These comments reveal that the dialectic of TH-cam is way behind the professional standard. Half of the people commenting can’t even follow the argument, let alone understand the things being talked about
There is what looks like a really disingenuous moment at 14:23 where, in the previous video, RR asks for a syllogystic form of the Grim Messenger Paradox. What CC shows on screen isn't this, it's a shame because I think it was really clear what RR was asking for and CC stated this would be his final rebuttal before closing statements. Therefore this may not be addressed properly now. I look forward to what RR has to say in response to the video, as I am really enjoying this series.
What happened to the objection that said it is functionally impossible to imagine a grim reaper messenger happening because a message can not be passed between infinite number of messengers? What steven meant by that is that if this message is not going to be passed until the end, so there would be no contradiction. Thus, you can not use it to prove that causal infintism is logically impossible.
@@RonaldhinoMcLean this supports causal finitism. The point is precisely to show that only causal finitism makes a series of messages (or whatever other grim reaper example you'd like) possible. If the number of causes is infinite, you could never get the series to operate without a contradiction. That's... the whole point. It shows infinite causal series are paradoxical and contradictory, and hence that we should accept causal finitism.
Thank you for behaving like a Christian. I very much appreciate you both and have eagerly anticipated videos from each of you in this debate. I'm looking forward to rewatching the whole thing from start to finish once the closing statements have been made.
@@megazine Imagine William Wallace praising his men for fighting like true Scotsmen, and some guy in the back raises his hand to say, "Yes, well, um, technically that's a fallacious argument."
In the last 300 year or so, medicine, technology, engineering, behavioral and social sciences -even in the humanities- have brought us advances that save lives, make life easier, facilitate communications, calculate the age of the Earth, and so on. This makes me wonder, what advances have theology and religious philosophy made about God and what benefits have we received from that new knowledge?
I'll put a reply here because I am also curious for an answer Have a great day! God Bless! Stay strong, stay safe and take care of yourselves! Wishing everyone the best! Jesus loves you! May the Holy Spirit guide you! 😇 💗🕊 Cheers to a better year buddy! 💞🥂🍻
Religious philosophy/ theology has made many advances clarifying who God is and how to communicate that better to believing Christians. The benefit is to hopefully have a much more full and rich religious life and to deepen your relationship with God.
@8:44 you stated that RR's rebuttal was limited in scope to just your argument but in his 1st response he stated there were many versions of the grim reaper paradox that he could give rebuttals to but that he wouldn't because he was focusing on your presentation. Given that this is a debate why should he respond to something that you have not yet presented?
You haven't understood! Even if RR did respond to all Grime Reaper type of paradoxes, Cameroon says that RR's objections are "limited in scope", namely not having the force of a destroyer. Regarding your last sentence, I suggest you to check entire series. Cameroon did presented the argument from the start. RR faild to address the premises of the argument.
@@zenozeno8655 I think you're misunderstanding my question. I understand that Cameroon (is that how his name is spelled?) doesn't think the objections are destroyers of his argument because they're limited in scope to his argument, my point is that as the person making the argument he needs to present an argument that is sound and then address objections but what he's claiming is that "The objection that you're making doesn't cover these other points that I haven't stated yet so it doesn't apply." Now maybe I'm misunderstanding what he's saying, but that's the way I'm understanding his words so maybe he needs to choose a different way to format that so as not to sound like he's trying to dodge the objections to the grim reaper paradox.
@@blacksun3920 Again, Grime Reaper is just a suport premise. RR accused Cam of dropping the first form of Grime R paradox, a form to which RR formulated an objection. That's a ridiculous accusation! Cam not only that didn't renounce to Grime R but enforced it using a different form of it. Cam's stated something like "I don't expect him to have objections to all Grime R types of paradox, but even if he had, he is still far away from addressing the other premises of my argument". He refers to the premises that were already known since the first video. 😊
@@zenozeno8655 I have been attempting to put together a response to your comment that is both respectful but also clarifies where I think you and I are having a miscommunication. The trouble with that is that you and I are not engaged in an actual debate, we're in a TH-cam comment section. I think there are two core issues with where you're coming from vs where I'm coming from, one being a matter of definition of terms (for instance grim reaper is not a premise it's a proof for a premise) two being both of our biases. You obviously accept CC's argumentation and feel that he has made some good points, and I obviously accept RR's. We're not going to convince each other and that's okay, the point is that maybe we both need to go back and rewatch both Steven and Cameron's previous videos with an open mind and listen to what each of them says at different times. Maybe neither one of us will change our minds but if we both do that perhaps we will at least understand better the objections raised by the other. In any case may the blessings of whatever God you pray to, if indeed you do, be with you.
@@blacksun3920 First I'll do mea culpa! I wrongly named a supporting argument (Grime Reaper paradox) as a supporting premise! 😊 Still I feel the need to respond to your last message because something is wrong, and when I say wrong it's like...you answering the "what's the weather like today" type of question with a strange "equal 4"! Let me explain that! The starting point of our conversation is the last sentence in your first message. I only referred to that assertion but in your last message/answer you are talking about our biases, being civilised and decent, etc., The fact that I prefer RR or Cam doesn't have anything to do with a wrong statement you expressed. I haven't tried to convince you about the trueness of Cam or RR's argument! I only said that you are mistaken with regard to the last part of your first message and your last response is something like: " yeah...but we are biased"!
13:25 *"but the scenario that i gave does not involve such a process the messengers simply have their numbers as part of the scenario "* You don't seem to realize that you can't construct such a scenario. You can't attribute ordinal numbers to objects in a sequence without a starting point (definitional impossibility like square-circles). If you then say that *"each messenger is tasked with drawing a unique symbol"* you don't solve the problem, because in order for a messenger to know whether to draw a symbol or not, the messenger needs to successfully calculate the conditional clause under which to take the action, and this calculation requires a finite number of messengers, which requires a first messenger, which would be question begging. You seem to be constructing an impossible scenario in order to show that the scenario is impossible ?
You do have a starting point: the most recent grim reaper and you worked backwards. If the analogy is impossible for the same reasons that an infinite series would be impossible in general then constructing an impossible situation to show something else is impossible is completely fine.
A paradox is a logical self-contradiction. The paradox here is not logical because you have no logical basis for assigning the numbers/symbols on which the paradox relies in order to function. That is why it is relevant to the argument to point out this issue. You can't use the current repear as the basis for the assignment of numbers/symbols and then work backwards as this still involves positing an arbitrary opening position which goes against the point of the paradox. In summary, this is an illogical paradox and thus it is not a paradox at all and cannot be used for any further reasoning due to its fundamental flaws.
@@neilmcginn9526 sorry, are you saying something is not logical because you have no logical basis for assigning numbers/symbols to it? Can you provide a number/symbol based syllogism to demonstrate that statement?
@@nathanfosdahl7525 The paradox requires the assignment of numbers/symbols to function. The paradox also requires there to be an infinite number of reapers with no starting position (no first or last reaper). The latter prohibits the former because no one repear can determine what unique number/symbol they are as there is an infinite number of reapers before and after them. Therefore, assigning them a number/symbols as required by the paradox (being a number descending/ascending based on reapers either side, or a unique symbol) is not possible and thus illogical. You are asking me to provide a syllogism, being a form of logical argument, to demonstrate that something is not logical? That is not how it works. If you believe you can assign a number/symbol under the paradox in a manner that is logical, then it is for you to provide a syllogism to that effect. The burden of proof is on Cameron (or you, if you so wish) to show how its possible.
Elephant Philosophy and Joe Schmid (Majesty of Reason) did a great rebuttal to Steven also. Joe made some good comments in the comments section of EP’s video
@@Hello-vz1md lol, that's logically impossible. And if you concede that logical inconsistencies may exist, then your statement/question is self defeating.
It's hard to criticize Cameron for not engaging with criticism that I would like to hear when Steven didn't mentioned it. I would like more engage on the causal finitism thou
I'm still convinced that the argument from arbitrary limits could have been presented better but I think Cam did a good job of clearing up a lot of misconceptions.
@Joseph Rogers You're merely demonstrating why the Kalam is a dishonest argument. It tries to argue for certainty of a God you don't believe in and then tries to squeeze something like God into that gap with fast talking.
So how does a first cause necessarily prove there is a god? The problem is that you start with the conclusion, "god exists", and the attempt to prop up premises under it. The main problem with your argument is that you premises do not necessarily support your conclusion. It is only one possibility among many. Therefore your premises do not prove your conclusion. It is only your bias, your starting with the conclusion, that makes you believe that it does.
I have to say that I am extremely happy and satisfied by the way you presented yourself in this video as such a humble and charitable person...this is by far your best section of the debate so far. I agree with you on some points such as that the grim reaper paradox does not beg the question, however, once again for the third time in this debate, your defense of premise 13 is so unconvincing. If I am not mistaken your argument can be presented in this syllogism: 1- everything in my experience that is caused (which is everything we experience really) is limited 2- by induction: everything that is caused is limited (so far so good) 3- the uncaused must be unlimited!!! (that simply does not follow) Uncaused objects are either limited or not and observing limited objects tells us absolutely nothing about the uncaused. the Uncaused by definition has to be unlimited (in a way I guess) in its causal history but certainly it does not have to be unlimited in any other respect (given what we know so far of course). I don't know if you'd see this comment let alone respond given you are a busy person. There are other disagreements I'd have loved to write about but this has been the major point of disagreement with your side throughout the whole debate with Stephen.
So, just a nitpick here, but I actually think his argument works in reverse. This is how I understand what he is saying: (1) everything in my experience is limited - and also caused (2) by induction: everything that is limited is caused (3) therefore, if something is NOT caused, it cannot have limits (since again, everything that is limited has a cause) And I'm pretty sure that does work, although of course you can disagree with the premises and disagree that it is sound. Cheers :)
The problem with premise 13, and the argument from 13 to 16 is that you can swap limited by any qualifier. Look: - Anything that is hot has a cause - If the first cause is hot, then it has a cause - The first cause is not hot See, the problem is to do with the "proposal". We have no reasonable inference for qualifiers of uncaused things.
@@CapturingChristianity Total agreement. That was an example, I reason the same when it comes to limits. You can make the exact same argument with the unlimited qualifier as well. Unless, of course, there is an example of an uncaused unlimited thing. That is why I insist this is the problem with the proposal. A difference between caused and uncaused seems to be unfindable. Here, try this. Use "existent" as a qualifier. You will conclude that the first cause is not existent.
@@nathanfosdahl7525 I'm not sure I get your response here. I do realise that both my syllogism and Cam's are perfectly valid. The problem, in my view, is at the point of using this as a supporting argument for the premise that the first cause is x (for any x, including God)
Your grim messenger / reaper arguments are still broken. You say that your personal solution to the paradox is causal finitism, but that's not the same as saying that causal finitism is true - all you're saying is that causal finitism is one way to solve the problem, not the only way. Basically, your premise 5 is not true - the grim reaper paradox and messenger paradoxes may be impossible for other reasons (eg. information density or other absurdities). That would resolve the paradox without having causal finitism. I think this is the crux of what Steven's saying - he says things like that the messenger paradox requires a first state (which is true). I think the missing parts of his argument are that the messenger paradox is impossible because it requires a first state, which an infinite universe can't provide, and therefore it is impossible for other reasons than causal finitism. Make no mistake, this is a destruction of your premise 5. Also, you absolutely did spend time pointing out the singularity of God (ineffectively) in your original argument, and the phrase "The First Cause" could imply its singularity, so it's a bit dishonest to say that you aren't saying it's singular. Also, you haven't justified why you think that things with limits always have causes - the argument you gave was that everything we know about has both limits and causes. That doesn't imply that things without causes don't have limits. All you've done is a weak appeal to intuition. We could equally say that everything that thinks has a cause. Therefore if something doesn't have a cause, it can't think. It's a rubbish argument, both for limits and ability-to-think.
While you were discussing your strawman of RR, it sounded like you were implying, he gave the impression your motives (if any) where malicious (4:13 ... this wasn't some like slimy apologist scheme to attack a position that Steven didn't actually hold...). He never gave a motive for the strawman, but addressed the fact that you made a leap from what he claimed his position was, you then claimed he held another position and then attacked that. (RR video 19:38 to 21:20) He then continued right after pointing out the strawman, to state his position even clearer (21:07) : "and that's all I was trying to say that I want empirical, that is to say, observational evidence of something uncaused before we confidently asserts what attributes uncaused things necessarily have...). What was your response? 4:10 "I labeled Steven's view as accurately as I could". You are trying to defend your strawman of his more vague position in his first rebuttal (called : Steven's opening statement), instead of addressing the clearer position he gave you in his second rebuttal, the one you are responding to now. Why not just say something like : "I am sorry for the strawman, but your position wasn't very clear. Thank you for your clearer position" and respond to his clearer position in that moment or just say : "I will respond to his position later in the video, so lets move on". Doesn't that seem more genuine and not defensive? I haven't even gotten to section 2 yet, I had to point this out first, because that doesn't sound like Jesus to me at all. Even if Steven said you had the most evil intent ever in the world, wouldn't the response I suggested sound more like Matthew 5:40 than yours?
Thank you for taking the time Tobie. I felt like Cam was cherry picking in a way that was not generous to Stephen but I wasn't going to go to the trouble you have. Fair play.
He said the syllogism for your argument that uncaused things have no limits wasnt in your opening. It wasnt. Just because you used your conclusion has a premise of your main argument doesn't mean you gave a defense of that premise in a syllogism. You only explained with the story about the hikers or something. I cant tell if you're dishonest or honestly this confused
I would like to see Can respond to this because this is a very important point your making and I still kinda feel that Can needs to clarify. This entire part of his argumentation is not very strong.
@@Carlos-fl6ch well to be fair he did eventually give a syllogism for it later in a another video so its not relevant to the argument. But it is however very dishonest to try to pass off a premise that includes your conclusion about limits as if its the syllogism that justifies that assumption. He was asking for the arguement that uncaused things are necessarily unlimited. That wasn't what cam pointed to and time stamped
I'm just wondering why is this even being debated when we neither have proof of something beginning to exist nor proof of "nothing" existing. Seems like a waste of time.
It's no so much of probing neither. But more in terms of having an argument that is consistent with no flaws. This is what Capturing Christianity must provide. He has to make a compelling argument with no holes while RR is trying to point out the flaws of CC’s premise. RR next task is to point out flaws of CC's latest video.
@@Wlof25 Yeah, and we don't have knowledge about this topic so how does that work? How to reach a conclusion that is anything other than "I don't know"?
@@MarkoMood We use logic to reach the conclusion that out of nothing nothing comes. We see that things exist, so we know that things exist for some reason. We reach the conclusion of the first cause and that there cannot be infinite regress of causes. And then we can talk about causes and first and secondary cause. We can see that world around us that it's all contingent, limited, etc, so we can have clearer picture about first cause, etc. The fact is, we can know things or reasonably suspect something even if we don't have 100% knowledge.
This video was frustrating, but the worst part was your belief in Inductive generalization. In physics for example, this is strictly forbidden. GR and QM are super unintuitive, but still our best theories. It only works on things in our size with our amount gravity.
I don't see how that's incompatible with inductive generalization, that's just a strike against relying on intuition. Our best models of GR and QM are supported by induction.
@@tylerjones6683 It is the same thing. I would say that the basis of intuition is induction, because we can make rules in our head to help us survive. What I meant to say is that Induction* is not something to base arguments on, especially when talking about the universe as an entirety. We do not know enough about the universe to make these assumptions. *when you use it to generalize too far beyond your experience.
inductive generalization is how science works. Induction means an inference to the best explanation. I believe you are confusing “intuition” and “induction.”
All things I experience that have causal power are limited, so probably all things with causal power are limited. The first cause has causal power. So, the first cause is limited. See the issue
@@taggartaa lol yea I realized this by talking to someone defending cams logic and through trying to find ways to explain how this isnt reliable I found a way to show that this logic can be used to believe two things that directly contradict one another. Im interested in hearing your analogy. Care to share it?
1) All things I experience that have causal power are limited 2) All limited things with causal power that I experience have causes themselves 3) Three possible solutions would be: a. an infinite causal chain of causes that are limited in nature OR b. a causal loop OR c. a first cause that is necessary with no limits 4) a and b are impossible 5) Therefore, the first cause is necessary and has no limits in its nature
@@RadicOmega no he didn't. He went to a new paradox and said rrs criticism didn't hold up to his new one.. even though they weren't meant to. His criticisms were about the first paradox. It was an obvious moving of the goal post
@@DaddyBooneDon nice analogy but its false. He updated his paradox with a new one and then used the critiques of the old one to say the critiques dont work on the new one. Duh. He needs to hear the other paradox first if he is to critique it. He couldnt defend the old one so he made a new one. Rr exposed that one as well so it doesnt matter.
@@bingo6071 i can see that you're stuck on defending this untenable position so I'm going to just let this go. I would just encourage you to review the part where he took the syllogism for the Grim Reaper Paradox, exchanged that term with Grim Messenger, and the syllogism worked exactly the same because it's the same syllogism
It's definitely worth consideration! Ultimately, the best case for Causal Finitism will rely on its ability to resolve many paradoxes, not just the Reaper paradox (which it does).
@@CapturingChristianity So as I understand the undiagnosed pair diagnosis it actually solves all of those paradoxes that I've heard argued for. It just seem like a much more modest proposal than claiming that you just just proved that. Space is not infinitely divisible. Time is not infinitely divisible, time had a start, space had a start etc. And if you are not convinced of symmetry breakers. Time will have an end. Instead we just say, seems to be contradiction between the two conditions that all these paradoxes share.
I’ve never seen Cameron so respectful which is appreciated but as the two of you jump into the weeds, the first premise of the Kalam is wrong so the whole argument falls apart. Secondly, robots for Jesus have no other option but to defend their absurd premise whereas a rational person follows the evidence even if the conclusion is unpalatable.
@@davidresendiz7989 And I'm a Jew who was given Christan names because my Holocaust surviving parents 'hid' us as Christians until I found out we were Jewish when I was 18. What's in a name?
Well, it is a rebuttal. Rebuttal can take several forms in debates. Also, so what? It may be good it may be bad. If it is bad(for Cam) then presumably it is good for Steven
In section 1.4 i think that people have heard scientism from flat earthers and apologists and they usually use it in a disingenuous way so people saying scientism get conflated with people misrepresenting science
I think it's a good idea to bring this to an end. The videos are getting really hard to follow, because of the large amount of time between each one, the skipping and using clips from many different videos and the cutting things short to keep the length down. You're doing a good job in editing to make it as good as possible, but if people watching need to watch the whole series every time a new video comes out, then it's not going to work.
I can understand the desire to make a proposal, have a discussion about that proposal, have people give their views/ opinions on it and come to their own ideas. However that happens in a Discussion, not a Debate. In a debate you are making an assertion and you have to burden the proof to show why that assertion is correct. If this was framed as a discussion where you and RR were merely getting each other's opinions about your ideas then making a proposal would be fine.
@@davidresendiz7989 I made a comment on the video, I would have at least had to click on the video to do that. How is this helpful? If you have an issue with my statement make a rebuttal.
@@mcarrowtime7095 Forgive me for not recalling the exact context of my comment from 8 months ago but where did I say anything about there being no point in debate? I was outlining the difference between a discussion and a debate and how there is a structural difference between the two. Discussions are much less formal, more of just an exchange of ideas back and forth. Whereas the point of debate is to present an argument and have your opponent point out the potential flaws so that you can then address them. If no flaw can be found then it shows that your argumentation is solid and can lead to a better understanding and teaching moment for others. If a flaw can be found then you make adjustments to your argument to have a better argumentation in the future or you come to understand that your argumentation is not valid and you need to make an adjustment to your own view. In either case you learn something or have taught something and there's a great value in participating. I hope this discussion has clarified this for you.
@@mcarrowtime7095 Also my reply to David had a bit of a sarcastic bite to it which came off a little pithy and not quite as verbally accurate as I normally try to be. I did not find his comment to be either in good faith or helpful so I was less willing to engage with him in a reasonable manner like I'm trying to do with you. In your case it appears you're trying to communicate in good faith and point out a flaw in my reasoning, which I appreciate.
@@Unconskep LMAO. When you are saying "EP was never a true atheist" you commit the logical fallacy called no true scotsman. He explained his believes as an atheist clearly and deeply. Your claims are not really reliable.
Great video and nicely done Cameron. I hope we can have "seasons" of these types of debates. Maybe the next one can be 2 v 2 in collab with other channels.
Do you not think, though, that a great deal of the time in the videos has been spent on corrections due to assumptions being made by the other person, as to what the first person said. More and more time has been spent saying "what I meant by that was..." than rebuttals etc. You don't obviously get this in a real-time debate or discussion.
@@thecloudtherapist idk I think that happens alot in real life debates as well. I think it's all depends on who is debating. Misunderstandings, continual or not, happens all the time and I don't think they are fully corrected even in person.
@@jc1daddy2 I think that misunderstandings of the other person's meaning/position, in real-time debates, tend to be more about the arguments themselves not being misunderstood or misinterpreted, whereas here Cameron had to make an assumption on Scientism/Empiricism and RR mistook Grim Messenger an an "abandonment" and both on teaching the other basic philosophy. And about 5 minutes were spent on the actual arguments. I love what CC does but I'm just not convinced by the format, although it sure makes an interesting competition as to whom will misunderstand the other the most.
@@thecloudtherapist well the Grim reaper paradox is a part of Cameron's argument and whether RR is an empiricist or holds to scientism is relevant to the debate. There's pros and cons to every format but I'm looking at this newer format in a more glass half full kind of way. I think in a live in person debate alot of misunderstandings go un checked while in this format, due to a longer gap in response, debaters have way more time unearth misunderstandings, formulate responses and thus try to respond to misunderstandings.
If every A you experience is B then probably every A is B. Not really. You have to add probably in there for a reason. Because assuming that to be the case would be a black swan fallacy. And also. What you are actually saying is that every A I see is B so every "not A" thing is "not B". And that doesn't follow. not A could also be B. We do not know anything about the not A in this case. All things could be B. Aka limited for anyone not following.
I appreciate wanting to spark discussion and consideration, and am writing this before watching any replies or comments for the sake of honesty and avoiding bias. At the conclusion of watching CC's side of the debate about this argument I have arrived at the following state of mind: -I (tentatively) reject premise 4 with regards to the grim reaper scenario (at least as presented, I'm currently undecided as a whole, infinities and paradoxes are hard to wrap my head around). I don't see how the inability to identify the grim reaper responsible could mean that the victim is alive, or for that matter anything other than that we don't know which of the reapers killed the victim. I do however tentatively believe that the messenger scenario is impossible. -I reject premise 5 confidently, as the impossibility of reapers or messengers engaging in specific behaviour does not prove the impossibility of every potential infinite causal chain. That would be required for premise 5 to be accepted. -I would like to tentatively suggest that even if I accepted 4 and 5, and therefore that casual finitism was true, it would need to include the possibility of a state of reality being a "cause" in and of itself. Not just things and events. A highly abstracted example: the first state of reality might have been two particles and the laws of physics existing, and this being the "first cause" for the subsequent motions of those particles. -I reject premise 13 on the basis that there is insufficient reason to accept it. I find the proposed reasoning for it in this video wholly insufficient. Every event or entity we have observed to exist is both "limited" (too nebulous of a term for my liking) and "caused" (also vague, but I shall take it to mean "exists in its current state, at least in part as a result of previous events, entities or states of reality"). Since there is absolutely no variation in either of these properties in any thing we have seen, I see no basis to speculate that a never before seen variation in one property necessitates another never before seen variation in the other. -I reject premise 9 as a result of rejecting premise 13. I also find that we need a much clearer definition of limits for a meaningful discussion of this concept. -I reject premise 10. I can conceive of things that are not limited, but are certainly not perfect. We'd need much better understanding of what we mean with "not limited" and "perfect" before any consideration of this point is even meaningful. -I reject premise 11, at least when applied to my ley understanding of the definitions of God and perfect. Again, terms need to be clearer before we can even begin to discuss this and I feel all of your work is ahead of you. -Naturally this means I reject premise 12 and premise 2 as a result of this. I'd be particularly interested in corrections to my understanding of premise 5, as I don't think much attention was paid to it. I'm also fairly sure there's reasoning to it I must have misunderstood.
It was for sure a cop out. You assert a difference between uncaused things and caused things without having anyway to demonstrate this difference. And then you ask your audience to think about it for themselves. You are relying on your audiences intuitions to convince them so you don't have to with an actual good argument. And you give the excuse that your scared a bad argument might persuade them in the wrong direction. Obviously that's it. You'd rather let them rationalize it themselves. Yes eventually you had to show a syllogism... and then we see the fallacies. You tried to get around that. Fail
@J W yea.. thats what I said. You're wanting people to use their unreliabile intuitions instead of a reasonable argument. He trys both but only because he didn't have confidence in his argument. An Appeal to common sense a pointless fallacious thing to add
I'm glad RR finally called you out on your shady practices. Bad actors shouldn't be rewarded with attention. I don't know that you're a liar but you're not honest.
Wait up; at 9:33 you tell us that your first premise doesn’t say that there is a single first cause, implying that multiple first causes are a possibility. Does this not cause premise two to become even more of a non sequitur, as now it no longer follows that if there is at least one first cause then God exists. Multiple first causes would imply either 1) multiple gods with none of them singly creating the universe rendering it impossible to assign the title of God to any of them, or 2) that the first causes are not gods.
I also feel like the argument that because the cause is limitless it is perfect, therefore God. A thing could be limitless and It could be limitlessly evil, or limitlessly malicious. A god could also be sufficient for a first cause and still have limits. I just don’t think it follows. I also feel like perfect could be viewed as too subjective, unless you are re-defining perfect to be limitless.
Evil is the privation of good. And a “perfect” being is generally meant in an objective sense, not based on one’s opinion, but something along the line of the “greatest conceivable being” (omnipotent, timeless, omniscient, wholly good etc)
@@garyleemusic but see, I think the problem with perfect is that I can’t objectively perceive what that is. It’s not coherent. I think the term perfect is inherently subjective. I think it was a mistake for Cam to bring perfect into his argument. I could just describe the whole of reality as perfect by that definition. I think that’s the problem with the Kalam though. I could just describe reality as being a limitless, perfect, sufficient first cause for the universe. The unknown natural has just as much explanatory power as God does.
@@garyleemusic reality by definition is all that exists. Omniscient is knowing all things, and since reality is the set of all things, there is nothing unknown. Reality is also eternal, because “nothing” can’t exist. I don’t know how something could be timeless, because that’s just incoherent. Now if you’re asking about good, as in morality, we could say there are unknown natural laws in reality that give us our basis for objective morality. Personally, I don’t think objective or absolute morality exists. If you’re just talking about reality being all good, well it’d be all good, all bad, and everything in between. Just like if God is limitless, he’d also be all good and all bad. I still think good is subjective though, just like “perfect”, so it doesn’t really make sense to say it. I know these aren’t gonna make sense to everyone, and it’s not necessarily what I believe, but I feel like the Kalam falls into this kind of special pleading case based on what we do not know. I also think that the Kalam doesn’t convince people to believe in God. There are better arguments.
@@magicmark3309 that's crazy. If you have 3 stones in a box, there isn't necessarily any knowledge about 3 stones in a box. The universe isn't "omniscient" because it includes all facts, omniscience/knowledge involves a conscious act of mentally grasping and understanding things and propositions - something e.g. that human beings can do but rocks can't. This is clearly what is meant by omniscience or knowledge. I'm surprised you would even say the nonsense you just did.
The problem with your, "things with limits have causes and things without limits don't" based off of our experience with limited things is that we have no experience with things that aren't limited, and we have no experience with things that are uncaused. So we can't make inferences as to what attributes things have because they are unlimited. Think of a fish that has only ever seen things in the bottom of the ocean. They have countless examples of things that exist in the water, and all those things also seem to have density greater than water. Then they imagine up an example of something they have never seen before (like a balloon filled with air), and note that it can't exist down where the fish lives, because it would float up. Therefore, the fish thinks falsely, all things that exist outside of water have a lower density than water. From our experience, we may be able to reasonably say that things which are limited (at least in respect to time) have causes. But we cannot say anything about traits of unlimited things, and whether or not they have causes. Even if we imagine up some examples of things we have never observed (like a universe with no beginning) and assign it traits. Especially when it is trivial to imagine an unlimited thing that could easily have a cause. For instance, imagine a universe that wasn't eternal, but was unlimited in mass. I don't think it is intuitive that such a universe obviously has no cause. So even though it has an unlimited attribute, it may have a cause anyway.
"Especially when it is trivial to imagine an unlimited thing that could easily have a cause" If the first cause has a cause in itself, then you will end up with an infinite regression of causes, and that is impossible. And so then follows that the first cause is necessary and has no cause. "For instance, imagine a universe that wasn't eternal, but was unlimited in mass" The "mass of the universe" is a property of the universe. And since the universe is not eternal to the past, then its mass is also not eternal to the past, and thus, its mass is not actually infinite as I have interpreted you to mean. However, since its mass increases as the universe expands, then its mass is potentially infinite, since it will grow to infinity as a limit.
@@RamezShehata "If the first cause has a cause in itself, then you will end up with an infinite regression of causes, and that is impossible." You are begging the question. If there is a first cause, of course it is uncaused... But an infinite regression of causes is not (as far as all of humanity knows) impossible, it is the very thing you are trying to prove. "And since the universe is not eternal to the past, then its mass is also not eternal to the past" Correct, but just because the mass is not eternal, doesn't mean it isn't unlimited in quantity. I am not talking about an expanding universe, I am talking about a universe that is actually infinite in magnitude. You cannot say that such a universe would be uncaused.
@@RamezShehata Also, would you consider a circular causal chain an infinite regression? Like A -> B -> C -> D -> A where "->" means is caused by. This type of causal chain would not require an infinite series of different events, but would also not require a first cause either. But could still be considered an infinite regression depending on how you define it.
There are lots of issues here, and I don't think you have defeated RR's rebuttals at all. In one instance, RR points out a number of errors with your paradox. You then go on to say something to the effect of "My paradox doesn't say that, so its fine". Thats not how it works. You can't dodge flaws in your logic by simply stating that the flaw isn't expressly written into the paradox - why would it. Secondly, your "mic drop" moment is not a defeated. You provided no example of an uncaused cause, rather you made an ambiguitous comment about the abstract concept of everything. It is completely ungrounded. Perhaps it was fortunate that your mic was on a stand as it would have been embarrassing to have to pick it up again..
This syllogism vaild. Not sound. But vaild. All limited things have causes The first cause has no cause So the first cant be limited Its the first premise that isnt sound. The first premise rest on the justification laid out here. All limited things I experience are caused so probably all limited things are caused Its a black swan. I can also illustrate the unreliability of this argument by showing how the same reasoning can lead to a contradiction. All things with causal power i experience have limits so probably all things with causal power have limits. All things with causal power have limits The first cause has causal power The first cause has limits.
That would work if the inductive generalization was not paired with a conceptual analysis of why x lacking limits gives us reason to think x lacks a cause. It wasn't "well things with limits have causes" but rather "it seems that things that have limits _need_ causes". I would say "explanation" is more precise.
@@joshuaphilip7601 his justification was laid out in the video and in my comment. It was " all things I experience that have limits have causes so probably all limited things have causes " and that isnt a good justification for the reasons I gave above And just an assertion that it seems necessary isnt going to get us there either pal
02:10 Strange that Cameron says he doesn't like to misrepresent people's views - but likes to tell people identifying as atheist are not in fact atheist, because they describe it as a "lack of belief in gods".
It's because the term has a long and active history of not agreeing with their self identification, and... especially since we're dealing with philosophy here, many atheist philosophers take serious issue with "lacktheists" saying they're actually atheists. And more often than not, it's implausible for them to maintain the "mere lack of belief" is even accurate about themselves considering their own views and behavior (comparing God to things they actively have knowledge about which leads them to have positive beliefs concerning their lack of existence)... aka: Hunter's Dilemma.
@@streetsdisciple0014 this isn't high school, the status of others opinions isn't a matter of therapy and cyber bullying and safe spaces, but of rational debate. Positional self identification and ones behavior as presented in alignment with or against said self identification can become a sticking point.
@@ravissary79 i never insinuated that it was...you did. Apologists, for example, tend to make a big deal out of what an atheist “ought” to be based on some monopolized esoteric definition and perhaps atheists like myself like to engage and humor the argument BUT the vast majority of atheists in general don’t care ( nothing to do with bullying). They presume there’s probably no god so they venture into other things that have nothing to do with theology. These atheists that are inept in theology and philosophy are actually ahead of the game in my opinion. A Christian apologists opinions, projections, favored definitions, etc...are moot in the long run.
@@streetsdisciple0014 I think you misunderstand my point. You have a flat, black and white view of 'caring about people's opinions'. It's a reactive "I'm grow up so sticks and stones don't break my bones" view. This paints a cartoonish concept of how people interact with each other, and unfortunately you recapitulate this flat, reactive "no YOU" caricature of how to deal with disagreement by responding in so polemical a way to a simple observation of the nature of the problem. I'm pointing out that concerns that atheists might have about how they're presented AREN'T NECESSARILY unfounded. Because honest dialogue requires the ability to agree on basic terms and positions. But *that* good faith requires people to be honest enough with themselves intellectually to be positionally consistent... hence why many atheist philosophers balk at the popular lacktheist self identification of atheism. They don't agree because it gets in the way of actually doing atheist philosophy. That's not to say that genuine lacktheists don't exist, and hypothetically can call themselves anything they want, but it's not helpful to the HONEST debate to middle the issue, and then not even act consistent with the stated position. So stop kneejerking. It's not helping.
A thought about premise (13): Everything in our experience that has limits also has a cause. While this is in agreement, (13) does not necessarily follow inductively. After all, everything in our experience has both limits and a cause. In order to infer a correlation between limits and cause, you would also need that everything in our experience that has no cause, also has no limits, and that the dataset of uncaused things be considerable. Because everything in our experience has limits, we might also inductively infer that everything has limits. This contradicts the conclusion of an unlimited first cause.
@@HD141937 ". In order to infer a correlation between limits and cause, you would also need that everything in our experience that has no cause, also has no limits, and that the dataset of uncaused things be considerable." I don't see how that follows. I hope that clears things up, sorry for the confusion.
@@SaintTrump99 Oh sure. I think the best way to illustrate this is with an example: Suppose that you are investigating a mysterious disease. In a group of infected people you notice that everyone has two legs. You conclude that everyone with two legs has the disease. Replace having legs by having limits and being infected by being caused and you see that Cam is using the same line of reasoning to arrive at his conclusion. Of course the big difference is that we could easily find healthy people with legs, so nobody would come to the previous conclusion. However, if somehow all observed healthy people had no legs, the conclusion would be justified.
@@HD141937 I think I am understanding you. You have not fully convinced me but I am definitely going to be much more skeptical of his argument. I do hope RR addresses this(if he hasn't already) ad that CC answers it. This is a good point, I think. Cheers, God bless you
The relevance of our intuitions being unreliable is exactly that...they're unreliable...the degree of unreliability is irrelevant...they give you a "could be" or a "I think so"....remember you're trying to PROVE something here...
I think 'giving a reasonable argument' is a better way to conceptualize this, not necessarily "prove". This is more in the sphere of philosophy and not science (though even in science the notion of something "proved" is always taken cautiously and tentatively, some would even think that science does not deal in "proving" things but rather giving descriptively successful explanations of what's observed).
"Prove"? There's no proving, there's good reasons to be a believer. In the Qur'an, Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala (God Almighty) calls us Muslims ( those who submit) "believers" and non-Muslims "disbelievers". Not provers and disprovers. We have good reasons to believe and that's all that should be expected. Science can't "prove" it's own first principles and therefore atheists can't "prove" there own world view, they also are believers (in their own unproven world view), they just disbelieve the reasons for belief in God.
@@edgarrenenartatez1932 than drop the silogism and don't phrase things like "surely X is true" if you're going to partly base your reasons on human intuition...as he said they are unreliable (more or less depending on what you're trying to infer) so saying "our intuitions work a lot of times for our usual problems so we can depend on them for this unusual one" is kind of unreasonable...they're unreliable...that's why we have measuring and observation tools and the scientific method...remember, our intuitons once said the earth is not moving around the sun...
I’ve heard these arguments so many times, but I still don’t get where the first statement comes from, and how a first cause is followed by "then God exists". To me this sounds like saying “If I have 20.00 then I am rich. I am rich, it follows that i have 20.00” It would be easier and more convincing to just show the 20.00 or an object of equal value, no?
If you don't understand where the first statement comes from, and how from a First Cause it follows that God exists, watch from the beginning, all the way back to the Opening statement
"If I have 20.00 then I am rich. I am rich, it follows that i have 20.00" This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Is that what you're accusing Cameron's argument of?
I agree that a lack of a limit can remove the need to explain a limit if there would be a need to explain a limit under the attribute under consideration of the object under consideration. However, it seems like there would be a need to explain a lack of a limit in some cases. For example, if you claimed "my hard drive actually has unlimited space." and if I can tell you're not joking I have a lot of reason to ask "Really??? How does your hard drive have unlimited space??? Could I fit the Von Neumann Universe in it? Could I fit even larger big infinities in it?" So very clearly even some unlimited attributes need explanation
The commentary about limits in general struck me as worthless. Why? Everything has limits, since, it is the observed case that there is no thing that can be do everything. Thus, claims about limits in general do not advance a first cause argument. I will grant that a specific limit concerning existence would advance the argument. Currently, matter/energy would seem to be the only candidate for something with no limit with regard to existence (or non-contingent with regard to its existence). which would be a basis to consider that such is "uncaused" and thus foundational. An argument about reality wherein there is nothing showing such to be the case is inherently unsound. Knowledge in the context of reality is required to sustain the idea of soundness for claims about reality. An argument could be analytically flawless and still be a failure if what is being presented is not shown in the context of reality, since, if the linkages being claimed are not shown in the context of reality, the argument degenerates into assertion which makes it unsound due to the claim NOT being sustained as being true in the context of reality. The generalized inference is why theological claims are rationally false. We observe intelligence to be a product of processes with the most common being brains, but we are working to create general AI systems. Thus, our generalized current understanding is that intelligence is a process, which makes such inherently contingent and thus NOT a candidate for a first cause / "ultimate" foundation.
MyContext you have been corrected on this months ago and you’re still going on with this terribly laymen argument of your own making, when will you still stop and learn? Theologians ever since Aquinas, have been arguing that God’s attributes are analogous. Just literally Google the principle of the *analogy of being*. It’s been known since the medieval times, and your argument is entirely based on a *caricature*, stop being proud of it.
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 Please present the "caricature" that you are claiming of my depiction, since, the focus of my issue is actually on existence with various issues that are linked to that core issue. This precludes any rational claim of comparison, since, there is nothing sustained as existent for there to be any comparison. Consider, that in the absence of existence, there are no attributes to be considered that wouldn't be wholly a product of imagination. Please also note that existence is NOT an attribute.
As an atheist, I can honestly say that I don’t know how everything began. But philosophical debates like this get us no closer to any type of answer. Just a bunch of useless hypotheticals.
Contrary to popular belief, saying that they don't get us closer to an answer (because they're philosophical and apparently philosophy can't actually demonstrate anything) doesn't actually remove the force of the arguments presented. Yes, they do get us closer to an answer. They're using logic, reasoning, and deduction to discover what must be the truth. If you think logic, reasoning, and deduction cannot help you evaluate truth, then you are quite literally illogical.
@@tylerjones6683 anyone that says the beginning of the universe “must be” anything is just making a baseless assertion. At this point in time, no one knows how the universe began. Science may find the answer one day, philosophers won’t.
Fantastic job at being professional, humble, and educational, especially when I know that couldn't have been easy after hearing hurtful allegations and remarks about you. You did an excellent job throughout this debate, Cameron!
Ending is a nice touch, as so often these debates lack that. However can't get away from the fact that Kalam is basically handwaving and semantics. All the logic you use is intuitive, but the universe is far from always intuitive. Plus if Luke 9:23 is true, then this is thin gruel. No point slaving for a God that can't be bothered to confirm his existence.
Hey Cam, on science and scientism, probably the best source on this is MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson's MONOPOLIZING KNOWLEDGE (he is a working scientist who opposes the ideology of scientism and offers an historical and philosophical critique of it). I would strongly suggest you review the book in some future video.
@Ashton Peacock that makes no sense. What does that have to do with multiple first causes vs one first cause ? Are you implying that these false gods actually exist as well but aren't unlimited like the real one? But how are they limited but yet still apart of the plurality of first causes that, according to Cameron, must be unlimited
@Ashton Peacock you have to understand that what you've just offered was a rather circular explanation of an already nonsensical argument (or at least an argument that was not well stated). Why be smug? We call you confused because you do, in fact, seem confused. It's a waste of time to distract ourselves with a definition of "little 'g' gods" when little g gods are in themselves a distraction from the task of proving that the "capital G god" even exists in the first place. Honestly, Cameron even introducing this point seemed to really detract from what I thought was a pretty solid argument at the time. And like wise with you, it just gives the impression of one chasing their own tail. So yes, you seem confused and no, "nothing new from atheists this year" because we've gotten the same smug confused responses from the likes of you.
@Ashton Peacock little e elves make cookies and big E Evles make Christmas toys at the North pole. None of it gets us any closer to the truth of it and also its got nothing to do with 1 potential first cause vs the potential of a plurality of first causes. Its not even something that deserves a response. Its silly
@Ashton Peacock Thats exactly the point Ashton: We weren't interested in arguing about what a little god is. You brought that up. So... Yeah by all means feel free to abandon that discussion. Something for you to consider: perhaps this "first cause" business gets itself sidetracked in the case of the Kalam Cosmological Argument by insisting on this 'cause' being a being. Case in point, this little/big G god discussion. Cherry on the top: loved that "atheism is false" line. Guess that means you believe in Zeus, Neptune, the Buddha, cthulu, and the flying spaghetti monster. That would certainly justify the whole "little 'g' god" distinction, wouldn't it?
When you have to evoke intuition in a debate, you lost. I know you act like its only to add to your argument.. but people who confidently make good arguments don't need to waste time with a useless point about their intuition. This is an argument from personal incredulity. Fallacy
@Joshua McGillivray no you misunderstand. Its an appeal to ones common sense. An appeal to ones expectations is just another way of saying an appeal to intuition. Look it up dude. And I think its interesting you had a liked comment 1 minute after posting it. Liking your own comments? Lol
I’d like to present my objection to your arguments to argue for an unlimited first cause. I accept that an eternal universe is unlimited in time and therefore uncaused, but that doesn’t generalise to all kinds of limits, because time is crucial in the argument to support that it’s uncaused, hence the only relevant limit I see here is that of time. And the other examples are just proof that being caused implies having limits, it doesn’t prove the converse, that having limits implies being caused. Furthermore, I’d argue we can’t apply inductive reasoning in this debate, because all our experiences have been within the universe, and a first cause would be either the universe itself, or something outside the universe.
I think if we apply the PSR here we can better understand what Cameron is getting at. A limitation requires an explanation. The limitation could be necessary (bound by logic) in which case it's necessity suffices.
14:22 I think the syllogistic form he was refering to was the grim messenger argument ? I think if you propose the syllogistic form of the grim messenger argument it will be easy to show that it is a definitional impossibility, and not a paradox.
@@CapturingChristianity Stephen was referring to a syllogistic form of the proof by contradiction. (You say that there is an explicit contradiction at 8:39 in your previous video.) If you actually work it out given the rules of the paradox as you state them, no contradictory assertions arise at all. This shows that your version of the grim messenger paradox is a veridical paradox. (aka the "not actually a paradox" type of paradox.) In fact, I worked this out in its syllogistic form and talked to Stephen about it before he recorded the video. Which is the reason he has included it as a secondary objection. Because Stephen also has his primary objection which I (and you) reject, it seems reasonable that he doesn't go on a tangent but simply asked you to provide the syllogism. This weakness is specific to the grim messenger paradox by the way, it does not apply in the same way to the grim reaper paradox.
I'm disappointed how quickly Cam's 2nd premise (not caused -> not limited -> God) falls apart. He asked us to rely on INTUITION and gave ONE example of something uncaused, namely "an uncaused universe intuitively has no limits". If by "no limits" he means omnipotent, etc, ie his version of God, he is asserting that "intuitively, God exists." Like NO, that's not intuitive... He is Jesus smuggling as follows: 1. "universe is intuitively uncaused and unlimited in one or two ways (time/space)" (sounds reasonable) 2. "intuitively ANY first cause (ie universe) is unlimited in some way" (a bit sus but we'll grant) 3. "intuitively any first cause has ZERO limits" (it's NO limits now? and what does it mean to have zero limits? ie infinitely large/small/blue/loud/stupid/etc) 4. "inutitively any first cause has unlimited power, knowledge, etc. (i see you like picking cherries) 5. "inutitively any first cause is God" (sure but now your argument looks like swiss cheese) 6. "if there is a first cause, God exists" (the 2nd premise)
I feel like the inductive generalization: “if every A in my experience is B, then, probably, every A is B” is just the Black Swan Fallacy. I know that’s probably why you added the “probably” clause, but I still think the black swan fallacy is apt. If every swan I see is white in my experience , then, probably, every swan is white.
But it does give us some inductive evidence, that's the point. There could always be a black swan, but the fact that every swan observed (from a large sample) is white gives us reasons to believe that swans are white.
@@uninspired3583 I am way too lazy to start quoting David Stove on how we justify inductive generalizations etc. right now. But anyway, so you're rejecting inductive generalizations? That's dumb. The thing with black swans is that we know induction is justifiable - we use it in science all the time - though it can be tricky to explain since it can appear fallacious in a deductive context. But it would be crazy to reject that we can get some evidence that every X is Y from our observation that every X we've seen in a large sample is Y.
@@mickeyesoum3278 Well there are black swans. In Australia. Haha. But stupid points aside. I don’t deny that we use inductive reasoning to form our beliefs, but I don’t believe it’s a strong form of evidence when you’re trying to prove that God is the first cause, and the problem is we only have one universe to look at. I agree just because it’s a fallacy doesn’t mean it is necessarily false, but it does make it fallacious reasoning. I just would have thought Cam would have spotted that before he used it as an argument.
The black swan fallacy is appropriate when a sample size is too small. But when our sample size is big enough, it’s completely fine. Otherwise, inference itself would always be impermissible since no one can investigate the color of every swan.
If you don't believe an infinite regress is possible, then you don't believe an infinite god is possible. The logic of the grim reaper paradox applies to any thought or action of an infinite god. Just try thinking about it for more than 5 seconds. 👍
I think this should be simpler: the subject of a hypothesis or a theoretical conclusion without evidence does not offer justification for belief in its probable existence even if the existence of the subject seems possible. There's no need to spend time with higher level argumentations if this simple barrier is not passed. In essence these debates are the same as "Superman vs Batman" and who will win in a showdown. Nothing is real there although everything is logically tight within that debate. But you can see the effects of belief without justification and its real function in the breaching of The US Capitol.
@@RadicOmega you are making a false equivalency somewhere. When doing fundamental physics you are required to doubt that your hypothesis might be correct. Key notion you need to keep in mind is that unless the hypothesis is proven no one is required to believe the conclusion is real even if the math is iron clad. Unless you test physics you do not know what rules you're missing. That's why people test physics beliefs in a lab. When the test fails to prove the hypothesis then you try to create a different hypothesis based on the evidence accumulated during testing of the first hypothesis. And sice we set up God in our minds in such a way that God cannot be tested, religious "knowledge" only relies on these artificially drawn conclusions that simply rely on our capacity to reason. But wherever we fail to find the logic we simply say "God is beyond logic" instead of recognizing the hypothesis we are proposing about God just failed.
@@Adaerus arguments can be tested Here they are debating kalam, an argument in favour of God's existance Arguments can be evidence for claims. For example an argument with a deductive form like this is evidence for the conclusion being true if the argument is sound. So what you have to do is analyze the premises, which is what they are doing in the debate There are also arguments for the nonexistance of God, like versions of the problem of evil
@Drizzly 99 There are two levels of analysis of an argument that should not be ignored. There's the validity of an argument and there's its soundness. An argument can be valid without being sound. Here is an example: Premise 1: Batman can use kryptonite Premise 2: Superman is vulnerable to kryptonite Conclusion: Batman can defeat Superman While the above argument is logically valid meaning the structure is coherent to the rules of logic, one or both elements within the argument are elements of fantasy, meaning they do not exist or proven to interact with reality rendering the argument unsound. Soundness is about the relation of the subject of the argument with reality or what we know about reality. You have to prove that Batman and Superman exist. If you say they do exist in the comic books than you have to be consistent and restrict the reality of existence of Superman and Batman to the realm of the comic books. Another argument: Premise 1: There is a valuable goal I really need to achieve. Premise 2: The difficulties to achieve that goal are a dragon. Conclusion: I have to fight the dragon to achieve my goal. The soundness of this argument can only be preserved if there is no equivocation between the two types of dragons: one of the fantasy realm which flies and spews fire and the other metaphoric dragon that is made of the difficulties to achieve the goal. Kalam argument more likely suffers from this second type of analytical error. Kalam argument only states that the Universe had a beginning nothing about a creator or even a conscious creator. So there is no conclusion from which to draw a link from "universe had a beginning" to Christian God "exists". While possibility of exitance mey be made by inference, the probability of existence can only be proven by existence not inference. Premise 1: Jupiter has objets going around it's orbit. Premise 2: a teapot is an object Conclusion: There's a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Here we can only deduce that it is possible that a teapot can orbit Jupiter, the 9th planet, but the probability of that possibility to be real is close to 0% because instances of orbiting teapots only in Earth orbit in the ISS (I'm only assuming this is the case) to make a probabilistic assessment. So Kalam conclusion is only that universe had a beginning, nothing else. So you have to prove there's a creator and next you have to prove that the creator is conscious then you have to prove that that conscious creator is the God of your religion and not other religion.
@@Adaerus i think there are some important points here First, yeah, there is a difference between validity and soundness, thats why i said showing an argument is sound serves as evidence for the conclusion In your first example, the argument isnt logically valid, as the conclusion doesnt logically follow from the premises, its form isnt logically valid. That is because there can be an interpretation (assignment of meaning to the symbols of some formal statements) in which Batman can use kryptonite (therefore P1 is true), but cant reach Superman, so even if the premises are both true, the conclusion isnt; that is, an interpretation of the formal argument which in which the premises are true, and in which the conclusion is false. If that can happen, we say that the form is invalid, or that the conclusion doesnt logically follow from the premises. It might seem like nitpicking, but i think its crucial Taking this into account, lets see the second example. P1. Jupiter has objects around its orbit P2. A teapot is an object C. There is a teapot orbiting Jupiter As you say, you cant really conclude that from the premises (it isnt valid), but you also cant conclude that a teapot can be orbiting Jupiter. The form of the argument P1. Jupiter has objects around its orbit P2. A teapot is an object C’. There can be a teapot orbiting Jupiter Is also invalid. Its conclusion might (logically) be false even if the premises are true, that is, there are interpretations in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. To see this, since the form (and hence the validity) of an argument doesnt change if you relabel stuff; lets say J(x) is "x orbits jupiter", O(x) is "x is an object", T(x) is "x is a teapot": P1. ∃x| J(x) ∧ O(x) P2. T(x)⇒O(x) C’. ◇∃x| J(x) ∧ T(x) Or, P1: there exists things that are objects and orbit jupiter, P2: a thing being a teapot implies its an object, C. its possible that there are teapots orbiting Jupiter (or can orbit jupiter). The reason this doesnt follow is because of the little "◇", which means "its possible that". A way to change this in order for the argument to be valid would be: P1’. If something is an object, its possible that it orbits jupiter O(x)⇒◇J(x) . P2. A teapot is an object T(x)⇒O(x) C’’. if something is a teapot, its possible that it orbits Jupiter T(x)⇒◇J(x) Introducing the possibility of an object in one of the premises (P1), makes the form valid, which means the conclusion cant be false if the premises are true. Notice how P1 and P1’ are not the same, saying “there are objects orbiting Jupiter” is different than saying “if something is an object, it can be orbiting Jupiter”. Same for C’ and C’’ Now the kalam. The kalam says: P1. If something has a beggining, it has a cause for its existance P2. The universe has a beggining C. The universe has a cause for its existance Understanding by the universe, the totality of physical reality, including other possible universes in a multiverse for example. First, the validity. The argument is valid, which means the conclusion cant be false if the premises are true. Beggining to exist refers to the same thing in P1 and P2, cause refers to the same thing in P1 and C, and the notion of universe in P2 and C is also the same. The form in predicate logic is ∀xB(x)⇒C(x),B(u) ⊢ C(u) Second, the conclusion. The conclusion isnt that the universe has a beggining, the conclusion is the universe (or multiverse) has a cause for its existance. From this, its easy to show the cause has to be trascendent (since its causally prior to anything spatial or temporal). A trascendent cause of the universe or multiverse just sounds like "God". For additional properties like it being personal or source of morality, there are other additional arguments. Whether you consider this external or internal to kalam is just semantics, what is meant by kalam in the first place. Many people refer not only to the syllogism, but also to the argumentation of the premises and the reasons for Godlike properties of the cause when they say "kalam", but as i said if by kalam you only refer to the syllogism then the kalam shows the universe (or multiverse) has a cause Its important to note that the conclusion isnt the possibility of a cause existing, but the cause existing itself. "its possible that P" is different than "P", and the kalam doesnt talk about modality or possibility in the premises or conclusion, so the conclusion of the kalam isnt "its possible that there is a cause of the universe", but "there is a cause of the universe". As for specific religions, the kalam (and the inmediate analysis of the cause) doesnt intend to prove the Christian or Islamic God, a theist would need additional arguments for that
Isn't Stephen's epistemology self defeating? It seems to go something like, "We can know some proposition p iff p can be verified via the scientific method." But is this proposition itself verified by the scientific method? Of course it isn't. Thus even if it scientism IS true, we have no warrant for thinking that it is in fact true.
The scientific method involves inferring conclusions from our own sense data, and then corroborating that conclusion with the sense data of others. It's the most solid, and least presumptuous way, of verifying anything. Is it perfect? No, but it's the best we have.
That’s not the point, scientism turns a good method into a metaphysics. Read this blog, scientism is a long dead philosophy since the 19th century, pretty much no philosopher holds to it anymore as even remotely being viable, yet it is rampant as an intellectual mistake of online atheists. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html?m=1
I don't know what online atheists you're referring to, but Stephen of Rationality Rules is definitely not a "scientinist" (I'm not sure how you would say that word). Stephen, as with any intellectually honest person, will freely admit that the scientific method is imperfect. But then, they will also go on to say that it's the best method we have for acquiring what is most likely the truth. And thus, when one adheres wholly to the scientific method, it's not fair to consider the scientific method "dogmatic" or "arrogant" anything like that. On all accounts of verification, it's the best way. When trying to determine physical reality, any other way - in particular, many of the purely philosophical argumentations of apologists, such as William Lane Craig - would be objectively less verifiable, in that the logistics of other methods can operate under more-or-less one-sided principles, or can be easily re-interpreted from person to person, which makes them inferior to the scientific method. If I say I see a rock, and everyone else around me also says they see that rock, then the rock exists. Can we know this with complete certainty? No, but it's close enough for scientific study and practical purposes, and thus, it's good enough, period.
@@falsexgrindx378 I think you missed my point. I'm not contesting the validity of the scientific method, I'm just saying that as an epistemological model it is self defeating.
@@creatioexnihilo1075 Is the scientific method "epistemologically self-defeating" in any way that wouldn't also apply to every other method of knowledge acquirement?
I’m not convinced by the argument from limits; I think mostly because what constitutes a limit has not been well defined. I also think that the statement that the first cause must be unlimited creates a paradox; because now the first cause is limited in the characteristics it can take on i.e. it does not have the ability to be a limited object. It cannot be any of the limited or caused objects in the universe and so is limited.
Suppose limits are the difference between the caused and uncaused. Then, any First Cause is unlimited. Since causes exist, there must be a Second Cause caused by the First Cause. Suppose, for sake of contradiction, the Second Cause is limited. Then the First Cause only created a limited Second Cause, which is a limit on the First Cause. Contradiction. Hence the Second Cause must be unlimited. By definition of Second Cause, it cannot be uncaused. Therefore limits cannot be the difference between the caused and uncaused. ... hmm, it seems limits have to be better defined ...
I don't get how "creating a limited second cause" is a limit on the first cause. Could you lay out your case for that, or perhaps explain in more detail
@@sathviksidd How can an unlimited thing create a limited thing? Its like asking how something perfect creates something flawed. If something perfect created something flawed than that thing was never perfect.
@@jacoblee5796 suppose I want a pen to write on paper so I make one. But it can't write on wood. Does that make it flawed? No, right? Because I made that pen for a specific purpose, and if it doesn't fulfill a different purpose, that doesn't make it flawed. My point is that it is the will of the creator to create. Moreover, my intuition tells me that any created thing couldn't be unlimited.
@@sathviksidd You are missing the point. Are you a perfect being? Are you all powerful? If you were, you could create the perfect pen that could write on anything. Or you could create an all powerful pen that could write on anything.
@@jacoblee5796 ok it can write on anything, but it can't chop wood, does that make it flawed? My point is that a creator makes a thing to fulfill a purpose, and to do that, the thing need not be limitless. By your logic, if a limitless being can't create a limited thing, then that too, is a limit on the first cause, right?
I think the crux of the issue is your inductive generalization works to establish that every A(a caused thing) probably has some attribute(is limited) this is justified. Where it fails is assuming the uncaused to be an absolute inverse, since uncaused is the opposite of the caused and all caused things are limited then the uncaused must be unlimited, I could easily turn it on you with every caused thing exists, thefore everything uncaused(an eternal god) doesn't exist, your inference that one inversed attribute equals another is completely arbritrary, you own logic can be used to counter your argument.
I love thinking about all this stuff.. and the different ways of... there’s always gonna be someone, somewhere smarter/thinking better than me etc... and I’m grateful to get to experience/learn from it...
I'm hoping we'll eventually get around to discussing causally disconnected realities or the infinitude of the past and how all that relates to whether or not there must be a singular first cause. I also wonder what a rejection of causal finitism would look like, too, so hopefully we get to see that. I'll keep trying to figure out if there's a viable way around causal finitism, you keep doing your thing.
@@logos8312 what’s funny is that Pruss recognizes that it doesn’t get you to a singular first cause. That requires another argument. One which, if we take God to be timeless and omniscient, may not even succeed
@@Tommy01_XO Sure. I mean if the first cause is "sans time" then a pandora's box of anything opens up "sans time". I was a 3 ft tall female leprechaun with pretty silver freckles, sans time. It's true. If you consider all sans time states in which I occupy, that was definitely the case in at least one of them. Sans time, there can be any number of first causes with any number of properties, even contradictory ones, that you want to be. Because at no time would contradictions actually manifest and cause any problems.
Scientism is the view that science is the sole foundation of truth about reality. Cameron has a view based on empirical data (science) and sufficient reason/logic. That is not scientism.
Scientism falsly equates science with absolute truth. It projects onto science a dimension of absolute truth that theists themselves ascribe to their dogmatic beliefs. It's a missunderstanding of the scientific method and has no place outside the context of religious apologetics.
Because its an ideology stephen doesn’t subscribe to, then he brought on a friend to say why scientism is false. Like if i say “you believe in aromatherapy and aromatherapy is false therefore your views on football are false”. But you don’t actually believe in aromatherapy
@@Oldhandlewasabitcringe yeah but this is also the same person that said "to concretely know something, it must be verified through the scientific method". This is quite literally scientism. lol. Empiricism has to do with sensory experience. Scientism, science being the only valid form of epistemology. Just simply Googling it would save RR the trouble of needlessly accusing Cameron of something either due to 1) his own mistake or 2) his own cope.
The "ism" part implies a dogmatic adherence. Hence the objection. Empiricism allows for results and even facts to change based on evidence and so cannot be dogmatic. So to quote Cameron, it is exactly "slimey" to use it.
Hi Cameron, just a thought but would it be possible if you could debate or even just have a conversations with people from within the Eastern Orthodox faith?
To act like you weren't trying to say his undercutting technique as you call it was a weakness on his side is just a lie. You were trying to imply that he is expected to prove your premises are false. Thats not how it works. You are the one with the burden of proof. We are checking your reasoning to determine if its sufficient to convince us. We cant prove uncaused things have limits for example. Doesnt matter. You cant prove that they don't.
He offered proof and it hasn't been refuted. Limits to what? Obviously the uncaused cause to the universe would have power to cause the universe and therefore to bend it to its will.
@@RadicOmega he said one benefit of it is.... Anyone that knows how debates works wouldnt have even brought it up. Of course your opponent is going to show why your argument fails. Doesn't need to prove it completely false. Only needs to show why it can be shown true. He thought he could make it seem like rr wasn't able to show its false and that somehow matters
@@jakemackenzie795 you seem incapable of comprehending. What do you mean what limits? Are you not paying attention in this debate? Your talking about him offering proof why? This has nothing to do with my comment. Notice how the other guy actually responded in a way that shows he at least understood what I said.
@@bingo6071 Same reply and you are going to get the same answer. I am comprehending mate, you can't even comprehend your own comment it seems. You were talking about him and the burden of proof. I replied "he offered proof, stop having a fuss about it". You don't seem to comprehend that the source of the entire universe (God) obviously has the power to manipulate it.
As an atheist, I think an interesting topic would be a debate between you and a Muslim. The debate would be, "On the assumption that God exists, which God should be believed in and why?". Because even if you were right in this debate, you would not know if God needs to be worshipped, unless you can argue for it.
I still don’t understand why the first cause must have character traits such as goodness. And if he is infinite in his character traits, why can’t he be also infinitely evil? Of course he can’t be both right? But why rather goodness than evil? I can kinda understand infinite knowledge, but so far i reject infinite goodness.
Because the order dictated by this first cause is goodness. Trying to contradict this is order is evil. Thus, it the first cause does not have or cannot have evil in its nature.
Evil is generally understood as a privation of good, or an absence or corruption of good. It wouldn’t make sense for the first cause to be evil if the ontology of evil requires the existence of good to exist
@@theochia9369 I could say the same thing about evil. Good is a privation of evil. It wouldn’t make sense for the first cause to be good if the ontology of good requires evil in the first place.
@@lendrestapas2505 I don’t think it’s interchangeable, this is because evil is understood as a corruption of the good too, it lacks good because it has corrupted what is good. It wouldn’t make sense for good to be a corruption of evil because corruption is inherently understood to be bad and undesirable. This assumes a sort of Manichaeism where there’s a balance between ultimate good and evil, but notice this requires a lot of prior views that would need to be justified since traditionally, most people and philosophers in philosophy of religion view good as having a superior ontological status compared to evil
You can't use the eternal universe as an example of something unlimited for your limitation argument. You said an eternal universe can't exist because of the paradox. So why are you using something you consider not logically possible as an example of an unlimited thing that has no cause. You are just smuggling in the things that begin to exist idea
its an example of how removing limits makes it intuitively plausible that it doesn’t need a cause. you can consider hypotheticals about things that don’t exist
@@RadicOmega so he's is smuggling in the things that begin to exist have a cause with saying it and dressing it up like all things that have limits have causes, like I said. Doesnt follow. We dont know if things with limits can be uncaused or not. We dont have unlimited things or uncaused things to examine. Creating a hypothetical and appealing to one's intuition isn't going to cut it. We need more than that.
Steven's argument about philosophical argument that theists are making can't even hit a brick nor a wall. I was watching some of his argument against cosmological argument that Dr WLC was making and i don't see even how does that debunk his argument and ironically he called it refutation.thank to whaddomeme my intuition wasn't lying to me
You cannot use an inductive approach when attempting to obtain insights about the creation of the universe by looking at the laws within the universe. Your in-universe experience is irrelevant when it comes to making arguments about the creation of the universe. You are committing a category error when trying to apply concepts like "causation" -- which depend on space time, i.e., which are defined in a context that assumes space time -- to a context when said space time does not exist yet. BTW, the burden of proof is on you, if you want to suggest that our intuition continues to be reliable in scenarios involving the creation of the universe. Craig Williams does a cop-out when he says he has no reason to believe that his assumptions would not be true. That's not good enough.
If we can't use our inside-universe experiences as grounds for thinking about the universe itself, then you've surely made it impossible to argue about the universe at all. So it's self-defeating. One could argue that all scientific results are inferences, based on a large number of measurements. "The burden of proof"-thing is a bit childish. If you know how to rebut something, then the grown-up thing is to do so. If you don't then it's not like your position win on "walk-over". Every position should be defended. For every proposition +P there exists an opposite proposition -P. There is no difference in these propositions except the +/- sign, and one could easily make a proposition Q = -(-P), so that -Q = +P. In other words, neither the wording (negative or positive) or the order of proposal matters.
This is my point over and over again. Moreover probabilistic arguments only lead to probabilistic outcomes and by definition make weak arguments. The magnitude of the kalam claim is so big that you cannot prove it's validity through probabilistic reasoning. The fact that inductive reasoning is by definition probabilistic doesn't refute any argument that it doesn't lead to true claims.
@@mortensimonsen1645 You can only say this if you lack the ability to understand that sometimes We don't know is the best answer. just like faith leads to false believes intuition also leafs to false results. Both faith and intuition are no strong arguments to come to true statements. We have other systems for that that do work. If peanut butter is made of peanuts that are crunchy, peanut butter should be crunchy right? Since everyone has a mother and a father every group of people also has a mother and a father. This kind of reasoning just leads to probabilistic outcomes and by no means can be used as strong arguments. There are much better ways to come to conclusions about the universe. And still just because you demand an answer doesn't make we don't know a bad answer.
@@Carlos-fl6ch There might be better ways to make a case for God, this is just one that makes it more believable than not. I don’t think Cam thinks this proves God without a doubt. I suppose you rely on inductive reasoning for many things in your life, including your atheism. And I don’t see any alternatives to that. But you mentioned other ways....?
Wow, if only people could utilize my capacity for reason for just a few moments they'd be able to see the lack of substance in many of the attempts to demonstrate your arguments. I read, "great response, real Christian of you, nice vid" I challenge anyone who thinks that way to reply with bulleted time stamps and express to me what I'm missing succinctly. Part of me would love to break down slowly what I'm hearing, but then I think what purpose would it be if one can never see what I see or how I see even when it's laid before them in plain english. It would be just as useless as my commenting itself, as sound vibration upon deaf ears...
Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the debate (when it's been sticking to the point and not backtracking, correcting, making assumptions of the other person's view) but all this format seems to have proven is that, disappointingly, the philosophy being done here is somewhat intermixed by the backtracking/corrections and the format doesn't seem to really work well enough. Half the time, the responses are confused assumptions as to what the other person meant because there's no real-time dialogue to query and confirm them. A bit like passing ships in the night. Still love Cam's work and hope to be part of The Bereans, once I'm back into gainful employment.
The mistake you made here upon induction is a classic masterpiece. You are not using this induction: If all encountered A have the B property then all the A must have the B property. (for example A for limited things, an B for being caused) You are using this instead: If a B property belongs to all encountered A then every non-A doesn't have the B property. Which is neither sound nor valid.
@@CapturingChristianity I am not summarizing what you said or wrote, but trying to spot or highlight where do your ideas come from. What you are intuitively stating is that there are two separate categories: limited caused things and unlimited uncaused... 22:49. Rewatching the video something I think would really be interesting to consider but maybe for others argumentations is that we experience many uncaused(?) (and limited) things, such as in the form of basic principle in pysics.
While this format is interesting, I would very much appreciate a live discussion between the two of you on this topic. I have had especial trouble following your (Cam's) responses in regards to each argument, and thus think a live discussion would allow for a more fruitful back and forth.
I think some of the problems is that they are not really following a set debate structure which makes the debate way harder tot follow. I think if they were to follow a stricter structure this kind of debate could be more fruitful than a live discussion since those tend to end up going around in circles and not accomplishing anything.
these arent really points i get into when i debate the kalam, i think there are much more damning arguments against it, but still, your “mic drop” moment just refutes your own arguments... “its impossible for the totality of reality to have an outside cause”.... well your god is supposedly spaceless timeless and immaterial. so he exists “outside” this realities boundaries. and is therefore an outside cause. the totality of reality is this universe and it is self contained and has no need for an outside cause (such as your god.) further more, Stephen said, “it hasnt been demonstrated that the uncaused exists” and you say he is wrong. well, what is something that is uncaused? can you name anything that exists that is uncaused? anything that has been ‘demonstrated’ to be uncaused and exist. besides this universe of course.
@@davidmjacobson its complicated and I will try to keep it succinct. I agree with mr. worldview designs that there is a foundational existence to the universe. but Id venture to guess that we disagree on what that foundation is. to me its existence itself. not our existence, not the universes existence, but existence. I believe there can not be “nothing” something needs to be around for time to have meaning. when “nothing” exists, the cosmos (what is outside this universe) have infinite “time” to do whatever. and through quantum uncertainty i believe a universe will arise in the absence of ‘something’ I will leave it at that for now.
@@dagan5698 Thanks for watching the video and for your remarks. Can you have existence without something existing? If existence exists, then what is the nature of its existence? I like Worldview Design because he takes you one logical step at a time, and I never feel like he's trying to pull one over on me.
@@davidmjacobson what do you mean by the ‘nature of its existence’ I believe that there are quantum fields and a few other natural laws that exist even in the absence of anything else. and those laws and fields dictate that “nothing” can not exist. now what are the ‘nature’ of those fields? why do they exist? because they are intrinsic. they are the necessary existence. now if that answer doesn’t work for you, then why does god. you are asking more from these fields and laws than you do from a god. if they can not exist necessarily, then why can your god? I dont want to put words in your mouth but; you believe that an omnipotent god is the fundamental existence. i believe that it is much more likely that these very small yet very powerful laws and fields are the fundamental existence. th-cam.com/video/Z-K85WW4fNg/w-d-xo.html heres a good video on the subject. and I will try to watch the rest of worldviews videos too. our conversation starts around 13 minutes. (fyi; I do not like the ending of the video at all) but the rest is very interesting.
Using "limitless" and "perfect" interchangeably tells you all you need to know about this dude's philosopihcal prowess. He reminds me of Stefan Molyneux.
The only reason that that which is limitless wouldn't be perfect would be if you adopt a realist positive-ontological view of evil, which almost no one accepts. Moral realists tend to favor privation theories, misarrangement theories, etc. For instance, it makes no sense to suggest a being that has complete knowledge - no ignorance whatsoever -, and complete power - no weakness of will, mind, or whatever - could do evil. Evil, for the realist, is always a product of some measure of ignorance and/or weakness. It is therefore not a power or a positive thing, but rather a corruption, a negative thing, a limitation on the capacities of rational beings. A being that is qualitatively limitless (as Cameron is arguing here) would he maximally powerful (having no limits on its positive power), maximal knowledgeable (again another real aspect, and itself something that follows from power), etc. So Cameron is quite right here. And maximally good if you're a moral/value realist. Either way, it's the most perfect thing there can be, as it lacks no positive ontological aspect/actuality. The only issue, as I said, is if you take evil as some kind of positive ontological reality. But like the example with knowledge and power shows, evil is a product of limitations, at least under moral realism (and if someone doesn't accept moral realism, they don't accept there is any such thing as evil, anyway): the wiser and stronger someone is, CETERIS PARIBUS the less the chances of them being evil would be, given that they'd have more knowledge of what ought to be done + more capacity to do what ought to be done and resist temptations to do what is evil. A being which has unlimited power, knowledge, etc. just cannot conceivably fail to do what ought to be done. It cannot do evil - evil being a corruption of the good, something which by its very nature is an intrinsic limitation.
I do not see how the grim paradox is relevant. You are trying to prove that an infinite past has a beginning? You are assuming a beginning with your the message, but also assuming no beginning when you say there are infinitely many reapers. You are assuming a contradiction! If this is what your goal then I must have misunderstood, even though I do not see the connection. And you cannot say that they simply have numbers. You are assigning numbers backwards so it seems to be a potential infinite. It is easier to see if you imagine having a time machine and being tasked with delivering the sheet of paper to the first person.
😊A nice well mannered debate. Although I still don’t see how you get to a being as the cause... everything observed comes from emergence, so philosophically we have to suppose the universe might have as well? While also have to question whether nothing is possible, what is nothing?
@@tylerjones6683 so is a quantum background with a vacuum... this being would have consciousness without physical form, how can we determine one more likely than the other
16:36 *"consider for a moment the totality of everything that exists it's impossible that the totality of reality has some kind of outside cause by definition there can't be something like outside of everything that exists hence either the totality itself or some part of the totality exists without a cause"* Right... So if the totality of everything that exists can exist without a cause why do we need a god ? Is the totality of everything that exists limited ?
I argue in this series that the uncaused part of reality is unlimited and if unlimited, then perfect. Only God is a perfect being. That's why we need God.
If causation is contained within the "everything that exists" circle than the "circle" can be uncaused and everything in it (mothers and chairs) can have a cause...TBH to me it seems like you guys are delimiting this circle of everything that EXISTS and leaving god out of it...and using this inside of an argument argument to prove that god exists...maybe we need more words..."cause" and "exist" might be being used with diferent conotations within the same argument...
@@Mykahaia Cameron is not ruling God out of totality of everything that exists. Rasmussen entertain this sort of scenario in presenting his contingency argument for the very reason of God being included within it.
I'm Muslim, After seeing all the debate videos, I really loved your arguments for god existence, the premises were really logical, and i think you will verily satisfy viewers seeing this debate👍
@@borneandayak6725 dumbo🙄 Allah = Al + ilah al - the ilah - God Allah is the word for The God in Arabic, christian and jews speaking arabic use this word for god. Muslim don't worship any created god like yours, But your ignorance is beyond my comprehension 🙄
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
These comments reveal that the dialectic of TH-cam is way behind the professional standard. Half of the people commenting can’t even follow the argument, let alone understand the things being talked about
Sad but true
Sadly true.
Truly sad
@@TheWorldTeacher no i don't believe in any gods I'm an atheist
@@TheWorldTeacher the musician?
There is what looks like a really disingenuous moment at 14:23 where, in the previous video, RR asks for a syllogystic form of the Grim Messenger Paradox.
What CC shows on screen isn't this, it's a shame because I think it was really clear what RR was asking for and CC stated this would be his final rebuttal before closing statements. Therefore this may not be addressed properly now.
I look forward to what RR has to say in response to the video, as I am really enjoying this series.
I love Rationality Rules, but this video was particularly great. Thorough, measured, and well-spirited. Good work, Cameron.
@QQminusS aaannnnddd you sound like an imaginary talking snake😂
@QQminusS Really just cringe. Bad theology
@QQminusS Huh?
What happened to the objection that said it is functionally impossible to imagine a grim reaper messenger happening because a message can not be passed between infinite number of messengers?
What steven meant by that is that if this message is not going to be passed until the end, so there would be no contradiction. Thus, you can not use it to prove that causal infintism is logically impossible.
Why can't it?
@@CarnevalOne because if the message but began to be passed, entailed in that would arleady be causal finitism. Thats beggin the question.
@@RonaldhinoMcLean this supports causal finitism. The point is precisely to show that only causal finitism makes a series of messages (or whatever other grim reaper example you'd like) possible. If the number of causes is infinite, you could never get the series to operate without a contradiction.
That's... the whole point. It shows infinite causal series are paradoxical and contradictory, and hence that we should accept causal finitism.
I really love this series man. Great job. Both of you
Thank you for behaving like a Christian. I very much appreciate you both and have eagerly anticipated videos from each of you in this debate. I'm looking forward to rewatching the whole thing from start to finish once the closing statements have been made.
I'll be posting a video at the end with all of the videos played back to back.
No such thing as “behaving like a Christian” because it's subjective how to behave like one due to interpretations of scripture.
@@megazine Imagine William Wallace praising his men for fighting like true Scotsmen, and some guy in the back raises his hand to say, "Yes, well, um, technically that's a fallacious argument."
@@ryanthomasjones your response was gold. May the love of Christ abide in you and us all, for that is how we will be known!
Christians really do be condescending
In the last 300 year or so, medicine, technology, engineering, behavioral and social sciences -even in the humanities- have brought us advances that save lives, make life easier, facilitate communications, calculate the age of the Earth, and so on. This makes me wonder, what advances have theology and religious philosophy made about God and what benefits have we received from that new knowledge?
@@Gabriel-iu5je I'll keep waiting
@@Gabriel-iu5je It’s a miracle!!!
I'll put a reply here because I am also curious for an answer
Have a great day!
God Bless! Stay strong, stay safe and take care of yourselves! Wishing everyone the best! Jesus loves you! May the Holy Spirit guide you! 😇 💗🕊
Cheers to a better year buddy! 💞🥂🍻
@@Gabriel-iu5je the second part of my comment was just meant to spread positivity. That is all
Religious philosophy/ theology has made many advances clarifying who God is and how to communicate that better to believing Christians. The benefit is to hopefully have a much more full and rich religious life and to deepen your relationship with God.
@8:44 you stated that RR's rebuttal was limited in scope to just your argument but in his 1st response he stated there were many versions of the grim reaper paradox that he could give rebuttals to but that he wouldn't because he was focusing on your presentation. Given that this is a debate why should he respond to something that you have not yet presented?
You haven't understood! Even if RR did respond to all Grime Reaper type of paradoxes, Cameroon says that RR's objections are "limited in scope", namely not having the force of a destroyer.
Regarding your last sentence, I suggest you to check entire series. Cameroon did presented the argument from the start. RR faild to address the premises of the argument.
@@zenozeno8655 I think you're misunderstanding my question. I understand that Cameroon (is that how his name is spelled?) doesn't think the objections are destroyers of his argument because they're limited in scope to his argument, my point is that as the person making the argument he needs to present an argument that is sound and then address objections but what he's claiming is that "The objection that you're making doesn't cover these other points that I haven't stated yet so it doesn't apply." Now maybe I'm misunderstanding what he's saying, but that's the way I'm understanding his words so maybe he needs to choose a different way to format that so as not to sound like he's trying to dodge the objections to the grim reaper paradox.
@@blacksun3920
Again, Grime Reaper is just a suport premise. RR accused Cam of dropping the first form of Grime R paradox, a form to which RR formulated an objection. That's a ridiculous accusation! Cam not only that didn't renounce to Grime R but enforced it using a different form of it. Cam's stated something like "I don't expect him to have objections to all Grime R types of paradox, but even if he had, he is still far away from addressing the other premises of my argument". He refers to the premises that were already known since the first video.
😊
@@zenozeno8655 I have been attempting to put together a response to your comment that is both respectful but also clarifies where I think you and I are having a miscommunication. The trouble with that is that you and I are not engaged in an actual debate, we're in a TH-cam comment section. I think there are two core issues with where you're coming from vs where I'm coming from, one being a matter of definition of terms (for instance grim reaper is not a premise it's a proof for a premise) two being both of our biases. You obviously accept CC's argumentation and feel that he has made some good points, and I obviously accept RR's. We're not going to convince each other and that's okay, the point is that maybe we both need to go back and rewatch both Steven and Cameron's previous videos with an open mind and listen to what each of them says at different times. Maybe neither one of us will change our minds but if we both do that perhaps we will at least understand better the objections raised by the other. In any case may the blessings of whatever God you pray to, if indeed you do, be with you.
@@blacksun3920
First I'll do mea culpa! I wrongly named a supporting argument (Grime Reaper paradox) as a supporting premise! 😊
Still I feel the need to respond to your last message because something is wrong, and when I say wrong it's like...you answering the "what's the weather like today" type of question with a strange "equal 4"!
Let me explain that!
The starting point of our conversation is the last sentence in your first message. I only referred to that assertion but in your last message/answer you are talking about our biases, being civilised and decent, etc.,
The fact that I prefer RR or Cam doesn't have anything to do with a wrong statement you expressed. I haven't tried to convince you about the trueness of Cam or RR's argument! I only said that you are mistaken with regard to the last part of your first message and your last response is something like: " yeah...but we are biased"!
"RR didn't point out the RIGHT place where I equivocated ∃x and ∃!x, therefore his objection isn't relevant to my argument. Moving on..."
13:25 *"but the scenario that i gave does not involve such a process the messengers simply have their numbers as part of the scenario
"*
You don't seem to realize that you can't construct such a scenario. You can't attribute ordinal numbers to objects in a sequence without a starting point (definitional impossibility like square-circles).
If you then say that *"each messenger is tasked with drawing a unique symbol"* you don't solve the problem, because in order for a messenger to know whether to draw a symbol or not, the messenger needs to successfully calculate the conditional clause under which to take the action, and this calculation requires a finite number of messengers, which requires a first messenger, which would be question begging.
You seem to be constructing an impossible scenario in order to show that the scenario is impossible ?
You do have a starting point: the most recent grim reaper and you worked backwards.
If the analogy is impossible for the same reasons that an infinite series would be impossible in general then constructing an impossible situation to show something else is impossible is completely fine.
the point of the scenario is not to assign numbers to messengers, that’s completely irrelevant to the argument
A paradox is a logical self-contradiction. The paradox here is not logical because you have no logical basis for assigning the numbers/symbols on which the paradox relies in order to function. That is why it is relevant to the argument to point out this issue. You can't use the current repear as the basis for the assignment of numbers/symbols and then work backwards as this still involves positing an arbitrary opening position which goes against the point of the paradox. In summary, this is an illogical paradox and thus it is not a paradox at all and cannot be used for any further reasoning due to its fundamental flaws.
@@neilmcginn9526 sorry, are you saying something is not logical because you have no logical basis for assigning numbers/symbols to it? Can you provide a number/symbol based syllogism to demonstrate that statement?
@@nathanfosdahl7525 The paradox requires the assignment of numbers/symbols to function. The paradox also requires there to be an infinite number of reapers with no starting position (no first or last reaper). The latter prohibits the former because no one repear can determine what unique number/symbol they are as there is an infinite number of reapers before and after them. Therefore, assigning them a number/symbols as required by the paradox (being a number descending/ascending based on reapers either side, or a unique symbol) is not possible and thus illogical.
You are asking me to provide a syllogism, being a form of logical argument, to demonstrate that something is not logical? That is not how it works. If you believe you can assign a number/symbol under the paradox in a manner that is logical, then it is for you to provide a syllogism to that effect. The burden of proof is on Cameron (or you, if you so wish) to show how its possible.
Elephant Philosophy and Joe Schmid (Majesty of Reason) did a great rebuttal to Steven also. Joe made some good comments in the comments section of EP’s video
We’re all going to do a debate review together once it’s all over.
@i o The debate series.
@@Hello-vz1md that’s not a limitation... that’s just a logical contradiction
@@Hello-vz1md lol, that's logically impossible. And if you concede that logical inconsistencies may exist, then your statement/question is self defeating.
@@Hello-vz1md that's the same as the rock thing. Part of God's nature is being the logos of the universe.
Well done, well done.
It's hard to criticize Cameron for not engaging with criticism that I would like to hear when Steven didn't mentioned it. I would like more engage on the causal finitism thou
I'm still convinced that the argument from arbitrary limits could have been presented better but I think Cam did a good job of clearing up a lot of misconceptions.
God of the bible is a assigned all kinds of arbitrary limits, and is therefore not the first cause.
@Joseph Rogers Good thing RR is disproving him then. Otherwise, you'll have to throw out the Bible.
@Joseph Rogers You're merely demonstrating why the Kalam is a dishonest argument. It tries to argue for certainty of a God you don't believe in and then tries to squeeze something like God into that gap with fast talking.
@@goldenalt3166 nah
@@goldenalt3166 nah
So how does a first cause necessarily prove there is a god? The problem is that you start with the conclusion, "god exists", and the attempt to prop up premises under it. The main problem with your argument is that you premises do not necessarily support your conclusion. It is only one possibility among many. Therefore your premises do not prove your conclusion. It is only your bias, your starting with the conclusion, that makes you believe that it does.
I have to say that I am extremely happy and satisfied by the way you presented yourself in this video as such a humble and charitable person...this is by far your best section of the debate so far. I agree with you on some points such as that the grim reaper paradox does not beg the question, however, once again for the third time in this debate, your defense of premise 13 is so unconvincing.
If I am not mistaken your argument can be presented in this syllogism:
1- everything in my experience that is caused (which is everything we experience really) is limited
2- by induction: everything that is caused is limited (so far so good)
3- the uncaused must be unlimited!!! (that simply does not follow)
Uncaused objects are either limited or not and observing limited objects tells us absolutely nothing about the uncaused. the Uncaused by definition has to be unlimited (in a way I guess) in its causal history but certainly it does not have to be unlimited in any other respect (given what we know so far of course).
I don't know if you'd see this comment let alone respond given you are a busy person. There are other disagreements I'd have loved to write about but this has been the major point of disagreement with your side throughout the whole debate with Stephen.
So, just a nitpick here, but I actually think his argument works in reverse. This is how I understand what he is saying:
(1) everything in my experience is limited - and also caused
(2) by induction: everything that is limited is caused
(3) therefore, if something is NOT caused, it cannot have limits (since again, everything that is limited has a cause)
And I'm pretty sure that does work, although of course you can disagree with the premises and disagree that it is sound. Cheers :)
The problem with premise 13, and the argument from 13 to 16 is that you can swap limited by any qualifier. Look:
- Anything that is hot has a cause
- If the first cause is hot, then it has a cause
- The first cause is not hot
See, the problem is to do with the "proposal". We have no reasonable inference for qualifiers of uncaused things.
That's completely valid as a syllogism. You would need to establish the premises.
Temperature doesn't seem to be a relevant difference between the caused and uncaused. Cold coffee needs a cause in the same way that hot coffee does.
@@CapturingChristianity Total agreement. That was an example, I reason the same when it comes to limits. You can make the exact same argument with the unlimited qualifier as well. Unless, of course, there is an example of an uncaused unlimited thing.
That is why I insist this is the problem with the proposal. A difference between caused and uncaused seems to be unfindable. Here, try this. Use "existent" as a qualifier. You will conclude that the first cause is not existent.
@@ChongFrisbee Do you think that an eternal universe (one that has no limit in time) requires a cause?
@@nathanfosdahl7525 I'm not sure I get your response here. I do realise that both my syllogism and Cam's are perfectly valid. The problem, in my view, is at the point of using this as a supporting argument for the premise that the first cause is x (for any x, including God)
Your grim messenger / reaper arguments are still broken. You say that your personal solution to the paradox is causal finitism, but that's not the same as saying that causal finitism is true - all you're saying is that causal finitism is one way to solve the problem, not the only way. Basically, your premise 5 is not true - the grim reaper paradox and messenger paradoxes may be impossible for other reasons (eg. information density or other absurdities). That would resolve the paradox without having causal finitism.
I think this is the crux of what Steven's saying - he says things like that the messenger paradox requires a first state (which is true). I think the missing parts of his argument are that the messenger paradox is impossible because it requires a first state, which an infinite universe can't provide, and therefore it is impossible for other reasons than causal finitism. Make no mistake, this is a destruction of your premise 5.
Also, you absolutely did spend time pointing out the singularity of God (ineffectively) in your original argument, and the phrase "The First Cause" could imply its singularity, so it's a bit dishonest to say that you aren't saying it's singular.
Also, you haven't justified why you think that things with limits always have causes - the argument you gave was that everything we know about has both limits and causes. That doesn't imply that things without causes don't have limits. All you've done is a weak appeal to intuition. We could equally say that everything that thinks has a cause. Therefore if something doesn't have a cause, it can't think. It's a rubbish argument, both for limits and ability-to-think.
I wish they just done a discussion, they just talking over each other
While you were discussing your strawman of RR, it sounded like you were implying, he gave the impression your motives (if any) where malicious (4:13 ... this wasn't some like slimy apologist scheme to attack a position that Steven didn't actually hold...). He never gave a motive for the strawman, but addressed the fact that you made a leap from what he claimed his position was, you then claimed he held another position and then attacked that. (RR video 19:38 to 21:20) He then continued right after pointing out the strawman, to state his position even clearer (21:07) : "and that's all I was trying to say that I want empirical, that is to say, observational evidence of something uncaused before we confidently asserts what attributes uncaused things necessarily have...). What was your response? 4:10 "I labeled Steven's view as accurately as I could". You are trying to defend your strawman of his more vague position in his first rebuttal (called : Steven's opening statement), instead of addressing the clearer position he gave you in his second rebuttal, the one you are responding to now. Why not just say something like : "I am sorry for the strawman, but your position wasn't very clear. Thank you for your clearer position" and respond to his clearer position in that moment or just say : "I will respond to his position later in the video, so lets move on". Doesn't that seem more genuine and not defensive? I haven't even gotten to section 2 yet, I had to point this out first, because that doesn't sound like Jesus to me at all. Even if Steven said you had the most evil intent ever in the world, wouldn't the response I suggested sound more like Matthew 5:40 than yours?
Thank you for taking the time Tobie. I felt like Cam was cherry picking in a way that was not generous to Stephen but I wasn't going to go to the trouble you have. Fair play.
He said the syllogism for your argument that uncaused things have no limits wasnt in your opening. It wasnt. Just because you used your conclusion has a premise of your main argument doesn't mean you gave a defense of that premise in a syllogism. You only explained with the story about the hikers or something. I cant tell if you're dishonest or honestly this confused
Totally agree!
I would like to see Can respond to this because this is a very important point your making and I still kinda feel that Can needs to clarify. This entire part of his argumentation is not very strong.
@@Carlos-fl6ch well to be fair he did eventually give a syllogism for it later in a another video so its not relevant to the argument. But it is however very dishonest to try to pass off a premise that includes your conclusion about limits as if its the syllogism that justifies that assumption. He was asking for the arguement that uncaused things are necessarily unlimited. That wasn't what cam pointed to and time stamped
Nice, this debate has been insightful!
I'm just wondering why is this even being debated when we neither have proof of something beginning to exist nor proof of "nothing" existing. Seems like a waste of time.
You can use logic and knowledge that we have to reach conclusions.
It's no so much of probing neither. But more in terms of having an argument that is consistent with no flaws. This is what Capturing Christianity must provide. He has to make a compelling argument with no holes while RR is trying to point out the flaws of CC’s premise. RR next task is to point out flaws of CC's latest video.
No lol.
@@Wlof25 Yeah, and we don't have knowledge about this topic so how does that work? How to reach a conclusion that is anything other than "I don't know"?
@@MarkoMood We use logic to reach the conclusion that out of nothing nothing comes. We see that things exist, so we know that things exist for some reason.
We reach the conclusion of the first cause and that there cannot be infinite regress of causes.
And then we can talk about causes and first and secondary cause. We can see that world around us that it's all contingent, limited, etc, so we can have clearer picture about first cause, etc.
The fact is, we can know things or reasonably suspect something even if we don't have 100% knowledge.
This video was frustrating, but the worst part was your belief in Inductive generalization. In physics for example, this is strictly forbidden. GR and QM are super unintuitive, but still our best theories. It only works on things in our size with our amount gravity.
I don't see how that's incompatible with inductive generalization, that's just a strike against relying on intuition. Our best models of GR and QM are supported by induction.
@@tylerjones6683 It is the same thing. I would say that the basis of intuition is induction, because we can make rules in our head to help us survive.
What I meant to say is that Induction* is not something to base arguments on, especially when talking about the universe as an entirety. We do not know enough about the universe to make these assumptions.
*when you use it to generalize too far beyond your experience.
inductive generalization is how science works. Induction means an inference to the best explanation. I believe you are confusing “intuition” and “induction.”
All things I experience that have causal power are limited, so probably all things with causal power are limited.
The first cause has causal power.
So, the first cause is limited.
See the issue
Wow that is a really simple rebuttal, well done! I gave a fish analogy which now feels way too complicated :D
@@taggartaa lol yea I realized this by talking to someone defending cams logic and through trying to find ways to explain how this isnt reliable I found a way to show that this logic can be used to believe two things that directly contradict one another. Im interested in hearing your analogy. Care to share it?
@@bingo6071 It is a comment on this youtube video I made yesterday, I have no idea how to link to it :D
@@taggartaa I mean just repeat it to me here but okay I found it lol
1) All things I experience that have causal power are limited
2) All limited things with causal power that I experience have causes themselves
3) Three possible solutions would be:
a. an infinite causal chain of causes that are limited in nature
OR
b. a causal loop
OR
c. a first cause that is necessary with no limits
4) a and b are impossible
5) Therefore, the first cause is necessary and has no limits in its nature
You can say you didn't dodge defending the first paradox but you did.
How did he dodge it? he explained how Stephen’s objection missed the point
@@RadicOmega no he didn't. He went to a new paradox and said rrs criticism didn't hold up to his new one.. even though they weren't meant to. His criticisms were about the first paradox. It was an obvious moving of the goal post
@@bingo6071 the goal post didn't move. Cameron just painted it neon orange so that we could see it more plainly
@@DaddyBooneDon nice analogy but its false. He updated his paradox with a new one and then used the critiques of the old one to say the critiques dont work on the new one. Duh. He needs to hear the other paradox first if he is to critique it. He couldnt defend the old one so he made a new one. Rr exposed that one as well so it doesnt matter.
@@bingo6071 i can see that you're stuck on defending this untenable position so I'm going to just let this go. I would just encourage you to review the part where he took the syllogism for the Grim Reaper Paradox, exchanged that term with Grim Messenger, and the syllogism worked exactly the same because
it's the same syllogism
What do you think about the critique that Malpass levied against the grim messages paradox?
It's definitely worth consideration! Ultimately, the best case for Causal Finitism will rely on its ability to resolve many paradoxes, not just the Reaper paradox (which it does).
@@CapturingChristianity Being a simple solution does not make it correct.
@@CapturingChristianity So as I understand the undiagnosed pair diagnosis it actually solves all of those paradoxes that I've heard argued for. It just seem like a much more modest proposal than claiming that you just just proved that. Space is not infinitely divisible. Time is not infinitely divisible, time had a start, space had a start etc. And if you are not convinced of symmetry breakers. Time will have an end.
Instead we just say, seems to be contradiction between the two conditions that all these paradoxes share.
@@goldenalt3166 throw away much of scientific knowledge, man
@@mickeyesoum3278 Why? So you can believe the bible is correct about the flat earth?
I’ve never seen Cameron so respectful which is appreciated but as the two of you jump into the weeds, the first premise of the Kalam is wrong so the whole argument falls apart. Secondly, robots for Jesus have no other option but to defend their absurd premise whereas a rational person follows the evidence even if the conclusion is unpalatable.
Huh?
Thanks for taking to time to share, Peter Paul....
@@mortensimonsen1645 lol
hi peter paul, I met an atheist whose name was Israel, lol
@@davidresendiz7989 And I'm a Jew who was given Christan names because my Holocaust surviving parents 'hid' us as Christians until I found out we were Jewish when I was 18. What's in a name?
Summary : 25 minutes of semantics
“I didn’t say this what I meant to say was this”
“He misunderstood what I said, when I really mean this”
Well, it is a rebuttal. Rebuttal can take several forms in debates. Also, so what? It may be good it may be bad. If it is bad(for Cam) then presumably it is good for Steven
In section 1.4 i think that people have heard scientism from flat earthers and apologists and they usually use it in a disingenuous way so people saying scientism get conflated with people misrepresenting science
I think it's a good idea to bring this to an end. The videos are getting really hard to follow, because of the large amount of time between each one, the skipping and using clips from many different videos and the cutting things short to keep the length down. You're doing a good job in editing to make it as good as possible, but if people watching need to watch the whole series every time a new video comes out, then it's not going to work.
Agreed, they are both taking way to long to respond to one another.
I can understand the desire to make a proposal, have a discussion about that proposal, have people give their views/ opinions on it and come to their own ideas. However that happens in a Discussion, not a Debate. In a debate you are making an assertion and you have to burden the proof to show why that assertion is correct. If this was framed as a discussion where you and RR were merely getting each other's opinions about your ideas then making a proposal would be fine.
did you even seen the video?
@@davidresendiz7989 I made a comment on the video, I would have at least had to click on the video to do that. How is this helpful? If you have an issue with my statement make a rebuttal.
@@blacksun3920 yes, but then that’s a debate and not a discussion. As you pointed out, no benefits can possibly come of having a debate
@@mcarrowtime7095 Forgive me for not recalling the exact context of my comment from 8 months ago but where did I say anything about there being no point in debate? I was outlining the difference between a discussion and a debate and how there is a structural difference between the two. Discussions are much less formal, more of just an exchange of ideas back and forth. Whereas the point of debate is to present an argument and have your opponent point out the potential flaws so that you can then address them. If no flaw can be found then it shows that your argumentation is solid and can lead to a better understanding and teaching moment for others. If a flaw can be found then you make adjustments to your argument to have a better argumentation in the future or you come to understand that your argumentation is not valid and you need to make an adjustment to your own view. In either case you learn something or have taught something and there's a great value in participating. I hope this discussion has clarified this for you.
@@mcarrowtime7095 Also my reply to David had a bit of a sarcastic bite to it which came off a little pithy and not quite as verbally accurate as I normally try to be. I did not find his comment to be either in good faith or helpful so I was less willing to engage with him in a reasonable manner like I'm trying to do with you. In your case it appears you're trying to communicate in good faith and point out a flaw in my reasoning, which I appreciate.
Can't wait on Elephant Philosophy debunking Stephen's rebuttal
Such faith in Cameron?
@@sora012 EP made me study philosophy in university
I am the biggest EP fan
@@Unconskep LMAO. When you are saying "EP was never a true atheist" you commit the logical fallacy called no true scotsman.
He explained his believes as an atheist clearly and deeply. Your claims are not really reliable.
Great video and nicely done Cameron. I hope we can have "seasons" of these types of debates. Maybe the next one can be 2 v 2 in collab with other channels.
Do you not think, though, that a great deal of the time in the videos has been spent on corrections due to assumptions being made by the other person, as to what the first person said. More and more time has been spent saying "what I meant by that was..." than rebuttals etc. You don't obviously get this in a real-time debate or discussion.
@@thecloudtherapist idk I think that happens alot in real life debates as well. I think it's all depends on who is debating. Misunderstandings, continual or not, happens all the time and I don't think they are fully corrected even in person.
@@jc1daddy2 I think that misunderstandings of the other person's meaning/position, in real-time debates, tend to be more about the arguments themselves not being misunderstood or misinterpreted, whereas here Cameron had to make an assumption on Scientism/Empiricism and RR mistook Grim Messenger an an "abandonment" and both on teaching the other basic philosophy. And about 5 minutes were spent on the actual arguments.
I love what CC does but I'm just not convinced by the format, although it sure makes an interesting competition as to whom will misunderstand the other the most.
@@thecloudtherapist well the Grim reaper paradox is a part of Cameron's argument and whether RR is an empiricist or holds to scientism is relevant to the debate. There's pros and cons to every format but I'm looking at this newer format in a more glass half full kind of way. I think in a live in person debate alot of misunderstandings go un checked while in this format, due to a longer gap in response, debaters have way more time unearth misunderstandings, formulate responses and thus try to respond to misunderstandings.
If every A you experience is B then probably every A is B.
Not really.
You have to add probably in there for a reason. Because assuming that to be the case would be a black swan fallacy. And also. What you are actually saying is that every A I see is B so every "not A" thing is "not B". And that doesn't follow. not A could also be B. We do not know anything about the not A in this case. All things could be B. Aka limited for anyone not following.
I appreciate wanting to spark discussion and consideration, and am writing this before watching any replies or comments for the sake of honesty and avoiding bias.
At the conclusion of watching CC's side of the debate about this argument I have arrived at the following state of mind:
-I (tentatively) reject premise 4 with regards to the grim reaper scenario (at least as presented, I'm currently undecided as a whole, infinities and paradoxes are hard to wrap my head around). I don't see how the inability to identify the grim reaper responsible could mean that the victim is alive, or for that matter anything other than that we don't know which of the reapers killed the victim. I do however tentatively believe that the messenger scenario is impossible.
-I reject premise 5 confidently, as the impossibility of reapers or messengers engaging in specific behaviour does not prove the impossibility of every potential infinite causal chain. That would be required for premise 5 to be accepted.
-I would like to tentatively suggest that even if I accepted 4 and 5, and therefore that casual finitism was true, it would need to include the possibility of a state of reality being a "cause" in and of itself. Not just things and events. A highly abstracted example: the first state of reality might have been two particles and the laws of physics existing, and this being the "first cause" for the subsequent motions of those particles.
-I reject premise 13 on the basis that there is insufficient reason to accept it. I find the proposed reasoning for it in this video wholly insufficient. Every event or entity we have observed to exist is both "limited" (too nebulous of a term for my liking) and "caused" (also vague, but I shall take it to mean "exists in its current state, at least in part as a result of previous events, entities or states of reality"). Since there is absolutely no variation in either of these properties in any thing we have seen, I see no basis to speculate that a never before seen variation in one property necessitates another never before seen variation in the other.
-I reject premise 9 as a result of rejecting premise 13. I also find that we need a much clearer definition of limits for a meaningful discussion of this concept.
-I reject premise 10. I can conceive of things that are not limited, but are certainly not perfect. We'd need much better understanding of what we mean with "not limited" and "perfect" before any consideration of this point is even meaningful.
-I reject premise 11, at least when applied to my ley understanding of the definitions of God and perfect. Again, terms need to be clearer before we can even begin to discuss this and I feel all of your work is ahead of you.
-Naturally this means I reject premise 12 and premise 2 as a result of this.
I'd be particularly interested in corrections to my understanding of premise 5, as I don't think much attention was paid to it. I'm also fairly sure there's reasoning to it I must have misunderstood.
It was for sure a cop out. You assert a difference between uncaused things and caused things without having anyway to demonstrate this difference. And then you ask your audience to think about it for themselves. You are relying on your audiences intuitions to convince them so you don't have to with an actual good argument. And you give the excuse that your scared a bad argument might persuade them in the wrong direction. Obviously that's it. You'd rather let them rationalize it themselves. Yes eventually you had to show a syllogism... and then we see the fallacies. You tried to get around that. Fail
@J W yea.. thats what I said.
You're wanting people to use their unreliabile intuitions instead of a reasonable argument. He trys both but only because he didn't have confidence in his argument. An Appeal to common sense a pointless fallacious thing to add
Dude you say alot of nonsensical blabber. Nitpicky. He could obviously show the difference between the two.
@@jakemackenzie795 then why didn't he
I'm glad RR finally called you out on your shady practices. Bad actors shouldn't be rewarded with attention. I don't know that you're a liar but you're not honest.
Everyone be sure to read the google doc in the description where Cameron takes Stephen to task on scientism/empiricism.
This was a really great response Cameron
Wait up; at 9:33 you tell us that your first premise doesn’t say that there is a single first cause, implying that multiple first causes are a possibility. Does this not cause premise two to become even more of a non sequitur, as now it no longer follows that if there is at least one first cause then God exists. Multiple first causes would imply either 1) multiple gods with none of them singly creating the universe rendering it impossible to assign the title of God to any of them, or 2) that the first causes are not gods.
I also feel like the argument that because the cause is limitless it is perfect, therefore God. A thing could be limitless and It could be limitlessly evil, or limitlessly malicious. A god could also be sufficient for a first cause and still have limits. I just don’t think it follows. I also feel like perfect could be viewed as too subjective, unless you are re-defining perfect to be limitless.
Evil is the privation of good. And a “perfect” being is generally meant in an objective sense, not based on one’s opinion, but something along the line of the “greatest conceivable being” (omnipotent, timeless, omniscient, wholly good etc)
@@garyleemusic but see, I think the problem with perfect is that I can’t objectively perceive what that is. It’s not coherent. I think the term perfect is inherently subjective. I think it was a mistake for Cam to bring perfect into his argument. I could just describe the whole of reality as perfect by that definition. I think that’s the problem with the Kalam though. I could just describe reality as being a limitless, perfect, sufficient first cause for the universe. The unknown natural has just as much explanatory power as God does.
@@magicmark3309 some good points. But how would the universe be omniscient or good or timeless?
@@garyleemusic reality by definition is all that exists. Omniscient is knowing all things, and since reality is the set of all things, there is nothing unknown. Reality is also eternal, because “nothing” can’t exist. I don’t know how something could be timeless, because that’s just incoherent.
Now if you’re asking about good, as in morality, we could say there are unknown natural laws in reality that give us our basis for objective morality. Personally, I don’t think objective or absolute morality exists.
If you’re just talking about reality being all good, well it’d be all good, all bad, and everything in between. Just like if God is limitless, he’d also be all good and all bad. I still think good is subjective though, just like “perfect”, so it doesn’t really make sense to say it.
I know these aren’t gonna make sense to everyone, and it’s not necessarily what I believe, but I feel like the Kalam falls into this kind of special pleading case based on what we do not know. I also think that the Kalam doesn’t convince people to believe in God. There are better arguments.
@@magicmark3309 that's crazy. If you have 3 stones in a box, there isn't necessarily any knowledge about 3 stones in a box. The universe isn't "omniscient" because it includes all facts, omniscience/knowledge involves a conscious act of mentally grasping and understanding things and propositions - something e.g. that human beings can do but rocks can't. This is clearly what is meant by omniscience or knowledge. I'm surprised you would even say the nonsense you just did.
The problem with your, "things with limits have causes and things without limits don't" based off of our experience with limited things is that we have no experience with things that aren't limited, and we have no experience with things that are uncaused. So we can't make inferences as to what attributes things have because they are unlimited. Think of a fish that has only ever seen things in the bottom of the ocean. They have countless examples of things that exist in the water, and all those things also seem to have density greater than water. Then they imagine up an example of something they have never seen before (like a balloon filled with air), and note that it can't exist down where the fish lives, because it would float up. Therefore, the fish thinks falsely, all things that exist outside of water have a lower density than water.
From our experience, we may be able to reasonably say that things which are limited (at least in respect to time) have causes. But we cannot say anything about traits of unlimited things, and whether or not they have causes. Even if we imagine up some examples of things we have never observed (like a universe with no beginning) and assign it traits. Especially when it is trivial to imagine an unlimited thing that could easily have a cause. For instance, imagine a universe that wasn't eternal, but was unlimited in mass. I don't think it is intuitive that such a universe obviously has no cause. So even though it has an unlimited attribute, it may have a cause anyway.
I found it! Ha
"Especially when it is trivial to imagine an unlimited thing that could easily have a cause"
If the first cause has a cause in itself, then you will end up with an infinite regression of causes, and that is impossible. And so then follows that the first cause is necessary and has no cause.
"For instance, imagine a universe that wasn't eternal, but was unlimited in mass"
The "mass of the universe" is a property of the universe. And since the universe is not eternal to the past, then its mass is also not eternal to the past, and thus, its mass is not actually infinite as I have interpreted you to mean. However, since its mass increases as the universe expands, then its mass is potentially infinite, since it will grow to infinity as a limit.
@@RamezShehata
"If the first cause has a cause in itself, then you will end up with an infinite regression of causes, and that is impossible."
You are begging the question. If there is a first cause, of course it is uncaused... But an infinite regression of causes is not (as far as all of humanity knows) impossible, it is the very thing you are trying to prove.
"And since the universe is not eternal to the past, then its mass is also not eternal to the past"
Correct, but just because the mass is not eternal, doesn't mean it isn't unlimited in quantity. I am not talking about an expanding universe, I am talking about a universe that is actually infinite in magnitude. You cannot say that such a universe would be uncaused.
@@RamezShehata Also, would you consider a circular causal chain an infinite regression? Like A -> B -> C -> D -> A where "->" means is caused by. This type of causal chain would not require an infinite series of different events, but would also not require a first cause either. But could still be considered an infinite regression depending on how you define it.
There are lots of issues here, and I don't think you have defeated RR's rebuttals at all. In one instance, RR points out a number of errors with your paradox. You then go on to say something to the effect of "My paradox doesn't say that, so its fine". Thats not how it works. You can't dodge flaws in your logic by simply stating that the flaw isn't expressly written into the paradox - why would it. Secondly, your "mic drop" moment is not a defeated. You provided no example of an uncaused cause, rather you made an ambiguitous comment about the abstract concept of everything. It is completely ungrounded. Perhaps it was fortunate that your mic was on a stand as it would have been embarrassing to have to pick it up again..
Lol
Daddy chill.
Really appreciate how you handle yourself.
@@louiscyfer6944 cope
This syllogism vaild. Not sound. But vaild.
All limited things have causes
The first cause has no cause
So the first cant be limited
Its the first premise that isnt sound.
The first premise rest on the justification laid out here.
All limited things I experience are caused so probably all limited things are caused
Its a black swan.
I can also illustrate the unreliability of this argument by showing how the same reasoning can lead to a contradiction.
All things with causal power i experience have limits so probably all things with causal power have limits.
All things with causal power have limits
The first cause has causal power
The first cause has limits.
That would work if the inductive generalization was not paired with a conceptual analysis of why x lacking limits gives us reason to think x lacks a cause. It wasn't "well things with limits have causes" but rather "it seems that things that have limits _need_ causes". I would say "explanation" is more precise.
@@joshuaphilip7601 his justification was laid out in the video and in my comment. It was " all things I experience that have limits have causes so probably all limited things have causes " and that isnt a good justification for the reasons I gave above
And just an assertion that it seems necessary isnt going to get us there either pal
02:10 Strange that Cameron says he doesn't like to misrepresent people's views - but likes to tell people identifying as atheist are not in fact atheist, because they describe it as a "lack of belief in gods".
It's because the term has a long and active history of not agreeing with their self identification, and... especially since we're dealing with philosophy here, many atheist philosophers take serious issue with "lacktheists" saying they're actually atheists.
And more often than not, it's implausible for them to maintain the "mere lack of belief" is even accurate about themselves considering their own views and behavior (comparing God to things they actively have knowledge about which leads them to have positive beliefs concerning their lack of existence)... aka: Hunter's Dilemma.
Most atheists could care less what apologist think about them. So his opinion is moot.
@@streetsdisciple0014 this isn't high school, the status of others opinions isn't a matter of therapy and cyber bullying and safe spaces, but of rational debate.
Positional self identification and ones behavior as presented in alignment with or against said self identification can become a sticking point.
@@ravissary79 i never insinuated that it was...you did.
Apologists, for example, tend to make a big deal out of what an atheist “ought” to be based on some monopolized esoteric definition and perhaps atheists like myself like to engage and humor the argument BUT the vast majority of atheists in general don’t care ( nothing to do with bullying). They presume there’s probably no god so they venture into other things that have nothing to do with theology.
These atheists that are inept in theology and philosophy are actually ahead of the game in my opinion. A Christian apologists opinions, projections, favored definitions, etc...are moot in the long run.
@@streetsdisciple0014 I think you misunderstand my point.
You have a flat, black and white view of 'caring about people's opinions'. It's a reactive "I'm grow up so sticks and stones don't break my bones" view. This paints a cartoonish concept of how people interact with each other, and unfortunately you recapitulate this flat, reactive "no YOU" caricature of how to deal with disagreement by responding in so polemical a way to a simple observation of the nature of the problem.
I'm pointing out that concerns that atheists might have about how they're presented AREN'T NECESSARILY unfounded. Because honest dialogue requires the ability to agree on basic terms and positions.
But *that* good faith requires people to be honest enough with themselves intellectually to be positionally consistent... hence why many atheist philosophers balk at the popular lacktheist self identification of atheism. They don't agree because it gets in the way of actually doing atheist philosophy.
That's not to say that genuine lacktheists don't exist, and hypothetically can call themselves anything they want, but it's not helpful to the HONEST debate to middle the issue, and then not even act consistent with the stated position.
So stop kneejerking. It's not helping.
A thought about premise (13):
Everything in our experience that has limits also has a cause.
While this is in agreement, (13) does not necessarily follow inductively. After all, everything in our experience has both limits and a cause. In order to infer a correlation between limits and cause, you would also need that everything in our experience that has no cause, also has no limits, and that the dataset of uncaused things be considerable.
Because everything in our experience has limits, we might also inductively infer that everything has limits. This contradicts the conclusion of an unlimited first cause.
I'm not sure that follows. Then again, I may just not understand what you are saying in full
@@SaintTrump99 Sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to by "that"
@@HD141937 ". In order to infer a correlation between limits and cause, you would also need that everything in our experience that has no cause, also has no limits, and that the dataset of uncaused things be considerable."
I don't see how that follows. I hope that clears things up, sorry for the confusion.
@@SaintTrump99 Oh sure. I think the best way to illustrate this is with an example:
Suppose that you are investigating a mysterious disease. In a group of infected people you notice that everyone has two legs. You conclude that everyone with two legs has the disease.
Replace having legs by having limits and being infected by being caused and you see that Cam is using the same line of reasoning to arrive at his conclusion.
Of course the big difference is that we could easily find healthy people with legs, so nobody would come to the previous conclusion. However, if somehow all observed healthy people had no legs, the conclusion would be justified.
@@HD141937 I think I am understanding you. You have not fully convinced me but I am definitely going to be much more skeptical of his argument. I do hope RR addresses this(if he hasn't already) ad that CC answers it. This is a good point, I think.
Cheers, God bless you
The relevance of our intuitions being unreliable is exactly that...they're unreliable...the degree of unreliability is irrelevant...they give you a "could be" or a "I think so"....remember you're trying to PROVE something here...
I think 'giving a reasonable argument' is a better way to conceptualize this, not necessarily "prove". This is more in the sphere of philosophy and not science (though even in science the notion of something "proved" is always taken cautiously and tentatively, some would even think that science does not deal in "proving" things but rather giving descriptively successful explanations of what's observed).
"Prove"?
There's no proving, there's good reasons to be a believer.
In the Qur'an, Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala (God Almighty) calls us Muslims ( those who submit) "believers" and non-Muslims "disbelievers".
Not provers and disprovers.
We have good reasons to believe and that's all that should be expected.
Science can't "prove" it's own first principles and therefore atheists can't "prove" there own world view, they also are believers (in their own unproven world view), they just disbelieve the reasons for belief in God.
@@reesecane7878 but science can make verifiable predictions which faith can not.
And please spear me from a response in a form of holy book citation.
@@edgarrenenartatez1932 than drop the silogism and don't phrase things like "surely X is true" if you're going to partly base your reasons on human intuition...as he said they are unreliable (more or less depending on what you're trying to infer) so saying "our intuitions work a lot of times for our usual problems so we can depend on them for this unusual one" is kind of unreasonable...they're unreliable...that's why we have measuring and observation tools and the scientific method...remember, our intuitons once said the earth is not moving around the sun...
I’ve heard these arguments so many times, but I still don’t get where the first statement comes from, and how a first cause is followed by "then God exists". To me this sounds like saying “If I have 20.00 then I am rich. I am rich, it follows that i have 20.00” It would be easier and more convincing to just show the 20.00 or an object of equal value, no?
If you don't understand where the first statement comes from, and how from a First Cause it follows that God exists, watch from the beginning, all the way back to the Opening statement
@@tylerjones6683 I did.
"If I have 20.00 then I am rich. I am rich, it follows that i have 20.00" This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Is that what you're accusing Cameron's argument of?
@@philochristos I thought it was clear. BTW, I wouldn’t consider this an accusation but rather an evaluation by analogy.
A first cause implies God.
I agree that a lack of a limit can remove the need to explain a limit if there would be a need to explain a limit under the attribute under consideration of the object under consideration. However, it seems like there would be a need to explain a lack of a limit in some cases. For example, if you claimed "my hard drive actually has unlimited space." and if I can tell you're not joking I have a lot of reason to ask "Really??? How does your hard drive have unlimited space??? Could I fit the Von Neumann Universe in it? Could I fit even larger big infinities in it?"
So very clearly even some unlimited attributes need explanation
A very good point! Always shoot two cameras 📷 📸
The commentary about limits in general struck me as worthless. Why? Everything has limits, since, it is the observed case that there is no thing that can be do everything. Thus, claims about limits in general do not advance a first cause argument. I will grant that a specific limit concerning existence would advance the argument. Currently, matter/energy would seem to be the only candidate for something with no limit with regard to existence (or non-contingent with regard to its existence). which would be a basis to consider that such is "uncaused" and thus foundational.
An argument about reality wherein there is nothing showing such to be the case is inherently unsound. Knowledge in the context of reality is required to sustain the idea of soundness for claims about reality. An argument could be analytically flawless and still be a failure if what is being presented is not shown in the context of reality, since, if the linkages being claimed are not shown in the context of reality, the argument degenerates into assertion which makes it unsound due to the claim NOT being sustained as being true in the context of reality.
The generalized inference is why theological claims are rationally false. We observe intelligence to be a product of processes with the most common being brains, but we are working to create general AI systems. Thus, our generalized current understanding is that intelligence is a process, which makes such inherently contingent and thus NOT a candidate for a first cause / "ultimate" foundation.
I wish more people weren't afraid of lengthy and articulate replies like this. Really adds to the exchange.
MyContext you have been corrected on this months ago and you’re still going on with this terribly laymen argument of your own making, when will you still stop and learn?
Theologians ever since Aquinas, have been arguing that God’s attributes are analogous. Just literally Google the principle of the *analogy of being*. It’s been known since the medieval times, and your argument is entirely based on a *caricature*, stop being proud of it.
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 How so?
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 Please present the "caricature" that you are claiming of my depiction, since, the focus of my issue is actually on existence with various issues that are linked to that core issue. This precludes any rational claim of comparison, since, there is nothing sustained as existent for there to be any comparison. Consider, that in the absence of existence, there are no attributes to be considered that wouldn't be wholly a product of imagination. Please also note that existence is NOT an attribute.
As an atheist, I can honestly say that I don’t know how everything began. But philosophical debates like this get us no closer to any type of answer. Just a bunch of useless hypotheticals.
You clearly didn't pay attention if you think that's the case.
@@gabenorman747 that must be it. You got me.
@@BigDaddyAddyMS If it didn't get us anywhere then they wouldn't have bothered doing it.
Contrary to popular belief, saying that they don't get us closer to an answer (because they're philosophical and apparently philosophy can't actually demonstrate anything) doesn't actually remove the force of the arguments presented. Yes, they do get us closer to an answer. They're using logic, reasoning, and deduction to discover what must be the truth. If you think logic, reasoning, and deduction cannot help you evaluate truth, then you are quite literally illogical.
@@tylerjones6683 anyone that says the beginning of the universe “must be” anything is just making a baseless assertion. At this point in time, no one knows how the universe began. Science may find the answer one day, philosophers won’t.
Fantastic job at being professional, humble, and educational, especially when I know that couldn't have been easy after hearing hurtful allegations and remarks about you. You did an excellent job throughout this debate, Cameron!
Ending is a nice touch, as so often these debates lack that.
However can't get away from the fact that Kalam is basically handwaving and semantics.
All the logic you use is intuitive, but the universe is far from always intuitive.
Plus if Luke 9:23 is true, then this is thin gruel. No point slaving for a God that can't be bothered to confirm his existence.
Hey Cam, on science and scientism, probably the best source on this is MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson's MONOPOLIZING KNOWLEDGE (he is a working scientist who opposes the ideology of scientism and offers an historical and philosophical critique of it). I would strongly suggest you review the book in some future video.
“Scientism”
Thinking dis kind of debating, long time between vids, both have time to be informed. Cam can ask Craig and Steven can ask Oppy B=)
aaaa that was a heartwarming ending, cool. just subbed :D.
I find it very ironic that u use muslims Kalam arguments to propagate ur Christian paganism 😂
How do we get from “at least one” first cause to therefore God (with capital G) exist? Where is the step from a god to God?
@Ashton Peacock that makes no sense. What does that have to do with multiple first causes vs one first cause ? Are you implying that these false gods actually exist as well but aren't unlimited like the real one? But how are they limited but yet still apart of the plurality of first causes that, according to Cameron, must be unlimited
@Ashton Peacock you are capital C Confused. You arent even in the ball park of reality.
@Ashton Peacock you have to understand that what you've just offered was a rather circular explanation of an already nonsensical argument (or at least an argument that was not well stated). Why be smug? We call you confused because you do, in fact, seem confused.
It's a waste of time to distract ourselves with a definition of "little 'g' gods" when little g gods are in themselves a distraction from the task of proving that the "capital G god" even exists in the first place.
Honestly, Cameron even introducing this point seemed to really detract from what I thought was a pretty solid argument at the time. And like wise with you, it just gives the impression of one chasing their own tail.
So yes, you seem confused and no, "nothing new from atheists this year" because we've gotten the same smug confused responses from the likes of you.
@Ashton Peacock little e elves make cookies and big E Evles make Christmas toys at the North pole. None of it gets us any closer to the truth of it and also its got nothing to do with 1 potential first cause vs the potential of a plurality of first causes. Its not even something that deserves a response. Its silly
@Ashton Peacock Thats exactly the point Ashton: We weren't interested in arguing about what a little god is. You brought that up. So... Yeah by all means feel free to abandon that discussion.
Something for you to consider: perhaps this "first cause" business gets itself sidetracked in the case of the Kalam Cosmological Argument by insisting on this 'cause' being a being. Case in point, this little/big G god discussion.
Cherry on the top: loved that "atheism is false" line. Guess that means you believe in Zeus, Neptune, the Buddha, cthulu, and the flying spaghetti monster. That would certainly justify the whole "little 'g' god" distinction, wouldn't it?
When you have to evoke intuition in a debate, you lost. I know you act like its only to add to your argument.. but people who confidently make good arguments don't need to waste time with a useless point about their intuition.
This is an argument from personal incredulity. Fallacy
> The external world doesn't exist, you can't just rely on intuition
Rational intuitions are evidence
Haha this is hilarious.
@Joshua McGillivray because its an informal fallacy. Its called the argument from personal incredulity.
@Joshua McGillivray no you misunderstand. Its an appeal to ones common sense. An appeal to ones expectations is just another way of saying an appeal to intuition. Look it up dude. And I think its interesting you had a liked comment 1 minute after posting it. Liking your own comments? Lol
I’d like to present my objection to your arguments to argue for an unlimited first cause.
I accept that an eternal universe is unlimited in time and therefore uncaused, but that doesn’t generalise to all kinds of limits, because time is crucial in the argument to support that it’s uncaused, hence the only relevant limit I see here is that of time. And the other examples are just proof that being caused implies having limits, it doesn’t prove the converse, that having limits implies being caused.
Furthermore, I’d argue we can’t apply inductive reasoning in this debate, because all our experiences have been within the universe, and a first cause would be either the universe itself, or something outside the universe.
I think if we apply the PSR here we can better understand what Cameron is getting at. A limitation requires an explanation. The limitation could be necessary (bound by logic) in which case it's necessity suffices.
14:22 I think the syllogistic form he was refering to was the grim messenger argument ?
I think if you propose the syllogistic form of the grim messenger argument it will be easy to show that it is a definitional impossibility, and not a paradox.
That's the correct syllogism.
@@CapturingChristianity Stephen was referring to a syllogistic form of the proof by contradiction. (You say that there is an explicit contradiction at 8:39 in your previous video.) If you actually work it out given the rules of the paradox as you state them, no contradictory assertions arise at all. This shows that your version of the grim messenger paradox is a veridical paradox. (aka the "not actually a paradox" type of paradox.)
In fact, I worked this out in its syllogistic form and talked to Stephen about it before he recorded the video. Which is the reason he has included it as a secondary objection. Because Stephen also has his primary objection which I (and you) reject, it seems reasonable that he doesn't go on a tangent but simply asked you to provide the syllogism.
This weakness is specific to the grim messenger paradox by the way, it does not apply in the same way to the grim reaper paradox.
I'm disappointed how quickly Cam's 2nd premise (not caused -> not limited -> God) falls apart.
He asked us to rely on INTUITION and gave ONE example of something uncaused, namely "an uncaused universe intuitively has no limits". If by "no limits" he means omnipotent, etc, ie his version of God, he is asserting that "intuitively, God exists." Like NO, that's not intuitive... He is Jesus smuggling as follows:
1. "universe is intuitively uncaused and unlimited in one or two ways (time/space)" (sounds reasonable)
2. "intuitively ANY first cause (ie universe) is unlimited in some way" (a bit sus but we'll grant)
3. "intuitively any first cause has ZERO limits" (it's NO limits now? and what does it mean to have zero limits? ie infinitely large/small/blue/loud/stupid/etc)
4. "inutitively any first cause has unlimited power, knowledge, etc. (i see you like picking cherries)
5. "inutitively any first cause is God" (sure but now your argument looks like swiss cheese)
6. "if there is a first cause, God exists" (the 2nd premise)
I feel like the inductive generalization: “if every A in my experience is B, then, probably, every A is B” is just the Black Swan Fallacy. I know that’s probably why you added the “probably” clause, but I still think the black swan fallacy is apt.
If every swan I see is white in my experience , then, probably, every swan is white.
But it does give us some inductive evidence, that's the point. There could always be a black swan, but the fact that every swan observed (from a large sample) is white gives us reasons to believe that swans are white.
@@mickeyesoum3278 'fallacy' is right in the name of the black swan fallacy...
@@uninspired3583 I am way too lazy to start quoting David Stove on how we justify inductive generalizations etc. right now. But anyway, so you're rejecting inductive generalizations? That's dumb. The thing with black swans is that we know induction is justifiable - we use it in science all the time - though it can be tricky to explain since it can appear fallacious in a deductive context. But it would be crazy to reject that we can get some evidence that every X is Y from our observation that every X we've seen in a large sample is Y.
@@mickeyesoum3278 Well there are black swans. In Australia. Haha. But stupid points aside.
I don’t deny that we use inductive reasoning to form our beliefs, but I don’t believe it’s a strong form of evidence when you’re trying to prove that God is the first cause, and the problem is we only have one universe to look at. I agree just because it’s a fallacy doesn’t mean it is necessarily false, but it does make it fallacious reasoning. I just would have thought Cam would have spotted that before he used it as an argument.
The black swan fallacy is appropriate when a sample size is too small. But when our sample size is big enough, it’s completely fine. Otherwise, inference itself would always be impermissible since no one can investigate the color of every swan.
If you don't believe an infinite regress is possible, then you don't believe an infinite god is possible.
The logic of the grim reaper paradox applies to any thought or action of an infinite god. Just try thinking about it for more than 5 seconds. 👍
I think this should be simpler: the subject of a hypothesis or a theoretical conclusion without evidence does not offer justification for belief in its probable existence even if the existence of the subject seems possible. There's no need to spend time with higher level argumentations if this simple barrier is not passed. In essence these debates are the same as "Superman vs Batman" and who will win in a showdown. Nothing is real there although everything is logically tight within that debate. But you can see the effects of belief without justification and its real function in the breaching of The US Capitol.
how can you do fundamental physics with that standard?
@@RadicOmega you are making a false equivalency somewhere. When doing fundamental physics you are required to doubt that your hypothesis might be correct. Key notion you need to keep in mind is that unless the hypothesis is proven no one is required to believe the conclusion is real even if the math is iron clad. Unless you test physics you do not know what rules you're missing. That's why people test physics beliefs in a lab. When the test fails to prove the hypothesis then you try to create a different hypothesis based on the evidence accumulated during testing of the first hypothesis. And sice we set up God in our minds in such a way that God cannot be tested, religious "knowledge" only relies on these artificially drawn conclusions that simply rely on our capacity to reason. But wherever we fail to find the logic we simply say "God is beyond logic" instead of recognizing the hypothesis we are proposing about God just failed.
@@Adaerus arguments can be tested
Here they are debating kalam, an argument in favour of God's existance
Arguments can be evidence for claims. For example an argument with a deductive form like this is evidence for the conclusion being true if the argument is sound. So what you have to do is analyze the premises, which is what they are doing in the debate
There are also arguments for the nonexistance of God, like versions of the problem of evil
@Drizzly 99 There are two levels of analysis of an argument that should not be ignored. There's the validity of an argument and there's its soundness. An argument can be valid without being sound. Here is an example:
Premise 1: Batman can use kryptonite
Premise 2: Superman is vulnerable to kryptonite
Conclusion: Batman can defeat Superman
While the above argument is logically valid meaning the structure is coherent to the rules of logic, one or both elements within the argument are elements of fantasy, meaning they do not exist or proven to interact with reality rendering the argument unsound. Soundness is about the relation of the subject of the argument with reality or what we know about reality. You have to prove that Batman and Superman exist. If you say they do exist in the comic books than you have to be consistent and restrict the reality of existence of Superman and Batman to the realm of the comic books.
Another argument:
Premise 1: There is a valuable goal I really need to achieve.
Premise 2: The difficulties to achieve that goal are a dragon.
Conclusion: I have to fight the dragon to achieve my goal.
The soundness of this argument can only be preserved if there is no equivocation between the two types of dragons: one of the fantasy realm which flies and spews fire and the other metaphoric dragon that is made of the difficulties to achieve the goal.
Kalam argument more likely suffers from this second type of analytical error. Kalam argument only states that the Universe had a beginning nothing about a creator or even a conscious creator. So there is no conclusion from which to draw a link from "universe had a beginning" to Christian God "exists". While possibility of exitance mey be made by inference, the probability of existence can only be proven by existence not inference.
Premise 1: Jupiter has objets going around it's orbit.
Premise 2: a teapot is an object
Conclusion: There's a teapot orbiting Jupiter.
Here we can only deduce that it is possible that a teapot can orbit Jupiter, the 9th planet, but the probability of that possibility to be real is close to 0% because instances of orbiting teapots only in Earth orbit in the ISS (I'm only assuming this is the case) to make a probabilistic assessment. So Kalam conclusion is only that universe had a beginning, nothing else. So you have to prove there's a creator and next you have to prove that the creator is conscious then you have to prove that that conscious creator is the God of your religion and not other religion.
@@Adaerus i think there are some important points here
First, yeah, there is a difference between validity and soundness, thats why i said showing an argument is sound serves as evidence for the conclusion
In your first example, the argument isnt logically valid, as the conclusion doesnt logically follow from the premises, its form isnt logically valid. That is because there can be an interpretation (assignment of meaning to the symbols of some formal statements) in which Batman can use kryptonite (therefore P1 is true), but cant reach Superman, so even if the premises are both true, the conclusion isnt; that is, an interpretation of the formal argument which in which the premises are true, and in which the conclusion is false. If that can happen, we say that the form is invalid, or that the conclusion doesnt logically follow from the premises.
It might seem like nitpicking, but i think its crucial
Taking this into account, lets see the second example.
P1. Jupiter has objects around its orbit
P2. A teapot is an object
C. There is a teapot orbiting Jupiter
As you say, you cant really conclude that from the premises (it isnt valid), but you also cant conclude that a teapot can be orbiting Jupiter. The form of the argument
P1. Jupiter has objects around its orbit
P2. A teapot is an object
C’. There can be a teapot orbiting Jupiter
Is also invalid. Its conclusion might (logically) be false even if the premises are true, that is, there are interpretations in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. To see this, since the form (and hence the validity) of an argument doesnt change if you relabel stuff; lets say J(x) is "x orbits jupiter", O(x) is "x is an object", T(x) is "x is a teapot":
P1. ∃x| J(x) ∧ O(x)
P2. T(x)⇒O(x)
C’. ◇∃x| J(x) ∧ T(x)
Or, P1: there exists things that are objects and orbit jupiter, P2: a thing being a teapot implies its an object, C. its possible that there are teapots orbiting Jupiter (or can orbit jupiter). The reason this doesnt follow is because of the little "◇", which means "its possible that". A way to change this in order for the argument to be valid would be:
P1’. If something is an object, its possible that it orbits jupiter O(x)⇒◇J(x) . P2. A teapot is an object T(x)⇒O(x) C’’. if something is a teapot, its possible that it orbits Jupiter T(x)⇒◇J(x)
Introducing the possibility of an object in one of the premises (P1), makes the form valid, which means the conclusion cant be false if the premises are true. Notice how P1 and P1’ are not the same, saying “there are objects orbiting Jupiter” is different than saying “if something is an object, it can be orbiting Jupiter”. Same for C’ and C’’
Now the kalam. The kalam says:
P1. If something has a beggining, it has a cause for its existance
P2. The universe has a beggining
C. The universe has a cause for its existance
Understanding by the universe, the totality of physical reality, including other possible universes in a multiverse for example. First, the validity. The argument is valid, which means the conclusion cant be false if the premises are true. Beggining to exist refers to the same thing in P1 and P2, cause refers to the same thing in P1 and C, and the notion of universe in P2 and C is also the same. The form in predicate logic is ∀xB(x)⇒C(x),B(u) ⊢ C(u)
Second, the conclusion. The conclusion isnt that the universe has a beggining, the conclusion is the universe (or multiverse) has a cause for its existance. From this, its easy to show the cause has to be trascendent (since its causally prior to anything spatial or temporal). A trascendent cause of the universe or multiverse just sounds like "God". For additional properties like it being personal or source of morality, there are other additional arguments. Whether you consider this external or internal to kalam is just semantics, what is meant by kalam in the first place. Many people refer not only to the syllogism, but also to the argumentation of the premises and the reasons for Godlike properties of the cause when they say "kalam", but as i said if by kalam you only refer to the syllogism then the kalam shows the universe (or multiverse) has a cause
Its important to note that the conclusion isnt the possibility of a cause existing, but the cause existing itself. "its possible that P" is different than "P", and the kalam doesnt talk about modality or possibility in the premises or conclusion, so the conclusion of the kalam isnt "its possible that there is a cause of the universe", but "there is a cause of the universe". As for specific religions, the kalam (and the inmediate analysis of the cause) doesnt intend to prove the Christian or Islamic God, a theist would need additional arguments for that
Did CC bow out? I’m not sure if I’m missing a video here?
Isn't Stephen's epistemology self defeating? It seems to go something like, "We can know some proposition p iff p can be verified via the scientific method." But is this proposition itself verified by the scientific method? Of course it isn't. Thus even if it scientism IS true, we have no warrant for thinking that it is in fact true.
The scientific method involves inferring conclusions from our own sense data, and then corroborating that conclusion with the sense data of others. It's the most solid, and least presumptuous way, of verifying anything. Is it perfect? No, but it's the best we have.
That’s not the point, scientism turns a good method into a metaphysics.
Read this blog, scientism is a long dead philosophy since the 19th century, pretty much no philosopher holds to it anymore as even remotely being viable, yet it is rampant as an intellectual mistake of online atheists. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html?m=1
I don't know what online atheists you're referring to, but Stephen of Rationality Rules is definitely not a "scientinist" (I'm not sure how you would say that word). Stephen, as with any intellectually honest person, will freely admit that the scientific method is imperfect. But then, they will also go on to say that it's the best method we have for acquiring what is most likely the truth. And thus, when one adheres wholly to the scientific method, it's not fair to consider the scientific method "dogmatic" or "arrogant" anything like that. On all accounts of verification, it's the best way. When trying to determine physical reality, any other way - in particular, many of the purely philosophical argumentations of apologists, such as William Lane Craig - would be objectively less verifiable, in that the logistics of other methods can operate under more-or-less one-sided principles, or can be easily re-interpreted from person to person, which makes them inferior to the scientific method. If I say I see a rock, and everyone else around me also says they see that rock, then the rock exists. Can we know this with complete certainty? No, but it's close enough for scientific study and practical purposes, and thus, it's good enough, period.
@@falsexgrindx378 I think you missed my point. I'm not contesting the validity of the scientific method, I'm just saying that as an epistemological model it is self defeating.
@@creatioexnihilo1075 Is the scientific method "epistemologically self-defeating" in any way that wouldn't also apply to every other method of knowledge acquirement?
Everything we know of seems limited and to have a cause is not an argument that you can know the properties of the uncaused.
I’m not convinced by the argument from limits; I think mostly because what constitutes a limit has not been well defined. I also think that the statement that the first cause must be unlimited creates a paradox; because now the first cause is limited in the characteristics it can take on i.e. it does not have the ability to be a limited object. It cannot be any of the limited or caused objects in the universe and so is limited.
Question: how can there be more than 1 first cause? Wouldn't a first cause be inheritently exclusionary of all other causes?
I also feel like I missed something here. Like 2 people being dead last in a race? Only one can be last.
Suppose limits are the difference between the caused and uncaused.
Then, any First Cause is unlimited.
Since causes exist, there must be a Second Cause caused by the First Cause.
Suppose, for sake of contradiction, the Second Cause is limited.
Then the First Cause only created a limited Second Cause, which is a limit on the First Cause.
Contradiction.
Hence the Second Cause must be unlimited.
By definition of Second Cause, it cannot be uncaused.
Therefore limits cannot be the difference between the caused and uncaused.
... hmm, it seems limits have to be better defined ...
I don't get how "creating a limited second cause" is a limit on the first cause. Could you lay out your case for that, or perhaps explain in more detail
@@sathviksidd How can an unlimited thing create a limited thing? Its like asking how something perfect creates something flawed. If something perfect created something flawed than that thing was never perfect.
@@jacoblee5796 suppose I want a pen to write on paper so I make one. But it can't write on wood. Does that make it flawed? No, right?
Because I made that pen for a specific purpose, and if it doesn't fulfill a different purpose, that doesn't make it flawed.
My point is that it is the will of the creator to create.
Moreover, my intuition tells me that any created thing couldn't be unlimited.
@@sathviksidd You are missing the point. Are you a perfect being? Are you all powerful? If you were, you could create the perfect pen that could write on anything. Or you could create an all powerful pen that could write on anything.
@@jacoblee5796 ok it can write on anything, but it can't chop wood, does that make it flawed?
My point is that a creator makes a thing to fulfill a purpose, and to do that, the thing need not be limitless.
By your logic, if a limitless being can't create a limited thing, then that too, is a limit on the first cause, right?
I think the crux of the issue is your inductive generalization works to establish that every A(a caused thing) probably has some attribute(is limited) this is justified. Where it fails is assuming the uncaused to be an absolute inverse, since uncaused is the opposite of the caused and all caused things are limited then the uncaused must be unlimited, I could easily turn it on you with every caused thing exists, thefore everything uncaused(an eternal god) doesn't exist, your inference that one inversed attribute equals another is completely arbritrary, you own logic can be used to counter your argument.
I love thinking about all this stuff.. and the different ways of... there’s always gonna be someone, somewhere smarter/thinking better than me etc... and I’m grateful to get to experience/learn from it...
Think for myself about it.
I'm hoping we'll eventually get around to discussing causally disconnected realities or the infinitude of the past and how all that relates to whether or not there must be a singular first cause. I also wonder what a rejection of causal finitism would look like, too, so hopefully we get to see that. I'll keep trying to figure out if there's a viable way around causal finitism, you keep doing your thing.
Causal finitism is great. It just doesn't prove what Cameron thinks it proves.
@@logos8312 what’s funny is that Pruss recognizes that it doesn’t get you to a singular first cause. That requires another argument. One which, if we take God to be timeless and omniscient, may not even succeed
@@Tommy01_XO Sure. I mean if the first cause is "sans time" then a pandora's box of anything opens up "sans time". I was a 3 ft tall female leprechaun with pretty silver freckles, sans time. It's true. If you consider all sans time states in which I occupy, that was definitely the case in at least one of them.
Sans time, there can be any number of first causes with any number of properties, even contradictory ones, that you want to be. Because at no time would contradictions actually manifest and cause any problems.
The fact that he takes umbrage with the term “ scientism” when he said he bases his views on what science can prove is quite odd
Scientism is the view that science is the sole foundation of truth about reality. Cameron has a view based on empirical data (science) and sufficient reason/logic. That is not scientism.
Scientism falsly equates science with absolute truth. It projects onto science a dimension of absolute truth that theists themselves ascribe to their dogmatic beliefs. It's a missunderstanding of the scientific method and has no place outside the context of religious apologetics.
Because its an ideology stephen doesn’t subscribe to, then he brought on a friend to say why scientism is false.
Like if i say “you believe in aromatherapy and aromatherapy is false therefore your views on football are false”. But you don’t actually believe in aromatherapy
@@Oldhandlewasabitcringe yeah but this is also the same person that said "to concretely know something, it must be verified through the scientific method". This is quite literally scientism. lol.
Empiricism has to do with sensory experience.
Scientism, science being the only valid form of epistemology.
Just simply Googling it would save RR the trouble of needlessly accusing Cameron of something either due to 1) his own mistake or 2) his own cope.
The "ism" part implies a dogmatic adherence. Hence the objection. Empiricism allows for results and even facts to change based on evidence and so cannot be dogmatic. So to quote Cameron, it is exactly "slimey" to use it.
Hi Cameron, just a thought but would it be possible if you could debate or even just have a conversations with people from within the Eastern Orthodox faith?
To act like you weren't trying to say his undercutting technique as you call it was a weakness on his side is just a lie. You were trying to imply that he is expected to prove your premises are false. Thats not how it works. You are the one with the burden of proof. We are checking your reasoning to determine if its sufficient to convince us. We cant prove uncaused things have limits for example. Doesnt matter. You cant prove that they don't.
He offered proof and it hasn't been refuted. Limits to what? Obviously the uncaused cause to the universe would have power to cause the universe and therefore to bend it to its will.
dude are you serious? he literally said it was a good thing. take your head out of your ass
@@RadicOmega he said one benefit of it is....
Anyone that knows how debates works wouldnt have even brought it up. Of course your opponent is going to show why your argument fails. Doesn't need to prove it completely false. Only needs to show why it can be shown true. He thought he could make it seem like rr wasn't able to show its false and that somehow matters
@@jakemackenzie795 you seem incapable of comprehending. What do you mean what limits? Are you not paying attention in this debate? Your talking about him offering proof why? This has nothing to do with my comment. Notice how the other guy actually responded in a way that shows he at least understood what I said.
@@bingo6071 Same reply and you are going to get the same answer. I am comprehending mate, you can't even comprehend your own comment it seems. You were talking about him and the burden of proof. I replied "he offered proof, stop having a fuss about it". You don't seem to comprehend that the source of the entire universe (God) obviously has the power to manipulate it.
As an atheist, I think an interesting topic would be a debate between you and a Muslim. The debate would be, "On the assumption that God exists, which God should be believed in and why?". Because even if you were right in this debate, you would not know if God needs to be worshipped, unless you can argue for it.
I think there are good reasons to think that Jesus was raised from the dead.
@@CapturingChristianity Thanks for the reply! I'm new so I'll look through the channel for videos on that.
@@CapturingChristianity And so it would be reasonable for a Muslim to believe that Mohammad split moon, no?
I still don’t understand why the first cause must have character traits such as goodness. And if he is infinite in his character traits, why can’t he be also infinitely evil? Of course he can’t be both right? But why rather goodness than evil? I can kinda understand infinite knowledge, but so far i reject infinite goodness.
Because the order dictated by this first cause is goodness. Trying to contradict this is order is evil. Thus, it the first cause does not have or cannot have evil in its nature.
Evil is generally understood as a privation of good, or an absence or corruption of good. It wouldn’t make sense for the first cause to be evil if the ontology of evil requires the existence of good to exist
@@theochia9369 I could say the same thing about evil. Good is a privation of evil. It wouldn’t make sense for the first cause to be good if the ontology of good requires evil in the first place.
@@billyvalencia6758 Which order? Why is goodness?
@@lendrestapas2505 I don’t think it’s interchangeable, this is because evil is understood as a corruption of the good too, it lacks good because it has corrupted what is good. It wouldn’t make sense for good to be a corruption of evil because corruption is inherently understood to be bad and undesirable. This assumes a sort of Manichaeism where there’s a balance between ultimate good and evil, but notice this requires a lot of prior views that would need to be justified since traditionally, most people and philosophers in philosophy of religion view good as having a superior ontological status compared to evil
great, Cameron, thx!
You can't use the eternal universe as an example of something unlimited for your limitation argument. You said an eternal universe can't exist because of the paradox. So why are you using something you consider not logically possible as an example of an unlimited thing that has no cause. You are just smuggling in the things that begin to exist idea
its an example of how removing limits makes it intuitively plausible that it doesn’t need a cause. you can consider hypotheticals about things that don’t exist
@@RadicOmega so he's is smuggling in the things that begin to exist have a cause with saying it and dressing it up like all things that have limits have causes, like I said. Doesnt follow. We dont know if things with limits can be uncaused or not. We dont have unlimited things or uncaused things to examine. Creating a hypothetical and appealing to one's intuition isn't going to cut it. We need more than that.
Steven's argument about philosophical argument that theists are making can't even hit a brick nor a wall. I was watching some of his argument against cosmological argument that Dr WLC was making and i don't see even how does that debunk his argument and ironically he called it refutation.thank to whaddomeme my intuition wasn't lying to me
You cannot use an inductive approach when attempting to obtain insights about the creation of the universe by looking at the laws within the universe. Your in-universe experience is irrelevant when it comes to making arguments about the creation of the universe. You are committing a category error when trying to apply concepts like "causation" -- which depend on space time, i.e., which are defined in a context that assumes space time -- to a context when said space time does not exist yet. BTW, the burden of proof is on you, if you want to suggest that our intuition continues to be reliable in scenarios involving the creation of the universe. Craig Williams does a cop-out when he says he has no reason to believe that his assumptions would not be true. That's not good enough.
If we can't use our inside-universe experiences as grounds for thinking about the universe itself, then you've surely made it impossible to argue about the universe at all. So it's self-defeating. One could argue that all scientific results are inferences, based on a large number of measurements. "The burden of proof"-thing is a bit childish. If you know how to rebut something, then the grown-up thing is to do so. If you don't then it's not like your position win on "walk-over". Every position should be defended. For every proposition +P there exists an opposite proposition -P. There is no difference in these propositions except the +/- sign, and one could easily make a proposition Q = -(-P), so that -Q = +P. In other words, neither the wording (negative or positive) or the order of proposal matters.
This is my point over and over again. Moreover probabilistic arguments only lead to probabilistic outcomes and by definition make weak arguments. The magnitude of the kalam claim is so big that you cannot prove it's validity through probabilistic reasoning. The fact that inductive reasoning is by definition probabilistic doesn't refute any argument that it doesn't lead to true claims.
@@mortensimonsen1645 You can only say this if you lack the ability to understand that sometimes We don't know is the best answer. just like faith leads to false believes intuition also leafs to false results. Both faith and intuition are no strong arguments to come to true statements. We have other systems for that that do work.
If peanut butter is made of peanuts that are crunchy, peanut butter should be crunchy right?
Since everyone has a mother and a father every group of people also has a mother and a father.
This kind of reasoning just leads to probabilistic outcomes and by no means can be used as strong arguments. There are much better ways to come to conclusions about the universe. And still just because you demand an answer doesn't make we don't know a bad answer.
@@Carlos-fl6ch Thank you, Carlos.
@@Carlos-fl6ch There might be better ways to make a case for God, this is just one that makes it more believable than not. I don’t think Cam thinks this proves God without a doubt. I suppose you rely on inductive reasoning for many things in your life, including your atheism. And I don’t see any alternatives to that. But you mentioned other ways....?
Wow, if only people could utilize my capacity for reason for just a few moments they'd be able to see the lack of substance in many of the attempts to demonstrate your arguments.
I read, "great response, real Christian of you, nice vid"
I challenge anyone who thinks that way to reply with bulleted time stamps and express to me what I'm missing succinctly.
Part of me would love to break down slowly what I'm hearing, but then I think what purpose would it be if one can never see what I see or how I see even when it's laid before them in plain english.
It would be just as useless as my commenting itself, as sound vibration upon deaf ears...
Quick question: Why all apologists are dishonest?
They're snake oil salesman
Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the debate (when it's been sticking to the point and not backtracking, correcting, making assumptions of the other person's view) but all this format seems to have proven is that, disappointingly, the philosophy being done here is somewhat intermixed by the backtracking/corrections and the format doesn't seem to really work well enough.
Half the time, the responses are confused assumptions as to what the other person meant because there's no real-time dialogue to query and confirm them. A bit like passing ships in the night.
Still love Cam's work and hope to be part of The Bereans, once I'm back into gainful employment.
I was hoping for a live debate 😅
We might do something like that once this part is over. Maybe over on Unbelievable!
Great as ever!
The mistake you made here upon induction is a classic masterpiece.
You are not using this induction:
If all encountered A have the B property
then all the A must have the B property.
(for example A for limited things, an B for being caused)
You are using this instead:
If a B property belongs to all encountered A
then every non-A doesn't have the B property.
Which is neither sound nor valid.
That's not what I'm using. See my full argument from limits (it's been presented in all 3 of my videos thus far).
@@CapturingChristianity I am not summarizing what you said or wrote, but trying to spot or highlight where do your ideas come from. What you are intuitively stating is that there are two separate categories: limited caused things and unlimited uncaused... 22:49.
Rewatching the video something I think would really be interesting to consider but maybe for others argumentations is that we experience many uncaused(?) (and limited) things, such as in the form of basic principle in pysics.
@@CapturingChristianity that IS your argument. No matter how many times you deny it.
While this format is interesting, I would very much appreciate a live discussion between the two of you on this topic. I have had especial trouble following your (Cam's) responses in regards to each argument, and thus think a live discussion would allow for a more fruitful back and forth.
I think some of the problems is that they are not really following a set debate structure which makes the debate way harder tot follow. I think if they were to follow a stricter structure this kind of debate could be more fruitful than a live discussion since those tend to end up going around in circles and not accomplishing anything.
these arent really points i get into when i debate the kalam, i think there are much more damning arguments against it, but still, your “mic drop” moment just refutes your own arguments... “its impossible for the totality of reality to have an outside cause”.... well your god is supposedly spaceless timeless and immaterial. so he exists “outside” this realities boundaries. and is therefore an outside cause.
the totality of reality is this universe and it is self contained and has no need for an outside cause (such as your god.)
further more, Stephen said, “it hasnt been demonstrated that the uncaused exists” and you say he is wrong. well, what is something that is uncaused? can you name anything that exists that is uncaused? anything that has been ‘demonstrated’ to be uncaused and exist. besides this universe of course.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this short video: th-cam.com/video/sPK8MDk3hh0/w-d-xo.html
@@davidmjacobson its complicated and I will try to keep it succinct.
I agree with mr. worldview designs that there is a foundational existence to the universe. but Id venture to guess that we disagree on what that foundation is. to me its existence itself. not our existence, not the universes existence, but existence. I believe there can not be “nothing” something needs to be around for time to have meaning. when “nothing” exists, the cosmos (what is outside this universe) have infinite “time” to do whatever. and through quantum uncertainty i believe a universe will arise in the absence of ‘something’
I will leave it at that for now.
@@dagan5698 Thanks for watching the video and for your remarks. Can you have existence without something existing? If existence exists, then what is the nature of its existence?
I like Worldview Design because he takes you one logical step at a time, and I never feel like he's trying to pull one over on me.
"totality of reality" must include God of course (or all multiverse or whatever). It's not the same as our universe. Thus your argument fails.
@@davidmjacobson what do you mean by the ‘nature of its existence’
I believe that there are quantum fields and a few other natural laws that exist even in the absence of anything else. and those laws and fields dictate that “nothing” can not exist.
now what are the ‘nature’ of those fields? why do they exist? because they are intrinsic. they are the necessary existence. now if that answer doesn’t work for you, then why does god. you are asking more from these fields and laws than you do from a god. if they can not exist necessarily, then why can your god?
I dont want to put words in your mouth but; you believe that an omnipotent god is the fundamental existence.
i believe that it is much more likely that these very small yet very powerful laws and fields are the fundamental existence.
th-cam.com/video/Z-K85WW4fNg/w-d-xo.html
heres a good video on the subject.
and I will try to watch the rest of worldviews videos too.
our conversation starts around 13 minutes. (fyi; I do not like the ending of the video at all) but the rest is very interesting.
Using "limitless" and "perfect" interchangeably tells you all you need to know about this dude's philosopihcal prowess. He reminds me of Stefan Molyneux.
The only reason that that which is limitless wouldn't be perfect would be if you adopt a realist positive-ontological view of evil, which almost no one accepts. Moral realists tend to favor privation theories, misarrangement theories, etc. For instance, it makes no sense to suggest a being that has complete knowledge - no ignorance whatsoever -, and complete power - no weakness of will, mind, or whatever - could do evil. Evil, for the realist, is always a product of some measure of ignorance and/or weakness. It is therefore not a power or a positive thing, but rather a corruption, a negative thing, a limitation on the capacities of rational beings.
A being that is qualitatively limitless (as Cameron is arguing here) would he maximally powerful (having no limits on its positive power), maximal knowledgeable (again another real aspect, and itself something that follows from power), etc. So Cameron is quite right here. And maximally good if you're a moral/value realist. Either way, it's the most perfect thing there can be, as it lacks no positive ontological aspect/actuality.
The only issue, as I said, is if you take evil as some kind of positive ontological reality. But like the example with knowledge and power shows, evil is a product of limitations, at least under moral realism (and if someone doesn't accept moral realism, they don't accept there is any such thing as evil, anyway): the wiser and stronger someone is, CETERIS PARIBUS the less the chances of them being evil would be, given that they'd have more knowledge of what ought to be done + more capacity to do what ought to be done and resist temptations to do what is evil. A being which has unlimited power, knowledge, etc. just cannot conceivably fail to do what ought to be done. It cannot do evil - evil being a corruption of the good, something which by its very nature is an intrinsic limitation.
sorry, but the rebuttle of Steven from Elephant Philosophy was way better
I do not see how the grim paradox is relevant. You are trying to prove that an infinite past has a beginning? You are assuming a beginning with your the message, but also assuming no beginning when you say there are infinitely many reapers. You are assuming a contradiction! If this is what your goal then I must have misunderstood, even though I do not see the connection.
And you cannot say that they simply have numbers. You are assigning numbers backwards so it seems to be a potential infinite. It is easier to see if you imagine having a time machine and being tasked with delivering the sheet of paper to the first person.
Sorry did didn't defend the grim reaper senario, just said 'No he doesn't understand it' sorry dude that's a cop out.
he explained why he didn’t understand and it and why his objections were mute
@@RadicOmega The word you're looking for is moot, not mute. Now I see why you think your comment is right and he defended his point.
😊A nice well mannered debate.
Although I still don’t see how you get to a being as the cause... everything observed comes from emergence, so philosophically we have to suppose the universe might have as well? While also have to question whether nothing is possible, what is nothing?
A being is just something that exists
Regarding “nothing”... agreed, since something exists it seems absurd that at one point there literally was nothing. Out of nothing nothing comes.
@@tylerjones6683 so is a quantum background with a vacuum... this being would have consciousness without physical form, how can we determine one more likely than the other
@@garyleemusic yeah... even envisioning nothing is impossible, it’s always something...
@@Kratos40595 Watch the opening of the debate, Cameron's arguments for (2) are presented there
16:36
*"consider for a moment the totality of
everything that exists it's impossible that the totality of reality has some kind of outside cause by definition there can't be something like outside of everything that exists hence either the totality itself or some part of the totality exists without a cause"*
Right... So if the totality of everything that exists can exist without a cause why do we need a god ?
Is the totality of everything that exists limited ?
You seem to be committing the fallacy of composition.
I argue in this series that the uncaused part of reality is unlimited and if unlimited, then perfect. Only God is a perfect being. That's why we need God.
If causation is contained within the "everything that exists" circle than the "circle" can be uncaused and everything in it (mothers and chairs) can have a cause...TBH to me it seems like you guys are delimiting this circle of everything that EXISTS and leaving god out of it...and using this inside of an argument argument to prove that god exists...maybe we need more words..."cause" and "exist" might be being used with diferent conotations within the same argument...
@@Mykahaia Cameron is not ruling God out of totality of everything that exists. Rasmussen entertain this sort of scenario in presenting his contingency argument for the very reason of God being included within it.
I'm Muslim,
After seeing all the debate videos, I really loved your arguments for god existence, the premises were really logical, and i think you will verily satisfy viewers seeing this debate👍
but can't prove allah, because allah just been created in 7th century.
@@borneandayak6725 dumbo🙄
Allah = Al + ilah
al - the
ilah - God
Allah is the word for The God in Arabic, christian and jews speaking arabic use this word for god.
Muslim don't worship any created god like yours,
But your ignorance is beyond my comprehension 🙄
@@Navii-05 I didn't say that???
I meant arabic christian too use this word, which means it is not a personal pagan type name for god,