I think it’s easier since many (if not most) of us have already seen the video your responding to so speeding up the footage makes the response flow better and cuts down on time while also still reminding us which section you’re responding to.
Easier, especially since ge's responses are simple statements, if his counterarguments were sophisticated then speeding it up might get in the way but as it stands speeding up is much easier
My dude you created a channel to put out Arguments for God not to convince people but simply to put out Arguments for God... like seriously man maybe learn a thing or two about trying to convince people if that's what you want to do or if you don't want to do that then simply just outright be truthful and say that you're not actually trying to convince anyone but you're simply trying to reinforce Believers belief be honest that you're not here
Of course I'm not going to attack the train of thought you were initially presented because I only do that if the premises were true and something I accept with perhaps me than at that point simply just having an issue with where you were trying to lead those facts to like with my previous example even if you accept that most trees are green and the sky is blue that still doesn't leave Leprechauns are the ones that create rainbows and why gold pots will be at the bottom of said rainbows. I'd imagine that if you read my example he probably thought this to yourself before I even brought it up here now because that's how these sorts of arguments work my man
Oh no. I'm sorry you had to deal with this lol. Also, he needs to learn Bayesianism. No one is talking about 'definitive proof', and you haven't denied that 'without God, beauty would still exist'. We're talking about *expectability*. [Anyway, I hope to get to our causal finitism and UPD discussion at some point in the future. I'm drowning in papers and homework right now, but I hope to make some time. :) ]
Great response! I’m glad you pointed out what I and some others had noticed, which is the fact that GE pretty much spent 20 minutes repeating “Beauty is subjective, bro!” without realizing that he isn’t the target audience for these arguments,
@@ApologeticsSquared Oh, one other thing involving how GE insulated you in his rebuttal video. You should feel honored. People using Ad Hominem is generally a sign that they have nothing other than insults and emotion.
@@jesusirizarryrodriguez835 My understanding: That’s like asking “Is {1,2,3} a subset?” Well, a subset of what? A subset of the natural numbers? A subset of the negative integers? A relation of C to D is a subset of all ordered pairs of elements, (c,d), where c is in C and d is in D. So, B is a relation from X to Y if 1 is in X and 1, 2, and 3 are in Y. Have a nice day! :)
Hey could you do a video on the claim that the usage of the word great in the ontological argument is subjective. And recommend some books or papers on the ontological argument❤️
29:47: “X can be evidence for Y without not-X being evidence for not-Y” no, it canʼt, at least not by the Bayesian definition of evidence you use. If X is evidence for Y, then when observing X you scribble out proportionately more of not-Y than Y; if you instead observed not-X youʼd have to scribble out the opposite parts and this means proportionately more Y than not-Y.
Yeah, I worded that comment very poorly. Taken at face value, what I said is indeed completely false. I meant something more like, “Both X and the *opposite* of X can be evidence for a particular theory.” For example, if my theory is “someone is messing with the air conditioning in this room,” then both a very hot and a very cold room would be evidence for the theory. So, here’s what I was getting at: Just as a medium temperature room is what we would expect if there was no agent messing with the temperature, we would expect far less beauty AND far less ugliness if naturalism was true. But there is a lot of beauty in this world (as well as some ugliness).
This video seriously helped me so much… maybe there are differences in the values people place on different things, like they’d rather look at a sunset than a sunrise, or just be closed up in a room… sure, axiological disagreement exists… but values are pegs that are placed on a pegboard… is there no pegboard? Or do axios (not to be confused with axioms) just float freely in an aether unattached? Unrelated? Ungrounded?
As an atheist this was painful to watch. Mostly assertions about beauty being subjective, and straw man's such as objective=absolute and taking ur first "argument" seriously.
4:51 wait no that would mean your question begging, you can’t assume gods there to correlate if the beauty is supposed to be proving god, it’s not question begging to not assume your conclusion Beauty being in reality is supernatural, it’s not physical.
What why are you assuming all gods would want people closer to them and what is good, and if we can detect something it is definitely causally linked since it would be the cause of some of what we do
But I think Phenomenal Conservatism as the justification for the belief in objective beauty works only for people who perceive beauty to be objective. Can you object anything to people saying they perceive beauty to be subjective?
I would try to show beauty does seem objective. “The starry sky on a clear night is so ugly. Sunsets are an eyesore. Crystals and geodes and whatnot-absolutely horrid.” You may conclude that beauty is subjective, but you need to admit that at first glance it seems that some aesthetic judgements appear to be blatantly incorrect. Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared >>You may conclude that beauty is subjective, but you need to admit that at first glance it seems that some aesthetic judgements appear to be blatantly incorrect. I "need to admit" it? Why would I admit this, if it doesn't seem this way to me? Aesthetic experiences don't seem to me to be "correct" or "incorrect," especially in a non-subjective way. No normative considerations seem this way at first glance to me, and never have, including morality. Absolutely nothing about my experiences of the world remotely suggests to me that there are stance-independent aesthetic, moral, or other normative facts. My experiences are thoroughly in line with antirealism.
My argument starts at 14:46. You can think of it this way: trusting our perceptions should be the default option until disproven. We perceive that some objects or concepts have beauty inherent in them. So, by default we should believe that beauty exists. If you can provide objections, then I may need to abandon that belief, but until then I get to keep it. If you reject this kind of thinking, then you’re a step away from the slippery slope of doubting stuff like the physical universe because we have no evidence for it beyond our perceptions. Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Yeah but I obviously don't perceive beauty to be objective. In fact, if I were to trust my perceptions, I would firmly believe that beauty is nothing more than preference, because it seems so obvious to me that that's the case! You wouldn't argue for God by saying "I perceive God to exist therefore I am justified in believing he exists". So what argument would you give to convince people who don't share your perception that beauty is objective?
@@Nickesponja I don't think beauty is objective but I think that's clearly the more intuitive view. Don't you think it's counter-intuitive to claim that a sunshine in a beach has no beauty in it and that it has the same degree of beauty as some slums? That a sunshine in a beach is only more beautiful than some slums if there's someone watching? I think that idea is clearly unintuitive.
@@yourfutureself3392 If we say that a sunshine is objectively beautiful (which I have no idea how you'd actually defend that), then if someone comes to you and says "I don't like sunshines, they're ugly", they aren't just expressing a preference: they are *objectively* wrong. That's so absurd I really don't understand how someone could find objective beauty intuitive. If I show a song to you and say "listen to this, it's beautiful", and it turns out you hate the song and say "hell no, the song is ugly af", then one of us is *objectively* wrong. That again is ridiculous and counter-intuitive.
@@Nickesponja yeah, that's the problem with grounding worldviews in intuition. Different people find different things intuitive and intuitions are inconsistent. I think it's the most intuitive view and you find it unintuitive. This is why I don't believe in objective beauty, despite I find it unintuitive
5:10 (ish) If anyone disagrees about s apecific thing being beautifull, that alone make beauty subjective. Because it is a personal opinion about stuff. Therefore beauty does not lead to a god.
@Melancholy Soldier whut, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You point to science and psychology, yet they have not been able to prove beauty is objective. And they never will. Just 1 person not finding something beatyfull will make it subjective and personal. Just 1 person finding something beautifull and another person not finding the same thing beautyfull makes it subjective and personal. And we have many of those examples. So no they have not proven beauty is objective. Blank Slate Theory, Well people are born with instincs. babies do not neeed to be tought to suck on a nipple. that is a kind of knowledge. But remind me again how it is possible for a god to even exist at all. For all anyone can tell, god is not even a possibillity.
@Melancholy Soldier Beauty is not even a thing that exists. it is an opinion someone can have about something else. it is 100% subjective. Even though some things can be evaluated as beautifull by an enormous group of people. But sinse there are things that can be evalueated as beautifull by some and not by others, shows you that it is subjective, and not objective. You seem to be following a confirmation bias, while ignoring the rest. So yes sinse it is subjective, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. and cannot be used to provide evidence for a god. "Me: says that we innately find certain traits attractive even as babies You: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" Missing your point here, it most definitly is a correct assesment. certain traits does not mean all traits. or all people, Some traits are limited to certain groups of people, but to say it is accross the whole of humanity, is impossible to even test. i mean there have been so many people in history. good luck on testing that. No you are wrong, beauty is not objective, never is and never was. Like it told you, (and you shown not to read carefully) it takes just 1 person to not find something beautifull, while someone else does, to make it go from objective to subjective. And we have many many many examples. It is just a matter of taste, it is in the eye of the beholder yes. But that does not fit your narritive to provide evidence for god, does it...
@Melancholy Soldier Shitty research then. Beauty is just an opinion. nothing else. You can even find something beauty today and but not tomorrow. I agree there are some baked in innate things that will help ( or helped ) us survival yes. but to call that beautyfull no. thats just changing definitions. Beautifull is not even true or false, but a scale. from ugly to beautifull, and all gradients in between. There is no doubt that beauty is subjective, even for the babies you mentioned earlyer. Sounds like the research has been done by the religeous with an agenda in mind.
@@gospelfreak5828 Nope. The color red is not an opinion. Evolution is not an opinion. Beauty however is a personal opinion. That is where you make the thinking mistake.
My understanding: That’s like asking “Is {1,2,3} a subset?” Well, a subset of what? A subset of the natural numbers? A subset of the negative integers? A relation of C to D is a subset of all ordered pairs of elements, (c,d), where c is in C and d is in D. So, B is a relation from X to Y if 1 is in X and 1, 2, and 3 are in Y. Have a nice day! :)
(P1) If evil exists in the world, because God gave us free will and free will is necessery for the greater good, then anything in the world is objectively good and beautifull for the sake of the greater good, because of the necessary existence of free will and evil for that greater good. (P2) The evil of children born with leukemia is not objectively good and beautifull for the sake of the greater good. Hence, not anything in the world is objectively good and beautifull for the sake of the greater good. (Conclusion from P1 and P2 - _modus tollens_ ) Therefore, evil doesn't exist in the world, because God gave us free will and free will is necessary for the greater good. Or in other words evil doesn't exist for the greater good. But evil exists in the world. The Problem of Evil.
I want to be clear on the wording of P1; Are you saying that everything must be objectively good? Obviously, no theist would agree with that premise. So, I take you to mean that things are either objectively good *or* are going to lead to an objective good that outweighs their present badness. But then, why think that leukemia cannot lead to a good that outweighs its badness? It’s hard to imagine what that good might be, but I’m not sure how one could demonstrate that. Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared I think, that in my mind it was the latter, but came out the otherway: Things are either objectively good or are going to lead to an objective good, that outweighs their present badness. My argument is not, that leukemia cannot lead to good, that outweighs its badness. But it is irrational to think, that the following goodness is a sufficient justification for the current badness - especially in the case, when that goodness is achievable without that current badness. Why would the following goodness be sufficient justification for the current badness? Or why is the current badness necessary for the following goodness? Am I incorrect to assume, that the current badness is not necessary for that? Why? Have also a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Let us consider the following dilema: Let's say we have a definite cure for leukemia. If we know, that the following goodness caused by the badness of a child's birth with leukemia is way more greater than the current badness, then should we or shouldn't we cure that badness? Are we justified with our foreknowledge of the following and caused greater goodness to ignore the current badness? Or are we even *ought to* not cure that born child with leukemia in order to achieve that greater good? I argue, that the only greater goodness followed and caused by that badness is the curation of that particular current badness. Our "foreknowledge" of that supposedly "greater goodness" is actually an unjustified assumption of the future. What we do know for sure is the current badness and the current possibility of the curation of that particular badness. According to that we should cure the current badness, because we don't know for sure if the curation of the badness is per say bad in this particular case (or in any other similar case). But we do know that for most cases the curation and correction of the badness is at least better than to have and accept the current badness. So in the case of our false omnissence (regarding our supposedly foreknowledge of the greater goodness) and omnipotence (regarding to cure leukemia) it is rational to cure and correct the current badness, if our goal is finding goodness and eliminating badness. The only greater goodness would be the prevention of the occurrence of that badness. In the case of omniscience and omnipotence it's very hard to answer that question. It is then very similar to the question "If you could kill Adolf Hitler, would you then do it?". Hm, so let us combine our current dilema with that question: If we would have the cure for leukemia and AH would have been born with leukemia and if he would be cured of that disease, then he would do, what he had done in the history and if he wouldn't be cured, then he would die and never do the things, he has done in the history, would you cure him or not? Are we justified to ignore that particular badness? I don't have a good answer for that. Well, it's not that actually but rather I could argue both cases very well. So what is your position on this dilema? Note: This might appear to be a red herring, because it is actually just a tiny bit of that. But this dilemma shows very well, that the objective/absolute beauty and moral is very dependent on our knowledge and capabilities according to that knowledge. Hence it is rather subjective as our knowledge and capabilities are not objective: I would cure AH's leukemia with the foreknowledge of history, because we are morally obligated to cure people's illness - anybody's illness. Everyone has the "natural" right to be cured of any illness. Even AH has that natural right and I am equally not obligated to take away that right as anybody is not obligated to take away that right from me or from him or from anybody else. I could also rationally argue the other case. But that's only my opinion on "objective/absolute" morality or beauty.
Personally, my response against the problem of evil goes like this Let's put these assumptions upon myself. A) I'm an almighty deity with the ability to manipulate possibility and all existence flows forth from myself B) by that nature I know everything that can and cannot be, and what moment would pass next even if I did not engineer any of them at all, I just know. If I were to say, eliminate certain possibilities, am I not playing sock puppet? Like wouldn't I be preventing certain possibilities and knowing exactly what behavior I would be causing. Wouldn't that make me a puppeteer by the mere action of eliminating a certain possibility? I would know how the chain reaction would flow, I would know whose choices become fixed, I would know that ultimately, that one tweak I made, terminated the free will of everyone into a destiny I built from just knocking off a single piece. So I'd say an Almighty God would have to never intervene with eliminating possibilities, not physically by killing someone but by conceptually erasing a certain path that can be taken. Therefore evil as a possibility must exist, it's man's choice to actualize it or not, but the possibility must remain or all roads are closed into one. There may be some weaknesses in this argument and I'd be glad to find them.
@@ceasedesist9676 An interesting argument, but why are you making a puppeteer out to be a bad thing? If God is almighty and he is capable to form our destiny like you supposed it to, then why would be that destiny given and formed by him bad? If God supposed to be also omnibenevolent, then that destiny of his could never be bad. It would always be good. Secondly, if God doesn't eliminate certain possibilities, then in a counterintuitive but correct way, we are destined by God's choice to be not destined. God not just gave us free will, but because he supposedly created everything and us to be free, then we are destined by that fact to be free. What I want to say with that the terms "destiny" and "determination" have these kind of problems in these kind of contexts, where omnipotence and omniscience are relevant and are considered.
Did you find it easier or more difficult to watch after my speeding up certain parts of the video?
I think it’s easier since many (if not most) of us have already seen the video your responding to so speeding up the footage makes the response flow better and cuts down on time while also still reminding us which section you’re responding to.
easier
Easier, especially since ge's responses are simple statements, if his counterarguments were sophisticated then speeding it up might get in the way but as it stands speeding up is much easier
My dude you created a channel to put out Arguments for God not to convince people but simply to put out Arguments for God... like seriously man maybe learn a thing or two about trying to convince people if that's what you want to do or if you don't want to do that then simply just outright be truthful and say that you're not actually trying to convince anyone but you're simply trying to reinforce Believers belief be honest that you're not here
Of course I'm not going to attack the train of thought you were initially presented because I only do that if the premises were true and something I accept with perhaps me than at that point simply just having an issue with where you were trying to lead those facts to like with my previous example even if you accept that most trees are green and the sky is blue that still doesn't leave Leprechauns are the ones that create rainbows and why gold pots will be at the bottom of said rainbows. I'd imagine that if you read my example he probably thought this to yourself before I even brought it up here now because that's how these sorts of arguments work my man
Oh no. I'm sorry you had to deal with this lol.
Also, he needs to learn Bayesianism. No one is talking about 'definitive proof', and you haven't denied that 'without God, beauty would still exist'. We're talking about *expectability*.
[Anyway, I hope to get to our causal finitism and UPD discussion at some point in the future. I'm drowning in papers and homework right now, but I hope to make some time. :) ]
This Godless Engineer guy was painful to watch
That's a standard trait of GE's videos.
Great response! I’m glad you pointed out what I and some others had noticed, which is the fact that GE pretty much spent 20 minutes repeating “Beauty is subjective, bro!” without realizing that he isn’t the target audience for these arguments,
I still find the fact that GE thought your first argument was legit is hilarious.
(Me too.)
@@ApologeticsSquared Oh, one other thing involving how GE insulated you in his rebuttal video. You should feel honored. People using Ad Hominem is generally a sign that they have nothing other than insults and emotion.
Can you do a vid on free will and refuting objections from determinist?
I really love talking about free will so, Lord willing, I'll have a lot of content to that effect in the future! :)
Also it seems your a math guy so let me ask you a question.
Is B = {(1,1); (1,2); (1,3)} a relation? 🤔
@@jesusirizarryrodriguez835 My understanding:
That’s like asking “Is {1,2,3} a subset?” Well, a subset of what? A subset of the natural numbers? A subset of the negative integers?
A relation of C to D is a subset of all ordered pairs of elements, (c,d), where c is in C and d is in D. So, B is a relation from X to Y if 1 is in X and 1, 2, and 3 are in Y.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared stupid question. Even dumber answer.
@@ApologeticsSquared I'd be up for talking about free will some time.
Plato's spinning in his grave
This is well made good work bro
I don't think he critically analyzed your Apologist claims to give the best arguments and information
Hey could you do a video on the claim that the usage of the word great in the ontological argument is subjective.
And recommend some books or papers on the ontological argument❤️
I definitely want to do more on the Ontological Argument in the future.
I'd recommend God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared thankyou❤️
29:47: “X can be evidence for Y without not-X being evidence for not-Y” no, it canʼt, at least not by the Bayesian definition of evidence you use. If X is evidence for Y, then when observing X you scribble out proportionately more of not-Y than Y; if you instead observed not-X youʼd have to scribble out the opposite parts and this means proportionately more Y than not-Y.
Yeah, I worded that comment very poorly. Taken at face value, what I said is indeed completely false. I meant something more like, “Both X and the *opposite* of X can be evidence for a particular theory.” For example, if my theory is “someone is messing with the air conditioning in this room,” then both a very hot and a very cold room would be evidence for the theory. So, here’s what I was getting at: Just as a medium temperature room is what we would expect if there was no agent messing with the temperature, we would expect far less beauty AND far less ugliness if naturalism was true. But there is a lot of beauty in this world (as well as some ugliness).
@@ApologeticsSquared Ah, I see, that makes sense now.
Some people like chocolate and some people like vanilla, so there is no such thing as flavors.
This video seriously helped me so much… maybe there are differences in the values people place on different things, like they’d rather look at a sunset than a sunrise, or just be closed up in a room… sure, axiological disagreement exists… but values are pegs that are placed on a pegboard… is there no pegboard? Or do axios (not to be confused with axioms) just float freely in an aether unattached? Unrelated? Ungrounded?
This “gaps” thing turns my stomach… that’s such a most bot-istic objection.
I'm gonna start using fibonacci as a swear word now (:
As an atheist this was painful to watch. Mostly assertions about beauty being subjective, and straw man's such as objective=absolute and taking ur first "argument" seriously.
4:51 wait no that would mean your question begging, you can’t assume gods there to correlate if the beauty is supposed to be proving god, it’s not question begging to not assume your conclusion
Beauty being in reality is supernatural, it’s not physical.
I feel so bad for Godless Engineer being bodied like that....
What why are you assuming all gods would want people closer to them and what is good, and if we can detect something it is definitely causally linked since it would be the cause of some of what we do
But I think Phenomenal Conservatism as the justification for the belief in objective beauty works only for people who perceive beauty to be objective. Can you object anything to people saying they perceive beauty to be subjective?
I would try to show beauty does seem objective. “The starry sky on a clear night is so ugly. Sunsets are an eyesore. Crystals and geodes and whatnot-absolutely horrid.” You may conclude that beauty is subjective, but you need to admit that at first glance it seems that some aesthetic judgements appear to be blatantly incorrect.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared >>You may conclude that beauty is subjective, but you need to admit that at first glance it seems that some aesthetic judgements appear to be blatantly incorrect.
I "need to admit" it? Why would I admit this, if it doesn't seem this way to me? Aesthetic experiences don't seem to me to be "correct" or "incorrect," especially in a non-subjective way. No normative considerations seem this way at first glance to me, and never have, including morality. Absolutely nothing about my experiences of the world remotely suggests to me that there are stance-independent aesthetic, moral, or other normative facts. My experiences are thoroughly in line with antirealism.
But if you were to argue that beauty is indeed objective, how would you do it?
My argument starts at 14:46.
You can think of it this way: trusting our perceptions should be the default option until disproven. We perceive that some objects or concepts have beauty inherent in them. So, by default we should believe that beauty exists. If you can provide objections, then I may need to abandon that belief, but until then I get to keep it. If you reject this kind of thinking, then you’re a step away from the slippery slope of doubting stuff like the physical universe because we have no evidence for it beyond our perceptions.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Yeah but I obviously don't perceive beauty to be objective. In fact, if I were to trust my perceptions, I would firmly believe that beauty is nothing more than preference, because it seems so obvious to me that that's the case! You wouldn't argue for God by saying "I perceive God to exist therefore I am justified in believing he exists". So what argument would you give to convince people who don't share your perception that beauty is objective?
@@Nickesponja I don't think beauty is objective but I think that's clearly the more intuitive view. Don't you think it's counter-intuitive to claim that a sunshine in a beach has no beauty in it and that it has the same degree of beauty as some slums? That a sunshine in a beach is only more beautiful than some slums if there's someone watching? I think that idea is clearly unintuitive.
@@yourfutureself3392 If we say that a sunshine is objectively beautiful (which I have no idea how you'd actually defend that), then if someone comes to you and says "I don't like sunshines, they're ugly", they aren't just expressing a preference: they are *objectively* wrong. That's so absurd I really don't understand how someone could find objective beauty intuitive.
If I show a song to you and say "listen to this, it's beautiful", and it turns out you hate the song and say "hell no, the song is ugly af", then one of us is *objectively* wrong. That again is ridiculous and counter-intuitive.
@@Nickesponja yeah, that's the problem with grounding worldviews in intuition. Different people find different things intuitive and intuitions are inconsistent. I think it's the most intuitive view and you find it unintuitive. This is why I don't believe in objective beauty, despite I find it unintuitive
5:10 (ish)
If anyone disagrees about s apecific thing being beautifull, that alone make beauty subjective.
Because it is a personal opinion about stuff.
Therefore beauty does not lead to a god.
@Melancholy Soldier whut,
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
You point to science and psychology, yet they have not been able to prove beauty is objective.
And they never will. Just 1 person not finding something beatyfull will make it subjective and personal.
Just 1 person finding something beautifull and another person not finding the same thing beautyfull makes it subjective and personal.
And we have many of those examples.
So no they have not proven beauty is objective.
Blank Slate Theory, Well people are born with instincs. babies do not neeed to be tought to suck on a nipple. that is a kind of knowledge.
But remind me again how it is possible for a god to even exist at all.
For all anyone can tell, god is not even a possibillity.
@Melancholy Soldier
Beauty is not even a thing that exists.
it is an opinion someone can have about something else.
it is 100% subjective.
Even though some things can be evaluated as beautifull by an enormous group of people.
But sinse there are things that can be evalueated as beautifull by some and not by others, shows you that it is subjective, and not objective.
You seem to be following a confirmation bias, while ignoring the rest.
So yes sinse it is subjective, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. and cannot be used to provide evidence for a god.
"Me: says that we innately find certain traits attractive even as babies
You: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
Missing your point here, it most definitly is a correct assesment. certain traits does not mean all traits. or all people, Some traits are limited to certain groups of people, but to say it is accross the whole of humanity, is impossible to even test.
i mean there have been so many people in history. good luck on testing that.
No you are wrong, beauty is not objective, never is and never was.
Like it told you, (and you shown not to read carefully) it takes just 1 person to not find something beautifull, while someone else does, to make it go from objective to subjective.
And we have many many many examples.
It is just a matter of taste, it is in the eye of the beholder yes.
But that does not fit your narritive to provide evidence for god, does it...
@Melancholy Soldier
Shitty research then.
Beauty is just an opinion. nothing else. You can even find something beauty today and but not tomorrow.
I agree there are some baked in innate things that will help ( or helped ) us survival yes. but to call that beautyfull no. thats just changing definitions.
Beautifull is not even true or false, but a scale. from ugly to beautifull, and all gradients in between.
There is no doubt that beauty is subjective, even for the babies you mentioned earlyer.
Sounds like the research has been done by the religeous with an agenda in mind.
If anyone disagrees about evolution, that alone makes evolution subjective
@@gospelfreak5828
Nope.
The color red is not an opinion.
Evolution is not an opinion.
Beauty however is a personal opinion.
That is where you make the thinking mistake.
Oh Hi :)
Hi! :)
Also it seems your a math guy so let me ask you a question.
Is B = {(1,1); (1,2); (1,3)} a relation? 🤔
My understanding:
That’s like asking “Is {1,2,3} a subset?” Well, a subset of what? A subset of the natural numbers? A subset of the negative integers?
A relation of C to D is a subset of all ordered pairs of elements, (c,d), where c is in C and d is in D. So, B is a relation from X to Y if 1 is in X and 1, 2, and 3 are in Y.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared The theme of this math is called “Funtions and relations” have you ever heard of it?
@@zahydierodriguez1529 I dabble. :)
@@ApologeticsSquared ?
@@zahydierodriguez1529 I learn about Set Theory as a hobby, so I am familiar with the relevant concepts.
Its hard to watch this video because this engineer is out of his depth in philosophy.
(P1) If evil exists in the world, because God gave us free will and free will is necessery for the greater good, then anything in the world is objectively good and beautifull for the sake of the greater good, because of the necessary existence of free will and evil for that greater good.
(P2) The evil of children born with leukemia is not objectively good and beautifull for the sake of the greater good. Hence, not anything in the world is objectively good and beautifull for the sake of the greater good.
(Conclusion from P1 and P2 - _modus tollens_ )
Therefore, evil doesn't exist in the world, because God gave us free will and free will is necessary for the greater good.
Or in other words evil doesn't exist for the greater good. But evil exists in the world.
The Problem of Evil.
I want to be clear on the wording of P1; Are you saying that everything must be objectively good? Obviously, no theist would agree with that premise. So, I take you to mean that things are either objectively good *or* are going to lead to an objective good that outweighs their present badness.
But then, why think that leukemia cannot lead to a good that outweighs its badness? It’s hard to imagine what that good might be, but I’m not sure how one could demonstrate that.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared
I think, that in my mind it was the latter, but came out the otherway: Things are either objectively good or are going to lead to an objective good, that outweighs their present badness.
My argument is not, that leukemia cannot lead to good, that outweighs its badness.
But it is irrational to think, that the following goodness is a sufficient justification for the current badness - especially in the case, when that goodness is achievable without that current badness.
Why would the following goodness be sufficient justification for the current badness?
Or why is the current badness necessary for the following goodness?
Am I incorrect to assume, that the current badness is not necessary for that?
Why?
Have also a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared
Let us consider the following dilema:
Let's say we have a definite cure for leukemia.
If we know, that the following goodness caused by the badness of a child's birth with leukemia is way more greater than the current badness, then should we or shouldn't we cure that badness? Are we justified with our foreknowledge of the following and caused greater goodness to ignore the current badness? Or are we even *ought to* not cure that born child with leukemia in order to achieve that greater good?
I argue, that the only greater goodness followed and caused by that badness is the curation of that particular current badness. Our "foreknowledge" of that supposedly "greater goodness" is actually an unjustified assumption of the future.
What we do know for sure is the current badness and the current possibility of the curation of that particular badness. According to that we should cure the current badness, because we don't know for sure if the curation of the badness is per say bad in this particular case (or in any other similar case). But we do know that for most cases the curation and correction of the badness is at least better than to have and accept the current badness.
So in the case of our false omnissence (regarding our supposedly foreknowledge of the greater goodness) and omnipotence (regarding to cure leukemia) it is rational to cure and correct the current badness, if our goal is finding goodness and eliminating badness. The only greater goodness would be the prevention of the occurrence of that badness.
In the case of omniscience and omnipotence it's very hard to answer that question.
It is then very similar to the question "If you could kill Adolf Hitler, would you then do it?".
Hm, so let us combine our current dilema with that question:
If we would have the cure for leukemia and AH would have been born with leukemia and if he would be cured of that disease, then he would do, what he had done in the history and if he wouldn't be cured, then he would die and never do the things, he has done in the history, would you cure him or not? Are we justified to ignore that particular badness?
I don't have a good answer for that. Well, it's not that actually but rather I could argue both cases very well.
So what is your position on this dilema?
Note: This might appear to be a red herring, because it is actually just a tiny bit of that.
But this dilemma shows very well, that the objective/absolute beauty and moral is very dependent on our knowledge and capabilities according to that knowledge. Hence it is rather subjective as our knowledge and capabilities are not objective:
I would cure AH's leukemia with the foreknowledge of history, because we are morally obligated to cure people's illness - anybody's illness. Everyone has the "natural" right to be cured of any illness. Even AH has that natural right and I am equally not obligated to take away that right as anybody is not obligated to take away that right from me or from him or from anybody else.
I could also rationally argue the other case.
But that's only my opinion on "objective/absolute" morality or beauty.
Personally, my response against the problem of evil goes like this
Let's put these assumptions upon myself.
A) I'm an almighty deity with the ability to manipulate possibility and all existence flows forth from myself
B) by that nature I know everything that can and cannot be, and what moment would pass next even if I did not engineer any of them at all, I just know.
If I were to say, eliminate certain possibilities, am I not playing sock puppet? Like wouldn't I be preventing certain possibilities and knowing exactly what behavior I would be causing. Wouldn't that make me a puppeteer by the mere action of eliminating a certain possibility? I would know how the chain reaction would flow, I would know whose choices become fixed, I would know that ultimately, that one tweak I made, terminated the free will of everyone into a destiny I built from just knocking off a single piece. So I'd say an Almighty God would have to never intervene with eliminating possibilities, not physically by killing someone but by conceptually erasing a certain path that can be taken. Therefore evil as a possibility must exist, it's man's choice to actualize it or not, but the possibility must remain or all roads are closed into one.
There may be some weaknesses in this argument and I'd be glad to find them.
@@ceasedesist9676
An interesting argument, but why are you making a puppeteer out to be a bad thing?
If God is almighty and he is capable to form our destiny like you supposed it to, then why would be that destiny given and formed by him bad? If God supposed to be also omnibenevolent, then that destiny of his could never be bad. It would always be good.
Secondly, if God doesn't eliminate certain possibilities, then in a counterintuitive but correct way, we are destined by God's choice to be not destined. God not just gave us free will, but because he supposedly created everything and us to be free, then we are destined by that fact to be free. What I want to say with that the terms "destiny" and "determination" have these kind of problems in these kind of contexts, where omnipotence and omniscience are relevant and are considered.
How is acknowledging that different people have different ideas of beauty not accepting the evidence that beauty is subjective?
Different people have different ideas about which scientific theories are correct. That doesn't entail that scientific truth is subjective.
Cornbread hahaha
Godless Engineer is a generous man, trying to help the idiots trapped by Christian Apologetics into serving the evils of Christianity.
are you serious?