Best Arguments for Theism and Atheism | #7 Joe Schmid
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ต.ค. 2024
- Joe Schmid joins me to discuss the best arguments for God's existence, and the best arguments against. We explored several nuances of the cosmological argument (for God) and the argument from gratuitous animal suffering (against God).
Joe's TH-cam channel, Majesty of Reason, accessible here: / @majestyofreason
A list of Joe's publications: josephschmid.c...
Been loving your channel lately
Been loving your channel past eternally
Looking forward to this video!
very based
the only reason we need to help our brothers and sisters is God himself
We gotta convince Joe to grow his hair out and become the true Spiderman.
Thanks for this one, Miles. Great talk. Joe is a human philosophy encyclopedia. Miles' side-eye "fuck you" is bound to be famous one day.
Oh dear, what's the timestamp on this purported side-eye?? 🤣
@@mileskdonahue75 Shortly after 11:57. I have seen it before! Don't get rid of it.
@@anthonyspencer766 Ahhhh hahaha, I did not intend that to have any bad vibes lol
@@mileskdonahue75 No, not at all. Bad vibes were not what I was gathering from it.
Why did Joe do an impression of the pig in Richard Swinburn’s voice ? 🤣🤣 is it because his last name starts with swine?🤪
The severity of animal suffering before the advent of man fits well with a growth-maxing theodicy. The origin point would need to be close to zero value or large in negative value and goodness grow with the arrow of time
This could make sense if reincarnation is real and we continue the work throughout multiple lifetimes. But on a traditional theist conception of “one and done”, the work and ease of progress of those later down the timeline pales in comparison to the squalor and ignorance endured by the early life forms. So it hardly seems fair.
Substantivalism + branching actualism (we'd still be trying to figure out *what the actual world/initial world segment's feature explaining the contingent set is*) + causal infinitism + causal processes necessitating contingent things (there's still the question of what explains the contingent causal factors) affirm stage 1 arguments so there's no need to rule it out. That'd be b/c time, a metaphysically necessary thing (what'd explain *this* contingent thing if it's not) with essential ordering, unifying, grounding, and causal properties would be the central explanans for the contingent set.
Also, this seems way too unparsimonious as opposed to just "necessary being" (which can still fit in with or nicely compliment all the other metaphysical theses).
But "necessary being" (specially being) is a historical built concept linked to specific language and cultural contingent developments.
@andresjimenez1724 Every natural-language and technical term meets that criteria. That doesn't show the concept itself is somehow problematic or false though (if that was the implication).
Great interview! I have an idea for a plausible alternative explanation to the neccesary being causing the contingent set: the prior contigent set. I mean that the contigent set in t1 was cause / explained by the contingent set in t0, and so on. But it seems too easy, so I imagine proponents of the contigent argument rule out this possibility somehow. Can you or Joe help me out with this? I would really appreciate if you guys can point where I went wrong.
The problem is that you are positing and infinite set of contingent beings instantiating non-contingently, which is a violation of both the Laws of Non-contradiction and Identity. Dependent (contingent being) cannot be independent (necessary) by definition.
@@normanmilquetoast1 I mean, if the principle is that every contingent thing demands an explanation (external), assuming presentism, the actual set of contingent things may be explained by the temporaly previous set. I take that this is an undercutting defeater for some formulations of the argument.
@@adriang.fuentes7649 Does every contingent thing begin as a 'potential' or an 'actual'?
Any "prior contingent set" is contained in the contingent set.
@@sapereaude6935 assuming presentism, how can it be cointained if it no longer exists?
Hi bro i want to know Is hegel right in dissmissing kant noumenal or things in itself knowable rather than unkowable..
I seems joe has consciously reduced his talking speed , good
There are no things. Thingness is tied to the concept of substance, which itself is tied to the pamenidean concept of being. But Being is a fiction. There is no self-sufficient thing in the world, everything exists depending on each other. The world is a web of relationships. It maintains its “being” not in some necessary Being, but in “its” activity, in “its” self-transformation.
That is to say...
Are you familiar with various concepts from quantum mechanics such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or particle/wave duality, or entanglement? If so, then you are familiar with how sometimes our "common sense" notions of the way reality "must" work are frustrated by our actual experiences. Sometimes our concepts are neither "right" nor "wrong," but rather just "not applicable." In this vein, how do you know that your understanding of "contingency" applies at all to what you call "reality?" What makes you think you can just sit and ponder and somehow come up with an explanation for life, the universe, and everything? Why would you trust that your conclusions are anything more than an restatement of your assumptions?
Because he values rational, coherent thinking. Something you apparently are happy to dispense with. ;)
@@normanmilquetoast1 But I have actual examples of where our experiences seem to contradict what we would call "common sense." Moreover, these examples are actually within the realm of what we are talking about, i.e. the "nature of reality." So, in what sense is he "rational" in a way that I am not?
@@normanmilquetoast1Found the theist.
@@ericb9804 >So, in what sense is he "rational" in a way that I am not?
Actually, you just contradicted yourself and made my point: >I have actual examples of where our experiences seem to contradict what we would call "common sense."
Are the mysteries of quantum mechanics irrational or just **seem** that way?
@@normanmilquetoast1 the most common interpretation of particle/wave duality is that there is a sense in which sub-atomic particles are BOTH a wave AND a particle at the same time. Right? This interpretation is widely regarded as being "rational" because it is supported by "evidence" such as the double slit experiment, right?
And yet, it certainly strains the imagination to think of a "particle" as being two different things at the same time because our "common sense" suggests that is just not how things work. In other words, there is a sense in which the standard interpretation of particle/wave duality is both "rational" and yet also defies "common sense." Right?
So that being the case, why would we think that appealing to our "common sense," and calling that "rational," would allow us to make conclusions about the nature of reality? Why would we think we can just imagine the way that "reality must be" based solely on the premise that its intelligible to us?
It would seem to be the case, that our experience with the results of experiments in quantum mechanics would lead us to conclude that whatever "the nature of reality" is, its likely not something that "makes sense" to us, especially not at an intuitive level. Which is why the contingency argument just comes off as self-serving and obtuse.
All things are "contingent". There simply is no such thing as a necessary entity. Nothing that exists "had to" exist. The world in which nothing exists is a possible world. So why does what exists exist? Why does something exist rather than nothing? These are brute facts, and cannot be further explained. "Explanation" is not some intrinsic part of the universe, but a feature of language and thought, a faulty abstraction from cause-and- effect thinking. Something exists. But is that an effect of something? Not of itself, and not of that which doesn't exist. Existence in and of itself is not an effect, it is simply a non-necessary fact of the matter.
>All things are "contingent". There simply is no such thing as a necessary entity.
Another term for 'contingent' is 'dependent' or an 'effect'. Are you asserting dependent being can be independent and dependent, at the same time and in the same relationship?
>The world in which nothing exists is a possible world.
Is a 'world' **some*thing? **That really made me laugh**
Do you know Spinoza's God?. I am a psychologist and rational thinker and I have discovered God exists, I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy. My truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Did you understand the atheist logical fallacy? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheists misreason "sky daddy doesn't exist therefore god doesn’t exist". I challenge you to understand why the most emblematic remark of atheism is "who created god?", that means "who created what is not created?". The reason God exists is because not all reality can be created, not everything that exists can have a beginning of existence. God exists because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. Logically what has a beginning of existence must be created from what is eternal. Thank you.
@@michelangelope830 Most modern connotations of God are of sky daddy though. To be certain some atheists say there is no God and only mean there is no sky daddy, but deism might be true. There are also quite a few theists who will say God is real, but only there specific version. But to say that if we assume conventional physics works the same before time and space existed proves God is just an argument from ignorance.
....?????
Without watching is the best argument against God's existence the total lack of evidence of his existence?
I would avoid that framing of the argument, and instead either stick to divine hiddenness or couple it with the idea that naturalism is more parsimonious.
@@rewrewrewrewr2674 An entire reality of contingent being which instantiates non-contingently (naturalism) is not parsimonious, it's irrational.
@@normanmilquetoast1 Plenty of contemporary naturalists affirm a necessary being, but feel free to provide an argument for your claim
@@rewrewrewrewr2674 I was under the impression that necessary being is supernatural by definition. Am I missing something?
@@normanmilquetoast1 Stage one merely argues for a necessary self existent reality. Stage two is what argues for the properties of such a thing.
Boring. I only made to minute 10.