Why Self Consciousness Disproves Atheism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Greg Bahnsen explaining his method of apologetics, when dealing with competing world views, he suggests to always ask, 'Which world view can make X intelligible?'
The full video: • Basic Training for def...
0:58 No, the professors won't tell you that because lying about science is not something they are given money to do, unlike this pastor.
In summary: "I can't explain this, therefore my specific god dunnit"
Classic god of the gaps.
Like their God makes any more sense than there not being a God
I'm sorry this is such a low level of understanding of how things work. He doesn't understand basic biology, let alone emergence or emergent phenomenon. He's basically just doing the "how many grains of sand does it take to make a mountain." Except he then concludes, incorrectly, that mountains don't exist under the sand world view. Not to mention the clear conflation of atheism with materlism. Not all atheist are materialists. Please learn the basics before you jump in like this.
What is emergence? Can you give an example of it that isn't simply a change in the level of description of a system? It's seems to be a magic word people invoke so that they don't have to defend their world view anymore. There's no such thing as actual emergence if all things can be reduced to atomic behaviour.
He doesn’t have to. He believes in god. /s
I understand biology and emergent phenomena and I don’t see where his argument is wrong. He isn’t making a sand-mountain argument at all. A mountain can be decomposed maybe into sand if one wishes, but consciousness cannot be demonstrably decomposed into the physical make-up of a person.
His argument is that consciousness doesn't exist in the components, so how does it exist in the whole? That is fairly analogous to how does a mountain emerge from its components. You're free to disagree, but make an argument.
What do you mean consciousness cannot be decomposed into the makeup of a person? We find a consciousness stops being present when the brain is sufficiently damaged. The most parsimonious answer is the brain is the source of consciousness. We even have lots of evidence from split brain patients that seems to indicate what we would call two consciousnesses now present in one body. This is not always the case, of course, but that it occurs at all further backs up that the brain is the source of it.
@@MichaelDeHaven Agreed.
I got an "answer"
You Dont
Therefore my "answer" is right
Non sequeter that works great on an audience full of people that dont know the rules of syllogisms
Religions only work if theres unknowns said religion can pretend to have "answers" for that arent verifiable on any way.
When one field of knowledge passes a judgment on another, it's frequently a misinterpretation rather than definitive proof. The pursuit of deeper understanding within any domain is driven not by preconceived intent, but by a readiness to embrace the unknown. I am not saying the man in the video did, but the certainly did.
this insight is actually what led me to believe in God in the first place. when i began to study philosophy and poetry in college, i came to realize that i could not only be a physical creature, for my conscious experiences had a weight and a structure irreducible to physical processes. from here, i came to understand the existence of the soul, and from there i came to understand that there is a God. before this insight, my life as a scientific materialist was as described by arcade fire: "walking around, head full of sound, acting like we don't exist."
Almost 50 years ago this argument allowed me to cling to some hope of an eternal soul for an extra year after reason had forced me to leave christianity. Even then I understood that the only thing that experiencing consciousness proves is that consciousness exists, it doesn't prove anything supernatural much less a god
Anybody that seriously says "Self Consciousness" doesn't know what they're talking about.
These exact things are exactly what Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky say about determinism and human action.
Something disproving atheism is such a bizarrely wrong statement in so many levels. A lack of belief cannot be 'disproven', just as a belief cannot be disproven either. It is the proposition that this belief refers to (or conversely, the lack thereof) that could potentially be disproven. And I don't see how the non existence of Gods could be disproven (again, much like how their existence cannot be conclusively disproven either).
I mean, this was just a 'great' to propose an argument: by writing a sentence that 1) doesn't even make sense and 2) would be definitely wrong even if it made sense. Congratulations.
You are right, Atheism according to most dictionaries is defined as you say. I still chose Atheism because many times when we use that word we move beyond the dictionary defintion of 'lack of belief' to address the broader implications of 'Atheism' one of which is Naturalism (most of the time)
'Atheism' is more commonly understood and used by the public. A more accurate title for the video would be
"Why Self Consciousness demonstrates the inadequacy of atheistic presuppositions"
One could again argue that atheism is not a worldview (rightly so, unless it is used synonymous with Naturalism) and can't have underlying presuppositions.
But these are all semantics games. If you are an Atheist who is not a Naturalist, I will change the title
@@cogitofide There are no atheistic presuppositions. A presupposition is something that you assume in order to make an argument. Atheists aren't making an argument. They're simply saying that they see no evidence for the god that theists claim exists. There's no presupposition there. The stance is based on a lack of evidence, not an assumption. Theists on the other hand must assume that god exists, as there is no good evidence to support the claim that one does.
@@scottmoore7588 as I said these word games can get tiresome sometimes. And the richness of human language would make it possible for us to debate this thing for a long time
"presupposition: a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action."
someone declaring himself an Atheist means that person will presuppose certain things about epistemology and ontology (empiricism and Naturalism).
Everything we say or do has underlying foundational beliefs. Someone saying 'I am an Atheist' could be seen as an action and thus it fits the definition of presupposition.
Any belief or lack of belief has certain underlying assumptions about the nature of reality.
@@cogitofide You don't have to presuppose that there are no gods to be an atheist, nor do you have to adhere to philosophical naturalism. All you have to do is not believe any of the god claims you've come across, for any reason. I'm sure you already know this, but I'm writing it anyway for the benefit of those not familiar with the broad range of definitions. People who, for example, can't make sense of someone being an 'agnostic atheist'. On a side note, I get a bit annoyed whenever atheism is associated with philosophical naturalism, because while the former is just a position of non-belief or non-acceptance, the latter is a pretty bold assertion.
@@cogitofide "Someone declaring himself an Atheist means that person will presuppose certain things about epistemology and ontology (empiricism and Naturalism)."
Even if I were to agree with you (and I don't, mind you), that would still be infinitely more rational than presupposing the Bible. Give me a break.
"Any belief or lack of belief has certain underlying assumptions about the nature of reality."
So are you essentially saying that atheists presuppose that looking for evidence before reaching a conclusion about something is a rational thing to do, while theists don't? If so, thank you for blatantly admitting that theists don't care about evidence. This is something that many atheists are well aware of, which is what makes it extremely frustrating when they claim that they do care about evidence, and that they have it for their god. The best "evidence" theists have ever presented me with is questions that we don't currently have the answer to, and situations that we don't currently know the cause of. Neither of those are proof of anything other than the fact that there are things we don't know about. How anyone can interpret that as proof of a god absolutely floors me.
So, it's either atheism or judeo-christian? Couple other options my friend.
In biology, self-consciousness would seem to be a highly adaptable trait for an animal to have. Such an animal could impose its will on its environment more effectively than other animals, for example. I don't see how this disproves atheism.
Intelligence is not self-awareness. According to an Atheist, there is no added biological value for an animal to understand that they exist and will one day die. They should just be highly intelligent animals. Why do we know that we exist, why do we feel responsible for bad things that have been done and proud when we accomplish great things. In other words in a purely material world, humans would just be meat machines, with no thoughts or feelings. They would have instincts of course, but there would exist no observer of the feelings that occur to the human.
Great "content." Just taking someone else's lecture and posting it without comment. Plus this guy is absolutely pedestrian in his philosophy.
you can't "disprove" atheism, because it's not a fact claim, it's a belief claim. "do you believe there is a god or gods?" if you answer "yes", you are a theist, if you answer "no" then you are an atheist.
atheism is also not a worldview. an atheist can be nihilist, they can be humanitarian, they can be a hard solipsist. so long as their worldview doesn't include a god or gods, they are also an atheist.
When he says towards the end "that isn't to say I can tell you how God did it, it's not that kind of 'how' question, a mechanical question", and then proceeds to quote the Bible, it just shows you how profoundly uninterested he actually is in the topic he spent the previous five minutes talking about. You can tell this guy doesn't lend much thought to the concept of emergent properties in biology, because such ideas are not compatible with a hands-on creator of the universe who made us in its own image. The dudes at the Discovery Institute at least try, they pay actual PhD graduates to confuse gullible churchgoers with technical jargon. This guy just seemingly builds up to an argument and then goes "look, the Bible says you're a fool if you don't believe me". Pathetic.
you dont have to know everything about a subject to conclude thats how things work. most people dont know anything about rocket science but they know rockets are real. you just need to be able to be smart enough to know what is real and what is not and thats what he is talking about. hope this helps. if you want to delve deeper into rocket science, you can, and so can you with this topic as well.
@@Bullybob77 If I knew absolutely nothing about rockets, I might as well put their existence down to an angry patriarchal god shaking his fist in the sky. That's the level this guy is at. Nowhere in the video does he explain how awareness of the self, consciousness, etc can only be explained by the existence of the god of Christianity. Do you have a better take perhaps?
@Dystopikachu just like you are wrong about thinking rockets are God's angry fists, you also know nothing about consciousness to not understand it cannot come into being by reaching a tipping point of complexity.
@@Bullybob77 I ask again, why is that? You seem very confident, I'm sure you have an answer that is within the realm of science. Why can't consciousness be an emergent property of a sufficient number of inter-connective neurons and synapses?
Science gave me myocarditis 😵
Infinity must be the basis of reality, so the universe must incline to increasing complexity, which emergently generates an intellect which people have perceived and labelled "God" and "gods" with wildly varying descriptions.
reminds me of mac from always sunny arguing with dennis about god vs science
All those bright young students spending an hour of their youth listening to this drivel. And the lecturer, eloquent and well- groomed and of at least average intelligence, devoting his life to the promulgation of scientific ignorance. This is obscene.
Amen? uh..Damn straight.
Your god is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. Bone cancer in children? Save your philosopical arguments, accept that if your magic man existed, he would be called an immoral prankster.
the speaker Greg Bahnsen had a couple of lectures on the Problem of Evil, which can be found on the Bahnsen Insititute.
if you watched the video you probably understood that his approach is to compare opposing world views and look for internal problems. A worldview's presuppositions are taken for granted and are then examined for their logical conclusions.
For example, If we take the Christian world view for granted, there can not be a problem of Evil, since God is good by definition. It is true that Evil exists, but there is a justification for it that we, from our limited human perspective may not fully comprehend.
If we take the Materialistic Atheistic worldview: The critique collapses because, within the materialistic framework, one can not account for objective moral judgements at all (for example, that bone cancer is evil)
and lastly to quote Bahnsen on this issue, as he put it very nicely:
"So I would conclude paradoxically that there can only be a problem of evil, if evil is not ultimately a problem. The critic cannot generate the problem without assuming that which he wishes to refute, and thus the door is open for us to ask this very significant question. Whether the problem of evil explains one's atheism or whether one's atheism explains his insistence that evil is problematic."
@@cogitofide I feel pity for you. Your mind is poisoned by an evil dogma that lets you ignore or justify actual suffering.
@@cogitofide My atheism comes from the lack of evidence for a god's existence. The problem of evil is simply an internal critique of a god that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. If your only refutation to that is "There's a justification but no one can understand it", you've essentially admitted that there is not in fact a justification. The fact is that theists claim certain things to be objectively evil such as murder, yet when the Bible talks about how god commanded people to commit genocides, they simply claim that god must have had a good reason to command people to do something that he has supposedly declared to be immoral. No matter how you slice it, either god doesn't understand how words work, or he's a liar when he says that murder is always immoral.
@@speedingatheist He probably wants to do that since he isn't the one suffering. It's truly despicable how theists will be completely apathetic towards other people's struggles in life. I knew a theist who's mother died from cancer, and some of his theist friends literally told him that our suffering in this world is virtually meaningless when you remember that an eternal afterlife awaits you where you'll be reunited with your loved ones. Religion is all about lying to people to get them to ignore their real and valid problems in the one and only life we know we're going to have. It makes me sick to even think about.
@@cogitofide I hope for Bahnsen's sake that you're telling it wrong, because that is just completely terrible.
The problem of Evil is only a problem for certain theistic worldviews, *because* they proclaim that God is all-good. By definition, the problem does not exist for atheistic worldviews or for theistic worldviews that do not posit an omnibenevolent all powerful deity, like the Greek pantheon.
What you're describing is a complete failure to understand, much less address the problem. The worse part is this quote: "but there is a justification for it that we, from our limited human perspective may not fully comprehend" which is basically an admission of failure couched in language of victory. "I have an answer but you couldn't understand it, but trust me!"
Seldom heard so much bullshit in 6 minutes.
What does it prove? That apologetics is the goddamn bullcrap it is.
Five minutes belaboring a fallacy of composition, an argument from ignorance, and lying about science. Presuppositionalists worship Bahnsen almost to idolatry, but he fails at the very basics of reason, even if you granted his ridiculous idea that "only Christians can ground reason."
Everyone in this comment section is Lost and no one will be found
I would suggest that the lost soul may be the narrow minded religious folk that get their science and biology from a 3,000 year old book that says :
1. God made man out of the dust of the ground.
2. the Earth and the Universe were created in six days a few thousand years ago
3.Sirach 17:6 says: He gave us a HEART to think with.
Not to mention the fact that God condones slavery, conducts genocide on a regular basis and likes the smell of burning flesh.
Again, who is the lost soul ???
you're kind of right, i don't know what i'm doing in this corner of youtube. i watch atheists respond to this stuff so i guess youtube thought i'd want to see the original stuff. because this garbage has been getting pushed into my feed. and i get lost down rabbit holes...
@@randyorr9443 If you believe in science you believe in God. Nothing requires more faith than the idea that the universe exhibits rational structure and order which can be perceived and understood by the human mind for its own betterment.
The earth was created six thousand years ago? Modern science tells us time is relative, so by some clocks yes that fact is absolutely correct. Man was made from dust? We are all made of atoms and molecules are we not?
And does God condone genocide and awful deeds? You are viewing things through the lenses of an entitled materialistic world-view, where you believe this world is all that matters, and so ascribe incorrect significance to events which would have correct meaning only in the full scope of context of a world beyond. You do not yet realize that your viewpoint is that of a mind not yet fully matured… may you make it there one day.
Well, that was dumb.