Russell-Copleston Debate on God's Existence (1948)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2021
- Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston debate the existence of God in this famous radio debate from 1948. Copleston here presents the argument from contingency, which is a kind of cosmological argument for God's existence. It is now in the public domain. This is version of an upload from the previous channel. Note, the audio has been greatly improved.
Frederick Copleston on Schopenhauer: • Arthur Schopenhauer's ...
Peter Millican on God & Morality: • God & Morality - Gener...
Simone de Beauvoir on God & Existentialism: • Simone de Beauvoir on ...
#Philosophy #BertrandRussell #Theism
Amazingly, my wife and I discussed this very issue, of contingency, at Breakfast the other morning. I, for my part, took a position similar to Russell's that Contingency is not a entity or relevant line of thought while she, siding with Copleston supported Contingency as a prime and central tenant of existence...we bought the sofa.
Be j
Russel used words like bricks. His vocabulary was a tool of his self conceit. He never really pondered or grasped their meaning. He did however without listening impose his very snobbish view of himself onto others. His condescension drips off every word!
@@johnfisher247 You rejected his arguments? :)
and when the debate concluded, Russell hurried back to catch his train home. he believed in the contingency of the timetable of the train schedule. He sounds like a little ferret or chipmunk when he talks.
why doesn`t trinity is written in bible brian
This wasn't a debate. They never once got off topic or interrupted and shouted over each other.
You are being ironic of course but well put.
@@RevRMBWest Agreed! 😄👏🏻😄
A truly enjoyable debate and a good example for everyone on TH-cam that disagrees with one another.
This was refreshing & fantastic in the aspect of having a civil & respectful debate/challenge/disagreement. They've acknowledged one another's pts & challenged one another's pts & attacked the position not the person & when they hit an impasse they moved on..its too bad moat debates/discussions can't be this way today where folks emote, get offended, project & converse intellectually dishonest..
I do maintain that the opening narration by Eric Idle is surely among the best of the voice work he’s done.
You'd like this: th-cam.com/video/HVQrpok9KPA/w-d-xo.html
Nudge nudge wink wink say no more.
I was expecting him to declare it to be a no holds barred wrestling match.
@aperson00000 I love it
Thanks for this.
Well I’m glad this has been cleared up…
Very civil, totally unlike an equivalent debate today far more verbal sophistication on display here and I cannot say that I fully understood all arguments or references made, of course this is down to my own shortfalls.
I am left with a better agreement with Copleston even if I do not believe in a god and also hold that Russell’s Celestial teapot holds philosophically sound that we cannot know what we do not know and neither prove nor disprove what we can not find either because we are looking in the wrong place or because it doesn't exist.
While Russell spoke of not finding gold, I can certainly say that this debate delivered it.
It is 2022 God is dead.
Since you couldn't understand the words they used, probably because you haven't studied epistemology and so don't know what contingent and necessary truths are, or apriori or aposteriori knowledge, analytical or synthetics, etc, then how could you agree with either man in an argument expressed entirely using those things?
As for Russel's teapot, that's an answer to the specific logical fallacy of Argument from ignorance, it's not an argument against the existence of god.
Take a logic course, you'll love it.
@@HueyLewisRocks I wouldn’t say I couldn’t understand so many of the words that the arguments were entirely lost on my but perhaps the context was unfamiliar to me. I do have a wider vocabulary than might be expected. I did search the OED for some of the words used where the meaning was unclear and I did get the thrust of the argument.
Good suggestion for the logic course, definitely something I’ll consider when I have the time.
@@Ye_Olde_Duke_of_Edinburgh At risk of sounding condescending, I think if you learned something about logic and epistemology you'd realise just how much of that debate you didn't understand, as I did when I was introduced to those subjects The concepts they're using have very specific meanings, they're not really words you can 'look up', you have to understand the academic context.
@@HueyLewisRocks If the other person can't explain "God" other than in a made up, faulty argument, then that is a loss. It's not a tie. You can't lose a soccer game ten times and call it "undecided" because the opponent grants you another chance.You're still a loser. These models that they present are just the normie way of complicating things they don't understand. Same goes with the incessant use of dumb wordings. If you can't explain things to a child, you don't understand it yourself. And of course this is an argument against a "God", especially when all the representatives of this "God" try to trick you all the time. I see comments here that this Coplestone "held his own", which is just false. Russel is being a good sport, that's all. But it's also his fault for acting insecure when he is proving himself right. This "civil" discussion hype is nonsense.
The only problem with this video is that it is too short.
Does anyone else find the conclusion of this arguement amusing? It was one big circle that lead to nothing, yet managed to produce what could be an endless debate. Wonderful.
If there's a God and it's intelligible it would find this fact you mention the greatest comedy to itself
Appreciate Capturing Christianity turning me onto this debate. It was the only one I hadn't seen before and probably my favorite of his list. The brevity and wit both these men demonstrate in this debate is inspiring. While I am biased towards Russell's side due to my atheism there is little doubt that Copleston is right there with him going jab for jab with every argument.
And no one has disliked the video so far when 117 people have liked it
Copleston obviously won this...
@@bun197 Not obvious at all, nor true. Copleston was unable to logically deduce the existence of a necessary being (doing so on the basis of observed things is a species of composition fallacy; as Russell says, just because every human has a mother, it doesn't follow that humankind has a mother), let alone show that the necessary being would logically require any of the additional attributes (additional to necessary existence, that is) we associate with a theistic god.
@@8s700 But did you listen to Copleston’s reply, that he was not arguing by a fallacy of composition, rather by saying; ‘the series of phenomenal causes is an insufficient explanation of the series, therefore the series has not a phenomenal cause but a transcendent cause’? Russell then goes on to doubt the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), which is the real crux of this debate. Copleston’s argument was not fallacious. Even Russell does not continue with his accusation of a fallacy of composition, instead arguing against the PSR with his gold mining analogy. Copleston claims that denying the PSR undermines all of science, since physicists assume that all things have an explanation for their existence. We would open the possibility of objects in nature that are simply there with no explanation. He adds that the statement ‘the world is simply there’ is not an analytic truth, which seems to contradict Russell’s epistemological standard.
They never even mentioned the additional attributes of God, so I don’t think Russell or Copleston won on that point. Ultimately, I think whether or not the PSR is true determines who won the debate, but they both decided to move on. Although Copleston did successfully defend the validity of his argument, i.e., Russell’s objections failed. So on that basis (also while considering the consequences of denying the PSR) I would say Copleston won.
th-cam.com/video/wVN5Vp58UJs/w-d-xo.html
Should inter finite(s) 'causation'' be extrapolated to any of that of the non finite/finite?
I love this debate.
The introduction needs to have The Liberty Bell March playing in the background?
The most intellectual argument that the professors at Hogwarts ever had.
Hogwarts?
th-cam.com/video/wVN5Vp58UJs/w-d-xo.html
@@Ye_Olde_Duke_of_Edinburgh I’ve heard of the place. They bought a ton of rubles early on in April of this year
@@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLL knew it.
10 points for Hufflepuff
Is big bang singularity seen as part or as totality? And if it is both at the same time, then how it can be that for the talking here that there is a cause for a part and not a cause for a totality?
Wow I recently found out about Copleston’s 11 volume History of Philosophy series, it wasn’t cheap but I bought them (but haven’t gotten to it yet, I’m saving it for 1300 rainy days lol). So apparently back when he wrote them it was only meant to be for Catholic students, however it unexpectedly became a huge hit with secular and religious people alike.
Well, if it is well written... I am an atheist but I never had particular qualms reading people like Albertus Magnus, Maimonides, Averroes or Thomas Aquinus... No reason a modern cleric wouldn't be able to have the same depth of reasoning.
@@azarshadakumuktir4551 it’s actually still on hold for me, but that’s on purpose. I decided that I would rather not dig into it until I build a solid basic/intermediate philosophical foundation first (other books). I would rather have it be more of a fun historical ride, as opposed to me struggling/learning through it because I don’t have a good grasp of many concepts & terms yet. Although I’m sure that it will still have some meat to it for me when I get to it.
I’m not an atheist, but I think that Copleston and AJ Ayer (atheist) were good friends for life, and talked all the time. That must have been a cool arrangement of friendly & deep intellectual volleying!
Just buying Copleston's work shows a bias that you may not be able to get past.
no price on knowledge my friend
record-breaking utterances of the word "proposition" from 5:12 to 6:12
Welcome to analytic philosophy 🥴
What are you proposing?!
Legendary debate
Thank you valuable resource
" Bertrand Russell somewhere has joked, “If I calculate all my sins, sins that I have committed and sins that I have not committed, only brooded over - if even they are included - the hardest judge can’t send me to jail for more than four years. And Christianity sends you to hell forever.” Bertrand Russell has written a book, Why I am not a Christian; this is one of his arguments. It is a beautiful argument because the whole thing seems to be ridiculous.
Bertrand Russell, one of the geniuses of our times, tried hard to get rid of the Christian mind, not because it was Christian, but simply because it was given to him by others. He wanted his own fresh outlook about things. He did not want to see things from somebody else’s glasses; he wanted to come in contact with reality immediately, and directly. He wanted his own mind.
Bertrand Russell has made a statement that if there were no death, there would be no religion. There is some truth in it. I will not agree totally, because religion is a vast continent. It is not only death, it is also the search for bliss, it is also the search for truth, it is also the search for the meaning of life; it is many more things. But certainly Bertrand Russell is right: if there were no death, very few, very rare people would be interested in religion. Death is the great incentive.
Your mind is not your mind - this is something basic to be remembered. Your mind is an implantation of the society in which you have accidentally been born.
If you were born in a Christian home, but immediately transferred to a Mohammedan family and brought up by the Mohammedans, you would not have the same mind; you would have a totally different mind that you cannot conceive of.
So it was not a question of being against the Christian mind; if he had been a Hindu he would have done the same, if he had been a Mohammedan he would have done the same, if he had been a communist he would have done the same.
Bertrand Russell tried hard and wrote a book, WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. But in a letter to a friend he wrote, “Although I have written the book, although I do not believe that I am a Christian, I have dropped that mind, still, deep down… One day I asked myself, `Who is the greatest man in history?’ Rationally I know it is Gautam Buddha, but I could not put Gautam Buddha above Jesus Christ. “That day I felt that all my efforts have been futile. I am still a Christian. I know rationally that Jesus Christ stands no comparison with Gautam Buddha - but it is only rational. Emotionally, sentimentally I cannot put Gautam Buddha above Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ remains in my unconscious, still affecting my attitudes, my approaches, my behavior. The world thinks I am no longer a Christian, but I know… It seems difficult to get rid of this mind! They have cultivated it with such acumen, with such craftsmanship.”"
Nice c0mment 👍
"...the impregnable position of science may be stated in a few words: we claim, and we shall wrest from theology, the entire domain of cosmological theory." Mr Tyndall in 'Fragments of Science'. And this is from the 1800s. I've been re-reading Blavatsky's contention with science... She ends this quote with " - the end is not difficult to foresee :-)
Blavatsky the fraudulent medium who was exposed by Richard Hodgson?
if you're waiting for science to provide an answer as to first causes or origins then you will pass away disappointed
Thank you
Lawrence Krauss needs to take some debating tips from Bertrand Russell.
Whatever happened to part 2 and 3, anyone knows?
This was a very civilized debate between 2 philosophers. Of course it is a never ending debate and cannot be resolved by science and reason. At the end of the day, it becomes identity politics. In these postmodern times, self-ID has been accepted as a legitimate form of self-expression. If a male can identify as a female, then a theist can identify as an atheist and vice versa. Bertram Russell “identified” as an agnostic in the debate, but said he would “identify” as an atheist to the ordinary man. This bypasses the truth and falsity issue. By the same token, I can “identify” as a theist, without having to argue the case. This identity is “who I am”. Jordan Peterson taught me this approach. When badgered by his critics who wanted him to declare whether or not he believes in the Christian God, he would neither confirm or deny. He put it this way: “I act as if God exists”. Then he goes on to talk about the deep existential, psychological & moral truth he finds in the Bible, upon which Western civilization has drawn its enduring strength & weaknesses for thousands of years.
A highest quality debate between two great intellectuals, by the way great philosophers and scientists like Einstein Howkins don't believe in the existence of God some even said it's dead.
Like all discussions about the existence of god, they ultimately do nowhere, as their final phrases indicate. At least, there appears to be some kind of mutual respect in how to behave towards each other during the course of their discussion.
I wish I could find the rest of this debate. Doesn't seem to be anywhere on the internet. Also Ayer's debate with Copleston.
Yes!! Where the hell is the rest?
This is all there is!! That's the most beautiful part about this. If you want to see the breaking down of this argument , go to 'Capturing Christianity'. He discusses this with an expert on the contingency argument. ❤️
There is a written transcript in Russell's "Why I am not a Christian"
you can read it in print
What happened to the previous "philosophy overdose" channel?
Where can the rest be heard?
I didn’t realize have a high both of their voices were, I pictured them both as slow talking and low voiced lol
such polite digression!
Theological arguments never go in staight line lol
huh didnt expect russell to sound like that
？
He does have an unexpectedly weird sounding voice. It fits his appearance though.
I felt persuaded by Copelston's line of argument after the first watch, but after rewatching I realized he's actually not addressing Russel's point at all. Russel said the elements of a set having a particular property (all humans having a mother, for example) is not proof of the set having that property (the human race having a property), and Copelston's reply affirmed the opposite, "and if it (the whole) is sufficient to itself, it is what I call necessary. But it can't be necessary, since each member is contingent". Why does each member being contingent entail the set's contingency? It seems like a fallacy to me.
Where can I go to have a conversation like this in our modern world?!?
The Infrared Discord Server
Engage with Mr Bean. G'day from Australia mate 🇦🇺 👌
@@fromhegel4036 lmao
Right here
@@fromhegel4036 thank you, with my 30 years of rigorous epistemological and analytic logic knowledge I'll head my way into there
The Buddhist concept of dependent causation seems somewhat relevant here, that there is no single cause, or absolute cause of any or all things, but that everything causes everything else, infinitely. It is a decentralised notion of causation.
but if there is an infinite chain then there is no before or after, no creator before the created. But we can observe a now and a past and a future. A child does not exist before it is created so the idea of an infinite chain doesn't make sense.
I remember asking my teacher - who was a Buddhist - about this and he commented that when people asked Buddha "what was the first cause?" he would be silent and not respond. Thus, it seems that Buddhist don't have an answer for that, they recognize that there must be a first cause, but they simply don't comprehend it, consequently, I don't think they have much to add in this debate.
@@Smoomty Why doesn't an infinite chain make sense or is tit that such just feels unacceptable? Any particular state is simply a link in the chain.
If one has no issue with the idea of a thing existing eternally, then it follows that one shouldn't have an issue with an infinite chain, since, both are infinite past continuums.
@@MyContext When we say that God exists "eternally" it's because He's outside of time. The way He perceives and lives is different. We however are within time and bound to it. An infinite regress would imply that there's no begining.
Besides your point is answered right at the beginning, contingent things are those which do not have a cause/explanation in themselves and are caused by something else. If the universe started to exist at some point (and science says it did) then the logic would follow.
@@Joleyn-Joy
1. What is your definition of time wherein something can be claimed to anything AND be outside of time?
I denote time as change or the potential for change which entails that my concept of time is past eternal but not necessarily applicable to some future state of affairs.
2. Do you accept matter/energy as a candidate non-contingent thing?
I have no issue with the idea and/or the implications of the concept non-contingency. However, I do have issue with such being interlinked with concepts (which are contingent such as intelligence) which are developmental and thus inherently contingent (insofar as my understanding of the idea of intelligence).
What is the cause of the world ?
The question implies that there are things "outside" the world.
If we define the world as everything that exists, then there is no outside.
I think this explains why Russell does not accept that the world has a cause.
Exactly, if the 'Universe' is the 'set of all things,' then to say "God is the cause of the Universe" is to really say that "the Universe is the cause of the Universe."
Was nice of Eric Idle to take care of the intro..
Lol
I think Copleston is conflating "being" (i.e. a thing that exists) with "personal being" (i.e. a being with thoughts and feelings and the ability to act consciously).
The necessary "being" upon which all of us are contingent could just as well be something non-personal, such as the universe, the big bang, etc. And that regress has been at least as ably addressed by modern physics as the regress of a God has been by religious philosophers (i.e. "because it has to be that way").
This is an excellent point. I would also add that our notion of contingency is based on our everyday notion of cause and effect. We are still discovering things about the nature of time. I have a feeling that questions such as “what caused the universe” may ultimately have no meaning.
No, it can't be the Universe as the Universe, per Copleston's and Russel's agreement, does not exist per se but is in itself a chain of existing entities(Copleston arguing they are contingent). The Big Bang is non-contingent and not necessary, so you require a necessary being, and I don't think Copleston conflates the both. He is very well learned and knows extremely well the difference in the two, but he proves the existence of the Universe by the philosophical God that is necessary. It doesn't prove the theistic God but it does prove God.
you are missing the point with that. his idea is that the universe is simply the sum or series of non self explanatory and contingent things, it does not suddenly gain a power over and above its constituent parts just because you give it a name. he’s basically saying the necessary reality is immaterial, it’s more an argument against materialism
Basically;
R: Everything between the parentheses is all that is because that is all that is between the parentheses.
C: The parentheses imply something else outside of them.
Both: Welp, we’re at an impass. Have a great day.
Great summarization
Is this the debate that was included in "Why I am not a Christian"?
Yeah
I find it amusing to imagine everyday people going about their daily work, in offices or factories, coal mines or maybe cow sheds and somewhere in the background someone has turned on a radio which is broadcasting this debate. I imagine them.listenining respectfully with varying degrees of comprehension to the arguemts from both sides, enunciated with these delightful antique accents. There is something delicious about Russell's. Intellectual confidence and aristocratic detachment which is somehow hilarious.
The problem of contingency argument is that the line between cause and effect of existence is somewhat arbitrary. Your existence is contingent upon the existence if your parents only because you assume your existence is a separate existence whereas your existence can be considered an extension of your parents. If a plant for example reproduces by extending its roots, the new plant that is still connected through the root is not a completely new existence but an extension of the same existence, therefore one can argue that all existence is connected not through cause and effect but through extension and division of one and the same existence. All boundaries between individual existences are arbitrary. And if all existence is only one existence, it has to be self-contained and non-contingent. Then at the end we arrive at the claim that existence exists without any cause.
Problem is, you cannot show that your model of the plant reproducing by extending its roots applies to anything but plants, so your generalization fails.
Very well, do extension/division still not entail that the growth of the new plant is contingent on the presence of the former? With such terminology, you would still have to extend this to seemingly inanimate objects and ultimately the whole universe. As one can not seriously accept that the existence of the human race, be it a single “collective” existence, is self-contained and without a cause. You pose a totality that you wish to call a single existence that has been dividing and extending. However, your conclusion is unsupported as you have to demonstrate that it is possible for the universe’s existence to be necessary for it to be self-contained. When one considers that the universe came into existence (cannot extend infinitely into the past) and judging by its transient parts, this becomes challenging to do. You are thus left with the original problem.
@@mathewsamuel1386 plant was just an example to make it easier to understand. Let me give you another example. I use a lighter to light a candle. The candle flame seems to be an independent existence, but it was caused by the flame of the lighter. Are they two distinct existences just because they appear to be separate?
Another example: Imagine a big rock. If I crush it into hundred pieces, does this create hundred new existences? Where is the line separating an existence from the cause of that existence? The line is illusory. There is no real line.
@@mjfk872 Yes, I see the difference very clearly. In the case of the candle, the lighter was the source of the energy that ignited the candle; it did not transfer any part of its flame to the candle, and the candle does not depend on the lighter to continue to burn once ignited. In fact, the lighter would usually be put out when the candle is lighted. Accordingly, once the flame of the candle began, it became completely independent of the lighter. The lighter existed before the candle, and if it remained on after the candle had been ignited, we would count two flames not one. You can move each flame to a separate location as far from the other as you possibly can without changing the other, so again showing their independence and desperate existence. Also, to an observer who wasn't present to observe the lighting of the candle, there would have been no way to tell which flame caused the other or preceded the other, and it would be correct to conclude in that circumstance that the two flames may have always existed independently and separate from each other. In the case of the rock, we would have individual pieces, each of which can be taken to a different location from the others, hence separate from them. It doesn't matter that they were derived from the same parent rock; they are numerically and locationally distinct. Instances of the same class must be distinct, otherwise there would be no way of identifying them to begin with. How this goes back to the question of God, however, is unclear to me. Do we think God exists only because nothing can come from nothing? Then we would ask, "what did God come from, and what did what God came from come from and..." ad infinitum. Or do we think that God exists because it gives meaning, order and purpose to our own existence? I do not see any objection to accepting the latter. However, one can choose to accept the existence of God or not. No debate can settle the question one way or the other.
@@mathewsamuel1386
The main focus is on existence. In all of your explanations you are correctly pointing out to the fact that we consider separation in time and space as criteria for distinguishing two individually separated existences. My point is that this separation and classification is arbitrary and applies to the appearance of objects not their existence. To establish the 'cause' and 'effect' relation between the existence of objects you need to connect them in time and space at some point. The flame of lighter and flame of the candle have been one entity at a point of time and space, which would technically make them extensions/divisions of the one and the same existence. Even if you succeed in establishing the separation between the existence of cause and its effects, then the supposed God who was the primary cause would be a far and removed entity that is separated from our existence with infinite degrees of separation, thus it becomes more or less irrelevant to our existence. If on the other hand, you agree that every seemingly separate existence is merely an extension/division of the same existence, then this unit of existence is without any cause, because nothing exists beyond it to become its cause. But that one existence can be the cause of infinite divisions and extensions to itself. For me, the biggest takeaway from contingency argument is that the cause and effect is an internal process not an external one.
Shakyamuni Buddha also passed by these questions and probings in silence.
Both sides having an agenda while going into a debate limits the "truthfulndss" that can come out of the debate. It is the logical formulation of the scientific term superdeterminism. The tester influences the results.
Agreed but there is much less of that here. Copleston is only arguing for a necessary being and Russell is primarily concerned with saying such an idea is problematic and untenable. At no point does the conversation stray outside those confines.
@@jamespower5165 I totally understand. I'm sorry if I'm considering how this confined discussion compares to Russell's discussions with Whitehead. While they were trying to create a system of logic that could apply (sort of) universally, with neither locked into supporting one particular position. (I feel Whitehead set the stage for modern quantum mechanics with his Process Philosophy)
@@psmoyer63 smart people ask the right questions they don't know everything.
difference between trying to prove a point and trying to formulate what question needs to be asked.
'asking the right question is half way to solving the problem' sometimes
this was almost just a semantic battle so no great question were asked or answered.
The audio seems to be playing a tad too fast.
All Russell had to ask was 'Who or what made God?' Copleston would then have to admit that a 'necessary' being is not required for a 'contigent' being to exist. And therefore we are free to believe that the Universe has always just 'existed'.
Better than most contemporary debates on this supremely importantly issue . Copleston's argument , I find compelling , but I am a theist anyway . I am however an admirer of Russell , not obviously for his metaphysics of naturalism but rather for his well documented humanitarian activism and his aptitude for elucidating complex and often obscure philosophical concepts comprehensible to the scholastically uninitiated . An aptitude that , generally speaking , is too often lacking in otherwise erudite philosophical expositors .
Fancy fancy
Yeah , whatever , John Dodo@@JohnDoe-uk6si
Copleston (2:28): there are at least some beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence. For example, I depend on my parents, and now on the air, and on food, and so on. Now, secondly, the world is simply the real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects, none of which contain in themselves alone the reason for their existence.
My parents didn't create the matter that makes me up, they reorganized it. Does he mean 'current organization of matter' when he says 'object'? It seems from physics that matter (energy, quantum field) cannot be created or destroyed, it just is. The thing that has a beginning is a specific organization of these fundamental things. So 'reason of existence' is more accurately 'reason of transitioning from one state of matter to another', isn't it?
Russell: (7:50) I think a subject named can never be significantly said to exist but only a subject described. And that existence, in fact, quite definitely is not a predicate....
(8:43) Well, certainly the question "Does the cause of the world exist?" is a question that has meaning. But if you say "Yes, God is the cause of the world" you're using God as a proper name; then "God exists" will not be a statement that has meaning; that is the position that I'm maintaining. Because, therefore, it will follow that it cannot be an analytic proposition ever to say that this or that exists. For example, suppose you take as your subject "the existent round-square," it would look like an analytic proposition that "the existent round- square exists," but it doesn't exist.
Is his contention that 'being' consists of the property 'existent'? So to say 'contingent being' would be equal to 'something that exists that could possibly not exist'. Which would be incoherent because in the case it didn't exists it couldn't be 'something that exists'. So a being (something that exists) can only exist, it can never 'possibly not exist'. Is this the crux of his argument?
@Philosophy Overdose Great debate! First of all, a lesson on how to address an intellectual oponent relying on elegance, polite manners, patience and some indulgence in following an argument one does not relate to. Although, I suspect Coppleston's argument to be fallacious somehow, I think that Russell dismissed it rather too quickly and on wrong grounds. An explanation for the existence of everything as a whole is in principle a legitimate desideratum of metaphysics, and one that is even among the physicist interests these days (paraphrased in the language of current cosmological models). Albeit suspicious, as in the case of Anselm's ontological argument, I don't see where it breaks. However, conceding for a minute that there is a necessary being that is itself his own explanation and the ultimate explanation of an infinite series of contigent beings, what I think it is most susceptible to be attacked is the implicit importance of this being. By this argument, one has not demonstrated that the necessary being has will, neither that the nature of the explanation of contingent beings by means of the necessary being is creation. Contingent beings in the series might be related by causal explanations that does not involve creation, but composition, interaction, and many others. Therefore, calling this necessary being God might be unwarranted. Nothing in its definition is connected to purposeful creation, which I guess is essential for the concept of God.
It seems to me that you dismiss the logical conclusion of the argument simply because it doesn't answer the objections you have to other points not made here.
The argument only sets out to demonstrate that at the end of contingent things, there is a neccesarry thing. So you are correct. By this argument no one has demonstrated that this neccesarry thing has a will, neither your other point. However, there's other arguments for those conclusions.
So it sounds to me, if intellectually honest, that you deem Coppleston's logic sound. And your issue is rather with other arguments that are commonly used together with this one to get to the conclusion of God existing.
Is this a fair assessment?
@@shanevan1 Notice that I admired the debate, especially on the side of Coppleston. However, notice as well that I was suspicious of the Coppleston's analysis to be fallacious. Only suspicious, since I don't have any proofs. Philosophical conundrums are not easy to disentangle, a fortiori for an amateur like me.
Why I am suspicious? Just because it recalls to me the way Anselm's ontological argument operates. For Anselm, the misleading step is taken when existence is predicated of God as any other of his attributes. Frege duly noticed that the statement "horses exist" functions differently as e.g. "horses are tall". The correct decomposition would be "there is at least one thing and such thing is a horse", the second part of which reduces the elusive problem of existence to identification. We know that horses exist because we recognize that some (already existing) things match the description of a horse. Attribute values under different aspects that are equally ascribable to particular things can be conjoint without any loss in meaning. For instance, "horses are tall and hairy", "horses are short and bold", or any other combination of height and hairiness conditions are equally tenable (they might me false empirically, but that is not at issue, they are still meaningful). However, when you say "horses are tall and non-existent" you can't make sense of what you say. The moral is that taking existence as an attribute brings along ill-posed sentences. Note that I am not raising any issues regarding empirical evidence or valid inferences from them. When you ascribe a predicate to a thing you presuppose existence. Knowing that it is false you cannot say that "unicorns are tall" unless you are in fictional domain or in a conversation that is parasitic on such fiction.
That being said I cannot pin down what is the nature of the fallacious argument by Coppleston's, if I am rightly suspicious of it. It is very well accommodated within logic as far as I can see. But again, I don't trust my amateur philosophical sight any more than my intuitions.
Now, in my previous post I went along with the existence of necessary things as presupposition for two other criticisms, the ones related to God's will and his creation of contingent things in our universe, such as ourselves. I don't concur with you in your consideration of those as beyond the point since to talk of a proof of God's existence you have to be clear of what is God. As far as I know, God has to be an agent (*) that crafted the universe (*). If you remove those characteristics you are not proving God. I can conceive of necessary things that are not necessarily God.
Finally, I am a believer of a certain kind, at least I want to believe. Please see my comment in the lecture of Kaufman about Kirkegaard. But here we are engaging in critical, unbiased reasoning.
This is the full extent of my intellectual honesty on this regard.
Thanks for replying!
@@Gabriel-pt3ci Is it right for me to say that I am suspicious of the priciple of sufficient reason itself? It seems like an unwarranted presupposition.
"elegance, polite manners," Why do these matter? Why does someone need be elegant and relatively polite in a discussion? What is the lesson to be had?
If you are searching for a moral principle of politeness and an aesthetical principle of elegance grounded on pure reason, I cannot spell it out. What I can say is that humbly I appreciate those features, perhaps as a result of my cultural background and my personality. From a different perspective, I can also add that a debate that is conducted with elegance and politeness is more difficult to sustain simply because it is subject to extra constraints. And I suppose we do often admire self-hampered but effective executions of any kind... (Incidentally, that is why we appreciate some circus skills).
My ability to prove our existence, both terrestrially and celestially, is to find the story and the sequence that brings meaning to the story. This story has been revealed to me first by you and secondly by the Bible. My duality of spirit automatically tracks a parallel story, the celestial story, and the miraculous events of my revelations and confirmations prove that everything we do on earth, including the story, is a journey of my life on earth as a divine being. My purpose terrestrially is to get to Heaven (London) and be with my family, to find love and share love. My celestial purpose is to save as many of my children as possible so we may spend eternity in our celestial home of joy.
How could the non demonstrable nature of nothingness not be demonstrative of the necessity for the existance of one eternal being?
er.......yeah.......right. ! Just what I was about to say..
@@2msvalkyrie529 In other words, because it is impossible to demonstrate nothingness, common sense urges one to conclude that something has always been. And since something will not come from nothing, an eternal being is neccesary. Agree?
@@henrybarrick7205 correct. in layman's terms, for anything to exist there must be something eternal. no beginning no end. human mind doesn't cant intuit because we have no experience with it.
the first question to consider, is it more likely that the eternal is inanimate (like energy matter) or a conscious being that created? all other discussions kick the can down the road and avoid the only question that matters. The answer is also simple. In no other circumstance would complex design be argued by brilliant people to have come into existence randomly.
oddly its now popular to consider the idea we live in a simulation because the universe is too precisely coded. 😆
@@jdawg5960 and sometimes its about the journey and not the destination
Proposition, Analytic, Contingent is all I keep hearing over and over
I believe in the Tooth Fairy 🧚♀️. 😶
@@alphaomega1351 thank you for adding your intellectual gravitas to the conversation......
@@terribleTed-ln6cm
You are welcome! It's what I does. It's what I do. 😶
These conversations take some background information to digest over time before it makes sense.
The main problem of our existence is that we cannot know if there is existence without being, and if there can be being without awareness (mind). The whole process of our coming into being is formed both of contigent processes (those that can be understood in scientific terms, like chemistry and evolution), but also incontingent steps, like the Big Bang, abiogenesis, sudden explosions of birth of new species, which are too improbable in a scientific context. Thus both religion and science are unable to provide an answer to this problem. Thus, the main thesis of Herbert Spencer remains that the origin of our existence is an inscrutible mystery.
The Big Ban, abigenesis, and explosions of birth are not incontingent upon Copleston's definition.
@@natanaellizama6559 interesting... Maybe you could send a link to his interview... Or did I miss something he said in this interview?
@@WMAlbers1
In the debate with Russell, he's defining contingent in terms of that which does not contain in itself the complete reason for its existence and therefore something that is meaningful to ask the cause of. It is perfectly reasonable and coherent to ask the reason for abiogeneis, for the explosion of birth and the Big Bang; that is, they are not self-explained and invite rational enquiry into their causes. It is possible, for example, that abiogenesis is explained through a natural set of chemical processes.
As such, that would be the cause of an abiogenesis event and therefore abiogenesis is an effect. One could also ask, on a more metaphysical note, that given abiogenesis is a temporal event, that there must be a temporal cause or a metaphysical cause which gives rise to the historic and temporal conditions for abiogenesis.
So, if something is not self-explained(has a cause, for example), then it would be contingent and so it does not stop the metaphysical chain of explanation seeking. Does that make sense?
@@natanaellizama6559I think the Big Bang could be contingent using Hawkins' model
@@rodomolina7995
All entities under Copleston's view and their relations are contingent. The only non-contingent essence is God per Gods essence as Absolute
It's like steampunk robots arguing
I wonder what Copleston thought about cosmology in the light of quantum physics, where causation is generally speaking not required?
Thinking of the world in separate objects which are contingent on one another might also kind of miss the point.
Causation (and its implied contingency) is always required, unless the argument begins with something self-existent.
Probably nothing? It’s completely tangential. If anything, distinctions and word games.
Hi I'm a quantum physicist, and I'd like to let you know that causation is still a feature of QM. Now, the result of a single measurement is not explained by QM beyond giving a probability distribution according to the Born rule, but let's not confuse that state of affairs with causation being not required. The Schrodinger equation, the bread and butter of quantum dynamics, is totally casual.
@Sky Gardener That is a very peculiar perspective.
It is one of those things that nobody knows until we die, which is the great unkown of humanity. I hope that there is something after death, but i don't expect it
Does infinity exist?
I guess it is hard to accept the existence of things considering that scientists say that the universe and everything in it came from nothing. All the more is it harder to accept the existence of God because nobody knows where He came from. But man , because he is able to experience both, is capable of believing.... Man is an enigma within a puzzle.
It's easy to misinterpret what various scientists mean by 'nothing' - which, to me, is a term serving only as a logical placeholder, like '0'. I embrace the notion of eternal existence - that 'something', i.e. some kind of universe, has always existed; but what can one truly know? After all, we are absurdly tiny collections of molecules, stirred into fleeting consciousness. As for beliefs, it's inevitable that we have them, but there's inner peace to found in keeping one's own counsel.
The philosophical concept of "contingency" presupposes the idea of "necessity." The conclusion is taken for granted in the premise.
no it doesn't, necessity is derived from contingency. The only thing presupposed here is the PSR, the strong PSR albeit.
17 minutes of gold plated intellectualism! Two highly articulate and imaginative minds debating the impossible with respect and good grace. For me, Russell's contention that there need be no explanation for existence wins the day. This is a brilliant channel. Thank you.
Cope. Him saying that was a concession because he got backed into a corner. Nobody really thinks that.
It was definitely nostalgic
6:12
Russell brings a now-discredited cosmology and a very contentious and now-discredited philosophy of language to the debate.
Russell is the one that was right.
Compelston convinced me
10 points to Gryffindor
Would loved to have heard what Christopher Hitchens would've thought about this debate.
Would've drank a glass of jack and said gods a delusion , wait that wS Dawkins
This kind of “ argument from contingency “ is originally from Ibn Sina ,
I disagree with it .
This theists insist on some old philosophical argument which has been proven to have some logical issues .
nice!
I like to give analogy. A living cell, plant or animal, has the ability to produce a copy of it. All factories created by human beings are able to produce something, but can a factory produce a factory without the help of a living cell (or a human being). Say a computer virus, it can produce a copy of itself but it is a code that reside inside some device produced by humans. So far self replicating things do not exist outside the living cells. If human beings are able to produce such a thing, then it is proof that no god exist. As long as it is not possible we can assume that some specialty outside the science exists inside a living cell. That cannot be explained by logic or science!
Can a living cell make a factory? A human is more sophisticated than a living cell.
This debate would only be enhanced, if not entirely illuminated, by the presence of Professor Irwin Corey.
Coplestone make a brilliant effort to outline a beautiful and comprehensively intelligible argument to which rustle only utters : "It's not logical"
Well....it's not for Him!
That's why you either experience God or you don't. Too much wit clouds one's judgment.
Russell doesn't have a grasp of metaphysics. With his denial of God with his lack of precision if God's attributes Russell destroys all ideals. Without those chaos and self devouring mass murder with a smile. There is nothing constraining the lowest and the most vile fabrications of the human mind.
And too much credulity leads many to label chemical processes in their brain as "God in their blood pump".
@@dimbulb23 The confusion of process with cause is fairly widespread.
@@tomgreene1843 A well understood process has value.
A so-called cause that can't be shown to exist is just noise.
Existence in omnipresent and singular. It is conscious. What else do you need?!
How can someone like Russell deny that it is necessary for Bertrand Russell to be human? Could Bertrand Russell "become" a dog and still be Bertrand Russell?
Certainly, the statement "Bertrand Russell is a human" is necessarily true if it is true at all, but under most interpretations of "analytic" it won't turn out to be an analytical statement, even though a necessary statement. Maybe a good reason to deny that all necessary statements are analytical statements? There are necessary truths about individuals and we can refer to them both by logical proper names as by definite descriptions. Modality does not always establish referentially opaque contexts.
I have great respect for Russell, but the stuff which he did for radio stations was generally speaking .... not his best.
To be clear, Russell has no problem with _propositions_ being necessary, his problem is with _beings_ or _entities_ being necessary. In other words, it's perfectly fine to attribute necessity to a statement or a proposition, or if you like, a truth about some object or entity. But it makes no sense to say that a particular object or entity itself is necessary (anymore than that you can say an object itself, rather than a proposition about an object, is true or false).
@@Philosophy_Overdose Yes and no. Russell says
1) Necessity can be only reasonably understood when it is ascribed to propositions,
but he also says that
2) all necessary statements are analytical statements, thereby excluding all atomic statements of subject-predicate structure, (statements whose function, if properly analysed, has only has one argument slot) in whose subject position is a logical proper name. There are no analytical statements of the form "F(a)".
The statement "Bertrand Russell is human" seems to be true. If it is true at all, it is necessarily true. But Russell also states that such a proposition cannot be necessarily true, because all necessary propositions are analytical statements and the statement "B. Russell is human" is not analytical, (if we don't understand "B. Russell" as a hidden denoting phrase, but as a logical proper name, whose logical structure is simple,) and that therefore the statement "B. Russell is human" cannot be necessary/necessarily true.
Russell was, of course, famously ambiguous on the status and logical structure of proper names, and his views on the matter ranged from seeing proper names as logically simple and distinct from denoting phrases, over only regarding "this" (whenb referring to sense data) as the only true proper names, to not accepting logically simple proper names at all and as he viewed them all as just shorthands for some a means of picking out a definite reference by means of description (somewhat similar to their analysis proposed by Quine). But here in this recording, he states that proper names are logically different from definite denoting phrases in that proper names are logically simple whereas denoting phrases are logically complex and that therefore there cannot be any necessary statement whose meaning is already contained in its subject (Kant's old distinction between analytic and synthetic statements) if the subject term is a proper name.
However, he does not speak about relations, and it seems obvious that "a=a" has to be true if the term "a" is not empty. The same goes for compound statements like "~(Fa&~Fa)", so one can build analytically true statements with proper names, but there can be no analytical statement of the form "Fa". The statement "Bertrand Russell is human" however is of exactly this structure.
@@die_schlechtere_Milch
"Bertrand Russell is human" is not necessarily true.
It was CONTINGENTLY true that he was human while he was alive, but before he was born was that proposition true? Of course not - the guy didn't exist yet! Even now the proposition is not true because you would have to change the proposition to the past tense for it to be true, but as it is in the present tense it is false.
And are there possible worlds where Russell was never even born at all? Of course, so you are simply incorrect to think that the proposition is a necessary truth.
A proposition is only necessarily true if it holds across ALL possible worlds, not just the actual world.
The fact that Russell could not magically turn into a dog is utterly irrelevant to the issue.
@@Oners82
1) If we want to modify "Bertrand Russell is human" with the modal operator for necessity, we have two options, de dicto and de re. You write "A proposition is only necessarily true if it holds across ALL possible worlds, not just the actual world.". But: For a the de re necessity, we need only quantify over the worlds in which B. Russel exists.
2) If you already take up the possible worlds talk, maybe consider viewing names as rigid designators. Of course, not something that Russell did, but I am not aware of him using possible worlds in order to explain modality by means of quantification either.
3) Bertrand Russell is a particular (first substance in Aristotelean terms) and "Bertrand Russell" a singular term, whereas "is human" a universal predicate, and human a second substance. Copleston seems to assume the Aristotelean position that substances have essences (since he is using these concepts in his arguiment). Under the Aristotelean Framework it is a necessary truth that every first substance participates essentially in its respective second substance. Russell did not argue against Coppleston's assumption of essences. There are however no essences for the first substances as such, so names of individual first subtances have to be treated as logically simple. Even if you take the Aristotelean view that propositions are not tensed and that statements about future contingents have no truth value, "Bertrand Russell is essentially human" would have been true in the past as well, just like "Tomorrow a sea battle will either take place or won't take place" is to be considered as already true now as well. However, if you take the view that propositions are tensed, then there is no problem with "Bertrand Russell is human [in e.g. 1905 A.D.]" anyway.
@@die_schlechtere_Milch
"However, if you take the view that propositions are tensed, then there is no problem with "Bertrand Russell is human [in e.g. 1905 A.D.]" anyway."
The problem with it is that it is false because you did not specify a past date in your proposition.
What interests me most is the high intellectual plane on which Fr. Coppleston, and many other famous Jesuit scholars, existed. Today my clergy are rather marked by intense stupidity, beginning with the one currently occupying the Vatican.
The earlier clergy were classically trained and formed in seminaries of all denominations. Now, it is pop psychology and public relations training.
Define a Russellian being as one contingent upon beings, and only those beings, that are not contingent upon themselves. For any being B, and any Russellian being R, R is contingent upon B just as much as B is not contingent upon B. But then R is contingent upon R just as much as R is not contingent upon R.
Clerics automatically assume that this argument from contingency or from primary reason or whatever Thomas Aquinas pointed out proves the existence of that one specific God, that their structure represents. But why? Why can't it be Ra or Brahma or Huitzilopochtli?
It could. It is a generic argument, not an argument for the theistic or a particular theistic God, merely for God itself. Later on, further properties can be argued or not.
The first problem is in the beggining: "we all are contengent to something else" yes but the something else doesn't need to be being and shows it doesn't need and as we go trought "infinite" regress we explain "whole" on its own so we end up with explanation on its own... everything else is pretext inserted by religious doctrine
Mmmm, indeed. Quite right.
They know now...for sure!
If there's nothing in the afterlife then they don't
So it basically ends it with, well if you don't think it's worth discussing then why are we discussing it?
Russell bows out
i think that it's kind of funny. Russell must have felt uncomfortable a bit
why doesn`t trinity is written in bible
In basic terms, first you have to show a god exists before you can posit a god exists. Bad arguments exist, but they do not help toward understanding. A necessary being is meaningless unless you can show that a necessary being exists, show that it is indeed necessary and was not merely inserted into the argument. To say that a god is necessary is just inserting the god into existence. Making things up into existence is what humans do in fictional works. Asserting that a god is necessary or the cause of all matter must be demonstrated and not just asserted. Making stuff up is a human endeavor and some think they are better at it than others.
I’m a Christian, but yes a necessary proposition must be analytic. It is daft to try to prove gods existence. Russell was one of the few universal geniuses of the 20th century, and the 19th! Not a believer but 50 years in heaven.
5:5
Two beautifully articulate/intelligent human beings .... however, my own subjective view, is that this discussion may be far too opaque, for myself, it takes just three factual human senses, to acknowledge the existence of a god ... and that is to see, feel and touch bodily, as an entity, that maybe standing before our presence... if this where to happen, to human beings throughout the world, over many centuries, would believe undeniable that there is a god ... however this has not presented itself, in a way we can touch feel and engage in a non spiritual way, human vocal contact seems to be required, in order to believe in a true existent way , in the way that your children are now stood at your feet, ready to go to school ... this is real human clarity and is definitely not opaque.
Did u say anything?
اذا أصبح الإيمان بالحواس فلا يصح ان يسمي إيمانا لان الإيمان بتعلق بالغيببات
“I am.”
It is just like the earth is not spinning a thousands and thousands of miles per hour because if it indeed spunning you will seen those swirling motion of the stars not even focusing neatly and clearly satisfied the vision of the face of the moon!
God is a Spirit
John 4. 24
And that the world is stablished that it can not be moved
Psalms 93. 1
theres not much logic behind 'if we exist because of cause and effect, then there must be a *being* that is an inciting event', why does he suppose that the inciting event need to have happened by a living thing, theres nothing to suggest an experience or will behind the big bang other than his personification of it
The term being is not defined here. god, can mean many things and not necessarily a personified being. Replace “being” with “something metaphysical” if that suits you.
I wish the Christian’s in this debate knew the Bible- Jesus said that miracles prove his existence. And although you don’t see “Christians” performing these miracles- there are plenty out there who walk in the power of God as Christian’s are called to- and to this day people testify of being raised from the dead, radical healing experiences directly clearly related to God, and much more
Martin Albers, (in his comment below) stated: "The main problem of our existence is that we cannot know if there is existence without being, and if there can be being without awareness (mind)."
But I say, why focus on what we cannot know and instead focus on what we CAN know. Our very existence is evident by our own recognition of our own being, and that we are self-aware. We know we have being because we are aware of it, and therefore we answer the question of whether God exists from the vantage point of our own evaluation of evidence that is perceptible to us as beings with existence, reason, five senses, and rational thought. What difference does it make if there can be being without awareness, for all mankind the issue is irrelevant because as mankind, we all have being with awareness. Besides, you confound your argument when you ignore the fact that there can indeed be existence without awareness or mind. Every rock has that quality--existence without awareness or mind.
Therefore, the question becomes, does the available evidence that we as intelligent, self aware beings can observe, does the evidence argue in favor of, or against the existence of God?
The answer is abundantly clear.
The delicate balance of the myriad of forces in our own world argue in favor of God because it requires such precise design in order to support the existence of such complex creatures as mankind. In everything that is observable in the Earth and outside of the earth there is the undeniable signature of the kind of brilliance of design that is only possible from an intellect of such wisdom and vastness as belonging to God.
The astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross presents many such evidences on his website, "Reasons to Believe". He points out that human life would be impossible if the earth were positioned only three percent closer to the sun. Such a delicate balance has been designed into the Earth to support intelligent, self-aware beings as ourselves.
But most of all, God presents evidence of Hisown existence in the scriptures. For instance, there are over three-hundred fifty scriptures that prophecy in intricate detail the aspects of Jesus Christ, from the location of his birthplace, to the number of coins of silver he was betrayed with, to the fact that no bone was broken in his sacrifice on the Cross.
For any person to doubt the existence of God, He presents a dire warning:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Romans 1:17-21
God says plainly about those who deny His existence in Psalm 14:1: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Any who try to deny that God exists are blinding themselves to the abundant detailed, complex evidence of design in all of Creation that God does in fact, exist. And God will judge those who foolishly turn their back on Him and His precepts. The statistical probability of death is currently 100 percent.
Hebrews 9:27-28
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Do you listen to anybody? You do not; you listen only to yourself. When you leave the sense of hearing alone, all that is there is the vibration of the sound -- the words repeat themselves inside of you, as in an echo chamber. This sense is functioning in just the same way with you, except that you think the words you are hearing come from outside of you. Get this straight: You can never hear one word from anyone else, no matter how intimately you think you are in relationship with that person; you hear only your own translations, always. They are all your words you are hearing. All that the other person's words can possibly be to you is a noise, a vibration picked up by the ear-drum and transferred to the nerves which run to the brain. You are translating those vibrations all the time, trying to understand, because you want to get something out of what you are hearing. That is all right for a relationship with someone on the level of "Here is some money; give me a half kilo of carrots" -- but that is the limit of your relationship, of your communication, with anybody.
When there is no translation, all languages sound the same whether or not your particular knowledge structure 'speaks' a particular language. The only differences are in the spacing of the syllables and in the tune. Languages are melodic in different ways.
It is acquired taste that tells you that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is more beautiful than a chorus of cats screaming; both produce equally valid sensations. Of course some sounds can be damaging to the body, and noise levels above a certain number of decibels are hard on the nervous system and can cause deafness -- that is not what I am talking about. But the appreciation of music, poetry and language is all culturally determined and is the product of thought. Everything you stand for, believe in, experience and aspire to is the result of thought. And thought is destructive because it is nothing more than a protective mechanism, programmed to protect its own interests at all costs.
I’d like to know why this necessary being can’t just materialize and end all this word salad.
Sounds like a debate between two AI's lol
I wonder why is it really like that?
@@oguzzengin9435 old and sophisticated people just talk like that
@@oguzzengin9435 Also they already pretty much knew the position that the other side had beforehand.
The most polite debate in british history
Necessary Beings are Unnecessary to Existence.
Necessity is the mother of Invention however Invention denies his Mother as Unnecessary because Invention is also spontaneous and therefore does not have a mother and cannot exist.
Eternal surprise
The debate seems even-handed, and Copleston, IMHO, is winning it. But the photographs are bias. Russel was born in 1872, and Copleston in 1907. In 1948, they'd be aged 76 and 41, respectively.
@Sky Gardener To which Copleston replied that a series of phenomenal causes (e.g. mothers) is an insufficient explanation of the series, therefore the phenomenal series has not a phenomenal cause (e.g. mother of the human race), but a transcendental cause (i.e. God). They both agreed that physicists and police detectives search for causes, the only difference between them being that Russell believed it was illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world. Why it should be illegitimate, I don’t known, Russell didn’t explain, but it’s hardly an argument.
@Sky Gardener I don't really get your point about atoms. What do mean by atoms? Or atoms pre-existing? We've come a long way since Dalton's theory. and now we have particle physics. which is very much subatomic. The thing about human beings and life in general is that it's incredibility complex. Take proteins for instance, immensely complex chains of molecules that form task-specific machines, pumps, motors, rotary engines, etc. These are much more than "lumps" - it is mathematically impossible for amino acids to have randomly assembled into such complex proteins even within the most extensive estimations of the age of the universe - currently believed to be 13 or 14 billion years old. Likewise, the creation of atoms such as carbon is far from simple, which why even out-and-out atheists such as Fred Hoyle had to conclude that the universe is extremely fine-tuned. Therefore, science general tends to confirm rather than disprove the so-called cosmological argument, which is indeed much older than Christianity itself, dating back at least to the 5th or 6th century BC, when Parmenides argued that nothing comes from nothing. It's a very old argument and it's never been disproved. That's why Copleston was even willing to accept the ridiculous notion of an infinite series, knowing that this old argument would still hold.
@Sky Gardener We will always naturally drift away from what was actually said in the Copleston-Russell exchange because they were two exceptionally articulate individuals holding a strictly philosophical debate, using strictly philosophical reasoning and terms. ‘Fine-tuning’ is not a philosophical term, nor is it a term that I have invented or adopted for the sake of a ‘desired outcome’, it is a term used by physicists, and I’d stress that it was coined by physicists who if anything had a rather atheistic or agnostic bent. I mean Steve Hawkins, for instance, wondered why the universe was so ‘lumpy’, and wonder he might. There is, after all, a well-known concept in physics, that of entropy. The second law of thermodynamics is, after all, a law. Yet the complexity of life seems to fly in its face. The fact that physicists choose to call the universe ‘fine-tuned’ doesn’t mean the universe is smooth, or consistent or predictable. If anything, recent discoveries have shown it to be dynamic. The design, such as it is, is baffling, just look at the immense variety of living things (including ourselves), it would suggest if anything, that the Designer has a sense of humour. It might seem extremely cruel, but then you’d have to concede that there are also concepts such as beauty and love in this world. But back to the philosophy, how can you claim not to understand the concept of sufficient reason?
@Sky Gardener The sufficient reason principle follows from the fact that we are contingent beings, our cause lies outside us, in our parents, and same can be said about our parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. That’s a series, but ultimately these series of humans, dogs, cats, birds and butterflies need to have a sufficient reason for existing. You seem to believe that this can happen by accident: there’s stuff in the universe (we don’t know where it came from), and it somehow, randomly self-assembled into life. I’d stress that this is impossible because living beings are far too complex and its simply a matter of scale. The sheer complexity of a single living cell may be likened to an ultra-modern, state-of-the-art factory with self-assembling and disassembling highways (microtubules) along which molecular motor proteins travel, transporting vesicles and organelles. Yes, design features are repeated in very diverse creatures, but you’d have to concede that despite their diversity, they are all perfectly designed. And those common features can perfectly serve very different purposes. This sheer, exquisite complexity poses the combinatorial inflation problem. I don’t know if the million monkeys with typewriters producing the complete works of Shakespeare analogy is even adequate, but it's good enough, it just can’t be done. Of course Copleston and Russell would have never heard of molecular motors in 1948, but even back then the sufficient reason argument was rational and valid.
@Sky Gardener I think we all agree that an infinite series cannot adequately explain the existence of anything, and that’s exactly the point that Copleston made. Indeed, let’s return to Copleston’s exact argument because I couldn’t put it across any more comprehensively and succinctly:
“First of all, I should say, we know that there are at least some beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence. For example, I depend on my parents, and now on the air, and on food, and so on. Now, secondly, the world is simply the real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects, none of which contain in themselves alone the reason for their existence. There isn't any world distinct from the objects which form it, any more than the human race is something apart from the members. Therefore, I should say, since objects or events exist, and since no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence, this reason, the totality of objects, must have a reason external to itself. That reason must be an existent being. Well, this being is either itself the reason for its own existence, or it is not. If it is, well and good. If it is not, then we must proceed farther. But if we proceed to infinity in that sense, then there's no explanation of existence at all. So, I should say, in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence, that is to say, which cannot not exist.”
This is what Russell tried to pick apart and, IMHO, failed. So, yes, we all agree that we’re talking about absolutely everything.
Returning to your point about Russell being an assemblage of atoms, I’ll repeat that it’s a very inadequate description of Bertrand Russell, who like everyone else, was a unique individual. What made him unique wasn’t the actual material his body was made of - you may call it atoms if you will, but these atoms are shed and recycled all the time - nature is efficient in that way. Of Aristotle’s four causes, the first, material cause, is easiest to accept. We’re all made of water and carbon and stuff, science has explained a lot, but there are three more causes.
Then there’s the formal cause, the pattern or form which when present makes matter into a particular type of thing, e.g. a human being, one that looks like Bertrand Russell, not exactly like his father because half his genes were inherited by his mother. We now know that there is a genetic code. And of course the form may be altered to some extent by lifestyle choices.
But that’s really part of the efficient cause, the agent that brings something about. It could be a carpenter or a sculptor. Ultimately, it would be God.
And then there’s the final cause, telos, the sake for which a thing exists. No problems when we think about certain objects or animals, but a great mystery when we think about ourselves.
These are problems that cannot be solved by physics, or mathematics for that matter. Take the Big Bang theory, how can physicists explain the start of the Big Bang or what was before it? We all accept the existence of time, but what can we say about gravitational singularity? How can Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology model help in our understanding of anything? It doesn’t. It’s just a theory, one like many that just kicks the can further down the road.
i only hear Stewie and Bertrand from Family Guy arguing
Theist now agrue outside of reality which is where god has been pushed to
As an atheist myself I would add that since hegel God was conceived as not to be even a being or even be a part of this reality, at least in the sense of being a being or taking part in being (wherever God is he is not in is existence) , since God is infinite to even take part in being would make it limited, constrained, God for hegel is beyond being and at the same time is manifested in the development of the universe and the individual exercise of self determination of all living beings and of the universe itself , since all reality rests in being God is/permits being itself for all reality to manifest but he is not a being himself and he is not "in" reality .
@@Ash-so2sr you realise Hagel has some good ideas, but his worldview has almost been abandoned or almost completely transformed in modern philosophy. In other words, People have understood the errors in hagel and are still trying to work them out.
@@peenweinerstein9968 I'm an atheist and don't share Hegel's view, but I'm not sure his views have been abandoned, hegel is a religious Mystic and his arguments are actually quite profound but more similar to poetry than logic , it's more to me a Mystic text like meister eckhart or the Dao de ching than a logical treaty on anything. I'd say it is difficult to even refute certain aspects that argue for the existence of a god when basically it is impossible to refute something thst doesn't even participate in being or for example for Hegel God doesn't intervene in human life.... So it's quite the strange conception of a God... Anyways I with the limited knowledge I have can't admit enough evidence the existence of a God.
The contingency argument seems similar to other types of sophistry that purport to show the existence of "God ". It is well and fine to suppose that human beings do not contain within themselves the reason for their own existing, while even that starting point is still an unproven assumption, but why should the thing external to ourselves that gave rise to our existence resemble anything like the Christian sky-god, as opposed to, say, quantum physics and evolution? It is quite a leap and a non sequitur to fill in the gap of our knowledge with a fully formed, intelligent super-being that just happened to be here from the beginning of time, needing no explanation for its own existence.
Because quantum physics and evolution (whatever you mean by those), would end up looking like "the Christian sky God". It's not rocket sciene friend.
Incidentally, as a Christian, I can inform you that, in Christian cosmology (if you will), the sky is neither Divine, nor Divine living space, it is part of Creation.
The real question is not why Christians believe in a sky-god, they don't; rather it is: Why don't atheists believe in the sky?
Is evolution itself proven?
@@andrewjohnson8232 It is easier to imagine a set of physical laws as the preexisting condition of the universe than an intelligent super-being. It is contradictory for Christians to claim that the human brain or immune system is too complex to simply be here or arise, yet claim therefore that a sentient super-being, far more complex and marvelous than a mere human brain, was simply here, in complete form, from the beginning of time. The religious concept of "God" is the ultimate antithesis of Occam's Razor, postulating the most extraordinary thing, instead of the simplest. Quantum theory and science are nothing like the Christian sky-god. In science, it is the obligation of those putting forth a theory to prove their point in real world observations to doubters. Religion takes the attitude that doubters have the obligation to accept the proposition based on magic, invisible-world claims of anointed gurus, or else be shunned and vilified.
@@tommoon5063Scientists believe that evolution is proven, has been seen in action, much less illustrated in fossil record. Christian "creation science" is pathetically lame and easily debunked in its claims such as "irreducible compexity". Try maybe reading "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine for in-depth discussion .
That said, personally I think something is missing in our understanding of how evolution works, but that the missing "something" is not "God". Random mutation and natural selection seem too crude to account for the degree of development in the period of time, by my instinct, although I am aware that many scientists feel otherwise. It seems more like watching a seed grow, but what is the analogous "DNA"? I am more partial to explanations such as seeds of life arriving from deep space via asteroid collision to start the process, allowing a greater time frame for the process than merely the age of the earth
Occam was Theist.
Does religion take the attitude that people are obliged to disprove its articles? Do you have any examples of this?
You've based your argument on the idea that God would require the same explanation as the reality it is intended to explain. Why?
A naive man asks how the painting on a wall came to be. On being told it is the art of a painter, he responds: If so, who then painted the painter? What's wrong with his question?
Complexity as a premise of theism is a teleological relationship between causes and effects. What such relationships are you attributing to the Being of God?
You employ the term law as an axiom, but by law, you must either mean legislation, or the revelation of necessity (i.e a thing itself the legislator).
The problem with positing legislation as a premise of atheism surely needs no discussion. The problem with necessity is differentiating it from God. For that necessity would have to account for all that is, apples, starlight, kisses, everything. So what would then make God a false concept?
What's the point of debating something that is incomprehensible to most people.
God is incomprehensible to all
Does God allow Evil or can God do nothing about it? If evil were eliminated and only good amongst humanity in a world of peace then we may take the view of we dont need a God and therefore God will be forgotten.
The god people argue the Cosmological Argument for the existence of god by a logic that everything has a first cause! Yet they are unable to apply that same logic for their god and not to an eternal Universe in what ever its current form that has always existed. Your Cosmological Argument is better than my Universe Argument? Only to me you like your truth because in it you can tell everyone what gods rules are, because after all you know what and how he thinks, and in my truth it is just endless random possibilities and endless changing existences!! NO GOD CONTINGENCY NEEDED!!! When Napoleon asked Pierre Laplace about his book on the System of the World and why he never mentions the author of the Universe he said "Sire I had no need for that hypothesis". My sentiments EXACTLY!!!
Because being a prime mover is an attribute of God. You can use the first cause argument in your theory but it would just be God by another name.
@@peenweinerstein9968 Please tell me where that axion comes from! " A prime mover is an attribute of god"? I don't believe in the theory of first causes because its a logical fallacy, and it's the invention of a Human thought, just like you axiom and your god who is just another fictional god with all those most ludicrous unfalsifiable attributes, and just another of the thousands of Human gods that are now defunct!!!
@@MykolasGilbert it’s not an axiom, it’s a conclusion. You got issues bud, nobody’s claiming a specific god, just the idea of a first mover... Which is of course unprovable to your standard of evidence in a materialistic scientism worldview. But nobody uses that standard when arguing in the realm of epistemology and metaphysics.
@@peenweinerstein9968 Yes I do have issues because religion is no longer peoples private concern, NOW it is guiding our politics and the thought of being DICTATED by the INANE in the same old direction the religious have taken Mankind makes me cringe!! You can use the fantasy realm of metaphysics to navigate in the real World, but I'll chose science that's REAL!! BTW I think you'd better get a better dictionary because epistemology is the opposite of FAITH and what you think!! I seen an appropriate sign after 911 that read, "Science can fly you to the Moon, but religion only flies you into buildings!! P.S don't privilege yourself I'm not your bud!!
@@MykolasGilbert did you just look up the definition of epistemology? It’s not in a dichotomy with faith. It’s a whole school of philosophy that discusses many immaterial perspectives, and not incompatible with religion. You have fallen victim to what is considered “scientism”. Please reconsider learning a bit more about anything to do with science, philosophy or religion before commenting, otherwise not one person will take you seriously with your worldview.
It is interesting how Cottelston adopts the notion that the human-created, abstract concept of reason is somehow real. Having done so, the existence of God is inevitable. Hardly a sound basis for an argument.
sorry, Copleston, of course
That's not the argument.
The argument is: The proposition: "God does not exist" is unreasonable.
To then respond: " well that merely exposes human reason as unreliable", is self refuting. For how does one come to the sound conclusion that reason is unreliable, given the premise that reason is unreliable?
@@andrewjohnson8232 My comment refers to what Copleston said. I am merely challenging an assumption on which the argument is based.
@@cliffjamesmusic
Understood. But you misrepresent Copleston's argument.
@@andrewjohnson8232 It is perhaps my interpretation of the word “reason” which leads to some confusion. I would say that What Copleston refers to, for example, at 2.28, is a cause (something which has an effect), dealing with the question “how?”. Whereas a reason deals with question “why?” It is involved with the notions of justification/motives. It is that which inevitably leads to the need for a Creator. The premise of reason being something real, creates the notion of God.