How probable is theism? | Graham Oppy vs. Michael Huemer
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- Mike Huemer and Graham Oppy discuss how probable theism is and they get into Oppy's version of branching modality.
Watch the full episode here:
• Do Souls Exist? | Mike...
Putting the podcast and these clips together takes a ton of research and time. If you've benefited from the show, consider supporting on Patreon: patreon.com/parkers_pensees
I love how generous Oppy is. I’m religious, and simply believe he is a fine example of a considerate and thoughtful, but strictly honest thinker.
The more I learn, the less I know.
Watch the full episode here: th-cam.com/video/gxSi0htNihk/w-d-xo.html
What do you think about Micheal take on omnipotent being metaphysical impossible?
It is misleading to say that an Aristotelian view of modality entails that the initial cause, whatever it may be, is metaphysically necessary. Rather, it entails that you must limit your consideration of candidate initial causes to only the ones _which also qualify_ for necessity (something which is somehow lost on Oppy, because he seems to think we can just ascribe necessity to things without criteria).
What do you take to be a criterion for necessity? I think oppys view is internally consistent. If you take his branching view of modality (in that the only possible worlds are those which are causally connected to our own) then it’s a given that the initial point is necessary.
@@chipperhippo
So, you raise two good questions. Let me try to answer both, but tell me what you think of each:
1) Is Oppy's view internally consistent? As long as we make "possibility" mean "within the causal capacity of the entities in question" and not merely "one of the branches", then sure. Branching isn't enough, since we could stipulate literally _anything_ as branching off anything else, if we wanted to. But that wouldn't make it possible. For example, if we claim that there is a branch in which I leap unaided 100 feet into the air right now, the right response is "no that can't be a branch because that's not within my causal capacity". But then the modal work is actually being done entirely by the causal capacities. The branching is just a diagram of the result. It isn't the modal theory.
2) What would be a criterion for necessity? Well, for example, it couldn't be something which depends causally on contingent states of affairs. That seems quite obvious since, in the possible worlds where those contingent states don't obtain, neither can their allegedly "necessary" consequence. Likewise, any X which is not eternal cannot be necessary, since there would times at which the true thing to say is "X is false". But then, if someone says both "the initial state of the Universe is necessary" and "the initial state of the Universe no longer obtains (i.e. it is no longer true to say that that's how things are)", then one has stated a straightforward contradiction, no? You have to deny one or the other, and I would find it hard to deny the second statement (we are clearly not living in the initial state).
@@Mentat1231
1) That would be my understanding of Oppy's view. I could be wrong but I think that's what he means. For him, as a naturalist and someone who subscribes to this view, there's just nothing in causal reality that could have altered the initial "singularity" by definition (since it isn't caused) and you get the fine tuning constants for free. Speculating about alternate values of the fine tuning constants to him would be analogous to wondering if it would be painful to jump to the moon in your example.
2) So I don't think there's a time on Oppy's view where the universe didn't exist. And I'm pretty sure this is actually consistent with our best physics, which seems to suggest that there is no time "prior" to the universe. It would be more so a matter of tracing back the history of the universe to an initial point, there wouldn't be a time at which the universe didn't exist followed by a time in which it did. I'm also not sure something needs to be eternal to be necessary; I think you could have something that is necessarily entailed by some other prior necessary item, but I suppose that's a different discussion.
@@chipperhippo
1) I see what you mean, but the causal picture doesn't take away our modal intuitions. It seems intuitively obvious that the initial constants could have been slightly different (and that, if they had somehow spelled out the text of John 1:1-3 verbatim in ancient Greek, we would be irrational to just sweep that under the rug because it's initial). But, I won't push the fine-tuning point; I'm just fleshing out the concept a bit. If something exists in a specified way, then we need a reason why it is that way. It is an indication that we haven't reached the end of explanation. If such things weren't indicative (i.e. if we didn't have reliable modal intuitions), then why not full modal collapse?
2) So, I wasn't really talking about the time before the beginning (though I think there probably was). I meant that the specific state of affairs at the beginning is no longer the case. So, to say it was necessary is like saying "X is necessary and X is false", which is a contradiction.
@@Mentat1231
1) I agree we have pretty strong modal intuitions, but I guess I wonder how justified we are in seriously entertaining some of them; more of an open question I'm still mulling over. I also agree that the bible verse type scenarios would be extremely good evidence, but I think that's also because it is strongly predicted by one theory (theism) over the other: the branching modality predicts fine tuning constants consistent w/ our sort of universe, but it does not predict that the "singularity" would have some sort of semantic content, so I guess I don't really see that as an inconsistency.
2) Perhaps I'm wondering what X is in this case. Usually we say that states of affairs/ object/ entities or something are necessary as opposed to propositions. By my lights propositions can be necessarily true/ false, and entities can exist necessarily, but I'm not sure how to think about a statement like "the universe is false." For example I think we could say "object O comes into existence necessarily at time t" and "O exists" is false at time < t and there's no contradiction.
I think Huemer should think design argument from low entropy is better than just straight-up fine-tuning. However, I am a bit disappointed because this could fall prey to the god of the gaps fallacy. Metaphysical demonstrations of god tend to be better such as the contingency argument or bayesian argument from consciousness. My problem with Oppy's view is why think these constants apart of fine-tuning are necessary when modern physicists don't. Kenny Pearce brings this up in their debate book.
What most physicists believe isn't really an argument. As far as I'm aware, no scientific evidence accounts for the constants in nature, so I see nothing in science that's at odds with Oppy's philosophical account.
What reason do you think that the fundamental constants aren't fixed, and can you give proof that the scientific consensus doesn't share this view? How is the argument from low entropy explanatory, and why can't it be explained by naturalistic alternatives( cosmic necessatarianism, UWF realism, priority monism, infinite regress,etc.). How is the bayesian argument from consciousnesses or contingency argument valid either? If a deity that cared about fine-tuning/life existed, entropy wouldn't even exist. Hell, with how unintelligent and chaotic most of the universe is fine-tuning isn't meaningfully real to begin with.
exactly right
Omnipotence does not mean that God is maximally powerful; it means that he is the source and ground of all power. He is power itself.
Are you sure!!!!!! Or just wishful thinking
@@suatustel746 I think you are confusing different concepts. By claiming that omnipotence means that God is the source of all power I am not claiming that God exists. I am analysing the concept of God.
@@bayreuth79 Look, the concept of deity now iman asking why can't we plurilise the premise since no one can create itself including God's...
@@bayreuth79 I think you're in muddle! Following false dichotomy...
@@suatustel746 The reason we propose God as an answer is that at the fundamental level of analyses were trying to explain being or existence, and we do so in virtue of something which exists by its own nature. Theists generally point to things such as perfection or pure actuality (think of it as fundamental existence, or existence to the most basic degree) in order to explain this necessity. The cosmological arguments never say God created itself or that the reason we posit God to exist is that nothing can create itself. All the argument is doing is looking at contingent things (things that could have failed to exist) and explaining those things in virtue of something that couldn't have failed to exist. Things like omnipotence and as I said perfection, pure actuality or ways of trying to explain what this nature looks like. So the reason we can't just go back infinitely and keep saying "who created God, and who created God, and so on" is because we have this necessary foundation. (that which couldn't have failed to exist, or exists by virtue of its own nature) My favorite way of explaining why God or to use another term is because when I say God here I don't mean just deity, like Zeus, I'm speaking not of the greatest creature of creatures, but something outside the realm of created thing altogether. So the Foundation as I'll call it is that which exists as a pure being. You or I exist but only to some finite degree but the Foundation exists to no degree at all, it is existence in its most unqualified and perfect form. Sometimes when we talk about omnipotence or personhood we end up reducing the concept of God, to say that God is personal is only to say God is like a person and possesses knowledge, self-direction, as well as mentality (all of these are components of being so, therefore, they must be existent in the most fundamental thing) But God, or the Foundation still ultimately transcends all these things as to not be reduced to a single one. Hopefully this helps
The moment one's use of the term possibility is disconnected from reality (that which is currently understood of our state of affairs), one has entered the realm of imagination, since one is not talking about what is known of reality. This is the nature of discussions about God notions, fine tuning, and more at this time - a point of conjecture.
It's probable that we start in this world without evidence, we live acquiring evidence for or against our beliefs, we then die only review though that seeking of meaning, the impact we had on the world. Everything else is frosting.
How do we measure or demonstrate that it is probable though? And how do we define evidence in this context?
I think Huemer is completely wrong that the only two possibilities for fine tuning are multiverse and god.
I've heard else where he says there are three theories for fine tuning. Theird being that the universe is teleologically aimed at the highest good, humans are apart of that good, so fine tuning. That's and even more "amazing" theory than intelligent design and multiverse and so he didn't bing it up. But I'm curious what other kinds of theories do you think explain fine tuning plausibly?
@@plastic2666 The universe having always existed, the constants being fixed/necessary, there not being fine-tuning/unintelligent design, the relatively greater possibility of a multiverse/cyclic universe, the fact that fine-tuning isn't needed in theism and is more expected under naturalism, fine-tuning being exaggerated/ result of human biases like motivated reasoning/anthropocentrism/texas sharpshooter fallacy/ignorance/over-confidence in our current cosmological models,etc.
Why would crystals forming "made by god" be evidence for the existence of god? It is certainly something that would require explanation but I don't see how it is evidence for the existence of a god. There are tons of other possibilities... maybe some alien designed our laws of physics and wanted us to believe in god.... maybe there's a mind body connection where our thoughts affect the laws of physics hence forming words that we think of. I don't see how you immediately get evidence for theism.
It is akin to an alien seeing Mt. Rushmore for the first time. They would instinctively know that it was not naturally made.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 That's still not evidence that theism would be true, though. The OP's criticisms still stand, and point out the other more probable( comparatively speaking) possibilities that would explain such an occurrence and not an ill-defined, fundamentally contradictory concept like a god.
Best God argument: fine tuning.
If the natural constants can change, maybe they are different in other parts of the Universe, but we haven't observed those parts yet because they are greater than 14 billion light years away.
The non-observable Universe is large enough to hold an infinite variety of areas with different physical values.
"If the natural constants can change" - that's a mighty big "if".
Firstly: The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning the same at every point and in every direction.
Secondly: The propositions of pure mathematics are universally and necessarily true in all possible Worlds, as are the laws of physics.
Lastly: the Universe is a finite-yet-boundless non-Euclidean hypersphere with no "edge" no "outside" and no "before", therefore there are no "parts" of the Universe "greater than 14 billion light years away".
It is One-thing, a Totality, a Whole - the sum of existence - so, for the reasons given, an "infinite variety of areas with different physical values" is entirely imaginary.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 I agree absolutely. The constants can't change is this or any possible universe, so aren't fine tuned.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 I'm really stunned by the complete certainty with which you make claims on an incredible complex topic that nevertheless turn out to be factually wrong by a simple 2 minute google search:
"the universe is a finite-yet-boundless non-Euclidean hypersphere".
This is one possible model, but there are many other hypothesized models in existence. So presenting this as if it were the absolute and settled truth on the matter is de facto false and misleading.
'there are no "parts" of the universe greater than 14 billion light years away'
The observable universe is a spherical region in space that is 46.5 billion light-years in radius, not 14 billion. First, we have no idea what exists beyond the sphere we can observe. The limits of our observation tell us nothing about the content that exists beyond it. And arguing that there are no "parts" or differences on the basis of your previous unverifiable hypothesis is extremely sketchy. In fact there are multiple theories, such as inflationary multiverse theory, that posit the existence of multiple bubble universes that formed during the rapid period of cosmic inflation, each with their own independent laws of physics and history.
Please, look these things up on google next time :).
@@radscorpion8 Hilarious!
Did Google tell you what to think!?
So oppy confirmed swineburne is his favorite theist model?
WOOOOOO LET'S GOOOO! GODEDUCATEDHUMANSANDTHATSWHYEVILEXISTS!!!! WOOOOO!
Chance transition os not an argument for a faulty position in my view.
what if i define omnipotence as being able to do anything? would that be able to avoid the problem of infinite power?
but then is that just a semantical issue and the two things are talking about the same thing?
Tbh that goes with any kind of omni-ability, you have to define it in a not very obvious way to make them all work consistently and cohere with what’s traditionally thought of as God. Like omnipresence at face value is basically just pantheism, but pantheism is a Christian heresy so omnipresence is taken to mean causally active everywhere rather than literally everywhere. Or omniscience at face value means to know everything, but it’s a Christian heresy to think God knows what it’s like to hate, so we take a not so straight forward definition and say omniscience is knowing all true propositions or something along those lines. Non of the omni properties are really defined in a straightforward way.
@@ZenpaiV i’m not a christian so a lot of those presuppositions won’t be a worry for me.
also, would you say that defining omnipotence as being able to do anything is not a straightforward definition? seems pretty straightforward to me
and i’m not too sure if this is a critique or an observation - i don’t think even christians would really have to worry about anything said here
The "Best" argument for God is "The FIne Tuning Argument". So the bar is THAT LOW!!!
Is Oppy ok or his webcam just shaking?
@faris Seems concerning. I hope he is well
@faris he is sitting on a ball to keep his lower back limber and work his abs.
@faris it’s been revealed in other chats. You can also watch his literally doing an 18” lateral roll left-right during the discussion.
no he has tremors I noticed it in other videos
Being all-powerful makes sense - all power being ultimately under God’s control- I see no problem at all with that.
There is a very old saying, “The universe is but a fleeting thought in God’s mind.” I personally do believe God enables the existence of the universe in the same way we enable any thought we may think. I agree infinite power makes no sense, but all power makes complete sense.
Yeah, philosophers and scientists tend to overthink everything. The bottom line is that there is something inside them that cannot tolerate the thought of a power greater than themselves.
I"m not well versed in this, I just happened to click on this vid, but if there is a creator, wouldn't he have to be powerful and extremely knowledgeable in order to create the universe?
powerful is relative as well as knowledgeable
to make any assumption without evidence is fallacious even if there was a creator, which there is no proof.
I don't see why something has to be sentient to create a universe.
No, maybe universes are very easy to create. Maybe we create a universe every time we fart.
Maybe god only has one universe in him
Impossible. 0%.
How empty it is not knowing God 😔
How delusional it is to say one knows God
@@ZeekRulezz990 explain the fine tuning of everything in the universe and world
@@Max_G43 fine tuning is just gravity no gravity no universe
@@ZeekRulezz990 most people are atheist until they have their first experience with their creator
@@Max_G43 take that fine tuning and apply it to every other planet we know of. Doesn’t seem that finely tuned. That’s like finding an oasis in a desert and claiming the oasis is fine tuning m, while denying that the surrounding area is hostile to human life.
As soon as you use the word god , you have lost critical thinking
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Oh my peer reviewed studies
You used the word… so you lost critical thinking, champ.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sounds like this op has not talk to Darth Dawkins