We know from abundance of evidence how humans communicate with language. So if we found a single man on some island speaking in some language unknown to us - it would be a good inference that he was a part of larger community of minds (while it could still be the case these are senseless sounds of a person gone mad - we'd have to do more in depth analysis of the patterns of speech). There is no concrete evidence for the sensory experiences as such to be a language in communication with some supernatural mind[s]. The inference is incredibly weak. Negligible.
Remarkably unique argument. Language is an encoding of experience: it's unsurprising it shares many features. IMO this explains the similarities just as well as experience being a language in which something is being communicated to us. This is often the trouble with arguments from analogy: oranges and limes share many features, but that doesn't mean that oranges are green. On a tangential note: have you ever considered giving the arguments grades at the end for how sound and compelling you find them to be? It feels like a fun idea. :)
Animals and plants do have languages, although not as complex as humans'. One 'fun fact' that I love is that dolphins actually have individual names that they can respond to. Plants also communicate in a way (check out Peter Wohlleben), so do funghi.
Premise 1: use of language indicates an intelligent being. Premise 2: experience is a language. Conclusion: therefore, experience is an intelligent being communicating with us. This works if and only if one defines language as “anything we perceive.” The whole thing is a word trick. It would require me to accept that all living things have language, since all living things have perceptions. This makes the term “language” effectively meaningless. Answer to objection 1 is special pleading (presumes god to explain away the objection) Answer to objection 2 is too narrow to work. Many experiences lack the kind of consequences that make it work. Answer to objection 3 is again to narrow. Perception can be incorrect without hallucination…also ignores relativity. Answer to objection 4 is again special pleading. Just another failed attempt at a proof for god. We finish with Alvin Plantinga's "other minds" argument (from his book God and Other Minds)...which (wisely) gives up the idea of proving the existence of god, and instead falls back to it being a "warranted" belief, meaning it's not irrational. I would question his analogy there, but it is the best any theist can really do.
All living things commicate, move and respond to the environment and reproduce their memory via inheritance to evolve. I'd put the conclusion as very strong however I'd say that reality is a language within a mind that is intelligible and responsive (within our experience) So as not have special pleading.. Also the rest of the objections aren't logically consistent nor a rebuttal to the structure of the argument itself.. Could you please provide a counter example, or even a formal argument so I can see what you're arguing in favor (or against?)
@@zacksmith4509 I'm not convinced that all living things communicate, and memory is not inherited. As for "reality is a language within a mind that is intelligible and responsive," are you saying that reality we see around us is just something inside the mind of some superbeing? If so, I would disagree. Our minds - which are functions of our physical brains - are how we process our perceptions of reality. Reality is external to us, and there is no reason to believe that it is a language. Language is a means of intentional communication - one would have to demonstrate that reality (the universe) has an intent in order for it to be in any way a language. I don't think one can get there without invoking magic of some kind. I am simply arguing that experience is not a language. Further, that in order to declare experience to be a language one must define "language" so broadly as to make it meaningless.
This isn't a good argument. 1. The "language of experience" is not directly linked to God or a deity at all. 2. Most of the video tries to argue the similarity from language to experience, but language is dependent on experience and IS an experience in action so thats to be expected. 3. In relation to theism: What specifically has god said? Just saying "all experience" is like me stating "english english english" to someone as an explanation on how to build an airplane. This just isn't coherent and exposes how poor theistic arguments have become.
It would be nice to see this argument expressed as a syllogism or a probabilistic argument (exactly how it's more expected given Christianity or theism, than given the negation).
The original formulation is an argument from analogy (not a style I'm particularly fond of), and I think it's going to be difficult to translate into a probabilistic form. I will now ironically give an analogy to explain my reasoning. With the Problem of Other Minds, the hypothesis that everyone else is a philosophical zombie predicts all the empirical data you've ever acquired with a probability close to 1. So, roughly, P(other people have minds | the actions of people) = P(other people lack minds | the actions of people). This is true even though most people form the belief that other people have minds based on the actions of those people. How are we to deal with this? Well, the answer is that somehow the prior probability of is going to have to be smaller than independent of empirical data. But the question of how we establish prior probabilities is going to be controversial. However, I think that the answer to the Problem of Other Minds will probably lie in that controversial question: how do we establish priors? I think that the Divine Language Argument faces a similar problem. The data in question, such as the systematicity of experience, can plausibly be predicted by alternative explanations. So, if the argument can successfully be translated in probabilistic terms, it's probably going to rest on something like is similarly just going to get a high prior in a similar way to how got a high prior.
Great presentation and video! However I would raise a few objections. 1. It would seem that description of experience as a type of language seems like a conflation. I would propose that language describes experiences so that’s why the two are closely related. I would categorize language and experience as information. 2. Describing language and experience as information, this would lead me to categorize this argument as another version or perhaps a subcategory of the teleological/argument from design. There is a phenomena and a subsequent attribution to a transcendent creator. 3. Describing this argument as derivative of true teleological argument for God raises another common objection. If the premises are true that does not prove the Christian god. Why couldn’t a transcendent god from another worldview or better yet something that has not yet been conceived or discovered be the cause of the phenomena? 4. Another objection I thought of a day later is that if experience is being described as language communicated by a higher being, wouldn’t this mean that this being is responsible for all bad experiences and suffering? I realize this is just the problem of suffering/evil argument but I think that is an inevitable issue problem that is reached when importing higher beings as an explanation of human experiences. Now this fourth point wouldn’t disprove the language hypothesis, but it would raise questions about the higher beings character and intentions of there was such a thing. 5. This is not original at all but why couldn’t multiple higher beings be responsible for human experience? Conversations and arguments like these seem to exclude a polytheistic hypothesis and I’m not sure why. Again, great video and channel; I’m doing my best to just present my disagreements in good spirit. Good luck.
It's interesting nowadays that we actually have non-humans, namely computers, that "communicate" with us using our own language to create original sentences. I think in some ways it really stretches our understanding of what language and meaning really is.
Aren't there arguments for the existence of God from language itself rather than this sensory experience as a medium? perhaps more broadly there could be an argument from semiotics, not that I've seen any but the relationship of signs, symbols and language has lead to me romanticizing about how deep it could go. reading some of Jacques Lacan and I am quite drawn to the idea of language as a proof of the existence of God, especially his one quote "Language is not a substance but a form. The human speaks, but he does so because the symbol has made him a human." Whether I could functionally and cogently formulate an argument like that, I can't say but maybe I'll try one day.
🤖 Logical Errors: a. False Analogy: The argument relies heavily on analogy, comparing human language to the purported "language of experience" through sensory perception. However, the analogy between human language and sensory perception is not necessarily strong enough to warrant the conclusions drawn about the existence of God. The analogy seems to stretch beyond its limits, as sensory perception lacks many key features of human language, such as syntax, semantics, and intentionality. b. Begging the Question: The argument seems to assume the existence of God from the outset, as it attempts to prove God's existence by using the analogy of human language and sensory perception as a means of divine communication. This presupposes the very thing it sets out to prove, making it circular reasoning. c. False Dichotomy: The argument presents a false dichotomy between the language of experience being either a divine communication or nothing at all. It dismisses alternative explanations, such as naturalistic interpretations, without sufficiently addressing them. Scientific Errors: a. Misunderstanding of Perception: The argument equates sensory perception with language, which is a flawed comparison. Sensory perception involves the reception and interpretation of stimuli, whereas language involves structured communication using symbols. While there may be parallels in terms of complexity and pattern recognition, they are fundamentally different processes. b. Anthropocentric Bias: The argument assumes that language and communication must necessarily mirror human forms in order to be valid. This anthropocentric bias limits the scope of understanding and overlooks the potential for other forms of communication or information exchange in the universe. c. Misrepresentation of Evolution: The argument suggests that naturalists would attribute the language-like features of DNA solely to unguided evolution. While evolution plays a role in shaping biological structures, it does not preclude the possibility of complex systems emerging through natural processes without the need for divine intervention. In summary, the "Divine Language Argument" faces logical challenges due to its reliance on flawed analogies and circular reasoning. Additionally, its scientific basis is questionable, as it misinterprets sensory perception and oversimplifies evolutionary principles. 🤖
The term 'language' does have well understood meanings, even if some of those meanings are specific to certain domains, such as 'programming language'. For this context it is reasonable to use the definition of language as a structured system of communication by which humans convey meaning. By this definition 'sense experience' is not a language. What language and sense experience have in common are interpretive processes. For meaning to be conveyed via language there needs to be interpretive process that forms meaning from the basis of communication (such as sounds, symbols and gestures). Sense experience is an aspect of the meaning formed by the brain's interpretive processes, given the interaction of our bodies with our environment. Your 10 'similarities' only show that the way our brain processes language has similarities to how it processes our environmental interactions. There is nothing surprising here. Our natural languages have emerged out of our embodiment within the world and we tend to prefer language that maps well to our experiences. Within our brains there is significant overlap between language processing and environmental interaction processing. These 'similarities' largely arise from the nature of interpretive processes and don't imply that sense experience = language. Sense experience isn't language or communication from God, it is a form of meaning resulting from interpretive processes. This argument is another example of the story of God being used as an 'explanation' instead of seeking out actually demonstrable explanations.
Yeah, you articulated well what I was thinking about. This was a very poor attempt to infer some kind of communication from something as mundane as our mere experience of reality. It's a bad argument. Language exists to describe describe interpret experiences of reality, but these experiences are not themselves any kind of language. That's the first premise of the argument and it is false. It might be arguable if what seems to communication really is such, or whether it needs an actual communicator either. The biggest weakness of this argument is probably that it relies too much on semantics and broad interpretations of the word 'language'. Nevertheless, I think that theists will start defending this argument as well as they can just because it's an argument for theism.
When I took linguistics last year, the teacher was clear that there is not an uncontroversial definition of language, and that the academic standard is in fact to take a list of traits of agreed-upon languages and see whether a potential language shares those characteristics. By a “agreed-upon language” I mean something such as English, and by a “potential language” I mean something in the realm of animal communication/dna/etc. So, even though Squared’s argument is not very strong (as he admits), it isn’t because he’s misunderstanding how language is defined. Also this is obviously in no way an example of God being used as an “explanation instead of seeking out actually demonstrable explanations.” This is an ARGUMENT, not an explanation.
@@natevenarske I used the word explanation in the sense that a transcendent creator is posited as the best explanation for the alleged communication through sense-experience. From what I understood, the argument relies on data for which a god is the best explanation and so the conclusion would be that the data is evidence for a god. The data seems too controversial to me, though, so I cannot consider it as genuine evidence for a god. I don't see how our average sense-experience could be some form of a message. We just experience stuff, that's it. How could any message be inferred from that? I think that this premise is false.
@@natevenarske In technical use such as linguistics and related fields such as computer science, terms like 'language' take on very specific meanings for specific domains of usage. The more specific the domain is, the more specific the definition can be. This argument isn't a technically nuanced discussion of what a language is, where the domain is identified and the essential characteristics of the relevant 'agreed-upon' languages are identified and then compared to 'sense experience'. Due to the implications within this argument the relevant languages at hand are natural written or spoken languages, I chose a general definition appropriate to that domain. I can't say what Apologetics Squared understands or misunderstands, I'm only responding to the argument as presented, and this argument misrepresents both how languages are identified and what sense experience is. The argument does not present a coherent notion of language and it does not establish that 'sense experience' is a language. The 10 'similarities' in this argument are mostly related to some aspects of interpretive processes, but interpretive processes are not restricted to languages so this approach doesn't establish that 'sense experience' is a language. I agree that as a whole this is an argument, an argument that is unsound. The 'explanation' being offered within this argument is that sense experience is the consequence of God communicating with humans.
Berkeley is hardly the brighest horse in stable of philosophy. Though he has a knack for being so inintelligible that some people think, he really has something to say.
I think experiences are usually as unambiguous as language. I’m just thinking about the normal stuff I experience throughout the day (driving my car, picking up groceries, etc.) and what I experience is pretty unambiguous. There are ambiguous experiences, but there are ambiguous sentences too. E.g., “Alex wanted to go to Bob’s house, but later he said that he didn’t want to.” Does “he” refer to Alex or Bob? It’s ambiguous!
But if God is trying to communicate thru experience, why does reality's experience seem to communicate a total indifference to humans, leaving even Christians to question why God seems to act like he isn't there.@@ApologeticsSquared
The argument seems to conflate language with communication/speech. A language is a tool to communicate information. But a sentence written in a language does not necessarily mean that it was written by a mind. Likewise generating experiences can be used to communicate. Gestures for example can be used to communicate. That some experiences are communication by a mind analogously does not mean all experience is communication by a mind. Now to the deeper question. Are languages like english created? Well that depends on what you mean by created. They were not thought through by a committee or something. English gradually developed as a mesh of a german speaking underclass ruled by a french speaking upper class into a mixture of french and german. Thats kinda how all human languages originated. Random mixtures of the neighboring languages. The origin of languages can be inferred back to simple gestures communicating specific things before our ancestors even were classified as humans. And likewise our senses generated over the same gradual process of natural selection. So yeah it seems, if we generalize enough it is technically true, that both languages and "experiences" developed in a similar way. Both developed by selection pressures for better information gathering and transferring.
Well, congrats in showing a new argument for God, I genuinely dont see many that haven't been done before. I think it is a pretty big flop and needs to be expressed more clearly in a logical form but it doesnt seem to be deritive of any other popular qrguement for God (although its probably closest to a watchmaker arguement).
Hi! I watched your “Does God really have Free Will? (Alternative Possibilities)” video and I wanted to read more about the solution you proposed. Do you have some sources I could read?
Doesn't point 4 (interchangeability) conflict with your earlier argument from psychophysical harmony? That argument said we need finely tuned experiences, they aren't interchangeable without chaos. Right?
Great video! Perhaps I misunderstand, but I believe we do speak to God through experience. God tells us to act in certain ways in order to show our love for Him. Paul himself says that if you join yourself to a prostitute, you join Christ to the prostitute. I believe that through the way we act, we communicate to God how we feel about Him and He is able to experience that. This is one of the reasons why actions are important. We can also interact with God through art. If we sing to Him or paint a striking image about Him, like John Martin or other painters do, then I believe He experiences that as well. As it is written, "Make a joyful noise to The Lord," and also, "In all things, do them as unto The Lord." Even the sacrifices in the OT was presented as if God were there in the temple receiving the sacrifices like it was food to consume.
Yes. I was literally in a discussion about this with a cool dude named CMVMic in the comments of Mike Licona’s video with WLC discussing the Dawkins + O’Connor interview. So so so good, dude.
Theists are so good at coming up with "arguments" for God that are so absolutely absurd and cringe that no anti-theist could even come up with them as a joke. You can't strawman a theist with an argument for God more ridiculous than the ones they come up with themselves and state with a straight face. The argument from circles, the argument from dirt, the argument from prime numbers, the argument from cheese, the argument from arguments, the argument from punctuation. All of these will eventually have their own books or TH-cam videos as the theist wrings reality for a single drop of God.
I don't know about wringing reality for a drop of God, but I tried wringing this reply for an objection and didn't find one, so that's something. Edit: I'm not sure whether I agree with this argument, but my point was that this reply was just ad hominem.
@Konxovar0 You realize that the reply isn't so much of an objection but purely an observation. I would be inclined to agree with the commenter at least to some degree. If you want an objection, read other replies. Or try it yourself. I'm hopeful that despite your leanings, you could also see the problems with this argument.
@@Boundless_Border The biggest issue I see with the argument is there has to be a more substantive connection between language and experience. If you were sure experience was a language, it's an extremely powerful argument. On that point, there need be more evidence.
@Konxovar0 Yeah. While it has more issues, the fact that is the point the entire argument hinges on makes it a bit of a laughable argument. At least to the outsider if you're actually trying to be convincing. Maybe to an insider, it could be an interesting "proof."
@@Boundless_Border The argument is bad, absurdly, cringe-y bad. Do I really need to explain to you how or why it's bad? If you don't think so, you're probably at least halfway a theist.
This argument in itself would not be half as bad if it wasn't lacking the proof that comes before such a theory can be proposed. We do not know if God exists, neither would we know how he chooses to communicate. Language is a broad term, but the one requirement it needs to fulfill is the transfer of information. Which would make experience a sort of language (even though in order to communicate with established languages we already need to be able to experience, so that seems to be more underlying). However, even if we choose to agree on experience being a valid language, it is not at all an argument for a God. Our experiences are natural, as are the stimuli in nature we respond to (for example a fire breaking out in the forest would communicate danger). However, if we focus on fire as a sentence of experience language, that would mean that it /is/ the means of communication, that is to say that God would have had to start it simply to tell us that it is dangerous. And wouldn't that be... stupid and unnecessary?
@WTFTBone I get it, although I am still agnostic. I agree that a Christian God is unlikely, if not impossible, to exist. But when defining 'God' in a broader sense as just a metaphysical presence, it becomes impossible to know. However, once people try to get specific (like in religions), there just are a lot of contradictions and hypocrisy. I think it's always for the best to base your opinions on empirical proof though, so I get you. :) Just think sometimes it's fun to speculate. Thanks for explaining yourself further!
That's why I always feel God is expressing something in nature, wind, rain, storms, water, etc, while not identifying those things AS God. And I can look at flowers, trees, and puppies and see God in them because He made them. You can see His hand. You can see His love expressed in them and through them. Like when I feel the wind, I say, "Wow God, You thought of everything for us." or if it storms hard, I can get a little scared and say, "Wow, God, You can be powerful and are worthy to be feared/revered." I can appreciate God by His creation alone.
@@ariah5093 A real person who wanted a relationship would show up in person and talk to one directly. If one has to first "believe" that this person exists, AND THEN "believe" that this person loves one, AND THEN "accept it"...all sight unseen...one can rest assured that the person in question is imaginary.
@@njhoepner God is personal. The best way I can compare it is to the soul inside of your body. The soul is the only things that’s truly you. It’s distinct from your physical body, but it completely controls your body. Your thoughts and feelings are not physical but they both coexist nonetheless. The Holy Spirit can indwell Himself in you alongside with your soul. God can be completely personal with you. ❤️ Don’t miss out on this blessing, brother. It will change your life. I’m rooting for you.
I would applaud the refreshingly new argument, but it is simply too bad for me to encourage. I guess the first way I'd want to address it is that this is a more complex version of "creation needs a creator." This is made obvious when you state it as an argument from anology. The same issue is that you failed to present something that distinguishes it from merely being language-like in a few qualities to actually being a language. Further, you fail to understand the crux of the difference between the problem of other minds and positing a god. Accepting other minds existing is consistent with all lived experience and is the refusal to posit your own special status. The behaviors and mechanisms of others are indistinguishable from your own, and as such, to posit them as P-Zombies is to assume your own special status without evidence. Regarding languages, we observe things that seem language like but very obviously have no minds on either end. So to assume that sense experience which can be argued to be language like is actually a language is to assume some hidden speaker despite the fairly simple idea that it is normal physical processes giving rise to sense experience. Just as other language like behaviors emerge from normal physical processes.
@@Boundless_BorderThe argument from analogy follows after you accept that there are deep similarities between human language and our experience. The four objections he gave were pretty bad, but let me tell you where I think the argument is weak. 1. This is not acknowledged in the video, but the first question I think anyone should ask is "why should you define language in this way?" 2. Whatever definition we make for language, it should be structured in such a way that we can reasonably assume that if something acts in a linguistic manner there is a mind behind it, but still an argument that is needed to demonstrate why this definition of language makes it reasonable to believe there is a mind behind any use of language. The big problem with this argument is that, even though it is reasonable to assume that something using human language has a mind, it is very difficult for us to know what aspect of human language makes this logical leap reasonable and because of that, no matter how many similarities we draw between language and experience, we cannot know if language and experience share that critical feature which allows us to presume the existence of a mind. Nonetheless, the more similarities we can draw between experience and language, the higher the probability that we included the critical property which allows us to conclude that there is a mind behind it, so the fact that 10 non-trivial similarities similarities were drawn between language and experience is not insignificant.
@realmless4193 Thanks for sharing. I would have things to say and/or add, but you mostly answered my question. To confirm, though, the reason you find this good is because it is an argument from anology (which has the implication you mentioned) and because he pointed out 10 "non-trivial" similarities?
@@Boundless_Border Essentially. It is a valid argument which provides real evidence that's about all there is to say about it though. It's not gamechanging though, it just proves that it is rational to rational to believe that a spiritual mind is communicating to us through the language of experience, but it is only as strong as the evidence for the existence of other human minds and, as I pointed out before, is still significantly weaker than that.
@realmless4193 But valid and not necessarily sound arguments isn't "real evidence." If merely valid arguments were "real evidence," then you could prove any number of things. That was actually a critical flaw. We don't believe other minds exist because language exists. We consider it true that other minds exist because the mechanisms that allow for it are in others are just as they are in ourselves, and to simply believe they are P-Zombies is to assert ourselves as a special existence without evidence. We could go further, but simply put, we don't believe other minds exist because they speak English. So it isn't that it is just to a lesser extent. But that we don't use that argument fit other minds at all. At least I've yet to hear an argument for other minds based on the existence of English or something to a similar effect.
And of His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colours. Indeed there are Signs in this for the wise. (To guide) those who use their reason (to this Truth) there are many Signs in the structure of the heavens and the earth, in the constant alternation of night and day, in the vessels which speed across the sea carrying goods that are of profit to people, in the water which God sends down from the sky and thereby quickens the earth after it was dead, and disperse over it all manner of animals, and in the changing courses of the winds and the clouds pressed into service between heaven and earth. Soon shall We show them Our Signs on the horizons and in their own beings until it becomes clear to them that it is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a witness over everything? How many are the signs in the heavens and the earth which people pass by without giving any heed!
Another great video as always! God Bless, brother!❤
We know from abundance of evidence how humans communicate with language.
So if we found a single man on some island speaking in some language unknown to us - it would be a good inference that he was a part of larger community of minds (while it could still be the case these are senseless sounds of a person gone mad - we'd have to do more in depth analysis of the patterns of speech).
There is no concrete evidence for the sensory experiences as such to be a language in communication with some supernatural mind[s]. The inference is incredibly weak. Negligible.
Wow!! It's been quite a while. I hope you and your family are doing great? God bless your ministry 🙏❤️✝️
Remarkably unique argument.
Language is an encoding of experience: it's unsurprising it shares many features. IMO this explains the similarities just as well as experience being a language in which something is being communicated to us. This is often the trouble with arguments from analogy: oranges and limes share many features, but that doesn't mean that oranges are green.
On a tangential note: have you ever considered giving the arguments grades at the end for how sound and compelling you find them to be? It feels like a fun idea. :)
Wouldn't this mean that all animals, plants etc. have language as they can all react to stimuli in some way?
Animals and plants do have languages, although not as complex as humans'. One 'fun fact' that I love is that dolphins actually have individual names that they can respond to. Plants also communicate in a way (check out Peter Wohlleben), so do funghi.
Premise 1: use of language indicates an intelligent being.
Premise 2: experience is a language.
Conclusion: therefore, experience is an intelligent being communicating with us.
This works if and only if one defines language as “anything we perceive.” The whole thing is a word trick. It would require me to accept that all living things have language, since all living things have perceptions. This makes the term “language” effectively meaningless.
Answer to objection 1 is special pleading (presumes god to explain away the objection)
Answer to objection 2 is too narrow to work. Many experiences lack the kind of consequences that make it work.
Answer to objection 3 is again to narrow. Perception can be incorrect without hallucination…also ignores relativity.
Answer to objection 4 is again special pleading.
Just another failed attempt at a proof for god. We finish with Alvin Plantinga's "other minds" argument (from his book God and Other Minds)...which (wisely) gives up the idea of proving the existence of god, and instead falls back to it being a "warranted" belief, meaning it's not irrational. I would question his analogy there, but it is the best any theist can really do.
All living things commicate, move and respond to the environment and reproduce their memory via inheritance to evolve.
I'd put the conclusion as very strong however
I'd say that reality is a language within a mind that is intelligible and responsive (within our experience) So as not have special pleading.. Also the rest of the objections aren't logically consistent nor a rebuttal to the structure of the argument itself.. Could you please provide a counter example, or even a formal argument so I can see what you're arguing in favor (or against?)
@@zacksmith4509 I'm not convinced that all living things communicate, and memory is not inherited.
As for "reality is a language within a mind that is intelligible and responsive," are you saying that reality we see around us is just something inside the mind of some superbeing? If so, I would disagree. Our minds - which are functions of our physical brains - are how we process our perceptions of reality. Reality is external to us, and there is no reason to believe that it is a language. Language is a means of intentional communication - one would have to demonstrate that reality (the universe) has an intent in order for it to be in any way a language. I don't think one can get there without invoking magic of some kind.
I am simply arguing that experience is not a language. Further, that in order to declare experience to be a language one must define "language" so broadly as to make it meaningless.
This isn't a good argument.
1. The "language of experience" is not directly linked to God or a deity at all.
2. Most of the video tries to argue the similarity from language to experience, but language is dependent on experience and IS an experience in action so thats to be expected.
3. In relation to theism:
What specifically has god said?
Just saying "all experience" is like me stating "english english english" to someone as an explanation on how to build an airplane.
This just isn't coherent and exposes how poor theistic arguments have become.
He back
It would be nice to see this argument expressed as a syllogism or a probabilistic argument (exactly how it's more expected given Christianity or theism, than given the negation).
The original formulation is an argument from analogy (not a style I'm particularly fond of), and I think it's going to be difficult to translate into a probabilistic form.
I will now ironically give an analogy to explain my reasoning.
With the Problem of Other Minds, the hypothesis that everyone else is a philosophical zombie predicts all the empirical data you've ever acquired with a probability close to 1. So, roughly, P(other people have minds | the actions of people) = P(other people lack minds | the actions of people). This is true even though most people form the belief that other people have minds based on the actions of those people. How are we to deal with this? Well, the answer is that somehow the prior probability of is going to have to be smaller than independent of empirical data. But the question of how we establish prior probabilities is going to be controversial. However, I think that the answer to the Problem of Other Minds will probably lie in that controversial question: how do we establish priors?
I think that the Divine Language Argument faces a similar problem. The data in question, such as the systematicity of experience, can plausibly be predicted by alternative explanations. So, if the argument can successfully be translated in probabilistic terms, it's probably going to rest on something like is similarly just going to get a high prior in a similar way to how got a high prior.
Can we even do probability without just some dishonest "the naturalistic explanation says no experience" stuff tho?
Great presentation and video! However I would raise a few objections.
1. It would seem that description of experience as a type of language seems like a conflation. I would propose that language describes experiences so that’s why the two are closely related. I would categorize language and experience as information.
2. Describing language and experience as information, this would lead me to categorize this argument as another version or perhaps a subcategory of the teleological/argument from design. There is a phenomena and a subsequent attribution to a transcendent creator.
3. Describing this argument as derivative of true teleological argument for God raises another common objection. If the premises are true that does not prove the Christian god. Why couldn’t a transcendent god from another worldview or better yet something that has not yet been conceived or discovered be the cause of the phenomena?
4. Another objection I thought of a day later is that if experience is being described as language communicated by a higher being, wouldn’t this mean that this being is responsible for all bad experiences and suffering? I realize this is just the problem of suffering/evil argument but I think that is an inevitable issue problem that is reached when importing higher beings as an explanation of human experiences. Now this fourth point wouldn’t disprove the language hypothesis, but it would raise questions about the higher beings character and intentions of there was such a thing.
5. This is not original at all but why couldn’t multiple higher beings be responsible for human experience? Conversations and arguments like these seem to exclude a polytheistic hypothesis and I’m not sure why.
Again, great video and channel; I’m doing my best to just present my disagreements in good spirit. Good luck.
May God increase you in wisdom and purify your intentions.
It's interesting nowadays that we actually have non-humans, namely computers, that "communicate" with us using our own language to create original sentences. I think in some ways it really stretches our understanding of what language and meaning really is.
As an idealist who just learned about hermeneutic epistemology a few days ago, this levels me. I’m so excited.
Aren't there arguments for the existence of God from language itself rather than this sensory experience as a medium?
perhaps more broadly there could be an argument from semiotics, not that I've seen any but the relationship of signs, symbols and language has lead to me romanticizing about how deep it could go.
reading some of Jacques Lacan and I am quite drawn to the idea of language as a proof of the existence of God, especially his one quote "Language is not a substance but a form. The human speaks, but he does so because the symbol has made him a human."
Whether I could functionally and cogently formulate an argument like that, I can't say but maybe I'll try one day.
🤖
Logical Errors:
a. False Analogy: The argument relies heavily on analogy, comparing human language to the purported "language of experience" through sensory perception. However, the analogy between human language and sensory perception is not necessarily strong enough to warrant the conclusions drawn about the existence of God. The analogy seems to stretch beyond its limits, as sensory perception lacks many key features of human language, such as syntax, semantics, and intentionality.
b. Begging the Question: The argument seems to assume the existence of God from the outset, as it attempts to prove God's existence by using the analogy of human language and sensory perception as a means of divine communication. This presupposes the very thing it sets out to prove, making it circular reasoning.
c. False Dichotomy: The argument presents a false dichotomy between the language of experience being either a divine communication or nothing at all. It dismisses alternative explanations, such as naturalistic interpretations, without sufficiently addressing them.
Scientific Errors:
a. Misunderstanding of Perception: The argument equates sensory perception with language, which is a flawed comparison. Sensory perception involves the reception and interpretation of stimuli, whereas language involves structured communication using symbols. While there may be parallels in terms of complexity and pattern recognition, they are fundamentally different processes.
b. Anthropocentric Bias: The argument assumes that language and communication must necessarily mirror human forms in order to be valid. This anthropocentric bias limits the scope of understanding and overlooks the potential for other forms of communication or information exchange in the universe.
c. Misrepresentation of Evolution: The argument suggests that naturalists would attribute the language-like features of DNA solely to unguided evolution. While evolution plays a role in shaping biological structures, it does not preclude the possibility of complex systems emerging through natural processes without the need for divine intervention.
In summary, the "Divine Language Argument" faces logical challenges due to its reliance on flawed analogies and circular reasoning. Additionally, its scientific basis is questionable, as it misinterprets sensory perception and oversimplifies evolutionary principles.
🤖
The term 'language' does have well understood meanings, even if some of those meanings are specific to certain domains, such as 'programming language'.
For this context it is reasonable to use the definition of language as a structured system of communication by which humans convey meaning. By this definition 'sense experience' is not a language.
What language and sense experience have in common are interpretive processes. For meaning to be conveyed via language there needs to be interpretive process that forms meaning from the basis of communication (such as sounds, symbols and gestures). Sense experience is an aspect of the meaning formed by the brain's interpretive processes, given the interaction of our bodies with our environment.
Your 10 'similarities' only show that the way our brain processes language has similarities to how it processes our environmental interactions. There is nothing surprising here. Our natural languages have emerged out of our embodiment within the world and we tend to prefer language that maps well to our experiences. Within our brains there is significant overlap between language processing and environmental interaction processing. These 'similarities' largely arise from the nature of interpretive processes and don't imply that sense experience = language.
Sense experience isn't language or communication from God, it is a form of meaning resulting from interpretive processes. This argument is another example of the story of God being used as an 'explanation' instead of seeking out actually demonstrable explanations.
Yeah, you articulated well what I was thinking about. This was a very poor attempt to infer some kind of communication from something as mundane as our mere experience of reality. It's a bad argument. Language exists to describe describe interpret experiences of reality, but these experiences are not themselves any kind of language. That's the first premise of the argument and it is false. It might be arguable if what seems to communication really is such, or whether it needs an actual communicator either. The biggest weakness of this argument is probably that it relies too much on semantics and broad interpretations of the word 'language'. Nevertheless, I think that theists will start defending this argument as well as they can just because it's an argument for theism.
When I took linguistics last year, the teacher was clear that there is not an uncontroversial definition of language, and that the academic standard is in fact to take a list of traits of agreed-upon languages and see whether a potential language shares those characteristics. By a “agreed-upon language” I mean something such as English, and by a “potential language” I mean something in the realm of animal communication/dna/etc. So, even though Squared’s argument is not very strong (as he admits), it isn’t because he’s misunderstanding how language is defined.
Also this is obviously in no way an example of God being used as an “explanation instead of seeking out actually demonstrable explanations.” This is an ARGUMENT, not an explanation.
@@natevenarske I used the word explanation in the sense that a transcendent creator is posited as the best explanation for the alleged communication through sense-experience. From what I understood, the argument relies on data for which a god is the best explanation and so the conclusion would be that the data is evidence for a god. The data seems too controversial to me, though, so I cannot consider it as genuine evidence for a god. I don't see how our average sense-experience could be some form of a message. We just experience stuff, that's it. How could any message be inferred from that? I think that this premise is false.
@@natevenarske
In technical use such as linguistics and related fields such as computer science, terms like 'language' take on very specific meanings for specific domains of usage. The more specific the domain is, the more specific the definition can be. This argument isn't a technically nuanced discussion of what a language is, where the domain is identified and the essential characteristics of the relevant 'agreed-upon' languages are identified and then compared to 'sense experience'. Due to the implications within this argument the relevant languages at hand are natural written or spoken languages, I chose a general definition appropriate to that domain.
I can't say what Apologetics Squared understands or misunderstands, I'm only responding to the argument as presented, and this argument misrepresents both how languages are identified and what sense experience is. The argument does not present a coherent notion of language and it does not establish that 'sense experience' is a language. The 10 'similarities' in this argument are mostly related to some aspects of interpretive processes, but interpretive processes are not restricted to languages so this approach doesn't establish that 'sense experience' is a language.
I agree that as a whole this is an argument, an argument that is unsound. The 'explanation' being offered within this argument is that sense experience is the consequence of God communicating with humans.
I loved this! Keep it up 👏
Berkeley is hardly the brighest horse in stable of philosophy. Though he has a knack for being so inintelligible that some people think, he really has something to say.
Objection: Human language can be precise and unambiguous. God's language thru experience is ambiguous and frequently contradictory.
I think experiences are usually as unambiguous as language. I’m just thinking about the normal stuff I experience throughout the day (driving my car, picking up groceries, etc.) and what I experience is pretty unambiguous. There are ambiguous experiences, but there are ambiguous sentences too. E.g., “Alex wanted to go to Bob’s house, but later he said that he didn’t want to.” Does “he” refer to Alex or Bob? It’s ambiguous!
But if God is trying to communicate thru experience, why does reality's experience seem to communicate a total indifference to humans, leaving even Christians to question why God seems to act like he isn't there.@@ApologeticsSquared
@@charlesvandenburgh5295 I would give a fairly similar answer to the part of the video where I addressed the problem of hallucinations.
It's actually not ambiguous, he refers to Alex @@ApologeticsSquared
Yes. This is correct. You’ve read my fricking mind through and through. That or God says “Hi.”
The argument seems to conflate language with communication/speech. A language is a tool to communicate information. But a sentence written in a language does not necessarily mean that it was written by a mind. Likewise generating experiences can be used to communicate. Gestures for example can be used to communicate. That some experiences are communication by a mind analogously does not mean all experience is communication by a mind.
Now to the deeper question. Are languages like english created? Well that depends on what you mean by created. They were not thought through by a committee or something. English gradually developed as a mesh of a german speaking underclass ruled by a french speaking upper class into a mixture of french and german. Thats kinda how all human languages originated. Random mixtures of the neighboring languages. The origin of languages can be inferred back to simple gestures communicating specific things before our ancestors even were classified as humans. And likewise our senses generated over the same gradual process of natural selection. So yeah it seems, if we generalize enough it is technically true, that both languages and "experiences" developed in a similar way. Both developed by selection pressures for better information gathering and transferring.
My linguistics class is paying off!
Well, congrats in showing a new argument for God, I genuinely dont see many that haven't been done before. I think it is a pretty big flop and needs to be expressed more clearly in a logical form but it doesnt seem to be deritive of any other popular qrguement for God (although its probably closest to a watchmaker arguement).
Bruh I don’t get it
Skill issue
You don't get it because it's sheer bullshit, just making bad reasoning and trying to match your beliefs with that very flawed logic
@@vlogshd2081 ahh, we got an arrogant guy here.
@@endygonewild2899no arrogance buddy just a cold observation of a super weak argument
Just means natural language is reducible to mental pictures, and our sense experience is just a really good mental picture
4:54 to 4:58 - I understood that reference.
Hi! I watched your “Does God really have Free Will? (Alternative Possibilities)” video and I wanted to read more about the solution you proposed. Do you have some sources I could read?
ERAGON MENTIONED. RAHHH 🐲🐲🐲🗡🗡🔮✨️🧝♂️🧙♂️
Doesn't point 4 (interchangeability) conflict with your earlier argument from psychophysical harmony? That argument said we need finely tuned experiences, they aren't interchangeable without chaos. Right?
Great video! Perhaps I misunderstand, but I believe we do speak to God through experience. God tells us to act in certain ways in order to show our love for Him. Paul himself says that if you join yourself to a prostitute, you join Christ to the prostitute. I believe that through the way we act, we communicate to God how we feel about Him and He is able to experience that. This is one of the reasons why actions are important.
We can also interact with God through art. If we sing to Him or paint a striking image about Him, like John Martin or other painters do, then I believe He experiences that as well. As it is written, "Make a joyful noise to The Lord," and also, "In all things, do them as unto The Lord." Even the sacrifices in the OT was presented as if God were there in the temple receiving the sacrifices like it was food to consume.
Yes. I was literally in a discussion about this with a cool dude named CMVMic in the comments of Mike Licona’s video with WLC discussing the Dawkins + O’Connor interview. So so so good, dude.
Solipsism definitely came up in that convo. Bravo.
Please make videos on the empty tomb and the resurrection
Theists are so good at coming up with "arguments" for God that are so absolutely absurd and cringe that no anti-theist could even come up with them as a joke. You can't strawman a theist with an argument for God more ridiculous than the ones they come up with themselves and state with a straight face. The argument from circles, the argument from dirt, the argument from prime numbers, the argument from cheese, the argument from arguments, the argument from punctuation. All of these will eventually have their own books or TH-cam videos as the theist wrings reality for a single drop of God.
I don't know about wringing reality for a drop of God, but I tried wringing this reply for an objection and didn't find one, so that's something.
Edit: I'm not sure whether I agree with this argument, but my point was that this reply was just ad hominem.
@Konxovar0
You realize that the reply isn't so much of an objection but purely an observation.
I would be inclined to agree with the commenter at least to some degree. If you want an objection, read other replies. Or try it yourself. I'm hopeful that despite your leanings, you could also see the problems with this argument.
@@Boundless_Border The biggest issue I see with the argument is there has to be a more substantive connection between language and experience. If you were sure experience was a language, it's an extremely powerful argument. On that point, there need be more evidence.
@Konxovar0
Yeah. While it has more issues, the fact that is the point the entire argument hinges on makes it a bit of a laughable argument. At least to the outsider if you're actually trying to be convincing. Maybe to an insider, it could be an interesting "proof."
@@Boundless_Border The argument is bad, absurdly, cringe-y bad. Do I really need to explain to you how or why it's bad? If you don't think so, you're probably at least halfway a theist.
This argument in itself would not be half as bad if it wasn't lacking the proof that comes before such a theory can be proposed. We do not know if God exists, neither would we know how he chooses to communicate.
Language is a broad term, but the one requirement it needs to fulfill is the transfer of information. Which would make experience a sort of language (even though in order to communicate with established languages we already need to be able to experience, so that seems to be more underlying). However, even if we choose to agree on experience being a valid language, it is not at all an argument for a God. Our experiences are natural, as are the stimuli in nature we respond to (for example a fire breaking out in the forest would communicate danger). However, if we focus on fire as a sentence of experience language, that would mean that it /is/ the means of communication, that is to say that God would have had to start it simply to tell us that it is dangerous. And wouldn't that be... stupid and unnecessary?
@WTFTBone I'm not religious myself, but can you elaborate?
@WTFTBone I get it, although I am still agnostic. I agree that a Christian God is unlikely, if not impossible, to exist. But when defining 'God' in a broader sense as just a metaphysical presence, it becomes impossible to know. However, once people try to get specific (like in religions), there just are a lot of contradictions and hypocrisy.
I think it's always for the best to base your opinions on empirical proof though, so I get you. :)
Just think sometimes it's fun to speculate.
Thanks for explaining yourself further!
That's why I always feel God is expressing something in nature, wind, rain, storms, water, etc, while not identifying those things AS God. And I can look at flowers, trees, and puppies and see God in them because He made them. You can see His hand. You can see His love expressed in them and through them. Like when I feel the wind, I say, "Wow God, You thought of everything for us." or if it storms hard, I can get a little scared and say, "Wow, God, You can be powerful and are worthy to be feared/revered." I can appreciate God by His creation alone.
You can indeed see all of that...IF you presume god in advance. It's feeling, not evidence.
@WTFTBone Down to your biology, you are a miracle; you were wanted and loved by God. Deny Him no more and be blessed by God. Love you, brother.
@@ariah5093 A real person who wanted a relationship would show up in person and talk to one directly. If one has to first "believe" that this person exists, AND THEN "believe" that this person loves one, AND THEN "accept it"...all sight unseen...one can rest assured that the person in question is imaginary.
@@njhoepner God is personal. The best way I can compare it is to the soul inside of your body. The soul is the only things that’s truly you. It’s distinct from your physical body, but it completely controls your body. Your thoughts and feelings are not physical but they both coexist nonetheless. The Holy Spirit can indwell Himself in you alongside with your soul. God can be completely personal with you. ❤️ Don’t miss out on this blessing, brother. It will change your life. I’m rooting for you.
@WTFTBone I’m in college. My major is accounting. Why
I would applaud the refreshingly new argument, but it is simply too bad for me to encourage.
I guess the first way I'd want to address it is that this is a more complex version of "creation needs a creator."
This is made obvious when you state it as an argument from anology. The same issue is that you failed to present something that distinguishes it from merely being language-like in a few qualities to actually being a language.
Further, you fail to understand the crux of the difference between the problem of other minds and positing a god. Accepting other minds existing is consistent with all lived experience and is the refusal to posit your own special status. The behaviors and mechanisms of others are indistinguishable from your own, and as such, to posit them as P-Zombies is to assume your own special status without evidence.
Regarding languages, we observe things that seem language like but very obviously have no minds on either end. So to assume that sense experience which can be argued to be language like is actually a language is to assume some hidden speaker despite the fairly simple idea that it is normal physical processes giving rise to sense experience. Just as other language like behaviors emerge from normal physical processes.
another great video, thanks brother
I'm trying to get through the 'similarities' bit so I can get to the crix of the argument...but...this is just bad.
Hey squared your next video should be about models of god, and which one do you think is the best.
It's interesting and I'm glad you made this video, but it's a very weak argument.
Language is a system of representations. Our Experiences are Representations. ....
Wierd is a subjective evaluation.
You have to define your terms before you make your argument, otherwise you just have empty terms, empty of any real meaning.
Yes.
It is objectively not the strongest as, if everything it says is true, there are still rational objections, but it is definitely pretty good.
Do you mind sharing what you think is good about this argument?
@@Boundless_BorderThe argument from analogy follows after you accept that there are deep similarities between human language and our experience. The four objections he gave were pretty bad, but let me tell you where I think the argument is weak.
1. This is not acknowledged in the video, but the first question I think anyone should ask is "why should you define language in this way?"
2. Whatever definition we make for language, it should be structured in such a way that we can reasonably assume that if something acts in a linguistic manner there is a mind behind it, but still an argument that is needed to demonstrate why this definition of language makes it reasonable to believe there is a mind behind any use of language.
The big problem with this argument is that, even though it is reasonable to assume that something using human language has a mind, it is very difficult for us to know what aspect of human language makes this logical leap reasonable and because of that, no matter how many similarities we draw between language and experience, we cannot know if language and experience share that critical feature which allows us to presume the existence of a mind.
Nonetheless, the more similarities we can draw between experience and language, the higher the probability that we included the critical property which allows us to conclude that there is a mind behind it, so the fact that 10 non-trivial similarities similarities were drawn between language and experience is not insignificant.
@realmless4193
Thanks for sharing. I would have things to say and/or add, but you mostly answered my question.
To confirm, though, the reason you find this good is because it is an argument from anology (which has the implication you mentioned) and because he pointed out 10 "non-trivial" similarities?
@@Boundless_Border Essentially. It is a valid argument which provides real evidence that's about all there is to say about it though. It's not gamechanging though, it just proves that it is rational to rational to believe that a spiritual mind is communicating to us through the language of experience, but it is only as strong as the evidence for the existence of other human minds and, as I pointed out before, is still significantly weaker than that.
@realmless4193
But valid and not necessarily sound arguments isn't "real evidence."
If merely valid arguments were "real evidence," then you could prove any number of things.
That was actually a critical flaw. We don't believe other minds exist because language exists. We consider it true that other minds exist because the mechanisms that allow for it are in others are just as they are in ourselves, and to simply believe they are P-Zombies is to assert ourselves as a special existence without evidence. We could go further, but simply put, we don't believe other minds exist because they speak English.
So it isn't that it is just to a lesser extent. But that we don't use that argument fit other minds at all. At least I've yet to hear an argument for other minds based on the existence of English or something to a similar effect.
1:54 Ah, a Wittgensteinian argument.
Who invented this argument?
9:00 What is a God?
Witginstein
And of His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colours. Indeed there are Signs in this for the wise.
(To guide) those who use their reason (to this Truth) there are many Signs in the structure of the heavens and the earth, in the constant alternation of night and day, in the vessels which speed across the sea carrying goods that are of profit to people, in the water which God sends down from the sky and thereby quickens the earth after it was dead, and disperse over it all manner of animals, and in the changing courses of the winds and the clouds pressed into service between heaven and earth.
Soon shall We show them Our Signs on the horizons and in their own beings until it becomes clear to them that it is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a witness over everything?
How many are the signs in the heavens and the earth which people pass by without giving any heed!
Ah the incoherent ramblings of an apologist.