I loved the entire three hours. This argument is no doubt the best for God existance and it has removed lots of my objections. Thank you @Capturing Christianity and Josh for sharing this.
I haven’t watched the video yet but reading your response makes me happy to see it helped you. All of Heaven rejoices with the conversion of one person.
Well it is better than the "look at that tree" argument but the " stuff exists therefore God". Is generally only something that works on believers. If it solves the problem of starting the universe out of nothing then God snapping his fingers and zapping it all into existence works for me. But you can never leave it there. It's has to be a story of God loving you though you deserve eternal damnation but he won't send you to eternal torture if you believe this brand of Protestantism which used to be Catholic and before that Judaism that came from some other traditions mostly lost in time. Get baptized, say a few creeds, say amen when everyone else says it and you are good to go. Sorry but I can't go there.
The Argument From Contingency is definitely the strongest of the Aristotelian/Aquinas philosophical arguments. 20 minutes in so far. Seems like it’s going to be a great video!
Argument from Motion is by far the strongest. It can be grasped by anyone and explains reality as we experience it. Time would literally stop if not for the prime mover.
This is excellent timing! I just read through joshes short book 2 times and wanted to hear some more dialogue from him on his thinking on this. Thank you for putting it on!
That is news to me about Dr. Oppy. The last time I talked to him, we discussed Kalaam and I eventually dug out how he has the presupposition that the prior probability of God is exactly zero, meaning that no successful arguments from empirical rationale can improve priors for God to him. As for Contingency, it is a favorite, and one that I immediately grasped as I began to surrender antitheism 11 years ago; I had been a Randroid for ten years, and Objectivists escape this argument by saying existence is necessary as a foundational premise.
Great stuff, I love listening to this kind of content. Dr. Rasmussen is a brilliant philosopher and excellent communicator of his ideas, which is a rare blend in academia.
How to explain metaphysics using basic math and basic geometry: [Exhibit A]: We have ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D. 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) not-natural (not-physical) 4) necessary 1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) natural (physical) 4) contingent Newton says since 0 and 0D are "not-natural" ✅ then they are also "not-necessary" 🚫. Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅ then they are also "necessary" 🚫. This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes. Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D. The Egyptians, Syrians, Greeks, Mathematicians, Plato (the Good on 0D-3D pyramid) and don't forget Jesus and John all speak of the Monad (number 0, geometry 0D, quantum SNF). 0D Monad (SNF) 1D Line (WNF) 2D Plane (EMF) 3D Volume (GF) We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3). Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ = necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction. Before we're here is necessary. This is contingent. Most likely "imaginary" in the same way 'time' is "illusory". There's no 3D anybody without their 0D Monad/Soul. No Higgs Boson without Quarks. Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different. Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary. Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚.
I'm only at the intro so far, and I agree entirely with Cameron's assessment. The argument from contingency is intuitive, easy to explain to non-philosophers without getting into too much technical jargon, and I think it does a good job addressing the "gap problem" in that stage 2 that Cameron's talking about. I'm curious if somewhere in the 3 hours of this video, the topic of Divine Simplicity ever gets brought up. I know that Cameron doesn't accept divine simplicity, and I don't know what Dr. Josh Rasmussen thinks about it (I do know he's not Catholic), but it seems to me like if you think a contingency argument works it's pretty hard not to come to the conclusion that the divine simplicity is one of the attributes of that necessary being. I don't know how you'd get to a necessary being, while still accepting that the being is composed of proper parts. It seems like, by definition, anything that isn't simple is going to be contingent on it's parts.
Well if each proper part is required to be joined together to hold the attribute of necessity, then you can have parts in a necessary being. Similar to the idea of irreducible complexity - if you need all of the parts to achieve necessity, then the parts as a whole are all necessarily existent for the necessary being to exist necessarily. Hopefully that makes a little sense.
@@Iamwrongbut The word you're calling "necessary" doesn't seem like the same concept that Cameron and Dr. Rasmussen are talking about when discussing contingency and necessity. Josh says at 16:47 that "something is necessary if it isn't contingent." If a being is composed of parts, it's in some way contingent on those parts. It doesn't seem like the attribute of necessity is the kind of attribute that an irreducibly complex system could have. But maybe that's why Josh made the distinction that dependence and contingency, I didn't quite get what he was doing there.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol Correct. Something composed by parts has to be contingent of his own parts. And any of his parts are contingent of the rest of his parts.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol The problem is that there is virtually (to be charitable) nothing about God as described in the Bible or any other religious text for that matter that does not appear at face value to be contingent, and thus not necessary. And how does it make sense for a necessary being to have contingent attributes? What they are referring to as 'necessary being' seems to me nothing more than a brute fact in disguise; not even in disguise, really. Like, what possible reason could we have to conclude that are no possible worlds that don't contain a God whose nature is such that at a certain point in history it would see fit to manifest itself as a burning bush? Or demand circumcision? These seem unambiguously to be contingent facts.
@@fanghur Well, religious texts themselves don't generally spend much time talking about God as he is essentially, they talk about Him in his relationship to creation. A necessary being can have contingent properties, as long as those properties are what philosophers call cambridge properties. A cambridge property isn't a property that is intrinsic to the thing itself, but that it has in reference to other things. A classic example of a cambridge property would be that I am taller than my nephew. I can lose that cambridge property without any change or even any action on my part, my nephew just has to grow taller than me. Both the examples you listed are clearly cambridge properties, as they pertain not just to God as God, but to God's interaction with creation. You're actually sort of dancing around the modal collapse argument here. It's just usually phrased backwards from what you said here. I don't have time to launch into a full rebuttal to modal collapse here, but it's a really common discussion among philosophy of religion.
Hi, new to philosophy here. So if we have a necessary being which we posit is God, is it possible for that being to have a nature that is contingent? I'm thinking the reason why God is triune? Does that suggest that God is not totally necessary? Sorry if it doesn't make sense.
While God's necessity is universal among Christian philosophers, I think pure necessity or divine simplicity is more controversial, meaning some things can be contingent,, though theologians debate about that. Think of God creating the universe, that seems to be a contingent thing, as it may seem He did not need to do that. However, being the most powerful conceivable being, omniscience, and being a Trinity are necessary attributes. A sort of high level rule, is if something is "Necessary" it is also eternal (though the inverse need not be true). If "mathematical laws" exist for instance, they would seem to have existed eternally. God creating the universe wasn't the case for eternity. Obviously a Trinitarian case can be made from aspects of the necessary property of Omnibenevolence. If God is eternal and perfectly loving, this logically incoherent if God exists in a unitarian sense. If loving another is greater than loving oneself, then God must exist in a non-unitarian way. It seems a "perfectly loving God" who loves nobody, could exist in no possible world. If God is perfectly loving for example, by necessity, then God is not unitarian. I guess that doesn't necessarily lead to the inference of "Therefore Trinity", but as a Christian, it seems to definitely philosophically infer "non-unitarian", and Biblically we can then infer "Therefore Trinity". I'm new at philosophy too, but find it's very fascinating to learn some about!
If you mean nature as in essence, God's nature is what it is to be God, and so if God is necessary his nature/essence is necessary. If he had a different nature, he wouldn't be God, and then God wouldn't be necessary. I hope that makes sense. I don't think essence is the only definition of nature though
EDIT: or we can say that something is contingent if it doesn’t contain within itself the reason for being. I like the way Bishop Barron defines contingency and replied to Alex: a contingent thing is one whose cause or explanation is *extrinsic* to itself, which leaves the question of determinism to the side.
Honestly, I think that’s a fair definition, but also kind of redundant, because I frankly don’t think that ‘non-contingent’ by that definition would even be a sensical concept. At least outside of the realm of analytical truths. At best, it’s just a way of talking about brute facts whilst trying really hard to deny that that’s what you’re doing.
@@fanghur not at all. Brute facts have no explanation, no intelligibility, and so in this case non-contingent means that something *does* contain within itself the reason for being- that the explanation for its existence is intrinsic, of and through itself.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns which I don’t think actually means anything. Barring being able to establish that something is logically necessary or logically impossible, one will always be able to conceive of a possible world where any given thing is absent. And as far as I’m concerned, that renders any claim of it being ‘necessary’ completely vacuous. And I’ve asked countless theists over the years to clarify this point, and without exception no one is ever able to, and most don’t even make the attempt. Maybe you’ll be the first, but at this point, I have concluded that ‘non-contingent’/‘metaphysical necessity’ is indistinguishable from a brute fact. And even some Christian philosophers like Swinburne have come to the same conclusion.
@@fanghur >> which I don’t think actually means anything. > Barring being able to establish that something is logically necessary or logically impossible, one will always be able to conceive of a possible world where any given thing is absent. > And as far as I’m concerned, that renders any claim of it being ‘necessary’ completely vacuous. > And I’ve asked countless theists over the years to clarify this > Maybe you’ll be the first, > but at this point, I have concluded that ‘non-contingent’/‘metaphysical necessity’ is indistinguishable from a brute fact. > And even some Christian philosophers like Swinburne have come to the same conclusion.
@@fanghur PS. IMO the most reasonable a-theists are those who grant some version of PSR and necessary existence but then add that we aren’t justified in inferring divine attributes.
Is there a way to explain/summarize this simply, briefly? Like if you’re evangelizing on the street and an atheist asks you to present an argument - knowing that the encounter won’t last long - what would you say?
Check out on Josh's Channel 'worldview design' he has a playlist where he goes over the general argument in a simple way: th-cam.com/video/sPK8MDk3hh0/w-d-xo.html. The first video in particular makes it pretty easy to understand.
Honestly, it all depends on the tone. If the "prove God exists" say it with a distasteful tone of voice, I would simply go down the Romans 1 route (Creation-Creator) and present the pure and simple Gospel and let God soften their hearts. These people are often God-haters and have already made up their minds and an sound argument for the existence of God wont change that. However, if they are genuinely curious and not rhetorical in their speech, a succint but weaker argument from contingency is: the beginning of the universe marked the beginning of time, space, and energy (or matter...same thing). The universe had a beginning. Therefore, its cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Furthermore, because the existence of the universe is not necerassy, it didnt have to exist which means this cause has a mind and is personnal/intelligent to be able to decide to create this universe. It would also need to be all powerful to create everything
@@User-og1te because they are weak arguments and not evidence. You have to accept the conclusion before you begin. If you question the premises- reasonable questions - the arguments fall over. Probably why the majority of professional philosophers don't share your god belief. Probably why christians are indoctrinated young rather than created later in life with these tired word games. As I said, they work on already believing folk to feel a little better about the belief.
The problem with the type of addition fallacy you talk about at about 30 mins, is atheists will claim it's a composition fallacy. They seem to think that there's like this membrane around "the universe" or something, and so long as you're inside that membrane, everything needs to have a cause, explanation, or some sort of independent dependency, or something. However, in their minds, all you need to do is draw an imaginary membrane around all of those things, call it a "universe", then voila... it's perfectly rational to believe that all together, they don't need any other explanation outside of themselves.
Let Z be the current state of affairs of reality. Y was the immediately prior state of affairs of reality. For Y to proceed to Z, there need only be some change in the totality of things Y-because Z just is the subsequent state of affairs. Z depends on Y’s priority, and Y depends on X and so forth. If we think of reality in this totalizing sense and assume causal finitism, then I think it certainly and inescapably follows that the first change (A to B ) assumes that A was timeless (without change) and eternal (because the Principle of Sufficient Reason-things don’t just pop into being out of nothing for no reason). We’re still a ways off from God, but reason seems to reveal (again, assuming causal finitism) that there is an initial state of affairs A from which all other states of affairs proceed. Josh’s argument really rests on causal finitism, I think. “The totality of things” may be endlessly dependent if causal finitism is false
Are you referring to the dependence argument?If so, then even though I really like your way of analyzing this [seriously :) ], we should get clear on something: that is _not_ exactly the version of the argument that Josh has in mind (and that he presented), although _some_ of the aspects you mentioned are indeed helpful and take part on the discussion of the argument. The argument doesn’t depend on the truth of causal finitism (as I understand it) at all. The idea is (assuming we are talking about the dependence argument that Josh shares): Consider the totality of reality. Call it T. Does T depends on something else for its existence? Well, no. If it did, it would depend on something “unreal”, which is nonsense. If it depends on some part of it, then we would have a case of “explanatory bootstrapping”, which is also absurd. So, the totality of reality is independent (doesn’t depend on something else). But how is that possible? What kind of reality could exist in that way, or exist at all? Josh has offered various ways to deduce a necessary being, and one way would be to appeal to an inference to the best explanation (given the already considered observations about independence with respect to the totality of reality). The best explanation why reality in total is independent is that there is an independent foundation within it, which is relevantly different from dependent things. All dependent things ultimately depend on this independent foundation. The next step is to try to tease out the attributes of this foundation, which is plausible to say it includes necessary existence.
@@esauponce9759 Thank you! And thanks for your reply I think the problem is that T can plausibly be construed as an abstract set which, under set-theoretic anti realism, doesn’t actually exist. Consider the set of objections containing my laptop, my desk, and my lamp; arguably, the “set” doesn’t exist. Likewise, one could argue that T is really just a set, and not a thing in itself. That’s why the argument seems to me to rest on causal finitism
@@anglicanaesthetics it depends what we mean by causal finitism. In some sense all theistic arguments try to demonstrate that there is a fundamental causal relation that grounds contingent reality. The difference between the kalām argument and the contingency argument (and other cosmological arguments) is that the kalām tryes to demonstrate that there is a finite "chain" of contingent causes that inevitably culminates in a FC/NB, whereas the contingency argument can be made by assuming an infinity of contingent causes as long as the occurence of such a "chain" is causaly explained by a NB. The argument from contingency does not rely on the sort of causal finitism employed by the kalām, it only needs to overcome the Hume-Everett objection to it (and there are different ways to tackle this objection). Also, I agree that we should not see sets as independetly existing entities. They are mere abstractions, conceptual tools used for logical operations. But one should keep in mind that causal "chains" or "networks" are not arbitrary sets. One can meaningfully ask about the modal status of even an infinite causal "network" and see wether a causal explanation is needed for such a network or chain, or wether the particular causal relations themselves are good enough explanations for the occurence of contingent reality. It may seem that, since the network can be reduced to merely the beings that "comprise" it, and if all the beings have a causal explanation for their existence, then, according to Hume, the occurence of contingent reality is explained. But, pace Hume, we are stil dumbfounded with questions as to why there is an infinity of contingent causes, or since all of them are contingent, why did any of them occur in the first place. Why does contingent reality exist at all if no beings in the causal network are necessary? If we have a phoenix whose existence is explained by the occurence and causal action of an infinity of preceding phoenixes whose existence is causaly explained, I stil don't see how that explaines why are there any phoenixes to begin with. Etc.... It does not seem to me that the proponent of the contingency argument has to rely on the sort of causal finitism employed by the kalām, or a sort of set-realism to object to the Hume-Everett principle. Ofc maybe I am wrong about that. The contingency argument is my favorite cosmological argument and I find it less problematic than the kalām or some other cosmological arguments, tho I am stil pondering some issues with it
@@anglicanaesthetics Thank you. That’s a good point. Though I think one interesting thing about this argument is that it can still work even if there’s no such “thing” as the “totality of reality” (which I agree, it doesn’t seem there’s a “thing” like that, though it might be possible to make a case for that too). Josh Rasmussen also leaves this open. We can maybe use “the totality of reality” only as a didactic phrase for sharing the actual idea we are trying to convey: that there’s something real/actual/existent in the first place; or we can talk about “the state or fact that something is real/actual”, or as Graham Oppy put it: casual reality itself (which is quite accurate given that this argument focuses more on causal stuff than abstracta). So with that in mind, we can still see (by reason) that casual reality *can’t* be dependent on an “external explanation” (or “cause”), because that would lead to the same absurdity we deduced initially about the conceptual “totality of reality” being dependent on something else or in some of its parts. Casual reality exists independently, however we slice the pie. And so the argument goes through. I also agree with what @ante 397 said. I tend to think of it in those terms too.
I also have been doubting the power of some arguments for the existence of God. While I'll the arguments from Change/Motion, Contingency, and the Kalam are great arguments, the moral argument that William Lane Craig gives in "On Guard" and "Reasonable Doubt" seems to be the weakest. It just seems like it would require another argument to support it in order to arrive at the kind of God that Christians and other monotheists believe in. Perhaps its just me, but I tend to think that non-moral arguments are stronger.
The moral argument is overlooked as easy to refute but I feel like people aren't really digging into the actual internal meaning of morality. From an atheistic point of view, morality is defined as something we get from our ancestors like hand me downs. "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you" sort of thing and this helps our species survive but the problem with that is morality is also an internal feeling, you feel hurt, sad, empathy...all these feelings but for what? Without God in the picture, everything stated against this is a personal opinion.
The Kalam is so lame, even if it wasn't vague by its "beginning to exist" and "universe" parts, and even if we grant it to be true, it still doesn't give you a god, it just gives you that the universe has a cause. Moral argument is nonsense too, besides the Christian god is immoral, so how can one even take it seriously.
@Luth Lexor I'm saying the Kalam Cosmological Argument is lame, cosmic skeptic goes so far to say that it's circular. I don't know about the other contingency arguments so I'm not saying they are lame or not lame, if I had to guess though, I would pick lame.
I listed through part one twice, and though they spent over an hour and a half talking about the argument, they never actually give the argument. If, by some chance, I missed it, twice, please provide a time stamp.
yeah I do like the argument and ALHAMDULILLAH it is my favorite as well but it fit the Islamic explanation of ALLAH(S.W.T) .while the problem with christianity is the trinity how could the argument from dependency/contingency explain trinity.?
Not sure if this is covered in the video, but what would the implications of believing in the Trinity be (assuming you believe in an internal hierarchy within God)?
@@x-popone6817 Thank you so much! Now I see it, for some reason the site was offline when I looked for it, thought he forgot some detail of the address during the video.
Outside of what we know, it could be the case that there is no necessary anything. Within the context of what we know, matter/energy would seem to be necessary, since it seems that such cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, within the context of what we know, matter/energy is a candidate for something which is necessary. Intelligence is observed to be developmental sand thus is contingent within the context of what we know. This precludes intelligence of being an aspect of anything which is foundational given the nature of intelligence as we understand it. This point of understanding of intelligence precludes theological (non-contingent intelligent agent(s)). --- Based on our current understanding, size entails more with regard to composition and thus IS significant especially if one is thinking in terms of physics and how extremes of size can change various aspects of interaction. Josh, intelligence is considered to be a process by I would dare say MOST (if not all) determinists and thus IS a point of complexity. I would dare say that ANYTHING that conceptually entails a process of any sort is precluded as being even a candidate as a first cause without such being inherently incoherent as I am citing with intelligence being an impossibility as being foundational insofar as we know. Josh, the moment you are presuming what has not been shown, there is grounds for objection, since the claim of perfection entails a criteria which may not be applicable to what is the case. Cameron, the concept value is an inherently subjective notion and is thus NOT something claimable as a state of reality. Cameron, we don't all value other persons. There are some persons wherein I have negative value for them and those that I don't know I actually have zero personal value. Observationally, everything observed has limits, thus any claim entailing a thing being unlimited would require evidence since such is outside of what we know.
When weighing questions I assess the negative consequences. If massive, say with the acceptance of Christianity, then the proof of god needs to be ironclad. I don’t believe any argument rises to the level of assurance that justifies the acceptance of Christianity in light of negative consequences.
You seem to be confounding theism and religion. Theism justifies the existence pf God, not Christianity. Furthermore, there are no negative consequences of theism or Christianity
@@apracity7672 Interesting that you state there were not negative consequences when people like myself were denied a full scientific education through the banning of the teaching of evolution. I can list more examples of consequences.
What is being missed and it's clear that he's not thought of it. For action to be taken by anything, one requires time. If your being is timeless, there clearly is no time, therefore no action can be taken, so timeless beings aren't the cause of anything.
Perhaps a little. I stopped drinking coffee a little over a month ago to see if it helped with headaches/migraines. It seems it has! I now drink Mud Water in the mornings.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I bought mud water, I wouldnt recomend it, its rather expensive and if your sensitive to caffeine like me it still makes me feel weird
THE BEST PROOF FOR GOD IS FREQUENCY EVERTHING IS MADE BY IT. FREQUENCY IS THE WORD. Another great proof for GOD IS THE HUMAN MIND. THE ONLY MIND IN NATURE THAT BELIVES THERE IS A CREATOR. ANOTHER GREAt PROOF IS 300 CERO CHANSE THAT SOMTHING CANE FROME NOTHING.
@Ricardo Marín I disagree. You already believe things like other stuff such as other minds, without argument. God created us in a way, which we deeply desire him and can know about him without proves.
Agreed! One can hold a rational true belief without evidence or argument. This is Alvin Plantinga's argument, a "sensus divinitas". A sense of the divine. Arguments are supplemental.
@@HoneybunMegapack LOL. Right. There's two possible options 1) Things have a cause and explanation. 2) Things come into being from absolutely nothing or have no cause or explanation. In the atheist mind number 1 is a "cop out and question begging" but number 2 is perfectly rational. You all just can't be taken seriously.
@@HoneybunMegapack Of course not. God is eternal. If you even understood the argument, you understand that reality can be described as 2 options, or really 3. 1) Is contingent (can fail to exist), 2) Exists eternally or "necessarily" (thus can't not exist) thus is not contingent or 3) Came from absolutely nothing, with no cause or explanation. We have no way to make heads or tails of it. There's no way of knowing if it's contingent, necessary or how it even got there. Most people don't believe in number 3, however there's still a few atheists who do (like Peter Atkins). If you understood the argument, you'd understand that it follows this format "All things that are contingent do not exist eternally, and must eventually lead back to something that is necessary". Or as Leibniz put it, the explanation of all that exists is either 1) Necessity or 2) Contingency. If you think the argument goes something like "Everything that exists has a cause" and then you just respond by saying "ha! You just said that everything has a cause, so does *God* have a cause???", then you simply don't understand the argument, like at all. 99.9% of atheists simply do not understand the argument, at all. So, in summary, the argument is "There are 2 types of things, necessary things and contingent things. Necessary things exist eternally, contingent things do not". And the universe existing forever is absurd. It's called the "Big Bang", and the universe doesn't just exist. If you're actually interested in understanding the subject a little better from a Cambridge physicist who understands the philosophy *very* well, I'd recommend you read this blog article, and it will help you understand these sorts of arguments better: www.wall.org/~aron/blog/no-the-universe-cant-just-exist/
@@thegreatcornholio7255 something can be eternal but still contingent. ‘Contingent’ in this context simply means ‘true in some but not all possible worlds’.
Truth? What did Jesus say about his teaching? Did he say listen to me every word i say is true. Did Jesus say you have the power to understand what is true? No Jesus said that for the many he spoke in parables so they would not understand. There will be many that say Lord Lord but i say you do not know me. What was the original sin? Was it not knowing the ten commandments? It was eating from a tree. The tree of knowledge to be specific. Where does peace come from? It it the truth beyond understanding.
Paul quotes several pagan philosophers in his letters, which are in the bible What is your point? Just because they’re not saved means they can’t be smart?
The fine art of tricking oneself (and/or others) into defining into existence a preconceived version of God using philosophical imagination and lots of clever wordsmithing.
Uh no, it's called synthetic logic, and logical rules of inference, and observing reality and logically inferring that God exists. You aren't defining God into existence, you're defining God and inferring that God must exist. If you believe what you just wrote, then you do not understand this subject.
@The Great Cornholio Really, you mean to honestly tell me that people pushing this nonsense have started from a position of ignorance - a blank slate - and through logical inference and observation of reality, they were led directly to the ever-changing cacophony of thousands of versions of Christianity constantly disagreeing with each other???
@@ezbody What the eff, are you serious? No, the contingency arguments get you to the statement "The universe has an immaterial cause or reason that it can exist". The "ever-changing" (which it is not) "thousands of versions of Christianity" *all* agree with the inferences that are made from these arguments. They all believe that something they believe to be "God" created or sustains the universe. I think you need to understand categorical logic a little better. You do understand that right? An inference to a high categorical conclusion does not infer a lower level conclusion? It's like if I saw a foot print in my back yard, I could not make the inference "a guy named Jim, who has red hair, must have made this footprint". I could however make a higher level inference such as "A person must have made this footprint". It's not just that you all disregard these arguments that's troubling, it's the extent that you all don't even understand them or the subject at all, yet have these huge opinions about it all. Very weird.
@@thegreatcornholio7255 Note that I am not even talking about the argument itself. I am just showing that there is no starting position of ignorance, the conclusion itself is the motivation for the argument, hence me mentioning "the fine art of tricking oneself", because no matter how much the theist wants to pretend that they are not influenced by their preconceived conclusion, they 100% are, that's why the argument exists in the first place. As for the thousands of ever-changing versions of Christianity disagreeing with each other, that you think isn't true -- you can't be aware of what you are not paying attention to. (My) Christianity changed drastically just during my lifetime. And it's not just the versions of Christianity disagreeing with each other, it's the Christians within each version of Christianity disagreeing with each other. And no, Christianity doesn't agree with the argument from contingency, due to the very simple fact that like 99% of the Christians aren't even aware of it, nor do they EVER care. As for the argument itself -- there are unlimited number of potential ways to argue/explain anything, which makes all arguments that haven't been backed by evidence a waste of time.
@@ezbody You're mind reading then. You claim that people "want to pretend", and then I'll just say the same thing about atheists, and say that there's some psychological reason for their not wanting to believe in God. Many theists posit that the increase in atheism has been a direct function of the increase in divorce, and the whole phenomenon is directly related to their relationship with their father (in a majority of cases, not all). If your entire argument is based on your ability to read minds, I find it uninteresting. I strongly believe that most atheists are influenced by their preconceived conclusion and various psychological influences in their lives, and just want to have an atheist view. Pertaining to "thousands" of disagreeing "versions" of Christianity, you're literally making this up. You may say there's thousands of different views on theology, or interpretations of various scriputres or something like that. About 99.9% of all Christians, as far ranging as various branches of Catholicism, to a gazillion denominations of Protestantism to Orthodox, to non denominational; all agree that God exists, created the universe, and came incarnate to the earth, through Jesus Christ, as a final bridge from God to man. "As for the argument itself -- there are unlimited number of potential ways to argue/explain anything, which makes all arguments that haven't been backed by evidence a waste of time." -I guess this is coming from an atheist, who will only cite things that have no evidence whatsoever to defeat contingency and cosmological arguments. To defeat the contingency arguments, there are two possibilities 1) "The Universe" or physical reality, came from absolutely nothing. 2) "The Universe" or physical reality exists eternally. There's absolutely zero evidence that number 1 or 2 is true, yet the atheist chooses to believe them. The atheist will then ramble on about nothing being rational to believe, unless there's "evidence". Pertaining to the contingency arguments, that is ALL it is based on. Evidence that physical reality, has causes for example, can't exist eternally, they will provide evidence for all of it. The counter-arguments to the contingency arguments literally have no evidence whatsoever. - Plus you're just wrong. There's no evidence whatsoever that math works the same way on the other side of the universe as it does here, but we believe that it is true. There's no evidence whatsoever, when atheists ramble on about "infinite parallel universes" that mathematics and logical rules of inference are even remotely the same, as they are here, however scientists choose to believe that they are, with no evidence, and it's rational to do so. Atheist scientists for example are utterly logically incoherent, and will contradict themselves every other sentence. One minute they'll be rambling on about how it's utterly irrational to believe anything whatsoever without physical evidence (which they do not even understand what that means), then they'll be rambling on about infinite universes, or matter coming from nothing, or the universe existing eternally, or mathematics leading them to believe things about the universe, when they don't even have a way of proving that 2+2= 4 in the andromeda galaxy. They just believe in all of this with no evidence whatsoever. And thinking that 99% don't agree with the contingency argument (mainly that the universe and people couldn't exist without God), I think that's laughable. 99% of Christians probably don't what the argument is called, but literally 99% of Christians agree with it. Just like they probably can't define "The Atonement" if you asked, if you asked them "Did Jesus come to pay the price for your sins", obviously they'd all say yes. Every Christian believes in the Contingency Argument. If you yourself were a Christian, you were utterly deceived by some amateur atheist that does not understand a word they're saying, like some silly scientist who moonlights as a philosopher. It's sad to see such indoctrination and ignorance changing a human being.
TLDR: Our intuition from human-scale physics is that the world can be described as being a series of causes and effects. The argument is that this intuition should be extrapolated to all of the universe and there must, therefore, be a cause of the universe. Given that we don't know what that cause is, we should just insert the Christian God in there.
@@metro2197 Ah yes, what insightful commentary you offer. That's exactly the depth of thought that I would expect from someone who is convinced by this foolish argument.
@@adamredwine774 It is a wonder to me whether your purported “summarisation” of the argument is “insightful” in the first place lmao. Seriously go pick a philosophy textbook.
So god wants to have to a relationship with you but in order to do this, he first requires you to seek out an elaborate philosophical argument to convince yourself that he actually exists? Just imagine if you didn’t have the philosophical knowledge, you would have been screwed?
No need for that. If someone is looking for the Truth, God will present you with the Gospel. 1 Cor 15:1-4. The Gospel is the power of God into salvation to all who would believe Rom 1:16. Here is the logical order of salvation: Eph 1:12-13. Believe the Gospel(What Christ did for you at the cross), and trust Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. Read Romans CH 3-5. May God help you. Accept the grace of God in Christ
@@WildYelectric Not everyone has access to the Gospels. When the Europeans first set foot in the Americas, there were no Gospels, no Bibles and no Christians. Anyone who had previously lived and died worshiping pagan gods were screwed, right?
@@tudormarginean4776 Lets suppose you are right. But why then doesn't he reveal himself as the Christian god to everyone on Earth? Why plant an intuition in humans that is so vague, that they mistakenly worship false gods? For most of Earths history people believed in non-Christian gods. Why hasn't/doesn't the true god correct this misunderstanding? According to the Old Testament, god revealed himself to many people including those who were quite hostile towards Christianity (like Paul). Why doesn't he fully reveal himself to all so that they can decide whether to reject or accept him after having all the facts?
@@pazuzil i think the classical response works well: because God values our freedom. If God directly reveals to us we would just be forced to accept the fact of His existence and comply with His will. Also, I think that Jesus' deeds are central to Christianity, and the need to spread the good news just follows from it. By that I mean the fact that it's not necessary to be christian in order to be saved, although it is blissful for us to know who God really is.
I think you got the determinism objection wrong. Under strict determinism there is no contigent/necessary distinction, it doesn't make sense, because there is really no causation. Causation is a concept from our human intuition strictly based on flow of time. If you think in terms of 4D spacetime, it is static, nothing is moving or changing there, nothing is "poping into existence" or "going away". It is like a static canvas stretched on the floor, everything ever existing is there, and what is moving and changing is our perception, because we are only able to perceive one slice of it, one thread at one time, constantly moving in one direction on this canvas. All our intuitions about causation, starting and ending, contingency and agency or free will are just the constructs of our minds...
It sounds like you're describing whats sometimes called "determinism". Calling causality an illusion is an interesting product of the 4D map I hadn't thought of before. Side-note. The alternative to determinism is if things are indeterministic/ chaotic. Both views are contrary to free will (as typically defined)
@tkwtg I stand corrected, thank you. I really seem to argue for "eternalist pamenidean humean necessitarian picture of reality". And I still find the contingency/necessity distinction to be illusory.
@@ivanvnucko3056 If there is no causation, then the foundation of science (viz., observation) is undermined since the external physical world could have no effect on our sense organs. The deliverances of our sensory apparatus would be uncaused and illusory, and therefore so would empirical science. Therefore it cannot be said in the name of science that causality is illusory. Furthermore, if there is no causation, then the arguments for adopting this view cannot cause you to accept it. To affirm that causality is nothing more than a mental construct is incoherent, since a "mental construct", by definition, is a PRODUCT of our minds, i.e., it is CAUSED by our minds. Thus, a mental construct cannot be real unless causality is real, in which case causality cannot be both (a) unreal, and (b) a construct of our minds.
@tkwtg You realize that one could easily apply that exact same argument to the Biblical God, right? I can easily imagine a possible world in which God isn't triune. Or prefers to identify to us as female rather than male. Or came to earth as a Daughter rather than a Son. You have no way of logically proving that any of these are logically impossible. So if you want to conclude that the universe is necessarily contingent because you can conceive of things about it being otherwise, that's perfectly fair. But just acknowledge the fact that adding God into the picture changes nothing in that regard, because one can just as easily do the exact same thing regarding God.
Aight, explain Quantum Gravity bucko. Oh wait, you need an advanced education in order to get close to an accurate account of it? Well, maybe detailed arguments have incredible depth to them and need to be explained carefully and precisely
TLDR: Our intuition from human-scale physics is that the world can be described as being a series of causes and effects. The argument is that this intuition should be extrapolated to all of the universe and there must, therefore, be a cause of the universe. Given that we don't know what that cause is, we should just insert the Christian God in there.
@@072929151 >Is there absolutely nothing that can be known about the cause? I'm sorry you didn't pick up on the sarcasm in my statement about human-scale physics. The universe doesn't operate based on human intuition. For those of us who care about the truth of how the universe does actually operate and who are unwilling to dishonestly pretend that we can know things without first acquiring evidence for them; the response is that all of the evidence we have suggests that our human intuitions about things like causes are inapplicable to the origin of the universe. >Was it specified that the cause must be the ‘Christian’ God? Did you not listen to the video? That whole "second part" about the "characteristics" of the purported cause is doing exactly that. The arguments are, frankly, lazy and idiotic, but the whole reason they put them out at all is so that they can grab characteristics that have historical associations with their god and try to tack them on to the cause that they think they proved in the first part.
@@adamredwine774 You said: "The universe doesn't operate based on human intuition." And then say: "For those of us who care about the truth of how the universe does actually operate and who are unwilling to dishonestly pretend that we can know things without first acquiring evidence for them" Which is a flat contradiction because that very "evidence" is gathered through methodologies that assume human intuition is reliable. You have to assume that human intuition is reliable in order to state that the evidence gathered by it shows that intuition is unreliable with regards to the cause of the universe. You are assuming as true what you are trying to deny. It is also special pleading. Why should human intuition be applicable to the rest of the universe but not the cause of it? "the response is that all of the evidence we have suggests that our human intuitions about things like causes are inapplicable to the origin of the universe." No, the evidence does not support that. You have to assert that causation doesn't apply, without evidence, in order to deny the conclusion of the argument. That something cannot come from nothing is a firmly established metaphysical principle and can also be deductively shown. The Casual Principle is not inductively established and describing at as such is a strawman. Your presupposition of Naturalism forces you to deny causation, which really just means that Naturalism is absurd and is quite literally denying reality. "to dishonestly pretend that we can know things without first acquiring evidence for them" 'Everybody who disagrees with me is dishonest' - Classic ad-homenim. Also, you're affirming scientism by saying "without first acquiring evidence" which is a self-refuting epistemology. What you really mean is "we can't know without any empirical evidence" which in itself is unprovable empirically, and so is self-refuting. "Did you not listen to the video? That whole "second part" about the "characteristics" of the purported cause is doing exactly that. The arguments are, frankly, lazy and idiotic, but the whole reason they put them out at all is so that they can grab characteristics that have historical associations with their god and try to tack them on to the cause that they think they proved in the first part." Mocking an argument is not a refutation. Classic case of the _ab absurdo_ fallacy. It's actually amazing how poor your reasoning is. Affirming human intuition to only later deny it. Special Pleading with regards to knowledge about the cause of the universe. Relying on scientism, which is self-refuting, in order to deny causality and to disparage your opponents as dishonest. Attacking a strawman of the Casual Principle. Then you just assert that the characteristics of the cause of the universe are just "lazy and idiotic". If they are so bad, you should be able to easily refute them instead of having to avoid them and trying to appeal to mockery instead.
Yes. Koons and Rasmussen have both worked on the PSR with Pruss, and all contingency arguments get really similar at the top since they’re all relatively true
The argument from contingency cannot answer the question of the universe being contingent. You cannot use philosophy, logic nor indirect observation to gain knowledge of the unknowable. A simple thought experiment will show this. You are looking through a window at a box on a table. A note tapped to the window says there is a flashlight in the box. The question you must answer using the same toolset used to answer the contingency argument is to determine if the flashlight is on or off. If you cannot do that, then the contingency argument carries no weight.
I'm sitting here imagining myself as an Australian Aborigine trying to follow this word salad of isms and stages. It takes Christianity to so professionalize their faith to where you can't understand it. But then again, they did come up with that non-sensical Shield of the Trinity and tried to shoe-horn EVEN THAT into logical discourse.
Until theists consider the question ''What phenomenon٫ caused the observable Universe to exist ? other than٫ What being caused the Universe to exist?" they will keep on inventing fallacious٫ unsound and invalid arguments which appeals to our intuition/feelings٫ just to address what I find to be a meaningless question. Note : This is٫ if we assume there must be some sort of cause(s) to the observable Universe.
@@jacoblee5796 that just the conclusion unless you can give example that something can come from nothing. Something must cause matter to exist. Phenomenon can only exist after matter exist, so phenomenon can not be the explaination.
@@justanotherguy4382 of course I can’t give an example of something coming from nothing. But nobody has ever claimed you could. Can you give me an example of something that’s eternal and all powerful?
@@jacoblee5796 this cosmological argument is not about prove, but conclusion with present evidence. The evidence is there is no matter come to existence from nothing hence there must be cause to matter existence. We have the same evidence, but you arrive at different conclusion which contradict the evidence. if you really follow the evidence, you cant dismiss that there is possibility that something that powerful and immaterial being exist. This being is waht we mean as God.Which is imo is the logical conclusion so far from this argument.
I guess the religious types especially who are biased against reality or someone who can not imagine anything past their Theism would fail to question their own BS. These 2 religious guys were thoroughly schooled by Tjump (TH-camr), he gave alternative possibilities for the "fundamental necessary thing" and these 2 guys had no answer to his objections for their version of God and all these 2 did was have a post discussion review among themselves about the parts of discussion that these "intellectuals" failed to understand.
I become unconvinced at about 30 minutes in. The universe is full of dependent stuff. Every individual thing we can observe came from something else within the universe. This doesn't mean the universe as a whole (by universe I mean absolutely everything observable and unobservable) is dependent however. The universe as whole may be eternal while the stuff within it is just constantly changing. (Exactly what the first law of thermodynamics observes.) (Indeed, if we define the universe as being absolutely everything, then the theist agrees with this point because, under that definition, god is also part of the universe.) I think we are left with the atheist or theist both must choose a brute fact. Something not dependent. Choosing the universe over a god solves the same metaphysical problem with more parsimony. Put another way, when we look for an explanation of stuff, the explanation is that it came from other stuff. Every single time. Around 1:27 arguing that particles don't come into existence from nothing. The non theist would say stuff doesn't come into existence at all. Around 1:55, I don't understand how you say "infinite" merely because a limit would be arbitrary. I don't know how big some distant star is. Doesn't mean it isn't infinitely big just because any guess I would make is arbitrary. 2:10 saying universe can't be the necessary foundation because it is imperfect. How do you define perfect? What color is a perfect being? You were complaining that the universe doesn't have infinite density, but what is the perfect amount of density? And what is god's density? This is all such a mess.
Gravity is a force that exists between 2 existing objects. It's an attribute of something that exists. That's like thinking temperature is the cause of fire. You clearly didn't get it.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 Gravity is the warping of spacetime that many leading theoretical physicists think might actually permeate the multiverse. Temperature is the measure of the friction between molecules. With regard to creation in this universe, gravity is the key enabler, as it led to stars forming, which led to the more complex atoms forming. We have evidence for the creation caused by gravity. We have none for God.
@@simay4977 You have zero evidence of "creation by gravity" or for a multiverse at all. It doesn't exist. The only "evidence" you have is when some physicist decides to write a pop-science book (this specific example was from Stephen Hawking and was roundly criticized). It was literally made up.Theres zero evidence gravity causes anything (in the sense of a prime cause) Gravity only exists between objects. What ur saying can be found in no encyclopedia or real scientific literature that is accepted. It's poor epistemology that you believe d it.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 Let me clear things up for you: Stars are formed by gravity, the atoms in your body were forged in stars. We have an abundance of evidence for this. It is absolutely not "literally made up". What IS completely mad up however is every single religion and concept of God, including yours.
@@simay4977 Uh no. That's like saying if I build a sand castle I'm capable of causing sand to exist. I'd be the efficient cause of the sand castle, but not the sand. The reason you think my religion is "made up", is because I have no idea what ur saying. Once again, if you think gravity can cause universes, cite it in an encyclopedia. You believe in scientism and science fiction and it's an incoherent religion. Atheists will literally make up "scientific"beliefs, all the time, like you just did.
This is an airtight argument. If you think the other two options, that everything in the universe came from absolutely nothing, or that it exists eternally, are good arguments, then why not write a comment in response to this video giving the reasons. Unfortunately, at least in my view, 99% of the time, atheists don't even know what the arguments are, let along which is a "good one".
@@Kaymen1980 I never said it couldn't. I said if *you* think it is more rational than the argument you hear given, then you should respond giving your very best argument for an eternal cosmos. If you think "universes" and only 'universes" popping into existence from absolutely nothing is the most rational option, then you should state why. If you wonder how a Christian measures the "quality of an argument", you must think one of these other options are better arguments. I can give you the reasons why *I* think the cosmos can't be eternal, but apparently you must think one of the other two options I just listed are good quality arguments or something, so you should have enumerated why. Do you have evidence of an eternal cosmos; have you observed it? I have all sorts of reasons for doubting it. Clearly if atheists believe in matter popping into existence from nothing, or an "eternal cosmos", they must have some pretty good evidence if it's a "quality argument". After all, don't they go around saying it's utterly irrational to believe in anything without physical evidence? Maybe if Christian arguments are so bad, and they understand them so well, maybe they could start sharing some of this overwhelming evidence they have for every opinion they have.
@@thegreatcornholio7255 Aha.. The -cosmos- "something" have always existed by nessecity, because "nothing" can't exist 🤷♂️ Brute fact. _Do I have evidence, or have I observed the eternal universe..?_ What a ridiculous question. According to Christian _epistemological standards;_ *most definitely, yes I have. I'm looking at it right now.* By any other standard, no.
@@Kaymen1980 Wow, what an incoherent mess. So it's a ridiculous question to ask somebody who claims it's only rational to believe in things that have physical evidence, for their physical evidence? Got it. This is why atheism *always* leads to logical contradictions, and then the atheist just throws a tantrum. "Do I have evidence, or have I observed the eternal universe..?" ... "most definitely, yes I have. I'm looking at it right now. " -Uh, that's called question begging. You're looking at a universe right now, therefore it's eternal? lol That's a complete non-sequitur. Just like I'm looking at my desk right now. Therefore my desk is eternal. WTF?? If you're assertion that the either is eternal, let's hear the evidence. "According to Christian epistemological standards; " -Christian epistemological standards are the best there are, an no, there is nothing you believe that meets those standards. "because "nothing" can't exist 🤷♂️ Brute fact. " -Ok, you have no evidence then. Christians do not believe that God exists by a "brute fact", they believe God exists by *necessity* which is not the same as brute fact. You'll have to actually study the subject to understand the difference, not get your "education" from some scientist who moonlights as a philosopher. Once again, I can cite all sorts of reasons as to why the universe cannot exist eternally, which I have not yet done. Right now I'm still waiting for a single reason as to why you think the universe can exist eternally. Do you have any or not?
Imagine blinking green squares filling up all of reality.
I love you so much brother
Kind of shocked that Majesty of Reason has not posted a 6 hour response video to this yet.
@Luth Lexor That's what makes him an agnostic.
Lmaooo good one 😂😂🤣🤣
I loved the entire three hours. This argument is no doubt the best for God existance and it has removed lots of my objections. Thank you @Capturing Christianity and Josh for sharing this.
I haven’t watched the video yet but reading your response makes me happy to see it helped you. All of Heaven rejoices with the conversion of one person.
The contingency argument is definitely one of the most aesthetically pleasing arguments
What do you mean by that?
@@CedanyTheAlaskan he finds it beautiful
Too bad a muslim (avicenna) came up with it 🙁
Well it is better than the "look at that tree" argument but the " stuff exists therefore God". Is generally only something that works on believers. If it solves the problem of starting the universe out of nothing then God snapping his fingers and zapping it all into existence works for me. But you can never leave it there. It's has to be a story of God loving you though you deserve eternal damnation but he won't send you to eternal torture if you believe this brand of Protestantism which used to be Catholic and before that Judaism that came from some other traditions mostly lost in time. Get baptized, say a few creeds, say amen when everyone else says it and you are good to go. Sorry but I can't go there.
Ahh… Pot of coffee, Cameron Bertuzzi and Joshua Rasmussen 3 hour discussion on the Contingency Argument… Life is good.
God is Great
The Argument From Contingency is definitely the strongest of the Aristotelian/Aquinas philosophical arguments.
20 minutes in so far. Seems like it’s going to be a great video!
Ibn Sina credit where it's due
@@yassersharifا الكندي،الفارابي
Argument from Motion is by far the strongest. It can be grasped by anyone and explains reality as we experience it. Time would literally stop if not for the prime mover.
I’m a simple man. I see Joshy, contingency argument, and I click.
I appreciate this upload. I feel like accepting even the first argument is this then leads you into the premises of the Kalam argument.
The arguments about contingency are My favourites
This is excellent timing! I just read through joshes short book 2 times and wanted to hear some more dialogue from him on his thinking on this. Thank you for putting it on!
The Royal Society for putting things on top of other things.
That is news to me about Dr. Oppy. The last time I talked to him, we discussed Kalaam and I eventually dug out how he has the presupposition that the prior probability of God is exactly zero, meaning that no successful arguments from empirical rationale can improve priors for God to him. As for Contingency, it is a favorite, and one that I immediately grasped as I began to surrender antitheism 11 years ago; I had been a Randroid for ten years, and Objectivists escape this argument by saying existence is necessary as a foundational premise.
Great stuff, I love listening to this kind of content. Dr. Rasmussen is a brilliant philosopher and excellent communicator of his ideas, which is a rare blend in academia.
How to explain metaphysics using basic math and basic geometry:
[Exhibit A]:
We have ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D.
0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are:
1) whole
2) rational
3) not-natural (not-physical)
4) necessary
1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are:
1) whole
2) rational
3) natural (physical)
4) contingent
Newton says since 0 and 0D are
"not-natural" ✅
then they are also
"not-necessary" 🚫.
Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅
then they are also
"necessary" 🚫.
This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic.
Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes.
Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D.
The Egyptians, Syrians, Greeks, Mathematicians, Plato (the Good on 0D-3D pyramid) and don't forget Jesus and John all speak of the Monad (number 0, geometry 0D, quantum SNF).
0D Monad (SNF)
1D Line (WNF)
2D Plane (EMF)
3D Volume (GF)
We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic.
Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2
(Not 1, 2, 3).
Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ =
necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction.
Before we're here is necessary.
This is contingent.
Most likely "imaginary" in the same way 'time' is "illusory".
There's no 3D anybody without their 0D Monad/Soul. No Higgs Boson without Quarks.
Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different.
Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary.
Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything.
Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚.
I'm only at the intro so far, and I agree entirely with Cameron's assessment. The argument from contingency is intuitive, easy to explain to non-philosophers without getting into too much technical jargon, and I think it does a good job addressing the "gap problem" in that stage 2 that Cameron's talking about. I'm curious if somewhere in the 3 hours of this video, the topic of Divine Simplicity ever gets brought up. I know that Cameron doesn't accept divine simplicity, and I don't know what Dr. Josh Rasmussen thinks about it (I do know he's not Catholic), but it seems to me like if you think a contingency argument works it's pretty hard not to come to the conclusion that the divine simplicity is one of the attributes of that necessary being. I don't know how you'd get to a necessary being, while still accepting that the being is composed of proper parts. It seems like, by definition, anything that isn't simple is going to be contingent on it's parts.
Well if each proper part is required to be joined together to hold the attribute of necessity, then you can have parts in a necessary being. Similar to the idea of irreducible complexity - if you need all of the parts to achieve necessity, then the parts as a whole are all necessarily existent for the necessary being to exist necessarily.
Hopefully that makes a little sense.
@@Iamwrongbut The word you're calling "necessary" doesn't seem like the same concept that Cameron and Dr. Rasmussen are talking about when discussing contingency and necessity. Josh says at 16:47 that "something is necessary if it isn't contingent." If a being is composed of parts, it's in some way contingent on those parts. It doesn't seem like the attribute of necessity is the kind of attribute that an irreducibly complex system could have. But maybe that's why Josh made the distinction that dependence and contingency, I didn't quite get what he was doing there.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol Correct. Something composed by parts has to be contingent of his own parts. And any of his parts are contingent of the rest of his parts.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol The problem is that there is virtually (to be charitable) nothing about God as described in the Bible or any other religious text for that matter that does not appear at face value to be contingent, and thus not necessary. And how does it make sense for a necessary being to have contingent attributes? What they are referring to as 'necessary being' seems to me nothing more than a brute fact in disguise; not even in disguise, really. Like, what possible reason could we have to conclude that are no possible worlds that don't contain a God whose nature is such that at a certain point in history it would see fit to manifest itself as a burning bush? Or demand circumcision? These seem unambiguously to be contingent facts.
@@fanghur Well, religious texts themselves don't generally spend much time talking about God as he is essentially, they talk about Him in his relationship to creation. A necessary being can have contingent properties, as long as those properties are what philosophers call cambridge properties. A cambridge property isn't a property that is intrinsic to the thing itself, but that it has in reference to other things. A classic example of a cambridge property would be that I am taller than my nephew. I can lose that cambridge property without any change or even any action on my part, my nephew just has to grow taller than me.
Both the examples you listed are clearly cambridge properties, as they pertain not just to God as God, but to God's interaction with creation. You're actually sort of dancing around the modal collapse argument here. It's just usually phrased backwards from what you said here. I don't have time to launch into a full rebuttal to modal collapse here, but it's a really common discussion among philosophy of religion.
Hi, new to philosophy here. So if we have a necessary being which we posit is God, is it possible for that being to have a nature that is contingent? I'm thinking the reason why God is triune? Does that suggest that God is not totally necessary? Sorry if it doesn't make sense.
While God's necessity is universal among Christian philosophers, I think pure necessity or divine simplicity is more controversial, meaning some things can be contingent,, though theologians debate about that.
Think of God creating the universe, that seems to be a contingent thing, as it may seem He did not need to do that. However, being the most powerful conceivable being, omniscience, and being a Trinity are necessary attributes. A sort of high level rule, is if something is "Necessary" it is also eternal (though the inverse need not be true). If "mathematical laws" exist for instance, they would seem to have existed eternally. God creating the universe wasn't the case for eternity.
Obviously a Trinitarian case can be made from aspects of the necessary property of Omnibenevolence. If God is eternal and perfectly loving, this logically incoherent if God exists in a unitarian sense. If loving another is greater than loving oneself, then God must exist in a non-unitarian way. It seems a "perfectly loving God" who loves nobody, could exist in no possible world. If God is perfectly loving for example, by necessity, then God is not unitarian. I guess that doesn't necessarily lead to the inference of "Therefore Trinity", but as a Christian, it seems to definitely philosophically infer "non-unitarian", and Biblically we can then infer "Therefore Trinity".
I'm new at philosophy too, but find it's very fascinating to learn some about!
If you mean nature as in essence, God's nature is what it is to be God, and so if God is necessary his nature/essence is necessary. If he had a different nature, he wouldn't be God, and then God wouldn't be necessary. I hope that makes sense. I don't think essence is the only definition of nature though
EDIT: or we can say that something is contingent if it doesn’t contain within itself the reason for being.
I like the way Bishop Barron defines contingency and replied to Alex: a contingent thing is one whose cause or explanation is *extrinsic* to itself, which leaves the question of determinism to the side.
Honestly, I think that’s a fair definition, but also kind of redundant, because I frankly don’t think that ‘non-contingent’ by that definition would even be a sensical concept. At least outside of the realm of analytical truths. At best, it’s just a way of talking about brute facts whilst trying really hard to deny that that’s what you’re doing.
@@fanghur not at all. Brute facts have no explanation, no intelligibility, and so in this case non-contingent means that something *does* contain within itself the reason for being- that the explanation for its existence is intrinsic, of and through itself.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns which I don’t think actually means anything. Barring being able to establish that something is logically necessary or logically impossible, one will always be able to conceive of a possible world where any given thing is absent. And as far as I’m concerned, that renders any claim of it being ‘necessary’ completely vacuous. And I’ve asked countless theists over the years to clarify this point, and without exception no one is ever able to, and most don’t even make the attempt. Maybe you’ll be the first, but at this point, I have concluded that ‘non-contingent’/‘metaphysical necessity’ is indistinguishable from a brute fact. And even some Christian philosophers like Swinburne have come to the same conclusion.
@@fanghur
>> which I don’t think actually means anything. > Barring being able to establish that something is logically necessary or logically impossible, one will always be able to conceive of a possible world where any given thing is absent. > And as far as I’m concerned, that renders any claim of it being ‘necessary’ completely vacuous. > And I’ve asked countless theists over the years to clarify this > Maybe you’ll be the first, > but at this point, I have concluded that ‘non-contingent’/‘metaphysical necessity’ is indistinguishable from a brute fact. > And even some Christian philosophers like Swinburne have come to the same conclusion.
@@fanghur PS. IMO the most reasonable a-theists are those who grant some version of PSR and necessary existence but then add that we aren’t justified in inferring divine attributes.
Is there a way to explain/summarize this simply, briefly?
Like if you’re evangelizing on the street and an atheist asks you to present an argument - knowing that the encounter won’t last long - what would you say?
Check out on Josh's Channel 'worldview design' he has a playlist where he goes over the general argument in a simple way: th-cam.com/video/sPK8MDk3hh0/w-d-xo.html. The first video in particular makes it pretty easy to understand.
Don't bother, you're only going to convince those that already believe.
These arguments are to make you feel better rather than convince anyone
@@j7bsecond540 How so?
Honestly, it all depends on the tone. If the "prove God exists" say it with a distasteful tone of voice, I would simply go down the Romans 1 route (Creation-Creator) and present the pure and simple Gospel and let God soften their hearts. These people are often God-haters and have already made up their minds and an sound argument for the existence of God wont change that. However, if they are genuinely curious and not rhetorical in their speech, a succint but weaker argument from contingency is: the beginning of the universe marked the beginning of time, space, and energy (or matter...same thing). The universe had a beginning. Therefore, its cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Furthermore, because the existence of the universe is not necerassy, it didnt have to exist which means this cause has a mind and is personnal/intelligent to be able to decide to create this universe. It would also need to be all powerful to create everything
@@User-og1te because they are weak arguments and not evidence.
You have to accept the conclusion before you begin. If you question the premises- reasonable questions - the arguments fall over.
Probably why the majority of professional philosophers don't share your god belief.
Probably why christians are indoctrinated young rather than created later in life with these tired word games.
As I said, they work on already believing folk to feel a little better about the belief.
Loved this video
That image is really trippy 😵
The problem with the type of addition fallacy you talk about at about 30 mins, is atheists will claim it's a composition fallacy. They seem to think that there's like this membrane around "the universe" or something, and so long as you're inside that membrane, everything needs to have a cause, explanation, or some sort of independent dependency, or something. However, in their minds, all you need to do is draw an imaginary membrane around all of those things, call it a "universe", then voila... it's perfectly rational to believe that all together, they don't need any other explanation outside of themselves.
Dr Josh is such a bro.
please consider having Father Deacon Ananias on as a guest. He specializes in epistemology and teaches this at a university.
very interesting. thank you for this.
Let Z be the current state of affairs of reality. Y was the immediately prior state of affairs of reality. For Y to proceed to Z, there need only be some change in the totality of things Y-because Z just is the subsequent state of affairs. Z depends on Y’s priority, and Y depends on X and so forth. If we think of reality in this totalizing sense and assume causal finitism, then I think it certainly and inescapably follows that the first change (A to B ) assumes that A was timeless (without change) and eternal (because the Principle of Sufficient Reason-things don’t just pop into being out of nothing for no reason). We’re still a ways off from God, but reason seems to reveal (again, assuming causal finitism) that there is an initial state of affairs A from which all other states of affairs proceed.
Josh’s argument really rests on causal finitism, I think. “The totality of things” may be endlessly dependent if causal finitism is false
Are you referring to the dependence argument?If so, then even though I really like your way of analyzing this [seriously :) ], we should get clear on something: that is _not_ exactly the version of the argument that Josh has in mind (and that he presented), although _some_ of the aspects you mentioned are indeed helpful and take part on the discussion of the argument. The argument doesn’t depend on the truth of causal finitism (as I understand it) at all.
The idea is (assuming we are talking about the dependence argument that Josh shares):
Consider the totality of reality. Call it T. Does T depends on something else for its existence? Well, no. If it did, it would depend on something “unreal”, which is nonsense. If it depends on some part of it, then we would have a case of “explanatory bootstrapping”, which is also absurd.
So, the totality of reality is independent (doesn’t depend on something else).
But how is that possible? What kind of reality could exist in that way, or exist at all?
Josh has offered various ways to deduce a necessary being, and one way would be to appeal to an inference to the best explanation (given the already considered observations about independence with respect to the totality of reality). The best explanation why reality in total is independent is that there is an independent foundation within it, which is relevantly different from dependent things. All dependent things ultimately depend on this independent foundation. The next step is to try to tease out the attributes of this foundation, which is plausible to say it includes necessary existence.
@@esauponce9759 Thank you! And thanks for your reply
I think the problem is that T can plausibly be construed as an abstract set which, under set-theoretic anti realism, doesn’t actually exist. Consider the set of objections containing my laptop, my desk, and my lamp; arguably, the “set” doesn’t exist. Likewise, one could argue that T is really just a set, and not a thing in itself. That’s why the argument seems to me to rest on causal finitism
@@anglicanaesthetics it depends what we mean by causal finitism. In some sense all theistic arguments try to demonstrate that there is a fundamental causal relation that grounds contingent reality. The difference between the kalām argument and the contingency argument (and other cosmological arguments) is that the kalām tryes to demonstrate that there is a finite "chain" of contingent causes that inevitably culminates in a FC/NB, whereas the contingency argument can be made by assuming an infinity of contingent causes as long as the occurence of such a "chain" is causaly explained by a NB. The argument from contingency does not rely on the sort of causal finitism employed by the kalām, it only needs to overcome the Hume-Everett objection to it (and there are different ways to tackle this objection). Also, I agree that we should not see sets as independetly existing entities. They are mere abstractions, conceptual tools used for logical operations. But one should keep in mind that causal "chains" or "networks" are not arbitrary sets. One can meaningfully ask about the modal status of even an infinite causal "network" and see wether a causal explanation is needed for such a network or chain, or wether the particular causal relations themselves are good enough explanations for the occurence of contingent reality. It may seem that, since the network can be reduced to merely the beings that "comprise" it, and if all the beings have a causal explanation for their existence, then, according to Hume, the occurence of contingent reality is explained. But, pace Hume, we are stil dumbfounded with questions as to why there is an infinity of contingent causes, or since all of them are contingent, why did any of them occur in the first place. Why does contingent reality exist at all if no beings in the causal network are necessary? If we have a phoenix whose existence is explained by the occurence and causal action of an infinity of preceding phoenixes whose existence is causaly explained, I stil don't see how that explaines why are there any phoenixes to begin with. Etc.... It does not seem to me that the proponent of the contingency argument has to rely on the sort of causal finitism employed by the kalām, or a sort of set-realism to object to the Hume-Everett principle. Ofc maybe I am wrong about that. The contingency argument is my favorite cosmological argument and I find it less problematic than the kalām or some other cosmological arguments, tho I am stil pondering some issues with it
@@anglicanaesthetics
Thank you. That’s a good point. Though I think one interesting thing about this argument is that it can still work even if there’s no such “thing” as the “totality of reality” (which I agree, it doesn’t seem there’s a “thing” like that, though it might be possible to make a case for that too). Josh Rasmussen also leaves this open. We can maybe use “the totality of reality” only as a didactic phrase for sharing the actual idea we are trying to convey: that there’s something real/actual/existent in the first place; or we can talk about “the state or fact that something is real/actual”, or as Graham Oppy put it: casual reality itself (which is quite accurate given that this argument focuses more on causal stuff than abstracta). So with that in mind, we can still see (by reason) that casual reality *can’t* be dependent on an “external explanation” (or “cause”), because that would lead to the same absurdity we deduced initially about the conceptual “totality of reality” being dependent on something else or in some of its parts.
Casual reality exists independently, however we slice the pie. And so the argument goes through.
I also agree with what @ante 397 said. I tend to think of it in those terms too.
I also have been doubting the power of some arguments for the existence of God. While I'll the arguments from Change/Motion, Contingency, and the Kalam are great arguments, the moral argument that William Lane Craig gives in "On Guard" and "Reasonable Doubt" seems to be the weakest. It just seems like it would require another argument to support it in order to arrive at the kind of God that Christians and other monotheists believe in. Perhaps its just me, but I tend to think that non-moral arguments are stronger.
So, where do you get your morality?
The moral argument is overlooked as easy to refute but I feel like people aren't really digging into the actual internal meaning of morality. From an atheistic point of view, morality is defined as something we get from our ancestors like hand me downs. "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you" sort of thing and this helps our species survive but the problem with that is morality is also an internal feeling, you feel hurt, sad, empathy...all these feelings but for what? Without God in the picture, everything stated against this is a personal opinion.
The Kalam is so lame, even if it wasn't vague by its "beginning to exist" and "universe" parts, and even if we grant it to be true, it still doesn't give you a god, it just gives you that the universe has a cause.
Moral argument is nonsense too, besides the Christian god is immoral, so how can one even take it seriously.
@Luth Lexor Show me where I said the contingency argument was lame
@Luth Lexor I'm saying the Kalam Cosmological Argument is lame, cosmic skeptic goes so far to say that it's circular.
I don't know about the other contingency arguments so I'm not saying they are lame or not lame, if I had to guess though, I would pick lame.
"Think The USA Or Cops Are Racist? What Do You Think Of This?" 3:36 th-cam.com/video/zVh3XuDT9YQ/w-d-xo.html
Everthing created is depended
Therefore the universe was not created.
I listed through part one twice, and though they spent over an hour and a half talking about the argument, they never actually give the argument.
If, by some chance, I missed it, twice, please provide a time stamp.
yeah I do like the argument and ALHAMDULILLAH it is my favorite as well but it fit the Islamic explanation of ALLAH(S.W.T) .while the problem with christianity is the trinity how could the argument from dependency/contingency explain trinity.?
Not sure if this is covered in the video, but what would the implications of believing in the Trinity be (assuming you believe in an internal hierarchy within God)?
I can't find nor his youtube channel, nor his website which he talked about in the first 15-20 minutes of the video. Can you help?
His TH-cam channel: th-cam.com/channels/XVvuTaGERdqZMUdph456bg.html
His website: www.joshualrasmussen.com/
@@x-popone6817 Thank you so much! Now I see it, for some reason the site was offline when I looked for it, thought he forgot some detail of the address during the video.
Outside of what we know, it could be the case that there is no necessary anything.
Within the context of what we know, matter/energy would seem to be necessary, since it seems that such cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, within the context of what we know, matter/energy is a candidate for something which is necessary.
Intelligence is observed to be developmental sand thus is contingent within the context of what we know.
This precludes intelligence of being an aspect of anything which is foundational given the nature of intelligence as we understand it.
This point of understanding of intelligence precludes theological (non-contingent intelligent agent(s)).
---
Based on our current understanding, size entails more with regard to composition and thus IS significant especially if one is thinking in terms of physics and how extremes of size can change various aspects of interaction.
Josh, intelligence is considered to be a process by I would dare say MOST (if not all) determinists and thus IS a point of complexity. I would dare say that ANYTHING that conceptually entails a process of any sort is precluded as being even a candidate as a first cause without such being inherently incoherent as I am citing with intelligence being an impossibility as being foundational insofar as we know.
Josh, the moment you are presuming what has not been shown, there is grounds for objection, since the claim of perfection entails a criteria which may not be applicable to what is the case.
Cameron, the concept value is an inherently subjective notion and is thus NOT something claimable as a state of reality.
Cameron, we don't all value other persons. There are some persons wherein I have negative value for them and those that I don't know I actually have zero personal value.
Observationally, everything observed has limits, thus any claim entailing a thing being unlimited would require evidence since such is outside of what we know.
Keep it up Cameron
When weighing questions I assess the negative consequences. If massive, say with the acceptance of Christianity, then the proof of god needs to be ironclad. I don’t believe any argument rises to the level of assurance that justifies the acceptance of Christianity in light of negative consequences.
Interesting
You seem to be confounding theism and religion. Theism justifies the existence pf God, not Christianity. Furthermore, there are no negative consequences of theism or Christianity
@@beckc.5084 for example, homosexuals were denied equal protection with bans on marriage and adoption.
@@apracity7672 Interesting that you state there were not negative consequences when people like myself were denied a full scientific education through the banning of the teaching of evolution.
I can list more examples of consequences.
@@AWalkOnDirt yes, id like to hear more
I wonder have you interviewed timothy O'Connor ? His book 'Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency' seems interesting
How would Jesus be necessary and independent?
What is being missed and it's clear that he's not thought of it. For action to be taken by anything, one requires time. If your being is timeless, there clearly is no time, therefore no action can be taken, so timeless beings aren't the cause of anything.
timeless but it only took him 6 days.
B theory
Cameron, does caffeine make you anxious?
Caffeine is trash bro it makes me feel weird and I have like major emotional weirdness from it 2 days clean
Perhaps a little. I stopped drinking coffee a little over a month ago to see if it helped with headaches/migraines. It seems it has! I now drink Mud Water in the mornings.
@@CapturingChristianity I’ve been super curious about mud water!
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I bought mud water, I wouldnt recomend it, its rather expensive and if your sensitive to caffeine like me it still makes me feel weird
THE BEST PROOF FOR GOD
IS FREQUENCY EVERTHING IS MADE BY IT.
FREQUENCY IS THE WORD.
Another great proof for GOD IS THE HUMAN MIND.
THE ONLY MIND IN NATURE THAT BELIVES THERE IS A CREATOR.
ANOTHER GREAt PROOF IS 300 CERO CHANSE THAT SOMTHING CANE FROME NOTHING.
its weird how they never set out the contingency argument!
Cameron doesn’t like analogies when listening to Catholic Suan, but he likes this gum ball analogy 🤔
Why can’t I see the video?
Can someone link Josh’s testimony?
My favorite argument is moral argument.
same
Me too, everytime I hear an atheist say it's subjective, they portray it as their own opinion which leads to another subjective explanation lol
@@iemerald7781 As opposed to the Christians who literally believe that the exchange rate of the Israeli shekel is a fundamental universal principle.
@@iemerald7781 And yet all that’s necessary is to show how inadequate any arguments for moral realism are. And boy they are inadequate.
As a muslim, I find arguments for the existence of god as weak. Belief of God can be rational without argument.
@Ricardo Marín reformed epistemology
@Ricardo Marín I disagree. You already believe things like other stuff such as other minds, without argument. God created us in a way, which we deeply desire him and can know about him without proves.
@@Kenji17171 We don't "believe" in minds. We experience them.
Like plantinga's properly basic belief?
Agreed!
One can hold a rational true belief without evidence or argument.
This is Alvin Plantinga's argument, a "sensus divinitas". A sense of the divine.
Arguments are supplemental.
1:06:45
So is the argument God is not a contingent being but a necessary being?
@@HoneybunMegapack LOL. Right. There's two possible options 1) Things have a cause and explanation. 2) Things come into being from absolutely nothing or have no cause or explanation.
In the atheist mind number 1 is a "cop out and question begging" but number 2 is perfectly rational.
You all just can't be taken seriously.
@@HoneybunMegapack Of course not. God is eternal. If you even understood the argument, you understand that reality can be described as 2 options, or really 3. 1) Is contingent (can fail to exist), 2) Exists eternally or "necessarily" (thus can't not exist) thus is not contingent or 3) Came from absolutely nothing, with no cause or explanation. We have no way to make heads or tails of it. There's no way of knowing if it's contingent, necessary or how it even got there.
Most people don't believe in number 3, however there's still a few atheists who do (like Peter Atkins).
If you understood the argument, you'd understand that it follows this format "All things that are contingent do not exist eternally, and must eventually lead back to something that is necessary". Or as Leibniz put it, the explanation of all that exists is either 1) Necessity or 2) Contingency.
If you think the argument goes something like "Everything that exists has a cause" and then you just respond by saying "ha! You just said that everything has a cause, so does *God* have a cause???", then you simply don't understand the argument, like at all. 99.9% of atheists simply do not understand the argument, at all.
So, in summary, the argument is "There are 2 types of things, necessary things and contingent things. Necessary things exist eternally, contingent things do not".
And the universe existing forever is absurd. It's called the "Big Bang", and the universe doesn't just exist. If you're actually interested in understanding the subject a little better from a Cambridge physicist who understands the philosophy *very* well, I'd recommend you read this blog article, and it will help you understand these sorts of arguments better: www.wall.org/~aron/blog/no-the-universe-cant-just-exist/
@@thegreatcornholio7255 something can be eternal but still contingent. ‘Contingent’ in this context simply means ‘true in some but not all possible worlds’.
Truth? What did Jesus say about his teaching? Did he say listen to me every word i say is true. Did Jesus say you have the power to understand what is true? No Jesus said that for the many he spoke in parables so they would not understand. There will be many that say Lord Lord but i say you do not know me. What was the original sin? Was it not knowing the ten commandments? It was eating from a tree. The tree of knowledge to be specific. Where does peace come from? It it the truth beyond understanding.
You realize you are agreeing with the Pagan Aristotle, right ?
@Luth Lexor Because they are pagans. Agreed
Paul quotes several pagan philosophers in his letters, which are in the bible
What is your point? Just because they’re not saved means they can’t be smart?
The fine art of tricking oneself (and/or others) into defining into existence a preconceived version of God using philosophical imagination and lots of clever wordsmithing.
Uh no, it's called synthetic logic, and logical rules of inference, and observing reality and logically inferring that God exists. You aren't defining God into existence, you're defining God and inferring that God must exist.
If you believe what you just wrote, then you do not understand this subject.
@The Great Cornholio
Really, you mean to honestly tell me that people pushing this nonsense have started from a position of ignorance - a blank slate - and through logical inference and observation of reality, they were led directly to the ever-changing cacophony of thousands of versions of Christianity constantly disagreeing with each other???
@@ezbody What the eff, are you serious? No, the contingency arguments get you to the statement "The universe has an immaterial cause or reason that it can exist". The "ever-changing" (which it is not) "thousands of versions of Christianity"
*all* agree with the inferences that are made from these arguments. They all believe that something they believe to be "God" created or sustains the universe. I think you need to understand categorical logic a little better.
You do understand that right? An inference to a high categorical conclusion does not infer a lower level conclusion?
It's like if I saw a foot print in my back yard, I could not make the inference "a guy named Jim, who has red hair, must have made this footprint". I could however make a higher level inference such as "A person must have made this footprint".
It's not just that you all disregard these arguments that's troubling, it's the extent that you all don't even understand them or the subject at all, yet have these huge opinions about it all. Very weird.
@@thegreatcornholio7255
Note that I am not even talking about the argument itself. I am just showing that there is no starting position of ignorance, the conclusion itself is the motivation for the argument, hence me mentioning "the fine art of tricking oneself", because no matter how much the theist wants to pretend that they are not influenced by their preconceived conclusion, they 100% are, that's why the argument exists in the first place.
As for the thousands of ever-changing versions of Christianity disagreeing with each other, that you think isn't true -- you can't be aware of what you are not paying attention to. (My) Christianity changed drastically just during my lifetime. And it's not just the versions of Christianity disagreeing with each other, it's the Christians within each version of Christianity disagreeing with each other.
And no, Christianity doesn't agree with the argument from contingency, due to the very simple fact that like 99% of the Christians aren't even aware of it, nor do they EVER care.
As for the argument itself -- there are unlimited number of potential ways to argue/explain anything, which makes all arguments that haven't been backed by evidence a waste of time.
@@ezbody You're mind reading then. You claim that people "want to pretend", and then I'll just say the same thing about atheists, and say that there's some psychological reason for their not wanting to believe in God. Many theists posit that the increase in atheism has been a direct function of the increase in divorce, and the whole phenomenon is directly related to their relationship with their father (in a majority of cases, not all). If your entire argument is based on your ability to read minds, I find it uninteresting. I strongly believe that most atheists are influenced by their preconceived conclusion and various psychological influences in their lives, and just want to have an atheist view.
Pertaining to "thousands" of disagreeing "versions" of Christianity, you're literally making this up. You may say there's thousands of different views on theology, or interpretations of various scriputres or something like that. About 99.9% of all Christians, as far ranging as various branches of Catholicism, to a gazillion denominations of Protestantism to Orthodox, to non denominational; all agree that God exists, created the universe, and came incarnate to the earth, through Jesus Christ, as a final bridge from God to man.
"As for the argument itself -- there are unlimited number of potential ways to argue/explain anything, which makes all arguments that haven't been backed by evidence a waste of time."
-I guess this is coming from an atheist, who will only cite things that have no evidence whatsoever to defeat contingency and cosmological arguments. To defeat the contingency arguments, there are two possibilities 1) "The Universe" or physical reality, came from absolutely nothing. 2) "The Universe" or physical reality exists eternally.
There's absolutely zero evidence that number 1 or 2 is true, yet the atheist chooses to believe them. The atheist will then ramble on about nothing being rational to believe, unless there's "evidence".
Pertaining to the contingency arguments, that is ALL it is based on. Evidence that physical reality, has causes for example, can't exist eternally, they will provide evidence for all of it. The counter-arguments to the contingency arguments literally have no evidence whatsoever.
- Plus you're just wrong. There's no evidence whatsoever that math works the same way on the other side of the universe as it does here, but we believe that it is true. There's no evidence whatsoever, when atheists ramble on about "infinite parallel universes" that mathematics and logical rules of inference are even remotely the same, as they are here, however scientists choose to believe that they are, with no evidence, and it's rational to do so. Atheist scientists for example are utterly logically incoherent, and will contradict themselves every other sentence. One minute they'll be rambling on about how it's utterly irrational to believe anything whatsoever without physical evidence (which they do not even understand what that means), then they'll be rambling on about infinite universes, or matter coming from nothing, or the universe existing eternally, or mathematics leading them to believe things about the universe, when they don't even have a way of proving that 2+2= 4 in the andromeda galaxy. They just believe in all of this with no evidence whatsoever.
And thinking that 99% don't agree with the contingency argument (mainly that the universe and people couldn't exist without God), I think that's laughable. 99% of Christians probably don't what the argument is called, but literally 99% of Christians agree with it. Just like they probably can't define "The Atonement" if you asked, if you asked them "Did Jesus come to pay the price for your sins", obviously they'd all say yes. Every Christian believes in the Contingency Argument.
If you yourself were a Christian, you were utterly deceived by some amateur atheist that does not understand a word they're saying, like some silly scientist who moonlights as a philosopher. It's sad to see such indoctrination and ignorance changing a human being.
How can you get fire from a pool of water ? just like you can get imperfection from perfection according to the theist.
tldl; 30 minute summary would be nice
TLDR: Our intuition from human-scale physics is that the world can be described as being a series of causes and effects. The argument is that this intuition should be extrapolated to all of the universe and there must, therefore, be a cause of the universe. Given that we don't know what that cause is, we should just insert the Christian God in there.
@@adamredwine774 lol 👏👏👏
@@adamredwine774
I can't help but wonder wether your brain cells were aware of you makin this silly comment.
@@metro2197 Ah yes, what insightful commentary you offer. That's exactly the depth of thought that I would expect from someone who is convinced by this foolish argument.
@@adamredwine774
It is a wonder to me whether your purported “summarisation” of the argument is “insightful” in the first place lmao.
Seriously go pick a philosophy textbook.
So god wants to have to a relationship with you but in order to do this, he first requires you to seek out an elaborate philosophical argument to convince yourself that he actually exists? Just imagine if you didn’t have the philosophical knowledge, you would have been screwed?
No need for that. If someone is looking for the Truth, God will present you with the Gospel. 1 Cor 15:1-4. The Gospel is the power of God into salvation to all who would believe Rom 1:16. Here is the logical order of salvation: Eph 1:12-13. Believe the Gospel(What Christ did for you at the cross), and trust Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. Read Romans CH 3-5. May God help you. Accept the grace of God in Christ
Actually, no. It appears that humans have an inclination to believe in God, that's why every premodern community on earth is religious
@@WildYelectric Not everyone has access to the Gospels. When the Europeans first set foot in the Americas, there were no Gospels, no Bibles and no Christians. Anyone who had previously lived and died worshiping pagan gods were screwed, right?
@@tudormarginean4776 Lets suppose you are right. But why then doesn't he reveal himself as the Christian god to everyone on Earth? Why plant an intuition in humans that is so vague, that they mistakenly worship false gods? For most of Earths history people believed in non-Christian gods. Why hasn't/doesn't the true god correct this misunderstanding? According to the Old Testament, god revealed himself to many people including those who were quite hostile towards Christianity (like Paul). Why doesn't he fully reveal himself to all so that they can decide whether to reject or accept him after having all the facts?
@@pazuzil i think the classical response works well: because God values our freedom. If God directly reveals to us we would just be forced to accept the fact of His existence and comply with His will. Also, I think that Jesus' deeds are central to Christianity, and the need to spread the good news just follows from it. By that I mean the fact that it's not necessary to be christian in order to be saved, although it is blissful for us to know who God really is.
I think you got the determinism objection wrong. Under strict determinism there is no contigent/necessary distinction, it doesn't make sense, because there is really no causation. Causation is a concept from our human intuition strictly based on flow of time. If you think in terms of 4D spacetime, it is static, nothing is moving or changing there, nothing is "poping into existence" or "going away". It is like a static canvas stretched on the floor, everything ever existing is there, and what is moving and changing is our perception, because we are only able to perceive one slice of it, one thread at one time, constantly moving in one direction on this canvas. All our intuitions about causation, starting and ending, contingency and agency or free will are just the constructs of our minds...
It sounds like you're describing whats sometimes called "determinism". Calling causality an illusion is an interesting product of the 4D map I hadn't thought of before.
Side-note. The alternative to determinism is if things are indeterministic/ chaotic.
Both views are contrary to free will (as typically defined)
@tkwtg I stand corrected, thank you. I really seem to argue for "eternalist pamenidean humean necessitarian picture of reality". And I still find the contingency/necessity distinction to be illusory.
@@ivanvnucko3056
If there is no causation, then the foundation of science (viz., observation) is undermined since the external physical world could have no effect on our sense organs. The deliverances of our sensory apparatus would be uncaused and illusory, and therefore so would empirical science. Therefore it cannot be said in the name of science that causality is illusory. Furthermore, if there is no causation, then the arguments for adopting this view cannot cause you to accept it.
To affirm that causality is nothing more than a mental construct is incoherent, since a "mental construct", by definition, is a PRODUCT of our minds, i.e., it is CAUSED by our minds. Thus, a mental construct cannot be real unless causality is real, in which case causality cannot be both (a) unreal, and (b) a construct of our minds.
@tkwtg You realize that one could easily apply that exact same argument to the Biblical God, right? I can easily imagine a possible world in which God isn't triune. Or prefers to identify to us as female rather than male. Or came to earth as a Daughter rather than a Son. You have no way of logically proving that any of these are logically impossible. So if you want to conclude that the universe is necessarily contingent because you can conceive of things about it being otherwise, that's perfectly fair. But just acknowledge the fact that adding God into the picture changes nothing in that regard, because one can just as easily do the exact same thing regarding God.
If the best argument for God takes 3 hours to explain it might not be the best argument. 🤔
It can actually be summarized in less than a minute. This is just a scholarly development of it from one of its best professors
the fallacy of too long to read
Aight, explain Quantum Gravity bucko. Oh wait, you need an advanced education in order to get close to an accurate account of it? Well, maybe detailed arguments have incredible depth to them and need to be explained carefully and precisely
@@theistthinker7345 Greetings, Chris!
3 Hours of sophistry on defining God into existence.
Uh no, it's called logic, and logical rules of inference.
Oof, when I see «Josh Rasmussen» and «contingency» together, I click.
TLDR: Our intuition from human-scale physics is that the world can be described as being a series of causes and effects. The argument is that this intuition should be extrapolated to all of the universe and there must, therefore, be a cause of the universe. Given that we don't know what that cause is, we should just insert the Christian God in there.
2 questions:
1. Is there absolutely nothing that can be known about the cause?
2. Was it specified that the cause *must* be the ‘Christian’ God?
@@072929151 >Is there absolutely nothing that can be known about the cause?
I'm sorry you didn't pick up on the sarcasm in my statement about human-scale physics. The universe doesn't operate based on human intuition. For those of us who care about the truth of how the universe does actually operate and who are unwilling to dishonestly pretend that we can know things without first acquiring evidence for them; the response is that all of the evidence we have suggests that our human intuitions about things like causes are inapplicable to the origin of the universe.
>Was it specified that the cause must be the ‘Christian’ God?
Did you not listen to the video? That whole "second part" about the "characteristics" of the purported cause is doing exactly that. The arguments are, frankly, lazy and idiotic, but the whole reason they put them out at all is so that they can grab characteristics that have historical associations with their god and try to tack them on to the cause that they think they proved in the first part.
@@adamredwine774 You said:
"The universe doesn't operate based on human intuition."
And then say:
"For those of us who care about the truth of how the universe does actually operate and who are unwilling to dishonestly pretend that we can know things without first acquiring evidence for them"
Which is a flat contradiction because that very "evidence" is gathered through methodologies that assume human intuition is reliable. You have to assume that human intuition is reliable in order to state that the evidence gathered by it shows that intuition is unreliable with regards to the cause of the universe. You are assuming as true what you are trying to deny. It is also special pleading. Why should human intuition be applicable to the rest of the universe but not the cause of it?
"the response is that all of the evidence we have suggests that our human intuitions about things like causes are inapplicable to the origin of the universe."
No, the evidence does not support that. You have to assert that causation doesn't apply, without evidence, in order to deny the conclusion of the argument.
That something cannot come from nothing is a firmly established metaphysical principle and can also be deductively shown. The Casual Principle is not inductively established and describing at as such is a strawman. Your presupposition of Naturalism forces you to deny causation, which really just means that Naturalism is absurd and is quite literally denying reality.
"to dishonestly pretend that we can know things without first acquiring evidence for them"
'Everybody who disagrees with me is dishonest' - Classic ad-homenim. Also, you're affirming scientism by saying "without first acquiring evidence" which is a self-refuting epistemology. What you really mean is "we can't know without any empirical evidence" which in itself is unprovable empirically, and so is self-refuting.
"Did you not listen to the video? That whole "second part" about the "characteristics" of the purported cause is doing exactly that. The arguments are, frankly, lazy and idiotic, but the whole reason they put them out at all is so that they can grab characteristics that have historical associations with their god and try to tack them on to the cause that they think they proved in the first part."
Mocking an argument is not a refutation. Classic case of the _ab absurdo_ fallacy.
It's actually amazing how poor your reasoning is. Affirming human intuition to only later deny it. Special Pleading with regards to knowledge about the cause of the universe. Relying on scientism, which is self-refuting, in order to deny causality and to disparage your opponents as dishonest. Attacking a strawman of the Casual Principle. Then you just assert that the characteristics of the cause of the universe are just "lazy and idiotic". If they are so bad, you should be able to easily refute them instead of having to avoid them and trying to appeal to mockery instead.
Isn’t this very similar to Koon’s PSR argument?
Yes. Koons and Rasmussen have both worked on the PSR with Pruss, and all contingency arguments get really similar at the top since they’re all relatively true
How does Koons’ PSR argument goes?
Maybe I’m thinking about the same one you are thinking.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf He argued pretty persuasively that it leads to skepticism if left alone.
@Excuse me but Because the vast majority of people aren't willing to become complete skeptics.
@Excuse me but I accuse you of.. the fallacy fallacy! /j
In all seriousness, which fallacy?
36:12
39:47
40:01
The argument from contingency cannot answer the question of the universe being contingent. You cannot use philosophy, logic nor indirect observation to gain knowledge of the unknowable. A simple thought experiment will show this. You are looking through a window at a box on a table. A note tapped to the window says there is a flashlight in the box. The question you must answer using the same toolset used to answer the contingency argument is to determine if the flashlight is on or off. If you cannot do that, then the contingency argument carries no weight.
I'm sitting here imagining myself as an Australian Aborigine trying to follow this word salad of isms and stages. It takes Christianity to so professionalize their faith to where you can't understand it. But then again, they did come up with that non-sensical Shield of the Trinity and tried to shoe-horn EVEN THAT into logical discourse.
Until theists consider the question ''What phenomenon٫ caused the observable Universe to exist ? other than٫ What being caused the Universe to exist?" they will keep on inventing fallacious٫ unsound and invalid arguments which appeals to our intuition/feelings٫ just to address what I find to be a meaningless question.
Note : This is٫ if we assume there must be some sort of cause(s) to the observable Universe.
there cant be phenomenon before matter exist.
@@justanotherguy4382 But a super supreme god can? I will never understand how theists doesn't see the issue with this line of thinking.
@@jacoblee5796 that just the conclusion unless you can give example that something can come from nothing. Something must cause matter to exist. Phenomenon can only exist after matter exist, so phenomenon can not be the explaination.
@@justanotherguy4382 of course I can’t give an example of something coming from nothing. But nobody has ever claimed you could.
Can you give me an example of something that’s eternal and all powerful?
@@jacoblee5796 this cosmological argument is not about prove, but conclusion with present evidence. The evidence is there is no matter come to existence from nothing hence there must be cause to matter existence. We have the same evidence, but you arrive at different conclusion which contradict the evidence.
if you really follow the evidence, you cant dismiss that there is possibility that something that powerful and immaterial being exist. This being is waht we mean as God.Which is imo is the logical conclusion so far from this argument.
I guess the religious types especially who are biased against reality or someone who can not imagine anything past their Theism would fail to question their own BS. These 2 religious guys were thoroughly schooled by Tjump (TH-camr), he gave alternative possibilities for the "fundamental necessary thing" and these 2 guys had no answer to his objections for their version of God and all these 2 did was have a post discussion review among themselves about the parts of discussion that these "intellectuals" failed to understand.
I become unconvinced at about 30 minutes in.
The universe is full of dependent stuff. Every individual thing we can observe came from something else within the universe. This doesn't mean the universe as a whole (by universe I mean absolutely everything observable and unobservable) is dependent however. The universe as whole may be eternal while the stuff within it is just constantly changing. (Exactly what the first law of thermodynamics observes.)
(Indeed, if we define the universe as being absolutely everything, then the theist agrees with this point because, under that definition, god is also part of the universe.)
I think we are left with the atheist or theist both must choose a brute fact. Something not dependent. Choosing the universe over a god solves the same metaphysical problem with more parsimony.
Put another way, when we look for an explanation of stuff, the explanation is that it came from other stuff. Every single time.
Around 1:27 arguing that particles don't come into existence from nothing. The non theist would say stuff doesn't come into existence at all.
Around 1:55, I don't understand how you say "infinite" merely because a limit would be arbitrary. I don't know how big some distant star is. Doesn't mean it isn't infinitely big just because any guess I would make is arbitrary.
2:10 saying universe can't be the necessary foundation because it is imperfect. How do you define perfect? What color is a perfect being? You were complaining that the universe doesn't have infinite density, but what is the perfect amount of density? And what is god's density? This is all such a mess.
this is addressed in the common objections section
It sounds like you are talking about gravity. No need for your God at all.
Gravity is a force that exists between 2 existing objects. It's an attribute of something that exists. That's like thinking temperature is the cause of fire. You clearly didn't get it.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 Gravity is the warping of spacetime that many leading theoretical physicists think might actually permeate the multiverse. Temperature is the measure of the friction between molecules. With regard to creation in this universe, gravity is the key enabler, as it led to stars forming, which led to the more complex atoms forming. We have evidence for the creation caused by gravity. We have none for God.
@@simay4977 You have zero evidence of "creation by gravity" or for a multiverse at all. It doesn't exist. The only "evidence" you have is when some physicist decides to write a pop-science book (this specific example was from Stephen Hawking and was roundly criticized). It was literally made up.Theres zero evidence gravity causes anything (in the sense of a prime cause) Gravity only exists
between objects. What ur saying can be found in no encyclopedia or real scientific literature that is accepted. It's poor epistemology that you believe d it.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 Let me clear things up for you: Stars are formed by gravity, the atoms in your body were forged in stars. We have an abundance of evidence for this. It is absolutely not "literally made up". What IS completely mad up however is every single religion and concept of God, including yours.
@@simay4977 Uh no. That's like saying if I build a sand castle I'm capable of causing sand to exist. I'd be the efficient cause of the sand castle, but not the sand. The reason you think my religion is "made up", is because I have no idea what ur saying. Once again, if you think gravity can cause universes, cite it in an encyclopedia. You believe in scientism and science fiction and it's an incoherent religion. Atheists will literally make up "scientific"beliefs, all the time, like you just did.
Makes me wonder how the Christian measures the quality of an argument.. 🤔
This is an airtight argument. If you think the other two options, that everything in the universe came from absolutely nothing, or that it exists eternally, are good arguments, then why not write a comment in response to this video giving the reasons.
Unfortunately, at least in my view, 99% of the time, atheists don't even know what the arguments are, let along which is a "good one".
@@thegreatcornholio7255
Why can't the cosmos be eternal?
@@Kaymen1980 I never said it couldn't. I said if *you* think it is more rational than the argument you hear given, then you should respond giving your very best argument for an eternal cosmos. If you think "universes" and only 'universes" popping into existence from absolutely nothing is the most rational option, then you should state why.
If you wonder how a Christian measures the "quality of an argument", you must think one of these other options are better arguments.
I can give you the reasons why *I* think the cosmos can't be eternal, but apparently you must think one of the other two options I just listed are good quality arguments or something, so you should have enumerated why.
Do you have evidence of an eternal cosmos; have you observed it? I have all sorts of reasons for doubting it. Clearly if atheists believe in matter popping into existence from nothing, or an "eternal cosmos", they must have some pretty good evidence if it's a "quality argument". After all, don't they go around saying it's utterly irrational to believe in anything without physical evidence? Maybe if Christian arguments are so bad, and they understand them so well, maybe they could start sharing some of this overwhelming evidence they have for every opinion they have.
@@thegreatcornholio7255
Aha..
The -cosmos- "something" have always existed by nessecity, because "nothing" can't exist 🤷♂️ Brute fact.
_Do I have evidence, or have I observed the eternal universe..?_
What a ridiculous question.
According to Christian _epistemological standards;_ *most definitely, yes I have. I'm looking at it right now.*
By any other standard, no.
@@Kaymen1980 Wow, what an incoherent mess. So it's a ridiculous question to ask somebody who claims it's only rational to believe in things that have physical evidence, for their physical evidence? Got it. This is why atheism *always* leads to logical contradictions, and then the atheist just throws a tantrum.
"Do I have evidence, or have I observed the eternal universe..?"
...
"most definitely, yes I have. I'm looking at it right now. "
-Uh, that's called question begging. You're looking at a universe right now, therefore it's eternal? lol That's a complete non-sequitur. Just like I'm looking at my desk right now. Therefore my desk is eternal. WTF?? If you're assertion that the either is eternal, let's hear the evidence.
"According to Christian epistemological standards; "
-Christian epistemological standards are the best there are, an no, there is nothing you believe that meets those standards.
"because "nothing" can't exist 🤷♂️ Brute fact. "
-Ok, you have no evidence then. Christians do not believe that God exists by a "brute fact", they believe God exists by *necessity* which is not the same as brute fact. You'll have to actually study the subject to understand the difference, not get your "education" from some scientist who moonlights as a philosopher.
Once again, I can cite all sorts of reasons as to why the universe cannot exist eternally, which I have not yet done. Right now I'm still waiting for a single reason as to why you think the universe can exist eternally. Do you have any or not?