@@TheWorldTeacher Advaita's conception of the Brahman is logically incoherent because it conceives of Brahman as a substance without properties whereas, by definition, a substance is what has or underlies properties. Furthermore, because cognitively grasping something involves classifying or identifying it as a thing of a certain kind, and things are classified or identified on the basis of their properties, one can't cognitively grasp a thing without properties. It follows that the Advaitin's Brahman can't be known, and that Advaita itself thus doesn't know it. You are supremely egoistic sir and lack etiquette completely. You are master to none and superior only in your own strange conceptions of nonsensical assertions and unverifiable concepts like the one you have of Brahman. You are now summarily dismissed from serious discussion as one who can not reason properly or respectfully.
@@TheWorldTeacher Typing the word PRESUMPTUOUS does not address the logic of my comment in regards to Advaitin's Brahman. Please feel free to teach and I will ignore the presumption of your slave reference, Teacher? Please teach me why you are correct...
Hey Josh. It’s me Bryan. We met and talked at a mutual friends lifegroup. It was great talking philosophy, apologetics, and biblical stuff with you. Once I saw your name I was very happy to tune in and watch this discussion. God bless you brother!
@CrazyForTruth Faith is not needed in the presence of evidence. Ever heard ‘faith is blind’? It means that it requires belief in something that cannot be seen or proven, no evidence required. See Hebrews 11:1: “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”, meaning that faith is being certain about something that is believed to be true but cannot be seen with our physical eyes.
Are you for real? Tom was hardly given a space to get a word in, while Josh jumped all over the place verbally trying to work out something to say. WHile mostly ignoring what Tom did say.
Colossians 2:8 [8]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
@@wavestbird2461 Of course Paul would say that, he was an unlearned man who suffered from a massive delusion; Paul was not educated in philosophy, and he had neurological malfunctions inside his brain (as Paul himself hints at). Paul spewed such ignorance due to his strong dogma, and any wise and educated philosopher (who seeks sufficient knowledge) would dismantle Paul's primitive theological ideas with minimum effort. The useful parts of the traditions of men, the useful parts of the rudiments of the world are more appropriately applicable than a strong delusion concerning a pseudo-messianic figure (Jesus) & a pointless god concept (Yahweh).
@@sufficientmagister9061 John 7 14-15 14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. 15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? (KJV) Said the same thing about Jesus.
@@wavestbird2461 You keep quoting such primitive scripture, but the gospels are not completely accurate in describing the historical life of the deluded Jew, Jesus. If actual educated philosophers such as Ajita Kesakambalī or Lucretius were to confront Jesus concerning logic, skeptical inquiry and ethics, then Jesus would be exposed like the fraudulent, delusional apocalypticist that he was.
@@Giorginho It should be but often isn't. Philosophy considers far more than what science is bound or limited by. Many scientists will stop at the edge of scientific materialism perhaps because there is a purity doctrine or standard of ethics they are committed to. Which is fine, in fact it's admirable to hold such a disciplined position in many respects, but often makes conversations like these of limited value. Sure we observe the participants attempt to reason the position of the other side within their own frameworks and the discourse of challenge is healthy and sometimes interesting. But more often then not each side has such significant blind spots in their understanding of the other's position that they get caught in a loop of digging in their heals and camping in their safe bubble. I'd have to re-watch this dialog to be sure that happened in this 'debate', nevertheless, it happens quite often even if it didn't happen in this specific instance. As an attempt to break free of that loop, I'd be interested in a long-form discussion over the topic of life from non-life & where the science community diverges on/over that question. If scientific materialism is true, it requires life to emerge from non-life in a roughly 'miraculous' way and then it's claim proposes at some point down the line life evolved into sentients and then further still conscience. It's quite the position to take for someone from a scientific materialism perspective to argue in any dedicated way given this naturalistically described non-life to life phenomena is arguably as rare as the virgin birth.
@@Giorginho sounds about right re: scientism. Different circles will emphasize different labels, yours may forward 'scientism' while mine more routinely uses 'scientific materialism' perhaps for good reasons, perhaps just out of habit. I'd be curious for precision sake which is preferred. Either way it sounds very close, if not as you said, the same.
I think the claim that reality could or couldnt be different is unjustified. We dont know what could or could not be. This would require us to have knowledge of everything thats impossible and possible and we dont know that. Perhaps on the other end of the universe the laws of logic are different. I cant conceive of that but it doesnt necessarily mean its impossible. We can only say whats possible from our intersubjective frame of reference. A fact is just an opinion i assign a truth value based on my frame of reference (not just physical but conceptual)
The best pieces of evidences for God's existence: 1. A universe with a beginning, 2. A universe that appears to be designed, 3. Life emerged from non-life, 4. Biological organism display attributes of design, 5. Non-material consciousness emerged from unconscious matter, 6. Humans are “free agents” in a “cause and effect” world, 7. Transcendent, objective moral truths exist, 8. The persistence of evil and injustice, Explanatory possibilities: 1. Unguided natural forces “inside the room” acted on one another. 2. A supernatural source “outside the room” designed and created. edit. Also Bacteria flagellum but that's another story.
1. Our universe is a part of the lager cosmos. 2. Our universe appears to have developed consistent with natural processes. 3. Early forms of pre-"life" would likely have required external replication and energy production. (See thermal vents) 4. Biological organisms display attributes of evolution, and the fossil record confirms. 5. Consciousness emerged within complex, organized animal organisms, but not within the more common plant kingdom. No consciousness has ever been seen without a material substrate. 6. Humans are natural human in a natural world. 7. No transcendent, objective, moral truths have ever been demonstrated. 8. Evil and injustice are expected in an evolving social structure. (But we're getting better all the time) Explanatory possibilities: 1. Unguided natural forces “inside the room” acted on one another. - Literally everything in the universe conforms to this. 2. A supernatural source “outside the room” designed and created. - No evidence of this, just fiction.
@66 40 RE:1 I'm not sure that the singularity is supported in physics anymore, but what probably happened is that there are quark - antiquark pairs that are popping into existence and then back out. They do this randomly, and with any random process you can have enough of them all happen at the same instant, in a small area, and that causes a reaction that becomes the expansion. Crudely, the quantum realm is unstable. RE:7 I believe that the welfare of conscience beings is the basis of morals. Torturing babies simply saturates the conditions of being counter to wellbeing without any mitigating factors, so we shouldn't, as a social species do that. Mind you, torturing two, or ten or a billion babies is worse, but we have already crossed the line at one, meeting the conditions of being bad. And as for being transcendent, no conscience beings could have even existed in the early universe, until stars had run their lives, and collapsed to make the higher elements. RE:8 Evil and injustice are measured by failure to personally or as a society maximize well being of other conscious beings.
@@virgule888 There were a few steps in between, and there was water, and metals and minerals to work with. Oh, and don't forget that there was an environmental imbalance between carbon dioxide vs hydrogen. Life is great at hydrogenating carbon dioxide, while ordinary chemical reactions are not. Life is what happens when you have a planetary chemical imbalance potential.
49:20 When discussing analogies as they were I wish instead of Josh saying "I am not saying that." And instead say The reason why your analogy fails is because X and Y reasons. Saying that is not what I am saying is super vague where the idea of these types of back and forth's to get clarity. Tom is saying that Logic and the English are languages that are used to describe what we experience. We experience a tree and label the thing a tree. We experience that that the tree is a tree and can not, not be a tree at the same time and we label that the law of non contradiction. Earlier Josh tried to say that the microphone was not the English language even though no one had said it was. The analogy is that we can use the English language to describe the microphone. In the same way we can use the laws of logic to describe the properties of what a microphone is and is not. The microphone is not Englishly situated in any more or less profound way than it is rationally situated. Maybe somebody can tell me why I am not grasping the concept of what it means for something to be rationally situated that would make it any different than Englishly situated.
I think the difference is that while one could use English to describe a thing, the thing described is different, to the mode of description but not necessarily from its description. If I say "tree" I am using English, if I say "arbol", I am using Spanish. Different languages, but they reference the same thing, and what the description tries to do is capture the essence of the thing described. If the description is accurate, I have described something essential(inseparable) from the object. Let's say trees are material objects, for example. Their materiality would be essential for their being, but the term materiality needs not be. They are not material because I've described them as material entities; they are material entities and I've just described something essential to their being. When I say "trees cannot be non-material" I am not saying "trees cannot be distinct from my description", I'm saying it is true of the trees that materiality is essential to their being. A subtle difference that TJ did not caught. Josh is not saying that logic is descriptive in the sense of just allowing to make descriptions, but that it accurately can encompass the essential beingness of reality(its structure) and therefore IS prescriptive not as a descriptive language but as descriptive of the structure of reality. In this, I think there's a confusion between logic the language and logic the structure. Which is why we can use math to build things: it relates in an essentially descriptive way to the structure of reality. We can build rockets or have them fail out of the nature of our descriptions. Some descriptions are arbitrary and can be separated, others are accurate and essential and cannot be separated from the being-ness of the thing.
It was a good clarifying question to ask Tom if he would grant that certain entailments or properties would _naturally_ follow from the _supreme reality_ Tom seemed to almost grant that at one point, but then transitioned into stating that those properties are merely being _added_ into the _supreme reality_ ad hoc by Christians because of their theological beliefs. What do you guys think? 🤔💭
I was arguing that if you start with some "Supreme" property and then define other properties as being entailed in that supreme property you can entail any arbitrary thing you want (like spaghetti) and simply define them as being entailed in the "supreme property", so it's a completely arbitrary label... there is no way to demonstrate any asserted set of properties entailed in the "Supreme" property are any more correct than any other because its not a property of reality its just an imaginary property no different from the property "gilfmagoof"
@ TJump Thanks for offering your clarification Tom. I really enjoyed your discussion with Joshua! If I could just pick your brain a second ... You mentioned that _one could arbitrarily add any properties to the supreme reality cause there is no way to demonstrate which properties were more correct than any other_ If I am accurately representing your thoughts here, it seems that we could determine at least _some_ basic entailments by logical deduction For instance, we could logically deduce that the supreme reality is _non contingent._ If it was contingent, then whatever supports it would be the supreme reality instead. Aren’t there some logical perimeters which prevent us from being truly arbitrary in the process of assigning properties? I mean, we can’t just deny rationality all together and just assign contradictory properties. Right? So at least we could say that certain things are going to fit rationally while others simply will not. Am I understanding this, Tom? ~Warm regards
Not exactly, "Supreme" as a property is like "gilfmagoof" its a totally meaningless word, you would need to show it was like "Mass" or "Energy" which we can actually demonstrate exist in reality and are not just imaginary... supreme we cannot so you can just say anything you want about it because there is no way to show one definition is more correct than another because there is no way to show it is a real property at all
@ TJump Thank you! I think I understand you better now. It seems you are saying that we have to first demonstrate the existence of this “SR” before discussing any properties. And it seems you are saying that we have to demonstrate its existence in the same way we would go about demonstrating things like mass and energy. If I understand that correctly, doesn’t that sort of toe the line with the problem of assuming that all things are proven in the same fashion? It also seems to be confining the perimeters of the methodology of proof to empiricism alone and nothing else.
This was a great conversation but - I hate to say this - given the topic at hand, I think it flopped like a fish out of water. It seemed that Josh and Tom got stuck on debating parsimony and whether or not Theism is superfluous. To me that is a completely different topic than "Is there 'no evidence' for God's existence?" Because honestly, we could flat out accept that "Theism is less parsimonious than Naturalism" but I'm not sure how you get from that statement to "therefore, there is no evidence for God." I think one of the reasons our two interlocutors got stuck is because Tom's opening question/statement set the wrong tone: "Could you Josh tell me some of the reasons that you believe there are for belief in a God..." I think a much better opening statement I would've liked to have heard Tom say was: "As an atheist, I don't think there are any good reasons to believe that God exists. Part of why I've been led to this conclusion is because I don't think any confirmatory empirical evidence exists for the God hypothesis. The main reason why I think that is because the God hypothesis is ambiguous in predictive scope, if I don't know what God CAN'T do, then how am I to know what God CAN do? It follows then, that any evidence for God's existence will be equally as ambiguous." That would've been a really strong opening statement, but I think more needs to be said in terms of how/why ambiguous evidence should be dismissed altogether. It would've also given Josh a better springboard to respond by saying: "no, actually there is specific sets of evidence that are entirely unsurprising if a rational Foundation exists" and so forth. So yeah... great talk, but it got off topic early on and never seemed to get back on. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I've just missed all the points Josh and Tom were making, maybe my expectations for this discussion were completely different. I think more needs to be said about the title question itself, as in why do atheists think/feel as though the God hypothesis has no evidence? What is their particular principle of evidence that allows them to dismiss God from the conversation? It is a falsificationist principle? Verificationist? Experimentationist? et. al. We can debate the distinction between simplicity-complexity all day, but at some point, we need to actually examine the candidate evidence.
I agree, this was a great talk, but I'd really love to see Tom fully explore his claim of 'no evidence'. Tom, if you're reading this and have a video where you feel you've unfolded it all, please let us know.
I feel like this began to veer a bit off track from the start. However, I feel like Tom’s first question would be a reasonable beginning to a more structured debate where each speaker has set questions and time to ask and respond. That’s the kind of debate structure I was expecting at least.
Tom set up three domains in which he would accept evidence, but he would not accept evidence in one domain as being relevant within another. Josh had every opportunity to bring up evidences related to the three domains described, but went on this journey because .. I assume.. his usual method involves arguing in such a way to force argument or evidence from one category to bleed into another.
I would love to have a discussion concerning "What is God?". The issue being that I don't even find the idea as commonly claimed a possibility within the context of what we understand. Thus, the idea is wholly imaginary.
MyContext Descartes has an interesting response to the claim that God is imaginary. He reasons that there are 4 parts to human thought (cogito): understanding, imagination, perception, and will. The concept of God has to come from one of these categories. It cannot be will, because God is infinite, and the finite cannot create the infinite; it cannot be perception because we cannot perceive God; and his argument against us imagining God is that anything imaginary pulls from that which has already been perceived. For example, a unicorn: we've perceived horses, and horns, and used our imagination to sew them together. So if I'm understanding you correctly, the fact that no human can agree on what God is is evidence that he is imaginary, then Descartes would have two responses: the first is that if he were imaginary, then one could pick up a pen and draw the concept of God from our previous perceptions, and the second would be to grant that no one can agree on what God is - which is exactly evidence that he is not imaginary, because if he were there would be a consensus of what he is. He then goes on to conclude that, by process of elimination, the concept of God rests in our understanding. I'm not saying this is correct, that's just something I remember from his meditations
@@fentonmulley5895 I have come to understand that some have little to no distinction between their imagination and reason. So, I while I agree that with God claims being imaginary, I can't support the idea that he actually knew such.
@@fentonmulley5895 By "identity maintenance", do you mean "ego syntonic", where the latter would be worth defending for an individual because the God concept resonates with how they see themselves and the world/universe?
1:39:23 The concurrent psychological dilemma of simplicity is that it is practically and issue of [Josh's extperise allows him to appraise X as simple] vs. [Tom's expertise does not allow him to appraise X as simple] - as simplicity that is felt, sensed or inferred is often related to the skills a body possesses. For instance, an expert rally car driver may sense something is simple to drive but an unskilled person senses it is complex or impossible. This debate doesn't extract out prior-expertise as the lens through which simplicity is grasped.
So the creator and ruler of the universe, a being who take sides in tribal wars, who creates rules for humans to abide to, and scarified himself to himself is simple.... got it.
Those things aren't part of Josh's hypothesis, even if they're entitlements of it. His hypothesis is that the foundation of reality is a supreme mind, that's it, nothing else added.
He can only assert that material reality "is the way, that it is", he can't assert that about reality in general. There is no evidence to support that. It also doesn't explain consciousness.
ShouVertica I don’t think it’s been demonstrated yet, but it is what’s indicated by all available data in the fields of neurology and biology in general.
@@ShouVertica That's ridiculous nonsense. Biology/neuroscience tells us that there is a correlation between the physical states of the brain, and the subjective experience of our consciousness. That by no means "demonstrates" that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
103:25 "If I am praising my wife and I tell her you are so beautiful, you are so awesome, you're so intelligent, you're so virtuous, you're so weak. I have a feeling that the last one didn't match up with the other things." What if we change the quality to meek? That would split the audience without the risk anyone interpreting this comment as an adhom. There are people that prefer their partner to be outspoken and others prefer a partner that are meek. There are people who worship gods that are fallible and limited. The fact that subjective people value different things doesn't tell you if value exists outside of subjective minds. Or if a mind exists outside of physical brains. Since it doesn't point to you conclusion it can not be counted as evidence for your conclusion.
@hugo lopes I didnt claim anything.. I specifically said I "feel" no evidence needed. In my "opinion " he gave off a vibe like he knew it made sense but didn't want to admit it or be wrong
Adding a mind to an all powerful nature is adding complexity. Mind + matter is more complicated than matter. This is not even remotely difficult, unless you don't WANT to understand it.
Matter alone lacks explanatory power. Why did this world come to exist? The answer, on Jump's view would essentially be "it just did", which is the opposite of an explanation.
@@Mentat1231 No, the answer on TJump's part (if I'm understanding him correctly) is that most of the going theories in physics posit a past eternal universe. A past eternal universe does not "come to exist". And no matter does not "lack explanatory power". When you compare the inane archaic jack ass bonkers unfathomably fuckin stupid answers the bible posits to literally anything, it's a miracle in its own right that someone who believes it could possibly think that the scientific world view lacks explanatory power, unless they believed it because they WANT to believe it.
@@nuahs0shaun I don't remember him mentioning how old the world is, but the question of why it exists would be equally valid if it had always existed. And just saying "this is how reality is" is not even a bad explanation; it's no explanation at all. At least positing that it has a cause with reasons to want this world to exist is explanatory, even if you disagree that it's the best we can do.
The second question from Doug and Josh's answer kinda explains Josh's world view, In Josh's view he looses value if there is no ultimate being to give him meaning because this ultimate being will always "be" and remeber Josh for his existance and he adds Christinaity to his world view (Josh does) because he wans to be told eternally that he was valuable and valued by this ultimate being eternally and is going to spend eternity with him eternally.
Jump seems to exude smugness...maybe its the easy chair. I got impatient with the Dr. not pinning him down on admitting there is an Absolute, esp. when he said out loud that he was an absolutist. It was all over right then, "So there IS an Absolute, BINGO!".
He just seems like a extremely analytical person, and Dr. Josh is much more charismatic. The thing about absolute, is the fact that something is, and couldn't have been otherwise, and he thinks that's the universe. There's no bingo, or gotcha here, and it seems to me that that is intellectually dishonest from u.
I agree, I think one important thing that is often missed by atheists is that the simplest explanation is that which BEST explains the effect in question. So it is false to say that the simplest explanation entails the least complex explanation. For example, if someone asked you to explain gravity you could say "it is the tendency of things to fall". Now that explanation would be true in a sense, but it wouldn't fully capture the nature of gravity. Now, it seems to me that Tom Jump is misunderstanding the nature of simplicity.
@@eliasarches2575 I agree, A god, even more complex and infinite than the universe to exsist is more unlikely than universe popping out of nothing, since the god that has to be powerful to create that universe also popped out of nothing.
Great discussion. TBH I got lost in some of the semantics, but overall it was very enjoyable. I would recommend that Tom try to look less arrogant. I can't tell if he actually is or not, but he gives the appearance of thinking he knows everything.
Why not just pray to God that Tom is given a new face, one more pleasing to your own sense of _really_ knowing everything? Absolutely nothing works like prayer does, am I right?
Tom doesn’t come across as ‘arrogant’ in my opinion. He just has firm convictions and expresses them in a very fluid way, that’s all. What I would liked to have seen is an actual discussion, an exchange of ideas and arguments instead of a two hour interrogation on the part of the Dr.
Circa: 1hr 20 min Josh made a good point, i think, if we remove the characteristics flying, spaghetti, & Monster from Flying Spaghetti Monster, we are no longer talking about a flying spaghetti monster.
@@kosgoth if I understand you correctly you’re saying you can remove from God the attribute of mind or consciousness. To that I would say, given divine simplicity, which you can reject, God just is His attributes and they can’t be singularly removed from Him. By my lights, you’d need a mind or volitional agent of some sort to begin the universe ex nihilo. The end result of cosmological arguments is God and entails his attributes. The arguments don’t start with a being with certain attested, but end up there. (This isn’t a full fledged response but I think this is the approach a classical theist would take to the criticism)
You are using the "verb" reason instead of the "cause" reason. That'S where you struggle to understand. Reasoning is the action of finding connection with causes or defining exsistence. A reason is a cause, a definition.What Tom is trying to tell here is that all the laws and reasons for anything happening in the nature is defined by rhe nature itself. The nature defines the reasoning, not the other way around. That is a very strong argument, which dominates against any " reasoning" for god, which is unnantural by definition.
What makes a good hypothesis is not just simplicity but equally specificity. Simplicity without specificity will lead to a broad, simple statement and in turn ambiguity, unclear variables and insignificant results.
13:50 the doors examples is still presuming that there is a prize at all, which is assuming there is a god so you just have to keep opening doors. When I’m fact, you shouldn’t expect anything behind any doors until you actually find something, until then, don’t conclude anything.
@@paulhayes5684 that’s not what an example is. What you mean is it’s an analogy, but it doesn’t logically follow because you’re adding information to make the analogy work, so it’s not a comparison. I hope that helps
Many of Toms objections got answered and even agreed upon between them both. -Both came to agree that the complexity of the hypothesis is different to the complexity the hypothesis entails. -both agree that many interesting attributes follow from Josh's supreme foundation theory. -there can be layers of explanation that do not conflict one another.
I was getting lost a bit in their discussions here too but I thought he was just saying everything in nature (maybe even nature itself) are in accordance/conform to rationality?
@@TalesFromTheEastOfficial thanks for your reply. Right so is he then saying that therefore the foundation of reality actually has the ability to reason since everything is rationally situated? I feel like I'm not getting it
@@jameswright2355 I think we can say rationality is either baked into the actual form of nature or nature appears to conform to rationality. I think tjump is kinda saying the former and Josh is kinda saying the latter. So the latter case is interesting because then it almost seems like you'd need a mind to impose rationality on nature. Not only does everything in nature conform to rationality but our own thoughts/ideas/abstract things conform to rationality. Then tjump tries to counter by saying that's because our minds are just products of nature. I don't think Josh or Christians (or basically any spiritual person) would agree our minds are just products of nature IE just neural states. Like I said though I kinda got confused there too.
@boomerbeats1566 thanks for the explanation. Maybe you would need a mind to impose rationality on nature, but then I struggle with this because I could imagine a world where there is no God, yet, 2+2=4. I disagree with tjump that our minds could be a product of nature, seems like that commits a construction error. It seems like Josh is saying if platonism is true, there must be a mind behind it, but not sure.
Beautiful dialog. Tom made many good points. However, I find his disagreement on simplicity to be very strange. I really don't see how they didn't come together on that issue in the end. Josh's point that the divine attributes were entailments of the hypothesis, rather than features of it, was easy enough to understand- even if you aren't at Tom's level of expertise. I find it hard to see any justification for Tom's alternative, the idea that more limitation equals less complexity. Such an odd stance compared to all my experiences in this domain prior to this conversation, which is usually something like- Theism has two ontological commitments- nature and God, and Atheism has one- nature. Some theist philosophers contest this point and state that atheism ALSO has two- nature and NO God. Joshs theory as given here is even simpler, given his careful adoption of language compatible with naturalism. For him, in the context of this talk, there is only ONE commitment- a supreme foundation, and everything else follows from that. Josh was right to continually posit that common ground was somewhere to be found there, and if they had managed it, I think they could have had an interesting exchange about explanatory power- which is where I assume Josh would have gone next. So strange to hear someone claim that the "flying spaghetti monster" is a "simpler" theory than a maximal foundation given the unfathomable amount of additional qualification such a theory would require for it to have ANY explanatory power or logical coherence. Whereas the necessary explanatory attributes for our experience more or less falls directly out of a supreme foundation hypothesis. I would have loved for them to have discussed the predictive power of Tom's preferred theory, because my suspicion is that it would start to seem far LESS simple than Josh's when fortified with the kinds of attributes that would predict our experience of reality- assuming they aren't logical entailments of it- which Tom alludes to in the conversation. It's the age-old distinction between naturalism and theism in play- particularly the tendency of naturalists to try and "explain away" our experience, and theists to try and explain it.
In relation to "reality is first", I think TJ makes lots of issues and has internal contradictions but the most notable is this: If reality (as in the collection of concretes) is first and reality has no given necessary universal structure, no rational structure(the rational structure being descriptive but not determining reality), then what determines reality is the non-universal concretes and therefore the description would be a fallacious description. If the universal reality of a rational order is descriptive, then it accounts for the being-ness of things and therefore is deterministic of the thing(as it is describing the thing as it is). It would be like trying to separate the materiality of material objects. If they are material it is because their materiality is essential to them and determines them and is not merely an account of describing the thing for the description of the thing is the description of that which determines the thing as the thing(when speaking of fundamental descriptors). As such, either universals determine reality in their own being-ness and therefore are not mere descriptions, or they do not and the being-ness of reality is non-universal and therefore the universal descriptors are faulty descriptions of an arbitrary kind.
Where they're talking about the simplest theory (01:13:35), Dr Rasmussen could've given the example of homo economus used in economics where to simplify our understanding of markets we choose to simplify human choice to utility and rationality when in reality it's actually a lot more complex. Essentially we imbue humanity with the infinite cognition and infinite time to make perfect economic decisions... Maybe I'm completely wrong but I see similarities
1:44:18 I have the same struggle as Tom here, the more Josh speaks the more I sense that it is a soft form of gas-lighting, he never adds additional substance to the statements but repeats and repeats an assault on one's very perception of reality.
First of all : Josh is a delight to listen and an example on how to be charitable, civil and approachable. Props to him. (When I think of a Christian, this is the kind of behavior I expect and many could learn from him! Cameron... cough...cough...). I end up agreeing with many of Tom's positions and questions regarding Josh's concepts. I would, naturally, express them differently but I also fail to be convinced by his arguments.
This, my friend, was the most friendly and heartwarming posts I've read on YT since a very long time. You're a gentleman and a scholar and I bow my hat to you, good sir.
The knockdown punch of this debate was when Tjump asked about the cause of the sound: was it a mouse or was it a god? I don't think the Christian was capable in that moment to even consider the implications of the argument. Also, is this doctor (of theology, one would presume) a creationist?
@ 1 hour 27 mark, Its ok Cameron, you dont have to feel bad about Josh , just enjoy the discussion, try and take some notes and read them regularly so that you can come up with some good apologetics in the future.
If Belief in God is used as knowing God; then, it is useless or even a wrong for anyone who does not know if God exists to debate with any one who knows or says they know God exists. But what if God exists??????
Just watching this debate for the first time now. Tom Jump already starts out with a dishonest move. He is supposed to support the resolution there is no evidence for God's existence but he fallaciously shifts the burden of proof onto Josh, to have him provide reasons for God's existence that Tom can poke holes in. But that's not how debates work.
@@edgemaster02 And TJump quite explicitly mentioned that he was making the active claim that there is no evidence for God's existence. He actually said that he was trying to gain the burden of proof.
@@ShouVertica Theistic debates are no different than any other debate. One side takes pro, one side takes con, and both sides are obligated to provide evidence for their side while responding to the evidence the other person presents.
@@edgemaster02 The atheist has an equal burden of proof. "There is no God" requires evidence, just like "God exists" does. If you don't have evidence, you don't have warrant to believe your claim.
@@clintonwilcox4690 You are making a claim for atheism that does not exist. Most Atheists will define the word to mean 'without theism.' That is what happens to a word when a is put in front of a word, like asexual reproduction vs sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction means 'without sex.' Theism means 'belief in the existence of a god or gods.' Atheism means 'without belief in the existence of a god or gods." I think that theism has 2 sources, 1) Nature's God and 2) Story God. Nature's God as described in the Declaration of Independence of the United States. Story God as described by the human created stories of the Jewish God and Christian God in the ancient world. Therefore, there are 2 sources for atheist, 1) without belief in Nature's God and 2) without a belief in Story Gods of the ancient world.
A machine with no moving parts that creates all products in the factory is less complicated and more probable then many different machines with limited capabilities and moving parts producing specific products. If everything is interconnected and has the ability to self repair it would be much more simple than the contrary.
@@uninspired3583 Machines with no moving parts at all can be very efficient. An electrical transformer , for example, has no moving parts, and its mechanical efficiency is generally above the 90% mark. (The remaining power losses in a transformer are from other causes, including loss to electrical resistance in the copper windings and hysteresis loss and eddy current loss in the iron core.)
Which one is simpler? A rational universe that was caused by an irrational entity, OR A rational universe that was caused by a rational mind Seems to be an obvious choice to me.
@@mikebrigandi_ Can you elaborate on that? What would make the universe a necessary entity? And how could it be eternal? I don't think an eternally past universe could exist in reality. First of all, nearly all of the evidence we have at this moment, including observational, scientific, and even philosophical, suggests that the universe had a definite beginning at some point in the past. I am not aware of any currently available models that successfully demonstrate a past eternal universe. All of the theoretical models that have been presented fail. Secondly, a past eternal universe ends up with absurdities that are irreconcilable. For instance, physical reality consists of a series of causes & effects, or events. If the universe is past eternal, that means there is an infinite number of causes going back forever. But that seems to be absurd. How could anything ever happen if there was never a first cause to begin it all? An eternal past regression of causes seems to absurd on its face. Can you provide an argument as to how the universe could be past eternal and necessary?
There is no empirical evidence, to support that certain things are "just in your imagination". So that is just in his imagination, according to his logic. That was self defeating, it undermined all his arguments. The circular reasoning was real.
@@brando3342 That is exactly it, then it's about the "objective" meaning of terms. If there isn't any objective meaning, then there is no meaning, terms have no meaning if they are totally subjective. It's a conflation of absolute truth with objective truth.
@@brando3342 There is an objective way to define God and his properties. It doesn't require belief either, it just requires that you realize what you're not believing in.
1:32:45 This part of the debate was highly frustrating because Josh never reveals how "being supreme" is simple, only "hypothesising a supreme" is simple. Tom is right to call him out on the ontological murkiness of supreme - which I think has many interpretations. For me, a supreme teacher could never ever have students that would fail the lesson - but Josh's supreme teacher has had millions fail, and the supreme has sought to kill them directly by flooding or indirectly through warfare.
This confirms why the bible talks about the value of wisdom over intelligence, what a waste of time. Let's use God's evidence, the resurrection of Christ, Saddam and Gomorrah, and the Genesis 6 Giants. How about the fine-tuning of the universe and objective moral values. Let God lead with his word, not our thoughts.
@Oners82 It's not something you can prove. 100% of the people in the world believe in them. Anyone that has said that's "wrong" or something to that effect. God is the best explanation for it. What do you think of the resurrection of Christ?
@Oners82 The fact that 100% of the people on earth believe in them is pretty solid proof, LOL. When you say those things, it shows you haven't done any research (ignorant). Someone that studied the resurrection for 3 years and came to a different conclusion is Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford). You need to research something before you come to a conclusion. Here's a good summary of the arguments for and against the resurrection by Gene Scott. It's from my church's website; Pastor Melissa Scott is the Pastor now. She also has a Ph.D. and speaks over 25 languages. www.pastormelissascott.com/_pdf/Resurrection.pdf Here's a great interview from this website from someone who has written 20+ books on the evidence for Christ's resurrection. th-cam.com/video/kWSG5okmUr8/w-d-xo.html
@Oners82 I wasn't appealing to authority, I was appealing to facts and people that have done the research. My guess is you haven't read the message or watched the video from this website. That doesn't surprise me. Are you an Atheist? Do you believe Sodam and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone by God? You appealed to authority "Dr" Ehrman, lol. I think I remember him being mentioned in the video I linked from this website. I never said that disagreeing with me makes you ignorant.
This was amazing. I watched this PhD philosopher devolve from formal and academic-sounding arguments, to falling back on "feelings" and subjective "values" when his arguments were shown to be ad hoc and imaginary, to obstinately insisting that something with all properties is simpler than something with a few properties because semantics, all in order to protect his pre-determined belief in the supernatural. It was like watching someone's intellectual integrity fall apart in front of me. Good job, Tom. This was an incisive and methodical pruning of the BS. Like, according to Josh, something that is "galactic" is simpler than something "only inside my dog" because the first has fewer words needed to describe it. That's it. If you can use fewer words in the English language to describe something, then it must be simpler and more limited. Bahaha! Oh, and I like how Josh threw in the argument that "we don't have any evidence against a supreme being who can do anything" as if that wasn't a horrific layer-cake of fallacies.
"Dr" Rasmussen isn't a real philosopher. He's a professor at a "Department of Philosophy" that's part of a School of Theology at Azusa Pacific University, the website of which says that "Azusa Pacific is a community of disciples and scholars preparing to impact the world for Christ."
@@benjamincain2792 That's a bold claim about a philosopher (Ph.D. University of Notre Dame) with dozens of academic publications including books published by Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press.
@@willemjanblom2268 The publications make him an academic, not a philosopher (a lover of knowledge). You don't love knowledge if you work in a "philosophy" department that's folded into a school of theology at an evangelical Christian college. Notre Dame is a Catholic university. According to the Notre Dame Wiki page, "more than 93 percent of students identify as Christian, with over 80 percent of those being Catholic. There are 57 chapels on campus, including one in every residence hall. Collectively, Catholic Mass is celebrated over 100 times per week on campus, and a large campus ministry program provides for the faith needs of the community."
@@benjamincain2792 First of all, your defintion of 'philosopher' is anachronistic. Academics with Ph.D.'s and publications in philosophy are considered philosophers. Whether or not someone (really) loves the truth cannot be decided on objective grounds. If one, loving the truth, comes to the conclusion that Christianity is true, he can decide to work for a Christian college. Why would that be a problem? Likewise, someone loving the truth can enroll in a Catholic university that is, by the way, one of the best universities in the world for studying philosophy.
Tom, Does that mean that logic and reason are conceptual tools that we developed to describe reality? To that end, are there still other discoverable logic and reason possible in the future? Thanks, A
Developed, discovered, but not invented. They are prior to everything else that we judge. The fact that our minds can even access some of these "tools" points to a source that is transcendent to our everyday objects, points to a possessor of all measure, that all other objects are measured against. I call that God.
Yes to all of these. And contrary to James Estrella I’m actually saying that this is what’s Tom is saying. He literally explicitly said yes to the first part of your question multiple times in this conversation, and there are new logical and mathematical laws and axioms etc that we’re discovered/invented in the last century, or even decade, so yes, if logic is a formal langue that’s invented, then by definition these latest « discoveries » are inventions to, at least when they aren’t derived from already known axioms.
@@jamesestrella5911 Anything that exists in reality or that is conceptual in our minds IS subject to the axioms of logic. For example A is A, and not NOT A. Even God fits into that axiom of logic in the following way: God is God, and not NOT God. Even God is subject to the axioms of logic. Neither you or I nor God can escape it.
Josh claims to be a Christian, (I assume) but all of his arguments I've seen defend only a view of theism identical to my non-scriptural monotheism. Does anyone know of a video in which he specifically defends Christianity?
A song can be simple, yet be profound and have profound connections. Think of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" and of Robert Frost's poem "Choose Something Like a Star," set to music by Randall Thompson. A song can be fun, catchy and simple on the surface, yet have more meaning the more deeply you look into it. A prayer may be answered not with a gold brick, but with the understanding of which brick needs to be put in place next, or, as in the Dan Seals song, the realization that "Everything That Glitters Is Not Gold.".
Josh gives all power and freedom to one entity, with the hidden agenda of total imposition on the human being of course. If the imposition on other human beings is not the goal, why would Josh be having this argument? Same goes for Tom. If the imposition on human freedom is not the concern, why would Tom be having this argument?
Imposition? Josh is giving the argument because he thinks it is true that there is a God, a necessary being who is maximally perfect. He thinks it's true, and that it's a great and exciting truth. So he shares it
@@akindelebankole8080 well then that's a problem for how some people would deal with the concept. Still it is perfectly valid to defend that the concept is true and refers to something real.
@@mickeyesoum3278 Understandable, except when the conviction of the believer leads him to think it alright to harm others based on the touted revealed text.
@@akindelebankole8080 sure, but no one is defending that. There have been atheists who believed it was right to persecute, arrest and even murder religious people as a form of suppression; this happened in many countries which instituted State Atheism, of course. The persecutions were specifically directed against religion and in the name of atheism (not simply communism, say) and they even justified such actions by saying (ironically) that religion can make people fanatical, that it harmed society, etc. So pretty much any big, important position has the potential to bring about fanaticism of one kind or another. We're still justified in discussing some of the big questions though, such as if God exists.
The second best explaination to Dougs question is (in Dougs own words) somebody like Doug ( with limited power, limited knowledge, limitedly good etc etc.
I like both Josh and Tom as presenters. However, I could not understand how they could not resolve their dispute about simplicity. Surely, a bread and butter knife is simpler and has more limitations and can do less, than a Swiss army knife? Why was the concept of simplicity so opposite in Josh's mind is beyond me??
I think they were talking past each other so much by overcomplicating this entire conversation. All Josh needed to say throughout this entire segment was that the simplest thing is an immaterial mind. A mind is personal, and can therefore decide to create, and create rational laws such as those that exist in our universe. An irrational entity cannot do that. I don't know how they got so off the rails in this talk, but they didn't do a good job of defining what they were talking about. They tried to get too intellectual - need to simplify! Pun intended. Ha!
You seem to have been making the same confusion as TJ. The simplicity is on the ontological parts. A swiss knife is more complex because it has more parts. The consequences of the hypothesis, or in your case the functionality one can derive from the parts is a secondary move to the simplicity of the hypothesis or the object. Simple just means less parts and why it is encapsulated in the parsimony principle of NOT multiplying elements. A swiss army knife is a less simple object because it multiplies its elements to gain new functionality. This is just the standard, universal definition and TJ was being disingenuous. This is well known and well established in philosophy. To even say FSM for example, already introduces three elements(Flying. Spaggheti and Monster). This breaks parsimony. Why flying? Why not resting? Why not standing? Why not fluctuating within states? What is this flying verb? Why Spaggheti and not Bread, or Fire? Why a Monster and not a person? Why not an immaterial? See how appealing to FSM adds complexity and therefore becomes much less parsimonious? So, the move is to find the simplest, most necessary quality and then build from that. It is very queer for TJ to pretend to not know this basic parsimonious approach.
Yeah, this was embarassing. TJ did not understand that the properties derived from the simplicity hypothesis are neither 'ad hoc' nor arbitrary. They spring rationally from the hypothesis, unlike the quality of spaggheti from the FSM, or that it has 6-appendages, it doesn't flow naturally and rationally from the concept of 'simplicity'. By arbitrarily denying that the argument is...reasoned and not arbitrary, even if he was told repeatedly that there were specific reasons he's shutting down the discussion. The properties that we can naturally derive rationally around the concept of simplicity are not thought of as arbitrary by anyone other than TJ, it is definitely not so in the literature, in the discussions, and it is dishonest to pretend so. In relation to simplicity, it's just a matter of parsimony. We do not multiply entities, because that adds complexity without aiding explanation. The parsimony principle is the opposite as to what TJ is queerly saying. Simplicity reduces the ontological components, it is not that which has the most reductions because each reduction multiplies the entities and the need for explaining the reduction. If the FSM(abstract ill-defined concept) has to be flying, a spaggheti and a monster, I've added more complexity than if it was just a SM. But because I am also arbitrarily limiting things, I need to account for why a spaggheti monster and not a spaggheti meatball? To then say, "oh, I will add limitations like it is a green spaggheti monster and it only has one wing", then I'm adding complexity not reducing it. This notion of TJ that adding limitations is increasing simplicity is exactly the opposite of the universal view of simplicity. This is very strange.
If you are going to have a professional philosopher like Dr. Rasmussen on to defend theism it would be nice to have someone equally qualified to defend naturalism (although I understand this isn't always possible)
@@CapturingChristianity ya sorry i didn't mean to sound ungreatful. I really appreciate all the conversations you put together. I also didn't think Mr. Jump was awful or anything, he is obviously a very smart guy. Just not of the same caliber as his partner.
God had a beginning. The question is when. Was it in his first form, as one god of many? or was it when he was re-written to be the creator god? or when he was re-written to be the one true god?
Tom contradicts himself early on with Josh’s question about having coffee. Tom says that Josh’s belief that he had coffee, despite having no empirical evidence that he did, is an adequately justified belief. Then a minute later Tom contradicts this and says that Josh would need empirical evidence in order to properly justify his belief about having coffee.
Around 28:30 Tom says there’s no probabilities, it’s just either conceptual, empirical or metaphysical. But earlier he affirmed that higher probabilities of a prize behind certain doors does count as evidence. I think his whole position is just confused.
ilkin engin That’s a false dichotomy. From the fact that God is necessary for reason it doesn’t follow that reason doesn’t lead to Him (in fact one would expect the opposite to be the case!).
@ 54 min mark when Josh says Multiple universes theory is according to "SIMPLE" and his explaination that if the definition has fewer words that somehow means simple ( he kinda said something like "how much information is bulit into this theory) kinda broke me, I guess having the capacity to say absolute "Nonsense" is a requirement for being an apologist or maybe its a necessisity ( exists in all possible worlds) @ 55 min mark Especially when he says to make his " Fine tuning" argument to work he needs to add "ad-hoc complexity " but somehow the end product of adding all the ad-hoc complexity the sum total becomes "SIMPLE", I want to know what Josh smokes to come up wit hthis " Non sense".
There’s no one who sits in a chair with his head completely still for two hours and goes out of his way to not find any theist arguments reasonable quite like Tom Jump does.
I imagine he would move his head if there were a reasonable theist argument. Seems like an easy enough novel testable prediction, now all you need is a reasonable argument for theism
@@uninspired3583 You don’t think fine tuning, contingency, or Kalam are even reasonable? Putting aside whether you think they are ultimately sound, you really think they are unreasonable? I guess we are all different, because I just don’t understand how you could think that.
@@davidr1620 Fine tuning is ok as a proposition. However if you're going to investigate this you will notice that you don't know if Universes' constants are fine tuned. First of all "fine tuned" is equivalent of "adjustment of such high precision which is incomprehensibly unprobable to be effect of pure randomness". However you will quickly notice that in fact we don't know if probability of these constants to be like that is highly unprobable. How do you know what is the probability density function for them? Or if they can vary at all? This would be a cool argument if it had met it's premises. Which it doesn't.
@@Soyozuke I’m no scientist, but are you proposing the constants and quantities may be necessary? To my understanding, the vast majority of scientists very much disagree with that.
Why is that? Because he makes you feel cornered in your supernatural / jesus beliefs? Religious people in the 21st century have now turned to meaningless Philosophical mental gymnastics and word salad as the last resort to hold on to their god / supernatural beliefs. All the childish fallacious supernatural claims of ancient times in these religious mythical books have been debunked. So now the supernaturalists and god believers have embraced philosophical arguments as the last effort to defend and hold on to their childish supernatural beliefs. 😂
@@urasam2 Sorry, my bad. lol I thought you were one of the believers on here.. I have read a few comments from believers on here mirroring your open ended comment.. Sorry once again but your comments can be interpreted either way. :-)
@@theaviationist.5719 No problem! I really like T Jump, don’t get me wrong, but these heavy philosophical discussions do my head in. I realise it’s cos I don’t understand it of course but still, it does often sound like a load of waffle, thinking of you William Lane Craig
So he has a hard time believing that beings like us can exist because we're so complex but he has no problem believing that there's a mystical magical man in the sky whose brain is a million times more complex than ours😂😂
This was a good civil discussion that brought up many points. I was a bit frustrated at the amount of time the "defining of terms" segment took. I understand the critical nature of ensuring that all parties understand what is meant by words and phrases, but I believe this would've become evident and more easily addressed during the topic discussion. I find this as likely the result of Josh's Doctorate education in divinity with a focus on philosophy instead of a Doctorate in philosophy. When a divine being is presupposed, I feel that the philosophy is then focused on ensuring that the presupposition is confirmed. This came to light in the discussion about simplicity, value, and supreme, subjective and arbitrary terms. For a theist belief to be confirmed these are necessarily true and I feel that this was Josh's motivation, to ensure that his preconceived beliefs are confirmed.
Josh probably was never tested or disagreed with or challanged in the past. The way his eyes widen to show disbelief that his stupidity is challanged by tom at every stupid assertion that he makes is " Chefs kiss". I guess to people like Josh, him being challanged about his religious view would crumble under minimal pressure. Josh's "Nonsense arguments" kinda sum up his mind state (as desribed by the Host). Josh finally saying "I guess we cant know what words even mean" kinda explains the evolution of a theist in the modern world under scrutiny from a guy like Tom.
@@antipositivism3128 The evidence that shows two plus two equals four is not based on probability. The evidence that shows liquid water will become a solid when you remove enough heat from it, is not based on probability.
Caleb Gomez If David and I share the same impression, then it seems like Josh begs the question a lot by creating arbitrary definitions and redefining words at his convenience in order to get his god from the definitions he arbitrarily made up. Like his definition of simplicity, that just doesn’t make any sense as TJump tried to explain many times and that apparently Josh failed to understand each time.
@@andythompson6622 no it wouldn’t. Holding the pen negates the gravitational pull that it stays between his fingers. If he tried to hold a car between his fingers then gravity would make sure that it wouldn’t stay there long.
@@mofobecks That's interesting... to me gravity is always existent, not show up just because we do something. We are always under the force of gravity so his decision is what has more power over the action of the pen analogy.
@@andythompson6622 gravity is always existent yes. Like I said, holding the pen negates the effects of gravity on the pen until he lets it go. Put it like this if the pen on a table and he holds it, if he no longer holds it, did he drop it? Or did he just let go?
@@mofobecks Gravity is "not" always an explanation, but I guess it showed that there needed to be something created on which gravity could act upon. So to me you are saying, there is a first cause.
Thanks Cam and Josh- Stellar discussion and one of the best refutations of Tjump I have seen. Atheists like Tom hide behind physicalism, but your idea of nature being rationally situated exposes one of the many shortcomings of the necessary brute fact reality is reality world view of those like Oppy.
At about 1:40:00 Josh happened upon the solution. Supremacy is not complicated or at the top of some pyramid, or built upon corroborated evidence. Supremacy is fundamental, and forms the basis of an epistemology. TJump is certain of the cogito. But his claimed next epistemological step (some way to distinguish fantasy from reality) leads him to establish objective and reasoned evidence as the basis of his epistemology. Reality as distinguished from fantasy, actually has a basis in supremacy, in value, in a David Hume “what ought” as opposed to “what is”. That is to say, knowledge has a motivation implied in the cogito. “It’s better to know than to not know”, yes? Why else would TJump want to distinguish fantasy from reality? Knowing has supremacy over not knowing and over knowing wrong things and over misapprehensions. The value distinction happens first as the driver, not the fact distinction as TJump believes. TJump’s motivation to distinguish fantasy from reality as his next step, skips over his desire to tell the difference in the first place. The drive to know what is (and is not) good, true and beautiful is the animating factor in conscious agency - the cogito - the only thing we can’t deny. Exploring that drive is the next step. It’s a drive toward supremacy. In other words, implicit in the cogito is the ability to know (vs not know), the power to act and exist (vs not act and not exist), and do good (vs do bad intentionally). It’s not that hard to imagine there must be a source to that drive toward supremacy in knowledge, power and goodness. Something or someone driving it all are the only two options. TJump concludes “things first”. However, using the word “spirit” could cover both as a reasonable inference. Spirit could encompass things, or a triune God, or even all conscious agents collectively. We, as conscious agents, are undeniably pushed and/or pulled toward this ground of being we are fumbling around to comprehend via scientific method, religion and the occult.
Josh has a degree. I think he finds it difficult when Tom explains different kinds of evidence. @ around 26 min mark I guess the Dr lost his capability to critical think beyond this point, his age old (Theists) what do you mean by "Evidence" stupidity was defeated with Toms explaination.
@ 1 hour 59 min mark, Kinda expains Joshs endeavor in Science, he uses his own definitions and smirks when people object to the absurdity in doing that and calling it Science.
Stoked to watch this!
#metoo
@@TheWorldTeacher Advaita's conception of the Brahman is logically incoherent because it conceives of Brahman as a substance without properties whereas, by definition, a substance is what has or underlies properties. Furthermore, because cognitively grasping something involves classifying or identifying it as a thing of a certain kind, and things are classified or identified on the basis of their properties, one can't cognitively grasp a thing without properties. It follows that the Advaitin's Brahman can't be known, and that Advaita itself thus doesn't know it. You are supremely egoistic sir and lack etiquette completely. You are master to none and superior only in your own strange conceptions of nonsensical assertions and unverifiable concepts like the one you have of Brahman. You are now summarily dismissed from serious discussion as one who can not reason properly or respectfully.
@@TheWorldTeacher Typing the word PRESUMPTUOUS does not address the logic of my comment in regards to Advaitin's Brahman. Please feel free to teach and I will ignore the presumption of your slave reference, Teacher? Please teach me why you are correct...
@@TheWorldTeacher why is any one even engaging this guy. Is a troll. Is missing a nut up on his brain.
What a weirdo.
Hey Josh. It’s me Bryan. We met and talked at a mutual friends lifegroup. It was great talking philosophy, apologetics, and biblical stuff with you. Once I saw your name I was very happy to tune in and watch this discussion.
God bless you brother!
@@TheWorldTeacher
Deus est mortuus.
@CrazyForTruth Faith is not needed in the presence of evidence. Ever heard ‘faith is blind’? It means that it requires belief in something that cannot be seen or proven, no evidence required. See Hebrews 11:1: “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”, meaning that faith is being certain about something that is believed to be true but cannot be seen with our physical eyes.
Josh is very patient.
Agreed. His conversational style is something to strive for.
Are you for real? Tom was hardly given a space to get a word in, while Josh jumped all over the place verbally trying to work out something to say. WHile mostly ignoring what Tom did say.
Patient, but not particularly helpful
*painful
@J w Your response is an Ad Hominem; you are attacking the person and not any argument they are making
Came for the philosophy, stayed for Cameron's ear.
Colossians 2:8
[8]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
@@wavestbird2461
Of course Paul would say that, he was an unlearned man who suffered from a massive delusion; Paul was not educated in philosophy, and he had neurological malfunctions inside his brain (as Paul himself hints at). Paul spewed such ignorance due to his strong dogma, and any wise and educated philosopher (who seeks sufficient knowledge) would dismantle Paul's primitive theological ideas with minimum effort.
The useful parts of the traditions of men, the useful parts of the rudiments of the world are more appropriately applicable than a strong delusion concerning a pseudo-messianic figure (Jesus) & a pointless god concept (Yahweh).
@@sufficientmagister9061
John 7 14-15
14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? (KJV)
Said the same thing about Jesus.
@@wavestbird2461
You keep quoting such primitive scripture, but the gospels are not completely accurate in describing the historical life of the deluded Jew, Jesus. If actual educated philosophers such as Ajita Kesakambalī or Lucretius were to confront Jesus concerning logic, skeptical inquiry and ethics, then Jesus would be exposed like the fraudulent, delusional apocalypticist that he was.
I'm late to the party. But this didn't start recording until late somehow....
Yeah... I put an end time to this thinking that wouldn't affect anything, but apparently if you go longer that cuts off the beginning. So dumb.
Trying to fix it. Stand by.
@@CapturingChristianity I think it does that when buffering, should automatically fix itself in a few hours
TJump You were right! It was just processing. The full video is now available.
What a great discussion! Dr. Josh Rasmussen has a new subscriber
Who?
When a Philosopher and a Science first thinker try to have a conversation.....
You forgot the guy that commits begging the question and equivocation fallacies all over the place then Gish gallop thus preventing Tom from speaking.
@@Giorginho It should be but often isn't. Philosophy considers far more than what science is bound or limited by. Many scientists will stop at the edge of scientific materialism perhaps because there is a purity doctrine or standard of ethics they are committed to. Which is fine, in fact it's admirable to hold such a disciplined position in many respects, but often makes conversations like these of limited value. Sure we observe the participants attempt to reason the position of the other side within their own frameworks and the discourse of challenge is healthy and sometimes interesting. But more often then not each side has such significant blind spots in their understanding of the other's position that they get caught in a loop of digging in their heals and camping in their safe bubble. I'd have to re-watch this dialog to be sure that happened in this 'debate', nevertheless, it happens quite often even if it didn't happen in this specific instance.
As an attempt to break free of that loop, I'd be interested in a long-form discussion over the topic of life from non-life & where the science community diverges on/over that question. If scientific materialism is true, it requires life to emerge from non-life in a roughly 'miraculous' way and then it's claim proposes at some point down the line life evolved into sentients and then further still conscience. It's quite the position to take for someone from a scientific materialism perspective to argue in any dedicated way given this naturalistically described non-life to life phenomena is arguably as rare as the virgin birth.
@@Giorginho sounds about right re: scientism. Different circles will emphasize different labels, yours may forward 'scientism' while mine more routinely uses 'scientific materialism' perhaps for good reasons, perhaps just out of habit. I'd be curious for precision sake which is preferred. Either way it sounds very close, if not as you said, the same.
@@Giorginho Thanks, just looked at his channel here on TH-cam and spotted a few I'll definitely try to check out soon.
I dont think I would call Tom a thinker
if reality couldnt be a different way it suggests the concept of logic is built in.
I think the claim that reality could or couldnt be different is unjustified. We dont know what could or could not be. This would require us to have knowledge of everything thats impossible and possible and we dont know that. Perhaps on the other end of the universe the laws of logic are different. I cant conceive of that but it doesnt necessarily mean its impossible. We can only say whats possible from our intersubjective frame of reference. A fact is just an opinion i assign a truth value based on my frame of reference (not just physical but conceptual)
How exactly do you tell the difference between it being built in, or it being an emergent property?
The best pieces of evidences for God's existence:
1. A universe with a beginning,
2. A universe that appears to be designed,
3. Life emerged from non-life,
4. Biological organism display attributes of design,
5. Non-material consciousness emerged from unconscious matter,
6. Humans are “free agents” in a “cause and effect” world,
7. Transcendent, objective moral truths exist,
8. The persistence of evil and injustice,
Explanatory possibilities:
1. Unguided natural forces “inside the room” acted on one another.
2. A supernatural source “outside the room” designed and created.
edit. Also Bacteria flagellum but that's another story.
1. Our universe is a part of the lager cosmos.
2. Our universe appears to have developed consistent with natural processes.
3. Early forms of pre-"life" would likely have required external replication and energy production. (See thermal vents)
4. Biological organisms display attributes of evolution, and the fossil record confirms.
5. Consciousness emerged within complex, organized animal organisms, but not within the more common plant kingdom. No consciousness has ever been seen without a material substrate.
6. Humans are natural human in a natural world.
7. No transcendent, objective, moral truths have ever been demonstrated.
8. Evil and injustice are expected in an evolving social structure. (But we're getting better all the time)
Explanatory possibilities:
1. Unguided natural forces “inside the room” acted on one another.
- Literally everything in the universe conforms to this.
2. A supernatural source “outside the room” designed and created. - No evidence of this, just fiction.
My favourite part is when stones began to move about and evolved to elephants. Science is amazing.@@worldmenders
those are all non sequiturs
@66 40 RE:1 I'm not sure that the singularity is supported in physics anymore, but what probably happened is that there are quark - antiquark pairs that are popping into existence and then back out. They do this randomly, and with any random process you can have enough of them all happen at the same instant, in a small area, and that causes a reaction that becomes the expansion. Crudely, the quantum realm is unstable.
RE:7 I believe that the welfare of conscience beings is the basis of morals. Torturing babies simply saturates the conditions of being counter to wellbeing without any mitigating factors, so we shouldn't, as a social species do that. Mind you, torturing two, or ten or a billion babies is worse, but we have already crossed the line at one, meeting the conditions of being bad. And as for being transcendent, no conscience beings could have even existed in the early universe, until stars had run their lives, and collapsed to make the higher elements.
RE:8 Evil and injustice are measured by failure to personally or as a society maximize well being of other conscious beings.
@@virgule888 There were a few steps in between, and there was water, and metals and minerals to work with. Oh, and don't forget that there was an environmental imbalance between carbon dioxide vs hydrogen. Life is great at hydrogenating carbon dioxide, while ordinary chemical reactions are not. Life is what happens when you have a planetary chemical imbalance potential.
These are two fantastic speakers who manage to have an exchange that can be followed by the lay person, a commendable video!
Hush now
@@Giorginho lmao is the absence of argument
@@6Churches 12 year-olds calling Tom Jump dumb.... LOL
49:20
When discussing analogies as they were I wish instead of Josh saying "I am not saying that." And instead say The reason why your analogy fails is because X and Y reasons. Saying that is not what I am saying is super vague where the idea of these types of back and forth's to get clarity.
Tom is saying that Logic and the English are languages that are used to describe what we experience. We experience a tree and label the thing a tree. We experience that that the tree is a tree and can not, not be a tree at the same time and we label that the law of non contradiction.
Earlier Josh tried to say that the microphone was not the English language even though no one had said it was. The analogy is that we can use the English language to describe the microphone. In the same way we can use the laws of logic to describe the properties of what a microphone is and is not. The microphone is not Englishly situated in any more or less profound way than it is rationally situated.
Maybe somebody can tell me why I am not grasping the concept of what it means for something to be rationally situated that would make it any different than Englishly situated.
I think the difference is that while one could use English to describe a thing, the thing described is different, to the mode of description but not necessarily from its description. If I say "tree" I am using English, if I say "arbol", I am using Spanish. Different languages, but they reference the same thing, and what the description tries to do is capture the essence of the thing described. If the description is accurate, I have described something essential(inseparable) from the object.
Let's say trees are material objects, for example. Their materiality would be essential for their being, but the term materiality needs not be. They are not material because I've described them as material entities; they are material entities and I've just described something essential to their being. When I say "trees cannot be non-material" I am not saying "trees cannot be distinct from my description", I'm saying it is true of the trees that materiality is essential to their being. A subtle difference that TJ did not caught. Josh is not saying that logic is descriptive in the sense of just allowing to make descriptions, but that it accurately can encompass the essential beingness of reality(its structure) and therefore IS prescriptive not as a descriptive language but as descriptive of the structure of reality. In this, I think there's a confusion between logic the language and logic the structure. Which is why we can use math to build things: it relates in an essentially descriptive way to the structure of reality. We can build rockets or have them fail out of the nature of our descriptions. Some descriptions are arbitrary and can be separated, others are accurate and essential and cannot be separated from the being-ness of the thing.
It was a good clarifying question to ask Tom if he would grant that certain entailments or properties would _naturally_ follow from the _supreme reality_
Tom seemed to almost grant that at one point, but then transitioned into stating that those properties are merely being _added_ into the _supreme reality_ ad hoc by Christians because of their theological beliefs.
What do you guys think? 🤔💭
Bryan Speer I noticed the same! It looked to me like an inconsistency.
I was arguing that if you start with some "Supreme" property and then define other properties as being entailed in that supreme property you can entail any arbitrary thing you want (like spaghetti) and simply define them as being entailed in the "supreme property", so it's a completely arbitrary label... there is no way to demonstrate any asserted set of properties entailed in the "Supreme" property are any more correct than any other because its not a property of reality its just an imaginary property no different from the property "gilfmagoof"
@ TJump
Thanks for offering your clarification Tom. I really enjoyed your discussion with Joshua!
If I could just pick your brain a second ...
You mentioned that _one could arbitrarily add any properties to the supreme reality cause there is no way to demonstrate which properties were more correct than any other_
If I am accurately representing your thoughts here, it seems that we could determine at least _some_ basic entailments by logical deduction
For instance, we could logically deduce that the supreme reality is _non contingent._ If it was contingent, then whatever supports it would be the supreme reality instead.
Aren’t there some logical perimeters which prevent us from being truly arbitrary in the process of assigning properties?
I mean, we can’t just deny rationality all together and just assign contradictory properties. Right? So at least we could say that certain things are going to fit rationally while others simply will not.
Am I understanding this, Tom? ~Warm regards
Not exactly, "Supreme" as a property is like "gilfmagoof" its a totally meaningless word, you would need to show it was like "Mass" or "Energy" which we can actually demonstrate exist in reality and are not just imaginary... supreme we cannot so you can just say anything you want about it because there is no way to show one definition is more correct than another because there is no way to show it is a real property at all
@ TJump
Thank you! I think I understand you better now. It seems you are saying that we have to first demonstrate the existence of this “SR” before discussing any properties. And it seems you are saying that we have to demonstrate its existence in the same way we would go about demonstrating things like mass and energy.
If I understand that correctly, doesn’t that sort of toe the line with the problem of assuming that all things are proven in the same fashion? It also seems to be confining the perimeters of the methodology of proof to empiricism alone and nothing else.
This was a great conversation but - I hate to say this - given the topic at hand, I think it flopped like a fish out of water. It seemed that Josh and Tom got stuck on debating parsimony and whether or not Theism is superfluous. To me that is a completely different topic than "Is there 'no evidence' for God's existence?" Because honestly, we could flat out accept that "Theism is less parsimonious than Naturalism" but I'm not sure how you get from that statement to "therefore, there is no evidence for God."
I think one of the reasons our two interlocutors got stuck is because Tom's opening question/statement set the wrong tone: "Could you Josh tell me some of the reasons that you believe there are for belief in a God..." I think a much better opening statement I would've liked to have heard Tom say was: "As an atheist, I don't think there are any good reasons to believe that God exists. Part of why I've been led to this conclusion is because I don't think any confirmatory empirical evidence exists for the God hypothesis. The main reason why I think that is because the God hypothesis is ambiguous in predictive scope, if I don't know what God CAN'T do, then how am I to know what God CAN do? It follows then, that any evidence for God's existence will be equally as ambiguous."
That would've been a really strong opening statement, but I think more needs to be said in terms of how/why ambiguous evidence should be dismissed altogether. It would've also given Josh a better springboard to respond by saying: "no, actually there is specific sets of evidence that are entirely unsurprising if a rational Foundation exists" and so forth.
So yeah... great talk, but it got off topic early on and never seemed to get back on. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I've just missed all the points Josh and Tom were making, maybe my expectations for this discussion were completely different. I think more needs to be said about the title question itself, as in why do atheists think/feel as though the God hypothesis has no evidence? What is their particular principle of evidence that allows them to dismiss God from the conversation? It is a falsificationist principle? Verificationist? Experimentationist? et. al. We can debate the distinction between simplicity-complexity all day, but at some point, we need to actually examine the candidate evidence.
I agree, this was a great talk, but I'd really love to see Tom fully explore his claim of 'no evidence'. Tom, if you're reading this and have a video where you feel you've unfolded it all, please let us know.
I feel like this began to veer a bit off track from the start. However, I feel like Tom’s first question would be a reasonable beginning to a more structured debate where each speaker has set questions and time to ask and respond. That’s the kind of debate structure I was expecting at least.
Tom set up three domains in which he would accept evidence, but he would not accept evidence in one domain as being relevant within another. Josh had every opportunity to bring up evidences related to the three domains described, but went on this journey because .. I assume.. his usual method involves arguing in such a way to force argument or evidence from one category to bleed into another.
To be honest, the claim that there is no evidence is just way to strong of a burden. I do not know of any professional philosophers hold to this view.
@@jwatson181 So why are most philosophers atheists?
I would love to have a discussion concerning "What is God?". The issue being that I don't even find the idea as commonly claimed a possibility within the context of what we understand. Thus, the idea is wholly imaginary.
MyContext Descartes has an interesting response to the claim that God is imaginary. He reasons that there are 4 parts to human thought (cogito): understanding, imagination, perception, and will. The concept of God has to come from one of these categories. It cannot be will, because God is infinite, and the finite cannot create the infinite; it cannot be perception because we cannot perceive God; and his argument against us imagining God is that anything imaginary pulls from that which has already been perceived. For example, a unicorn: we've perceived horses, and horns, and used our imagination to sew them together. So if I'm understanding you correctly, the fact that no human can agree on what God is is evidence that he is imaginary, then Descartes would have two responses: the first is that if he were imaginary, then one could pick up a pen and draw the concept of God from our previous perceptions, and the second would be to grant that no one can agree on what God is - which is exactly evidence that he is not imaginary, because if he were there would be a consensus of what he is. He then goes on to conclude that, by process of elimination, the concept of God rests in our understanding. I'm not saying this is correct, that's just something I remember from his meditations
@@fentonmulley5895 I have come to understand that some have little to no distinction between their imagination and reason. So, I while I agree that with God claims being imaginary, I can't support the idea that he actually knew such.
@@fentonmulley5895
By "identity maintenance", do you mean "ego syntonic", where the latter would be worth defending for an individual because the God concept resonates with how they see themselves and the world/universe?
@@fentonmulley5895
Ok. That's what I thought. That and what I brought up seem compatible, perhaps synonymous
1:39:23 The concurrent psychological dilemma of simplicity is that it is practically and issue of [Josh's extperise allows him to appraise X as simple] vs. [Tom's expertise does not allow him to appraise X as simple] - as simplicity that is felt, sensed or inferred is often related to the skills a body possesses. For instance, an expert rally car driver may sense something is simple to drive but an unskilled person senses it is complex or impossible. This debate doesn't extract out prior-expertise as the lens through which simplicity is grasped.
So the creator and ruler of the universe, a being who take sides in tribal wars, who creates rules for humans to abide to, and scarified himself to himself is simple.... got it.
Those things aren't part of Josh's hypothesis, even if they're entitlements of it. His hypothesis is that the foundation of reality is a supreme mind, that's it, nothing else added.
@@kito- isn't he a christian? or is this god à la carte?
@@elfootman he is, but the discussion wasn't about Christianity and Josh wasn't arguing for Christianity here.
This stupid conclusion shows how ill informed u are and unbiased of course
Talk about a strawman
Great job Josh!
He can only assert that material reality "is the way, that it is", he can't assert that about reality in general. There is no evidence to support that. It also doesn't explain consciousness.
@@ShouVertica So do you hold the view that our conscious states (mind) are synonymous with our biological states (brain)?
ShouVertica I don’t think it’s been demonstrated yet, but it is what’s indicated by all available data in the fields of neurology and biology in general.
@@ShouVertica That's ridiculous nonsense. Biology/neuroscience tells us that there is a correlation between the physical states of the brain, and the subjective experience of our consciousness. That by no means "demonstrates" that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
Great discussion and I appreciated T-Jump and his thoughts
how do i get the tom jump chair
103:25
"If I am praising my wife and I tell her you are so beautiful, you are so awesome, you're so intelligent, you're so virtuous, you're so weak. I have a feeling that the last one didn't match up with the other things."
What if we change the quality to meek? That would split the audience without the risk anyone interpreting this comment as an adhom. There are people that prefer their partner to be outspoken and others prefer a partner that are meek. There are people who worship gods that are fallible and limited.
The fact that subjective people value different things doesn't tell you if value exists outside of subjective minds. Or if a mind exists outside of physical brains. Since it doesn't point to you conclusion it can not be counted as evidence for your conclusion.
At around 1:44:00 to1:48:00 and 2:01:00🎯 I feel like Tom was suppressing the truth. It seemed like
he understood but didnt want to admit it
@hugo lopes LOL we are all bias
@hugo lopes I didnt claim anything.. I specifically said I "feel" no evidence needed. In my "opinion " he gave off a vibe like he knew it made sense but didn't want to admit it or be wrong
@hugo lopes 👍🏽LOL
Yeah. Josh got him and called him out. Tom could only grin and repeat his denial. Tom accidentally figured out God with his Zeus question - whoops!
TJump did an excellent job. I'd like to see more debates featuring TJump.
Thanks, i appreciate the compliment. There are more on my channel if you want to watch those. I hope to be on Cameron's channel again soon.
Hes got a debate with Dr. Brown
Said no one ever
Adding a mind to an all powerful nature is adding complexity. Mind + matter is more complicated than matter. This is not even remotely difficult, unless you don't WANT to understand it.
Matter alone lacks explanatory power. Why did this world come to exist? The answer, on Jump's view would essentially be "it just did", which is the opposite of an explanation.
@@Mentat1231 No, the answer on TJump's part (if I'm understanding him correctly) is that most of the going theories in physics posit a past eternal universe. A past eternal universe does not "come to exist".
And no matter does not "lack explanatory power". When you compare the inane archaic jack ass bonkers unfathomably fuckin stupid answers the bible posits to literally anything, it's a miracle in its own right that someone who believes it could possibly think that the scientific world view lacks explanatory power, unless they believed it because they WANT to believe it.
@@nuahs0shaun
I don't remember him mentioning how old the world is, but the question of why it exists would be equally valid if it had always existed. And just saying "this is how reality is" is not even a bad explanation; it's no explanation at all. At least positing that it has a cause with reasons to want this world to exist is explanatory, even if you disagree that it's the best we can do.
@@Mentat1231 It's necessary. Why is it necessary? Why is god necessary? You can play this game with a mirror.
@@kosgoth
Not really. Necessity means the alternative is incoherent or impossible. That's a substantial claim, no?
The second question from Doug and Josh's answer kinda explains Josh's world view, In Josh's view he looses value if there is no ultimate being to give him meaning because this ultimate being will always "be" and remeber Josh for his existance and he adds Christinaity to his world view (Josh does) because he wans to be told eternally that he was valuable and valued by this ultimate being eternally and is going to spend eternity with him eternally.
Jump seems to exude smugness...maybe its the easy chair. I got impatient with the Dr. not pinning him down on admitting there is an Absolute, esp. when he said out loud that he was an absolutist. It was all over right then, "So there IS an Absolute, BINGO!".
Easy to be smug when all the facts point in your direction
The Time Capsule of Patrick and Asia Harris josh won debate
@@anglozombie2485 sorry, but your statement doesn't correspond with reality.
He just seems like a extremely analytical person, and Dr. Josh is much more charismatic.
The thing about absolute, is the fact that something is, and couldn't have been otherwise, and he thinks that's the universe. There's no bingo, or gotcha here, and it seems to me that that is intellectually dishonest from u.
It was a great discussion until they got into the weeds on what constitutes simplicity. Hard to stay focused after that.
I agree, I think one important thing that is often missed by atheists is that the simplest explanation is that which BEST explains the effect in question. So it is false to say that the simplest explanation entails the least complex explanation. For example, if someone asked you to explain gravity you could say "it is the tendency of things to fall". Now that explanation would be true in a sense, but it wouldn't fully capture the nature of gravity. Now, it seems to me that Tom Jump is misunderstanding the nature of simplicity.
@@eliasarches2575 I agree, A god, even more complex and infinite than the universe to exsist is more unlikely than universe popping out of nothing, since the god that has to be powerful to create that universe also popped out of nothing.
Josh is amazing
He is, he is a brilliant guy
TJump getting beat up by Jay Dyer is a classic.
Great discussion. TBH I got lost in some of the semantics, but overall it was very enjoyable. I would recommend that Tom try to look less arrogant. I can't tell if he actually is or not, but he gives the appearance of thinking he knows everything.
Why not just pray to God that Tom is given a new face, one more pleasing to your own sense of _really_ knowing everything?
Absolutely nothing works like prayer does, am I right?
@@mattsmith1440 Umm not sure if you actually want an answer?
@@mattsmith1440 Your comment is stupid and unworthy of a serious response. goddamn youtube comment section LOL
Tom doesn’t come across as ‘arrogant’ in my opinion. He just has firm convictions and expresses them in a very fluid way, that’s all. What I would liked to have seen is an actual discussion, an exchange of ideas and arguments instead of a two hour interrogation on the part of the Dr.
Circa: 1hr 20 min Josh made a good point, i think, if we remove the characteristics flying, spaghetti, & Monster from Flying Spaghetti Monster, we are no longer talking about a flying spaghetti monster.
Yes
And when we take away consciousness from the god we aren't talking about god but we are talking about a simpler explanation for the universe.
@@kosgoth if I understand you correctly you’re saying you can remove from God the attribute of mind or consciousness. To that I would say, given divine simplicity, which you can reject, God just is His attributes and they can’t be singularly removed from Him. By my lights, you’d need a mind or volitional agent of some sort to begin the universe ex nihilo. The end result of cosmological arguments is God and entails his attributes. The arguments don’t start with a being with certain attested, but end up there. (This isn’t a full fledged response but I think this is the approach a classical theist would take to the criticism)
If reason is a description, what ability do I use to think up descriptions?
You are using the "verb" reason instead of the "cause" reason. That'S where you struggle to understand. Reasoning is the action of finding connection with causes or defining exsistence. A reason is a cause, a definition.What Tom is trying to tell here is that all the laws and reasons for anything happening in the nature is defined by rhe nature itself. The nature defines the reasoning, not the other way around. That is a very strong argument, which dominates against any " reasoning" for god, which is unnantural by definition.
@rashid the guy the dude the none
Then make us all smarter by refuting what he just said.
@@icanfartloud
Hi, I'm from the future.
Yes, I agree 👍
What makes a good hypothesis is not just simplicity but equally specificity. Simplicity without specificity will lead to a broad, simple statement and in turn ambiguity, unclear variables and insignificant results.
13:50 the doors examples is still presuming that there is a prize at all, which is assuming there is a god so you just have to keep opening doors. When I’m fact, you shouldn’t expect anything behind any doors until you actually find something, until then, don’t conclude anything.
It's called an example
@@paulhayes5684 that’s not what an example is. What you mean is it’s an analogy, but it doesn’t logically follow because you’re adding information to make the analogy work, so it’s not a comparison. I hope that helps
Many of Toms objections got answered and even agreed upon between them both.
-Both came to agree that the complexity of the hypothesis is different to the complexity the hypothesis entails.
-both agree that many interesting attributes follow from Josh's supreme foundation theory.
-there can be layers of explanation that do not conflict one another.
What I learned from Josh. My cellphone is simpler than the rotary phone my parents had when I was a kid, because it has less limitations.
ontologically speaking, literally yes
Quite literally yes
I've been trying to understand Josh's argument from rationally situated things, anyone able to explain it to me? Great discussion overall
I was getting lost a bit in their discussions here too but I thought he was just saying everything in nature (maybe even nature itself) are in accordance/conform to rationality?
@@TalesFromTheEastOfficial thanks for your reply. Right so is he then saying that therefore the foundation of reality actually has the ability to reason since everything is rationally situated? I feel like I'm not getting it
@@jameswright2355 I think we can say rationality is either baked into the actual form of nature or nature appears to conform to rationality. I think tjump is kinda saying the former and Josh is kinda saying the latter. So the latter case is interesting because then it almost seems like you'd need a mind to impose rationality on nature. Not only does everything in nature conform to rationality but our own thoughts/ideas/abstract things conform to rationality. Then tjump tries to counter by saying that's because our minds are just products of nature. I don't think Josh or Christians (or basically any spiritual person) would agree our minds are just products of nature IE just neural states. Like I said though I kinda got confused there too.
@boomerbeats1566 thanks for the explanation. Maybe you would need a mind to impose rationality on nature, but then I struggle with this because I could imagine a world where there is no God, yet, 2+2=4. I disagree with tjump that our minds could be a product of nature, seems like that commits a construction error. It seems like Josh is saying if platonism is true, there must be a mind behind it, but not sure.
Beautiful dialog. Tom made many good points. However, I find his disagreement on simplicity to be very strange. I really don't see how they didn't come together on that issue in the end. Josh's point that the divine attributes were entailments of the hypothesis, rather than features of it, was easy enough to understand- even if you aren't at Tom's level of expertise. I find it hard to see any justification for Tom's alternative, the idea that more limitation equals less complexity. Such an odd stance compared to all my experiences in this domain prior to this conversation, which is usually something like- Theism has two ontological commitments- nature and God, and Atheism has one- nature. Some theist philosophers contest this point and state that atheism ALSO has two- nature and NO God. Joshs theory as given here is even simpler, given his careful adoption of language compatible with naturalism. For him, in the context of this talk, there is only ONE commitment- a supreme foundation, and everything else follows from that. Josh was right to continually posit that common ground was somewhere to be found there, and if they had managed it, I think they could have had an interesting exchange about explanatory power- which is where I assume Josh would have gone next. So strange to hear someone claim that the "flying spaghetti monster" is a "simpler" theory than a maximal foundation given the unfathomable amount of additional qualification such a theory would require for it to have ANY explanatory power or logical coherence. Whereas the necessary explanatory attributes for our experience more or less falls directly out of a supreme foundation hypothesis. I would have loved for them to have discussed the predictive power of Tom's preferred theory, because my suspicion is that it would start to seem far LESS simple than Josh's when fortified with the kinds of attributes that would predict our experience of reality- assuming they aren't logical entailments of it- which Tom alludes to in the conversation. It's the age-old distinction between naturalism and theism in play- particularly the tendency of naturalists to try and "explain away" our experience, and theists to try and explain it.
“Subject to no external limits” is better than “supreme”. the omni properties are entailed by the property of lacking limits.
In relation to "reality is first", I think TJ makes lots of issues and has internal contradictions but the most notable is this:
If reality (as in the collection of concretes) is first and reality has no given necessary universal structure, no rational structure(the rational structure being descriptive but not determining reality), then what determines reality is the non-universal concretes and therefore the description would be a fallacious description. If the universal reality of a rational order is descriptive, then it accounts for the being-ness of things and therefore is deterministic of the thing(as it is describing the thing as it is).
It would be like trying to separate the materiality of material objects. If they are material it is because their materiality is essential to them and determines them and is not merely an account of describing the thing for the description of the thing is the description of that which determines the thing as the thing(when speaking of fundamental descriptors). As such, either universals determine reality in their own being-ness and therefore are not mere descriptions, or they do not and the being-ness of reality is non-universal and therefore the universal descriptors are faulty descriptions of an arbitrary kind.
Ugh.. don't stoop down to TJump's level...
Where they're talking about the simplest theory (01:13:35), Dr Rasmussen could've given the example of homo economus used in economics where to simplify our understanding of markets we choose to simplify human choice to utility and rationality when in reality it's actually a lot more complex. Essentially we imbue humanity with the infinite cognition and infinite time to make perfect economic decisions...
Maybe I'm completely wrong but I see similarities
1:44:18 I have the same struggle as Tom here, the more Josh speaks the more I sense that it is a soft form of gas-lighting, he never adds additional substance to the statements but repeats and repeats an assault on one's very perception of reality.
100% agree.
First of all : Josh is a delight to listen and an example on how to be charitable, civil and approachable. Props to him. (When I think of a Christian, this is the kind of behavior I expect and many could learn from him! Cameron... cough...cough...).
I end up agreeing with many of Tom's positions and questions regarding Josh's concepts. I would, naturally, express them differently but I also fail to be convinced by his arguments.
This, my friend, was the most friendly and heartwarming posts I've read on YT since a very long time. You're a gentleman and a scholar and I bow my hat to you, good sir.
@@ruyan247 Thank you very much! Such kind words.
I try to be as charitable as possible (not able to always do it, though).
The knockdown punch of this debate was when Tjump asked about the cause of the sound: was it a mouse or was it a god?
I don't think the Christian was capable in that moment to even consider the implications of the argument.
Also, is this doctor (of theology, one would presume) a creationist?
New to philosophy, are you?
@Trolltician That's not the question. What's the direct cause of the sound? Perhaps you should watch the video again for the context of the question.
That crazy light is obnoxious. Why have a bright light aimed at he camera?
I miss content like this from this channel
@39m30s. Tjump says Nature comes before logic. That is jazz my dude. Smooth jazz. Great point.
@ 1 hour 27 mark, Its ok Cameron, you dont have to feel bad about Josh , just enjoy the discussion, try and take some notes and read them regularly so that you can come up with some good apologetics in the future.
If Belief in God is used as knowing God; then, it is useless or even a wrong for anyone who does not know if God exists to debate with any one who knows or says they know God exists.
But what if God exists??????
If 'belief' is 'knowing', then it's possible to claim to know anything.
Just watching this debate for the first time now. Tom Jump already starts out with a dishonest move. He is supposed to support the resolution there is no evidence for God's existence but he fallaciously shifts the burden of proof onto Josh, to have him provide reasons for God's existence that Tom can poke holes in. But that's not how debates work.
The burden of proof is on the theist that claim there is a god not on the atheist.
@@edgemaster02 And TJump quite explicitly mentioned that he was making the active claim that there is no evidence for God's existence. He actually said that he was trying to gain the burden of proof.
@@ShouVertica Theistic debates are no different than any other debate. One side takes pro, one side takes con, and both sides are obligated to provide evidence for their side while responding to the evidence the other person presents.
@@edgemaster02 The atheist has an equal burden of proof. "There is no God" requires evidence, just like "God exists" does. If you don't have evidence, you don't have warrant to believe your claim.
@@clintonwilcox4690 You are making a claim for atheism that does not exist. Most Atheists will define the word to mean 'without theism.' That is what happens to a word when a is put in front of a word, like asexual reproduction vs sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction means 'without sex.'
Theism means 'belief in the existence of a god or gods.' Atheism means 'without belief in the existence of a god or gods."
I think that theism has 2 sources, 1) Nature's God and 2) Story God. Nature's God as described in the Declaration of Independence of the United States. Story God as described by the human created stories of the Jewish God and Christian God in the ancient world.
Therefore, there are 2 sources for atheist, 1) without belief in Nature's God and 2) without a belief in Story Gods of the ancient world.
The simplest explanation for an infinitely complex universe is an explanation with no limitations (ie. infinite)
A machine with no moving parts that creates all products in the factory is less complicated and more probable then many different machines with limited capabilities and moving parts producing specific products. If everything is interconnected and has the ability to self repair it would be much more simple than the contrary.
What machine has no moving parts?
@@uninspired3583 Machines with no moving parts at all can be very efficient. An electrical transformer , for example, has no moving parts, and its mechanical efficiency is generally above the 90% mark. (The remaining power losses in a transformer are from other causes, including loss to electrical resistance in the copper windings and hysteresis loss and eddy current loss in the iron core.)
@@michaelsundt9212 one could say the electrons are moving
@@uninspired3583But the machine itself isn't. That's what you're not getting.
@@paulhayes5684 the electrons are part of the machine
Instead of arm chair atheists, I believe there are recliner atheists. Lol.
This conversation was so good I accidently unsubscribed trying to subscribe because I was already subscribed.
Which one is simpler?
A rational universe that was caused by an irrational entity, OR
A rational universe that was caused by a rational mind
Seems to be an obvious choice to me.
a necessary natural universe. god is not real
@@mikebrigandi_ What makes the universe necessary? Can the universe be eternal?
@@chrispark2698 universe can be necessary, and eternal yes
@@mikebrigandi_ Can you elaborate on that? What would make the universe a necessary entity? And how could it be eternal?
I don't think an eternally past universe could exist in reality. First of all, nearly all of the evidence we have at this moment, including observational, scientific, and even philosophical, suggests that the universe had a definite beginning at some point in the past. I am not aware of any currently available models that successfully demonstrate a past eternal universe. All of the theoretical models that have been presented fail. Secondly, a past eternal universe ends up with absurdities that are irreconcilable. For instance, physical reality consists of a series of causes & effects, or events. If the universe is past eternal, that means there is an infinite number of causes going back forever. But that seems to be absurd. How could anything ever happen if there was never a first cause to begin it all? An eternal past regression of causes seems to absurd on its face.
Can you provide an argument as to how the universe could be past eternal and necessary?
@@chrispark2698 its necesary by nature. an eternal past is not only logical its the likely answer. Time doesn't progress its an infinite dimension
There is no empirical evidence,
to support that certain things are "just in your imagination". So that is just in his imagination, according to his logic. That was self defeating, it undermined all his arguments. The circular reasoning was real.
@@brando3342 That is exactly it, then it's about the "objective" meaning of terms. If there isn't any objective meaning, then there is no meaning, terms have no meaning if they are totally subjective. It's a conflation of absolute truth with objective truth.
@@brando3342 There is an objective way to define God and his properties. It doesn't require belief either, it just requires that you realize what you're not believing in.
@@brando3342 Yes, doubt, doesn't produce action, only questions. That is why I believe your actions indicate your beliefs more then your words.
Why add extra information to the theory
...adds spaceless timeless all powerful all knowing invisible entity...
Nope, no extra information here
1:32:45 This part of the debate was highly frustrating because Josh never reveals how "being supreme" is simple, only "hypothesising a supreme" is simple. Tom is right to call him out on the ontological murkiness of supreme - which I think has many interpretations.
For me, a supreme teacher could never ever have students that would fail the lesson - but Josh's supreme teacher has had millions fail, and the supreme has sought to kill them directly by flooding or indirectly through warfare.
You just don’t get it
@@Fozykeno That's the fault of the pedagogy, no?
@@6Churches No just your intellect
@@Fozykeno You explain it then . . .
Well, the notion of Supreme is being given in a particular sense explained by Josh. It has no arbitrary reductions of its essential qualities.
Hey CC r u still going to debate Skylar Fiction? Would love to see you destroy him in a debate.
@Ju Err what tricks?
Nice arguments by Josh 'camerons ear' Rasmussen
Cameron's ears must have been burning throughout this whole conversation
This confirms why the bible talks about the value of wisdom over intelligence, what a waste of time. Let's use God's evidence, the resurrection of Christ, Saddam and Gomorrah, and the Genesis 6 Giants. How about the fine-tuning of the universe and objective moral values. Let God lead with his word, not our thoughts.
@Oners82 Do you think they don't exist?
@Oners82 It's not something you can prove. 100% of the people in the world believe in them. Anyone that has said that's "wrong" or something to that effect. God is the best explanation for it. What do you think of the resurrection of Christ?
@Oners82 The fact that 100% of the people on earth believe in them is pretty solid proof, LOL. When you say those things, it shows you haven't done any research (ignorant). Someone that studied the resurrection for 3 years and came to a different conclusion is Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford). You need to research something before you come to a conclusion.
Here's a good summary of the arguments for and against the resurrection by Gene Scott. It's from my church's website; Pastor Melissa Scott is the Pastor now. She also has a Ph.D. and speaks over 25 languages.
www.pastormelissascott.com/_pdf/Resurrection.pdf
Here's a great interview from this website from someone who has written 20+ books on the evidence for Christ's resurrection.
th-cam.com/video/kWSG5okmUr8/w-d-xo.html
@Oners82 I wasn't appealing to authority, I was appealing to facts and people that have done the research. My guess is you haven't read the message or watched the video from this website. That doesn't surprise me. Are you an Atheist?
Do you believe Sodam and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone by God?
You appealed to authority "Dr" Ehrman, lol. I think I remember him being mentioned in the video I linked from this website.
I never said that disagreeing with me makes you ignorant.
What is it about the universe that makes people feel that it's necessary to add extra stuff to it like gods, ghosts, fairies, etc..
Childhood indoctrination is easy and they never question. Also religion teaches not to question and if you do your questioning God.
This was amazing. I watched this PhD philosopher devolve from formal and academic-sounding arguments, to falling back on "feelings" and subjective "values" when his arguments were shown to be ad hoc and imaginary, to obstinately insisting that something with all properties is simpler than something with a few properties because semantics, all in order to protect his pre-determined belief in the supernatural. It was like watching someone's intellectual integrity fall apart in front of me. Good job, Tom. This was an incisive and methodical pruning of the BS.
Like, according to Josh, something that is "galactic" is simpler than something "only inside my dog" because the first has fewer words needed to describe it. That's it. If you can use fewer words in the English language to describe something, then it must be simpler and more limited. Bahaha! Oh, and I like how Josh threw in the argument that "we don't have any evidence against a supreme being who can do anything" as if that wasn't a horrific layer-cake of fallacies.
"Dr" Rasmussen isn't a real philosopher. He's a professor at a "Department of Philosophy" that's part of a School of Theology at Azusa Pacific University, the website of which says that "Azusa Pacific is a community of disciples and scholars preparing to impact the world for Christ."
@@benjamincain2792 That's a bold claim about a philosopher (Ph.D. University of Notre Dame) with dozens of academic publications including books published by Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press.
@@willemjanblom2268 The publications make him an academic, not a philosopher (a lover of knowledge). You don't love knowledge if you work in a "philosophy" department that's folded into a school of theology at an evangelical Christian college.
Notre Dame is a Catholic university. According to the Notre Dame Wiki page, "more than 93 percent of students identify as Christian, with over 80 percent of those being Catholic. There are 57 chapels on campus, including one in every residence hall. Collectively, Catholic Mass is celebrated over 100 times per week on campus, and a large campus ministry program provides for the faith needs of the community."
Benjamin Cain Who are some examples of “Real Philosophers”?
@@benjamincain2792 First of all, your defintion of 'philosopher' is anachronistic. Academics with Ph.D.'s and publications in philosophy are considered philosophers. Whether or not someone (really) loves the truth cannot be decided on objective grounds.
If one, loving the truth, comes to the conclusion that Christianity is true, he can decide to work for a Christian college. Why would that be a problem? Likewise, someone loving the truth can enroll in a Catholic university that is, by the way, one of the best universities in the world for studying philosophy.
Tom,
Does that mean that logic and reason are conceptual tools that we developed to describe reality? To that end, are there still other discoverable logic and reason possible in the future?
Thanks, A
Developed, discovered, but not invented. They are prior to everything else that we judge. The fact that our minds can even access some of these "tools" points to a source that is transcendent to our everyday objects, points to a possessor of all measure, that all other objects are measured against. I call that God.
Yes to all of these.
And contrary to James Estrella I’m actually saying that this is what’s Tom is saying. He literally explicitly said yes to the first part of your question multiple times in this conversation, and there are new logical and mathematical laws and axioms etc that we’re discovered/invented in the last century, or even decade, so yes, if logic is a formal langue that’s invented, then by definition these latest « discoveries » are inventions to, at least when they aren’t derived from already known axioms.
@@jamesestrella5911 Anything that exists in reality or that is conceptual in our minds IS subject to the axioms of logic. For example A is A, and not NOT A. Even God fits into that axiom of logic in the following way: God is God, and not NOT God. Even God is subject to the axioms of logic. Neither you or I nor God can escape it.
@@akindelebankole8080 correct. No object can escape its own nature. Particularly in the way you put it here.
@@jamesestrella5911 No..., no God can escape being subject to the axioms of logic. No matter how desperate the believer is. So true. You've got it...
Josh claims to be a Christian, (I assume) but all of his arguments I've seen defend only a view of theism identical to my non-scriptural monotheism. Does anyone know of a video in which he specifically defends Christianity?
He's a philosopher, perfectly reasonable to debate MGB
What is " non-scriptural theism ?
It's not that there is "no evidence," just that the evidence people have is bad evidence.
It’s actually that people have personal incredulity to deny said evidence.
A song can be simple, yet be profound and have profound connections. Think of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" and of Robert Frost's poem "Choose Something Like a Star," set to music by Randall Thompson. A song can be fun, catchy and simple on the surface, yet have more meaning the more deeply you look into it. A prayer may be answered not with a gold brick, but with the understanding of which brick needs to be put in place next, or, as in the Dan Seals song, the realization that "Everything That Glitters Is Not Gold.".
Side note: Unicorns do exist and most of us have seen one - unicornus africanus. Definitions are important.
Josh gives all power and freedom to one entity, with the hidden agenda of total imposition on the human being of course.
If the imposition on other human beings is not the goal, why would Josh be having this argument? Same goes for Tom. If the imposition on human freedom is not the concern, why would Tom be having this argument?
Imposition? Josh is giving the argument because he thinks it is true that there is a God, a necessary being who is maximally perfect. He thinks it's true, and that it's a great and exciting truth. So he shares it
@@mickeyesoum3278 Thank you for the response. I didn't mean Josh was going to impose. I meant the God concept will impose....
@@akindelebankole8080 well then that's a problem for how some people would deal with the concept. Still it is perfectly valid to defend that the concept is true and refers to something real.
@@mickeyesoum3278 Understandable, except when the conviction of the believer leads him to think it alright to harm others based on the touted revealed text.
@@akindelebankole8080 sure, but no one is defending that. There have been atheists who believed it was right to persecute, arrest and even murder religious people as a form of suppression; this happened in many countries which instituted State Atheism, of course. The persecutions were specifically directed against religion and in the name of atheism (not simply communism, say) and they even justified such actions by saying (ironically) that religion can make people fanatical, that it harmed society, etc. So pretty much any big, important position has the potential to bring about fanaticism of one kind or another. We're still justified in discussing some of the big questions though, such as if God exists.
The second best explaination to Dougs question is (in Dougs own words) somebody like Doug ( with limited power, limited knowledge, limitedly good etc etc.
I like both Josh and Tom as presenters. However, I could not understand how they could not resolve their dispute about simplicity. Surely, a bread and butter knife is simpler and has more limitations and can do less, than a Swiss army knife? Why was the concept of simplicity so opposite in Josh's mind is beyond me??
I think they were talking past each other so much by overcomplicating this entire conversation. All Josh needed to say throughout this entire segment was that the simplest thing is an immaterial mind. A mind is personal, and can therefore decide to create, and create rational laws such as those that exist in our universe. An irrational entity cannot do that. I don't know how they got so off the rails in this talk, but they didn't do a good job of defining what they were talking about. They tried to get too intellectual - need to simplify! Pun intended. Ha!
You seem to have been making the same confusion as TJ. The simplicity is on the ontological parts. A swiss knife is more complex because it has more parts. The consequences of the hypothesis, or in your case the functionality one can derive from the parts is a secondary move to the simplicity of the hypothesis or the object. Simple just means less parts and why it is encapsulated in the parsimony principle of NOT multiplying elements. A swiss army knife is a less simple object because it multiplies its elements to gain new functionality.
This is just the standard, universal definition and TJ was being disingenuous. This is well known and well established in philosophy. To even say FSM for example, already introduces three elements(Flying. Spaggheti and Monster). This breaks parsimony. Why flying? Why not resting? Why not standing? Why not fluctuating within states? What is this flying verb? Why Spaggheti and not Bread, or Fire? Why a Monster and not a person? Why not an immaterial? See how appealing to FSM adds complexity and therefore becomes much less parsimonious?
So, the move is to find the simplest, most necessary quality and then build from that. It is very queer for TJ to pretend to not know this basic parsimonious approach.
Yeah, this was embarassing. TJ did not understand that the properties derived from the simplicity hypothesis are neither 'ad hoc' nor arbitrary. They spring rationally from the hypothesis, unlike the quality of spaggheti from the FSM, or that it has 6-appendages, it doesn't flow naturally and rationally from the concept of 'simplicity'.
By arbitrarily denying that the argument is...reasoned and not arbitrary, even if he was told repeatedly that there were specific reasons he's shutting down the discussion. The properties that we can naturally derive rationally around the concept of simplicity are not thought of as arbitrary by anyone other than TJ, it is definitely not so in the literature, in the discussions, and it is dishonest to pretend so.
In relation to simplicity, it's just a matter of parsimony. We do not multiply entities, because that adds complexity without aiding explanation. The parsimony principle is the opposite as to what TJ is queerly saying. Simplicity reduces the ontological components, it is not that which has the most reductions because each reduction multiplies the entities and the need for explaining the reduction. If the FSM(abstract ill-defined concept) has to be flying, a spaggheti and a monster, I've added more complexity than if it was just a SM. But because I am also arbitrarily limiting things, I need to account for why a spaggheti monster and not a spaggheti meatball? To then say, "oh, I will add limitations like it is a green spaggheti monster and it only has one wing", then I'm adding complexity not reducing it. This notion of TJ that adding limitations is increasing simplicity is exactly the opposite of the universal view of simplicity. This is very strange.
And STILL!!!!! No evidence for a ‘God’ 😂
Tom is very difficult to listen to.
Is it because he is complex?
Digging Shovelle he talks fast and therefore that makes him smart
@@akimoetam1282 may be fast talking is not smart thinking?
@@diggingshovelle9669 no, too dumb
If you are going to have a professional philosopher like Dr. Rasmussen on to defend theism it would be nice to have someone equally qualified to defend naturalism (although I understand this isn't always possible)
Joshua Brecka This was a unique situation. Generally I try to put professionals with professionals.
@@CapturingChristianity ya sorry i didn't mean to sound ungreatful. I really appreciate all the conversations you put together. I also didn't think Mr. Jump was awful or anything, he is obviously a very smart guy. Just not of the same caliber as his partner.
@@joshuabrecka6012
I'm not seeing that at all. Have you got any concrete examples of what you're saying?
Here is where the atheist and the theist can both agree.........and that is..........that God never had a beginning .
God had a beginning. The question is when. Was it in his first form, as one god of many? or was it when he was re-written to be the creator god? or when he was re-written to be the one true god?
Tom contradicts himself early on with Josh’s question about having coffee. Tom says that Josh’s belief that he had coffee, despite having no empirical evidence that he did, is an adequately justified belief. Then a minute later Tom contradicts this and says that Josh would need empirical evidence in order to properly justify his belief about having coffee.
Around 28:30 Tom says there’s no probabilities, it’s just either conceptual, empirical or metaphysical. But earlier he affirmed that higher probabilities of a prize behind certain doors does count as evidence. I think his whole position is just confused.
We don't reason to God, without God one cannot reason. Proverbs 1:7
ilkin engin That’s a false dichotomy. From the fact that God is necessary for reason it doesn’t follow that reason doesn’t lead to Him (in fact one would expect the opposite to be the case!).
@@CapturingChristianity Guess the Bible is wrong then.
@ 54 min mark when Josh says Multiple universes theory is according to "SIMPLE" and his explaination that if the definition has fewer words that somehow means simple ( he kinda said something like "how much information is bulit into this theory) kinda broke me, I guess having the capacity to say absolute "Nonsense" is a requirement for being an apologist or maybe its a necessisity ( exists in all possible worlds)
@ 55 min mark Especially when he says to make his " Fine tuning" argument to work he needs to add "ad-hoc complexity " but somehow the end product of adding all the ad-hoc complexity the sum total becomes "SIMPLE", I want to know what Josh smokes to come up wit hthis " Non sense".
There’s no one who sits in a chair with his head completely still for two hours and goes out of his way to not find any theist arguments reasonable quite like Tom Jump does.
I imagine he would move his head if there were a reasonable theist argument.
Seems like an easy enough novel testable prediction, now all you need is a reasonable argument for theism
@@uninspired3583 You don’t think fine tuning, contingency, or Kalam are even reasonable? Putting aside whether you think they are ultimately sound, you really think they are unreasonable? I guess we are all different, because I just don’t understand how you could think that.
@@davidr1620 you are right I've conflated reasonableness with soundness.
Arguments from incredulity are just not compelling.
@@davidr1620 Fine tuning is ok as a proposition. However if you're going to investigate this you will notice that you don't know if Universes' constants are fine tuned.
First of all "fine tuned" is equivalent of "adjustment of such high precision which is incomprehensibly unprobable to be effect of pure randomness".
However you will quickly notice that in fact we don't know if probability of these constants to be like that is highly unprobable. How do you know what is the probability density function for them? Or if they can vary at all? This would be a cool argument if it had met it's premises. Which it doesn't.
@@Soyozuke I’m no scientist, but are you proposing the constants and quantities may be necessary? To my understanding, the vast majority of scientists very much disagree with that.
The university should watch this video and atleast reconsider letting Josh near students.
"let's tease this out"
Just realize how much Tom Jump looks like a bald Markiplier
The more I watch T Jump videos the more I realise how much I hate philosophy
Why is that? Because he makes you feel cornered in your supernatural / jesus beliefs?
Religious people in the 21st century have now turned to meaningless Philosophical mental gymnastics and word salad as the last resort to hold on to their god / supernatural beliefs.
All the childish fallacious supernatural claims of ancient times in these religious mythical books have been debunked. So now the supernaturalists and god believers have embraced philosophical arguments as the last effort to defend and hold on to their childish supernatural beliefs.
😂
@@theaviationist.5719 Are you kidding me? I am an atheist!!
@@urasam2
Sorry, my bad. lol
I thought you were one of the believers on here.. I have read a few comments from believers on here mirroring your open ended comment..
Sorry once again but your comments can be interpreted either way.
:-)
@@theaviationist.5719 No problem! I really like T Jump, don’t get me wrong, but these heavy philosophical discussions do my head in. I realise it’s cos I don’t understand it of course but still, it does often sound like a load of waffle, thinking of you William Lane Craig
So he has a hard time believing that beings like us can exist because we're so complex but he has no problem believing that there's a mystical magical man in the sky whose brain is a million times more complex than ours😂😂
right?
This was a good civil discussion that brought up many points. I was a bit frustrated at the amount of time the "defining of terms" segment took. I understand the critical nature of ensuring that all parties understand what is meant by words and phrases, but I believe this would've become evident and more easily addressed during the topic discussion. I find this as likely the result of Josh's Doctorate education in divinity with a focus on philosophy instead of a Doctorate in philosophy. When a divine being is presupposed, I feel that the philosophy is then focused on ensuring that the presupposition is confirmed. This came to light in the discussion about simplicity, value, and supreme, subjective and arbitrary terms. For a theist belief to be confirmed these are necessarily true and I feel that this was Josh's motivation, to ensure that his preconceived beliefs are confirmed.
Tom got slammed damn
Josh probably was never tested or disagreed with or challanged in the past. The way his eyes widen to show disbelief that his stupidity is challanged by tom at every stupid assertion that he makes is " Chefs kiss". I guess to people like Josh, him being challanged about his religious view would crumble under minimal pressure. Josh's "Nonsense arguments" kinda sum up his mind state (as desribed by the Host). Josh finally saying "I guess we cant know what words even mean" kinda explains the evolution of a theist in the modern world under scrutiny from a guy like Tom.
probability is not evidence. its probability!
Liam Airton So What evidence do you know not based on prob?
@@antipositivism3128
The evidence that shows two plus two equals four is not based on probability.
The evidence that shows liquid water will become a solid when you remove enough heat from it, is not based on probability.
I like Dr. Josh but I can't help but wonder if God is a word game to him?
How so
Caleb Gomez If David and I share the same impression, then it seems like Josh begs the question a lot by creating arbitrary definitions and redefining words at his convenience in order to get his god from the definitions he arbitrarily made up.
Like his definition of simplicity, that just doesn’t make any sense as TJump tried to explain many times and that apparently Josh failed to understand each time.
He didn’t drop the pen, he let go of it and gravity did the rest. Gravity is always the explanation
Are you saying the pen would fall, even if he held it between his fingers?
@@andythompson6622 no it wouldn’t. Holding the pen negates the gravitational pull that it stays between his fingers. If he tried to hold a car between his fingers then gravity would make sure that it wouldn’t stay there long.
@@mofobecks That's interesting... to me gravity is always existent, not show up just because we do something. We are always under the force of gravity so his decision is what has more power over the action of the pen analogy.
@@andythompson6622 gravity is always existent yes. Like I said, holding the pen negates the effects of gravity on the pen until he lets it go. Put it like this if the pen on a table and he holds it, if he no longer holds it, did he drop it? Or did he just let go?
@@mofobecks Gravity is "not" always an explanation, but I guess it showed that there needed to be something created on which gravity could act upon. So to me you are saying, there is a first cause.
Rasmussen clearly got him on 1:18 and another strong point he made at 1:55 good job we might have future WLC in making
I don’t come to this channel often, so this is a genuine question: Is Cam aware that this feels a lot like 2 v 1?
Agree, it doesn't seem fair. They will need to recruit more people to try and even it out and take on Tom.
Thanks Cam and Josh- Stellar discussion and one of the best refutations of Tjump I have seen. Atheists like Tom hide behind physicalism, but your idea of nature being rationally situated exposes one of the many shortcomings of the necessary brute fact reality is reality world view of those like Oppy.
At about 1:40:00 Josh happened upon the solution. Supremacy is not complicated or at the top of some pyramid, or built upon corroborated evidence. Supremacy is fundamental, and forms the basis of an epistemology.
TJump is certain of the cogito. But his claimed next epistemological step (some way to distinguish fantasy from reality) leads him to establish objective and reasoned evidence as the basis of his epistemology. Reality as distinguished from fantasy, actually has a basis in supremacy, in value, in a David Hume “what ought” as opposed to “what is”.
That is to say, knowledge has a motivation implied in the cogito. “It’s better to know than to not know”, yes? Why else would TJump want to distinguish fantasy from reality? Knowing has supremacy over not knowing and over knowing wrong things and over misapprehensions. The value distinction happens first as the driver, not the fact distinction as TJump believes. TJump’s motivation to distinguish fantasy from reality as his next step, skips over his desire to tell the difference in the first place. The drive to know what is (and is not) good, true and beautiful is the animating factor in conscious agency - the cogito - the only thing we can’t deny. Exploring that drive is the next step. It’s a drive toward supremacy.
In other words, implicit in the cogito is the ability to know (vs not know), the power to act and exist (vs not act and not exist), and do good (vs do bad intentionally). It’s not that hard to imagine there must be a source to that drive toward supremacy in knowledge, power and goodness. Something or someone driving it all are the only two options. TJump concludes “things first”. However, using the word “spirit” could cover both as a reasonable inference. Spirit could encompass things, or a triune God, or even all conscious agents collectively. We, as conscious agents, are undeniably pushed and/or pulled toward this ground of being we are fumbling around to comprehend via scientific method, religion and the occult.
Josh has a degree. I think he finds it difficult when Tom explains different kinds of evidence. @ around 26 min mark I guess the Dr lost his capability to critical think beyond this point, his age old (Theists) what do you mean by "Evidence" stupidity was defeated with Toms explaination.
@ 1 hour 59 min mark, Kinda expains Joshs endeavor in Science, he uses his own definitions and smirks when people object to the absurdity in doing that and calling it Science.