted.
@@natanaellizama6559 do you have a source? Everything I can find says that brains are an exception to the replacements that the rest of the body go through.
Then how its made? Accident? Where that Accident came from?
God did it, the clockwork.
@@daddada2984 you don’t understand English very well. I already said the answer may in fact be “we don’t know” but that doesn’t mean “God did it”. We’re talking about reason and valid argumentation, unless you intend to provide more than a simple assertion I’m afraid your comment will be disregarded
I enjoyed this far more than the comments made me think I would. It was probably the way they were talking that made this possible for me to enjoy. I now get the feeling that Alex brings out of others the kind of conversations we should be having, like if it wasn't Alex, the conversation wouldn't have been as easy to digest and the opponent would have been more free to get away with errors.
Alex - looking really smart. Matches your mind! Good job, as usual.
@Happy Go Lucky Can you use logic, reason, facts, and science to prove a god?
At first glance I thought who is with naturalism will be ridiculed, but I changed my mind after seeing Alex.
“Lots to respond to there“. Truer words were never spoken seriously, this is how all these discussions go. The theist throws out whatever number of claims they can in the shortest amount of time, and then pretends that they have made some kind of argument that a skeptic has to “respond” to.
Also known as a Gish gallop. Throwing out bullshit so fast it makes it hard to keep up.
Divine Shadow Am I supposed to respond to your claim?
Divine Shadow And man, you have great philosophical arguments! Quoting the side in which you of course have pre conceived bias for, and giving no examples for the claim you make. If you can’t argue with our “claims” then maybe you shouldn’t be interested in these debates. Maybe you should stick to what so many “skeptics” claim what their skepticism is about. After all if it’s just a “non belief”. Then what’s the point in arguing?
@@sapereaude6339 Baker-Hytch actually claimed that the brain is not made of atoms. Why would any respond to what appears to be a symptom of mental illness?
@@helenaconstantine And when did he say that? He said that the _mind_ and consciousness is not reducible to atoms.
Was anyone else waiting on an argument from reason? I heard a lot about how do you explain consciousness.
Not only does it seem plausible that we developed gradually into our current "state" of consciousness but it seems to track that way easily to that being exactly the case. I am in the same camp as Alex when he boils certain theistic arguments pertaining to morality/consciousness as being made to be more complex than necessary. That doesn't mean the situation of a particular subject isn't complex but the process of getting there while it is complex now it gradually evolved and as reaction after reaction drove things in a particular direction.
Part 2 please!
Max's argument about there being no reason for our brain processes to be accompanied by first person conscious awareness is a bit poor.
We humans are a social species. In order to thrive in a social environment, it is absolutely advantagous to understand those around you.
BUT it is not possible to 'read' other people's thoughts.
So how can a brain best evolve to understand the intentions of other social beings? By reflecting their actions within your own thinking.
In order to understand those around you, we try to understand ourselves.
For example: Bob is sharpening his spear. Why does he do that? What would i be planning if i sharpen my spear? I would probably be preparing for the hunt later today.
And thats how consciousness came to be through evolution. Altough it probably started way simpeler than that.
@Donald Trump Who says someone did? It was Max making the claim it was supernatural in a way to solve the problem.
@buymebluepills it could be, whether you or i find it mundane or not, is irrelevant.
So basically, we have a problem and we don't know how to solve it.
So we will have to invent a solution that is more difficult to solve than the original problem.
Progress !
Or put another way, "believing in things is really stupid. Now let's tear things apart and stare at them really closely".
@@borderlands6606 No. "Don't make shit up, just because your uncomfortable with ignorance."
I think it's just an appeal to a bigger mystery fallacy.
Hi tedgrant2 the endless religious dishonesty is worth dying for for some
@@jordanwhisson5407
Interesting.
But I'm not sure what to do with it.
Great debate... Calm collected but with bite..
Debate with Dr. James Tour
It was all boiled down to the good old "argument from ignorance" "you don't know, I can't explain, must be a magical inmaterial Entity"
To make it simpler for someone like you, please give a natural explanation for “multiply “ and “divide “ in math
It’s not that simple. The fact that we can hypothesize about further naturalistic explanations, and the fact that we can hypothesize about supernatural explanations, both are born out of “we don’t know, we can’t explain.”
But two end points I think we all get stumped by are these:
1) Something coming from nothing
2) Eternity
"I prefer not to make deductive arguments." Because they can too easily be shown to be fallacious.
But how exactly do we assign those probabilities on which you base your fuzzy, feel-good logic?
Wait, this guy has a Doctorate?! I despair.
For all the people claiming that Max is making a God of the gaps fallacy, or a false dichotomy fallacy, or an argument from ignorance fallacy... He's not. He's making another fallacy that is common in the discussion of miracles/supernatural occurrences, I don't know if it has a name, but it's basically a begging the question fallacy.
It's true that it's more reasonable to believe in something that is more probable than to believe in the least probable hypothesis. It's true that the probability of consciousness (the first person view) being a result of natural processes is low...
However, in order to assess the most probable hypothesis, you need to compare the naturalist probability to the probability of it being an outcome of non naturalistic processes. The problem is that we don't know the probability of the latter. If a God willing to create conscious beings exists, it goes to 100%. If all there is some deity who is passive on creation, it could be 0.001%. There's no way to assess that, so his assumptions are:
1. We can know the probability of consciousness being a product of non naturalistic processes.
2. It's higher than the probability of it being a product of natural processes.
These assumptions are unjustified, and therefore the argument fails, as he can't claim either one is more probable than the other.
Jose D Agree that we can't know the probability of any supernatural claim because it implies that you have at least one data point. Until then the probability is zero.
It is a god of the gaps.... and a misappropriation of statistics, they aren't mutually exclusive. In this case, the stats are just a superficial justification to elevate his preferred option.
How is the probability of consciousness being a product of neural dynamics low? We are just in the process of understanding neural systems. Patience.
min25 To say that evolutionary natural process prepare us for intuition and reasoning for developing thinking, as I see, it is not an argument against God but a validation for intentional design
Another moment to miss Hitch here. Max was just asking for a Hitch slap or three. Max’s whole argument is the fact we don’t yet understand consciousness means we can insert God as the rational answer. The real worry here is that Max is employed by a Western university and gets to espouse such medieval ‘logic’ on to young minds from a position of authority. In what world is that ok? Is this 2020 or just 20.
Just wait until you hear any of the incoherent word salad that comes out any time Jordan Peterson speaks.
His total lack of any ability to construct a decent sentence without so, yeah, um, you know, how the fuck did he get a job ?
That’s religious philosophy for you
Eldritch Knowledge only word salad for those who lack understanding! Need a dictionary?
Two people having an intelligent conversation on opposing views CALMLY!?!?! This is heresy!
🤣
Alex is clearly smart, but he really doesn't understand intentionality at all. Baker-Hytch explained it three or four times during the debate but Alex either completely misunderstood the idea or he simply tried to ignore or argue around it.
This will be fun
Alex is just brilliant in unpacking the fallacies by the theist apologist! You go Cosmic Skeptic!
*Abid Chowdhury* Agreed, although I would have liked him to challenge Max right at the end when he used WLC's "more probable with theism than naturalism" 'argument' because it's so dishonest and wrong. I think that Max saw defeat and threw in anything he could, as useless as it was.
Just a sweet talker.. not sensible in reality.
"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't." - Emerson M. Pugh
TranslatorCarminum
Platitudes aren’t arguments, they’re assertions.
@@djacquemotte I wasn't really trying to make an argument. The debate just reminded me of this quote, and I thought it was just relevant enough to be worth sharing.
If you're wondering where I stand, I'm basically on Alex's side. I think there is what amounts to a combined argument from ignorance and "reverse composition fallacy" at the heart of Max's line of reasoning. It seems at the very least premature to say that it's absolutely impossible for naturalism to explain consciousness, which is what you must establish for the argument from reason to work. Max frames it as a probabilistic argument and even invokes Bayes at one point, but I don't think we know all the factors to make the determination he's making (or at least, not with the necessary precision).
That is a fascinating thought
That would mean that we (as a 1rst person awareness) are condemned to only understand a part of our intelligence structure, however intelligent we become. Unless computers and technologies can extend our understanding...
Papa Smurf facts
Nishi Shah has a pretty good article on Doxastic Voluntarism, though I can't remember the title at this time. I think that it might be Clearing Space for Doxastic Voluntarism.
I love Alex
This max guy is something
We knòw that computers can do amazing things.
I can't believe they do this just by the movement of electrons in electrical circuits.
There must be something else that is doing it, otherwise electrons don't exist.
We call that Apollo.
Are computers self aware?
@@Bryanerayner Well, can a computer self diagnose why it's encountering issues? Can it also suggest protocols to fix its own issues? Sounds already quite close to self-awareness to me...
@@Bryanerayner
Mine is and it hates me.
@@nicolas4601 it can only "self diagnose" based on mind, which an outside agent gave it its ability to do so
@@andys3035 That would be the actual difference between a computer and a natural Dasein then, wouldn't it?
I think the best way to look at this problem is to go backwards. If we damage the physical parts of our brain, we can lose our memories and impact our ability to think “about” things. So why is it hard to imagine that the physical matter in our brain is able to do these things?
That still doesn’t answer the cause of memory, logic, reason, and give meaning. It only answers that the physical parts of the brain play a role. However, there are also cases of overcoming such loss of matter. Check out, “The brain that changes itself.” Some interesting tidbits in there!!
This is an interesting take on the intersection between philosophy of mind and that of god. It's worth pointing out that there is an extensive literature on what mental representations and intentionality are, who they relate to (i.e just humans?) and how they come to exist.
On that last question, the question is divided into whether these representations are determined/caused by some feature not internal to a person's mind. Frankly, either side can argue their case convincingly without appeal to theology or god (although they can't both successfully convince one person simultaneously!)
Alex could have bolstered his argument by appealing to what's known as the teleological theory of mental representation, which quite effectively explains the development from hearing a noise, to hearing that same noise but representing 'danger', to hearing that same noise and representing 'snake', and then poisonous snake, and then rattlesnake, and so on. The theory has also been formulated to account for misrepresentation, although it faces plenty of objections from other directions.
Anyhow, given the data that is the existence of rational thought, I don't think it's more likely than not that the supernatural had something to do with it, which is what Max is trying to argue. Intentionality is as much a puzzle in a theistic world-view as in a non-theistic one, since we have an apparently insurmountable epistemic barrier to the explanation of our representational content (for we can't know whether a god-world is one where he has anything to do with the development of conscious representation or not).
I think that the mental relates more closely with the biological than the theological, so I would look towards a biological/evolutionary explanation for mental phenomena as a priority. Thankfully, evolutionary theory can support the atheist/naturalist's view adequately, and this can reasonably effectively be demonstrated in computed models and simulations, as well as in observations from non-human animals.
Thanks guys for doing this :)
I feel like the statement "Rationality can't be trusted if its components are entirely physical and thus deterministic" is put forth entirely without justification every time Lewis' argument is brought up. The conclusion does not at all follow from the premise.
@G Will The statement that IF material is physical then it came to be (in the orientation it is) by happenstance is also put forth without justification here. Happenstance isn't contained in the idea of physicality.
@G Will That's false...and even if it were true, it's irrelevant to the nature of physicalism what an atheist's approach to physicalism is. The idea under evaluation is that "rationality can't be trusted if its components are entirely physical".
@G Will That's false as well...and even if it were true, nothing about being "just material in motion that was set into motion by intelligenceless circumstances" implies happenstance.
@G Will just because you don't like the realistic conclusions of an idea doesn't mean that idea isn't true
@G Will Saying "everything I said is true" is easy. It's showing it that you would need to do.
And frankly, you don't have a clue what I might have to refute it with. You don't know a thing about me.
An hour of argument from incredulity and denial.
And don't forget a god of the gaps orgy fest.
Ok Justin, please post the 5 hour after show that you must have recorded somewhere :-)
If anyone has to go through all this complicated arguments to believe in a god(s), then most of people in the world would be atheist.
I have seen quite a few of these type of debates lately. Basically we are talking Philosophically about a nebulous concept of a God that created the universe. The Theist side doesn't define this God, they don't give him properties, abilities, or propose a way for this God to have come into existence. This way there is really nothing for the Atheist to say except "I don't see any reason to jump to the conclusion that a mind or being was behind any of this". Sure we can debate this all day long but we could also do the same thing with any other concept like fairies or possibly an ultra advanced civilization that brought this whole universe into existence inside a lab somewhere. I don't see the usefulness of this debate but I do like listening.
I'd rather discuss God's existence from science and logic, Dean.
Would you like that?
Then you've ignored the Kalam Cosmological argument. That gives properties God must have. Then you ignore the Resurrection. That ignores properties that God has.
If you ignore those 2 arguments, then you can say that theists don't claim properties of God, but realize that arises because atheists refuse to make any positive statements at all, so we have to get back to the base assumptions so the atheist can be forced to have a meaningful conversation that is more than "I don't know".
There is such thing as probability. Theist didnt saiy that God exist 100%. They say it highly probable.( Sorry for bad english.I am from Ukraine.And it not my native language)
In the end, feigning ignorance won't work.
(Romans 1:18-20)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.*
Selah
Yes they do define God. Youve been overlooking something then.
Got here just to hear Alex
@G Will we disagree, i think he is really good with philosophy topics and is part of his field of study, maybe he is a little naive and can have flaws in his way of thinking but I wouldn't call him pseudo-intellectual
@G Will I disagree, I think it is your opinion.
And...... he got destroyed
@G Will saying something subjective is a facts doesn't make it one. I think you don't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. Calling someone names is not a fact.
@@dskjhjksl
Is not everone's opinion equally valid? If not, why not?
Reading all the atheist comments shows quite clearly the argument has gone right over many of their heads, the fact that anyone would think it is an argument from incredulity shows they have totally misunderstood what's been said and do not realise how deep the argument really goes.
Stuart Willis it certainly seems like an argument from incredulity to me.
Max states that atoms can't be 'about' anything and that seems to be enough for him.
The naturalistic/evolutionary argument would be that relatively primative life would naturally select for an increased ability to react to surroundings. A basic nervous system would allow this. A movement of certain atoms from one place to another that is triggered by a current event.
The next stage might be the ability to predict the things that cause harm - pattern recognition. It is still largely reactionary but the pathway that sends the 'danger' signal is triggered earlier than before.
The atoms still contain no inherent 'aboutness' but their pathways result in actions that are consistent.
Add more and more complexity over a few billion years and life uses masses of these pathways, including the primative 'fight or flight' core.
@@ChrisFineganTunes The highest rationally justifiable conclusions you could make through such a process is differentiating between actions that are harmful and those that are biologically beneficial in a pragmatic sense. It would still leave you utterly unjustified rationally to conclude truths about meta physical theories such as naturalism being true. This naturalistic process you speak of would have survival appeal but absolutely no way of being able to rationally affirm truth or asses the truth value of differing propositions, it would simply help you determine which propositions are inclined more toward personal survival, which is what the argument against naturalism has always maintained. If your beliefs are formed purely from this materialistic process you have no warrant to imbue any of these beliefs with truth value, all you can say is they are beneficial for survival. The typical response is "its most useful for survival to have an accurate depiction of the objective world" but this is plainly not the case. Take one brief example, Ptolemaic astronomy was used for a long time by many people for navigation and charting, it was useful yet a totally false belief about the objective world. There are many false beliefs that are highly conducive to survival, in fact recognition of objective truth can be antithetical to pure survival. If you want an actual thorough explanation of "The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" read and/or listen to Alvin Plantingas full explanation and listen to Donald Hoffmans videos on evolutionary development.
Stuart Willis there's no reason why an increasingly advanced nervous system/primative cognitive system might have side-effects not initially selected for.
There's no doubt that we can be very easily fooled - that's why we're still enthralled by magicians and why we make for terrible eye-witnesses. But all we can do is continually attempt to check our perceptions match up with reality as we measure it on a continuous basis.
@@stewbroccachiklis8481 when we say something is true. We are saying that it matches the reality that we experience and had predictive power. So a complex nervous system can evolved to recognise harm that threatens it survival. It's true that these things can cause harm. It's totally natural. No ghost is required there.
Wow, cosmic skeptic did amazing!
Please bring together Alex with Micheal Jones (Inspiring Philosophy).
They've actually debated before on the TH-cam channel capturing Christianity.
In G Will's post we see the _ad hominem_ in its full "glory": not having anything with which to _legitimately_ criticize Alex, he resorts to insults, purposeful misspellings, and even an unsupported attack on Alex's gender. G Will, we will patiently await your _refutation_ of anything in any of Alex's videos.
@G Will Thank you for continuing to make my point. "Weak-minded"? You failed to even understand what I meant by "legitimately criticize," and by turning your ad hominems on me, showed that you have no refutation of anything *i* said either. Again, you in fact just confirmed my assessment of you. So, unless you care to bring any *real* refutations to Alex or this discussion, I'm done with you.
@Jacob Car Is it irrational to believe thermodynamics and causality?
@Jacob Car but why nor theists nor atheists doesnt consider that God exist.But he just do
esnt care about us? It will fit well explain ontology problem and well problem why worshiping doesnt help.
Being councisness of universe, God is beyond good and evil.
But personally I dont believe in that.I want to belive in Loving God.
Just courious why anyone woudnt even consider such thought.
18:00 at least the dude’s honest about the shortcomings of deductive arguments for God. Respect ✊🏽
How would you say our universe began, Charles?
@@20july1944 I'd say magic . Do you have any thoughts on the brand of magic that might have done it?
@@tex959 Would you really say "magic"?
@@20july1944 Nobody knows how our universe began. Anyone who says they do know is lying.
@@rembrandt972ify But we DO know that it began rather than always existing, right?
i like what one of the guests said on a different show about man coming to the end of his capability to know or understand. after listening to quite a few shows and various guests i am beginning to believe they are approaching this point. i have yet to hear any of them state anything 100% ....thus their debates about everything. yes everything. as they discover new things the debates only change.
Thanks for hosting this!
Can’t wait to see Alex in a number of years when he’s gained some more wisdom with time and experience. His intelligence and ability to reason is off the charts, but I think he can oversimplify very complicated things, which in turn doesn’t allow him to see certain arguments/points that others are making.
Surely if there was a god, it would have made itself more clear, without all this debating 14 billion years on.
Do you expect him to show up to everyone? Even if he did so what if everyone believes cause they won’t necessarily trust
*fiveways bath* The debating has only been going on since there were beings around who could debate it, hardly 14 billion years!
Personally I love the fact God's already covered this subject. Great Banquet (Luke 14:12-24) - God invites all the intellectualls who reject his invite (i.e. the obviousness in nature, concience and cosmological laws) . . . but a simple (for example: Woman struggling to feed a family who prays out to God to feed her family. God doesn't - but they get help through a local church). . . . and as such the wisdom of men is more foolish than the foolishness of God.
That seems to be a presupposition, that If God was real, He would be more clear. What would "more clear" mean to you? :)
@@barnabaskwok8214 actually by saying me saying "He" is a presupposition.
Maybe an "it" might sound better...
But then again, I shouldn't presume it as an it either...
" god" seems to dissappear the more I look..
I'm not sure how this god thing can make itself more clear.
But this god thing should know how ?
Is this the first time on the show both debaters have had a full head of hair? 😂
No
Cosmic should read DBH's "Experience of God" especially the chapter on consciousness. He radically understates the problem consciousness poses for a naturalist account of reality.
When the participants of the discussion decide they want to discuss something else :D
Max Baker-Hytch is a clever fellow. About halfway through it now, but I think so far at least Cosmic Skeptic simply doesn't understood the argument. EDIT: Yeah, he seemed to pretty much not understand it until near the very end.
No wonder he didn't get it. The guy kept talking about atoms and London. He seems to be a clever guy, but maybe not a good communicator. Even the host felt the constant need to explain his arguments. I'm still not sure why the main question wasn't "Is conscience computational?"
Responsibility for that is somewhat on the moderator as the coordinator in the planning process.
Communication - often a tricky process. 😊
If an all-powerful god gave us consciousness wouldn't this kind of discussion be superfluous?
No, he did it very sneakily...He is so sneaky that it's even unreasonable to believe in him...
@@lillychamberlain1496
Can't trust such a sneaky deity, that's what I say...
@@NN-wc7dl You just have to have faith.
@@georgemoncayo8313
And...? A catalog of religious scientists and a heap of Bible citations. What the hell should I do with that? All this junk and you didn't touch the comment you commented with one single word. If you are pleased with childish explanations, that's fine with me, but don't expect others to be the same. Jeeezzz....!
@@georgemoncayo8313
George, I've heard of ALL OF THAT a thousand times before. You are not bringing ANYTHING new to the table. Really, I'm not too amused having this conversation with yet another silly creationist. It's like pouring water on geese. No fun in that. No fun at all. Go and have a prayer instead, will you, or whatever. I don't give a rat's ass about your fascistic (idea of) God. I'm out of here.
self-awareness is not a physical experience, it is a cognitive one. Also, it can develop.
For a pro-theistic channel - Unbelievable does have great debates and content - a thumbs up from this atheist!
I see what the title unbelievable means. Around 24:00 this hippy brings up Plato's theory of forms and proposes it as an accurate description of reality. I suppose he believes in black magic too. And he compares this with the Epicurean "swirl of atoms in the void." This he says can have no meaning and at the same time proposes it as a valid description of the neural networks of the brain that produce human thought. What utter nonsense. I have it paused. there, let's see if Cosmic Skeptic calls out his bullshit, but I rather doubt it.
I would have named this talk "Can things be 'about' things?" As that is all it is.
👏, welcome to the topic of conversation
@@gtrain3210 really uncompelling stuff and, well, not appropriately titled is it?
So after clicking on a video titled "The argument for God from Reason" and assuming you watched the whole thing you come to no further an understanding of whether or not there is a god? Looks to me like the atheist defended his position well enough because if he was wrong you should have taken a lot more away from this then "Can things be 'about' things?".
@@GoodDay2YouSir I've been an atheist and am a fan of Alex's. Nevertheless, I regard this video as a waste of time on everyone's part.
It takes much more faith to believe that consciousness arises from physical process than to believe that it arises from conscious agent.
if you need to explain how consiousness arises in 'consious agent' you're in the same boat as someone who needs to explain how consiousness arises from 'physical processes'.
I always love Alex, awesome creator, and getting better every year it seems. I'm not sure he's perfectly understanding the argument. It's not about whether reasons and other mental phenomenon are beneficial and hence would be selected for if they are causally efficate on the physical. Rather, the problem posed here is that with this naturalistic idea that the physical is *causally closed,* there's no reason to suppose that reason, rationality, or other mental phenomena would be selected for. These things are invisible to natural selection under naturalism as defined at the beginning of the discussion.
The undergraduate demolishes the tutor. How the tutor fails to understand that he is essentially arguing from incredulity is beyond me. Well done Alex. A convincing victory.
Really you would have said that if Alex sat there and said nothing for an hour and a half this kid says the same thing in every debate I don't know for sure how the world was created how humans were created I just know it wasn't God
If the existence of the supernatural seemed probable to exists in some way like the naturalist world seems probable to exist, then I might be more convinced by Max's arguments that the supernatural better explains our rational capabilities.
Would you say matter and energy are all that exist?
Not necessarily, but in order to make the case that there is something other than matter, you have to show that it exists first.
@@Mouse_Librarian Would you agree with me that something has always existed, or do you think something came into existence from nothing at some point in the finite past?
@20july1944 We don't have enough information. I don't lean either way because neither position can be shown to be true.
Though I suspect you won't like that answer so I'll bite by saying that "nothing" is an incoherent concept that's akin to philosophical masturbation.
@@Mouse_Librarian If something BEGAN existing out of nothing, that would violate both thermodynamics and causality, so I would say it is definitely the null hypothesis to say something has always existed.
Would you agree with that?
Alex never refuted Max's arguments, neither won the debate, I think Max did but watch for yourself. Alex's fans are just going to support him in the comments no matter what.
Any information out there on the free will paper that Philip Goff sent? I'd love to get more info on that.
I haven't heard a thiest use a probibalist argument where they don't smuggle god in as a presupposition and then say that god is therefore the more probable conclusion.
Andrew Carlson that is exactly like every naturalist out there too. Everyone has a bias. Your’s is on display here too. Just the way it is.
@@gy5240 the difference is that the natural world can be easily demonstrated, it's not a bias to say that it exists.
@@andrewcarlson9085 I guess you trust your perception of the natural world. What do mean exactly by demonstrate? Like to test? I bet you believe in macro evolution, you don't observe it and can't test it. It is something you basically infer from pieces of evidence. Your own personhood is something you must infer, how much of what you 'know' is really something you can demonstrate? Scientists say there was a beginning to nature ( space/time/matter) so we can deduce that something prior existed....so we actually can 'demonstrate' something more fundamental exists than just the natural world you experience.
@@gy5240 Ah, classic, just throw out word salad and let me deal with it. One, I trust my perceptions as far as they are the only way I can interact with the world. Two, I can demonstrate the natural world by interacting with it (I'm not trying to disprove solipsism). Three, evolution can be observed and tested. Only creationists make a distinction between mico and macro evolution. Four, personhood or consciousness is still a highly divisive topic and consensus has not yet been reached, I do not have to infer (or guess) what I really know about it. Five, we do not know what was before the beginning of the universe, we may never know, and I'm ok with that, again we don't have to guess.
Hi Andrew The sneaky suckers
When "reason" gets you to a super-daddy which brings about non-demonstrable miracles and revelations you might be in a situation where you should take a closer look at "reason".
*Keyser Söze* Yes. As with most things theist, they use their own definitions...
super-daddy lol, these are elementary arguments
@@anunknownentity1637
When your "elementary arguments" get you to a super-daddy that brings about non-demonstrable miracles and revelations you might be in a situation where you should take a closer look at these "arguments".
@@NN-wc7dl sorry but I was referring to your arguments as being elementary. I mean it's fine if he calls super Daddy but that's not even what Christians, Muslims, Mormons etc. think of when they talk about God.
@@anunknownentity1637
Well, who knows what's going on in those heads anyway. Or cares.
Much as I hate being a cheerleader, this debate was a show of force from Alex, culminating in what I'd consider to be a checkmate against a probabilistic argument for God at 1:12:00.
My 2 cents after the insightful (and delightfully civil) conversation:
1) memory - or recall - does not equate to intentionality; computers can recall but do not have intentionality.
2) evolutionary psychology can account for selecting humans with intentionality but not intentionality itself. How did atoms first assign representational value to other atoms moving around?
3) deductive reasoning is not a tautology because it requires a re-conceptualisation of an idea. For example: a) all humans are mortal. b) socrates is a human. c) therefore socrates is mortal. But socrates is not "all humans". He falls "properly" (pardon a little cheekiness) under the set "human", but it still requires a logical step to identify him within the class of humans. In fact, I'd argue the ability to hold the abstract concept of "human" in one's head and identify an actual datum as part of it is intentionality beyond naturalistic explanation.
4) particularly enjoyed Max's argument that a computer's ability to represent is derived from our human impositions of representations! Will definitely be using the "chinese room" example.
5) that non-human animals seemingly possess awareness does not rebut the argument Max raised regarding naturalism's inability to explain awareness.
6) awareness being beneficial from an evolutionary perspective does not explain its origin. Not everything that is beneficial from an evolutionary perspective is even possible.
7) unsure why Alex brought up the plausibility of "conscious thought" GIVEN "naturalism is true". The conditional probability in question is whether "naturalism is true" GIVEN there is "conscious thought". Those are very very different things.
8) Alex's retreat to defending the plausibility rather than probability of naturalism is an intellectually inconsistent one - not only does he grant it as a valid basis of argument at the beginning, he earlier made clear that he was only arguing for possibility, not even plausibility.
Whatever your views, let's be thankful we've found a little corner of the internet where we can have conversations without pitchforks!
@@noveullotus Unfortunately the longer these comments stay up the worse the situation gets...
Bogatyr Bogumir unfortunate indeed.. friends, engage the argument on its merits; both Max and Alex were civil though they held different views, why can’t we?