The funny thing is, I teach this stuff about why math works and what it is *in high school*. This is stuff one should be able to expect any adult to know.
Holy hell! AntiCitizen posts a new video, and Martymer comments on it? That's like finding a black sheep and watching in awe as a white raven lands on its back...
Just for a little context: I’m just 2 years younger than WLC and raised in Ohio and went to Christian schools from kindergarten through 12th grade. It was the era of the Cold War and the Space Race. They taught this stuff to me. (No, I never worked in a scientific field. I’m a lawyer.). WLC just wasn’t paying attention. Worse, he never bothered to go back and learn it or to have serious conversations with mathematicians. He just went with his “awe.”
@@Ffkslawlnkn Since when are we supposed to care about the consensus of philosophers? What qualifications do they have on the foundations of mathematics? I have yet to meet a single philosopher who properly studied the least bit of proof theory or number theory.
Reasonable Faith: How can a tool created for the express purpose of describing the world possibly describe the world? Me: I think you just answered your own question.
I think that point about "if it didn't work, we'd make another model" cannot be overstated enough. Take something as simple as counting. Normally, when you count, you go: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and you *never* get a number twice and no one things anything of it. BUT the minute we start talking about clocks, suddenly that all goes out the window and now the number after 12 is 1 and things repeat infinitely. There's nothing particularly special about the math that we haven't chosen _specifically_ to fit whatever situation we're trying to describe.
We'd make another field of math, yes, but not replace mathematics with something else. The argument is about mathematics itself. I suppose you could replace math with trial and error or such but it wouldn't work as well, which is the point of the argument.
@@tungom8752 your argument is like saying we could hypothetically communicate using hand gestures (which many people do), but that would be difficult, so therefore spoken language must be a discovery. Why exactly are you so defensive against formalism? I’ve plainly shown you the inventive process (axioms), which settles the case once and for all. Why is that so hard to just accept?
Edit: Also I wrote this 40 seconds in after the opening British guy but before the explanation that basically said exactly what I said here but better. Ah the old "rain in a pothole" fallacy again. "Math describes nature therefore math was used to *create* nature, ergo God." Except _we_ invented math to describe nature. Of course it fits. If it didn't, we would have used different math and we'd be right back to having this exact same conversation with different numbers. Anyway, good vid. Rebranding is hard, but good job all around.
Math is meant to be a descriptive tool for how the many nuances of nature works; NOT a prescriptive dictate from some from some higher power as many cultists would like to have us believe.
@@jasonborn867 , us being anyone that actually believes in science and intellectual, honesty and no I do not have an imaginary friend. I pretty much have a burning hatred for anything that has a has an ideology demanding reverence or else whether it's something like the church (abrahamic cults being the most prominent example of, rather it be Judaism Christianity or Islam), or the state like what they had in the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, or or whatever the f*** Christo-fascist Republicans are trying to push right now to.
@@BloodDracolich We are on the same page, and it's good news many Democrats and Republicans do not believe in a god. I'm so sick of hearing politicians say "In God We Trust" but it seems like a long road before folks accept god as imaginary. There's too much disinformation and too little intellectual curiosity, imo.
@@BloodDracolich Stupid is one thing, but just heard Biden the other day trying to push god rhetoric--and I can't believe he's stupid enough to believe in a god. It's one thing believing blindly despite the evidence, and quite another pushing a lie when catholic Joe knows it ain't so. lol. Atheism just doesn't seem popular for U.S. presidents...
As a fellow engineer, I absolutely support and am a huge fan of the new channel name! Engineers just have a particular way of thinking about things that just appeals to me
@24:11 "We know what nath is, we know where it comes from..." that is so trivially true that it's hard to imagine someone pretending otherwise. "Hey teacher, where does the Pythagorean therom come from?" "It came from Pythagoras." "Oh. Well what about euclidean geometry?" "That came from Euclid." "Ok, but what about Newton's laws if motion? Where did they come from?" "They came from Newtown." "Alright, but what about..." "Listen kid, if you have any more questions about the history or origins of mathematical concepts, then just Google them and read who discovered them and how."
Glad your back, happy to be able to see more stuff from you. Can’t wait for more content I wonder if you will cover more “omni” trait related things, those are my favorite logical discussions tbh
I'm happy to see more content by you, especially in times like these. You're an adept philosopher. I've viewed all your Vids several times and got a lot out of them. Atheism empowered!
The man, the myth, the legend! He hath return'd! Praise be to the mighty nice TH-cam fella! May the fleas of a thousand camels descend on the groins of your most short-armed enemies. Amen!
Every time I see this argument I repeat one and the same thing: if you’re wondering why does mathematics “work” - you should also think why a hammer is so good at hammering nails! The answers to both of those questions are the same - and spoiler alert - it’s not “gawdeedeat!”
Sure. Like there is no such thing as alternative medicine. Either it is or it is not medicine. There is no middle ground. I don't care what you want to call homeopathic concoctions as long as you neither say nor imply that they are "medicine". They all flush down the toilet equally easily. Same with laying on of hands or whatever other nonsense they claim. Bunch of sad-sacks if you ask me.
Welcome back! Solid rebuttal of Craig's work, and perhaps more convincing is that other mathematicians support your logic. That said, it's probable other false premises underpin his religious belief such as rewards/blessings for rejecting logical propositions. For this reason I think most believers suspend logic and deliberately choose irrationality, which may explain Craig's flawed association.
Wow. I've been out of this game for too long. When I first heard the opening statement from the Reasonable Faith video, I immediately thought "Is he arguing for Platonism?" Then I remembered what kind of guy Craig is and laughed at myself.
I have to believe that Craig knows exactly what he's doing. This might sound convincing to someone who is unwilling or unable to think through what he's saying (because they want to believe in the religious justification), but surely he's educated enough to know how facile it is. Or maybe he's just blinded by The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit™ too...
It’s even more ridiculous when we consider that there is a plethora of religions and philosophies which make supernatural claims without any god, like Eastern Asian philosophy and many modern esoteric movements. They act like everyone who doesn’t believe in (a) god is automatically a naturalist.
Maybe WLC should read Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Mathematics" to see that just because you can do math doesn't mean you are in the right track to formulate a theory in physics
@17:26 - Here we go - point PERFECTLY stated - & that which, to my knowledge, WLC has never even attempted to offer any response - though that question should be posed to any apologist who claims a 'philosophical necessity' for their supernatural godbeing/creator thing's existence.
Great dissection, well done 😊 I heard the experts point out that we still don't have the proper math for dealing with non-linear systems - that are most prominent in...oh yeah: our natural world 😊 That alone is enough to dismiss this argument
@@AntiCitizenX It predicts that it happens. Newton predicts that the precession is 5557 arcseconds per century, while the measured precession is 5600 arcseconds per century. In other words, its off by 43 arcseconds per century, or 0.43 arcseconds per year. That's pretty close. GR does better, of course, but Newton wasn't far off.
Glad to see you are back in full swing! Splendid content! At 08:08 you mention that subatomic particles are demonstrably random in their behaviour. But there are interpretations of quantum mechanics that are still deterministic, either trough hidden variables, many worlds or some other mechanism. Do you dismiss these interpretations as possibilities or did you not mention them as they where less relevant to your point? Not that it harms any part of you argument/video, nor does non-determinism open the door to libertarian free will, I am just curious about your thoughts on the subject.
I’ve been debating whether or not to share my opinions on QM interpretations. I’ve done serious research in the field. For now, all I can say is that hidden variable theories are generally not respected among physicists.
I think he made a video in the past where he asked if a computer that made decisions based on quantum mechanics had free will (presumably not?) But yeah it’s interesting to think about
What do you think about Jay Dyer's Transcendental Argument for God (TAG Argument)? Maybe you could respond to one of his videos about it where he explains it, like here. The people who find it convincing feel very strongly about it, but that's Jay's entire audience pretty much (very pushy).
TAG is basically just like every other argument for God: A gigantic onion of philosophical wrongness where every layer you peel of just reveals another layer wrong.
I think the theist types who use this sort of argumentation use the 'law' in two incompatible ways. We all know what a law in science is but they also suggest it has a legal sense in that matter has to 'obey' the laws.
Excellent video AntiCitizenX. Have you ever thought of collaborating with Paulogia? You would make an excellent collaboration with him as he has collaborated with so many other individuals.
In short, numbers are adjectives not nouns. Adjectives are descriptions of reality and if accurate, have predictive power when used in well defined and consistent ways.
Remember ... according to Dr. Craig's own words, nothing in his video has anything to do with why he is a Christian. Did I hear someone say post hoc rationalization? Yes, I believe I did!
Maybe I'm alone in this opinion, but I have to say that I find your avatar animations incredibly distracting. I really enjoy your content but for this video I ended up having to cover the left side of the screen with my hand to follow along. Personally, I would prefer just the slideshow and the audio - but I understand that other people may prefer your format and, more importantly, you may prefer this format. All I'm saying, is that you may be able to save some time in making videos by simply reducing the avatar animations a bit.
Because video of dr craig is little bit short. So it is hard to not misunderstand some concept. Im sure dr craig aware many people believe math is human invention, but he doesnt believe in it for some reason. I never see any video of dr craig explain why he doesnt believe about it, but may be you should email or debate online with him
This basically comes down to the debate whether mathematics is discovered or invented. Craig adopts the former position because it serves his theist worldview. Nevertheless it's really absurd to claim that there exists only order in the universe, since chaos obviously exists as well. They coexist together. The problem is that a divine creator with a perfect orderly mind would have no reason to allow chaos. It would be a contradiction if he did. That's why silly theists like Craig pretend that chaos doesn't exist.
Nice video. Only one thing: Einstein's theories have not replaced Newton's. They have added to our knowledge and expanded existing theories. Parts of Newton are incomplete and, if you look very closely, certainly wrong. That doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong. That's one thing that a lot of people misunderstand about science. It's not about one being right and one being wrong. It's about expanding our knowledge and building on the theories of those who came before us. "We all stand on the shoulders of giants."
*Einstein's theories have not replaced Newton's. They have added to our knowledge and expanded existing theories* I beg to differ. Newton's laws are objectively and demonstrably wrong. This has been known for decades. They are not just "incomplete." They are false. They fail to predict the outcomes of many different experiments. They are only *approximately* valid under certain low-velocity conditions. The theory of special relativity absolutely replaces Newtonian mechanics, because relativity both encompasses Newtonian approximations while simultaneously predicting a wider body of data---including electricity and magnetism! This is not to say that Newton's law are useless or abandoned, however. The difference between Newtonian physics and relativistic is trivially insignificant under many practical conditions. We like to use them because they are intuitive and mathematically simple. But that does not make Newton's laws any less falsified. It just makes them "useful," which is directly antithetical to the claims of Reasonable Faith. Remember that the whole point of the argument is NOT to say that Newtonian mechanics have been overthrown to the point of never seeing use. I neither said nor implied that interpretation. I only pointed out the simple fact that Newton's laws are expressed as mathematical equations which do NOT reflect reality in any strict, philosophical sense.
@@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785 I don’t think it is meaningful to speak of “facts existing.” Fact are not literal entities within the universe. Facts are propositions which we human beings express through language. philosophy is riddled with nonsensical confusions like this because philosophers don’t know how to clarify their own jargon.
@@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785 you need to be very specific in what you are asking. Again, 90% of philosophical disagreements only exist because philosophers keep playing fast and loose with their questions. So what exactly do you mean by modality and necessitarianism? Modal logic is certainly a thing, and it is a useful tool for expressing ideas. That doesn’t mean modality literally “exists” in the universe.
So, great video once again but I have one problem. I find the guy's animations quite distracting. He's too... exaggerated and I can't stop but stare at him and lose focus on what is being said. And not infrequently the poses seem to convey something different or are way too exaggerated for what is being said and that distracts me even more. I never ever had this issue with any of your previous work.
@@MatheusHauser “All bachelors are unmarried men.” Does that statement make empirical predictions about the world? No. It’s a statement about language and meaning. The more appropriate way to think of it is that we can use language to formulate empirical predictions. But the language itself is entirely separate. Maps are another example. Maps are human inventions. We also use maps to navigate the world. But the language of cartography is our own invention
What is the difference between, let’s say, “2 + 2 = 4” and “f = m • a”? The former is analytic while the latter is synthetic? I don’t get the difference between accurately representing something and making empirical predictions. The phrase “but the language itself is entirely separate” seems confusing
@@MatheusHauser F=ma is an analytic proposition. It essentially defines the meaning of the word "force." There are many supposed "laws" of physics that are actually just glorified definitions. Ohm's law is another great example, as it basically just defines the meaning of resistance/impedance. *The phrase “but the language itself is entirely separate” seems confusing* Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant to say that language is separate from empirical predictions. As in, we use language to formulate synthetic propositions in the form of empirically predictive models. But the language itself is an entirely separate thing that needs to be established beforehand.
But doesn’t F=ma make empirical predictions? As in, if you apply a given Force to an object of a given mass, the equation predicts a certain amount of acceleration, for example. Therefore, f=ma is synthetic, because It speaks about reality by making empirically falsifiable predictions. For example, even though “2 + 2 = 4” is derived from the raw meaning we impose on the terms, can’t we apply this equation as to “predict” something? I guess It’s a weird and unintuitive way to think about It, but can’t I predict that, if I have 2 apples and you give me 2 more, I should expect to have 4 apples, and not 5? Or is this precisely what you mean when you say language is separate from any empirical prediction (I have to establish the language first analytically, and then I proceed to employ It as to make predictions, but the predictions aren’t inherent to the language Itself)?
@@MatheusHauser Read the equation as if it were an English sentence: “Force is equal to mass times acceleration.” That’s it. That’s at definition for the meaning of “force.” It is quite literally “the thing that makes stuff accelerate.” This is widely acknowledged in most textbooks, too, so I’m not sure why you’re disputing it. The idea is widely known to be a kind of tautology. But it works to help us formulate equations and predictions.
Hello! I have a couple suggestions. You should make a Discord server. That way you can have a community hub and have some proper conversations. Also, Discord servers are remarkably active compared to most other media, pretty much invariably. Also, I think The Art of Being Wrong should definitely be published as a video. Anyway, I have some thoughts about the video topic, but it's kinda something I either have to spend a while meticulously typing a long comment about, or just dynamically address in conversation. So I won't discuss it yet. Oh, also the animation looks pretty weird lol. I know it's automated but it just looks like filler that's pretty repetitive, fast and distracting with your arms going everywhere
*I think The Art of Being Wrong should definitely be published as a video.* It's coming. Just be patient. I recorded the audio. Animation will take some time.
So I'm just gonna put that out there, as I am sure many people have before me... I was a completely faithful Jehovah's Witness for the good part of 20 years. I reaaally did believe in that whole fatherly figure who's gonna take care of you if you follow his tenets kind of bullshit for so much time it basically destroyed my adolescence. I was raised with moralistic principles that made me believe I was superior to others by simply believing in something else that I could not prove, and that I had the moral duty of helping them, as if they utterly needed the help of a 14 year-old inexperienced piece of carbon. Surely then, I joined Music School and by sheer luck, I had a great teacher who was a huge nerd in propositional philosophy and all matters rational. He taught Music Theory and it was such an elegant way of displaying the artistic experience I had been craving and enjoying. The inciting incident was that, he had no need to separate what is technical from what is artistic. Several times after class we talked, and I, most likely babbled arrogantly about many aspects I didn't know or could demonstrate about the nature of the universe and other stuff (though, to my credit, I listened a whole lot of what he said, and that is what prompted my change). After a while, I started to realize how arrogant and ridiculous some of my arguments were, as well as I could emotionally feel the sheer lack of existence of such a deity I believed existed for my sole well being because... I wasn't well at all. At that moment, I hadn't even touched a woman in my entire life, I constantly felt isolated from my peers, I missed affection I could not express and I constantly got depressed due to all the previous knowledge I had that used to be useful in describing the universe (which is nothing to be ashamed of, since, as with science and our study of it, we constantly learn how ignorant we are). So I decided I had had enough of that lie and became an atheist. Little by little I would remove every brick that was painstakingly put around myself and relieved my mind of the mental encumbrance of all those years of faith, and traded that, SLOWLY AND PAINSTAKINGLY for little orbs of understanding that floated around, unconnected to anything else. It was a fearsome and challenging experience. But curiously, I didn't feel alone anymore. Instead, I slowly began to perceive that I felt more confident, not in myself, but in the tools I had learned how to use. I felt confident in my mind, because I had the arguments to defend the things I thought, just like I had the argument as to why Beethoven's 9th Symphony is an undeniable masterpiece. Knowledge and art, as much as metaphysics and mathematics were not excluding to each other: I had just calibrated them very wrongly at the beginning of my life, as so many had done before me. And found out I was wrong. Which again, is completely fine. Today I have no problem with self esteem, I dare say I can easily make any woman satisfied in bed, I care about my friends and found the few good ones that care about me, I have graduated in English Letters, and though haven't followed up in that area, I am grateful for all the knowledge that has been bestowed upon me in both Music School and the English one. That makes who I am and now I can take empirically useful decisions guided by a pragmatic understanding of reality to my benefit and those I love. I am a better man, a competent lover, an inquiring student and a reasonable private teacher. Because I know how to question and I know who is worth listening to. I have learned that "to sharpen up a sword, you have to remove pieces from it forcefully". Thank you for making these videos. Many times during my journey I had thought if I was right in the beginning and doing something "wrong", or betraying myself. Your pure and cohesive logic has clearly demonstrated that I didn't. And to those that say that AntiCitizedX (that name was dope, btw) is unnecessarily angry in his propositions and disrespectful... his "enthusiasm" is well appropriate. These types of ideas are DESTROYING the lives of people around the world. I will never get my youth back, the most precious time in life, which I squandered worshiping an imaginary absent father figure that is basically described in his way of acting as a spoiled child. I thank you, sir, again. We have crafted science "a ferro e fogo". It it is the most precious thing humanity has ever engineered. And I hope we can keep improving it.
I think you are overusing the character gestures a bit. I found it distracting. Overall, actually, i liked the old character more, for some reason. Which isnt just a "old things are always better" argument, as i quite enjoyed the rework of similar characters on completely unrelated channels previously, but here something didnt click for me. Maybe it's a bit of an uncanny vally thing. The old character was intentionally a bit rough and crazy looking and offered a weird sense of entertainment. This one is supposed to look a bit more professional, but while doing so just ends up weirding me out and even distracting me. I mean 16:05 for example, it's just way too much. For me personally at least. Others may like it.
@@AntiCitizenX I appreciate the reply. Keep up the good work. I'm a huge fan of your philosophical failures of christian apologetics series and some others!
Pretty sure the video referenced the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Fun fact: All of those billions were spent to actually determine if the Higgs Field exists by exciting a boson, and until then, no predictive models assumed that even the Higgs Field existed. Additional Fun fact: the same math that was part of the prediction also showed that the Boson of that field would have a certain mass... and that part was wrong. According to the math, our universe can't exist. Our universe does seem to exist, though, so clearly there's no obligation for reality to conform to our math.
People have used math to predict a whole host of things. Like that there's a massive planet in orbit around our sun but so far out that we can't see it because it doesn't reflect enough light. But pure mathematical modeling doesn't determine what we treat as accurate to reality when it comes to accepted science. That massive "Planet X" won't be added to any educational textbooks until we actually verify its existence through direct observation.
@@AntiCitizenX I must have missed that, sorry. Yeah, the Higgs Boson has less mass than it "should". So now there are competing schools of thought. One introduces additional hypothetical particles that interact with the Boson to cancel some of that mass. One notable physicist, Nima Arkani-Hamed, proposes that the universe can't be natural... meaning that it *was* manufactured. Or perhaps the multi-verse model could explain the fault. I, personally, not being a theoretical physicist, just think that they ultimately got it wrong... but since they got it right enough to have predicted the existence of the Higgs Field in the first place, they're assuming that they didn't get any of it wrong. It could even be that we're witnessing the limitations of current human invention. Our models are "good enough for practicality" but it could all just be wrong in the long run. Our models have been improved over time... down a line of evolving thought and technology... but maybe there are potentially better models down different "branches" and we only just ended up on our current "branch" because of what we had to start with. Not in the woo sense, mind you, I'm talking about branches of thought that inherently *don't* adhere to *any* parts of human intuition or imagination.
If 2+2=4 because God wills it, then the equation is arbitrary, God could also will 2+2 to be 5 then all math is render meaningless. If 2+2 = 5 is true, as a brute fact we don't need God to account for its validity.
That’s a good point. I thought I gave this a better title, but now that I look at it, it could be more descriptive. I changed it to make more sense. Let me know if this is better.
Personally, I can't even imagine what a mathematically-indescribable Universe would look like. Such a Universe couldn't even contain a natural number of objects and/or particles. It seems like an incoherent concept.
The math=god argument has always been very strange to me. You could calculate a 1-ton vehicle hitting a wall at 50mph would have a force of so many pounds per square inch. But that math has no meaning unless humans have defined tons, miles, hours, pounds, and inches. Any resulting number means nothing unless humans have defined what that unit of measurement is.
The funny thing is, I teach this stuff about why math works and what it is *in high school*. This is stuff one should be able to expect any adult to know.
Holy hell! AntiCitizen posts a new video, and Martymer comments on it? That's like finding a black sheep and watching in awe as a white raven lands on its back...
Just for a little context: I’m just 2 years younger than WLC and raised in Ohio and went to Christian schools from kindergarten through 12th grade. It was the era of the Cold War and the Space Race. They taught this stuff to me. (No, I never worked in a scientific field. I’m a lawyer.). WLC just wasn’t paying attention. Worse, he never bothered to go back and learn it or to have serious conversations with mathematicians. He just went with his “awe.”
There is no consensus among philosophers about what mathematics is and what makes true mathematical propositions necessarily true.
@@Horvath_Gabor now throw in a crocoduck
@@Ffkslawlnkn Since when are we supposed to care about the consensus of philosophers? What qualifications do they have on the foundations of mathematics? I have yet to meet a single philosopher who properly studied the least bit of proof theory or number theory.
"How do round things know how to roll? I just don't understand, must be ghosts."
- Craig, probably
Tides go in, tides go out…
This is exactly Craig’s “argument”.
Low-bar Bill seems more like Willy Lying Crap...
Reasonable Faith: How can a tool created for the express purpose of describing the world possibly describe the world?
Me: I think you just answered your own question.
I think that point about "if it didn't work, we'd make another model" cannot be overstated enough. Take something as simple as counting. Normally, when you count, you go: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and you *never* get a number twice and no one things anything of it. BUT the minute we start talking about clocks, suddenly that all goes out the window and now the number after 12 is 1 and things repeat infinitely. There's nothing particularly special about the math that we haven't chosen _specifically_ to fit whatever situation we're trying to describe.
Clock arithmetic pretty much destroys every argument for the absoluteness of mathematical objects, if you ask me.
Modulus arithmetic is a wonderful thing.
We'd make another field of math, yes, but not replace mathematics with something else. The argument is about mathematics itself.
I suppose you could replace math with trial and error or such but it wouldn't work as well, which is the point of the argument.
@@tungom8752 your argument is like saying we could hypothetically communicate using hand gestures (which many people do), but that would be difficult, so therefore spoken language must be a discovery.
Why exactly are you so defensive against formalism? I’ve plainly shown you the inventive process (axioms), which settles the case once and for all. Why is that so hard to just accept?
I love getting updates about new videos from you.
Edit: Also I wrote this 40 seconds in after the opening British guy but before the explanation that basically said exactly what I said here but better.
Ah the old "rain in a pothole" fallacy again. "Math describes nature therefore math was used to *create* nature, ergo God." Except _we_ invented math to describe nature. Of course it fits. If it didn't, we would have used different math and we'd be right back to having this exact same conversation with different numbers.
Anyway, good vid. Rebranding is hard, but good job all around.
Oooh, another blast from the past.
My feed has been full of old returnees lately. Love it.
Math is meant to be a descriptive tool for how the many nuances of nature works; NOT a prescriptive dictate from some from some higher power as many cultists would like to have us believe.
Just curious, who is "us" and do you believe in a god?
@@jasonborn867 , us being anyone that actually believes in science and intellectual, honesty and no I do not have an imaginary friend. I pretty much have a burning hatred for anything that has a has an ideology demanding reverence or else whether it's something like the church (abrahamic cults being the most prominent example of, rather it be Judaism Christianity or Islam), or the state like what they had in the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, or or whatever the f*** Christo-fascist Republicans are trying to push right now to.
@@BloodDracolich We are on the same page, and it's good news many Democrats and Republicans do not believe in a god. I'm so sick of hearing politicians say "In God We Trust" but it seems like a long road before folks accept god as imaginary. There's too much disinformation and too little intellectual curiosity, imo.
@@jasonborn867 , no kidding; but you know what they say, you can't fix stupid!
@@BloodDracolich Stupid is one thing, but just heard Biden the other day trying to push god rhetoric--and I can't believe he's stupid enough to believe in a god. It's one thing believing blindly despite the evidence, and quite another pushing a lie when catholic Joe knows it ain't so. lol. Atheism just doesn't seem popular for U.S. presidents...
Man, the very first channel I subscribed to. Crazy to see new videos.
The fundamental question really is:
What has the supernatural/magic ever actually explained?
Nothing. Ever.
As a fellow engineer, I absolutely support and am a huge fan of the new channel name! Engineers just have a particular way of thinking about things that just appeals to me
@24:11 "We know what nath is, we know where it comes from..." that is so trivially true that it's hard to imagine someone pretending otherwise. "Hey teacher, where does the Pythagorean therom come from?" "It came from Pythagoras." "Oh. Well what about euclidean geometry?" "That came from Euclid." "Ok, but what about Newton's laws if motion? Where did they come from?" "They came from Newtown." "Alright, but what about..." "Listen kid, if you have any more questions about the history or origins of mathematical concepts, then just Google them and read who discovered them and how."
Glad to see back! I'm exciting for this new chapter of videos.
Glad your back, happy to be able to see more stuff from you. Can’t wait for more content
I wonder if you will cover more “omni” trait related things, those are my favorite logical discussions tbh
I'm happy to see more content by you, especially in times like these. You're an adept philosopher. I've viewed all your Vids several times and got a lot out of them. Atheism empowered!
@@thotslayer9914 Maybe troll offline. Alone.
Thanks for the support. More content on the way!
Thank you kind human for blessing with another video.
"Reflect."
"If the math doesn't work, throw out the math."
Thank you.
Sincerely, a math educator.
Really happy you made another vid, Anti. You're one of my favorite content creators. Hope all is well with you! :D
Rejects "coincidence" as a valid explanation. Accepts "magic" as a valid explanation. Can't understand why he isn't taken seriously.
I'm happy you are back to the videos.
Cool! I thought I saw you tweet about a new upload. I'mma gonna enjoy dis and comment later. Cheers!
I love this channel.
This is great and has given me a lot of my philosophical ideas
The man, the myth, the legend! He hath return'd! Praise be to the mighty nice TH-cam fella! May the fleas of a thousand camels descend on the groins of your most short-armed enemies. Amen!
Every time I see this argument I repeat one and the same thing: if you’re wondering why does mathematics “work” - you should also think why a hammer is so good at hammering nails! The answers to both of those questions are the same - and spoiler alert - it’s not “gawdeedeat!”
There he is. Thanks for the upload.
Great to have you back man
This is a real theist sentence: It's not magic if God does it.
How does one even talk to a person who thinks like that?
To be fair, if magic was real we wouldn't call it magic, it'd just be how stuff works.
Sure. Like there is no such thing as alternative medicine. Either it is or it is not medicine. There is no middle ground.
I don't care what you want to call homeopathic concoctions as long as you neither say nor imply that they are "medicine". They all flush down the toilet equally easily. Same with laying on of hands or whatever other nonsense they claim.
Bunch of sad-sacks if you ask me.
Math works, because we adjusted the formulas until they fit the observations.
It's kind of sad that this isn't obvious to everyone.
Yay! I missed you and your content.
Welcome back! Solid rebuttal of Craig's work, and perhaps more convincing is that other mathematicians support your logic. That said, it's probable other false premises underpin his religious belief such as rewards/blessings for rejecting logical propositions. For this reason I think most believers suspend logic and deliberately choose irrationality, which may explain Craig's flawed association.
Finally, your back. ABOUT FREAKING TIME!!!!
Wow. I've been out of this game for too long. When I first heard the opening statement from the Reasonable Faith video, I immediately thought "Is he arguing for Platonism?" Then I remembered what kind of guy Craig is and laughed at myself.
Wow, long time no see indeed!
I have to believe that Craig knows exactly what he's doing. This might sound convincing to someone who is unwilling or unable to think through what he's saying (because they want to believe in the religious justification), but surely he's educated enough to know how facile it is. Or maybe he's just blinded by The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit™ too...
Didn’t recall subscribing to a channel by this name. But the illustration looked… familiar. Then I heard the voice. Ah yes.
Happy Christmas, He is Risen.
(Nervously watching the Max Tegmark appearance countdown clock....) Another great video!
I would love to have a beer with this guy
Glad to see that you have a new video
Why did you take the meditations on apologetics down? I loved listening to that one.
It’s even more ridiculous when we consider that there is a plethora of religions and philosophies which make supernatural claims without any god, like Eastern Asian philosophy and many modern esoteric movements. They act like everyone who doesn’t believe in (a) god is automatically a naturalist.
👏🙂
Amazing video as always.
Good to see ya again. 😀
So excited for a new upload!!😆
Maybe WLC should read Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Mathematics" to see that just because you can do math doesn't mean you are in the right track to formulate a theory in physics
Really appreciate this video.
Good to see you back on YT!
Great video! Also, that Strogatz textbook is based. Top 5 textbooks in physics, ever
Thank you, sire!
back with a banger!
KEvron
@17:26 - Here we go - point PERFECTLY stated - & that which, to my knowledge, WLC has never even attempted to offer any response - though that question should be posed to any apologist who claims a 'philosophical necessity' for their supernatural godbeing/creator thing's existence.
I love these videos so much
Great dissection, well done 😊
I heard the experts point out that we still don't have the proper math for dealing with non-linear systems - that are most prominent in...oh yeah: our natural world 😊 That alone is enough to dismiss this argument
Newtonian gravity does indeed predict the precession of Mercury's orbit. It just gets the amount of precession a little bit wrong.
Sooo… it doesn’t predict it?
@@AntiCitizenX It predicts that it happens. Newton predicts that the precession is 5557 arcseconds per century, while the measured precession is 5600 arcseconds per century. In other words, its off by 43 arcseconds per century, or 0.43 arcseconds per year. That's pretty close. GR does better, of course, but Newton wasn't far off.
@@AntiCitizenX margin of error, anyone?
Nailed it again. You are the most underrated debunker of Christian apologetics I know. You certainly deserve more views
Thanks.
Thanks so much for sharing. 😉👌🏻
Long time no see!!!!
Glad to see you are back in full swing! Splendid content!
At 08:08 you mention that subatomic particles are demonstrably random in their behaviour. But there are interpretations of quantum mechanics that are still deterministic, either trough hidden variables, many worlds or some other mechanism. Do you dismiss these interpretations as possibilities or did you not mention them as they where less relevant to your point?
Not that it harms any part of you argument/video, nor does non-determinism open the door to libertarian free will, I am just curious about your thoughts on the subject.
I’ve been debating whether or not to share my opinions on QM interpretations. I’ve done serious research in the field. For now, all I can say is that hidden variable theories are generally not respected among physicists.
@@AntiCitizenX Sure, but many world is. And is more parsimonious than copenhagen.
I think he made a video in the past where he asked if a computer that made decisions based on quantum mechanics had free will (presumably not?)
But yeah it’s interesting to think about
The only gap this argument fills is the rather cavernous one between WLC's ears.
"Low bar Bill" really does strive to set the bar lower.
What do you think about Jay Dyer's Transcendental Argument for God (TAG Argument)? Maybe you could respond to one of his videos about it where he explains it, like here. The people who find it convincing feel very strongly about it, but that's Jay's entire audience pretty much (very pushy).
TAG is basically just like every other argument for God: A gigantic onion of philosophical wrongness where every layer you peel of just reveals another layer wrong.
I think the theist types who use this sort of argumentation use the 'law' in two incompatible ways. We all know what a law in science is but they also suggest it has a legal sense in that matter has to 'obey' the laws.
Nice work 👍btw, what kind of Modality do you accept?
Excellent video AntiCitizenX. Have you ever thought of collaborating with Paulogia? You would make an excellent collaboration with him as he has collaborated with so many other individuals.
That would be a ton of fun. If he’s up for it, I’d do it.
I dunno I'm pretty surprised and awed when my hammer works so well on nails. #CantExplainThat
Also, platonic idealists are terrible.
Well, it's not the worst thing I heard a theist say about math all week.
😨
In short, numbers are adjectives not nouns. Adjectives are descriptions of reality and if accurate, have predictive power when used in well defined and consistent ways.
Remember ... according to Dr. Craig's own words, nothing in his video has anything to do with why he is a Christian. Did I hear someone say post hoc rationalization? Yes, I believe I did!
Already covered, th-cam.com/video/RoyFdWYgz5I/w-d-xo.html
Easiest question for me to ask and hardest for craig to answer would be: Which base?
Here I thought I would have to comment on 10 year old videos. Well done. Needs a rebuttal from WLC.
more videos with Q from Star Trek in it pls
Maybe I'm alone in this opinion, but I have to say that I find your avatar animations incredibly distracting. I really enjoy your content but for this video I ended up having to cover the left side of the screen with my hand to follow along. Personally, I would prefer just the slideshow and the audio - but I understand that other people may prefer your format and, more importantly, you may prefer this format. All I'm saying, is that you may be able to save some time in making videos by simply reducing the avatar animations a bit.
Good video.
Because video of dr craig is little bit short. So it is hard to not misunderstand some concept. Im sure dr craig aware many people believe math is human invention, but he doesnt believe in it for some reason. I never see any video of dr craig explain why he doesnt believe about it, but may be you should email or debate online with him
This basically comes down to the debate whether mathematics is discovered or invented. Craig adopts the former position because it serves his theist worldview.
Nevertheless it's really absurd to claim that there exists only order in the universe, since chaos obviously exists as well. They coexist together. The problem is that a divine creator with a perfect orderly mind would have no reason to allow chaos. It would be a contradiction if he did. That's why silly theists like Craig pretend that chaos doesn't exist.
Thanks for the video :)
Nice video.
Only one thing: Einstein's theories have not replaced Newton's. They have added to our knowledge and expanded existing theories.
Parts of Newton are incomplete and, if you look very closely, certainly wrong. That doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong.
That's one thing that a lot of people misunderstand about science. It's not about one being right and one being wrong. It's about expanding our knowledge and building on the theories of those who came before us.
"We all stand on the shoulders of giants."
*Einstein's theories have not replaced Newton's. They have added to our knowledge and expanded existing theories*
I beg to differ. Newton's laws are objectively and demonstrably wrong. This has been known for decades. They are not just "incomplete." They are false. They fail to predict the outcomes of many different experiments. They are only *approximately* valid under certain low-velocity conditions. The theory of special relativity absolutely replaces Newtonian mechanics, because relativity both encompasses Newtonian approximations while simultaneously predicting a wider body of data---including electricity and magnetism!
This is not to say that Newton's law are useless or abandoned, however. The difference between Newtonian physics and relativistic is trivially insignificant under many practical conditions. We like to use them because they are intuitive and mathematically simple. But that does not make Newton's laws any less falsified. It just makes them "useful," which is directly antithetical to the claims of Reasonable Faith.
Remember that the whole point of the argument is NOT to say that Newtonian mechanics have been overthrown to the point of never seeing use. I neither said nor implied that interpretation. I only pointed out the simple fact that Newton's laws are expressed as mathematical equations which do NOT reflect reality in any strict, philosophical sense.
I thought you were changing the name?
Edit: You did... but my noti still came up as AntiCitizen. Weird.
I think it was changed right after the upload.
What tool do you use to make and edit your videos
Great stuff...btw, what's your thought on contingency argument?do you think contingent facts can be explained by a necessary existence?
Necessary existence is meaningless nonsense.
@@AntiCitizenX Then do you think contingent facts exists brutely?(i.e. no explanation)do you think universe is a brute contingent fact?
@@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785
I don’t think it is meaningful to speak of “facts existing.” Fact are not literal entities within the universe. Facts are propositions which we human beings express through language. philosophy is riddled with nonsensical confusions like this because philosophers don’t know how to clarify their own jargon.
@@AntiCitizenX Ok!do you reject Modality?are you a Modal anti- realist?do you accept necessitarianism?
@@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785 you need to be very specific in what you are asking. Again, 90% of philosophical disagreements only exist because philosophers keep playing fast and loose with their questions. So what exactly do you mean by modality and necessitarianism? Modal logic is certainly a thing, and it is a useful tool for expressing ideas. That doesn’t mean modality literally “exists” in the universe.
So, great video once again but I have one problem. I find the guy's animations quite distracting. He's too... exaggerated and I can't stop but stare at him and lose focus on what is being said. And not infrequently the poses seem to convey something different or are way too exaggerated for what is being said and that distracts me even more. I never ever had this issue with any of your previous work.
Working on it. Feedback helps.
Does “2 + 2 = 4” make empirical predictions when applied to the real world? Does every instance of applied math make empirical predictions?
@@MatheusHauser
“All bachelors are unmarried men.”
Does that statement make empirical predictions about the world? No. It’s a statement about language and meaning. The more appropriate way to think of it is that we can use language to formulate empirical predictions. But the language itself is entirely separate.
Maps are another example. Maps are human inventions. We also use maps to navigate the world. But the language of cartography is our own invention
What is the difference between, let’s say, “2 + 2 = 4” and “f = m • a”? The former is analytic while the latter is synthetic? I don’t get the difference between accurately representing something and making empirical predictions. The phrase “but the language itself is entirely separate” seems confusing
@@MatheusHauser F=ma is an analytic proposition. It essentially defines the meaning of the word "force." There are many supposed "laws" of physics that are actually just glorified definitions. Ohm's law is another great example, as it basically just defines the meaning of resistance/impedance.
*The phrase “but the language itself is entirely separate” seems confusing*
Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant to say that language is separate from empirical predictions. As in, we use language to formulate synthetic propositions in the form of empirically predictive models. But the language itself is an entirely separate thing that needs to be established beforehand.
But doesn’t F=ma make empirical predictions? As in, if you apply a given Force to an object of a given mass, the equation predicts a certain amount of acceleration, for example. Therefore, f=ma is synthetic, because It speaks about reality by making empirically falsifiable predictions. For example, even though “2 + 2 = 4” is derived from the raw meaning we impose on the terms, can’t we apply this equation as to “predict” something? I guess It’s a weird and unintuitive way to think about It, but can’t I predict that, if I have 2 apples and you give me 2 more, I should expect to have 4 apples, and not 5? Or is this precisely what you mean when you say language is separate from any empirical prediction (I have to establish the language first analytically, and then I proceed to employ It as to make predictions, but the predictions aren’t inherent to the language Itself)?
@@MatheusHauser Read the equation as if it were an English sentence:
“Force is equal to mass times acceleration.”
That’s it. That’s at definition for the meaning of “force.” It is quite literally “the thing that makes stuff accelerate.” This is widely acknowledged in most textbooks, too, so I’m not sure why you’re disputing it. The idea is widely known to be a kind of tautology. But it works to help us formulate equations and predictions.
Hello! I have a couple suggestions.
You should make a Discord server. That way you can have a community hub and have some proper conversations. Also, Discord servers are remarkably active compared to most other media, pretty much invariably.
Also, I think The Art of Being Wrong should definitely be published as a video.
Anyway, I have some thoughts about the video topic, but it's kinda something I either have to spend a while meticulously typing a long comment about, or just dynamically address in conversation. So I won't discuss it yet.
Oh, also the animation looks pretty weird lol. I know it's automated but it just looks like filler that's pretty repetitive, fast and distracting with your arms going everywhere
*I think The Art of Being Wrong should definitely be published as a video.*
It's coming. Just be patient. I recorded the audio. Animation will take some time.
So I'm just gonna put that out there, as I am sure many people have before me... I was a completely faithful Jehovah's Witness for the good part of 20 years. I reaaally did believe in that whole fatherly figure who's gonna take care of you if you follow his tenets kind of bullshit for so much time it basically destroyed my adolescence. I was raised with moralistic principles that made me believe I was superior to others by simply believing in something else that I could not prove, and that I had the moral duty of helping them, as if they utterly needed the help of a 14 year-old inexperienced piece of carbon.
Surely then, I joined Music School and by sheer luck, I had a great teacher who was a huge nerd in propositional philosophy and all matters rational. He taught Music Theory and it was such an elegant way of displaying the artistic experience I had been craving and enjoying. The inciting incident was that, he had no need to separate what is technical from what is artistic. Several times after class we talked, and I, most likely babbled arrogantly about many aspects I didn't know or could demonstrate about the nature of the universe and other stuff (though, to my credit, I listened a whole lot of what he said, and that is what prompted my change). After a while, I started to realize how arrogant and ridiculous some of my arguments were, as well as I could emotionally feel the sheer lack of existence of such a deity I believed existed for my sole well being because... I wasn't well at all. At that moment, I hadn't even touched a woman in my entire life, I constantly felt isolated from my peers, I missed affection I could not express and I constantly got depressed due to all the previous knowledge I had that used to be useful in describing the universe (which is nothing to be ashamed of, since, as with science and our study of it, we constantly learn how ignorant we are).
So I decided I had had enough of that lie and became an atheist. Little by little I would remove every brick that was painstakingly put around myself and relieved my mind of the mental encumbrance of all those years of faith, and traded that, SLOWLY AND PAINSTAKINGLY for little orbs of understanding that floated around, unconnected to anything else. It was a fearsome and challenging experience. But curiously, I didn't feel alone anymore. Instead, I slowly began to perceive that I felt more confident, not in myself, but in the tools I had learned how to use. I felt confident in my mind, because I had the arguments to defend the things I thought, just like I had the argument as to why Beethoven's 9th Symphony is an undeniable masterpiece. Knowledge and art, as much as metaphysics and mathematics were not excluding to each other: I had just calibrated them very wrongly at the beginning of my life, as so many had done before me. And found out I was wrong.
Which again, is completely fine. Today I have no problem with self esteem, I dare say I can easily make any woman satisfied in bed, I care about my friends and found the few good ones that care about me, I have graduated in English Letters, and though haven't followed up in that area, I am grateful for all the knowledge that has been bestowed upon me in both Music School and the English one. That makes who I am and now I can take empirically useful decisions guided by a pragmatic understanding of reality to my benefit and those I love. I am a better man, a competent lover, an inquiring student and a reasonable private teacher. Because I know how to question and I know who is worth listening to. I have learned that "to sharpen up a sword, you have to remove pieces from it forcefully".
Thank you for making these videos. Many times during my journey I had thought if I was right in the beginning and doing something "wrong", or betraying myself. Your pure and cohesive logic has clearly demonstrated that I didn't. And to those that say that AntiCitizedX (that name was dope, btw) is unnecessarily angry in his propositions and disrespectful... his "enthusiasm" is well appropriate. These types of ideas are DESTROYING the lives of people around the world. I will never get my youth back, the most precious time in life, which I squandered worshiping an imaginary absent father figure that is basically described in his way of acting as a spoiled child.
I thank you, sir, again. We have crafted science "a ferro e fogo". It it is the most precious thing humanity has ever engineered. And I hope we can keep improving it.
Wow, thanks for sharing that!
@@AntiCitizenX Thank you for being one of the reasons I can share that with confidence I did the right thing.
You sound like David John Wellman
What happened to AntiCitizenX??? Did you kidnap him?
The Combine captured him
He's trapped in Nova Prospekt.
This explains so much.
I think you are overusing the character gestures a bit. I found it distracting. Overall, actually, i liked the old character more, for some reason. Which isnt just a "old things are always better" argument, as i quite enjoyed the rework of similar characters on completely unrelated channels previously, but here something didnt click for me. Maybe it's a bit of an uncanny vally thing. The old character was intentionally a bit rough and crazy looking and offered a weird sense of entertainment. This one is supposed to look a bit more professional, but while doing so just ends up weirding me out and even distracting me. I mean 16:05 for example, it's just way too much. For me personally at least. Others may like it.
Thanks. We’ll work on it
@@AntiCitizenX I appreciate the reply. Keep up the good work. I'm a huge fan of your philosophical failures of christian apologetics series and some others!
Pretty sure the video referenced the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Fun fact: All of those billions were spent to actually determine if the Higgs Field exists by exciting a boson, and until then, no predictive models assumed that even the Higgs Field existed. Additional Fun fact: the same math that was part of the prediction also showed that the Boson of that field would have a certain mass... and that part was wrong. According to the math, our universe can't exist. Our universe does seem to exist, though, so clearly there's no obligation for reality to conform to our math.
People have used math to predict a whole host of things. Like that there's a massive planet in orbit around our sun but so far out that we can't see it because it doesn't reflect enough light. But pure mathematical modeling doesn't determine what we treat as accurate to reality when it comes to accepted science. That massive "Planet X" won't be added to any educational textbooks until we actually verify its existence through direct observation.
Wish I knew that when I wrote the script. This is why I post stuff months in advance of the video. You guys are supposed to tell me these things!!
@@AntiCitizenX I must have missed that, sorry. Yeah, the Higgs Boson has less mass than it "should". So now there are competing schools of thought. One introduces additional hypothetical particles that interact with the Boson to cancel some of that mass. One notable physicist, Nima Arkani-Hamed, proposes that the universe can't be natural... meaning that it *was* manufactured. Or perhaps the multi-verse model could explain the fault.
I, personally, not being a theoretical physicist, just think that they ultimately got it wrong... but since they got it right enough to have predicted the existence of the Higgs Field in the first place, they're assuming that they didn't get any of it wrong. It could even be that we're witnessing the limitations of current human invention. Our models are "good enough for practicality" but it could all just be wrong in the long run. Our models have been improved over time... down a line of evolving thought and technology... but maybe there are potentially better models down different "branches" and we only just ended up on our current "branch" because of what we had to start with.
Not in the woo sense, mind you, I'm talking about branches of thought that inherently *don't* adhere to *any* parts of human intuition or imagination.
If 2+2=4 because God wills it, then the equation is arbitrary, God could also will 2+2 to be 5 then all math is render meaningless. If 2+2 = 5 is true, as a brute fact we don't need God to account for its validity.
as typical, they are putting the cart before the horse here, math "makes" things work, or so they sort of claim.
it's nice to have you back, but seriously those exaggerated faces are very awkward
That’s why I love them.
8:40 easy, craig doesn't give a rats behind if it contradicts his own theology, as long as she sheep don't get that.
I love your content but I think you should work on your titles so your videos would reach more people.
That’s a good point. I thought I gave this a better title, but now that I look at it, it could be more descriptive. I changed it to make more sense. Let me know if this is better.
@@AntiCitizenX Yes, I think this is adequate, I found your channel by searching for 'the problem with omnipotence'.
@@KonaduKofi I don’t know why people love that video so much! I just made it as a funny little throw-away, and it’s my most popular by far. :)
Personally, I can't even imagine what a mathematically-indescribable Universe would look like. Such a Universe couldn't even contain a natural number of objects and/or particles. It seems like an incoherent concept.
The math=god argument has always been very strange to me. You could calculate a 1-ton vehicle hitting a wall at 50mph would have a force of so many pounds per square inch. But that math has no meaning unless humans have defined tons, miles, hours, pounds, and inches. Any resulting number means nothing unless humans have defined what that unit of measurement is.
Hey man your videos are based.
Where the hell you been?
based
I miss the old avatar. It is a bit like when a weird human shows up in one of Viced Rhinos episodes. Totally out of place.