Atheist Debates - Argument from Contingency
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
In the realm of cosmological arguments, arguments from contingency are less typical than first-cause arguments or the Kalam cosmological argument, but it plays to the heart of our curiosity over why there is something instead of nothing.
Hard to believe I’d be coming back to this video 3 years later not just as a viewer, but watching this for a college class 😂
Not for me - the steady decline in Western educational standards has been apparent ever since "Gender Studies" became a thing...
@@thstroyur there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Gender Studies, its value depends on the content of the course.
@@noodlenoggin5854 OK; so, by the same token, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Neo-Nazi Studies, because its value depends on the content of the course, right?
@@thstroyur , Depends on the content of the course. If the content of the Nazi study is biased in support of Nazis, then ya, it'd be a problem.
As I've worked directly with hermaphrodites as a healthcare provider, I can appreciate gender fluidity. Not only does nature create physically sexually divergent people, it creates spiritually sexually divergent people as well. Sexuality is expressed across a spectrum in both mind and body in some people in all actuality.
@@TheAaronExperience " If the content of the Nazi study is biased in support of Nazis, then ya, it'd be a problem" I didn't say "study", I said "Studies" - as in a discipline. But yeah, I think it'd be safe to assume that the content of the course of "Neo-Nazi Studies" would be biased in support of Nazis - hence my point.
BTW, claiming you "appreciate gender fluidity" by no means mean gender fluidity is a real thing, TBW; your second paragraph is just a big fat argument from emotion, and _that_ is where the steady decline in Western educational standards of my OP comes back to bite us in the ass...
I am a theist, but I always enjoy listening to your videos. They are usually well thought out and intelligent. Something that is too rare these days. thanks
Yes,but he fails.
@@exequielassad5773 Care to explain how? I disagree.
@@niceshotmano Because he fails to address most things, just says "I am skeptical of that" and I lack belief in that instead of using counter arguments to address real arguments
@@Terry-nr5qn You should point out which things haven't been addressed for discussion in the interest of all our learning.
This guy is on a weekly (?) show that takes any callers, and has made a career out of these debates. I find him to be pretty thorough.
@@Terry-nr5qn He points to the bold assertions and fallacies in their arguments. That is rebuttal enough. What else would be "using counter arguments" in your opinion? You are trying to shift the burden of prove. It's on the theist to provide evidence for their claims. To cite Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Merely asserting that a) The universe has a cause and b) That cause must be (a personal) god can simply be dismissed unless any evidence for that has been provided. That is what skepticism is about. You do not believe until the evidence is provided. The default position can't be to believe unless disproven because you would have to believe basically any nonsensical claim. Matt clearly points out all the unfounded assertions and logical fallacies in their arguments and does a fantastic job.
I really like that at 6:00 you put the argument in print in this video, as it allowed me to pause, examine the argument on my own before hearing your analysis, and then listen to your explanation. I am able to exercise my reasoning against not only the argument itself, but yours as well.
Thanks!
-Jon
Hey jon are you alive ?
@@redblueblur6321what type of question is this bro😭
@@Pannhandle876 😂😂😂 i mean 7 years have passed, i just checked on him 🤣
Saying I don't know is too uncomfortable for some.
It's especially hard when you've been told your whole life that you do know. So you have to unlearn that and then also say "I don't know."
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
I think I understand... The concept of god is necessarily contingent upon and sustained by human imagination.
I'd say the concept of god is necessarily contingent upon and sustained by human ignorance.
+BigRalphSmith I'd agree
Prove it.
And do you believe in a god?
+Come Let us Reason
Not believing the claim is true, is not the same as believing a claim is false. If theism is believing a god, or god's exist, and using any of the common meaning of the prefix "a", atheism is not believing a god, or god's exist. Again not believing a god, or god's exist, is not the same as believing no god, or god's exist.
This is one of those arguments (like the ontological argument) that is so technical that it's hard to address when you first come across it, but something about it just feels wrong without knowing exactly what is wrong about it.
it sounds technical, but it's basically god of the gaps.
@@stein1919 aside from personal experience, i don't think I've heard any arguments for the existence of a deity that isn't some form of the argument from ignorance.
@@zacharyberridge7239 or at least leads to an argument from ignorance. Because the best evidence I've heard is of things we can't explain, that seem divine. But as Matt points out several times in his time in public speaking, until you can demonstrate the 'why' is God, then you're just assuming.
Bertrand Russell once said something similar
@@denverarnold6210 What premise do you disagree with:
1. There are limited things
2. Limited things can have an explanation
3. The totality of limited things cant be explicable in terms of limited things
4. Therefore the can be an unlimited thing.
5.An unlimited thing would have perfect nature.
6. Something necessary and perfect would need to span all possible worlds (S5)
7. Therefore something perfect exists.
This perfect thing would be unlimited. So none quantifiable and lacking nothing which perfectly justifies Theistic believes in assuming this unlimited thing is God. All the traits of this unlimited thing lead to God.
There seems to be an equivocation in the use of the word "reason". The reason I created a universe was because I was bored vs because the stochastic nature of entropy allows universes to form spontaneously throughout an infinite span of time.
//the stochastic nature of entropy allows universes to form spontaneously throughout an infinite span of time.//
THAT in itself is a contingent rule that doesn't exist by necessity. We live in a universe governed by contingent rules such as this one and that gives rise to an infinite number of sub-universes. But the parent universe could have been otherwise and be governed by a different or opposite law to the one you mentioned. Such a universe holds no logical contradiction and can exist in a possible reality.
Anyone making an appeal to laws regarding perceptual and empirical reality has GROSSLY failed to understand the argument from contingency.
@@khalifahamza513 ❤
How can we say that the cosmos is necessary? The cosmos is contingent. It had a beginning as the standard cosmological model stated precisely because it is contingent. The necessary being will not cease to exist precisely because it is necessary.
You just mixed up universe and cosmos. At least the way these words where used in this video.
It's like Konrad is the only one who listened to the video
Here is a much more honest approach than Craig's...
1) The universe exists.
2) The universe has some explanation for its existence.
3) We do not currently know (nor may we ever know) the explanation for the universe's existence.
God is indeed one possibility. However, a universe creating god (or gods) is only one unproven hypothesis. Another explanation is that perhaps absolute nothing, (an absence of matter, energy, space, or time) cannot exist. "Nothing" actually existing is an oxymoron: Without time, when and for how long would Nothing have existed? Without space, where could Nothing have existed? In other words, _Something_ may have always existed as a brute fact, and that something need not be "supernatural" or even intelligent in nature. There are cosmological models in which universes come into existence via quantum fluctuations from empty space, or from a random imbalance of information bits, etc. Every scientist that proposes these models knows them for what they are - untested hypotheses. But they _are_ explanatory. It's too bad theists won't approach their hypothesis in the same manner, rather than making ridiculous, bold assertions of unprovable, untestable "fact."
If they did, they wouldn't be theists.
If it is a possibility what should we do?
Does this possibility has such a low probability?
Is this measurement impossible?
What would convert an atheist?
Nothing?
GOD is bounded by the SCIENTIFIC
methodology?
F. Nietzche said he is dead, is that a true moral sentence?
If so, why there are so many religions?
Is all that just that opium?
Is all that just about those other neces.?
Is all that the mere moral that somebody told about?
It seems to be more than that.
@Tom Reeves - If you start from true 'nothing' (not Laurence Krauss' version of "nothign") and then ask "where did the space-time continuum itself come from [and the laws that govern all matter therein] come from?", I think the questions you're asking tend to dissipate. This includes "where did the multiverse come from?" and "where did the quantum vacuum come from?"
It would appear that these things are contingent on Something, and we would naturally ask "what is that something?"
Since that causal agent gave rise to matter, space, time, and intelligence It seems reasonable to me that the causal agent must then be (necessarily) non-material, not subject to space and time ..and also intelligent.
I would amend it slightly to "god is, indeed, on possibility for a very narrow subset of definitions or characteristics for god -- because certain god-definitions are self-refuting or impossible, making god 'not a possibility'.
I would understand Craig's "argument" as a definition of "God", not as an argument for its existence. Trouble is, from what I know about him, it doesn't seem to be the definition he otherwise uses.
As toxic as youtube comments can be, I do enjoy reading them and they occasionally yield interesting discussions. I appreciate you leaving them enabled, in contrast to the AE policy on youtube.
@Marlin Bundo
Good point. Some toxicity is necessary as you would agree that weeds need potent poison like some disgusting ideas. Challenging wilful ignorance and deception may be the only option if confronting illogical arguments. Notwithstanding, the interlocutor may suffer cognitive impairment.
@@VaughanMcCue verbosing is your fortee
@@ericscaillet2232
I need help to be precise by consuming alphabet soup with dictionary dinners. Too much Indian curry, and I cope with thesaurus.
Thank you for your kind words and introduction of a new verb.
Your encouragement means a lot to me, and I anticipate reading your contribution to the content of Saint Matt’s material.
@@VaughanMcCue 😅
1) The Universe exists
2) God did it
3) ???
4) Profit
1.5) Atheist YTer strawman
I'm an atheist, but that's a major straw man.
It's a joke guys
Step 1 - Make up a multi-step logical proof
Step 2 - Make sure one of the steps includes "God is real"
Step 3 - End with "Therefore God is real"
Seems legit.
But that's not what Thomad Aquinas did - his whole argument is that it is impossible to demonstrate that there is no cause for energy moving through time and space - yes, he applies the cause "to be proof as what we call as God" but he even admits that if you take out his presupisition of god you are still left with a cause, what was this cause? You cannot get something from nothing. These are basic scientific rules of law - You cannit have energy move without it having been once moved , and what moved it?
Matt tottally ignores this and even states and encourages you to be ignorant the time being.
@@alanismorrissette4742 no man. You're absolutely correct up until you say what was this cause. That's the whole point of all this. The atheists admits they don't know the theists pretend they do
@@alanismorrissette4742 Saying you don't know, and have no way of knowing, the answer to a question is not to ignore it.
@@alanismorrissette4742 so its either there is a cause or there isnt a cause.
It could very well be that there isnt a cause and it just is...as much as any god can just be without there needing to be a causer of that god.
If there is a cause, now, which cause is it? And why should I accept whatever explanation when the explanation cant possibly be verifiable or testable ...it will just be an argument.
As Matt has said in other debates...its yes, no, or i dont know. The theist wins if its yes. The other "player" wins if it's no or i dont know.
Whoever doesn't have the burden of proof has 2 ways of being right...the one with burden of proof only has 1 way.
@@alanismorrissette4742 The problem is that the word "god", depending on definition, implies all sorts of baggage that has nothing to do with answering the question. If you carve all that off (as Spinoza does in Ethics) you are left with very little and if you want to call that god you are just equivocating on what "god" is usually taken to mean.
One of modern times most intelligent and well spoken men. Bravo Matt
+Come Let us Reason Since you appear to be just posting and running I figure I'll do the same too! You are wrong... Matt is a human being not a parrot. Check mate. Wow this is fun!
***** Maybe one day I can be as smart as you and rub elbows with the elite of the world as you do. Probably not though see you got it all figured out and I'm fucking stupid.
It doesn’t take much to impress you it seems. Read some books.
I am Matt Dillahunty and YOU ARE JUST MAKING A CLAIM. I am super skeptical and believe nothing because everything is a claim. Hahaha, I am such a stable genius.
@@milkshakeplease4696 this is an example of a straw man. Matt never once said he doesn't believe in anything. Atheism is not the belief nothing exists. It's the lack of belief in a god. You may be 100% God is real, but he's not. It's not up to him to prove there's no god because he's not claiming there's no god. You, on the other hand, claim there is a god, so it's up to you to prove it.
"That explanation is god."
It's just your feelings. You can literally insert any word instead of god.
I mean isnt that a ridiculous argument?
"Its just your feelings bro"
Using philosophy and reason does it tell us that the big bang came by about itself?
Thats a genuine question.
"Well it cant be God, thats just your feelings"
How is it not reasonable to believe that the universe had an uncaused cause (beginning of the big bang), what does that have anything to do with feelings or subjectivity? Its bollocks
@@joe5959 It's not a philosophical question. You can't just say what is the universe by proclamation.
@@joe5959 "Well it cant be God, thats just your feelings"
Stop making fake quotes.
This argument would be considerably less wanky if it were just phrased as the "argument from cause and effect" or "But who made the universe?", because that's what they're getting at, if you divorce it from the deliberately opaque philosophy jargon.
They're just saying that it seems that things are caused by other things, and when it comes to the beginning of all things, they want (instead of concluding that causality might not be a hard-and-fast rule, or that the universe might be infinitive or circular, or that we just don't know) to shove their favourite myths into that space, then dodge the fact that this solves nothing.
It's basically an argument for Deism, a red herring when it comes to any arguments for Theism, because even if they prove Deism true, they CANNOT prove that it has anything to do with Theism. They presuppose any Creator being must be singular, intelligent, willful, capable (and hates foreskin and loves bloodshed), but they can't prove any of it. They can't prove it was just one being, or any being at all, or an intelligent being, or a capable being, or a being that made the universe intentionally. By employing this argument they're arguing for some extraterrestrial from another dimension based on an old book written by primitive poets and shepherds. It's ridiculous.
Well the universe is flat, and I don't think the phrase is wanky and definitely not deliberately opaque. Its an old way of speaking. And I personally like it :)
The argument would be considerably less wanky if it was not defined philosophically.
IF we assume that...
Yeah, awesome. WHY would we assume? Is there a reason that this assumption is any bit preferable about all the other options? Show a convincing argument that it is not just assumable but LIKELY.
And there the argument already breaks down. IFs do not make definite claims but result in possibilities, CONTINGENT on the assumption being true... Leave the cosmology to the astrophysicists and Quantum-Theorists, Philosophy has other playing fields where it is better fitted to deliver useful results.
It could be called the "We hope you don't understand this argument argument"
"Who made the universe?" Who says it was a who?
I'm an apatheist. I believe whether God exists or not is irrelevant. If God does or doesn't exist, nothing changes. Reality would be the same either way.
If God does exist, it doesn't care if we believe in it, or it would demonstrate its existence. God wouldn't need your faith. Only a liar trying to sell you something would need your faith.
Since there's no good evidence a god exists, God is either indifferent or non-existent. Either way, it doesn't matter.
Matt, I fucking love you. Every time I watch you. I learn something new. I learn a new way of looking at apologetics and philosophy, Thank you for this
he presented points ive never heard before. So yeah, learned something new
+Come Let us Reason
You're right, atheist have been saying the same thing for years, that's why Christianity is dying on its arse.
the Bible has been debunked scientifically and historically I'm afraid, that's why Christian have to re-interpret it's readings to fit modern knowledge. Or, you can do what the creationists do and lie about current scientific understanding. lol
+Come Let us Reason Hello Mr Pot, let me introduce you to mister kettle. The regurgitation of the same claims and arguments, for centuries or millenia, and with no evidence except perhaps the testimony of adherents 'personal experiences', is the trademark of every major religion today and throughout history. Progress in human history has only ever come from recognising the difference between the wheat and the chaff in our knowledge, weeding out the chaff, and planting more wheat. Religions are just lazy cultivators of knowledge, they don't do enough weeding.
+Come Let us Reason You scared of hell?
+Come Let us Reason Aside from the amazing irony in your comment David addressed what you just said is Matt read the bible but I did too. Then leapt to his interpretation of christianity isn't consistent with mine and mine is right because I say so. Which means that he doesn't know it. It's kind of a microcosm of the god argument from the religious side. This is the way I see it and that means it's true. It's really an arrogant way to look at things.
I think Matt has misunderstood about concept of contingency.. This argument doesn't relies on causes and effects like he said in this video. Contingent simply mean 1. dependence on other thing to exist, 2. unnecessary to exist. For example, the existence of my house DEPENDENCE on the existence of bricks. However, even if the brick does exist, my house DOESN'T NECESSARILY have to be exist. It can be built into your house, someone else house, or even other infrastructure. Therefore my house should be a contingent thing.
In what way then can we say that the universe is contingent on something for its existence?
He explained at the beginning that there are 2 types of "contingency" we can talk about: causal contingency, and sustaining contingency. You mean the second one
"If the universe has a reason for its existence, the reason must be god." What genius thunk that one up? (eyeroll)
Especially as it neither proves that god MUST be the reason only asserts it (and we already have the assertion that it exists without any contingency necessary... and it also assumes that there is necessarily a reason for the universe to exist. Good lock proving that.
That's a bit of a straw-man mate.
+Come Let us Reason ...well, off the top of my head, first, I get plenty of humor in putting over self important douche bags (you for example) in their place. second, had nothing better to do while taking a shit, third, humans and humanity are something I want to evolve beyond bronze age backwood inbred dipshit mythology and actually find their place (and evolve beyond that place to near god-like) in this universe and we won't do it while sucking on the mythological dick(s) of ancient god(s) formed in primitive minds and acting like unlearned spastic instinctual hairless apes begging in a large open-form Skinner box for anecdotal scraps from the tables of fictional beings not demonstrated by the material physical universe.
lastly, the universe exists because the universe exists and it gives evidence that only it exists and nothing else. if a god is not of or from or within the universe then the universe gives no correlation to a deity, especially not our universe which has no need for a cause and can self replicate or have easily created itself. see Susskind et al for a lesson in some physics.
+Come Let us Reason It's important to know whether a god exists or not and that god would have an effect on science. A natural god or instead a advanced being that is not a god.
1. It is possible to think of at least one non-god-based reason for the existence of the universe. 2. The premise presupposes the existence of what the line of reasoning is trying to prove.
"If the universe has a reason for its existence, then that reason is God."
Uh, like Matt said, how did we get to that leap? I don't necessarily agree with Matt when he says there IS a reason for it, but we need to define "reason". If it is synonymous with "cause", ok. If it means "purpose", nope.
Anyway, to address my first question (and Matt's ) on how did we make this automatic leap to God...
1. Which god?
2. How did you establish it was not any other gods?
3. Why does it have to be a god at all? Why not pixies, leprechauns, an eternal supercomputer, aliens, etc.?
4. And, we always seem to get back ultimately to the old question: if it WAS god, then such a thing/being must be real and must be contingent on something, too. If you say no, it/He has always existed, then prove it with more than assertions. You can't because if God has been around before time itself existed (I know "before time" is a weird way of putting it, so go ahead and insert "outside of time"), then explain what that means and how you know it. You can't. That's supernatural, and you can only go on faith or hope, which automatically is a deal breaker when trying to prove anything (including Nessie, Bigfoot, or aliens).
I agree. I heard a great comparison (can't remember where I heard it) of religion to Bigfoot that made a lot of sense to me.
It basically goes like this....
Believers will assert with this step by step process that there must be a god and then take another step further to try to prove their god and belief system to be true using all sorts of arguments that assume that a god has already been shown to exist.
This is comparable to them trying to prove facts about the mating habits, rituals, dietary restrictions and physiology of Bigfoot with the evidence we currently have for Bigfoot existing, which is basically none.
They are putting the cart before the horse when assuming that their first argument has shown that a god exists when it really hasn't come anywhere close.
So therefore, all the arguments they are making for their specific religion are essentially pointless because they haven't proved a god could even POSSIBLY exist let alone does, and explaining the mating rituals of Bigfoot is in fact quite useless because you have to first show that Bigfoot is actually real.
I would take one exception to what you said and it might seem like a minor quibble. But I always refrain from using the words 'hope' and 'faith' synonymously. They are quite different things.
I think faith should be exposed for what it really is, which is believing something that you don't know to be true, having insufficient or no evidence to back it up. If we let them use faith also mean hope it really muddies up the water and further obfuscates what they really mean when they are using the word faith. It's ok to have hope, but hope is very different than faith.
Otherwise, we'll said. :)
Steve, yup. As for faith vs. hope, please note that I wrote "or" between them. I wasn't trying to make them synonymous. And, I'll respectfully disagree with the way you described faith, if you don't mind. Like Matt often says, and I agree, it's a REASON for believing what you have little or no evidence of. It's not the believing itself (which I think is how you phrased it). Faith is an empty reason for believing, whether based on hope or fear or ignorance or whatever.
Glen Hill Glen, I don't mind at all! In fact quite the opposite, as you bring up a very good point on the question of what faith is. One that, admittedly, I am not sure I have ever really thought about much.
So I thought about it. And I have come to the conclusion that we are BOTH correct in a sense... partly because we might be at risk of arguing over semantics but also because I think faith is such an ill-conceived, inane and poorly defined concept in the first place. But I would appreciate hearing what you think. Let me explain very briefly what I mean.
There are many different ways that faith has been defined...but the two main ones here that we are addressing are faith as... a) the reason for believing something in lieu of evidence, and b) a belief which does not require evidence to be held (which is the one in line with my definition... 'believing something you don't know to be true').
So it basically boils down to whether faith is the act of believing with insufficient evidence, or the reason FOR that belief BECAUSE there is insufficient evidence. And I'm not sure it's easy to answer because it is used in so many different ways which only further obfuscstes what it really is. And it might be both.
Peter Boghossian describes faith as "pretending to know what you don't know" or "belief without evidence".
Matt Dillahunty describes faith as the excuse(or reason) people give for believing something when they don't have evidence.
These are ironically my two favorite definitions given for faith.
Consider these two statements that could be made by believers:
A) "I have faith that god is real."
and
B) "I believe god is real because I have faith."
We hear these both all the time. In A they are seemingly using faith as the belief itself. In B they are giving faith as the reason for the belief they have. This shows how the context is important. I am still inclined to think that faith is the act of believing without evidence, rather than the reason. If faith is defined as the reason for belief, we still aren't clear on what that reason actually is. And to clarify, I do realize you went further and said it could be based on fear, hope, ignorance etc. and you were more describing what it is rather than giving a definition. I just personally feel that if it is described as the act of believing without evidence, it is easier to focus on the lack of evidence aspect which is really what is important. If it is defined as the reason, it gets harder to lock down an actual definition and thus opens the door for all sorts of different descriptions of faith given by believers which just further obfuscates the fact that it is based on a lack of evidence.
I'm interested in what you think about this as I've never really addressed it before. It's an interesting point.
I think that the important thing here though is to just remember that at the center of every definition I have found, there is a lack of evidence. And it seems that the belief is held not just in spite of the absence of evidence, but BECAUSE there is no evidence. And they claim that to be a virtue and I see nothing virtuous or honest about a position like that. So in that respect we both agree.
And I apologize for presuming that you were using faith and hope as synonymous terms. When I read it the first time I got that impression but upon rereading I can see what you are saying.
That being said I would still be cautious about grouping those two together as many believers do in fact use them synonymously. And you rarely see anyone say they believe in god because they HOPE he exists. Most believers wouldn't claim hope is the reason they give for believing, but many times when pressed to explain what faith is, they will define it as hope. I can hope a god exists and still be an atheist. I tend to try not to involve hope in the discussion as it just, to me, gives undue credibility to faith and further obscures the issue at hand, which is why anything without evidence should be believed in the first place.
Again, this is just my opinion and it is a minor quibble and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Hope what I'm trying to say makes sense! Lol.
"faith is such an ill-conceived, inane and poorly defined concept"
That pretty much says it all. I don't expect any Christians to weigh in on this here, so we're left with our own educated guesses.
I don't agree that faith is the act of believing. It is something that tends to support one's beliefs. You've seen/heard it before when you ask WHY a Christian believes despite some scientific proof against statements or events in the Bible. "Well, you just gotta have faith." This is why I say it is more of a reason, justification, lame support, whatever, for believing instead of the act itself.
What pisses me off is when a Christian is a scientist and still denies scientific evidence. There's a TH-cam clip about an atheist talking to a Christian astronomer, and the astronomer clearly states that if he found something in his research that opposed something in the Bible, he'd go with what the Bible said instead. That's just not even rational! But it's faith. Sheesh.
I've heard both of those definitions you cited. I think Aron Ra uses Peter's. Faith is an intangible thing, and that's the most troublesome point. It's not a certainty, but it seems to be a hope in the certainty. Or even a wish in some cases. It depends on the Christian, I guess. As some would say, many Christians don't really, REALLY believe, because they have not read or studied their Bible. They only get their information once a week in church. Perhaps faith is that sense of SELF-reassurance that belief is justified.
Christians and many atheists who have converted will talk about their fear of Hell. Even atheists can't dispel that from their minds at times. It's the long-imbued sense of fear/guilt/punishment that keeps it in their minds, I think. (I'm no psychologist.) So, faith for the unconverted Christian might also have roots in that, too. In other words, say that you have a reason to believe ***or else***!
" it seems that the belief is held not just in spite of the absence of
evidence, but BECAUSE there is no evidence. And they claim that to be a
virtue"
Yup. Another copout. The best I can offer to combat crappy responses like that is to try appealing to their reasoning faculties in other areas. Christians aren't stupid in most cases, just stubborn, and they may be very intelligent in any other aspect of life. So, I use the Bigfoot or Nessie examples. If you can use the Socratic method with that, it should follow that with enough slow, deliberate comparison to Christian beliefs, they will at least see there is a disconnnect going on. As Matt has often said, you can't expect to convert a Christian in one conversation, but you can instill doubt. The more they hear to reinforce that doubt and the more you can provide a means for skeptical evaluation of it, the more likely they will eventually come to the correct conclusion.
A lot of confusion between causality and contingency here. Part of the problem is in the initial premises of the argument which he seems to borrow from William Ln., Craig who is not the best expostulator of the contingency argument. One must discuss the principle of sufficient reason when discussing contingency. The essence of the contingency argument, is that if a thing exists and is contingent there must be something outside of that thing which is not contingent, which is necessary, and such a necessary being must
Matt it would be nice if you disprove or explain why the properties of inmaterial, powerful , timless.. etc are not necessary for the cause of the universe. Or at least if the cosmos could have those propoerties
Better would be, as Matt says towards the end of the video "why not acknowledge that we do not currently have an explanation " In other words why make one up? (my view)
@@rogerdenrog I mean i don't know if you are familiar with the arguments posed by theists to justify the properties of the cause of the universe, but they are quite convincing to me (i'm pretty ignorant on phylosophy, so that's why i would love to hear rebuttals to those).
"Here we are."
Now get back to work.
I think Timothy Keller said it best "Everything we know in this world is "contingent," has a cause outside of itself. Therefore the universe, which is just such a huge pile of contingent entities, would itself have to be dependent on some cause outside of itself. Something had to make the Big Bang happen-but what? What could that be, but something outside of nature, a supernatural, noncontingent being that exists from itself."
Except he apparently doesn’t have a grounding in physics. If the universe sprang spontaneously from a false vacuum (something we know can occur), then the source of the universe didn’t have to be an intelligent being but a mindless physical process.
Premise 1: God exists
Premise 2: Trust me bro
Theist arguments boil down to this assertion
This is a great explanation in easy-to-understand terms of the Argument from Contingency. Glad to get a bit more educated today!
Any fair Thomist would listen to Mr. Dillahunty and just shake their head.
And any 10th grade science student would listen to a Thomist and just shake their head.
Luminiferous Ethan
Why?
@@kjustkses because ancient philosophical thought experiments have nothing to do with how reality actually works.
Luminiferous Ethan
Firstly, I have no idea what you mean or where you get that idea. Secondly a Thomist is not necessarily an ancient philosopher. There are several Thomists today.
Please explain the Thomist argument.
I enjoyed the video. Well thought-out and articulate. I’m a Thomistic theist myself, and I couldn’t help but notice that he kept referring to God as “a being.” Thomas Aquinas doesn’t understand God as “a being,” but rather “being itself” (ipsum esse). Hence, I was actually quite pleased at the end when he stated that he thought that “being, existence itself” is the uncaused cause. I think he and Aquinas may have that in common after all.
Of course, this video and Aquinas disagree (a lot) on the properties of this Uncaused Cause... but those properties are beyond the scope of the 5 Ways.
The only point of contigency that i still dont get its how something that always have existed would NEED to have a cause
But i disagree completely of the atheists that belittle Aquinas, this dude was genius
What does “being itself” mean to a materialist like myself?
I plan on stopping any discussion, that asserts anything. until there is a reason given for the assertion, Or definitions to explain what is meant. thanks Matt.
+Come Let us Reason Only in your head. 😊
+Come Let us Reason Where doing what which one?
Amen! Oh, sorry, bad phrase. I mean... Yes! Good idea.
+Mark12:30 Assertion without evidence is fallacious. Faith is the most dishonest position anyone can hold on any subject, please explain to me anything else you have faith in with any amount of confidence without evidence supporting that faith. I can't think of a single thing. I feel bad for people with faith, I just wish they could understand why.
That is called the "Argument From STFU".
How about the argument from Chartle (me)
1) if a god created the universe, he must have created what he liked
2) things that we see in abundance in the universe he must like more , or at least more of , than things he created less of
3) therefore we can assume God loves lifeless rocks , expanses of darkness and loves large clouds of swirling gas , his favorite lifeforms are clearly euglena and bacteria
The existence of Matts head is necessarily contingent upon a 'bald' assertion.
*rimshot*
Haha Good one ;)
Where the rubber hits the road, philosophical arguments are a poor excuse for not having any "real" evidence of God.
@Skydaddy Myth-Busters I agree with all your points except for taking on a "myth-busting" debunking stance. I would prefer to keep the "burden of proof" on the theists since they are the ones making the outrageous claims. We still get to demolish the nonsense they spew but with far less distractions about what "atheists" do or don't believe.
@Roger Agreed.
If there was an undeniable fallacy free argument for God we all would know it by now.
In the end all we get are flawed assumptions based mostly on a desperate need to be correct.
@Skydaddy Myth-Busters Agreed.
When it comes to questions like."What Would Jesus Do" the answer you get depends entirely upon which version/denomination you ask.
You have roughly half of Christianity, (catholics), convinced that the other half is following a false doctrine and is doomed for hell.
Humanity has never been able to "confirm" anything relating to God. (fact)
I could go on but I feel like I'm preaching to the choir. lol
Keep on fighting the GOOD fight, Sir.
WL Craig is such a babbler. I used to be impressed by him, even though I did not agree, but when I got older I discovered the total emptiness of everything that comes out of his mouth.
I can't even listen to him anymore without becoming nauseous, because of all the stupidity he puts into his sentences.
I have a hard time believing Craig himself believes a single word of the bs he is talking.
Matt thank you so much for this video! I was a deist until now!
It took one question (Do you really believe in God?) and one second to respond (Uhh, nope)
Never looked back.
It took one half hour video to convince you out of your deism?
@@CedanyTheAlaskan Deism is a pretty weak position to be in, yeah. I was a deist for like only like a week or two when I was 14/15ish.
@@siim605 Well I dont know if that's necessarily true.
It sounds like he has been a deist for a while. So it surprises me that a half hour video convinced him otherwise
This video doesn't disprove God, and it never even attempts to. I don't know how this video could make you an atheist.
The universe was created by Captain Marvel.
This is proven by the Shazam Cosmological Argument.
Lazy thinker. This is why I'm not an atheist
@Hector Defendi yawn - internet athiest are such boring people, lol
@Hector Defendi Who like Jay Dyer? He would destroy someone like Matt Dilahunty in a debate.
@Hector Defendi Matt is dishonest about morality and the teleological argument; he has to be for his world view to make sense.
Matt please debate Mohammed Hijab !
I'm a Muslim and I'd love to see that. Mohammed Hijab, while he gets aggressive, is surely an intelligent person and so is Matt. Would love to see an exchange between these two.
I'd also like Matt to debate him. The debate he did with Cosmic Skeptic was messy. Would love to see Matt dig in on the issue instead of get side tracked trying to present a moral argument against it.
Hijab was very dishonest in the way he presented his debate with Cosmic Skeptic. I don't think he operates in good faith.
If you define "God" as being the reason the Universe exists, then if the Universe exists for a reason, God exists. But that says nothing about the nature of God. How you get from there to "Therefore the God of Abraham is the true God." is what puzzles me.
👨🏼💼.. So I ask you again..
How was the universe created?
👽 You are not capable of comprehending or accepting the truths of existence..
👨🏼💼Answer the question!
👽The universe was not created.
👨🏼💼Really?
.. But you can't create something out of nothing..
👽 That is correct.
👨🏼💼 So there it is
.. Only a creator can make something from nothing.
👽 That is incorrect.
👨🏼💼 Wait.. You just contradicted yourself
👽 Nothing, by definition, does not exist.
👨🏼💼 So?
👽 Since nothing cannot exist...
What is left is existence.
Existence is infinite.
It has no end. No beginning.
And therefore no creator.
👨🏼💼 Wait. But you said there's an origin to the universe.
👽 Yes
👨🏼💼There it is. I caught you in a lie.
👽 This universe is not existence.
It is an infinitely small part of existence.
👨🏼💼 Right.. So.. Now you are talking nonsense
Again, how was the universe created so miraculously?
👽 This universe is a spontaneous event...
And inevitable within the eternity of existence.
Every event, can, will, and has happened. Including this universe.
There are infinite number of universes.
Virtually all cannot harbor so-called life.
This universe is, by chance, stable.
👨🏼💼 So.. Life "just happened", right?
👽 In this universe, yes.
Life, as you call it, is an inevitable consequence... Of this universe's physical properties.
👨🏼💼 So are you telling me we're just random?
👽 Yes.
This universe is indifferent to so called life.
👨🏼💼 How so?
👽 Life on this and every world can be destroyed... At any time by a multitude of random events.
👨🏼💼 Such as..
👽 What you would term.. Supernova, solar flare, asteroid impact.
👨🏼💼 So the universe doesn't care if live or die?
👽 Correct.
👨🏼💼 I don't believe that for a second. We're more than just random.
👽 As I said, you are not capable of accepting... The truths of existence.
👨🏼💼 So, if we're just "random"... Then there's no meaning to the universe..
👽That is correct.
👨🏼💼 So if there's no meaning in the universe...
Then what's the point of living.
👽 There is meaning.
👨🏼💼 You just contradicted yourself again..
👽 Meaning lives in the mind.
👨🏼💼 No, no, no. You can't live a full life..
You can't live a life at all if you think that meaning is somehow made up.
👽 Your species conjures meaning.. But operates under the false belief that meaning is a mystical plan. It is not.
👨🏼💼 So, what is meaning?
👽 Meaning is what you make it.
At the 3rd green point you would not have gotten that response but rather a "we don't know that". it seems that at the quanum level something can come from nothing and does so all the time.
"Why is there something instead of nothing" is a really stupid question. Nothing can't "be." It's not an option.
TibiCogitate The question is not implying a reification of the concept of philosophical nothingness into a state of affiars. What it is implying is that there must be a reason for why anything that is existent, exists at all.
Why A when it could be not A. If not A is a possibility then there may or must be a substantial reason underling the fact that A has be actualized.
There is something rather than nothing, because if there were nothing rather than something then we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
bdf2718 We exist, true. But it is the case that despite such an awareness we still lack a substantial explanation for this particular state of affairs.
+Justin Orosz
As Matt, and many others point out, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. "I don't know" is a better answer than "I know God did it because reasons." "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better answer than "I know God did it because this book which is full of factual errors told me God did it."
It would be nice to have an answer. Which is why people are working on it.
bdf2718 I'm an atheist, are you implying I'm a theist?
The word "universe" is handy, but also ambiguous.
What does the word mean ? We decide what it means !
We can make up any definition we like. I like to include everything for all time.
For example, the universe is everything that has existed, does exist or ever will exist.
17:35 you misunderstand Dr. Craig's definition of 'universe'. By it he means all of space, time and matter. Hence if the universe has an explanation, it cannot be "contingent on the multiverse" since they are synonyms, and it clearly cannot "somewhere else in the cosmos" as you suggest since there is no "somewhere else".
Too bad Craig doesn't ever get that explicit. He relies on vagaries and obfuscation so he can commit equivocation fallacies down the road. Craig, nor anyone else, has any data on "all space, time and matter." So why is he making statement on it?
How can someone dislike a video like this? It's pure educational, come on...
Watchmaker Fs The Atheist labelled ...and the defense mechanism of religion is involved.
Watchmaker Fs Some of the objections aren't very good.
He doesn't engage with gap problems.
A necessary fact cannot cease to be true.
There are objections to the PSR, yet he doesn't touch on them.
He seems to confuse "being" with "agent." If something exists, that is a being by definition.
Because theists will dislike it just because it's Matt
@@Rayalot72 What definition? You appear to be confusing a being, which generally means an intelligent entity, with the state of being, which is an entirely different usage.
@@roqsteady5290 The ontological definition. Being does not refer to intelligence or agency at all in cosmological arguments.
I'm Christian and I think Matt Dillahuny is an excellent philosopher. I like the way you present things and debate, I've seen your 3 hour conversation with the apologetics academy and I really liked the way you keep things objective
Its been 5 years, are you still Christian?
Thanks Matt,
I just saw your presentation and I have to say is the best explanation of this argument that I ever came across. English is not my first language and I have read many articles and books in spanish (which is my native language) about
this topic. Yours is still more clear or clearer than the ones I read in spanish.
I can see why theist would be terrified of you.👏 👏
2 problems. First, people are trying to slip 2 meanings in for "reason." They start out talking about physical cause and then try to slip in an implied purpose without demonstrating that any purpose exists. Second, neither I nor anyone else has ever seen any caused thing which did not have a natural cause. So why should anyone assume that anything had a supernatural cause just because he cannot identify the natural cause?
Thank you for this fantastic presentation! A model of calm, sound reasoning, rational skepticism, and intellectual humility.
"The universe exists, therefore god is the reason."
Why can't the reason be because Voltron action figures? There is just as much evidence to support the belief the universe exists for Voltron action figures as there is for a god being the reason (more so because we can show that Voltron action figures are actually real, can't say the same for a god), so why don't we argue that Voltron action figures are the reason the universe exists instead?
I usually go with Spiderman.
Blasphemer! It's obviously Superman!
You fucking heathen! Avengerism is the only path to salvation!
Of course it's Superman. He died to save us from Doomsday, and he will resurrect in a near future! This is my prophecy.
You rang?
When I've had this argument used (from a Christian), at the end I will agree and confirm with "praise Allah, we now know his truth" and I'll immediately get a "no, no, no, it doesn't show that a Muslim god exists!" Well then, there equally no way it shows that your version exists then either. It's usually dropped after that since the only reason they want to use it is to prove "their" god. If it can't, it quickly loses any value.
Table Salt they never prove a specific deity it’s funny they all make the same arguments 😂
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss published in 2012.
Beautifully done!
Argument from contingency: defining god into existence.
Mohamud Ahmed the contingency argument defines god into existence, that's why it's garbage.
Analytic arguments don't support the premises with evidence.
Mohamud Ahmed whatever evidence supports the premises.
What ya got? Oh, all opinions are subjective dude🤦
Mohamud Ahmed demonstrate premise 1 & 2.
The burden of proof is on you sport. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.
Get to it.
How do you know that the universe has a beginning?
@Mohamud Ahmed I don't think that's right; things are never really "made into existence." When you think about making things, what you're really doing is combining stuff that already exists in a useful way. Your premise relies on initially there being nothing, and the universe having "come into existence," that is: the existence of nothing is the default of the universe. Afaik, this view has no scientific basis as we don't really know how to observe* "before" the big bang.
*I extend the definition of observing something to also include the observation of its effects, and sound mathematical predictions based on a current leading scientific model
@Mohamud Ahmed to me you are simply moving the post. We don't know if the universe has a beginning. Science and not religion has shown how it seems that our local presentation of the universe seems to have started at some point, but we don't know or currently have a way to investigate what happened before that. By saying that the universe must have a beginning but God doesn't have a beginning seems like the post is being arbitrarily moved and granting God properties that we refuse to give the universe. We all seem to agree that the universe exists but we don't agree in the existence of God so it seems to me that we have to grant more properties that are not in any way verifiable to God than what we would have to give to the universe.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Because if there were nothing, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
I got the following closing statement from a Muslim banging on about his version of the Teleological argument.
'The reason why this argument is potent is because it strips everything back to core ideas which make sense of our idea of God'
I translated that as, 'We 'know' that our God is True which means that the God proven by the Teleological argument is our God.'
He thought it was 'inappropriate' when i raised my Space Pixie God against his for some reason(?).
"Accident" presumes intent, no? In order for something to be an accident, then it must be the case that someone intended not to do that thing (or at least did not intend to do the thing). If that's the case, then it's a bit silly to say that atheists think we're here by accident. That's quite the opposite of what we think.
accident doesn't presume intent, it's used synonymously with an absence of intent.
I didn't realize I was making this mistake in arguments before, so I appreciate the clarification (I too thought accident presumed an intent that didn't happen)
The word has two definitions. The first and most commonly used of which is an intent not to do something and it happens anyway (unexpectedly and unintentionally). Car accident, accident at a factory, accidental fall, etc.
Edit: Hm, I'm actually not so sure now. I'll give it more thought.
Your definition is one I never hear (though it is one) in colloquial speech. Non-intent. This is why I deny that anything happened "by accident" though that is not technically the case. I'll have to clarify if it comes up in the future.
A car accident is when you drive into something that you *didn't* intend to. Expressing your thought this way round shows Matt's explanation is correct.
Your intent was to make A happen, but B happened instead. B happened WITHOUT intent.
I believe in the argument for god, by the argument from contingency. However, it does not follow that god is Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, or Vishnu. To understand god then we need to study the universe, that which we know to exist, not assertions of faith.
Idiot.
Why are calling the universe a god? Why not call bacteria and viruses god? They are the ones actually deciding our fate.
@@spaceghost8995 Everything is determined by the universe, where the building blocks of life (bacteria and if you will viruses) are provided by the universe. Just call god all the things we don't understand, and not "we can't explain this so god did it" . When the unified field theory is complete (for example) then part of god will disappear, when our knowledge is complete (if ever) then god will disappear. This god does not give us our moral ground, only the stars that give us our carbon base.
I like the fact that Matt stays away from saying cause by using the word contingency. This explains a lot of why uncertainty has more to do with the thinking. LOL
Okay fair enough . Nothing became something and then the universe happened
That is the creationist argument as it is very often used by christians: An invisible magical daddy friend magicked everything into existence from nothing.
Atheists stay away from such childish nonsense.
@@Ploskkky I said fair enough.
@@igboman2860 I'd like to know how you've reached that conclusion
This is the God of the Mother Of All Gaps.
"God of the gaps" is when you insert supernatural explanation into a natural phenomena. This is supposed to be the first explanation for all that is natural, contingent, etc... It is something that, by definition, can't be solved by science. But, why do actual research when you can just cry "God of the gaps" and be done with it?
*for the existence of A god. Not the existence of god. When you say it like that people naturally assume youre talking about their god like there is only one choice and you have already dismissed all others apart from theirs
Good. I like to expose their biased assumptions...that said, these arguments tend to apply to the/a god of classical theism (or similar) and are viewed as arguments for "the one god" (even if its characteristics differ from argument to argument and person to person).
If that assumption bears out, it's trivial to show that it applies to gods other than theirs (as I think I pointed out in this and several other videos). :)
+Come Let us Reason exactly how does this discredit me?
I think you may have little awereness of how you come accross. I would recommend that, in the future, you take a couple of minutes and ask of yourself "What is my objective in commenting? Will my comment achieve this objective?" before you comment.
As usual, if you want to convince anybody that your god is real, you have to bring evidence. If you want to convince anybody that Matt Dillahunty is a fraud for encouraging religious skepticism, you need to prove that he is wrong for being a skeptic. Unfortunately, you have yet to impress anybody here.
+NicosMind There is a real supreme reality that did big bang the universe into existence, evolve humans from apes, does maintain and rule the universe from start to finish. That existence called God was discovered & documented with extraordinary peer reviewed studies by the secular natural sciences. The 100% all natural God is composed of laws of nature & forces of physics.
4:54 That is physically false: if the sun goes away the light keeps traveling in the space and time. As a matter of fact if we lived for example 1 light year away from the sun when it disappears, you would not know it and it would still exist based on your system of reference.
Whats your point? I get you want to be pedantic but he only used it to explain a concept to laypeople, you could change the light example for whatever as long as it made it clear and the definition he stated of sustained contingency would be the same
@@juanfrancisconavarrorodrig567 There is nothing like pedantic for a scientist. Ergo, wrong hypothesis lead to wrong conclusions.
Totally disagree with you, but I really liked your video and I thought you did a great job presenting your thoughts and I enjoyed it. Good job and thanks.
Can anyone demonstrate that a god is even possible?
@Les Brown At least a supernatural entity. It wouldn't have to be supreme. But I'm talking about a god, not the idea of a god.
@Les Brown There have been many beliefs about gods... gods of rain, thunder, etc. All of them are supernatural beings.
Maybe I should have asked whether anyone can demonstrate that any supernatural being is possible.
I am not postulating a god. I am asking about evidence that any god, or now, any supernatural being, is possible.
@Les Brown I am asking for evidence that any supernatural being is possible. N o t h i n g e l s e. Please stop going off on tangents.
(Some people think there are gods related to atmospheric conditions. That would be one example of a conceivable god.)
I do not believe there are any gods. I am asking for evidence that any supernatural being is even *possible*. It is not enough to say that we don't know it is impossible. I agree, but that doesn't show that it is possible.
@Les Brown I am not clear where you said there is not evidence that a supernatural being is possible. But this was the best hour of my life.
Les Brown Based on your answers, This topic seems too abstract for you to understand, but I will give an analogy. If I ask, “Can you give evidence that it is possible for a human to live on Venus?,” you don’t have to talk about a specific person, not even whether it is male or female, adult or infant. Yes, that information might help in some environments (it wouldn’t on Venus), but it is not necessary to discuss the evidence
I found myself arguing from this fallacy multiple times before... Admittedly, it's embarrassing but thank you Matt for helping me (indirectly) see it clearly. (:
Not for the existence of a god, but for other trivial things.
He didn't prove the arguments wrong though - He only demonstrated their strengths, but made an argument based on cause, which he even admitted could be a god. All he did was take out the presupisition of the cause being a god but he's still left with what causes these arguments. Which he totally ignores.
He also lies by ommision by leaving out the fact Thomas Aquinas even admitted this himself, that he doesn't know what the cause is but it's impossible to demonstrate there is no cause.
Something cannot come from nothing , energy cannot move without having once been moved through time and space - that's Aquinas entire argument. - it's sad how dishonest Matt is sometimes.
33:41 - he's literally telling you to be ignorant.
@@alanismorrissette4742 Wow you really don't even know what you are talking about.
"energy cannot move without having once been moved through time and space - that's Aquinas entire argument".
Can you please point me to the source of Aquinas saying that? That is totally backwards and not what Aquinas said.
"he's literally telling you to be ignorant."
He is literally telling us the be honest by saying that we don't know the cause of the universe or if it even has one. Funny how you flip that on its hat.
"He didn't prove the arguments wrong though".
Arguments aren't right or wrong, premises are right or wrong. Arguments are valid or invalid. And an argument is only valid if the conclusion always follows from its premises being true. It doesn't require the premises to actually be true and therefore doesn't make the conclusion true.
"He also lies by ommision by leaving out the fact Thomas Aquinas even admitted this himself, that he doesn't know what the cause is but it's impossible to demonstrate there is no cause."
How is it relevant what Thomas Aquinas admitted at any point for the validity of the argument or the truth of the premises? You really seem to be very confused. Also Matt basically says exactly that.
@@alanismorrissette4742 Why do religionists keep presenting this pointless argument?
If "nothing" cannot come from "nothing" then neither can a "god".
What you are arguing is, Something came or made from "nothing", created everything else out of the SAME "nothing" then returned itself to a state of undetectable "nothingness"?
If you claim "magic" as in, this proposed "god" somehow exists outside space and time? Where does it exist? You are arguing it exists within the "nothingness"?
If something is there, then it is not nothingness? This is an impossibility, like a square circle it CANNOT be. You have just proven the impossibility of your "gods" existence?
We have NO evidence of "nothing"? Perhaps something ALWAYS existed. There is no need for this SOMETHING to be sentient or aware.
The argument disproves itself.
@@alanismorrissette4742 I love your music but you're talking total rubbish, see *trixn* above.
The nature of material reality, which is contingent and transient, gives us a reasonable basis for believing in the necessary being, which is essential and eternal, from which material reality initially came.
Show me evidence of such a being.
The Ultimate thing that everything that begins to exist is contingent on is Eternal Existence itself!
1) Eternal Existence must ultimately exist for there to be anything that begins to exist.
2) Eternal Existence must ultimately be Self-determined to be the first cause for all that begins to exist.
3) Therefore Eternal Existence that is the Self-determined first cause must ultimately exists.
The universe, began to exist. Time, Space, Matter/Energy began to exist as the Universe.
There cannot be an infinite regress of time, space, matter/energy or what we experience today
as the universe would never have arrived.
Shalom/Peace
I always love this stupid "There cannot be an infinite regress of time, space, matter/energy or what we experience today
as the universe would never have arrived." Yet you believe in an eternal being and yet what we experience today
as the universe still arrived. You can't have it both ways.
It seems the argument from contingency is contingent on flawed logic.
If the universe has an explanation for its existence it must be the mice.
*wiskadjak* What, Frankie and Benji ? Makes more sense than "god" - we at least know that mice exist and so can cause something. They could even be trans-dimensional beings, why not.
@Mohamud Ahmed Because mice are small and unassuming, maybe? hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Mice
Why do people hate to say that they don't know?
Matt is a national treasure.
I hate this argument. At its core, it's just special pleading along with an assumption that infinite regress is not a possibility.
You'll have to prove that infinite regress is porssible
M A.M
Nope.
The argument uses this (IMO nonexistent) property called "contingency" to draw arbitrary relationships between things with arbitrary boundaries, then "reasons" that since an infinite regress is impossible, there must be "something" noncontingent that gets the god label for whatever stupid reason. It's a stop-gap. It's a panacea.
Possibility needs to be demonstrated, but so does impossibility.
If infinite regress cannot be proven possible, thus the default should be that it is impossible?
TheMarsCydonia
No. The default is that it is not possible. This is different from holding the position that X is impossible. It's the same distinction between not guilty and innocent.
TheZooCrew Please define
Thanks, but no thanks, Matt; I'd rather not think of my parent's "method of procreation".
Why? Are you still 12 that the idea your parents having sex still makes you blush? Its literally how all life works. Thats what procreation is.
I wonder if calling it "Argument from Dependency" would not have been a better choice of words.
Matt, I'm curious - since you mentioned Kalam, it made me think of WLC (naturally)... and his continued refusal to debate you (I assume this is still true ?). I think you'd do so well, given your mastery of all these various arguments, and your logical mind - quick thinking, etc. However, as you've noted, he's big on refusing to debate people who don't have Doctorates (in something). What I was wondering was, did he make a unique exception for his debate with Christopher Hitchens, some years ago, at Biola Univ ? was that a random 1-time thing, given Hitch's vocal presence, back then ? It seems he should afford you a similiar "exemption", no ? :-) Hope you get a chance, at some point, or - if not with Craig himself, maybe one of his apprentices, who will no doubt take up Kalam in his stead, whenever he retires / passes, etc - in the future ! Take care, and thanks for your work.
Oh, just Matt talking about philosophy while not knowing about philosophy. Nothing new.
Oh, just Tony trying to dismiss Matt talking about philosophy, without actually giving any reason whatsoever. Standard whinging.
Why isn't this guy president?
The best presidents don't want to be president, but do so out of a sense of duty. I think Matt would fall under this category.
George Washington
He’s too smart and atheist
Not crooked or a liar.
@James Curtis, one can be some thing without wanting to be that thing. for example, you can be an idiot without wanting to be one.
Given ----> from nothing, nothing comes
Therefore ---> Creation is not possible
Given ---> Something exists, [self evident]
Therefore ---> By brute fact something has always existed
I have never understood how evidently intelligent, educated people like WLC can't see the logical gap between "a necessary cause" and "an immortal, metaphysical, transcendent, personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity"
Mohamud Ahmed irrelevant. “We don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable epistemological position, and does not just mean that anyone else’s unfounded guess must be right, regardless of the fact that the guesser can’t think of anything else.
@Mohamud Ahmed Thank you so much for telling everyone that I'm a dishonest person. I really appreciate how you can see into my mind over the internet and tell me what my motivations are. Thank you for not being confrontational with _insults,_ or anything. I really like being called a liar.
Ah, I see you've edited that out. But I saw it.
Again, we go from First Cause or Unmoved Mover (which may not need to be invoked - there are cosmological hypotheses on how this can happen, but there is some reasoning behind it. At least it shows that there is more than one possible answer).
And again, you have not answered how you get from the dispassionate, impersonal Uncaused Cause (which may not be a necessary condition) to "immortal, metaphysical..." etc.
The fact that a book written by human beings makes a statement does not make it true. Other holy books such as the Vedas give different statements, just as unfounded.
I am prepared to discuss this with you dispassionately and objectively, but if you call me a liar or imply that I am acting dishonestly again, I'm not going to respond to you. Deal?
@Mohamud Ahmed I accept your apology. However, I would add that the idea that atheists, _in general,_ secretly know that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, reportedly vengeful deity that hates non-believers and could destroy them in a heartbeat makes absolutely no sense. Nobody would dare to be a non-believer if they really knew that. Will you accept that?
Right, to address your first point: a universe _ex nihilo._ My first reaction would be to ask why you think nothing is a more natural state than something. There are very good reasons to believe that in our universe as it is at present, the attainment of nothing is impossible. Scientists are limited in the hardness of the vacuum they can create because virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time.
And one of the most fundamental scientific laws is that of the conservation of mass-energy: mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, though it can be changed into a different form. The Big Bang was _not_ the emergence of the Universe and its mass-energy from nothing, but its rapid expansion from a much denser state. That much denser state cannot be explained by current scientific knowledge, but it is definitely not nothing.
So my question to you is: why is "nothing" a necessary condition for the starting point of the cosmos? I would be grateful if you could leave quotes from the Quran out, as I don't have a copy, although a long time ago I did read the Pickthall translation, which I believe is regarded by Islamic scholars as the best English translation. But I would like the argument to be based on logic and epistemology: what we know, and how we know it.
@Mohamud Ahmed I have also read _A Universe From Nothing._ Professor Krauss pretty much says that a real "nothing" may not be a possible state.
@Mohamud Ahmed But if nothing is not a tenable state (and there is good reason to believe it is at least not a stable state), then it's irrelevant what its powers might or might not be.
In the beginning, there was a god.Then god exploded ...
If after the explosion everything came to be then God is! You can argue that God is not conscious that is up to you but to deny that a first cause does not exist is illogical
@@igboman2860 This is you: 29:40 to 29:49
The way I see it, the Cosmos *must* exist, since if it didn't, nothing would exist. But, "nothing" cannot exist, due to its very nature of being not anything. "Nothing" does not exist, therefore something must exist. Right?
It's essentially still a god of the gaps argument. "We're not exactly sure what's at the end of the chain of contingencies, but we're going to call it God regardless." Moving from some nebulous, abstract 'ground of being', 'ultimate state' or whatever to actual desert god Yaweh is a big stretch.
I have listened to the whole video and the fact that a lot of people who react are impressed by hid 'arguments, it shows how poor are atheists intellectually when it comes to philosophy about the existence of God. If you are impressed by what he is saying, then you haven't been reading anything about this subject.
Must be true if you say so.
Happy to examine your issues with it.
Does anyone else see two polar bears in the wood over Matt`s shoulder?
When you are discussing an argument, could you please leave the argument on-screen while discussing it to make it easier to follow?
Seems Dillahunty chooses the versions of Arguments from Contingencies that are internally problematic to begin with.
How about this:
Premise 1: Every CONTINGENT thing must have a cause.
Premise 2: However, existence cannot consist of only contingent things. If everything is contingent, then A's existence depends on B, B's existence depends on C, C's depends D, and so on and so forth for infinity, then nothing could have started and existed in the first place.
Premise 3: Yet, here we are existing and kicking, surrounded by all kinds of other contingent things.
Premise 4 - conclusion : Therefore, there has to be an independent non-contingent entity that (at least) jump-started the whole process. Aristotle called such entity the Uncaused First Cause, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Mover.
Various traditions give different names for this same independent non-contingent entity (ie. the Uncaused Cause, Undesigned Designer, Uncreated Creator , Unmoved Mover, Unsustained Sustainer, Unterminated Terminator): Theos in Greek, Deus in Latin, Brahman in Sanskirt, Allah in Arabic, Alaha in Aramaic, El in Hebrew, God in English, Tuhan in Malay, Tengri in Turco-Mongol, Shang-ti in Chinese, etc.
Despite the differences and variations of the world's various great religions, at the most fundamental level they all agree upon the existence of the above independent non-contingent entity.
The question indeed is not whether the independent non-contingent entity (God) exist or not; the fact that we and all other contingent things exist is indeed the evidence of the existence of the independent non-contingent entity, for without the latter the contingent entities would not have existed in the first place.
But the question is rather " how is the nature and the attribute of such independent non-contingent entity and how does such entity manifest and relate to the contingent entities?"
It is the different answers to this last question that leads to the world's different religions and belief systems.
Can you prove Premise 1?
By not engaging with the arguments for the second premise, you've effectively taken what could have been a debunking and made it into an introduction to the argument.
And... what?
@deadend well, it's pretty clear that it's not meant to be an introduction. Maybe it's not meant to be a thorough debunking, but it's definitely meant to be at least a undermining. All I'm saying is I'm disappointed that it's less of a debunking and more of an introduction. Like, if he has answers to the stage two arguments, I'd like to hear them.
Thank you. Appreciate your ability to explain concepts so clearly.
I'm an atheist, but I'm intrested in philosophy and natural theology. A big problem with cosmological arguments is that they argue for some special metaphysical thing and then try to deduce the properties of god from this thing. For example you can argue for an uncaused cause, but it's very hard to go from this to god. This is where most apologetic arguments fail.
"WHY does existence, exist"--one thing we need to understand is that our language is loaded. It carries more than the ordinary intended meaning--it has a history of implications behind it. "Why"--just a plain ordinary word--but when it comes to the objective reality of the universe, "why" is meaningless. It is a word that IMPLIES meaning, purpose, intent. "Why" is therefore not an appropriate word to use when discussing the objective properties of the universe. "HOW" might be better. How does the universe exist, rather than "why".
Your doing a fine job Matt doing what your doing.
Can anyone remind me of the argument that starts "suppose all knowledge of the universe exists inside this circle"? I heard someone reference it the other day but I can't remember how the rest goes.
This is followed by illustrating a single point somewhere within the circle to represent the knowledge of either an individual or the collective of humanity (depending on how the apologist wishes to go), and that it must be logical that the knowledge of a god lies somewhere within that circle that is not within the single point.
Spinoza ventured way beyond all these supposedly logical arguments for God's existence, and even Spinoza had to admit, in the end, that, at best, these arguments support a nebulus form of pantheism. Just read Spinoza' Ethics. The Ethics is probably the most finely-tuned attempt at an all-inclusive development of every logical argument for the existence of God ever created. And although The Ethics certainly has its flaws, it's far, far superior to any other logical argument for God that anyone will ever construct.
The problem is that Spinoza's "god" uses that label unnecessarily. It does not contain any of the characteristics most often associated with the "god" label, such as intelligence and agency.
I don't know what is more refreshing; this fine cheese and ginger ale, or a brand new Matt Dillahunty video.
Fine Ginger cheese with ale brushed lightly on Matt's head to lick off.
O_o;
Only one person should have that fetish, and she's already married to him. =P
this made me laugh!
The troll is lecturing others on how to live. Cute.
" Write a book." I have. What's your point?
Step 1 - Remind people that I live in Hawaii with a badass cliffside home and I do not have to work.
Step 2 - Remind my fellow atheists and agnostics that winning an argument with people is as easy as referring to Step number 1.
THAT is how I win with ANY fuckin argument. 'Cause at the end of the day, the only thing I give a shit about is knowing my wife and I are going to bed in a badass home in Hawaii we have owned for years.
I am not braggin' but if you're just living life to argue, you're LAGGIN', Brah!
Then you woke up and had to go flip burgers.
@@tomjackson7755 Nope, as
t you wish you could awaken from. Hilarious.....you must think NOBODY can live in Hawaii! LOL If you had half a fuckin stone in your head, you'd have checked out my account, gone to my website and found out I live in Hawaii. Jesus....people are fuckin creepy when they troll.
OCDlove
You may have won the emotional argument but not the intellectual one
WLC's income is contingent on him continuing to spout such spurious arguments.
Well said..
I'd also dispute Matt's invoking of the Composition Fallacy 'cuz basically EVERY composition is contingent on its componant parts. My body is contingent on the various organs and individual cells that make it up. A wall is contingent on the bricks and mortar that make it up, ect.
Why is the Cosmos an exception?
Isn't there a category missing?
(1) things that have to exist, must exist, couldn't not exist: check!
(2) things that don't have to exist, that only exist _because_ of something: check!
(3) things that don't have to exist, but also don't exist because of something else, they just are, they happen to be, that's just the way it is : (crickets...)
In other words, also missing is a demonstration that all things must fall into the first 2 categories, that they must have an explanation of their existence in the necessity of their own nature, or in an external cause. That is, that their cause must be either internal or external. You've eliminated the possibility of uncaused things - eliminated random events from the universe; and, BTW, along the way required that god has to be the way he is. He doesn't have a choice, and no thing can ever change him....
I'm not even saying the argument is wrong. But it's dreadfully incomplete, ignores known facts about the universe like probability, assumes it's conclusions,... and, yeah, well, it's probably wrong.
I'm not sure I agree that "everything that exists had a reason". I feel that some abstract axiomatic concepts like the number one in math would "exist", but clearly don't have a "reason" in the "necessary" or "contingent" sense.
Everytime I finish watching a Matt Video I ride my horse flat out in to the sunset.
You don't fly off in your Sopwith Camel then?
Thanks for the explanation. I don't have a firm background in philosophy, so I don't always understand the lingo being used.
The degree of separation between the unexplainable and ourselves provide comfort. Living in a Universe whose cause we don't understand is more frightening to people than saying the universe is explainable by the existence of an external god whose existence is unexplainable.
God gets up every morning to do his chores.
First, he throws a few nuclear rods on the sun
Second he gives the earth a bit of a spin so it doesn't loose momentum.
Third, he blows hard to create a bit of wind.
Fourth, he feads all the animals.
Fifth, he throws a bit of food to those in hell.
Six, he has a six pack while laying back on the couch.