This information made me aware that one of my undergraduate professors' was famous for an argument about God. I took one logic class with Dr. Bruce Reichenbach, his last semester of teaching before retiring, actually.
Ok let’s take Aquinas’s first way. In premise 1 we have “things” which we can understand from every day experience but we simple don’t know if the fundamental reality is made of “things” at all. It could be but there is lots of work to do there. “Moved” we can take as how we think if it in every day experience but similar considerations apply. So unless those things are ironed out I don’t think the statement even makes sense (other than in the way we use it in everyday life) Premise 2 “another” what? How do we know this, couldn’t there be things that move by their very nature, not moved by another something. Premise 3 I don’t know maybe it can’t maybe it can. It might be impossible due to the nature of infinity. It might not be. I don’t think it’s completely clear cut. Premise 4 if I were to buy the other things which is a big if. Then there would be an unmoved mover. Since we don’t know the necessary and sufficient nature of movers I don’t think it’s even reasonable to equate that with God. It could be that God exists and yet is not the thing that this argument is talking about. There may also be many unmoved movers. It might be that two things move each other yet non of them are unmoved. Etc.
I really enjoyed this, but here is a point to ponder concerning infinity. Georg Cantor, developed set theory from the study of infinities. That there can be an infinite set of infinite sets, his proof to that I believe is Cantor's diagonal slash. Now Cantor's story gets interesting, he was a devout Lutheran and believed God had revealed set theory to him directly. Philosophers and theologians opposed Cantor because his proof of multiple infinities was considered a challenge to the "infinite nature" of God. If I understand Cantor correctly, his theory proves that human intuition of the actual infinite infinities of God's nature does not exist! Hence the theorem does prove that God exists, but that CAN ONLY be known by special revelation, therefore he believed the theory could only have been given to him by direct revelation. This would be somewhat akin to the way philosophers use neo platonism to speak of mathematical DISCOVERIES, the dynamic equivalent of TO DIS-COVER, is to RE-VEAL. So Roger Penrose, for example believed math is OUT THERE, is this pantheism? Well it be obvious that it is not, for this universe is finite, which begs the question of how beings contingent to the universe could have knowledge greater than the computational power of the universe. This of course illicits the question who am I to be able to think this way, but I am thinking metaphysics in a very real sense, and I think that I exist contingent upon a being capable of maximally great mathematical infinities who is necessary in the absolute for me to discover that idea. SURPRISE!!! That discovery was revealed!!! Now if someone were to have the ability to resurrect himself, He would be able to manipulate all infinities, for if he exists to manipulate infinity in some possible world, He must be infinity able to manipulate all infinities in a set of all possible worlds. E.G. Dude, YHVH JESUS IS LORD.
@@dr.shousa Nah, why not go further? Let's say p(any person|N)=1/37713000000 and independent to each other meaning: p(person A and person B|N)=p(person A|person B and N)=p(person B|person A and N) =p(person A|N)×p(person B|N)=1/37713000000^2 for any person A and B with A≠B. With that we gain the following: p(Chad and Chad's parents and Chad's grandparents|N)=1/37713000000^7≈9.2×10^(-75) Well this comes to the range of p(physical constants|N). So yeah, checkmate, atheists! Apart from that though, it appears to me, that p(Chad|G)=1 and p(Chad and Chad's parents and Chad's grandparents|G)=1 actually imply hard determinism. How is this contracted with libertarian free will?
I rolled a dice a million times and wrote down the number every time. I ended up with a million digit number! Do you know what the chances are that I'd roll that specific number!? Clearly this is proof of a divine being....LMFAO!
@@dr.shousa And how about p(N|Chad)? It appears to me the case, that p(N|Chad)=p(G|Chad)+δ (with δ>0). If Chad is a spacefull, timefull and matterfull being, then Chad's existence rather indicates naturalism than theism, which obtains God, a spaceless, timeless and matterless being. If God is spaceless, timeless and matterless and humans are spacefull, timefull and matterfull beings, then how did that spaceless, timeless and matterless God create spacefull, timefull and matterfull human beings supposedly in his image?
@@dr.shousa In that case I wouldn't say, that's easy. But I say, that that statement is a contradiction. Chad is a spacefull, time full and matterfull being, but God is supposed to be a spaceless, timeless and matterless being. If Chad is God, then that's a contradiction, because Chad is then a spacefull, spaceless, timefull, timeless, matterfull and matterless being.
@@dr.shousa So just to be sure, you are actually stating indirectly, that God is spacefull, spaceless, timefull, timeless, matterfull and matterless? If God is everything, is he then also nothing, which is a part of "everything"? Or in other words, because "everything" includes nothing and because God is everything, therefore God is nothing?!?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Well if I have a criticism of the arguments, it's because I think that my alternate premise describes my experience better than the original. I'm not one to just say "this premise is false" without a reason or alternative that I think is better.
The problem with these arguments is that they are arguments of logic alone, and logic is only as good as the information you have to be logical with. There is so much we don't know about why there is something rather than nothing, in a universe that the more we find out about, the more we find it goes against our common sense intuitions and prima facie logic. Relativity gives good examples. At the very least this should give anyone pause at using an argument of logic alone to determine the reason there is something rather than nothing. In this light, all the arguments presented here come across as simplistic, naïve, logic of the gaps. A quote to illustrate the point. "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose". JBS Haldane.
@@Whatsisface4 The empirical basis is thermodynamics and physics: 1. thermodynamics says that neither matter nor energy can be created, and that all matter/energy tends toward heat death. 2. physics shows us energy can't become matter in nature, although matter can definitely become energy in stellar fusion. These two facts mean our universe had an absolute beginning in the past.
I've only started watching the video but it seems it's about evil and suffering, this may be the hardest problem to answer for a christian but that doesn't mean it's hard. Evil necessarily does not need to exist if God exists but evil cannot exist without God. If something is inherently evil and not just a matter of opinion then that means we are appealing to a morality that is outside of ourselves and society and human minds, things are not evil unless it is ascribed and if someone believes things are universally evil then they are appealing to objective morality (which is strange because I was under the impression Alex was a relativist, but I haven't really watched the video so grain of salt) and if objective morality exists then a moral lawgiver exists, now if Alex is saying things are evil he really has no ground to stand on because his opinion is just as valid as Hitler's. Bad things happen because God allows it or causes it, he knows all, we don't, therefore if God exists and hurricanes and earthquakes are caused or allowed we cannot say there is not a good reason because we do not know all. God bless
An objection may be proposed on prime mover argument. Assume that some thing moveth in space. So it must have a mover. There cannot be infinite many movers . Then there be a First mover. My question is whether the First Movet which you call Unmoved Mover , is Eternal or Non-eternal. In the first case the first body that is moved must also be Eternal. Its movement must also be Eternal. So where Eternity endeth and Non Eternity begineth.??? Also this implieth infinite secondary movers ? This is not possible . If it is Non-Eternal then this implieth that the Unmoved Mover is Non-Eternal. Please do not consider me as an atheist. But if there is an objection on an argumentation then try to answer it. Thanks 🙏 Brother
@@Qwerty-jy9mj *There is no justification to the claim that the first mover must be eternal* It’s true by definition. It couldn’t be _Unmoved_ if it weren’t eternal.
Sadly, all those 20 argument fail to prove the existence of a god And most of them are just modified versions of the same old and debunked argument from causality
Cool arguments but... P1 : The christian God is ultimately responsible for everything. P2 : There are potentially evil things. C1 : The christian God is ultimately responsible for potentially evil things. P3 : If the christian God is omnibenevolent, then he can't be ultimately responsible for potentially evil things. P4 : The christian God is omnibenevolent. C2 : The chritian God can't be ultimately responsible for potentially evil things. C1 and C2 are logically contradictory, Therefore, the christian God is logically impossible 💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥
@@veganworldorder9394 I'm willing to concede God MAY not be all-loving, although He still has eternity and infinite power to straighten it all out in the future. Are you an atheist, or just think God isn't all-loving?
@@veganworldorder9394 1. Beings are responsible for their actions 2. God is responsible for everything that _is._ 3. You _are._ 4. You are responsible for your actions. Quite frankly the whole "objection" is rather childish. How are you going to respond to the accusation that veganism is misanthropy?
Lol ... these tired old arguments. They convince no one, perhaps make believers feel a little less silly and validated - but convincing arguments they are not.
First argument. Premise 1 - 'some' things are moved. Demonstrate everything must be - or this falls flat straight out of the gate And premise 4 - even if you grant 1-3 why does it need to be god lol. What the point in presenting any argument when whatever you type you just conclude 'god' P1 I like cheese P2 I like toast C I will like cheese toasties therefore god
@@20july1944 interesting question, would heaven be subject to heat death and therefore finite? How about god, if you like the laws of thermodynamics please expand on how God creates from nothing and as an infinite energy evades heat death. Hold a mirror to your beliefs before you look silly in a yt comment section
@@20july1944 is this some lame 'gotcha' question whilst avoiding mine? Firstly let's make sure you understand both thermodynamics and heat death, then I will answer you. But you commit to answering my return question about your god hypothesis. Thats fair right, we both seek truth. Do you think energy can be created or destroyed? What do you think 'heat death' means?
@@j7bsecond540 "Heat death" means no new heat is being generated. For example, when the last star of the last stellar generation burns out, all that will be left in the universe will be planetary volcanism, and that will end quickly in cosmic terms. That's what's going to happen to our universe -- right?
This information made me aware that one of my undergraduate professors' was famous for an argument about God. I took one logic class with Dr. Bruce Reichenbach, his last semester of teaching before retiring, actually.
Cue the endless parade of "they’ve all been debunked 'cuz I say so” comments.
I mean. Do you even really need to debunk arguments, can’t you just disagree with the premises.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow You can, of course. But you’ll need an argument as to why.
Sure. I hope you forgive me for not wanting to go into details about the premises and details of 20 arguments in a TH-cam comment.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow Well, you could start with one.
Ok let’s take Aquinas’s first way. In premise 1 we have “things” which we can understand from every day experience but we simple don’t know if the fundamental reality is made of “things” at all. It could be but there is lots of work to do there. “Moved” we can take as how we think if it in every day experience but similar considerations apply. So unless those things are ironed out I don’t think the statement even makes sense (other than in the way we use it in everyday life)
Premise 2 “another” what? How do we know this, couldn’t there be things that move by their very nature, not moved by another something.
Premise 3 I don’t know maybe it can’t maybe it can. It might be impossible due to the nature of infinity. It might not be. I don’t think it’s completely clear cut.
Premise 4 if I were to buy the other things which is a big if. Then there would be an unmoved mover. Since we don’t know the necessary and sufficient nature of movers I don’t think it’s even reasonable to equate that with God. It could be that God exists and yet is not the thing that this argument is talking about. There may also be many unmoved movers. It might be that two things move each other yet non of them are unmoved.
Etc.
You forgot to include Andrew Loke’s cosmological argument
the argument from degrees of being is neat
I really enjoyed this, but here is a point to ponder concerning infinity. Georg Cantor, developed set theory from the study of infinities. That there can be an infinite set of infinite sets, his proof to that I believe is Cantor's diagonal slash. Now Cantor's story gets interesting, he was a devout Lutheran and believed God had revealed set theory to him directly. Philosophers and theologians opposed Cantor because his proof of multiple infinities was considered a challenge to the "infinite nature" of God. If I understand Cantor correctly, his theory proves that human intuition of the actual infinite infinities of God's nature does not exist! Hence the theorem does prove that God exists, but that CAN ONLY be known by special revelation, therefore he believed the theory could only have been given to him by direct revelation. This would be somewhat akin to the way philosophers use neo platonism to speak of mathematical DISCOVERIES, the dynamic equivalent of TO DIS-COVER, is to RE-VEAL. So Roger Penrose, for example believed math is OUT THERE, is this pantheism? Well it be obvious that it is not, for this universe is finite, which begs the question of how beings contingent to the universe could have knowledge greater than the computational power of the universe. This of course illicits the question who am I to be able to think this way, but I am thinking metaphysics in a very real sense, and I think that I exist contingent upon a being capable of maximally great mathematical infinities who is necessary in the absolute for me to discover that idea. SURPRISE!!! That discovery was revealed!!! Now if someone were to have the ability to resurrect himself, He would be able to manipulate all infinities, for if he exists to manipulate infinity in some possible world, He must be infinity able to manipulate all infinities in a set of all possible worlds. E.G. Dude, YHVH JESUS IS LORD.
Easy, If there is not Jesus's Presence ... There is not Jesus ...
Yeah, but who created Chad?
@@dr.shousa
Nah, why not go further?
Let's say p(any person|N)=1/37713000000 and independent to each other meaning:
p(person A and person B|N)=p(person A|person B and N)=p(person B|person A and N)
=p(person A|N)×p(person B|N)=1/37713000000^2
for any person A and B with A≠B.
With that we gain the following:
p(Chad and Chad's parents and Chad's grandparents|N)=1/37713000000^7≈9.2×10^(-75)
Well this comes to the range of p(physical constants|N). So yeah, checkmate, atheists!
Apart from that though, it appears to me, that p(Chad|G)=1 and p(Chad and Chad's parents and Chad's grandparents|G)=1 actually imply hard determinism. How is this contracted with libertarian free will?
I rolled a dice a million times and wrote down the number every time. I ended up with a million digit number! Do you know what the chances are that I'd roll that specific number!? Clearly this is proof of a divine being....LMFAO!
@@dr.shousa
And how about p(N|Chad)?
It appears to me the case, that p(N|Chad)=p(G|Chad)+δ (with δ>0).
If Chad is a spacefull, timefull and matterfull being, then Chad's existence rather indicates naturalism than theism, which obtains God, a spaceless, timeless and matterless being.
If God is spaceless, timeless and matterless and humans are spacefull, timefull and matterfull beings, then how did that spaceless, timeless and matterless God create spacefull, timefull and matterfull human beings supposedly in his image?
@@dr.shousa
In that case I wouldn't say, that's easy. But I say, that that statement is a contradiction.
Chad is a spacefull, time full and matterfull being, but God is supposed to be a spaceless, timeless and matterless being. If Chad is God, then that's a contradiction, because Chad is then a spacefull, spaceless, timefull, timeless, matterfull and matterless being.
@@dr.shousa So just to be sure, you are actually stating indirectly, that God is spacefull, spaceless, timefull, timeless, matterfull and matterless?
If God is everything, is he then also nothing, which is a part of "everything"? Or in other words, because "everything" includes nothing and because God is everything, therefore God is nothing?!?
Awesome stuff
Ah good! I'll be doing a response video to this "eventually" haha. This is much easier to respond to than 150 arguments all at once.
How would you do this without denying experience?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Uh did youtube send your reply to the wrong place? LOL
@@logos8312
No I'm just curious
What will you be responding to?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Well if I have a criticism of the arguments, it's because I think that my alternate premise describes my experience better than the original.
I'm not one to just say "this premise is false" without a reason or alternative that I think is better.
Could you make time stamps?
This is an excerpt from the dull video "100 Arguments for God". There’s a complete timestamp there.
Or, you could do it yourself :)
Woops :)
*full video
The problem with these arguments is that they are arguments of logic alone, and logic is only as good as the information you have to be logical with. There is so much we don't know about why there is something rather than nothing, in a universe that the more we find out about, the more we find it goes against our common sense intuitions and prima facie logic. Relativity gives good examples. At the very least this should give anyone pause at using an argument of logic alone to determine the reason there is something rather than nothing. In this light, all the arguments presented here come across as simplistic, naïve, logic of the gaps.
A quote to illustrate the point. "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose". JBS Haldane.
kek, the arguments are called cosmological because they rely on an empirical basis 😪
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Ok, what is that empirical basis?
@@Whatsisface4 The empirical basis is thermodynamics and physics:
1. thermodynamics says that neither matter nor energy can be created, and that all matter/energy tends toward heat death.
2. physics shows us energy can't become matter in nature, although matter can definitely become energy in stellar fusion.
These two facts mean our universe had an absolute beginning in the past.
@@20july1944 All we know is the present state of the universe had a beginning.
Respond to Cosmic Skeptics latest video.
Cameron should do a live discussion with Alex at some point.
I've only started watching the video but it seems it's about evil and suffering, this may be the hardest problem to answer for a christian but that doesn't mean it's hard. Evil necessarily does not need to exist if God exists but evil cannot exist without God. If something is inherently evil and not just a matter of opinion then that means we are appealing to a morality that is outside of ourselves and society and human minds, things are not evil unless it is ascribed and if someone believes things are universally evil then they are appealing to objective morality (which is strange because I was under the impression Alex was a relativist, but I haven't really watched the video so grain of salt) and if objective morality exists then a moral lawgiver exists, now if Alex is saying things are evil he really has no ground to stand on because his opinion is just as valid as Hitler's. Bad things happen because God allows it or causes it, he knows all, we don't, therefore if God exists and hurricanes and earthquakes are caused or allowed we cannot say there is not a good reason because we do not know all. God bless
@@coolaleco8568 Thanks for the response (: God bless.
@@coolaleco8568 it‘s about animal suffering, has really nothing to do with human suffering
I can't take O'Connor seriously after that video about the "evil god" conjecture
Ghair MMutaharrik Muharrik
first
20 bad arguments to try and distract from the fact we have no evidence...........
how original
An objection may be proposed on prime mover argument.
Assume that some thing moveth in space.
So it must have a mover. There cannot be infinite many movers . Then there be a First mover. My question is whether the First Movet which you call Unmoved Mover , is Eternal or Non-eternal. In the first case the first body that is moved must also be Eternal. Its movement must also be Eternal. So where Eternity endeth and Non Eternity begineth.???
Also this implieth infinite secondary movers ? This is not possible . If it is Non-Eternal then this implieth that the Unmoved Mover is Non-Eternal. Please do not consider me as an atheist. But if there is an objection on an argumentation then try to answer it. Thanks 🙏 Brother
There is no justification to the claim that the first movement must be eternal
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Thanks for the response. Please add this thing in the description.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj *There is no justification to the claim that the first mover must be eternal*
It’s true by definition. It couldn’t be _Unmoved_ if it weren’t eternal.
@@nathanaelculver5308
Is that what I wrote?
nice
Sadly, all those 20 argument fail to prove the existence of a god
And most of them are just modified versions of the same old and debunked argument from causality
Ok mr nobody
They don't and it isn't debunked.
Where's the refutation? I'm curious at how you plan to deny causality but still pretend to be rational
@@TheWorldTeacher i have been seeing you spaming the same comment over and over again and when people respond you usually don't.
@@TheWorldTeacher the aristotelian proof and the contingency argument.
Cool arguments but...
P1 : The christian God is ultimately responsible for everything.
P2 : There are potentially evil things.
C1 : The christian God is ultimately responsible for potentially evil things.
P3 : If the christian God is omnibenevolent, then he can't be ultimately responsible for potentially evil things.
P4 : The christian God is omnibenevolent.
C2 : The chritian God can't be ultimately responsible for potentially evil things.
C1 and C2 are logically contradictory, Therefore, the christian God is logically impossible 💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥
1. This is rather ignorant and I hope it's a joke.
2. Veganism is misanthropy.
@Sieko Yep, corrected now !
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Do you reject the conclusion ? If yes, why ? Do you reject one or multiple premisses or do you think it is invalid ?
@@veganworldorder9394 I'm willing to concede God MAY not be all-loving, although He still has eternity and infinite power to straighten it all out in the future.
Are you an atheist, or just think God isn't all-loving?
@@veganworldorder9394
1. Beings are responsible for their actions
2. God is responsible for everything that _is._
3. You _are._
4. You are responsible for your actions.
Quite frankly the whole "objection" is rather childish. How are you going to respond to the accusation that veganism is misanthropy?
Lol ... these tired old arguments.
They convince no one, perhaps make believers feel a little less silly and validated - but convincing arguments they are not.
What argument do you think is the best and why does it fail?
@@sunblaze8931 look at them 1 by 1 if you like.
Do you see a problem within P1 of the first argument? Perhaps think why i might have a problem with it
@@j7bsecond540 Explain your problem with it -- I'm not going to waste my time reading your mind.
@@20july1944 and I'm not going to waste my time with you, so we're even
@@j7bsecond540 Explain your problem with it.
I've explained why your QF model doesn't explain our universe.
First argument.
Premise 1 - 'some' things are moved. Demonstrate everything must be - or this falls flat straight out of the gate
And premise 4 - even if you grant 1-3 why does it need to be god lol.
What the point in presenting any argument when whatever you type you just conclude 'god'
P1 I like cheese
P2 I like toast
C I will like cheese toasties therefore god
Is our universe heading for heat death?
@@20july1944 interesting question, would heaven be subject to heat death and therefore finite?
How about god, if you like the laws of thermodynamics please expand on how God creates from nothing and as an infinite energy evades heat death.
Hold a mirror to your beliefs before you look silly in a yt comment section
@@j7bsecond540 Because our universe is heading for heat death, what is the equivalent event in the quantum fields?
@@20july1944 is this some lame 'gotcha' question whilst avoiding mine?
Firstly let's make sure you understand both thermodynamics and heat death, then I will answer you. But you commit to answering my return question about your god hypothesis.
Thats fair right, we both seek truth.
Do you think energy can be created or destroyed?
What do you think 'heat death' means?
@@j7bsecond540 "Heat death" means no new heat is being generated.
For example, when the last star of the last stellar generation burns out, all that will be left in the universe will be planetary volcanism, and that will end quickly in cosmic terms.
That's what's going to happen to our universe -- right?