Atheist Debates - Is Anything really possible?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
Anything is possible. That's what we frequently hear, but is it actually true? It seems that some theists attempt to leverage this platitude as a foundation to shift the burden of proof and build "not impossible" into "possible" and extend it further to "true and worth betting my life on"...with little more than wishes and fallacies to support this chain.
Matt, thanks so much for these talks. I am a senior citizen, lived many decades and learned much but I am still learning so much from you and others. Much appreciated.
Finally, someone who states the "you can't prove a negative" alogical statement in the way that people actually mean it. This melts my logician's heart.
If you were actually a logician, I think you'd be less impressed by this statement of the obvious, particularly since it is irrelevant to the question of what is and isn't possible.
I always remember as a child being told, "you can be anything you want to be if you put your mind to it." At around nine I got a little cheeky and began answering, "So I really can be god?" by ten I had learned 1 out of 2 times that answer involved a trip to detention.
You're probably currently my favourite public speaker across the board.
"We could have a court system where we assume that because you have been charged you are probably guilty, and then you have to prove your innocence..."
We do, it's called Traffic Court.
is it wrong that I get excited / happy when I see new Matt videos ? :-) Love these !
Not wrong at all =)
It never goes That far ;-)
I heard a good anecdote about burden of proof. Imagine if you went into your school exams with the theist's attitude.
You sit down and write “I won’t answer these questions. I won’t prove that I know geography. It’s up to YOU to prove that I don’t!”
This is one of your best videos. Great topic. Great points. I don't feel this topic is addressed enough either.
Mathematically, a statement about "for all x, y(x) is true" is always true if the number of x existing is zero. The statement is equivalent to "there is not one x where y(x) is not true.", or the negation of "there is one x where y(x) is not true".
Hence, the statement "all fairies have wings" is true if (but not only if) there are no fairies.
This depends on what kind of "possible" one means. For "logical possibility" all that is needed is that the proposition can be expressed without inherent contradiction . There is also "physical possibility" and "epistemic possibility". So I always ask "what do you mean by 'possible ' ?" : )
I think (like a large number of other philosophical concepts/debates) is partly a language issue. people just don't think about what they are actually saying. when they say, "anything's possible", what they are really saying is, "we don't know/can't prove that it's impossible"(and of course, "we can't say anything for certain.")but obviously, it very well may be impossible for something with mass to move faster than the speed of light. obviously(well, apparently not obviously, hence the video), just because because we can't prove for 100% certain that it is impossible, doesn't mean it is possible.
I was baptized catholic. I was always very uncomfortable with what was being presented and forced for me to believe. For a long time I have been searching for which religion fits my beliefs. I found a few religions in which I gleamed some knowledge I believed to be true. But I also found that these could be true without the religion. I have watched many of your videos in the last couple weeks. I agree with almost all you say. Then the damn catholic guilt kicks in and I think, "But what if..." I see where I am headed and I know it's going to be a long painful road. As you have stated before, like many other catholics I fear hell. But on the flip side, I fear the snuffing out of my physical body and mind to nothingness. I know I will not know I'm in nothing because I will be gone.
I'll stop here. Thanks Matt for opening my eyes!
I was there for that presentation in Cleveland. Matt was brilliant as usual.
Aw geez, he was in Cleveland? I'm sorry I missed it.
I have to say it's refreshing to hear this, many well meaning science people tend to sound like they are talking down to religious people this one is sharing his views without being a dingleberry, same thing with religious people talking down to skeptics though. I guess humans are designed to always question?
Just fantastic stuff matt, you have fuelled my monthly debate with the JW for the last few years with your talks and the AE shows. Was there any more of this talk i could watch?
Thanks
How does one go about purchasing Matt's soul?
Crossroad demon... Look up tv show supernatural for ritual lol
+thetruhoss Sorry, I belong to the Whedonverse religion, not the Supernatural one. ;-)
www.patreon.com/AtheistDebates?ty=h
XD lol jk
+pumpuppthevolume :-D
Ha Ha I think the devil may already own it :P.
I understand that people often times misuse the term Anything is Possible, but it's possible that what many people really mean is that we don't have reason to assume that unknown things are Impossible by default
Absolutely great video! Watching this alone would probably make a number of theists take a step back and questions the validity of their beliefs. Maybe in the future Matt can do a video on what the fuck people mean when they say "immaterial" and how it's different, or not, from non-existence.
If anything is possible then it is possible for an event to occur after which no other event can occur. If anything is possible then it is possible for any event to occur after any other event. If anything is possible then it is possible for an event to occur after which no other events can occur, and then for another event to occur. The last is a logical contradiction. Therefore, if anything is possible, then the impossible is possible.
thx for the plentyful content, Matt. Quick tip though: I would not upload so many videos at once and then let the channel sit for a couple weeks. If you don't have the time to upload the videos as you make them, then maybe spread them out for at least a couple days afterwards. That way people get less burned out and you won't be screwed over by the youtube algorithm
True! I sometimes miss all but one of the videos when they are uploaded all at once, and only end up finding them again if I happen to go looking for a new Matt Dillahunty video. If one pops up in my notifications by itself, however, I will watch it that day 90% of the time.
This is what the "Watch Later" playlist is for. Just click the clock icon on the thumbnail for the video and save for later. I usually end up with like a dozen videos of all sorts to check out a day, so I toss them into that and watch when I can. Very handy.
except sometimes they don't show up in your queue. TH-cam uses an algorith to show you certain videos in your feed, if you don't watch a channel frequently, youtube will start not showing you all of their updates going forward. So if someone misses a bunch of videos, in the future, youtube might start omitting them alltogether, eventhough you are a sub.
Da Wolv I've never had that problem myself, though I have heard about it.
+Kamikaze Keeg How many channels are you subbed to? This tends to start being a problem once you're subbed to more channels than TH-cam can conceivably show you in any given day. So it can start weeding out videos as low as the mid teens if you're subbed to bigger channels that pump out a ton of videos consistently.
I mean, TH-cam _could_ just list all the videos as they're released like back in the early days of TH-cam...
I don't know what was most impressive, the talk, the shadow man or the huge beverage jar.
Dear Matt this subject was haunting me for the last seven years and I have written a book but not published
"If anything is possible then the impossible is possible." I love that one. I think that I picked it up from either Matt or Tracey.
No, Matt is wrong. Impossible and possible are contradictary, and a contradiction is the only thing that is logically impossible. (Edit - strictly speaking "the impossible is possible" is a logical implication of the statement "anything is possible", but I'm not aware that anyone is claiming any _contradictions_ as possible.)
@@ilikethisnamebetter - That was Matt's point. I didn't think that an explanation was necessary.
@@fredg.sanford634 It's clear you didn't understand Matt's point, or mine. Edit - this is a comment I made earlier:
Matt's a smart guy, but he doesn't seem to understand that "possible" and "true" (or "real") mean different things. From 1:52 he says that you have to "make the case" that something is possible. However, in logic the definition of "logically possible" is "capable of being described without self-contradiction." Anything and everything, therefore, that can be described without self-contradiction is logically possible. According to this definition, the only case you have to make for a thing being "possible" is that there is no self-contradiction in your description of it. Matt's view of what should or shouldn't be described as possible is not shared by logicians. [Edit - There is no "leverage" required to get from "not impossible" to "possible". They mean exactly the same thing.]
@@ilikethisnamebetter I understood just fine. If everything is possible, then the impossible is possible, which is nonsense.
@@fredg.sanford634 That statement is true but, as I pointed out, almost everything else that Matt said isn't. (Edit - I concede that I was wrong and rude in contradicting you on the specific statement you quoted.)
No, anything is not possible. Just ask the following to a theist; Is it possible that you, tomorrow, will see the error of your ways?
There are many theists that have seen the error of their ways. I am one and so is Matt and we are now not theists any longer.
Yes, I'm aware of Matt's past. My point though, was that the vast majority of theists would not, and do not, see the error of their ways. So much so, that it's negligible and the question would still bear legitimacy.
Louis Riehm The vast majority of atheists living now were theists. There are more and more everyday that are realizing the stupidity of religion. Your question IMO does not bear any legitimacy.
If what you say is true, that's fantastic. But, I don't necessarily believe it is true. I, myself, have been Atheist all my life, never once believing in the concept of a divine being. Not as a child, young adult, or older man. As of today, I still stand by my comment, the vast majority of theists would not be able to comprehend the stupidity of religion. Yes, slowly, everyday someone snaps out of it, and realizes "god is dead". So, I beg to differ, my question does indeed, unfortunately, bear legitimacy.
Louis Riehm You certainly can stand by your comment all you like but you cannot substantiate it in the least.
Matt is completely reversing the burden of proof in this case. "X is possible" simply means "I have not been convinced that X is false". If somebody claims "X is impossible" (i.e. X is definitely false), then the burden of proof is on him because he is making a claim. Similarly when he claims "X is true", then the burned of proof is on him. But if he merely states "X is possible" then he is not making any claim about X. He's merely stating his lack of knowledge about X, a lack of information. There is no information about X contained in such a statement, so there is no burden of proof.
Absolutely right. I made the same point, in different terms, two years ago.
Where can you buy a 50 Million dollar dream for a single dollar? In other words, you are not buying a chance to win, you are actually purchasing something you can enjoy, a dream.
People often confuse ANYTHING with EVERYTHING.
Now supernatural is just a really confusing word for not yet understood natural.
Remember, a few centuries ago a HV electric battery, easily assembled from some metal plates and vinegar soaked cloth giving you shock when touched, would be considered supernatural...
I don't know why you need 25 minutes as this is easily demonstrated false by an raa.
p1) everything is possible
c1) from p1) the impossibility of an event is possible
c2) from c1) not everything is possible
It's a lot more useful to discard this idea of possibility and use a more specific one, empirical/logical possibility. And both of these destroy the notion of the theistic gods presented.
If we leave out the semantics, it's about proving the possible or proving the impossible. Or so it seems.
That isn't the question. It's the fact that religion says it's so because of religion. The burden of proof is with religion needing to be proved that it is in fact true.
Surely it had to be possible to frame this video properly. But hey, the audio is spot on for once!
The supernatural is IMPOSSIBLE. Everything else is possible because of infinity. What's more is that it is possible that each and every possibility cand be replicated and repeated for an eternity.
It seems to me that Paul was basically the Joseph Smith of his day (or maybe, Smith was the Paul of his day). A con man who rebooted Christianity for his own purposes.
Tony Blackwell, I think calling either Joseph Smith or Paul a con man is a bit too simple. Certainly they may have stretched the truth; maybe a little, maybe a lot. Both were people without much education, who didn't know the first thing about critical thinking. Both were highly charismatic, so that when they spoke, people believed them (I know a person like this). When they had an experience they couldn't explain--a dream perhaps--they assumed it was a message from God. From there they began to believe that they had some special power. You get a positive feedback loop.
Me: I have a cat.
Friend: I see no evidence of a cat.
Me: Look in the back yard.
Friend: [sees bulldozer]
For existence claims, there is only a burden of proof for positive
claims, i.e that something exists. There is a burden of disproof on
negative existence claims, i.e that you aren't convinced by the evidence
that something exists. This burden of disproof is to show that the
positive proofs given are not valid or sufficient to show existence.
It doesn't matter whether I say I'm not convinced a god exists, or if I
say that no god exists, both are negative existence claims and only have
a burden of disproof, not a burden of proof. Being positive about a
negative existence claim does not make it a positive existence claim.
I feel that Matt may be a bit to concerned with "proof", as in his court room comparison. I agree with 99.9% of Matt's views, but he may be confusing "possible" with "known". If something is outside the realm of scientific "'known" elements or events or theory, then is it not necessarily "impossible", only "unknown". There are more phenomenon in physics at the quantum level that demonstrate "unknown" properties, than show the "known". I think the word " supernatural" is misleading from the start, nothing is supernatural, some things are merely beyond our perception of the "known".
Well he would say for gods that he doesn't know how you'd calculate probability let alone possibility. If I'm not mistaken and if that helps
Science doesn't try to use what is "unknown" to make predictions about reality. Christians, on the other hand, use what is granted as "possible" to not only make claims about reality itself, but also to dictate nearly every aspect of ones own life, as well as the lives of others.
Red Hunteur
I agree... " Hell, I would love for there to be a real Bigfoot or Nessie but I'm not going to wish them into existence."
My view is using words like " supernatural" actually plays into the myth of religion. I've learned that words matter and how they are accepted for meaning is society make a huge difference
I can safely say, the word 'supernatural" would never be allowed to be accepted as evidence in a court of mans law, yet it is referenced by those who make laws on a daily basis.
The very word "god", even in a casual use, is a form of mind control that has made me examine many of the accepted words we use, and agenda's behind those words.;
Matt's knowladge of the bible has opened my eyes to why I never believed what the nuns were trying to beat into me as a kid.
I don't know. I thought Matt was concerned with truth. Proof is just what he asks for to believe claims. If God's hiding in the quantum world, i would think we might be a little smaller then we already are.
Red Hunteur
I could not agree more, you are 100% correct.That's why I have recently I have been studying the acceptance of "words", historically. The "how" and "why" certain words become common place, across all cultures and languages spoken, It is fascinating and .shows how powerful words can change the common mindset.and is such a subtle form of "mind control", as to be almost unrecognizable in common conversation.
Your, " shove in the door", comment is spot on, and doing research, I found the "shove" has always come from the same sources, yet, in many ways, the shove is layered and "networked" in so many ways, it appears invisible.< THAT is the whole point and why it has been so successful throughout history.
.I know I'm not saying anything you already don't know, just trying to express the concept of "mind control" is not some crazy "conspiracy theory", more like the "playbook" controlling forces have used for centuries in "molding" all human society.
Religions are only one layer, a big one, but still only one, hopefully, as the global data seems to indicate, religions are one the decline.It might be a small "peeling" back of one layer, but it allows those who open their eyes, to see the layer below, and then the next, and the next.
OK, I have a box on my desk with a cat in it. The cat is either dead or alive, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be both. Before looking in the box we know one of those is impossible. And not knowing which choice is impossible, DOES NOT make that choice possible. Thank you.
I'm afraid that "possible" is a problematic term.
Sometimes people use it in the sense of "we do not know yet". I think I heard Matt use it in this way in the past, but I could be wrong. E.g. "It is possible that there are other universes". From a researcher's point of view this statement is valid until we have shown that no other universes exist. Or a police investigator could say "It is possible that this was simply an accident."
With this understanding of the term, whether something is possible is totally subjective, and will change with new information coming up.
Another usage would be whether something is possible to happen in the future, given that physics is non-deterministic. This would make the usefulness of this term very narrow.
A variation of this is to ask whether something is possible from the perspective of an omniscient being. If the statement is within the scope of omniscience, then "possible" would be equivalent with "true". An important distinction here is whether the being can look into the future (which, we could say, implies determinism) or not. In the former case, "possible" is always equivalent with "true", even for future events. In the latter case, the probability of future events will change over time, until the event either happens or does not happen.
E.g. if you are playing cards, then you might say "It is possible that my opponent has an Ace on his hand." But your opponent either has an Ace on his hand or he has not.
Maybe we want to use the term in the sense of "from the perspective of the collective knowledge that we have currently available as a society / research community."
A more useful model is to think of "stuff that could have happened, even if it did not".
E.g. "Matt Dillahunty could have become a pirate, if he really wanted to." But he did not, yet. (Note that I specifically formulate this statement to be about the past, not the future).
We could look at this on a micro scale and say "Thanks to the non-deterministic nature of physics, the atoms that make up Matt Dillahunty could have configured themselves in a way such that there would have been brain signals telling Matt to do such a thing.".
The likelyhood of this happening would change over time. And maybe we would reach a point of "impossible or extremely unlikely" at a time when Matt still seriously considers the option.
We can also look at this on a scale of patterns and concepts of our understanding of the world. A person, an bird, a car, these are not just arbitrary hunks of atoms, but they are configurations of atoms that follow specific recurring patterns, and can thus be categorized. We could say "Matt categorizes as a human, and we know that humans can become pirates. So Matt could have become a pirate". We could also say that a specific car or a specific bird can reach a specific velocity, based on the bird species, or the car model.
(Daniel Dennett actually made an example in this direction in his discussion about free will.)
From our observer point,
On the micro level this looks differently: "The hunk of atoms we label Matt Dillahunty has not yet been in North Korea, and has not yet done any smuggling." Maybe the micro-level non-determinism would have allowed for it at some point. But it became less likely over time, until it has now reached the point of not being possible at all.
So what is my point?
Mike could be right or wrong depending on the definition of "possible". I think he should add such a definition.
I would propose that the debate is over language. Just saying possible is not specific enough. Something is epistemically possible if it is possible for some reason beyond our knowledge. We have evidence of this claim in our lives where we think something is impossible and then turns out to be true because of something we did not consider. In that sense I would say that something is epistemically possible if it cannot be proven impossible.
Also I would say that something cannot be proven impossible in general making anything impossible. The strongest attempts to prove something is possible is to find a logical contradiction. This implies that a contradiction proves something is false. This relies on the law of non-contradiction, A cannot be "not A" to be true. But the law of non-contradiction cannot be proven or disproven absolutely it is therefore epistemically possible that the law of non-contradiction is wrong. This means anything is epistemically possible.
Better to title this, "Is it Really True that 'Anything's Possible'?"
I find this with alot of apologetics, especially biblical inerence, they will come up with some excuse about why a bible contradiction isn't really one, and my response is, "Okay thats possible, but is it plausible." how plausible is it that when the everyone else uses a ceation myth simular to the bible they thought it was literal, but the jews some how meant it metaphoricly, or that matthew and luke are genelogies for mary and joseph, "Okay thats possible, but isn't it more plasuible that both wrote down the geneologies they thought was real an wanted, and never expected or new for a contradictory one to be put side by side."
No bionically literate Christian (which is primarily a redundant term) will ever say, "anything is possible", when asked about the likelihood/knowledge/justification for God's existence. Biblical, historic Christian faith, is directed toward that which is unseen, not unknown; and is based solely on the evidence.
why is mr Dillahunty confessing bodies in his trunk?
No , some things are just too ludicrous to be a possibility .
My furniture is cat-free...the trim on my bedroom door on the other hand....
I am a little disappointed about the lottery effort. but I'm probably not gonna unsub.
lottery effort?
I suspect he's referring to you sometimes playing the lottery when the odds of winning are so low. I could be wrong.
But there's psychological reasons behind why people play the lottery despite the odds (which I think they just made worse). Humans aren't logical machines. Even the most logical of us is prone to be enticed by things like the lottery. I don't see it as disappointing. I see it as a sign you're human!
I agree. I tire of asshats like IslandAtheist who wear the Straw Vulcan trope as a narcissistic badge of honor.
Love your videos Matt, and what agenerichuman said.
Maybe you just need a nap?
A couple of things; First: by rejecting that something that hasn't been proven is possible, you are claiming that it is, by definition, impossible. Unless you can prove that it's impossible, the only logically consistent position to take is that either you don't know, or that it *_might_* be possible. It's also true that it may be impossible, but at this point, you're arguing about opinions; yours isn't automatically correct just because the other hasn't met the burden of proof.
Second: not all possible things are easy to prove. Let's say that an occurrence has a one in a quintillion chance in happening, and someone has witnessed it, but couldn't record it at the time for whatever reason. How easy is it going to be for that witness to recreate that occurence in order to demonstrate its possility? It may not be possible during the course of their life. You don't get to claim that anything possible should be trivial to prove.
Third: this is a semantic argument, but saying "anything is not possible" is equivalent to saying "nothing is possible". So is nothing really possible until you demonstrate that it is? A better statement would be "some things aren't possible".
Fourth: anything that science can prove is, by definition, natural. If science were to prove a phenomenon considered to be supernatural, it would necessarily be seen as natural from that point forward, even if that thing were ghosts, ESP or even God.
1) This is incorrect. Matt is talking about physical possibility, not epistemic possibility. In fact, nobody should really give a shit about epistemic possibility alone.
2) Bad misunderstanding. I don't have to demonstrate that I own a dog in order to prove that people can have dogs or that dogs exist. Rather, we just need precedent or parallel. We just need a good reason to establish physical possibility.
3) *So is nothing really possible until you demonstrate that it is?* This is a good rule of thumb.
+TheZooCrew I don't know what's less surprising, the fact that you didn't actually address anything I said, or how smug you were while doing it.
Wells
I addressed your first three points (and labeled them for convenience) because I agree with the fourth. Also, keep your day job, because you're a shitty psychic.
Now the test: are you going to actually respond, or are you going to crank up the butthurt?
I think the confusion in some people's minds (including Matt's) comes from equating "possible" with "true" or "real". Logically - by definition - anything you can describe without self-contradiction _is_ possible.
So basically the maximum confidence we can have until we can solve hard solipsism is 99.999(repeating)%?And since we have the general presupposition that we ignore hard solipsism unless we are watching The Matrix or having to deal with Sye, we can make assumptions on the most reasonable?
That sounds solid. We have to operate pragmatically. Presuppositional apologists are very obviously lying about their epistemology since they are still alive. They don't actually have the absolute certainty that they claim.
***** Because he is yet to even give an argument.
Any idea can be articulated through human mouth (or hand), but this doesn't mean that it has its representation in the real world. Even this is only partially true, because the reality itself has its own "ideas" that appear to human intellect weird and "impossible".
So, all comes to the capability of human mind to build a concepts about reality, which are verifiable and refutable. Whenever it became obvious that "reality is stranger than fiction", when there's another proof that humans had a lack of imagination - the very act of amusement of this fact takes a form in phrases like "well, anything is possible".
The human language is powerful tool for exploring the world(s), but the mere fact that exists the concept of "fiction" in it is leading us to conclusion that one have to have another, second tool - for distinguishing between reality and fantasy, also known as "intellect".
One day all religions will be put on the shelf alongside with other useful and useless human fantasies about the reality. Anything is possible, I guess.
Matt do you have any plans in the near future to come to England and do any talks or debates?
The French legal system assumes the accused is guilty and said person has to prove their innocence.
Stephanie Wilson well fuck the French justice system because that's retarded
Just to add onto your cat metaphor: it *COULD* be the case that you have a hidden area of your home behind a secret door where your cat dwells. Still doesn't change the fact that you are reasonable to conclude the person doesn't have a cat based on absent evidence.
Excellent
Excellent! Thanks.
Anything is conceivable. In Platonic terms, that makes it possible. Otherwise, the laws of physics prevail. The conceivable is only possible if it is permitted under the laws of physics. Still, it can be possible but not probable.
everything is either possible or impossible... so it’s a 50/50 chance that there is a tea cup in orbit around Jupiter
Is the talk about Christianity being based on Paul online?
I guess anything "could" be possible. We all engage in conversations with the basic assumption that logic is valid. If it is not, anything is potentially possible (but we can´t either say that "anything is possible" since for that we would need logical reasoning). But if someone says that, then there is no point in continuing the conversation. You have nothing else to talk about if you can not agree to make the assumption that logic is valid.
5:30; can anyone explain to me what he means by "to the extent that it is true, it's trivial, and to the extent that it's profound, it's actually false"?
Vanessa Rago be basically means that the statement is presented in a way that it is giving us some profound truth. But it's only true in a trivial, not profound, sense.
Is that Don laughing at 11:56??
And he ends: "This viedo is made possible by ...."
Doesn't the new riddle of inductive reasoning throw a wrench in the idea that anything is possible?
This is what Matt talked about when comparing hypothetical and existential views. The "new riddle" makes a hypothetical claim, and one that does not add to the understanding of an item.
Wrong, Matt! Thumb down, strongly disagree. Claims are either true or false BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE for them to be false, that is why POSSIBLE has to be default position! "Adding nothing, we re just gonna climb that mountain" is not right, that would be an obvious slippery slope fallacy. Adverse consequences and appeal to emotions are not a good way to argue. Also, desire to easily destroy Pascals Wager is a wishfull thinking, not rational reasoning at all!
If you have a trial, guilt and innocence are both possible. If guilt were impossible, there wouldn't be any point in having a trial.
I think your definition of "possible" is somewhat mixed up with "true", and I don't really have a particularly concrete idea of what you mean by "possible". For me:
"True" means it is an objective fact of reality - something is true, or it is not true. There is no concept of "possible" in objective reality. "Possible" is a statement that the unknown facts of reality may be one thing or another, given what we know. Light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach us, so it's possible that the Sun exploded 4 minutes ago, but it's impossible that it exploded 12 minutes ago.
How would you even demonstrate that something is possible? If you present evidence for the claim, then you're arguing that it's _true,_ or that it's _more likely_ to be true, not only that it's possible. "Possible" is the absolute minimal starting point of any debate of a claim. If you reject that something is possible, debating it is pointless, because it's not possible.
"Impossible" means we know facts of reality that actively contradicts the claim. "Possible" means there are no such facts. Some "impossible" is making a claim that some facts exist, which would come with a burden of proof, whereas "possible" is making no such claim. Although it may be that some facts appear to contradict something, but don't actually do so, and one can debate that. Something can only be impossible contingent on certain facts of reality, even though it's possible that our understanding of those facts are incorrect.
*But none of this means it's reasonable for anyone to believe something simply because it's possible,* and no-one needs to demonstrate that something is impossible to argue that we're not justified in believing that.
"Impossible" is a useful claim, if you can demonstrate it. "Possible" may be the default position, but it's not a useful claim.
* The above is all about objective reality in the past or present. Some future event can certainly be objectively possible, but this may be a distinct idea from the possibility of facts about the past or present (at least perhaps until you get into something like determinism).
My dog "Ruoy" is your God.
Well... it's certainly *_possible_*.
Excellent!
i don't think there's anyone else there except matt lol
Matt, what's the best way to message you?
I think you are right, but I think people who say that "philosophically, anything is possible" really mean something different. I think they really mean that "you can never be _absolutely certain_ of the falsity of anything." In other words, although you may be extremely confident proposition X is false, you cannot have _total_, 100% confidence that it is false. So from your point of view, however implausible, you must hold that _X may be true_. So from their point of view, X is "possible."
I don't know that "possible" and "impossible" are very good words to use from either perspective on this issue. After all, there are separate physical questions of for instance whether _X could physically occur_. But I think when people try to distinguish in the way you relate, they are trying to express this idea. In other words, they use the words slightly differently than you or I.
Such a stance has zero utility. "you can never be absolutely certain of the falsity of anything." is a smug, trivial statement that isn't a refutation to Matt's point.
TheZooCrew It sure seems like it, but the people making this claim are not necessarily very adept at arguing their point. Sometimes they try to establish something which seems obvious to them, and when they meet resistance, they get confused and dig in. I understand the importance of sometimes being precise and defining terms and such, but in cases like this I think it's better to move past inane arguments about what is "philosophically possible" and deal with what is actually real, which thankfully Matt does spend most of his time on in this speech.
To be clear, Matt isn't wrong, but I don't think the people he's arguing against are trying to say what he thinks they are. I think they are just confused and saying the wrong thing.
EebstertheGreat
I disagree. I've encountered plenty of theists who argue that anything is physically possible.
TheZooCrew I guess I've met those people too, but they aren't stepping back as in the example he gave and saying "Well . . . anything is _philosophically_ possible."
But you're right, there are many people who believe God is all powerful, and I suppose if that _were_ somehow true, then anything _would_ by definition be physically possible (otherwise God would lack some power).
"Possible" and "impossible" are perfectly well-defined words which Matt either misunderstands or pretends to misunderstand in order to make his point.
When you say something is supernatural, aren't you admitting that it's impossible?
When something exists outside of nature, it exists outside of reality.
The very definition of the divine or supernatural is that it's not supposed to be possible.
The argument, generally, is that those things that happen to be naturally impossible, is only us perceiving it as impossible. So it isn't necessarily that the supernatural is outside reality. Least, that's the best explanation I've been given.
it's basically trying to work around the limitations of our knowledge to feign proof for the supernatural.
Greyghostvol1 Yes, one way of viewing it is that the supernatural is the part of reality we don't understand. But that would raise the question why I should believe in something that I by definition don't understand.
Anything is possible only if it's God's will accordingto Christians. Seems like 99.9% of the times, God doesn't want anything to be possible.
Anything' impossible
What conference was this, please?
It wasn't a conference. I was speaking to CFI Cleveland.
Thanks!
+Matt Dillahunty Hey Matt! Just wanna let you know Im a Huge fan! fun fact about me, when im stressed out about life, I watch your videos and the clear thoughts and sound arguments you make. calm me down Lol kind of like how a
cigarette relaxes people.
"With God all things are possible". However if God exists, He designed reality such that few things are probable.
+Red Hunteur hahaa
E.I. -- Evidentia Insufficiens. Insufficient evidence.
Germany is Europe Common goals, common responsibility.
”The European leader is Angela Merke, the Queen of Humanity" German leader Angela Merke provides clear guidelines and targets for all countries to adopt in accordance with their own priorities and the environmental challenges of the world at large. By wisdom, a house is built, and through, understanding it is established. Philemon Joseph -Fundraising Strategy Consultant.. (SDG Fundraising Consultancy)
By the way, "This sentence is not true" is neither true nor not true. In other words, it is both not true and true. You aren't really making things easier on yourself.
EebstertheGreat holy shit you're fucking stupid
"we know there are things that can't exist." like what? you didnt give an example. the only things that "cant exist" are definitional paradoxes, like a giant tiny thing, or a white black thing
That's not true.
The universe operates on rules. We don't fully understand them, but it's very obvious. This means that there are in fact things that are _physically_ impossible (as opposed to epistemically impossible) even if we can't currently identify them.
in our universe. we dont know if our universe is the only universe
A large thing in a very tiny world would be a giant. A very glossy black surface in a bright white light in an otherwise pure white room could look white as it could mirror the whiteness around it. Just saying!
Michael Sleight then you're just proving my point here...
Agaperion Rex well neither do you apparently. "confirmed facts about reality" do not necessarily negate other potentialities, particularly when you start messing with fundamental constants, etc.
Why does Matt chew his cheeks? Does he have some chicken stuck in his teeth?
Is it possible for a Universe to exist without God?
A while video based on a comment from you and you miss the point entirely.
Is it possible? I don't know. Do you? Is it impossible?
Those are the two possibilities, but if you're asserting either, you have to prove it and you won't get there with your remark.
We know that the universe exists. Yet we have no reason to even suspect that a god does, might or even could exist. Given the evidence, one has to conclude "absolutely yes: At least one universe exists without the requirement of a god!"
Yes it is, and it's more than that. Because we know that the universe exists, so it's posaible for a universe to exist. And we know that it is possible for a universe to form from matter to this kind of universe with stars and galaxies and planets and all. Science has uncovered next to everything on that topic.
And we know that material can't be created (thermodynamics); it just exists. And we already know that it is not only possible for something to just exist but that something has to because of the problems of infinite regress.
So we already know that the universe can possibly exist and could also possibly do so without a god. The only candidate we know that could possibly play the role of "that which exists without having been caused to do so", is the only thing we actually know exists; namely physical material.
Not only that but by the definition of cause and effect, we already know that it is in fact impossible to cause material to exist. You can by definition only cause material to change. Because to cause something implies that something exists to be caused upon. So we know it's impossible that material had a cause.
So from start to finish, and without _any_ demonstrations to the contrary, yes, it's possible.
is it possible you might give up your fantasy of god and join reality.
The universe looks exactly like a universe with no supernatural variables should look. Physics is demonstrable, god is not.
Own a piece of Matt ' soul.. Special deal right now.. only $1 😉 😂
Everything is possible - because it is possible that our standards (by which we judge what is possible or impossible) may change. That's mean that statement "this is possible" is cognitively useless.
I have a paper coffee cup on my desk. It is possible that it contains water or soda or many other types of liquids. It is impossible that it contains red hot molten iron.
+Jack Garand
Yes, It is still possible that it contains red hot molten iron. It is possible that you are coming from the future and you bring with you super-strong-paper-coffee-cup better known as S.S.P.C.C. or just got that cup from super-secret laboratory. We talking about pure possibility - just possibility of time travel makes this word useless.
Wrong, because I am talking about the dictionary definition of impossible. If there is no conceivable way to do something then it is impossible to do it. Can you get some of this paper, no you cannot, it is impossible. Not to mention the simple definition of paper is obvious and resorting to word games and time travel, proves what I said; it is impossible.
Is it possible that definition of impossible may change? What is definition of impossibility btw? Paper from the future can still be a paper but strong enough to survive 1500 degrees of Celsius. You talking about factual statements (then still you have problem of radical scepticism) but I talking about pure possibility.
Even pure possibility has the definition of something can conceivably be done. And far fetched hypotheticals do not meet the definition. There is a good chance that time travel is not even possible and it doesn't matter because that is far fetched and you can't in any way do it; which meets the definition of impossible.
Sorry to disagree Mat but todays courts do treat people like they are guilty and must prove themselves innocent. You don't even get a trial by jury anymore without a hefty pocketbook to afford a good lawyer.
Not the point of the analogy.
TheZooCrew Yes I know, just a personal peeve of mine..
The courts are supposed to go by proving "guilty" or "not guilty" that's why "beyond a reasonable doubt" has to be shown for murder trials because of the higher possible sentence. Yes, it can be corrupted (which I believe it has been) but that does not mean the premise is no longer the same. It just means people aren't properly implementing the premise of proving "guilty vs not guilty", instead of "guilty vs innocent". Courts are not set up to prove innocences, but to prove if people are guilty of the crime or not. There's no real way to know with 100% certainty for every single case if the person may or may not be indeed guilty. So, the courts are supposed to start with the premise of "not guilty, until proven with reasonal evidence (and here are a lot of where the loop holes for some people come in) that they are guilty. It's also why the courts are told not to go on a primse of "guilty until proven innocent" but instead go by " 'innocent' until proven guilty".
The laws are set up that way for a reason, but people are susceptible to corruption, thus causing conflict with the laws put in place and usually screws over other people in the process and provides a negative outlook on the system rather then the people.
AAAND Trump...
i dont really understand why it matters if god is "possible". who cares about this point
Apologists like to say that if it's possible for a god to exist, then you can't dismiss its existence out of hand, and you have to show why it can't exist.
It's basically a way to shift the burden of proof.
Bram Kaandorp well that could literally apply to anything. he says in this video "there are things we know do not exist." could you name one?
+Bram Kaandorp In fact, I've heard the Apologist William Lane Craig make the argument that "it is 'possible' for a god to exist, therefore, a god must exist."
***** Why should I? I was commenting on if there are people who care about whether it is possible for something to exist. I pointed out that apologists care, because it plays into their game of using a word to get a foot in the door.
Bram Kaandorp Jesse B. yeah but it's a weak argument and he's giving it way too much credit by defeating it so sloppily. "it is possible for Allah to exist, therefore Allah exists, therefore Yahweh god doesnt exist". see. it's a dumb argument
Life is a huge waste of time, without GOD👌
+J1H The only thing sad is that people are living for no reason; but to prove that God (the only thing real) is not. Atheists will never have anything better to do
+J1H God allowed you to be apart of life; he can take away your life right now or any moment. Believe me
+J1H Your right you can't argue with something that is real
How would you even know this? Have you lived a life without god? According to you there is a god and you've only lived one life, with a god...
Life is a huge waste of time, without Santa/Tooth Fairy/Odin/Paul Bunyan/Allah
See how stupid this sounds? This is 2016 and you're a grown adult. Time to stop believing in bronze age myth written by anonymous goat herders that thought lightning was "god" getting angry at them.