I quite like a definition of simplicity being a "meassure of how many additional propositions need to be accepted for affirmation". This is an inherently subjective definition, since the simplicity of proposition now depends on the set of beliefs of the subject. Nevertheless i think that this is the actual intuitive usage of the word simplicity in this context. But we can make it subject-independent very easy by: "Simplicity is a meassure of how many basal propositions need to be accepted for affirmation" "Basal propositions" refers to those propositions, which formulation does not depend on any other proposition. Since finding these is... lets say tricky i would simply instead use the "greatest common denominator", which are the laws of logic/laws of syntax combined with empiracal facts that are accepted by both partys.
I have a few questions/thoughts regarding the idea that good things are evidence for theism: 1) If divinity is the ultimate good, isn't the creation of anything other than ultimate good a bad thing, thus not something that ought to be created? 2) On the question of there being good things that don't exist because they'd make other better things impossible or bring about evil: why create such an imperfect world, then? What good is there in allowing imperfection/evil to exist in that framework? Those are the main reasons this perspective doesn't really sit well with me (yet). Thank you for the videos and the neat presentation of arguments. It's subjectively a good thing to create!
I'm really appreciating the work you're doing to justify your epistemology and I think your overall strategy for making the case for theism is super interesting! A couple thoughts so far. I tend to agree with the comments saying that theism seems less simple than naturalism, even according to conceptual simplicity. Since theism and naturalism are total worldviews rather than isolated theories explaining a small domain of explananda, it seems to me that we have to take inventory of everything that exists as well as the properties and relations included in the respective views. The comparison becomes even more complicated when we bring in specific theological doctrines (e.g., when positing theodicies) and metaphysical commitments (e.g., platonism, moral realism, dualism). I'd be curious how you defend the simplicity of theism in light of all this. As for the complaints about your usage of the term "prediction" being a kind of post facto justification of what you already believe, they're obviously hogwash. Naturalists say all the time "the world is exactly the way we would expect it to be if God didn't exist." Are you seriously telling me this claim doesn't also rely on having a fine-tuned definition of naturalism to better fit the data and thus increase its predictive power? Keep up the good work!
Yes naturalist say that because the theistic prediction model is identical to no God and has no explanatory power. That's the point.... Edit: I don't think naturalist make the same argument, more so because naturalism is the default and they don't need to make these pseudo "predictions" because they are not positing cosmic "magic man" as an explanation for events. the criticism of "naturalist do it too" seems kind of dumb since naturalist don't even need to argue these points in such a desperate manor. It's the default.
Wow and that is is it naturalism or magic sky daddy A god that you neither define or justify. A god that is your personalised version of an iron age myth against everything observable and provable. THAT is YOUR world view
@@gowdsake7103 “Sky daddy” “THAT is YOUR view” Smokescreen!! “Sky daddy” THAT is YOUR (straw man argument). That is your (fallacy of false equivalence). Not to mention your (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy) and your (Category Error Fallacy)!! The list of basic logical fallacies goes on!! By sheer coincidence I’ve actually got two new brands of pen right here on my desk which i use for writing down ultimately meaningless and ultimately purposeless comments a (Richard Dawkins pen) and a (gowd sake straw man Pen) they’ve got no point!! I rest my case!!
@@georgedoyle2487 Awww triggered much and yet NEVER will you be able to provide evidence for your sky daddy will you ? So provide conclusive proof of your imaginary friend and greatest being or admit that all YOU have is an imaginary friend As for straw man hmm you are not saying that you have a invisible untestable and imaginary friend ? Fine PORVE god! I will wait and look smug at your utter inability to back up your claim. BTW the bible is the claim and not the proof and philosophy is at BEST saying a god could exist with nothing to back up that claim but word salad As for a god claim I guess your pen has nothing to add to your claim on that one has it
I think the premise "if X is good then theism predicts X" is true but it can work against theism by providing examples of things that are good that don't exist.
If we’re using simplicity as the foundation for our predictions then I would argue it is simpler that we don’t know what this argument claims we know and the prediction is that there would be great amount of disagreement over the topic of this video both in its simplicity and predictive power. Hey look at that! a rebuttal Simpler than this whole video and more accurate in its prediction.
I am not sure about what I will say here, but Richard Swinburne can be considered a Thomas Aquinas of the 21th century. I never read anything of Swinburne, but I feel that he's another Aquinas.
@@ShouVertica you're critizicing a MEDIEVAL philosopher who isn't at all known for his theories on physics for being wrong about physics. Wtf. Also, what old arguments did he "rephrase" aside from the argument from motion?
@@yourfutureself3392 His arguments are based on misunderstanding of physics that are now completely outdated. So yeah, unless he's saying Swinburne is wrong then I don't get the reference.
@@yourfutureself3392 completely agree with you. Aquinas spend his whole life studying, studying and... Studying. Different from some people that watch two videos and think that they are experts on a subject. Even though I am not familiarized (and I fell that I do not agree with him) with Aquinas, everyone has to admit: he is a intelectual titan! His writings are discussed even today!
@@ShouVertica how are his arguments other than the argument from motion (one of the seven ways he presented in his work) based on outdated physics? How is the second way, for example, based on outdated physics (the one from causality)?
Wouldn't theism predict that the universe is maximally good? There are many ways that the universe could be made better easily. Therefore, theism loses predictive power
First!!! I haven’t watched the video yet but bayesnian probability told me that the video is probabilistically more likely to be good, so I can reasonably predict that the video is in fact good.
I think that in future videos you should defend your method for deriving properties a bit more. Why can't two good properties be in conflict with each other? For example i like sour food and i like spicy food, but if i mix the two, the result isn't better it is worst. I would argue that this holds also for gods properties. For "knowledge" for example: Another "good thing" is giving privacy, but if you already know everything is there such a thing as privacy? The topic of giving privacy raises the next problem with this approach. Some (if not most) properties aren't all that good taken two one extreme. If you are to free-handed it is neglectful. If you are overbearing then there is no perceived freedom.
Well the property doesn't matter as long as you define God to prefer it. It could be "cheesy" and if you define God as preferring "cheesy" therefore (in Squareds view) God is of "higher probability."
@ShouVertica Thats kinda something you missed in your own comment on simplicity. Squareds definition of god is actually incredibly simple. A "thing that is good to the maximum degree" is in this formulation actually quite simple. I don't see how he could ever get from there to the omnis, or any of the properties he wants to have for that matter, but thats my point. Give him time/space to defend his argument, IF you want an actual productive conversation with the opposition. If you like to score some points instead, there are easier targets. One for example is in his "simple god definition". Since he used the word maximum, this has a pretty nasty side-effect. To be at a maximum implies limitations/boundaries set from the outside, which means god as he defined it is subject of some boundaries (i assume the laws of logic) and can therefore not be the grounding of these boundaries. Similarly since he defined god with a property he called "good" this property can also not be grounded in this entity, since it would lead to a circular definition. But these are discussions i have had more times than i can count, so i am a bit more interessted in less discussed points. I genuinely don't know how someone would defend the position that the "best possible amount of any good property is always to max out that property". This statement has more of an rpg-vibe to me than that it could come from philosophy.
@@Finfie You said it's simple, why do you think so? I think maximal properties are by definition complex, as you are adding more to a thing to reach a higher state until the "maximal" state. Squared argued via literal word count it is simpler, but then mentioned concept simplicity so it seems to be talking out of both sides. Also why am I being attacked for Squareds routine inability to explain anything? The guy made a 10 minute video on one subject, he failed to explain, that's not my fault. If this is his "Magnum opus" why is it every video is shallow explanations and inability to address any criticism, much less use bayesianism correctly.
@@ShouVertica What statement is simpler? 1) I have 100$ on my bank account 2) I have 1000000$ on my bank account I would argue both statements have the same simplicity. 1) is more propable, but its not simpler. To assess the simplicity of a concept i like to break it down into its base concepts. Heres a sketch: "Thing which is good to the maximum degree" -> a) Thing b) good c) maximum d) basic syntactic laws (laws of logic for example) These are by no means base concepts so we can go deeper, from a) we can derive the "existence of reality" for example and so on c) doesn't actually add much more concepts since maths/statistics axioms can be pretty much derived from laws of logic b) is a bit more interresting since what is "good" is kinda a touchy subject, but since he leaves it "open" wheter it is subjective or objective, we can likewise substitude "good" with "fullfills a standart". This also doesn't add many more concepts, but it makes his definition also incrediblly weak. So his actual definition so far is "A thing that fullfills a standart to the maximum degree", which is, well underwhelmingly ordinary for a god. So im interested how/if he fixes it. "Also why am I being attacked for Squareds routine inability to explain anything?" Sorry if you feelt attacked. It seemed to me that your motivation is a bit confused. Your clearly took alot of effort writing alot of well-thought-out comments here, that i dont think that you are just here to troll. But likewise, if you leave a wall of text, few people will engage with such a post. (I doubt many people except you will make it this far in this thread for the same reason). I only wanted to advise you to taylor your messages to the result you want to achive. If you just want to debunk squared i would recommend to you to make a video, that would get more eyes than a comment wall i think. But thats just my perspective. You are of course free to spend your time how you like best (;
Question - on your view, I know you aren’t a classical theist. But wouldn’t it make sense on your view to accept classical theism because it has a higher prior probability than something like theistic personalism? It only takes one component to say “there is a being of pure act”, rather than the many components that would go into a theistic personalists view of God?
I worry that the God of Classical Theism relies on very specific metaphysics. Like, I’m not sure I even buy the idea that there are such things as actualities and potentialities. Furthermore, I think it would be very hard to draw out the various attributes of God. For example, how do we get from “pure actuality” to an agent?
@@ApologeticsSquared I don’t see any reason to deny actuality and potentiality. They seem like valid ways of understanding change. For getting from pure act to an agent, just note that no first action can be committed unless it is done by an agent. A ball will not role unless it is made to do so by an agent.
Simplicity in a theory is usually defined using Occam's razor, that the fewer entities, or kinds of entities are preferred. Naturalism relies on the 4 natural (physical) forces - gravity, electro-magnetic, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. These are one kind of entity, and their actions are well understood. Theism usually relies on an immaterial disembodied mind that exists outside of space and time, and possess the 3 omnis', (all-knowing, all powerful, all-loving). None of these qualities are known to even exist at all. How can a non-physical being effect a physical reality? How can you test that? What does it even mean to exist outside of space/time? How can a mind even exist without a physical brain? What did god create the universe out of? How did he generate life? God is not a simple explanation, and unless coherent answers can be provided as to what a god is, and a mechanism for how it can act on a physical reality, then god doesn't even qualify as an explanation at all. Saying "God did it" is a stop sign for expanding human knowledge, and the strongest defense of the ignorant who wish to remain so. Theism predicts "goodness", needs a solid definition for "goodness" or is meaningless. In any case, isn't this just destroyed by The Problem of Suffering? Usually "The problem of evil" is hand-waved away by claims of "free will" (prove you have it first). However, the problem of suffering covers natural disasters and illness's as well. Why are babies born with terminal birth defects? Why do babies die at all? Why did a tsunami wipe out hundreds of thousands of people? What about the Black Death? If theism is true, why do some innocent people suffer, while some people who don't abide by gods instructions get to live long luxurious lives? Whether life is "good" or not, depends entirely on when and where you live, coupled with other circumstances of your birth. For theism to be true, things would have to be "good" for a majority of people, for majority of the time, throughout human history. Even today, probably the most "good" period in human history, it cannot be said that things are "good" for the majority of the world. Which I suspect is why you didn't define "good".
I really appreciate this definition. It is very falsifiable. It is also very bold, since you are claiming that this is the best of all possible worlds. That's pretty far from what it looks like on the surface! :)
Theism doesnt make any specific predictions. Only that God exists. A theist can claim God is the explanation for the totality of contingent existences but this assumes there are contingent existences that require explanation. The totality of existence is a brute fact. Your definition of theism assumes good is a universally agreed upon concept if not, then there is no reason provided to accept that this is how theism should be defined.
I don’t think that theism has good predictive power for a lot of things. For example, if theism were true, given nothing else, I would predict that most likely that the universe would be something more akin to the Bible. Where the earth is the first thing to be created, then the sun, in a geocentric world. Unfortunately… that’s not how it goes 😅. You also forgot to mention that mostly Reliable Intuitions are good for survival. If natural selection occurs, then it could select for things that are good for survival.
I don't think Squared believes in the Old Testament creation literally. Anyway instincts aren't necessarily the most logical or good. Trusting our natural instincts leads to survival yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the most effective survival strategy. For example, biology and epidemiology are more effective survival strategies than natural selection because even the weak can survive.
@@bitchd7839 yup’ I mean Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer, it is definitely survival of the “fit enough to survive.” But yeah obviously we have our instinct to explore and learn and stuff which is cool. And it’s also good that we made things that move past our basic instinct. More than like. Any other animal has done, pretty neat. But I’m glad that Square doesn’t believe in the OT Genesis 1-11. Neither do I… but of course my parents and my church do 😅
Nice video. I take its possible that someone could find issue with how you derived God’s properties by saying “well I don’t think power and knowledge are good”. I don’t endorse such a criticism because I actually find it plausible that such things are good, but what would you say in response to such a person?
I would just say, “You really think that being powerful and knowledgeable is in no way better than being ignorant and weak? Really???” And if they say yes I guess I’d just have to accept that this person’s intuitions are really different from mine!
It doesn't even matter that they are good, they could be mediocre or whatever, the tautology of "God would create with X property" isn't determined by it being anything as long as you define god as preferring that property.
Certainly if you take the Abrahamic gods we can say they are NOT good. Demanding worship while threatening eternal torment can never be defined as good
Isn´t theism inherently more improbable (a prior) than atheism/naturalism? I mean basically atheism describes everything theism does (ej. the existence of a world) but theism have an extra factor.
I don’t think so. Take the hypothesis that the world came into existence 5 minutes ago in its present state. Is that simpler (a priori) than the hypothesis that the universe is actually very old? It posits less than the hypothesis that the universe is very old! Or take the hypothesis that you’re the only mind, and the entire world is an illusion. That’s the simplest of all! Instead of your mind + your perceptions of the external world + external world, the hypothesis that you’re the only mind in existence only needs your mind + your perceptions of the external world.
@@ApologeticsSquared This isn't addressing the question. He asked you why theism is simpler than atheism/naturalism if it is adding a deity/extra factor. Your response of "whataboutism" isn't addressing the question.
@@ApologeticsSquared You lost me here. In what way can the hypothesis that the world was created 5 minutes ago, in it's present state be considered simpler than a very old universe? Theory's must account for all available evidence, and present a falsifiable explanation, and when two different theories accomplish the same thing, the simplest is preferred. A very old universe does this, using known principles of physics, a 5 minute old one can't without adding a god. The old universe is the simpler explanation. Isn't Syntactic Simplicity the best way to describe a theory, not a way to gauge the truth of one? Saying the truth of an assertion can be gauged by it's word count seems absolutely absurd.
@@bskec2177 It depends on the version of naturalism. A naturalism that supposes the universe as a brute fact I think may be simpler, but doesn’t sufficiently explain the data. However a naturalism with a necessary being does actually seem as simple as theism in that regard, as they both suppose all of contingent reality as well as a necessary being.
Well, since it’s defined as “the most good Being,” then I would say that we would expect this being to have a consciousness and will, because those are good things! If we think that the most good Being is “X,” but X does not have consciousness or a will, we could improve upon X by giving it a consciousness and a will. Therefore, the most good Being has consciousness and a will.
@@ApologeticsSquared How do you know that consciousness and will are necessarily good things though? For instance, if someone used their will to murder someone, is it still a necessarily good thing that they had that will? If someone's consciousness is constantly in pain and complete confusion, is it still a necessarily a good thing that they have that consciousness?
@@karmacamera675 I think there are two routes one could take: 1) Affirm that, yes, consciousness and will are always bad. Even if this good thing (will) makes a bad thing possible (murder), that doesn't thereby make the good thing bad. 2) Accept that consciousness and will are *only* good insofar as the being in question has a good moral character. Then we just change the argument from, "consciousness + will is good, so God has consciousness + will" to "consciousness + will + omnibenevolence is good, so God has consciousness + will + omnibenevolence ." (I formulated these around the murder example, but they can be repurposed for the pain/confusion example too.)
@@ApologeticsSquared Read the comment you made that I responded to. You didn't mention that consciousness and will are only good if the being that has them is also good. You said that a good being must necessarily have a consciousness and will because those things are good. Why?
I don't think intuitions have any weight, but I think it's obviously intuitive for the vast majority of people that power and knowledge are good. I mean, nobody finds it intuitive that it's better not to know anything and to have only false beliefs or unjustified true beliefs or to be powerless and incapable of doing anything. If having power is better than being powerless and impotent and being knowledgable is better than being ignorant about everything, then power and knowledge are good (as it's better to have them than not to have them). And everyone clearly finds it intuitive that being knowledgable or capable is better than being ignorant or impotent.
@@yourfutureself3392 Just having knowledge of things does not give the "what to do with it." Power corrupts. Power with too much knowledge leads to tyrannical dictators.
@@randywise5241 so the bad thing is the conjuction of knowledge and not having anything to do with it, the conjuction of power and corruptability and the conjuction of power, knowledge and tyranny. Nobody denies that. However, a maximally good entity would obviously lack corruptability, tyranny, etc. Do you honestly believe that it's intuitive for most people to respond with a "no" to the following questions: Is being knowledgable better than being ignorant about anything? Is being capable and competent better than being incompetent and useless? If they would respond with a "no", then why does "ignorant" have a negative connotation while "truth" and "justified beliefs" (crucial elements of knowledge) have a positive connotation and may even be seen as values?
@@yourfutureself3392 This is true, but my argument is that he's arguing for a maximally good being by saying that power and knowledge are good. I've taken that instinctively to mean both power and corruptability. If I should only be taking the sole concepts of power and knowledge into account, then neither are either good or bad. Also, It's in conjunction with already knowing what to do in a moral dilemma that can make the two concepts good. If I'm not allowed to use other ideas to say power and knowledge are bad, then why can I use other ideas to say they are good?
Well we don't have evidence a God can exist. We don't have a know example of a God existing, or a universe being created, so we have no way of determining a probability of a God existing, or a universe being designed.
You have not provided evidence that, the God concept you provided can, or does exist. Again we have no know examples of theism being true to determine probability.
On your definitions of simplicity then the theism theory must be the most complex theory possible, because God is the most complex being possible. Since God is defined to have omni- powers, God have maximum possibilities and therefore have maximum complexity. Then God goes against our intuitions. Nobody can even give a coherent definition of the omni- powers, and we certainly have no intuition to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. Take for example a bacteria. It have the powers to reproduce, to consume and to evolve in simple terms. It doesn't have the power of knowledge because it lacks a brain. It doesn't even have arms to build something. It's simple. Then we have a crow. It can learn, it can build, it can solve complicated puzzles. It's more complex than a bacteria. Then we have God. God is omniscient. It's more complex than a bird. Ok, whatever. You just use words and say "the less words I can use the less complex it is". This is not how it works. A concept or a word can describe a highly complex situation. For example the concept of "gravity". It's just one word, one concept. But it's so complex that for over 100 years we still don't know what "gravity" is. "thing" - "good" - "maximum" A thing is simple. It's just some object. Good is a highly complex topic. You even leave it open if "good" is subjective or objective. "Maximum" is by definition maximally complex. It literally means nothing else can be more complex than "Maximum". "causal" - "implication" - "physical" Those are complex concepts, but by definition there are less complex than "Maximum". "how intuitive do you find it that there is a god?" ROFL. Ask a theist and he says "very intuitive". Ask an atheist and he says "not intuitive at all". "if you're like a huge percentage of the population throughout history then the answer is that you find this form of theism pretty intuitive" Sure, appeal to popularity. Nice to make a logical fallacy in your highly reasonable video. "you see we can imagine a ton of things which are good so theism makes a ton of super specific predictions" I can imagine a ton of things which are not good. So theism makes a ton of super specific false predictions. Also you didn't make the same test for Naturalism, which wins every time, but theism fails. Naturalism predicts are, what properties would Nature have? Easy. We can take any property and ask would this property contribute towards [Nature] having physical implication. Does this property make something [imply to be physical.] If the answer is yes then [Nature] has that property. If X is causal, then Naturalism predicts X. I can imagine a ton of things which are causal. So Naturalism makes a ton of super specific predictions. I would even argue there is nothing that you can think of that is not causal, not physical and therefore not a property of nature. Everything that is causal is a property of nature and is physical. You can say, what about a soul? A soul is not causal. A soul doesn't do anything that we can detect. What about consciousness? Consciousness is a function of the brain, the brain is physical, therefore consciousness is physical.
I can define gremlins as creatures that are invisible, can go through object, , don't make any noise, and go around break toasters. That does not mean that That gremlins exists because my toaster is broken. What you are doing is trying to define a God into existence. All you are doing is coming up with a God concept, and defining a God to fit what we have evidence for. But until you can provide evidence that the God concept you claim exist, exist, then you claim is just one big assertion with no evidence behind it
I have not heard you give a usage for good, so Under your usage for good, power and knowledge are good, under my usage power, and knowledge are not good, or bad. So no it is not intutuative
Theism fail on the simplicity. For theism, you need to make far more assumption. Like the existence of a god, the nature of that god, the abilities of that god, the actions of that god, etc. Naturalism doesn't require assuming anything. The predictive power of the god hypothesis is nothing but a cop out. When you insert an all powerful magic to the system it becomes the answer to everything. Your predictions of gods attributes actually contribute the the prior probability. Bringing it down, as you are making it more complex.
Naturalism obviously does committ you to some claims. It committs you to the existence of natural entities/properties/procceses, to the inexistence of non-natural entities/properties/procceses and, depending on how you define naturalism and the natural/non-natural divide, it also committs you to scientific realism, source physicalism (the view that fundamental reality is physical and that the physical sources the mental), either reductive physicalism or eliminative materialism, causal realism, nominalism, 'mere' physicalism, temporalism (the view that everything is temporal), either moral anti-realism or moral naturalism, etc. It does depend on how conservative your understanding of the natural is. The more 'liberal' naturalists aren't committed to rejecting platonism or dualism. Naturalism obviously does have commitements, just like theism. Maybe by the 'assumptions' of theism you didn't mean it's commitements. If that's the case, then I don't see what you could've meant assuming you weren't begging the question or misunderstanding the difference between prior probability with the probability given the evidence.
@@yourfutureself3392Naturalism is just a distinction between those that believe in the "supernatural" and those who don't. It's not a real category and you'd be hard pressed to even argue that the inclusion of a god wouldn't fit under naturalism, since by default he would be a part of "nature." The strawman that you "commit to some other claims claims" is just dumb, that's not a part of the naturalism distinction.
[On Prior probability] 10:35 "How intuitive do you find this" That's not how probability works Squared. You don't demonstrate prior probability by taking an opinion poll. This also sounds a lot like presuppositionalism. 10:50 "Theism is very simple" You spent this whole video without explaining why theism is simple. Another empty claim as far as I can see. Aaaaaaaand that's it? That's all that you dedicate to prior probability? The entirety of your bayesianism argument rest on this and you handwave it with "well if you believe in theism and theism is simple"? So 100% what people called you out for on the prior video is true, you're just stating a tautology of "well if you believe in god therefore you find descriptions of god believable" Presupp junk.
No your usage of theism is not simple, You did not provide a usage for the words, good, and maximum degree, make it unable to be assessed for simplicity. So goodness being subjective depends how you are using the word good. And this is one of the reason why your usage is not simple So you did not specify methodological naturalism or philosophical naturalism. What you are calling a definition for naturalism does not even make much sense. So at about the 10 fifty mark, you are appealing to popularity. And you have not provided theism is simply, according to your usage of the word, theism.
15:30 "If theism is true then god would insure our reliable intuitions." Can theism be false and we still have reliable intuitions? What does theism even have to do with our intuitions at all since 99.99% of our daily lives have no reference to theism? Just sounds like presuppositional garbage where the evidence is so poor that you fake "predictions" and argue in vague totalities to avoid any actual discussion on the subject and what we really have. Where's Jesus? Where's the Bible? Isn't this supposed to be an argument for Christianity?
The prior of a hypothesis should consider the available, known evidence. The necessary extensions of it, as it clashes with said evidence, have to be spelled out as well. Simplicity is hardly the only virtue a hypothesis needs to evaluate all that. First-Cause Naturalism: The First Cause is the naturalistic beginning of reality from which all else stems. -WYSIWYG. First-Cause Deism: The First-Cause has a mind; it is the beginning of reality from which all else stems. - hypothesis agnostic on whether it cares to create other aware beings specifically; - compared to naturalism, it needs to justify the mind with all its features as an additional attribute. First-Cause Theism: The First-Cause has a mind, is morally objectively good, cares about creating other aware beings for which it has plans and is the beginning of reality from which all else stems. - additional assumptions - huge risk of projecting human psychology onto the ontology, though arbitrarily only its one, idealized part - the evidence of state of the world decreases plausibility that this First Cause is maximally good; theodecies only bloat the hypothesis even more First-Cause Limited Theism: Same as above, but it's limited in some ways, so at least it might have a better excuse for the state of the world, which arguably makes it a bit more plausible. First-Cause Malicious Theism: The First Cause has a malicious mind, capable of lying and causing all kinds of suffering. - risk of projecting what humanity is emotionally invested in onto the ontology - the amount of suffering makes it more evidence based than F-CT; experiences of goodness require additional explanation though (but since F-CMT is capable of lying/misdirection, the evidence is consistent with it). First-Cause Limited Malicious Theism: As above, but it may be easier to explain the amount of perceived good in the world.
[On predictions] I'm just going to come out and say it: these are not novel testable predictions and I'm shocked at how lazy you are here. 12:03 "If X is good, God would create X" In concept this isn't a real prediction but a tautological statement. "The burger eater would eat burgers." You've defined God as something that would create good, but that's nothing more than semantics, you haven't done any of the work here to show a causal chain of any sorts or that God is even good or desires good or he is responsible for X being good. 12:26 "If X is good, then theism predicts X." This sounds like theism has no actual evidence, because you're not predicting that X is good, you're just saying "if it's good then theism predicted it." That's a prediction made *after the fact* which means it's *not* a prediction. This is some serious intellectual laziness here Squared.
In Bayesianism, when a prediction is made doesn’t matter. A prediction is how much of the probability space where a proposition true “contains” another proposition (the evidence).
@@ApologeticsSquared Well it actually does matter because you're not *predicting* anything if you're just using tautological statements. You're not even using bayesianism here, you're just attributing credit or causality with no evidence or justification. It's another "valid not sound" statement/argument, completely void of any predictive power or use.
Shouldn't you take into account how complex each of the concepts are? Theism seems a lot more complex than "the cat is on the mat". Your understanding of theism seems weird. Most people would say that God had the free will to not create the universe. But if you think every good thing in the universe is predicted by theism, then you clearly disagree with this. Is that correct? It seems that "a universe where everyone is in constant bliss" is good, therefore it's predicted by theism. So that would be a failed prediction. Can I then rule out theism?
I've posted this elsewhere but it seems that the "prediction" isn't really relevant to anything. You could say God prefers cats or iguanas, it's simply a "point to thing that exist and say therefore god" in the end. Theism generally holds that God prefers good but that's not a prediction that "because good things exist therefore god did it" without explicitly showing that causal chain. Squared could have made a better argument with totality of existence or something but he just stuck with "good thing exist" which isn't a good argument.
@@ShouVertica I would explain to you that you're misunderstanding bayesianism and that the way squared is defending theism is the exact same way we defend the existence of the Higgs boson, but you've shown several times already that you have no interest in actually understanding the argument being presented. So I won't do that. Please don't respond to this comment, or any other of my comments, ever. I'm not wasting any more time with you.
@@Nickesponja So you're just lying now? We don't predict Higgs boson by complete unknowns and assigning preferences of creation using bayesian predictions. To even compare what Squared has done to that is absurdity. Does it like the "good" fields, does it prefer "power" or how about "sin"? Can you imagine if scientist just made up particles and say they preferred "good" things? It's so crazy that you bring this stuff up and say "oh no Squared is doing the thing the scientist do!", because it's clearly not. Clearly scientist don't just make up stuff and hope it works out. They have explanatory models with explanatory power. Where is the explanatory power in Squareds model? Exactly. Jeez the desperation to sound smart by referencing science topics is so sad.
@@ShouVertica I've already explained this to you, several times, in other threads. I'm not gonna waste my time doing it again. You've made it abundantly clear that you either can't or don't want to understand it.
@@Nickesponja Lol so lying it is. "Well uh, I can't say how it's similar but it just is ok, just like the science!" The desperation to sound smart and the inability to explain is theistic philosophy 101 I guess.
[On Simplicity] Easily the most apparent problem is that you have cited the most complex concept (A god with omni or "maximal" properties) and then said it was simpler so it has higher prior probability. Once again, you haven't even attempted to justify or explain *why* this deity is somehow simpler than an alternative or naturalism, you just state it and hope nobody notices the smoke and mirror trick. Why spend so much time and not invoke the concept of "occam's razor" though? I'm glad that we are going to actual prediction, evidence, and explanatory power but to just dance around occam's razor and not mention just seems odd. 4:19 "The shorter the description of a hypothesis is, the simpler it is! The problem is that it depends on the language of choice" This seems very hard for me to get around without making a strawman, because not even *you* would be daft enough to argue that because "god" has three letters it's simpler as a concept, right? I'm just not seeing how to get around these statements without it sounding this way though. You should definitely look into your wording and phrasing when going through your script.
He obviously did defend that theism is simple, he didn't just state it. He gave arguments in favour of conceptual simplicity being the correct analysis of simplicity in theories and he argued that the theory that there is a maximally good thing is conceptually simple by explaining that it only had three concepts. He also explicitly said in the video that he didn't care if naturalism was or wasn't simpler than theism. In fact, he even claimed that the theory that "anything that is causal is physical" (which he saw as a good definition of naturalism) was also "composed" of three concepts, making it just as simple as theism.
@@yourfutureself3392 Point to where then, I see absolutely no argument for theism being simple outside of the grammar one. How are you saying theism is just as simple as naturalism when theism is explicitly naturalism + supernatural. By default it's more complex because it has more. Adding "omni" or "maximal" properties are explicitly more complex explanations. So much so that many theist claim to not even understand because it's so complex and "beyond our knowledge". It's so dishonest to say these make it simpler simply by it having less letters.
@@ShouVertica please, read and listen more carefully. He explained that the theory that there is a maximally good thing is conceptually simple as it only has three concepts: the concept of a thing, the concept of goodness and the concept of maximal-ness. Before that, he argued that conceptual simplicity is a theoretical virtue. Therefore, theism is theoretically virtuous in this regard (and ONLY in this very specific regard). He doesn't pretend like he proved that God exists. He just tries to show theism is simple and doesn't even try to prove it has a high prior probability, as that depends on how intuitive each individual finds theism. So, sure, it's not a strong argument, but it's not a strong conclusion. He doesn't even conclude that theism is simpler than naturalism. That was his argument. To just assert that he didn't present an argument is a strawman. Theism isn't "naturalism+supernatural". Theism just is the view that there is a kind of supernatural entity (maybe the only kind). No theistic philosopher defines theism (as a theory) as the view that there is this kind of supernatural entity AND that there is a natural reality. Most take natural reality to be what's called background knowledge. At the very least, when Squared says theism, he means "the theory that there is one maximally good thing". That doesn't entail the existence of the natural. I also never claimed that naturalism is just as simple as theism. I am explaining Squared's view (which you clearly didn't understand). And even though he claimed that, he's clearly not willing to die on that stone. He clearly doesn't think it's that important which theory is simpler, when compared to the importance of evidence. Also keep in mind that he meant that theism and naturalism were just as CONCEPTUALLY simple. Naturalism may be simpler than theism in terms of the amount of entities postulated or the amount of kinds of entities postulated (quantitative and qualitative simplicity). He made no claims in regards to that.
@@yourfutureself3392 So you can't point to where? No surprise to me. "He explained that the theory that there is a maximally good thing is conceptually simple as it only has three concepts: the concept of a thing, the concept of goodness and the concept of maximal-ness." Already addressed. This isn't an argument for simplicity if you are positing it simply by word count. "He just tries to show theism is simple and doesn't even try to prove it has a high prior probability" He asserted that it has a high probability due to simplicity, which is not the case as I already explained. "as that depends on how intuitive each individual finds theism." Appeal to subjectivism/presuppositionalism. Nail in the coffin for anyone taking him seriously at this point. "No theistic philosopher defines theism (as a theory) as the view that there is this kind of supernatural entity AND that there is a natural reality" I'm sorry, are you just dumb? The only difference between atheism and theism is the belief in the supernatural deity. That's it. So yes, every single theistic philosopher believes in the natural world AND a supernatural deity. "Most take natural reality to be what's called background knowledge." Why even attempt to be this dishonest. It never works. "He clearly doesn't think it's that important which theory is simpler" He spent 10 minutes talking about it. Are you seriously arguing Squared doesn't think it's important? Seems again, dishonest and deflective. "Also keep in mind that he meant that theism and naturalism were just as CONCEPTUALLY simple. " They are by definition not equal You are adding the supernatural, by definition the supernatural belief is more complex and less simple. "Naturalism may be simpler than theism in terms of the amount of entities postulated or the amount of kinds of entities postulated " It is. This isn't even an argument, Squared is just flat outright wrong. "He made no claims in regards to that." 10:53 So you're wrong, factually. Thanks for playing, don't try the dishonest junk again please.
Theism is compatible with literally any observation. Why is there what there is? God willed it so, and however inscrutable it looks to us finite humans, we can be sure that it's all part of the divine plan. You might notice that if a scientific theory was compatible with any observation, it's a worthless theory. Prediction is as much about excluding possibilities as specifying them, and theism excludes no possible observation, so it's not a predictive theory.
WOW and yet WLC and others use complexity as proof of god so which is it ? The VERY best philosophy can do in regard to your god is that a god could exist IF the universe is infinite and everything is possible. Like everything else with theism saying something is possible is UTTERLY different than saying it is probable. So PROVE that your particular cherry picked god exists in ANY way POWER is good in exactly what way ?
Nice job as always 😊
I quite like a definition of simplicity being a "meassure of how many additional propositions need to be accepted for affirmation".
This is an inherently subjective definition, since the simplicity of proposition now depends on the set of beliefs of the subject. Nevertheless i think that this is the actual intuitive usage of the word simplicity in this context.
But we can make it subject-independent very easy by:
"Simplicity is a meassure of how many basal propositions need to be accepted for affirmation"
"Basal propositions" refers to those propositions, which formulation does not depend on any other proposition. Since finding these is... lets say tricky i would simply instead use the "greatest common denominator", which are the laws of logic/laws of syntax combined with empiracal facts that are accepted by both partys.
Awesome series! I love the funny reverb when you say A X I O L O G I C A L A P E X.
I have a few questions/thoughts regarding the idea that good things are evidence for theism:
1) If divinity is the ultimate good, isn't the creation of anything other than ultimate good a bad thing, thus not something that ought to be created?
2) On the question of there being good things that don't exist because they'd make other better things impossible or bring about evil: why create such an imperfect world, then? What good is there in allowing imperfection/evil to exist in that framework?
Those are the main reasons this perspective doesn't really sit well with me (yet).
Thank you for the videos and the neat presentation of arguments. It's subjectively a good thing to create!
I'm really appreciating the work you're doing to justify your epistemology and I think your overall strategy for making the case for theism is super interesting! A couple thoughts so far. I tend to agree with the comments saying that theism seems less simple than naturalism, even according to conceptual simplicity. Since theism and naturalism are total worldviews rather than isolated theories explaining a small domain of explananda, it seems to me that we have to take inventory of everything that exists as well as the properties and relations included in the respective views. The comparison becomes even more complicated when we bring in specific theological doctrines (e.g., when positing theodicies) and metaphysical commitments (e.g., platonism, moral realism, dualism). I'd be curious how you defend the simplicity of theism in light of all this.
As for the complaints about your usage of the term "prediction" being a kind of post facto justification of what you already believe, they're obviously hogwash. Naturalists say all the time "the world is exactly the way we would expect it to be if God didn't exist." Are you seriously telling me this claim doesn't also rely on having a fine-tuned definition of naturalism to better fit the data and thus increase its predictive power?
Keep up the good work!
Yes naturalist say that because the theistic prediction model is identical to no God and has no explanatory power. That's the point....
Edit: I don't think naturalist make the same argument, more so because naturalism is the default and they don't need to make these pseudo "predictions" because they are not positing cosmic "magic man" as an explanation for events. the criticism of "naturalist do it too" seems kind of dumb since naturalist don't even need to argue these points in such a desperate manor. It's the default.
Wow and that is is it naturalism or magic sky daddy
A god that you neither define or justify. A god that is your personalised version of an iron age myth against everything observable and provable. THAT is YOUR world view
@@gowdsake7103
“Sky daddy”
“THAT is YOUR view”
Smokescreen!! “Sky daddy” THAT is YOUR (straw man argument). That is your (fallacy of false equivalence). Not to mention your (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy) and your (Category Error Fallacy)!! The list of basic logical fallacies goes on!!
By sheer coincidence I’ve actually got two new brands of pen right here on my desk which i use for writing down ultimately meaningless and ultimately purposeless comments a (Richard Dawkins pen) and a (gowd sake straw man Pen) they’ve got no point!!
I rest my case!!
@@georgedoyle2487 Awww triggered much and yet NEVER will you be able to provide evidence for your sky daddy will you ?
So provide conclusive proof of your imaginary friend and greatest being or admit that all YOU have is an imaginary friend
As for straw man hmm you are not saying that you have a invisible untestable and imaginary friend ?
Fine PORVE god! I will wait and look smug at your utter inability to back up your claim. BTW the bible is the claim and not the proof and philosophy is at BEST saying a god could exist with nothing to back up that claim but word salad
As for a god claim I guess your pen has nothing to add to your claim on that one has it
Bro 😂 naturalist make a prediction then try to discovered if that prediction is true.
I think the premise "if X is good then theism predicts X" is true but it can work against theism by providing examples of things that are good that don't exist.
Yep! That could be one form of argument against God. I don’t dispute that.
If we’re using simplicity as the foundation for our predictions then I would argue it is simpler that we don’t know what this argument claims we know and the prediction is that there would be great amount of disagreement over the topic of this video both in its simplicity and predictive power.
Hey look at that! a rebuttal Simpler than this whole video and more accurate in its prediction.
I am not sure about what I will say here, but Richard Swinburne can be considered a Thomas Aquinas of the 21th century. I never read anything of Swinburne, but I feel that he's another Aquinas.
Aquinas isn't exactly a great philosopher or anything tho, he just rephrase old arguments and is largely wrong on the physics side of things.
@@ShouVertica you're critizicing a MEDIEVAL philosopher who isn't at all known for his theories on physics for being wrong about physics. Wtf. Also, what old arguments did he "rephrase" aside from the argument from motion?
@@yourfutureself3392 His arguments are based on misunderstanding of physics that are now completely outdated. So yeah, unless he's saying Swinburne is wrong then I don't get the reference.
@@yourfutureself3392 completely agree with you. Aquinas spend his whole life studying, studying and... Studying. Different from some people that watch two videos and think that they are experts on a subject.
Even though I am not familiarized (and I fell that I do not agree with him) with Aquinas, everyone has to admit: he is a intelectual titan! His writings are discussed even today!
@@ShouVertica how are his arguments other than the argument from motion (one of the seven ways he presented in his work) based on outdated physics? How is the second way, for example, based on outdated physics (the one from causality)?
Wouldn't theism predict that the universe is maximally good? There are many ways that the universe could be made better easily. Therefore, theism loses predictive power
Do please demonstrate any theistic doctrine that shows a maximal good
A perfect being makes perfect things
First!!! I haven’t watched the video yet but bayesnian probability told me that the video is probabilistically more likely to be good, so I can reasonably predict that the video is in fact good.
Oof, you just pointed out the problem with bayesian probability, the video was bad!
I think that in future videos you should defend your method for deriving properties a bit more. Why can't two good properties be in conflict with each other?
For example i like sour food and i like spicy food, but if i mix the two, the result isn't better it is worst.
I would argue that this holds also for gods properties.
For "knowledge" for example:
Another "good thing" is giving privacy, but if you already know everything is there such a thing as privacy?
The topic of giving privacy raises the next problem with this approach. Some (if not most) properties aren't all that good taken two one extreme. If you are to free-handed it is neglectful. If you are overbearing then there is no perceived freedom.
I plan to address worries of conflicting properties as they arise.
Well the property doesn't matter as long as you define God to prefer it. It could be "cheesy" and if you define God as preferring "cheesy" therefore (in Squareds view) God is of "higher probability."
@ShouVertica Thats kinda something you missed in your own comment on simplicity. Squareds definition of god is actually incredibly simple. A "thing that is good to the maximum degree" is in this formulation actually quite simple. I don't see how he could ever get from there to the omnis, or any of the properties he wants to have for that matter, but thats my point. Give him time/space to defend his argument, IF you want an actual productive conversation with the opposition.
If you like to score some points instead, there are easier targets. One for example is in his "simple god definition". Since he used the word maximum, this has a pretty nasty side-effect. To be at a maximum implies limitations/boundaries set from the outside, which means god as he defined it is subject of some boundaries (i assume the laws of logic) and can therefore not be the grounding of these boundaries. Similarly since he defined god with a property he called "good" this property can also not be grounded in this entity, since it would lead to a circular definition.
But these are discussions i have had more times than i can count, so i am a bit more interessted in less discussed points.
I genuinely don't know how someone would defend the position that the "best possible amount of any good property is always to max out that property". This statement has more of an rpg-vibe to me than that it could come from philosophy.
@@Finfie You said it's simple, why do you think so?
I think maximal properties are by definition complex, as you are adding more to a thing to reach a higher state until the "maximal" state.
Squared argued via literal word count it is simpler, but then mentioned concept simplicity so it seems to be talking out of both sides.
Also why am I being attacked for Squareds routine inability to explain anything? The guy made a 10 minute video on one subject, he failed to explain, that's not my fault. If this is his "Magnum opus" why is it every video is shallow explanations and inability to address any criticism, much less use bayesianism correctly.
@@ShouVertica What statement is simpler?
1) I have 100$ on my bank account
2) I have 1000000$ on my bank account
I would argue both statements have the same simplicity. 1) is more propable, but its not simpler.
To assess the simplicity of a concept i like to break it down into its base concepts.
Heres a sketch:
"Thing which is good to the maximum degree" ->
a) Thing
b) good
c) maximum
d) basic syntactic laws (laws of logic for example)
These are by no means base concepts so we can go deeper, from a) we can derive the "existence of reality" for example and so on
c) doesn't actually add much more concepts since maths/statistics axioms can be pretty much derived from laws of logic
b) is a bit more interresting since what is "good" is kinda a touchy subject, but since he leaves it "open" wheter it is subjective or objective, we can likewise substitude "good" with "fullfills a standart". This also doesn't add many more concepts, but it makes his definition also incrediblly weak.
So his actual definition so far is "A thing that fullfills a standart to the maximum degree", which is, well underwhelmingly ordinary for a god. So im interested how/if he fixes it.
"Also why am I being attacked for Squareds routine inability to explain anything?"
Sorry if you feelt attacked. It seemed to me that your motivation is a bit confused. Your clearly took alot of effort writing alot of well-thought-out comments here, that i dont think that you are just here to troll. But likewise, if you leave a wall of text, few people will engage with such a post. (I doubt many people except you will make it this far in this thread for the same reason). I only wanted to advise you to taylor your messages to the result you want to achive. If you just want to debunk squared i would recommend to you to make a video, that would get more eyes than a comment wall i think. But thats just my perspective. You are of course free to spend your time how you like best (;
Question - on your view, I know you aren’t a classical theist. But wouldn’t it make sense on your view to accept classical theism because it has a higher prior probability than something like theistic personalism? It only takes one component to say “there is a being of pure act”, rather than the many components that would go into a theistic personalists view of God?
Very interesting question!
I worry that the God of Classical Theism relies on very specific metaphysics. Like, I’m not sure I even buy the idea that there are such things as actualities and potentialities. Furthermore, I think it would be very hard to draw out the various attributes of God. For example, how do we get from “pure actuality” to an agent?
@@ApologeticsSquared I don’t see any reason to deny actuality and potentiality. They seem like valid ways of understanding change. For getting from pure act to an agent, just note that no first action can be committed unless it is done by an agent. A ball will not role unless it is made to do so by an agent.
Simplicity in a theory is usually defined using Occam's razor, that the fewer entities, or kinds of entities are preferred. Naturalism relies on the 4 natural (physical) forces - gravity, electro-magnetic, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. These are one kind of entity, and their actions are well understood. Theism usually relies on an immaterial disembodied mind that exists outside of space and time, and possess the 3 omnis', (all-knowing, all powerful, all-loving). None of these qualities are known to even exist at all. How can a non-physical being effect a physical reality? How can you test that? What does it even mean to exist outside of space/time? How can a mind even exist without a physical brain? What did god create the universe out of? How did he generate life? God is not a simple explanation, and unless coherent answers can be provided as to what a god is, and a mechanism for how it can act on a physical reality, then god doesn't even qualify as an explanation at all. Saying "God did it" is a stop sign for expanding human knowledge, and the strongest defense of the ignorant who wish to remain so.
Theism predicts "goodness", needs a solid definition for "goodness" or is meaningless.
In any case, isn't this just destroyed by The Problem of Suffering? Usually "The problem of evil" is hand-waved away by claims of "free will" (prove you have it first). However, the problem of suffering covers natural disasters and illness's as well. Why are babies born with terminal birth defects? Why do babies die at all? Why did a tsunami wipe out hundreds of thousands of people? What about the Black Death? If theism is true, why do some innocent people suffer, while some people who don't abide by gods instructions get to live long luxurious lives?
Whether life is "good" or not, depends entirely on when and where you live, coupled with other circumstances of your birth. For theism to be true, things would have to be "good" for a majority of people, for majority of the time, throughout human history. Even today, probably the most "good" period in human history, it cannot be said that things are "good" for the majority of the world. Which I suspect is why you didn't define "good".
I really appreciate this definition. It is very falsifiable. It is also very bold, since you are claiming that this is the best of all possible worlds. That's pretty far from what it looks like on the surface! :)
Great video
Theism doesnt make any specific predictions. Only that God exists. A theist can claim God is the explanation for the totality of contingent existences but this assumes there are contingent existences that require explanation. The totality of existence is a brute fact. Your definition of theism assumes good is a universally agreed upon concept if not, then there is no reason provided to accept that this is how theism should be defined.
The language of winning and victory is kinda distasteful, but o well
I agree; I'm using it ironically.
I don’t think that theism has good predictive power for a lot of things.
For example, if theism were true, given nothing else, I would predict that most likely that the universe would be something more akin to the Bible.
Where the earth is the first thing to be created, then the sun, in a geocentric world. Unfortunately… that’s not how it goes 😅.
You also forgot to mention that mostly Reliable Intuitions are good for survival. If natural selection occurs, then it could select for things that are good for survival.
The atheist gets to talk about natural selection when they reproduce above replacement levels.
I don't think Squared believes in the Old Testament creation literally.
Anyway instincts aren't necessarily the most logical or good. Trusting our natural instincts leads to survival yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the most effective survival strategy. For example, biology and epidemiology are more effective survival strategies than natural selection because even the weak can survive.
@@bitchd7839 yup’ I mean
Survival of the fittest is a bit of a misnomer, it is definitely survival of the “fit enough to survive.”
But yeah obviously we have our instinct to explore and learn and stuff which is cool. And it’s also good that we made things that move past our basic instinct.
More than like. Any other animal has done, pretty neat.
But I’m glad that Square doesn’t believe in the OT Genesis 1-11. Neither do I… but of course my parents and my church do 😅
Nice video. I take its possible that someone could find issue with how you derived God’s properties by saying “well I don’t think power and knowledge are good”. I don’t endorse such a criticism because I actually find it plausible that such things are good, but what would you say in response to such a person?
I would just say, “You really think that being powerful and knowledgeable is in no way better than being ignorant and weak? Really???” And if they say yes I guess I’d just have to accept that this person’s intuitions are really different from mine!
It doesn't even matter that they are good, they could be mediocre or whatever, the tautology of "God would create with X property" isn't determined by it being anything as long as you define god as preferring that property.
Certainly if you take the Abrahamic gods we can say they are NOT good. Demanding worship while threatening eternal torment can never be defined as good
Isn´t theism inherently more improbable (a prior) than atheism/naturalism? I mean basically atheism describes everything theism does (ej. the existence of a world) but theism have an extra factor.
I don’t think so. Take the hypothesis that the world came into existence 5 minutes ago in its present state. Is that simpler (a priori) than the hypothesis that the universe is actually very old? It posits less than the hypothesis that the universe is very old! Or take the hypothesis that you’re the only mind, and the entire world is an illusion. That’s the simplest of all! Instead of your mind + your perceptions of the external world + external world, the hypothesis that you’re the only mind in existence only needs your mind + your perceptions of the external world.
@@ApologeticsSquared This isn't addressing the question. He asked you why theism is simpler than atheism/naturalism if it is adding a deity/extra factor. Your response of "whataboutism" isn't addressing the question.
@@ApologeticsSquared Eternal cosmos = 1 assertion.
Created cosmos + eternal creator = 2 assertions.
Easy peezy.
@@ApologeticsSquared You lost me here. In what way can the hypothesis that the world was created 5 minutes ago, in it's present state be considered simpler than a very old universe? Theory's must account for all available evidence, and present a falsifiable explanation, and when two different theories accomplish the same thing, the simplest is preferred. A very old universe does this, using known principles of physics, a 5 minute old one can't without adding a god. The old universe is the simpler explanation.
Isn't Syntactic Simplicity the best way to describe a theory, not a way to gauge the truth of one? Saying the truth of an assertion can be gauged by it's word count seems absolutely absurd.
@@bskec2177 It depends on the version of naturalism. A naturalism that supposes the universe as a brute fact I think may be simpler, but doesn’t sufficiently explain the data. However a naturalism with a necessary being does actually seem as simple as theism in that regard, as they both suppose all of contingent reality as well as a necessary being.
Hey man, quick question, what is your argument that proves that the necessary being must have a will/consciousness ?
Well, since it’s defined as “the most good Being,” then I would say that we would expect this being to have a consciousness and will, because those are good things! If we think that the most good Being is “X,” but X does not have consciousness or a will, we could improve upon X by giving it a consciousness and a will. Therefore, the most good Being has consciousness and a will.
@@ApologeticsSquared How do you know that consciousness and will are necessarily good things though? For instance, if someone used their will to murder someone, is it still a necessarily good thing that they had that will? If someone's consciousness is constantly in pain and complete confusion, is it still a necessarily a good thing that they have that consciousness?
@@karmacamera675 I think there are two routes one could take:
1) Affirm that, yes, consciousness and will are always bad. Even if this good thing (will) makes a bad thing possible (murder), that doesn't thereby make the good thing bad.
2) Accept that consciousness and will are *only* good insofar as the being in question has a good moral character. Then we just change the argument from, "consciousness + will is good, so God has consciousness + will" to "consciousness + will + omnibenevolence is good, so God has consciousness + will + omnibenevolence ."
(I formulated these around the murder example, but they can be repurposed for the pain/confusion example too.)
@@ApologeticsSquared Read the comment you made that I responded to. You didn't mention that consciousness and will are only good if the being that has them is also good. You said that a good being must necessarily have a consciousness and will because those things are good. Why?
@@karmacamera675 Because I think the first of the two routes I spelled out is also plausible.
It's very intuitive that power and knowledge are good? I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with that statement...
Power and knowledge without wisdom and conscience kills.
I don't think intuitions have any weight, but I think it's obviously intuitive for the vast majority of people that power and knowledge are good. I mean, nobody finds it intuitive that it's better not to know anything and to have only false beliefs or unjustified true beliefs or to be powerless and incapable of doing anything. If having power is better than being powerless and impotent and being knowledgable is better than being ignorant about everything, then power and knowledge are good (as it's better to have them than not to have them). And everyone clearly finds it intuitive that being knowledgable or capable is better than being ignorant or impotent.
@@yourfutureself3392 Just having knowledge of things does not give the "what to do with it." Power corrupts. Power with too much knowledge leads to tyrannical dictators.
@@randywise5241 so the bad thing is the conjuction of knowledge and not having anything to do with it, the conjuction of power and corruptability and the conjuction of power, knowledge and tyranny. Nobody denies that. However, a maximally good entity would obviously lack corruptability, tyranny, etc. Do you honestly believe that it's intuitive for most people to respond with a "no" to the following questions: Is being knowledgable better than being ignorant about anything? Is being capable and competent better than being incompetent and useless? If they would respond with a "no", then why does "ignorant" have a negative connotation while "truth" and "justified beliefs" (crucial elements of knowledge) have a positive connotation and may even be seen as values?
@@yourfutureself3392 This is true, but my argument is that he's arguing for a maximally good being by saying that power and knowledge are good. I've taken that instinctively to mean both power and corruptability. If I should only be taking the sole concepts of power and knowledge into account, then neither are either good or bad. Also, It's in conjunction with already knowing what to do in a moral dilemma that can make the two concepts good. If I'm not allowed to use other ideas to say power and knowledge are bad, then why can I use other ideas to say they are good?
Well we don't have evidence a God can exist. We don't have a know example of a God existing, or a universe being created, so we have no way of determining a probability of a God existing, or a universe being designed.
Ohhhh but add in special pleading and god works perfectly
You have not provided evidence that, the God concept you provided can, or does exist. Again we have no know examples of theism being true to determine probability.
On your definitions of simplicity then the theism theory must be the most complex theory possible, because God is the most complex being possible. Since God is defined to have omni- powers, God have maximum possibilities and therefore have maximum complexity. Then God goes against our intuitions. Nobody can even give a coherent definition of the omni- powers, and we certainly have no intuition to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.
Take for example a bacteria. It have the powers to reproduce, to consume and to evolve in simple terms. It doesn't have the power of knowledge because it lacks a brain. It doesn't even have arms to build something. It's simple. Then we have a crow. It can learn, it can build, it can solve complicated puzzles. It's more complex than a bacteria. Then we have God. God is omniscient. It's more complex than a bird.
Ok, whatever. You just use words and say "the less words I can use the less complex it is". This is not how it works. A concept or a word can describe a highly complex situation. For example the concept of "gravity". It's just one word, one concept. But it's so complex that for over 100 years we still don't know what "gravity" is.
"thing" - "good" - "maximum"
A thing is simple. It's just some object. Good is a highly complex topic. You even leave it open if "good" is subjective or objective. "Maximum" is by definition maximally complex. It literally means nothing else can be more complex than "Maximum".
"causal" - "implication" - "physical"
Those are complex concepts, but by definition there are less complex than "Maximum".
"how intuitive do you find it that there is a god?"
ROFL. Ask a theist and he says "very intuitive". Ask an atheist and he says "not intuitive at all".
"if you're like a huge percentage of the population throughout history then the answer is that you find this form of theism pretty intuitive"
Sure, appeal to popularity. Nice to make a logical fallacy in your highly reasonable video.
"you see we can imagine a ton of things which are good so theism makes a ton of super specific predictions"
I can imagine a ton of things which are not good. So theism makes a ton of super specific false predictions.
Also you didn't make the same test for Naturalism, which wins every time, but theism fails. Naturalism predicts are, what properties would Nature have? Easy.
We can take any property and ask would this property contribute towards [Nature] having physical implication. Does this property make something [imply to be physical.] If the answer is yes then [Nature] has that property.
If X is causal, then Naturalism predicts X.
I can imagine a ton of things which are causal. So Naturalism makes a ton of super specific predictions.
I would even argue there is nothing that you can think of that is not causal, not physical and therefore not a property of nature. Everything that is causal is a property of nature and is physical. You can say, what about a soul? A soul is not causal. A soul doesn't do anything that we can detect. What about consciousness? Consciousness is a function of the brain, the brain is physical, therefore consciousness is physical.
I can define gremlins as creatures that are invisible, can go through object, , don't make any noise, and go around break toasters. That does not mean that That gremlins exists because my toaster is broken. What you are doing is trying to define a God into existence. All you are doing is coming up with a God concept, and defining a God to fit what we have evidence for. But until you can provide evidence that the God concept you claim exist, exist, then you claim is just one big assertion with no evidence behind it
I have not heard you give a usage for good, so Under your usage for good, power and knowledge are good, under my usage power, and knowledge are not good, or bad. So no it is not intutuative
Theism fail on the simplicity.
For theism, you need to make far more assumption. Like the existence of a god, the nature of that god, the abilities of that god, the actions of that god, etc.
Naturalism doesn't require assuming anything.
The predictive power of the god hypothesis is nothing but a cop out.
When you insert an all powerful magic to the system it becomes the answer to everything.
Your predictions of gods attributes actually contribute the the prior probability. Bringing it down, as you are making it more complex.
Naturalism obviously does committ you to some claims. It committs you to the existence of natural entities/properties/procceses, to the inexistence of non-natural entities/properties/procceses and, depending on how you define naturalism and the natural/non-natural divide, it also committs you to scientific realism, source physicalism (the view that fundamental reality is physical and that the physical sources the mental), either reductive physicalism or eliminative materialism, causal realism, nominalism, 'mere' physicalism, temporalism (the view that everything is temporal), either moral anti-realism or moral naturalism, etc. It does depend on how conservative your understanding of the natural is. The more 'liberal' naturalists aren't committed to rejecting platonism or dualism. Naturalism obviously does have commitements, just like theism. Maybe by the 'assumptions' of theism you didn't mean it's commitements. If that's the case, then I don't see what you could've meant assuming you weren't begging the question or misunderstanding the difference between prior probability with the probability given the evidence.
@@yourfutureself3392Naturalism is just a distinction between those that believe in the "supernatural" and those who don't. It's not a real category and you'd be hard pressed to even argue that the inclusion of a god wouldn't fit under naturalism, since by default he would be a part of "nature." The strawman that you "commit to some other claims claims" is just dumb, that's not a part of the naturalism distinction.
@@ShouVertica so, what is the actual definition of naturalism as a worldview, according to you? The belief in the inexistence of the supernatural?
@@yourfutureself3392 Are you asking me to repeat myself? Learn to read
[On Prior probability]
10:35 "How intuitive do you find this" That's not how probability works Squared. You don't demonstrate prior probability by taking an opinion poll.
This also sounds a lot like presuppositionalism.
10:50 "Theism is very simple" You spent this whole video without explaining why theism is simple. Another empty claim as far as I can see.
Aaaaaaaand that's it? That's all that you dedicate to prior probability? The entirety of your bayesianism argument rest on this and you handwave it with "well if you believe in theism and theism is simple"? So 100% what people called you out for on the prior video is true, you're just stating a tautology of "well if you believe in god therefore you find descriptions of god believable"
Presupp junk.
No your usage of theism is not simple, You did not provide a usage for the words, good, and maximum degree, make it unable to be assessed for simplicity.
So goodness being subjective depends how you are using the word good. And this is one of the reason why your usage is not simple
So you did not specify methodological naturalism or philosophical naturalism. What you are calling a definition for naturalism does not even make much sense.
So at about the 10 fifty mark, you are appealing to popularity. And you have not provided theism is simply, according to your usage of the word, theism.
15:30 "If theism is true then god would insure our reliable intuitions." Can theism be false and we still have reliable intuitions?
What does theism even have to do with our intuitions at all since 99.99% of our daily lives have no reference to theism?
Just sounds like presuppositional garbage where the evidence is so poor that you fake "predictions" and argue in vague totalities to avoid any actual discussion on the subject and what we really have. Where's Jesus? Where's the Bible? Isn't this supposed to be an argument for Christianity?
"Where's Jesus?"
Matthew 18:20 - For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
@@greenbird679 Cute but not relevant
The prior of a hypothesis should consider the available, known evidence. The necessary extensions of it, as it clashes with said evidence, have to be spelled out as well. Simplicity is hardly the only virtue a hypothesis needs to evaluate all that.
First-Cause Naturalism:
The First Cause is the naturalistic beginning of reality from which all else stems.
-WYSIWYG.
First-Cause Deism:
The First-Cause has a mind; it is the beginning of reality from which all else stems.
- hypothesis agnostic on whether it cares to create other aware beings specifically;
- compared to naturalism, it needs to justify the mind with all its features as an additional attribute.
First-Cause Theism:
The First-Cause has a mind, is morally objectively good, cares about creating other aware beings for which it has plans and is the beginning of reality from which all else stems.
- additional assumptions
- huge risk of projecting human psychology onto the ontology, though arbitrarily only its one, idealized part
- the evidence of state of the world decreases plausibility that this First Cause is maximally good; theodecies only bloat the hypothesis even more
First-Cause Limited Theism:
Same as above, but it's limited in some ways, so at least it might have a better excuse for the state of the world, which arguably makes it a bit more plausible.
First-Cause Malicious Theism:
The First Cause has a malicious mind, capable of lying and causing all kinds of suffering.
- risk of projecting what humanity is emotionally invested in onto the ontology
- the amount of suffering makes it more evidence based than F-CT; experiences of goodness require additional explanation though (but since F-CMT is capable of lying/misdirection, the evidence is consistent with it).
First-Cause Limited Malicious Theism:
As above, but it may be easier to explain the amount of perceived good in the world.
[On predictions]
I'm just going to come out and say it: these are not novel testable predictions and I'm shocked at how lazy you are here.
12:03 "If X is good, God would create X"
In concept this isn't a real prediction but a tautological statement. "The burger eater would eat burgers." You've defined God as something that would create good, but that's nothing more than semantics, you haven't done any of the work here to show a causal chain of any sorts or that God is even good or desires good or he is responsible for X being good.
12:26 "If X is good, then theism predicts X."
This sounds like theism has no actual evidence, because you're not predicting that X is good, you're just saying "if it's good then theism predicted it." That's a prediction made *after the fact* which means it's *not* a prediction.
This is some serious intellectual laziness here Squared.
In Bayesianism, when a prediction is made doesn’t matter. A prediction is how much of the probability space where a proposition true “contains” another proposition (the evidence).
@@ApologeticsSquared Well it actually does matter because you're not *predicting* anything if you're just using tautological statements. You're not even using bayesianism here, you're just attributing credit or causality with no evidence or justification. It's another "valid not sound" statement/argument, completely void of any predictive power or use.
Shouldn't you take into account how complex each of the concepts are? Theism seems a lot more complex than "the cat is on the mat".
Your understanding of theism seems weird. Most people would say that God had the free will to not create the universe. But if you think every good thing in the universe is predicted by theism, then you clearly disagree with this. Is that correct?
It seems that "a universe where everyone is in constant bliss" is good, therefore it's predicted by theism. So that would be a failed prediction. Can I then rule out theism?
I've posted this elsewhere but it seems that the "prediction" isn't really relevant to anything. You could say God prefers cats or iguanas, it's simply a "point to thing that exist and say therefore god" in the end.
Theism generally holds that God prefers good but that's not a prediction that "because good things exist therefore god did it" without explicitly showing that causal chain.
Squared could have made a better argument with totality of existence or something but he just stuck with "good thing exist" which isn't a good argument.
@@ShouVertica I would explain to you that you're misunderstanding bayesianism and that the way squared is defending theism is the exact same way we defend the existence of the Higgs boson, but you've shown several times already that you have no interest in actually understanding the argument being presented. So I won't do that. Please don't respond to this comment, or any other of my comments, ever. I'm not wasting any more time with you.
@@Nickesponja So you're just lying now? We don't predict Higgs boson by complete unknowns and assigning preferences of creation using bayesian predictions. To even compare what Squared has done to that is absurdity. Does it like the "good" fields, does it prefer "power" or how about "sin"? Can you imagine if scientist just made up particles and say they preferred "good" things? It's so crazy that you bring this stuff up and say "oh no Squared is doing the thing the scientist do!", because it's clearly not. Clearly scientist don't just make up stuff and hope it works out. They have explanatory models with explanatory power. Where is the explanatory power in Squareds model? Exactly.
Jeez the desperation to sound smart by referencing science topics is so sad.
@@ShouVertica I've already explained this to you, several times, in other threads. I'm not gonna waste my time doing it again. You've made it abundantly clear that you either can't or don't want to understand it.
@@Nickesponja Lol so lying it is. "Well uh, I can't say how it's similar but it just is ok, just like the science!"
The desperation to sound smart and the inability to explain is theistic philosophy 101 I guess.
[On Simplicity]
Easily the most apparent problem is that you have cited the most complex concept (A god with omni or "maximal" properties) and then said it was simpler so it has higher prior probability. Once again, you haven't even attempted to justify or explain *why* this deity is somehow simpler than an alternative or naturalism, you just state it and hope nobody notices the smoke and mirror trick. Why spend so much time and not invoke the concept of "occam's razor" though? I'm glad that we are going to actual prediction, evidence, and explanatory power but to just dance around occam's razor and not mention just seems odd.
4:19 "The shorter the description of a hypothesis is, the simpler it is! The problem is that it depends on the language of choice"
This seems very hard for me to get around without making a strawman, because not even *you* would be daft enough to argue that because "god" has three letters it's simpler as a concept, right? I'm just not seeing how to get around these statements without it sounding this way though. You should definitely look into your wording and phrasing when going through your script.
That was very well thought out. I would like to see his response to it.
He obviously did defend that theism is simple, he didn't just state it. He gave arguments in favour of conceptual simplicity being the correct analysis of simplicity in theories and he argued that the theory that there is a maximally good thing is conceptually simple by explaining that it only had three concepts. He also explicitly said in the video that he didn't care if naturalism was or wasn't simpler than theism. In fact, he even claimed that the theory that "anything that is causal is physical" (which he saw as a good definition of naturalism) was also "composed" of three concepts, making it just as simple as theism.
@@yourfutureself3392 Point to where then, I see absolutely no argument for theism being simple outside of the grammar one.
How are you saying theism is just as simple as naturalism when theism is explicitly naturalism + supernatural. By default it's more complex because it has more.
Adding "omni" or "maximal" properties are explicitly more complex explanations. So much so that many theist claim to not even understand because it's so complex and "beyond our knowledge". It's so dishonest to say these make it simpler simply by it having less letters.
@@ShouVertica please, read and listen more carefully.
He explained that the theory that there is a maximally good thing is conceptually simple as it only has three concepts: the concept of a thing, the concept of goodness and the concept of maximal-ness. Before that, he argued that conceptual simplicity is a theoretical virtue. Therefore, theism is theoretically virtuous in this regard (and ONLY in this very specific regard). He doesn't pretend like he proved that God exists. He just tries to show theism is simple and doesn't even try to prove it has a high prior probability, as that depends on how intuitive each individual finds theism. So, sure, it's not a strong argument, but it's not a strong conclusion. He doesn't even conclude that theism is simpler than naturalism. That was his argument. To just assert that he didn't present an argument is a strawman.
Theism isn't "naturalism+supernatural". Theism just is the view that there is a kind of supernatural entity (maybe the only kind). No theistic philosopher defines theism (as a theory) as the view that there is this kind of supernatural entity AND that there is a natural reality. Most take natural reality to be what's called background knowledge. At the very least, when Squared says theism, he means "the theory that there is one maximally good thing". That doesn't entail the existence of the natural.
I also never claimed that naturalism is just as simple as theism. I am explaining Squared's view (which you clearly didn't understand). And even though he claimed that, he's clearly not willing to die on that stone. He clearly doesn't think it's that important which theory is simpler, when compared to the importance of evidence.
Also keep in mind that he meant that theism and naturalism were just as CONCEPTUALLY simple. Naturalism may be simpler than theism in terms of the amount of entities postulated or the amount of kinds of entities postulated (quantitative and qualitative simplicity). He made no claims in regards to that.
@@yourfutureself3392 So you can't point to where? No surprise to me.
"He explained that the theory that there is a maximally good thing is conceptually simple as it only has three concepts: the concept of a thing, the concept of goodness and the concept of maximal-ness."
Already addressed. This isn't an argument for simplicity if you are positing it simply by word count.
"He just tries to show theism is simple and doesn't even try to prove it has a high prior probability"
He asserted that it has a high probability due to simplicity, which is not the case as I already explained.
"as that depends on how intuitive each individual finds theism."
Appeal to subjectivism/presuppositionalism. Nail in the coffin for anyone taking him seriously at this point.
"No theistic philosopher defines theism (as a theory) as the view that there is this kind of supernatural entity AND that there is a natural reality"
I'm sorry, are you just dumb? The only difference between atheism and theism is the belief in the supernatural deity. That's it.
So yes, every single theistic philosopher believes in the natural world AND a supernatural deity.
"Most take natural reality to be what's called background knowledge."
Why even attempt to be this dishonest. It never works.
"He clearly doesn't think it's that important which theory is simpler"
He spent 10 minutes talking about it. Are you seriously arguing Squared doesn't think it's important?
Seems again, dishonest and deflective.
"Also keep in mind that he meant that theism and naturalism were just as CONCEPTUALLY simple. "
They are by definition not equal
You are adding the supernatural, by definition the supernatural belief is more complex and less simple.
"Naturalism may be simpler than theism in terms of the amount of entities postulated or the amount of kinds of entities postulated "
It is. This isn't even an argument, Squared is just flat outright wrong.
"He made no claims in regards to that."
10:53
So you're wrong, factually. Thanks for playing, don't try the dishonest junk again please.
Theism is compatible with literally any observation. Why is there what there is? God willed it so, and however inscrutable it looks to us finite humans, we can be sure that it's all part of the divine plan. You might notice that if a scientific theory was compatible with any observation, it's a worthless theory. Prediction is as much about excluding possibilities as specifying them, and theism excludes no possible observation, so it's not a predictive theory.
WOW and yet WLC and others use complexity as proof of god so which is it ?
The VERY best philosophy can do in regard to your god is that a god could exist IF the universe is infinite and everything is possible.
Like everything else with theism saying something is possible is UTTERLY different than saying it is probable. So PROVE that your particular cherry picked god exists in ANY way
POWER is good in exactly what way ?