No one is more unwilling to provide evidence than the guy who claims there's a mountain of evidence on his side. I tend to respond with "we don't need a whole mountain, just show me one solid rock".
Heh reminds me of trump and giuliani "Oooo we have tonnes of evidence! This election was soooo stolen! Just you wait, it's coming... so much evidence! All the evidence! Irrefutable! We were robbed!"
Let's be Real... If there truly were 100+ Logically valid and Sound arguments for any god, "religious faith" = Blind Faith, would not be needed!! They would have Proven their god a LLOOOONNNNGGGG time ago. His existence would not be in question. But.... they still demand Blind Faith... wonder why...
@@thedarkking32 "... Aristotle argues that there must be some eternal and imperishable substance, otherwise all substance would be perishable, and then everything in the world would be perishable ...", yah, all matter is doomed to be reduced to its basic constituent parts, so there ya go. I also note that Aristotle didn't bother to establish that "substance is not perishable". How would he know that?
Did this commenter identify that they were talking about a theistic god? I mean, most of world religion is NOT theistic, nor a "Faith." The entire Santana family of religions (Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist) PLUS good old traditional Yin school Taoism.... Non of these religions hold any merit in faith, particularly not in faith in mythology as literal history. There ARE probably at least 100s of logically sound arguments for an impersonalist God like EnSof, Ayin, Brahman, Te, Li, Spinosa's Universe, and Hegel's Dialectic. NON of them will be arguments for Theistic God-person. What are we all supposed to be trapped in Fckn TEXAS religion/atheism? Its bigger world than those two factions want to acknowledge, learn about, and integrate into their equally teleological simplistic and self-serving paradigms.
@C L not really. Every logical argument I've seen for the existence of a god is either invalid, unsound, or both as Mr. Dillahunty said in the video. Besides, one can't argue a god into existence as I just said. The best logic can do is establish the possibility of a god's existence, that is if the syllogism is valid and sound.
Hey Matt, Just wanted to say hi. Ive been following you since I was 11 years old back in 2007. You "deconverted" me from christianity back then. I listened to every episode of the atheist experience and all the oldschool episodes of the non-prophets. I used to listen to the non prophets every night as I went to bed. I vividly remember the free will episode, the ted haggard episode, the HILARIOUS banter between you, Russell, Jeff, and Dennis. I will always treasure those podcasts. You've had a profound impact on my life, I know many people tell you this, but I just wanted to let you know I consider you among my greatest heroes and role models. It amazed me how much you've grown through the years and I've loved rooting for you the whole way. Wishing you the best of health going forward! You've made a huge difference in this world.
@@mil401 Well, around the same time as I discovered Matt I also started following Hitchens and Dawkins, both of whom I value to this day. But oddly enough, if I had to choose who I wanted to represent the athiest position it would be Matt Dillahunty over both of them. I also like AronRa, Krauss, and others, but these days I mainly listen to Matts shows
Literally, ALL Sci-Fi movies are logically valid and sound within some fictional universe. All rational argumentation within Star Wars clearly points to the existence of Jedi. Literally ALL of it!
Good thing you said "literally". I 'd hate for anyone to think you were speaking rhetorically. Or hyperbolically. Or ironically. Thank you for making that distinction.
Look, there's two definitions of metaphysics. The first is something along the lines of dealing with the foundations of things, or the root causes/sources of things, such as physics, morality what have you. The other is "abstract theories totally detached from reality" Theists like to argue that they're doing metaphysics definition #1. Theists are actually doing metaphysics definition #2. They are the ones committing a category error in claiming that their abstract theories detached from reality are comparable to trying to discern, for instance, why physics does stuff or whatever. Don't let them get away with yet another bait and switch, cause thats all their arguments from metaphysics amount to.
@@PhysiKarlz I think Michael was saying an abbreviated "There IS two definitions of metaphysics". Which despite sounding unwieldy, is proper English grammar. Micheal is also ignorant of half the worlds philsophic history and body of philosophical development. He dont realize he comes from the repressed idiotic half of the world yet: Micheal, the Upanishads and Sutras are centrally built on impersonalist/atheistic Identity Metaphysics, and is not speculative in its core form as it is more full of challenges to assumptions than it is about dictating the answers to those questions. One of my favorite Upanishads Identity Metaphysics describes the perceptual-eye of a persons' consciousness dieing/loosing-individuation-from-the-universe being like a drop of water re-joining the sea. But probably the most modern big obvious benefit to come out of Identity Metaphysics was Einstein's equivalence-principle.
@@dq2727 That's not proper English grammar! Such grammar applies to the word That but not to There. Two are there. There are two. That is two. Two is that.
The statement itself betrays the error. If the first such argument was valid and sound, no apologist would have needed to move to the second one much less the hundredth one
Because religious apologists don’t actually have any evidence or valid and sound arguments. That’s why they like to waste everybody’s time talking about anything else, like how many valid and sound arguments they have. Anything is good as long as it distracts attention from the fact that they aren’t actually showing any arguments.😜
All those arguments I have seen all fail where they posit their axioms. Their self-evidential axioms are anything but. One concrete example I have seen: "Jesus wouldn't lie"
Logic is a process, a function, which maps from inputs to outputs. It does so reliably, but says nothing at all about reality - i.e. the inputs to the process, and the outputs that depend upon the inputs.
Even logic reliability can be questionned. It has proven to be reliable so far, but it may not work in some cases. We just assume logic to be universal because it simplifies the way we investigate reality and has proven to be reliable at that so far.
@@frogandspanner they are universally accepted because they are proven to "work" everytime. Like gravity and other fundamental forces. Does not mean that, in the universe, they are always true, everywhere, everytime in every case. That's just an inference.
@@chefchaudard3580 I have a personal interpretation (i.e. I cannot support my view with evidence) that logic is the fundamental mechanism of the mind, which has developed to permit us to predict the world around us, so our acceptance of logic is natural.
@@chefchaudard3580 But in those cases the logic behind the predictions does not break. The initial assumptions and axiom are either false or true. That is what we find every time. The logic can be flawed but that does not mean logic has been broken.
I think its a pretty good write off - if your god is undetectable in any way, it might as well not exist. So I fail to see why entertaining the metaphysical is worth anything, if it cannot be connected to reality... The whole soundness of a premise also seems to push this out the door... I also do take a bit of joy in thinking that Matt will read these comments xD Keep up the good work!
That's why I am an apatheist. Is it detectable? Then science can deal with it. Is it not? Then you don't need to worry about it. Was the universe created by a God? Are we living in a simulation? Am I the only sentient being in the universe and everything else are figments of my mind? It doesn't matter. Water is still wet and fire still burns. What you can know about the universe is exactly the same.
Philosophy will argue eternally whether a rock is real or not. I will answer the question by hitting you over the head with said rock. If god is not at least as real as a rock that can give you a concussion, why would I care if it exists or not?
Brahmin is defined by being the sum of existence + the void; thats the base concept embedded there in the Gita. Its the religions MainStream image of God.... not as a person, or thing (in fact calling it No-Thing is celebrated). Why have a concept of a not-"thing" without an independent identity.... well just ask anyone using the number Zero.
this is not a very good argument, they are countless unfathomably large natural numbers who serve no purpose in describing anything and will never be conceived or referred to in the history of humanity....and yet the rules of arithmetic are such that these numbers can be formulated by the same tools any other number can be produced ,and in fact, the denial of its existence would contradict the whole formal system. So just because i cant detect something doesnt mean it is not absolutely crucial for the whole framework.
As with most philosophical arguments for a god, a god must be inserted. That's the only way to get to a god is if you add a god. In order to dissolve a god argument, one merely just has to point out the insertion point. It still won't convince the god believer, but it's good enough to logically dismiss the god claim.
well IDK about that. The Sanskrit word Brahman literally means "the Vastness," and is described as exactly that; the sum of reality/the Universe with no distinct characteristics that aren't negated by their contrary characteristics as well. Yet this is the worlds oldest religious traditions principle "god," the one outlined in the text (upanishads) as being the true reality (like einstine's space-time/block-universe, and us warps/patterns of it). I mean, maybe you wanna say No No No, Deva is the Sanskrit for god, and then I'd point out that the Gita says that they are nothing more than metaphors, and that Brahman is the truth (and your experience of that truth (Atman) is the primary descriptive division of reality into perceiver and perceived). No no in Hinduism "god" is Brahman (the Vastness), and has been throughout the past two to five thousand years. I know, you're used to the Black Swan Gated Anglosphere, so you didn't know that other traditional religions aren't based In worshiping a mythological personage, or Historic Literalist "Faith."
@@Anxh007 its not any kind of "theism" (which is what I assume you mean by "god" in this context). The Santana dharma religions aren't "god centered" religion, but rather "consciousness centered" "religion," and one could say that Santana dharma are "Atheist," especially Advaita Vedanta, & Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahman is certainly what many might call a "God" concept, in the Naturalist "Spinosa's God" sense of the term. Don't be mislead by the filter of my ideological leanings; there are many who would vigorously defend the application of the title "God" to Brahman,.
Even if logic were superior to the scientific method, I have yet to hear ANY logical explanation for the existence of God. There always seems to be a jump to a conclusion or some missing argument. In other words, there is always at least one premise that is not valid or sound.
Agreed. Every last argument for god I’ve ever heard, ends with a logical leap to god. I.e, fine tuning rattles off a list of constants and mathematical probabilities that, even if true, still only explain what is. In the end, they say something along the lines of, “this could only happen because of a god”, oblivious to the fact that they haven’t moved the initial premise forward by an inch.
@@lcceo22 It doesnt help that, even if they didnt make the world record long jump to God, it wouldnt actually prove there God. All it would prove is that a god is needed, which could have been any of the thousands that exist.
@@marcusreading3783 exactly. Some of the more popular arguments for god used by apologists at best get you to deism and that’s being generous. For example the Kalam cosmological argument that I’ve heard Christian apologists use to prop up christianity was originally used to prop up Islam.
Even if there were 100+ logically valid arguments, he doesn't get to just claim they are sound. Its not really up to him to decide whether or not I accept a premise as true. Which means for him to claim any of those arguments are sound, he's necessarily claiming the premise is beyond objection, that it must be factual, and that my opinion or beliefs are irrelevant. That seems an awful lot like the very scientism he's objecting to.
Is it weird that I would be more excited to meet Matt that any movie star or musician or any actual Superstar? Keep doing what you do Matt you've been one of the most powerful influences on my philosophy and worldview and my life would be less rich if you hadn't influenced it, and I'm sure there's so many others who feel the same.
Matt, I was re-watching this episode again (for the Who-Knows--How-many-ith time), and I got swept away to comment again, this time a criticism born of my own cring reflex, but I want to keep in mind a thought for your experience of this, and wanted to remind you that it's your great works for our culture and sanity, and the good that you've already done, and continue to do for all of us that keeps people like me invested in you as an icon for maturity and wisdom.
Thank you Matt!! Seemingly the past 10 years we’ve seen Christian apologetics try and change its approach to using philosophy to argue for proof of God. This is so slippery; given most people are understandably philosophically ignorant and couldn’t tell you the difference between “sophistry“ and/or a strawman fallacy“.
@@thedarkking32God in Aristotles is a perfect existences who doesnt know the real world because is simple. This is correct if you use the axioms of aristotelian physics, in other case I find a big more difficult.
If those "100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God" are things like Pascals Wager or the Cosmological, or the Moral argument, I'm going to be very disappointed
They are. There are no valid and sound arguments for god, so they have to stick to all the useless, endlessly debunked thought experiments and logical leaps.
Here's a link to the original comment chain: th-cam.com/video/gCyNd6NifHQ/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgxKnLk1qe2_MM9XNk54AaABAg.9dgGhjcinQt9dw68sWiT6N&ab_channel=MattDillahunty No arguments have been forthcoming.
They always think they have a good argument. I've yet to hear a good one. I only know something happened and here we are. Still waiting for enough evidence to fill in the puzzle.
@C L past experiences shows no good argument for god has ever been presented. It is more probable, though not impossible, that the next one we get will be one of those unsound and/or invalid ones we already debunked, or a new one that is also flawed.
@C L do you believe in islamic, hindu, zoroastrian or african gods? Billions do, very sincerely. What about big foot, santa claus, leprechauns, fairies, alien abductions? People who do believe in all these things think they have good reasons to believe in them. Have you disproven them? No? So do you have a lack of belief in them? Or are you another narrow minded person, insecure your beliefs may be wrong and angry that you might not be as special as you think you are?
There was a cartoon series called "Casper The Friendly Ghost". I always found it interesting when Casper was able to pass through a wall and then pickup a newspaper. How can a non-material God kick a can? Should science at least be able to detect the process?
Dimensional Flexing. Casper, like most ghosts, was able to partially enter our dimension with phantom aspects; but he could alternatively flex himself deeper into our dimension just enough to hold the newspaper. Ostensibly, it's a hypothesis. I have no evidence. But it is a possibility!
Casper uses his hands to pick things up because he is the ghost of a human and humans use their hands to pick things up. He isn't holding the thing in his hands, he is manipulating it as a ghost and his visible manifestation is mimicking what he expects his body should be doing if he had a body that was doing that thing. This isn't always necessary, as some are capable of manipulating distant objects with a wave of an arm, such as master Yoda, or by things just suddenly being some new way with no perceivable transition, like Morgan Freeman.
How do you figure!? 🙂 Let’s say you wanted to maximise the number of tires you owned (and money, space etc. weren’t an issue). Would you choose 1 tire or 1000 ‘complete’ cars, where a complete car is defined as one with at least 4 tires? I’d definitely pick the latter option. A sound argument is one that has justified premises. If we are (presumably) working from an evidentialist (as apposed to a rationalist) view, then for a premise to be justified it must be supported by evidence. A sound argument, therefore, rests on evidence similar to how a “complete” car rests on its tires. They’re a package deal. These 1000 sound arguments are analogous to the cars in the above scenario; by virtue of being complete/sound, the cars/arguments are already resting on tires/evidence. If you wanted to maximise the number of true things you know (in an analogous way to wanting to maximise the number of tires you have) then taking the 1000 cars or sound arguments is the way to go. It’s also worth noting that if an argument is also valid (it’s truth-preserving via its structure) then each of the evidence-supported-premises are also _themselves a form of evidence_ in support of their respective arguments' conclusions. Assuming at least 2 of the sound arguments were also valid, going with the 1000 sound arguments would even more so be the wiser choice.
@@mil401 you can have any number of logically sound arguments but that says nothing about their relevance to objective reality. Can you logically prove the existence of a car without referral to any objectively real evidence at some point? A single car tyre would be better confirmation of a car’s existence than a million logical arguments about cars.
@@darrenhemingway7121 No? A “sound” argument is just one where the premises are (empirically) justified. A given logical argument need not point to anything real - or indeed point to any given propositions if it’s represented abstractly - but if it’s a _sound_ argument it’s one that has justified premises. Such arguments are grounded in reality (assuming a correspondence theory) even if they don’t happen to be truth preserving by virtue of structure (i.e. valid). A sound argument about a house would be preferable to a single piece of evidence about that house because _by virtue of being sound the argument’s premises are empirically justified._ In your last sentence you point out evidence is preferable to (just) arguments. I agree. But _sound_ arguments are those which have premises grounded in evidence. If one has a sound argument, one has evidence for it implicitly. It’s a package deal. As an example assume you want to buy as much of something - let’s call it X - would you rather buy just one of product X or, for the same price, buy product Y which contains several of product X along with it? In this case X is “something true” and Y is a sound argument.
@@mil401 a sound argument is just one where the premises are (empirically) justified… if it’s empirically justified. Then that premise has evidence to back it up, so just provide the evidence! As for sound argument being better than a single piece of evidence, that’s like saying a dream of a car is better than an actual car. The dream car may look nicer than the real car, but I will get further by taking reality. Finally, the biggest kicker is that reality doesn’t give a crap about logic! It doesn’t care how steeped in truth your premises are, or how logical your arguments are crafted, if they don’t comport to reality then they are irrelevant. But a single provable piece of evidence will always be true, and will decimate any and all arguments to the contrary. The bonus is that with evidence, I don’t have to have a phd in philosophy or logic to determine the “truth” of an argument, nor do I need to put forth my own arguments because I would have EVIDENCE to back me up.
@@Arlondev your iou analogy is spot on. An argument is just that, an iou, but your previous analogy presumed that an iou and a car were the same and evidently they are not. Your ninjas also support my case as well, your arguments, are just that, arguments, until you showed the knife (actual evidence), then your arguments had credence. Evidence is always superior to argument, you can have infinitely numeral relevant arguments, but a single piece of evidence that counters them will always win. Nor can any argument invalidate a single piece of evidence. So like the original commenter, I would rather have a single piece of evidence over an number of arguments.
The burden of proof rests with god, not humans. A god, at least one worthy of the title and who cares about humans, does not require science or philosophy to make itself known. It would make itself unquestionably obvious to all people, everywhere, throughout all of history. Such a god clearly does not exist. Instead, we are left with tribal, hide and seek gods about which people can argue endlessly.
Instead we are to believe that the god created humanity, only to m,anifest itself to a tiny band of goat herds in the mid east, carefully concealing its existence from all other humans, so it could condemn all but its chosen people to hell for not choosing to believe in it. Of course the chosen are free to commit gencide if other people happen to be living on their promised land first. Or some such.
@@FourDeuce01 Yes, I understand what you are saying, but humans can't provide verifiable evidence for their claims because their god has not provided any. Therefore, the burden of proof ultimately rests with their proposed god. If god chooses not to reveal itself, perhaps because it doesn't exist, there is nothing humans can do about it, other than make claims. Apologetics is essentially humans arguing about why god hasn't made itself known in an unquestionably obvious way.
@@ringramua When a god shows up, I’ll let him have his burden of proof, but until that happens, the only way religious apologists can get rid of their burden of proof is by proving their claim.😈
Of course there could be 100+ arguments that are totally convincing to a xtian, bc it doesn't take anything to convince them; they're already convinced. They interpret the argument through a lens of already believing, it sounds good to them from that perspective, and as far as they're concerned, it's "valid and sound". Hopefully the dictionaries of the future won't define "valid and sound" as "supportive of one's favorite position".
@@PhysiKarlz Well, the stated reasons seem to be both strengthening insiders' faith and weakening outsiders' skepticism from what I read when I look it up. That first goal is certainly easier to do, of course!
Remember that the following is a logically valid argument: 1. 2+2=5 (false premise) 2. If 2+2>4, then 4+4>8 (true statement) 3. Therefore 4+4 is not equal to 8 (false solution) Just because a premise is false does not make the argument invalid. The argument is valid because if the premises were all true, the conclusion would be true.
As a studying logician; Deductive logic, which deals in absolute truth, can only operate under specific axioms. It's mainly used in things like semantics or mathematics, neither of which "exist" or are "real" but instead assume certain standardized axioms. You cannot demonstrate that anything necessarily exists using logic.
@North Korea Is Best Korea I am a mathematical, semantic, ethical, and aesthetic anti-realist, yes. The burden of proof to prove that these things are real has not been met, even if they can be internally, logically consistent. That's actually my point. Too many people think logic can support these, but it can't.
@@AbandonedVoid i had a great informal debate with someone who held similar positions. I punched him in the arm, and asked him if he had been punched. If anti-realism is true then it is only a possibility that he had been punched, and an illusory perception occurred. So I punched him in the arm again. This became an excuse to punch my pedantic friend in the arm more than anything else. It also does illustrate that the underlying position of solipsism, anti-realism, and other similarisms are really about huffing their own farts rather than determining the nature of reality.
@@WukongTheMonkeyKing That has nothing to do with mathematical, semantic, ethical, or aesthetic anti-realism. That has to do maybe with metaphysical or ontological anti-realism. You are not only ignorant about what I'm addressing, but your "argument" is thoroughly anti-intellectual, too
@North Korea Is Best Korea Exactly! All of the things I mentioned can't be proven with logic. Realism would have to be demonstrated through empirical evidence, and it hasn't been.
I suppose it's possible Matt (along with the rest of us) is unaware of the 100+ logically valid and sound arguments for god. But it's pretty amazing that no theist caller to AXP, or similar call-in shows, has made any one of them to date. Maybe this commenter will be the first, but I won't hold my breath.
Really, 100+? Well, add 1000 to that and then get Jordan B. Peterson to come over and massage your metaphysical substrate because I'm certain it'll need attention. There will still be no good evidence of any god(s) existence.
Matt, I've listened to many many of your shows, some more than once. I don't quite remember you ever defining God. I know you say that others define it, and along with that they put claims, therefore you are either accepting or not... but I am wondering if you had to come up with a comprehensive, meaningful definition of God, what would that be? To me, many of those debates are in many ways meaningless as rarely I do see people agreeing on the definition of God, let alone God's "expression".
I love this topic. I always felt that there was something wrong with the way apologists will try to appeal to philosophy to demonstrate gods existence. It seems as though god should be something that could be demonstrated in reality, not the abstract. All of the philosophical arguments fall short. They're consistently refuted with more compelling naturalistic explanations.
Thank you so much for making these videos. I always find them helpful, useful, insightful, educational, and entertaing. What more can one ask? :) Also, thank you (and the rest of the members of the ACA) for being there when I became an atheist. When I first found "the Atheist Experience" in 2019, that's ALL I watched! No joke. I sincerely wish I could've caught this on TV when it was on :)
The commenter seems to confuse the use of terminology about logic and science to be equivalent to that of fractions and decimals, claiming the former being more accurate than the latter, spite it actually being just broader in its use of description.
Hey Matt. I took what he said about logic being more certain than science as; it is more certain that a triangle has three sides, or that there are no married bachelors, or that 2+2=4, than it is that archaeopteryx is a transitional for between dinosaurs and modern bird.
That's a charitable interpretation, and may well be exactly what the author meant. And I agree that we should always presume that interlocutors are trying to present the best and most honest arguments (until they demonstrate that they don't deserve that presumption). But it's still an example of generalizing from two cherry-picked extremes.
@@idahogie Not really, it's some examples of things that we know to be true exclusively via logic, and an example of a very well attested but ultimately empirical claim
@@Joseph-zi2pe Here's why I think he was cherry-picking: 1. Here's something we know to be objectively true by logic only. 2. Here's something that is uncertain that we suspect may be true based on science. 3. Therefore logic is better at producing truth than science.
@@idahogie I don't see that as cherry picking. I think the word "better" is doing a lot of lifting there. It might be better in terms of the certainty it can produce. But it might not be better in terms of applicability and utility for example. But I would still maintain that pure logic gives us more certain truths than empiricism does, and I'd go as far to say ever can.
@@Joseph-zi2pe "But I would still maintain that pure logic gives us more certain truths than empiricism does" - perhaps, but the "truths" of logic, such as your examples are tautological. Tautologies have their uses, to be sure, and are readily identifiable and declared "certain," but they are still less than impressive. On the other hand, empiricism might not reveal "truth" at all, but its none the worse for that. The demonstrable utility of empiricism is what makes it valuable, not its claims to "truth". Faulting a hammer for not being a screwdriver seems a little silly.
My metaphysical response to this response video I like that you read these comments...I have been a fan of yours for over 10 years, and will continue to watch and listen as you continue searching for valid and sound arguments for god. Your journey in searching for valid and sound arguments for god helped me to understand why I am a non-believer. I haven't yet found a valid and sound argument for a belief in a god. Until I am presented with a valid and sound argument for a belief in a god I will remain a non-believer. This is how I learned to look for valid and sound arguments.. What is a lie, are words spoken that have no basis in reality, or basis on truth. What is the truth, are words spoken that have a basis in truth, that is based on reality. What is reality , are words spoken that have a basis in reality, that is based on truth.
It's funny, I read the title and the first answer that came to my mind was "because most philosophy is just mental masturbation that leads nowhere" Perhaps I have some prejudices I need to reexamine.
That reaction could stem from not knowing what philosophy even is, I have no great love for the study of philosophy but ultimately everything is contingent on applied philosophy, even mathematics is just applied philosophy.
Take A Moment Matt my friend, Is it just more mysterious ways? Philosophy is in your mind, gods are a safe space for the flock. Very sad, your work is vital. Stay Safe and Stay Free 🌐
Ok so I like to re-watch the shows many times :D I must emphasis that the "Equivalence Principle" of Einstein's Relativity IS Identity-Metaphysics. Cognitive-Science IS Identity-Metaphysics. An adequate education in the Philosophy of Science is a requirement of post grad Physics, and certainly to get a phd; the reason is that experimental physics, and theoretical physics (by an old school philosophy of science, the only real Scientists (as opposed to Technicians) in the field) can only advance our understanding of science if they both understand what sciences findings have been, and what the philosophical implications have been. Despite this person's insulting tone, you do present yourself as some version of logically inconsistent for you to speak on religion, world religion, mathematics, the philosophy of science etc etc that you routinely make understandable-errors, particularly when needing/wanting to speak unilaterally. When was the last time the you openly segregated Physicalist Impersonalists (spinsosa, Hegel) "god" concept, and practices like rational-personalism from your adressal of a Theistic, supernatural, and/or creationist God concept, and "faith?" You know the "Faiths" don't get to define religion and god for all of humanity. You may insist that it's clearly implied, or at least understood, but I'd say the "Texas Atheists" and the fundigelicals both are in the racket of pretending your slice of world culture is the whole cake, unless one side will actually take intellectual responsibility in the information age and stop lying. I know it makes your fight for the rationality of our culture with the faithheads and woo-woos (depak, crystal raven-moon, and maharishi yogi) a tiny bit harder (in a "lets-not-be-pedantic" way), and while I loved the brilliant insights in Penrose's Book with his orch theory in it, I see the braindead barrage of dishonest reads of Penrose being used by Creationists, or as evidence for their fckn Theistic God person concept. Even that A-hole Jordan Peterson tried tricking Penrose into endorsing Peterson's theistic crappolah, but with no luck. What's Penrose talking about being being "consciousness"? Space-time geometry. What's the mysterious intelligent designer? Counterfactual implicate evolutionary processes in the nature of things in a universe, and time. Penrose is a physicalist, not a Theist. Still, Matt, I wish for you to have the time, and financial security to study world religion/religious-anthropology at an adult level, and to study the history of the philosophy of science, as well as it's current state. I think you'd be enriched by the Upanishads, and Sutras, but you are certainly right that one can get the same "start" in "Identity Metaphysics" when you learn about it is the study of the history of the philosophy of science (when you get to the space-time/quantum-revolutions). Learn some Information-theory ("knowledge wants to be free," "intelligence/life is anti-entropy", etc) and maybe you might even foresee some post-human technological-singularity issues arise as the technologies that will really determine, or overlook the metaphorical ghost in the machine. Lamda the google neural-net talk-bot already passed the turing test, and we know Lamda is just a compulsive storyteller with evolving statical linguistic-associations and a bunch of cleaver freed-back loops. Im not sure that it is impossible to fake, or repress a conscious observer behind the wheel. I know the horrors of behaviorism have been pushing, or even counting on the inner world of the self being a manufactured/able illusion for almost a century (yet cognitive science, and humanist developmental gestalt psychology has not conceded). You know what was a bizarre implication of discovering that both particle physics and social sciences had to work in statistical realities, and not simple mechanical binary cause and effect, present or not-present, true or false? I was concerned that the Debunkers war with the hucksters and fundigelicals would try and crush a generation of young scientists willingness to develop and engage their faculties for suppositional thinking; but Im was being an alarmist, not only did Sabine (the woohoo gatekeeper of physics) put out a bunch of "physics explained" videos talking about why we don't do "Debunkers" Science, and what was wrong with the "Skeptics society's" reasoning as science... ultimately. She did a Fckn Video call how I learned to Love Pseudo-Science, and then even videos debunking mistaken dismissals of the physical reality of quantum superposition and state-reduction, and a lot of good science communicators did similarly; Of Course, thats just what soothed my animal anxiety; In reality the Flynn Effect is UnBroken. We do keep getting smarter, and more willing to engage in suppositional thinking, across the board and across the world, decade after decade, regardless of ridiculous fears of power of culture to repress a healthy mind.
Please ... PLEASE.... please... raise your volume by at least 60%.... Your videos are great for hearing while doing an activity like say walking or washing dishes or gardening or cooking or driving or or or ... all stuff that entails too much ambient noise and using blootooth headsets that do not have very high amplification. If the volume is too loud for the sensibility of some they can always dial their device's volume down... but if the volume is too low even when a device's volume is dialed all the way up then there is nothing one can do... so it is better to have the video source volume be louder than lower. I use the very same setup to listen to other things like Netflix, or Audible or Prime Video ... and other TH-cam channels... and all are fine... so it is not my equipment.
@@kl7985 I am glad it was ok for you ... it was not for me... and the same device in exactly the same place but viewing other videos had good volume ... so it is not my device ...
@@michvroom8784 ... yes... it is ... and I have already made the same comment many times on other videos of his. The volume is fine if I am on a PC with amplified speakers and sitting in a room. If I am using bluetooth headsets from an iPhone while walking or gardening or washing dishes or in the Mall or driving or doing any activity other than sit down in a quiet room... it is a pain to try and hear it.
@@michvroom8784 ... even if sitting in a quiet room ... if I am eating anything crunchy... the sound of my eating drowns out the video sound. Listening to these videos is something nice to do while doing other activity that does not require thinking.... and that means too much ambient sound and on devices that do not have high volume ability.
My thoughts are that the Hebrew Bible does not belong to the Jewish people or that the New Testament only belongs to Christians or the Quran to Islam. These writings belong to all of humankind including those that don't believe in the writings. I'm fuzzy in the way of describing myself as either an Atheist or an Agnostic. I enjoy the writings and I like to cherry pick through the writings for those points that I agree with and then discard those those I find objectionable. But when I do this, I find that I know fall under the label of being an Atheist as I don't accept the core tenets of these religions. I find myself thinking that these religions would be improved if they just redacted all references to God and updated sections that are no longer valid as science has progressed our understanding of the natural world. But then they would no longer be religions. I suppose that makes me an Atheist by default and yet I still enjoy reading these writings as it gives me an insight into the people of that time. I have no problem going to church. A friend asked that I go with him as it was a special day as he was being raised in the Church of Apostles. I was happy for him and rejoiced in his accomplishment and listened throughout the sermon. Another time I was talking with a Christian and asked if it were proven that there was no God, Devine Jesus or resurrection would she still remain a Christian? Her answer was no and then I found myself arguing the case for Christianity as it does have good points. That just because there is no God, shouldn't mean that you should throw the baby out with the bath water. I found myself, as an Atheist, arguing for Christianity. -Ain't that "f" up. I do try not to argue with someone's religion as I want to hear their own interpretations and I don't want to influence them or change their beliefs. Their belief makes up part of who they are - why would I want to change that. However, I do have issues with religious leaders and apologists because they have studied these writings along with other contemporary writings and should not have to rely on obfuscation or fallacious arguments to demonstrate that their God is the right God. At a point in listening to religious leaders and apologist my mind just shuts down and the voice in my head just wants to say to them "Oh come on, you don't really believe this sh^&?." -Just my opinion.
The commenter is partially correct. It's likely that there is no scientifically valid evidence for god because god doesn't EXIST in any detectable way, in other words in any way that affects the physical, measureable universe. If so, we can set that matter to rest. Is there anything else left over which is worth investigating? We do have a vast "universe" of concepts and formalisms which I, as a computer scientist, can appreciate has an interesting sort of EXISTENCE not necessarily dependent on physical reality. We usually think of concepts as being the products of a mind, thus ultimately grounded in the physical processes of the hardware on which the mind runs. I see no reason to propose some other grounding for mind. But it's a somewhat more open question as to whether or not concepts can have EXISTENCE independent of a mind. Consider for example Euclid's famous proof that √2 is irrational. Does such a proof require the mind of Euclid to produce it, or is it valid regardless of whether anyone knows of its existence? It's an odd sort of EXISTENCE, to be sure, but there does seem to be something more than arbitrary about it. In other words, did the proof have to be created, or was it sort of just lying around waiting to be discovered? Ask a dozen mathematicians and you'll get a dozen different answers. Perhaps that qualifies it as a philosophical question. I want to stay with this idea for a little longer. Set aside for the moment what conceptual existence might mean, and let's just look at the set of all possible concepts. (That is a countably infinite set, by the way.) Euclid's proof is certainly a concept. It happens to be a coherent one. There is also a concept almost like Euclid's proof, but flawed in some way, so that it's not coherent. There are similarly concepts that amount to random noise. And these are all equally first class members of the set of all concepts. Whatever we might say about EXISTENCE applies to all of them. What this tells us is that the "something more than arbitrary" is not a general property of concepts, but whatever it is that distinguishes an interesting concept from noise. And detecting this, I would argue, requires a mind. Sure, Euclid's proof might have just been lying around all along, but it's just one grain of sand on a beach. You could (weakly) say that it's discovered. But the act of discovery isn't itself significant. It's the act of recognition that picks it out from all the other grains of sand, and that requires an understanding of the principles of proof construction. We have to work through the proof in order to verify its validity. So you could equally, perhaps more strongly, say that it's created. Now we can properly turn to god as a concept, and what sort of EXISTENCE can be claimed for it. Without any further qualification, we know that this concept has as much existence as any other in the set of all possible concepts, some of which are coherent and some of which are noise. If a given god concept is incoherent noise, the properties of its base conceptual existence are no more interesting than any other noise. So the real question to ask is which is it, signal or noise, in the case of a given god concept? And further, under what conditions would even a coherent signal be interesting? After all, every tautology is a coherent concept, but these are not generally regarded as interesting. So, roughly speaking then, I'd be looking for a god concept that has at least the same sort of unifying richness of meaning as Euclid's proof. A good mathematical proof, such as Kurt Gödel's two proofs of undecidability, might qualify as a kind of conceptual god. And if that's not a good match to popular expectation of what a god should be, too bad. It may well be the best we can expect from developing this line of argument. Matt has often pointed out - and I agree - that defining god as equivalent to something else is not just unnecessary but also problematic because of the implicit baggage that it brings with it. Calling something a formal proof is a claim of mathematical rigor. I think we should stick with that. If someone has an emotional need to call it god, that's a private matter for them, I guess. It will remain a source of confusion for them, but relatively harmless.
The commenter claiming that logic alone is better for find the truth of reality than science is a direct example of someone believing illogical things thinking they are logical. This is exactly why logic does not outweigh research based science, because as he showed in his comment a great many people's "logic" are exceptionally biased and unable to show direct evidence as well as falsely equating everything towards their own beliefs.
One thing that baffles me is the number of philosophers who actually have a degree - meaning they have studied the thing - and who are engaging in all kinds of metaphysical arguments for a god. A god which they often admit (or even proudly claim) is undetectable by science, only to suddenly come up with personal claims of the sort "and here is why I believe this god is the christian god". And after this admission no argument follows, just personal opinions. And you ask yourself how the eff did they get from a vague metaphysical entity to the judeo-christian god who was founded by the bible and who according to the biblical description of his interactions with the world should be very detectable to science. Makes you think those guys have chosen the wrong profession.
@@ari1234a Theology and philosophy of religion are two different disciplines. Some universities will offer double majors/degrees in both (I think it's mandatory to do both together at Oxford) but they are fundamentally two different approaches. Theologians use hermeneutics and exegesis, whereas philosophers of religion (about half of whom are atheists) use propositional/predicate/modal logic to explore both arguments for/against God's existence and what properties it could potentially have.
@@mil401 Yea, but You can get degree of Philosophy in Theology. "Doctor of Theology (Latin: Doctor Theologiae, abbreviated DTh, ThD, DTheol, or Dr. theol.) is a terminal degree in the academic discipline of theology. The ThD, like the ecclesiastical Doctor of Sacred Theology, is an advanced research degree equivalent to the Doctor of Philosophy." "In the academic study of theology, often deeply rooted in the Christian religion, the nomenclature of doctoral degrees varies between Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Philosophy, and Doctor of Sacred Theology. However, Doctor of Ministry is generally understood as a professional doctorate, whereas Doctor of Divinity is a higher academic doctorate, often awarded honoris causa."
@@ari1234a True. Though, one could also get a doctorate of philosophy in economics: but philosophy and economics are still different fields with different methods. Physicists with PhD's have the word "philosophy" in their degree title, but that doesn't also make them philosophers or their field a branch of philosophy, surely? Philosophy inevitably will overlap with every other field at least a little bit, and though theologians and philosophers of religion often engage with each other's work, what separates the two distinct fields is their methodology. Theologians use hermeneutics and exegesis, whereas philosophers of religion use argumentation that makes use of propositional/predicate/modal logic. Theology isn't a branch of philosophy any more than economics or physics are.
@@mil401 No i do not imply that being a doctor in mathematics is the same as doctor in medicine. OP asked "One thing that baffles me is the number of philosophers who actually have a degree - meaning they have studied the thing - and who are engaging in all kinds of metaphysical arguments for a god." There were people who wrote philosophical works and were theists and fiercely defended their god. George Berkley, Thomas Aquinas, etc. Do you disagree that as a Doctor of Philosophy you cannot be a Doctor of Theology or vice versa ?
"Valid and sound" is redundant, since (by definition) every sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. The person is right that there are people who believe there are sound arguments for the existence of God. But there are also those who believe there are no sound arguments for the existence of God. Determining which of these stances is correct is not a matter of mere arrogant assertion. What is certainly true is that there are no arguments for the existence of God that are uncontroversially accepted as sound, and this remains true even among theists.
That’s true. I’m not sure where this notion that validity has to do just with an argument’s structure comes from? In my uni logic textbook “Logic (2012) by N. Smith,” validity refers to whether or not an argument’s structure is truth preserving _and_ the premises are sound.
@M C its because you have it backwards. Validity in logic has always referred to structure, and even the phrase you quoted "truth preserving" refers to the structure. Soundness has always referred to truth of the premises, but often, it includes that the argument is also valid. This is something that varies over time and across sources. Likely because the word " soundness" has many uses not tied to validity.
Except that over time, across fields, subfields etc, soundness doesn't always include validity, and because of constant use (or misuse) of the phrase "valid and sound). As to the rest, soundness also includes, by implication at least, that the premises are not just true but demonstrated to be true. So currently, there are no sound and valid arguments for god.
13:44 is the information from the video I was looking for, as I was trying to figure out why when cornered a theist went straight into trying to talk about "metaphysics" and wanted to stay there...
People haven't used 'literally' incorrectly - they've used it HYPERBOLICALLY. And the hyperbolic use of 'literally' became so common that it has become another accepted meaning of the word. People really need to get over the fact that word uses change over time. Every single day we all use words in ways that would have once been considered "incorrect."
Good point! I still hear people lament the addition of another meaning to the word "gay", which is great IMO, bc the word "homosexual" sounds too clinical. Life is change. Get over it, people!
People use it incorractly all the time. Hyperbole requires intent. You can't use a word hyperbolically if you don't know the definition of the word. With that being said, the definition of "literally" has changed to also mean "figuratively". So now they're not using it incorrectly.
@@G_Demolished If by "they" you mean the people who publish dictionaries you're sort of correct. They don't "make" it any way, they describe the way people use the word. If by "they" you mean people who use words, then yes, they did. But I prefer to use "we" in that situation.
Claiming to be able to detect the undetectable violates the law of non contradiction, which lies in the category of philosophy, which is the category that the commenter says that this topic belongs in. Am I wrong?
At 9:00 Matt objects to the claim that "We can use logic to know some things beyond the limitations of the scientific method ... given that absolute truth exists in logic but never in science." I agree with Matt, but I'm not sure that his treatment of the matter is entirely clear. In fact, science places a MORE DEMANDING test of a given proposition than formal reasoning does. Formal results only have to be internally coherent. Scientific results ADDITIONALLY have to comport with observation. The quoted argument presents science as having "limitations," suggesting that it's therefore impoverished. On the contrary, whenever we move from the general to the specific, we should EXPECT the field to narrow. Indeed, it would be bizarre if it did not! And the fact that specific criteria produce fewer results than general criteria is not the fault of methodology, it's a simple result from set theory. So yes, we can derive "absolute truth" in formal systems, which is both lovely and useful (though as a computer scientist I shudder at the term "absolute truth.") But here also is where a kind of Equivocation Fallacy is smuggled into the argument, because this "absolute truth" is set up, by implication, as BETTER than empirical truth. That claim has not yet been justified. In WHAT SENSE better? And how would you validate that? Herein lies the equivocation.
This reminds me of a clip from Babylon 5, "What is Truth and what is God?" on youtube. G'Kar comes up with some great philosophy, but then the person just asks the question again, so he sighs and comes up with some bullshit that they think is insightful.
Hi Matt, I'm glad to see that you are keeping well. Thank you for all these great videos - keep them coming please!! I think you should apply for a Lectureship position in Philosophy at the University of Oxford (England). I mean that seriously. And - have you ever thought about doing a video on the philosophy (and even the metaphysics) of Quantum Mechanics? All the Best Matt. Thanks again.
Wouldn’t one need a PhD and a competitive track-record of published papers in order to even apply for a position like that? Getting a lectureship at one of Oxford's collages is especially quite difficult; Matt might be a successful atheist communicator (in the same way there are are science communicators out there like Bill Nye), but I’m not aware of any novel research he has published in philosophy, religious studies or theology?
In addition; Yes, Buddhism, Humanism, Confuciunism, and many other Nontheistic philosophies are called religion. This is so that the people who are following them are valid and deserve the same level of respect as religions.
Generally agree with you except... I think most philosophers (although probably not a plurality of scientists) would categorize the physical sciences as a subset of metaphysics. Epistemology, which, I believe, is firmly in the realm of metaphysics, is fundamental to the physical sciences (a.k.a. Natural Philosophy.) I would be entertained to hear Dr. Richard Carrier's take on it. Regarding the rest of your comments - spot on.
Epistemology is metaphysical because of the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Pragmatism is the attempt to remove metaphysics from epistemology by demonstrating that "truth," as classically conceived, is irreverent.
@@ericb9804 I think you meant "irrelevant" - although "irreverent" is far more amusing... I think Matt's description of science's role in logic - determining the truth value of a proposition - would remove that ploy of Pragmatism, as you defined it, from the debate. Although ultimately undiscoverable, truth (defined as the actual nature of reality) is never irrelevant. Science is the process of developing models of the truth that produce increasingly accurate predictions (and therefore can be said to be closer to the truth.) Thanks!! rbs
@@robertbrucescott8278 so truth is "ultimately undiscoverable," yet also important, for some reason, apparently? "Science is the process of developing models of the truth that produce increasingly accurate predictions" - No, not "models of truth," models of information. Our predictions are based on our information, our experiences, but we don't need to insist that these experiences or these models are "real" in order to make use of them. It simply doesn't matter if they are "real" or not. Truth is irrelevant. You are just doubling down on your metaphysics.
@@ericb9804 At some point that becomes a distinction without a difference. The argument that leads to the idea that reality does not matter, sounds an awful lot like the "brain in a vat" argument. (Which, if you follow the "simulated ancestors" model, might have some credence.) Whether our experience is physical or simulated, it arises from some sort of reality, which, while not ultimately discoverable to our limited monkey-brains and monkey-senses (or simulations thereof), continues to provide the experiences that generate the information from which our models are constructed and to which they appeal for validation. I would go so far to say that would apply to a Boltzmann Brain. Thanks!! rbs
Here is a sound logical argument without empirical justification. P1: The Laws of Thought exist. P2: To say the contrary would entail a contradiction. C: since this is not 'the contrary', the argument is valid.
If god is only philosophical then it is only a concept and not a reality ! Logic can only be used when the premises can be proven I would love to see 1 logically valid argument for god
This one reminds me of that old definition of faith put forth by Ambrose Bierce. - "Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." It's the notion of "things without parallel," that reminded me of it. It's not that science *can't* explore the possible existence of a god, or "God," it's that it has no starting point. It doesn't even have a clear definition of what the thing is its looking for. In fact: Every concept of a god that humans have ever had could be wrong, to some degree or another, and yet, there still be an (albeit inexplicable) entity that upon discovery we would call "God." Based on that, I just don't see science as the proper tool to get started with. Once you define it and are able to have some idea of what to test for, then science can come to the table. So, while I agree with your assessment of this comment, and find the comment itself to have many rational flaws, I get why many believe it's not a scientific question at all. We're talking about a thing that has no parallel in reality. How does one apply the scientific method to that? All you can do is apply the method to claims made about what it supposedly has done within time and space, but even if those claims are demonstrated to be false, it doesn't really tell us much more than the claim itself was wrong. There could still be a god.
"You've made a category error." I think they did, since they put the abrahamic god in the philosophical category when we're talking about whether or not it's *REAL.*
Commenter - //We can use logic to know some things beyond the limitations of the scientific method with more certainty than any current scientific consensus, given absolute truth exists in logic but never in science.// The common denominator shared by both philosophy and science is that they use deductive logic. The difference between the two disciplines is science uses inductive logic and philosophy does not. In science, if there is ever a conflict between induction and deduction, induction wins. Within the philosophical realm, valid and sound deduction wins because there is no induction to confront. I consider religion to be a branch of philosophy because of the lack of testing of their ideas. (Science tests - philosophy does not.) Testing ideas provide a method to ground a particular deductive line of reasoning in reality. The history of science is filled with many examples of deductive arguments tested that were shown to be false artifacts of mankind's minds, no matter how beautiful or convincing their ideas were. Is the God hypothesis one of these false ideas? Can it even be tested? According to the commenter, the concept of God is not necessary to test because it is not a scientific problem, it is a philosophical one. However, asserting God can be proved as absolute truth in deductive logic is an easy pronouncement to claim - but a bit more difficult to actually provide. It is telling there is no detailed deduction given. Perhaps because there is none?
I've heard it argued that literally is sometimes, even by it's old definition, used correctly when it means figuratively. That's based on the belief that it's not people who don't know it's meaning, but on people who are using it for sarcastic emphasis.
Genuine attempt at dialog: This video is an example of Matt struggling with what is left of the "theism" implicit in traditional epistemology (as many atheists do). Atheism demands pragmatism as epistemology. Pragmatist epistemology is the elimination of metaphysics; the dissolution (as opposed to "solution") of traditional philosophical problems regarding "truth." "Science doesn't make truth claims." (7:36) Correct, which is how we know "truth," in the sense you mean, doesn't matter. i.e. the claims of science are demonstrably useful without necessarily being "true." Scientific models are useful, but we don't need to declare that they are "of reality" to make use of them. Utility is the only epistemology we need because... "Whether or not the premises are actually true is a metaphysical question about what truth is" (7:05). Again correct, but your claim (or rather "acceptance") that "truth" is "that which comports with reality" (7:14) is the metaphysics at the heart of traditional epistemology. Yet, as you point out later, "Metaphysics doesn't get you anywhere" (13:50). Which motivates Matt to discuss how neither "Science" nor "Logic" can "produce truth," (9:20) yet continue to proceed under the implication that this "truth" is important for some reason. But why should we care about a "truth" that means "correspondence," if we acknowledge that we have no way to access it? The Correspondence Theory of Truth is a variation of the theist idea that we are to stand in relation to the non-human to achieve what we value. This is Matt's "theism." My final claim: "Truth," as "correspondence to reality" is metaphysical in the same way that "god" is metaphysical, i.e. they are both non-demonstrable and thus irrelevent. Scientific claims are "justifiable," and scientific claims are always relative to both an audience and a utility. This "justification" to each other for a purpose is the only "truth" we need. This is pragmatism.
@@juanausensi499 I'm not sure I know what you mean, if you care to explain, but I'm not sure "reality" needs a "definition." I know, in an operational sense, what my experiences are and I know what counts as justification, for those are both human endeavors. And this is all I need to make use of a non-correspondence notion of "truth" so I don't see what you seem think "defining reality" would achieve.
@@ericb9804 You definition of truth relies on the concept of reality. No denition of reality means no definition of truth. You know your experiences but that's not reality, that's your experiences. Not everybody agrees in what 'real' means (for example, moral realists vs moral antirealists). The concept of reality is really the keystone here: you can trace entire worldviews to diferente definitions of reality (materalists, mystics, you name it)
@@juanausensi499 "You definition of truth relies on the concept of reality" - No. My "definition of truth," to the extent pragmatism can be said to have one, is something like "a true statement is a statement that humans find justified, and justification is only relative to an audience and a goal." The whole point of a "deflationary theory of truth," which I am advocating, is that it can be used and understood only in terms of human value and goals. There is no "reliance" on "reality." In other words... "You know your experiences but that's not reality, that's your experiences" - Yes, exactly. Given that I only know my experiences, but not "reality" why bother trying to speak about "reality" at all? Why not just focus on our experiences and let "reality" be as it may?
@@ericb9804 Because personal experiences can sometimes be shared by others, and sometimes not. The experience of a physical object, let's say a rock in a beach, can be shared by anybody that goes to the beach and looks at the rock. But if somebody dreams of a rock on a beach, or hallucinates about it, that experience is not shareable. Human values and goals don't need to be involved. We can observe animals experiencing the rock all the same. The set of all those things that can be observed and shared, no matter the observer, it's what I call reality. As you can see, we have different definitions, so providing yours is required when you are trying to define what is truth for you.
Sir, Philosophizing without experimentation is what you are boxing Metaphysics into. I've known many Physicists and mathematicians, absolutely physicalists who non-the-less outline Thermodynamics, and principles of thermodynamics as Metaphysics, and spend their fckn careers inventing ways to test it and learn from it. They did so, and it correlated with select theories form the past with less ability to test. While the person your addressing may have used the term Deism, I hope you recognize a different between the Theism/Deism and Radical-/Rational-Personalism. I've been coming to have the differences shoved in my face by continued contact with the "faithful" (abrahamic historic literalist devotionalists). If not, I'm becoming ever more aware of the VARY significant differences (in part because so many in SantMat, ISKCON and Sikhi want to focus only on this one-world-religion pluralist view that all religions must have the same wisdom at their core, but Historic Literalist "Faith" and Consciousness-centered Personalism are not remotely the same except in the most superficial ways; a Hare Krishna devotee trying to imagine and build a connection with a Krishna consciousness within their own consciousness is not the same as a Theist who knows they knows they knows they know nothing but their bible-dogma, and the fear of the lord, or even MOST of the "deists"/soft Historic Literalism.) That said, I certainly have my issues with what I'd call "Irrational Personalism" in which the actual aim seems to be to confuse one's self, and baith in psychoactive zelotry.
If only this god they are claiming to be so powerful and glorious to appear and actually show himself, right? Or maybe just send those graphic angels described in their holy book to send a message to humanity that this god does exists. Until that, expect people to "go to hell" cause it's becoming more apparent that just believing blindly isn't working. Or maybe, it is working as this god intends since he's not even showing himself like he did thousands of years ago according to his claimed words.
If something exists it must manifest in the universe so you must be able to provide evidence for its existence. The philosophy has limits, and one of them is proving the existence of something. No philosophical thinking can prove anything to exist, at most it can prove it is possible for it to exist. I am planning to make a video about this at some point since the difference is very important and is missed by many people.. Also, is there any good argument for a god? I have never heard about it yet..
Most individuals who bring up metaphysics, (99.9) are really just discussing their personal opinions and biases. Very few people stick to the topic or the definition at hand. So frustrating. I didn't watch the video because I've likely seent it dozens of times in the past. I just wanted to make this point. I would hope that someone would correct me if I'm wrong. Minus the seent, it is the interweb. This is a no troll go zone. Or maybe a no go troll zone. I will decide at a later date.
Metaphysics is so called because in a particular version of Aristotle's works, it was the book bound after, or next in the scroll after, his _Physics._ That's all it means: physically after _Physics_ in a particular copy.
Matt, I had an argument with someone that decided to try to push deism onto me the other day (I was discussing the reasons that I am an atheist). In the ending, when he had me so irritated that I couldn't be polite anymore, I told him he, "couldn't point to any evidence, because if you could it wouldn't be deism, and without evidence the claim is irrational." Is my reasoning sound and valid?
Anytime someone resorts to insults, rather than reason or logic (i.e. agree with me or you are incompetent), it is reasonable to suspect that they are unable to demonstrate their point with logic or reason.
Have you ever tried teaching science? Ever try doing it on a debate show over the phone with people who've invested a lot in maintaining the image of authority? Did you know that Matt is compeltely ignorant of the larger half of world philosophy on Logic? But a bunch of fckn Texan ex-theists aren't going to notice, so Matt's lagging self education and large gaping holes in his world view (or at least about world religion, psychology, the philosophy of science, etc.) goes unnoticed, unchallenged and unchanged. The texas Atheists are living in the monkey house. They are used to being reductively teleological, intellectually lazy/dishonest, and attracted to authoritarian hierarchies of leaders and leadership anyway. Traci Haris used to be a counterbalance to Matts shere ignorance and anglocentrism, at least for a decade she was. Now she's gone and Matt STILL wont take a fcking class on religious anthropology, a class on psychology, or hell ANY ANY ANY course of the philosophy of science. NO Matt LOVES his ignorance, and he's basically on the verge of being an outright deceptive science communicator- a pusher of pseudo-science "anthropology". Its been over a decade of seeing Matt get correct, of seeing him lie about world religion, of seeing him slander better thinkers than him without having ever studied them or their ideas. Matt used to have Traci to negate these flaws with her education and perspective, but that was a long time ago now. Ive run out of good-assumptions to apologies for Matt with this.
Can prophesy find God seems to be coming true. Let's get all the naysayers and scoffers in here, prophesied about that too. Must be why they said blessed are those who have not seen but believe. Amen
For any argument to be valid and sound philosophically or otherwise you rely on your own judgement of what qualifies the validity and soundness. I guess that means you would know everything therefore being all knowing qualifies you as the greatest human alive today. Sounds logical and valid to me lol
Once again the apologist claims there are over 100 things he COULD say that prove God but... just can't be bothered to actually say them
Huh.
Usual promises!!!
Yah
“Just trust me bro” - the apologist
No one is more unwilling to provide evidence than the guy who claims there's a mountain of evidence on his side. I tend to respond with "we don't need a whole mountain, just show me one solid rock".
Heh reminds me of trump and giuliani
"Oooo we have tonnes of evidence! This election was soooo stolen! Just you wait, it's coming... so much evidence! All the evidence! Irrefutable! We were robbed!"
Let's be Real... If there truly were 100+ Logically valid and Sound arguments for any god, "religious faith" = Blind Faith, would not be needed!! They would have Proven their god a LLOOOONNNNGGGG time ago. His existence would not be in question.
But.... they still demand Blind Faith... wonder why...
Oh, another commenter bringing actual logic into the conversation. What is the interweb coming to. I am depressed.
I advise you to read the proof of God's existence to Aristotle
@@thedarkking32 "... Aristotle argues that there must be some eternal and imperishable substance, otherwise all substance would be perishable, and then everything in the world would be perishable ...", yah, all matter is doomed to be reduced to its basic constituent parts, so there ya go. I also note that Aristotle didn't bother to establish that "substance is not perishable". How would he know that?
@C L I have looked at 100s of "proofs", they aren't. They are circular reasoning, confirmational bias and wishful thinking.
Did this commenter identify that they were talking about a theistic god? I mean, most of world religion is NOT theistic, nor a "Faith." The entire Santana family of religions (Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist) PLUS good old traditional Yin school Taoism.... Non of these religions hold any merit in faith, particularly not in faith in mythology as literal history. There ARE probably at least 100s of logically sound arguments for an impersonalist God like EnSof, Ayin, Brahman, Te, Li, Spinosa's Universe, and Hegel's Dialectic. NON of them will be arguments for Theistic God-person.
What are we all supposed to be trapped in Fckn TEXAS religion/atheism? Its bigger world than those two factions want to acknowledge, learn about, and integrate into their equally teleological simplistic and self-serving paradigms.
This is an oversimplification but basically, the writer thinks it's possible to argue a god into existence.
@C L not really. Every logical argument I've seen for the existence of a god is either invalid, unsound, or both as Mr. Dillahunty said in the video.
Besides, one can't argue a god into existence as I just said. The best logic can do is establish the possibility of a god's existence, that is if the syllogism is valid and sound.
@C L it’s just as easy to reason a lack of said existence since we have literally 0 evidence for such a claim.
@C L "Well it is very easy to reason to Gods existence"
Which god ?
Whose god ?
In where or what for i need this god ?
One or many gods ?
@C L please do it here for our benefit. help our lost souls.
I bet it’s just logical fallacies debunked a thousand times before..
@@freezoneproject567 He/She/They... Is actually not wrong, All you need is flawed reasoning ;)
Hey Matt,
Just wanted to say hi. Ive been following you since I was 11 years old back in 2007. You "deconverted" me from christianity back then. I listened to every episode of the atheist experience and all the oldschool episodes of the non-prophets. I used to listen to the non prophets every night as I went to bed. I vividly remember the free will episode, the ted haggard episode, the HILARIOUS banter between you, Russell, Jeff, and Dennis. I will always treasure those podcasts. You've had a profound impact on my life, I know many people tell you this, but I just wanted to let you know I consider you among my greatest heroes and role models. It amazed me how much you've grown through the years and I've loved rooting for you the whole way. Wishing you the best of health going forward! You've made a huge difference in this world.
Who would you say (other than Matt) are your "go to" scholars/communicators on the God question?
@@mil401 Well, around the same time as I discovered Matt I also started following Hitchens and Dawkins, both of whom I value to this day. But oddly enough, if I had to choose who I wanted to represent the athiest position it would be Matt Dillahunty over both of them.
I also like AronRa, Krauss, and others, but these days I mainly listen to Matts shows
@@Thecastofthelast Ah cool 👍
@@Thecastofthelast *Atheist.
@@vic.smittie.5668 lol thanks, i got a new phine and my typing is horrendous on this thing
Literally, ALL Sci-Fi movies are logically valid and sound within some fictional universe.
All rational argumentation within Star Wars clearly points to the existence of Jedi. Literally ALL of it!
I knew it! Jedi are real.🖖🏻
Dark Brandon has the high ground!
th-cam.com/video/U8wLBOlCKPU/w-d-xo.html
Good thing you said "literally". I 'd hate for anyone to think you were speaking rhetorically. Or hyperbolically. Or ironically. Thank you for making that distinction.
@@bonusflaps1749 You just found a random spot to spew a random comment, haven't you?
Have you even watched the clip?
@@AlbertGuilmont That's a strange assumption to make. And yes, I watched it.
Look, there's two definitions of metaphysics. The first is something along the lines of dealing with the foundations of things, or the root causes/sources of things, such as physics, morality what have you.
The other is "abstract theories totally detached from reality"
Theists like to argue that they're doing metaphysics definition #1.
Theists are actually doing metaphysics definition #2.
They are the ones committing a category error in claiming that their abstract theories detached from reality are comparable to trying to discern, for instance, why physics does stuff or whatever.
Don't let them get away with yet another bait and switch, cause thats all their arguments from metaphysics amount to.
There are* two.
Two are* there.
I'm sorry about replying about language, I just don't understand why this is such a prevalent error.
@@PhysiKarlz I think Michael was saying an abbreviated "There IS two definitions of metaphysics". Which despite sounding unwieldy, is proper English grammar.
Micheal is also ignorant of half the worlds philsophic history and body of philosophical development. He dont realize he comes from the repressed idiotic half of the world yet: Micheal, the Upanishads and Sutras are centrally built on impersonalist/atheistic Identity Metaphysics, and is not speculative in its core form as it is more full of challenges to assumptions than it is about dictating the answers to those questions. One of my favorite Upanishads Identity Metaphysics describes the perceptual-eye of a persons' consciousness dieing/loosing-individuation-from-the-universe being like a drop of water re-joining the sea. But probably the most modern big obvious benefit to come out of Identity Metaphysics was Einstein's equivalence-principle.
@@dq2727 That's not proper English grammar!
Such grammar applies to the word That but not to There.
Two are there. There are two.
That is two. Two is that.
@@PhysiKarlz I suppose we ARE there, not we IS there.
If there are over 100 valid and sound arguments for his god why didn't he just give one instead of waffling on🤔
The statement itself betrays the error. If the first such argument was valid and sound, no apologist would have needed to move to the second one much less the hundredth one
Maybe because he got a new waffle maker! (
@Lureeality 🎶🎵 waffles > pancakes!
@@Bob-of-Zoid I can demonstrate waffles using metacooking
Because religious apologists don’t actually have any evidence or valid and sound arguments. That’s why they like to waste everybody’s time talking about anything else, like how many valid and sound arguments they have. Anything is good as long as it distracts attention from the fact that they aren’t actually showing any arguments.😜
"500 people saw the risen Jesus" ... "They're unaware of the 100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God."
I sense a theme.
500 witnesses, according to one guy! Oh dear! (
@@Bob-of-Zoid or one witness telling a tall tale.
@@tkat6442 That's what I was insinuating.
@@Bob-of-Zoid and a good insinuation it was!
It was 1000 people, and they only had one eye each - 500 eyewitnesses.
Arguments are not at all convincing to me unless they are backed up by empirical evidence.
YES!!!
All those arguments I have seen all fail where they posit their axioms. Their self-evidential axioms are anything but. One concrete example I have seen: "Jesus wouldn't lie"
“Just trust me bro” is easier 🤣
So Maths is not at all "convincing"?
I suggest you rethink this position.
@@Joe-wj7ku Congratulations. You have posted the stupidest thing I have seen all day.
Logic is a process, a function, which maps from inputs to outputs. It does so reliably, but says nothing at all about reality - i.e. the inputs to the process, and the outputs that depend upon the inputs.
Even logic reliability can be questionned.
It has proven to be reliable so far, but it may not work in some cases.
We just assume logic to be universal because it simplifies the way we investigate reality and has proven to be reliable at that so far.
@@chefchaudard3580 Logic is based on very few axioms, which seem to be universally accepted by all but fools.
@@frogandspanner they are universally accepted because they are proven to "work" everytime. Like gravity and other fundamental forces.
Does not mean that, in the universe, they are always true, everywhere, everytime in every case. That's just an inference.
@@chefchaudard3580 I have a personal interpretation (i.e. I cannot support my view with evidence) that logic is the fundamental mechanism of the mind, which has developed to permit us to predict the world around us, so our acceptance of logic is natural.
@@chefchaudard3580 But in those cases the logic behind the predictions does not break. The initial assumptions and axiom are either false or true. That is what we find every time. The logic can be flawed but that does not mean logic has been broken.
I think its a pretty good write off - if your god is undetectable in any way, it might as well not exist.
So I fail to see why entertaining the metaphysical is worth anything, if it cannot be connected to reality...
The whole soundness of a premise also seems to push this out the door...
I also do take a bit of joy in thinking that Matt will read these comments xD Keep up the good work!
That's why I am an apatheist. Is it detectable? Then science can deal with it. Is it not? Then you don't need to worry about it.
Was the universe created by a God? Are we living in a simulation? Am I the only sentient being in the universe and everything else are figments of my mind? It doesn't matter. Water is still wet and fire still burns. What you can know about the universe is exactly the same.
Exactly.
I have faith in reality
Philosophy will argue eternally whether a rock is real or not. I will answer the question by hitting you over the head with said rock. If god is not at least as real as a rock that can give you a concussion, why would I care if it exists or not?
Brahmin is defined by being the sum of existence + the void; thats the base concept embedded there in the Gita. Its the religions MainStream image of God.... not as a person, or thing (in fact calling it No-Thing is celebrated). Why have a concept of a not-"thing" without an independent identity.... well just ask anyone using the number Zero.
this is not a very good argument, they are countless unfathomably large natural numbers who serve no purpose in describing anything and will never be conceived or referred to in the history of humanity....and yet the rules of arithmetic are such that these numbers can be formulated by the same tools any other number can be produced ,and in fact, the denial of its existence would contradict the whole formal system.
So just because i cant detect something doesnt mean it is not absolutely crucial for the whole framework.
As with most philosophical arguments for a god, a god must be inserted. That's the only way to get to a god is if you add a god. In order to dissolve a god argument, one merely just has to point out the insertion point. It still won't convince the god believer, but it's good enough to logically dismiss the god claim.
I advise you to read the proof of God's existence to Aristotle
well IDK about that. The Sanskrit word Brahman literally means "the Vastness," and is described as exactly that; the sum of reality/the Universe with no distinct characteristics that aren't negated by their contrary characteristics as well. Yet this is the worlds oldest religious traditions principle "god," the one outlined in the text (upanishads) as being the true reality (like einstine's space-time/block-universe, and us warps/patterns of it).
I mean, maybe you wanna say No No No, Deva is the Sanskrit for god, and then I'd point out that the Gita says that they are nothing more than metaphors, and that Brahman is the truth (and your experience of that truth (Atman) is the primary descriptive division of reality into perceiver and perceived).
No no in Hinduism "god" is Brahman (the Vastness), and has been throughout the past two to five thousand years. I know, you're used to the Black Swan Gated Anglosphere, so you didn't know that other traditional religions aren't based In worshiping a mythological personage, or Historic Literalist "Faith."
@@dq2727 how's that god
@@Anxh007 its not any kind of "theism" (which is what I assume you mean by "god" in this context). The Santana dharma religions aren't "god centered" religion, but rather "consciousness centered" "religion," and one could say that Santana dharma are "Atheist," especially Advaita Vedanta, & Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahman is certainly what many might call a "God" concept, in the Naturalist "Spinosa's God" sense of the term. Don't be mislead by the filter of my ideological leanings; there are many who would vigorously defend the application of the title "God" to Brahman,.
@@dq2727 that sound more like semantics , i can call the whole universe god , what does that even mean practically
Even if logic were superior to the scientific method, I have yet to hear ANY logical explanation for the existence of God. There always seems to be a jump to a conclusion or some missing argument. In other words, there is always at least one premise that is not valid or sound.
Agreed. Every last argument for god I’ve ever heard, ends with a logical leap to god.
I.e, fine tuning rattles off a list of constants and mathematical probabilities that, even if true, still only explain what is.
In the end, they say something along the lines of, “this could only happen because of a god”, oblivious to the fact that they haven’t moved the initial premise forward by an inch.
They believe they can just keep piling on claims until their claims support themselves.🤡
@@lcceo22 It doesnt help that, even if they didnt make the world record long jump to God, it wouldnt actually prove there God. All it would prove is that a god is needed, which could have been any of the thousands that exist.
@@marcusreading3783 exactly. Some of the more popular arguments for god used by apologists at best get you to deism and that’s being generous. For example the Kalam cosmological argument that I’ve heard Christian apologists use to prop up christianity was originally used to prop up Islam.
Even if there were 100+ logically valid arguments, he doesn't get to just claim they are sound. Its not really up to him to decide whether or not I accept a premise as true. Which means for him to claim any of those arguments are sound, he's necessarily claiming the premise is beyond objection, that it must be factual, and that my opinion or beliefs are irrelevant. That seems an awful lot like the very scientism he's objecting to.
You sound arrogant. Prove your “god(s)” exist ! Tell him to expose his genitalia
Is it weird that I would be more excited to meet Matt that any movie star or musician or any actual Superstar? Keep doing what you do Matt you've been one of the most powerful influences on my philosophy and worldview and my life would be less rich if you hadn't influenced it, and I'm sure there's so many others who feel the same.
You're demonstrating the same reason religions work.
Humans have an unfortunate flaw, in that they tend to bend at the knees.
Matt, I was re-watching this episode again (for the Who-Knows--How-many-ith time), and I got swept away to comment again, this time a criticism born of my own cring reflex, but I want to keep in mind a thought for your experience of this, and wanted to remind you that it's your great works for our culture and sanity, and the good that you've already done, and continue to do for all of us that keeps people like me invested in you as an icon for maturity and wisdom.
Thank you Matt!! Seemingly the past 10 years we’ve seen Christian apologetics try and change its approach to using philosophy to argue for proof of God. This is so slippery; given most people are understandably philosophically ignorant and couldn’t tell you the difference between “sophistry“ and/or a strawman fallacy“.
I advise you to read the proof of God's existence to Aristotle
@@thedarkking32God in Aristotles is a perfect existences who doesnt know the real world because is simple. This is correct if you use the axioms of aristotelian physics, in other case I find a big more difficult.
If those "100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God" are things like Pascals Wager or the Cosmological, or the Moral argument, I'm going to be very disappointed
They are. There are no valid and sound arguments for god, so they have to stick to all the useless, endlessly debunked thought experiments and logical leaps.
... well this is awkward...
Here's a link to the original comment chain: th-cam.com/video/gCyNd6NifHQ/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgxKnLk1qe2_MM9XNk54AaABAg.9dgGhjcinQt9dw68sWiT6N&ab_channel=MattDillahunty
No arguments have been forthcoming.
They always think they have a good argument. I've yet to hear a good one. I only know something happened and here we are. Still waiting for enough evidence to fill in the puzzle.
The standard is some variation on circular reasoning.
@C L past experiences shows no good argument for god has ever been presented. It is more probable, though not impossible, that the next one we get will be one of those unsound and/or invalid ones we already debunked, or a new one that is also flawed.
@C L do you believe in islamic, hindu, zoroastrian or african gods? Billions do, very sincerely. What about big foot, santa claus, leprechauns, fairies, alien abductions? People who do believe in all these things think they have good reasons to believe in them. Have you disproven them? No? So do you have a lack of belief in them? Or are you another narrow minded person, insecure your beliefs may be wrong and angry that you might not be as special as you think you are?
@@anonymouszebra1239 sorry mate wrong tag
@@cratonorogen9208 oh whoops, thanks for telling me :))
I like Matt, he is an excellent logician.
And
I like the cursing. Dishonest people require curses.
Well done Matt 👍👌
😂😂😂😂
I think he's a terrible host on the AXP.
Lost a bit of his shine..
@@c.guydubois8270 yea I agree, he does the atheist cause more harm than good.
@@modelsteamers671 why, and how?
@@Mmmmilo Loses his temper and gets abusive to the callers.
He's a terrible advert for atheism.
Not directly related,but have others noticed the number of religious videos with comments turned off?
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
-- Voltaire
There was a cartoon series called "Casper The Friendly Ghost". I always found it interesting when Casper was able to pass through a wall and then pickup a newspaper. How can a non-material God kick a can? Should science at least be able to detect the process?
Oh, now yuou want to bring actual logic into the conversation. Shame!
Dimensional Flexing. Casper, like most ghosts, was able to partially enter our dimension with phantom aspects; but he could alternatively flex himself deeper into our dimension just enough to hold the newspaper. Ostensibly, it's a hypothesis. I have no evidence. But it is a possibility!
I assumed Casper worked the same as the Vision from Marvel Universe. He can change his density at will. 😀
Casper uses his hands to pick things up because he is the ghost of a human and humans use their hands to pick things up. He isn't holding the thing in his hands, he is manipulating it as a ghost and his visible manifestation is mimicking what he expects his body should be doing if he had a body that was doing that thing. This isn't always necessary, as some are capable of manipulating distant objects with a wave of an arm, such as master Yoda, or by things just suddenly being some new way with no perceivable transition, like Morgan Freeman.
The newspaper being picked up would be seen at least. More than most
I'd rather have one piece of evidence than 1,000 logically sound arguments
How do you figure!? 🙂
Let’s say you wanted to maximise the number of tires you owned (and money, space etc. weren’t an issue). Would you choose 1 tire or 1000 ‘complete’ cars, where a complete car is defined as one with at least 4 tires? I’d definitely pick the latter option.
A sound argument is one that has justified premises. If we are (presumably) working from an evidentialist (as apposed to a rationalist) view, then for a premise to be justified it must be supported by evidence. A sound argument, therefore, rests on evidence similar to how a “complete” car rests on its tires. They’re a package deal. These 1000 sound arguments are analogous to the cars in the above scenario; by virtue of being complete/sound, the cars/arguments are already resting on tires/evidence. If you wanted to maximise the number of true things you know (in an analogous way to wanting to maximise the number of tires you have) then taking the 1000 cars or sound arguments is the way to go.
It’s also worth noting that if an argument is also valid (it’s truth-preserving via its structure) then each of the evidence-supported-premises are also _themselves a form of evidence_ in support of their respective arguments' conclusions. Assuming at least 2 of the sound arguments were also valid, going with the 1000 sound arguments would even more so be the wiser choice.
@@mil401 you can have any number of logically sound arguments but that says nothing about their relevance to objective reality.
Can you logically prove the existence of a car without referral to any objectively real evidence at some point? A single car tyre would be better confirmation of a car’s existence than a million logical arguments about cars.
@@darrenhemingway7121 No? A “sound” argument is just one where the premises are (empirically) justified. A given logical argument need not point to anything real - or indeed point to any given propositions if it’s represented abstractly - but if it’s a _sound_ argument it’s one that has justified premises. Such arguments are grounded in reality (assuming a correspondence theory) even if they don’t happen to be truth preserving by virtue of structure (i.e. valid).
A sound argument about a house would be preferable to a single piece of evidence about that house because _by virtue of being sound the argument’s premises are empirically justified._
In your last sentence you point out evidence is preferable to (just) arguments. I agree. But _sound_ arguments are those which have premises grounded in evidence. If one has a sound argument, one has evidence for it implicitly. It’s a package deal. As an example assume you want to buy as much of something - let’s call it X - would you rather buy just one of product X or, for the same price, buy product Y which contains several of product X along with it? In this case X is “something true” and Y is a sound argument.
@@mil401 a sound argument is just one where the premises are (empirically) justified… if it’s empirically justified. Then that premise has evidence to back it up, so just provide the evidence!
As for sound argument being better than a single piece of evidence, that’s like saying a dream of a car is better than an actual car. The dream car may look nicer than the real car, but I will get further by taking reality.
Finally, the biggest kicker is that reality doesn’t give a crap about logic! It doesn’t care how steeped in truth your premises are, or how logical your arguments are crafted, if they don’t comport to reality then they are irrelevant. But a single provable piece of evidence will always be true, and will decimate any and all arguments to the contrary. The bonus is that with evidence, I don’t have to have a phd in philosophy or logic to determine the “truth” of an argument, nor do I need to put forth my own arguments because I would have EVIDENCE to back me up.
@@Arlondev your iou analogy is spot on. An argument is just that, an iou, but your previous analogy presumed that an iou and a car were the same and evidently they are not.
Your ninjas also support my case as well, your arguments, are just that, arguments, until you showed the knife (actual evidence), then your arguments had credence. Evidence is always superior to argument, you can have infinitely numeral relevant arguments, but a single piece of evidence that counters them will always win. Nor can any argument invalidate a single piece of evidence. So like the original commenter, I would rather have a single piece of evidence over an number of arguments.
The burden of proof rests with god, not humans. A god, at least one worthy of the title and who cares about humans, does not require science or philosophy to make itself known. It would make itself unquestionably obvious to all people, everywhere, throughout all of history. Such a god clearly does not exist. Instead, we are left with tribal, hide and seek gods about which people can argue endlessly.
Instead we are to believe that the god created humanity, only to m,anifest itself to a tiny band of goat herds in the mid east, carefully concealing its existence from all other humans, so it could condemn all but its chosen people to hell for not choosing to believe in it. Of course the chosen are free to commit gencide if other people happen to be living on their promised land first. Or some such.
It’s not any god that is making the claim that a god exists. It’s humans making the claim, so they have the burden of proof for their claim.
@@FourDeuce01 Yes, I understand what you are saying, but humans can't provide verifiable evidence for their claims because their god has not provided any. Therefore, the burden of proof ultimately rests with their proposed god. If god chooses not to reveal itself, perhaps because it doesn't exist, there is nothing humans can do about it, other than make claims. Apologetics is essentially humans arguing about why god hasn't made itself known in an unquestionably obvious way.
@@ringramua When a god shows up, I’ll let him have his burden of proof, but until that happens, the only way religious apologists can get rid of their burden of proof is by proving their claim.😈
These guys all basically have the same arguments, even if they call them by different names.
Of course there could be 100+ arguments that are totally convincing to a xtian, bc it doesn't take anything to convince them; they're already convinced. They interpret the argument through a lens of already believing, it sounds good to them from that perspective, and as far as they're concerned, it's "valid and sound". Hopefully the dictionaries of the future won't define "valid and sound" as "supportive of one's favorite position".
yep, good point
All forms of apologetics are purely about keeping believers believing and not at all about convincing non-believers.
@@PhysiKarlz Well, the stated reasons seem to be both strengthening insiders' faith and weakening outsiders' skepticism from what I read when I look it up. That first goal is certainly easier to do, of course!
@@tkat6442 They say that about weakening skepticism but I think they're just bullshitting there.
@@PhysiKarlz I'm sure all of that varies, depending upon which apologist you ask.
If the unspecified "... 100+ logically valid ... arguments ..." are equivalent to others I've seen, I reserve the right to be sceptical.
Remember that the following is a logically valid argument:
1. 2+2=5 (false premise)
2. If 2+2>4, then 4+4>8 (true statement)
3. Therefore 4+4 is not equal to 8 (false solution)
Just because a premise is false does not make the argument invalid. The argument is valid because if the premises were all true, the conclusion would be true.
Hence, I reserve the right to be skeptical. What's your point?
if there are 100+ logically valid and sound arguments that prove god, why doesn't the person supply even 1?
As a studying logician; Deductive logic, which deals in absolute truth, can only operate under specific axioms. It's mainly used in things like semantics or mathematics, neither of which "exist" or are "real" but instead assume certain standardized axioms. You cannot demonstrate that anything necessarily exists using logic.
@North Korea Is Best Korea I am a mathematical, semantic, ethical, and aesthetic anti-realist, yes. The burden of proof to prove that these things are real has not been met, even if they can be internally, logically consistent. That's actually my point. Too many people think logic can support these, but it can't.
@@AbandonedVoid i had a great informal debate with someone who held similar positions.
I punched him in the arm, and asked him if he had been punched.
If anti-realism is true then it is only a possibility that he had been punched, and an illusory perception occurred.
So I punched him in the arm again.
This became an excuse to punch my pedantic friend in the arm more than anything else. It also does illustrate that the underlying position of solipsism, anti-realism, and other similarisms are really about huffing their own farts rather than determining the nature of reality.
@@WukongTheMonkeyKing 🤣, well put!
@@WukongTheMonkeyKing That has nothing to do with mathematical, semantic, ethical, or aesthetic anti-realism. That has to do maybe with metaphysical or ontological anti-realism. You are not only ignorant about what I'm addressing, but your "argument" is thoroughly anti-intellectual, too
@North Korea Is Best Korea Exactly! All of the things I mentioned can't be proven with logic. Realism would have to be demonstrated through empirical evidence, and it hasn't been.
I suppose it's possible Matt (along with the rest of us) is unaware of the 100+ logically valid and sound arguments for god. But it's pretty amazing that no theist caller to AXP, or similar call-in shows, has made any one of them to date. Maybe this commenter will be the first, but I won't hold my breath.
If they're anything like the logical proofs we've seen to date, we can reasonably be sceptical.
Really, 100+? Well, add 1000 to that and then get Jordan B. Peterson to come over and massage your metaphysical substrate because I'm certain it'll need attention.
There will still be no good evidence of any god(s) existence.
@@soonerarrow 😂😂😂 well said
Matt, I've listened to many many of your shows, some more than once. I don't quite remember you ever defining God. I know you say that others define it, and along with that they put claims, therefore you are either accepting or not... but I am wondering if you had to come up with a comprehensive, meaningful definition of God, what would that be? To me, many of those debates are in many ways meaningless as rarely I do see people agreeing on the definition of God, let alone God's "expression".
💌💌💌💌
I love this topic. I always felt that there was something wrong with the way apologists will try to appeal to philosophy to demonstrate gods existence. It seems as though god should be something that could be demonstrated in reality, not the abstract. All of the philosophical arguments fall short. They're consistently refuted with more compelling naturalistic explanations.
Taking into account that you can't prove the existence of anything with philosophy, that resort smells of desesperation.
I advise you to read the proof of God's existence to Aristotle
@@thedarkking32 Everybody knows about the unmoved mover. It's exactly the same argument that the causator without cause.
Exactly! You can't prove the existence of something using only philosophy.
@@thedarkking32 I have, it's not compelling or convincing. It presupposes god exists.
Thank you so much for making these videos. I always find them helpful, useful, insightful, educational, and entertaing.
What more can one ask? :)
Also, thank you (and the rest of the members of the ACA) for being there when I became an atheist.
When I first found "the Atheist Experience" in 2019, that's ALL I watched! No joke.
I sincerely wish I could've caught this on TV when it was on :)
I'll bet those "100+ logically valid and sound arguments" are Bible verses.
"Only fools say there are no gods" - Some Bible Verse
If we go by logic, then we arrive at no God , very quickly.
The commenter seems to confuse the use of terminology about logic and science to be equivalent to that of fractions and decimals, claiming the former being more accurate than the latter, spite it actually being just broader in its use of description.
Is there even such a thing as 'absolute truth"? How do you define it and what are examples of it?
💌💌💌💌)
Goo job, Matt.
💦
Sorry. Good job.
Matt, this is such a mellow response considering the acid tone of the post! I’m almost shocked! 😂🙏
Hey Matt. I took what he said about logic being more certain than science as; it is more certain that a triangle has three sides, or that there are no married bachelors, or that 2+2=4, than it is that archaeopteryx is a transitional for between dinosaurs and modern bird.
That's a charitable interpretation, and may well be exactly what the author meant. And I agree that we should always presume that interlocutors are trying to present the best and most honest arguments (until they demonstrate that they don't deserve that presumption). But it's still an example of generalizing from two cherry-picked extremes.
@@idahogie Not really, it's some examples of things that we know to be true exclusively via logic, and an example of a very well attested but ultimately empirical claim
@@Joseph-zi2pe
Here's why I think he was cherry-picking:
1. Here's something we know to be objectively true by logic only.
2. Here's something that is uncertain that we suspect may be true based on science.
3. Therefore logic is better at producing truth than science.
@@idahogie I don't see that as cherry picking. I think the word "better" is doing a lot of lifting there. It might be better in terms of the certainty it can produce. But it might not be better in terms of applicability and utility for example.
But I would still maintain that pure logic gives us more certain truths than empiricism does, and I'd go as far to say ever can.
@@Joseph-zi2pe "But I would still maintain that pure logic gives us more certain truths than empiricism does" - perhaps, but the "truths" of logic, such as your examples are tautological. Tautologies have their uses, to be sure, and are readily identifiable and declared "certain," but they are still less than impressive. On the other hand, empiricism might not reveal "truth" at all, but its none the worse for that. The demonstrable utility of empiricism is what makes it valuable, not its claims to "truth". Faulting a hammer for not being a screwdriver seems a little silly.
My metaphysical response to this response video
I like that you read these comments...I have been a fan of yours for over 10 years, and will continue to watch and listen as you continue searching for valid and sound arguments for god.
Your journey in searching for valid and sound arguments for god helped me to understand why I am a non-believer. I haven't yet found a valid and sound argument for a belief in a god. Until I am presented with a valid and sound argument for a belief in a god I will remain a non-believer.
This is how I learned to look for valid and sound arguments..
What is a lie, are words spoken that have no basis in reality, or basis on truth.
What is the truth, are words spoken that have a basis in truth, that is based on reality.
What is reality , are words spoken that have a basis in reality, that is based on truth.
It's funny, I read the title and the first answer that came to my mind was "because most philosophy is just mental masturbation that leads nowhere"
Perhaps I have some prejudices I need to reexamine.
Another take is :Philosophy is the mental exercise on subject that haven't been promoted to Science (yet if ever).
That reaction could stem from not knowing what philosophy even is, I have no great love for the study of philosophy but ultimately everything is contingent on applied philosophy, even mathematics is just applied philosophy.
I don't think that you meant "maturation", lol. Likely just a simple typo.
@@joshuaduncan8834 I thought the exact same thing... More like mental masturbation! 🤔😁
@@joshuaduncan8834 I can't believe I didn't catch that. Thanks for the headsmack. Guess my phone didn't expect me to say that.
Take A Moment
Matt my friend,
Is it just more mysterious ways?
Philosophy is in your mind, gods are a safe space for the flock.
Very sad, your work is vital.
Stay Safe and
Stay Free 🌐
I have so many logically valid and sound arguments for god that I won't even try to say 1 of those. check mate atheists
To see god everywhere is like seeing Elvis everywhere.
Speaks more about the psychology of the person rather than about reality
All god has to do is prove its existence...
Ok so I like to re-watch the shows many times :D
I must emphasis that the "Equivalence Principle" of Einstein's Relativity IS Identity-Metaphysics. Cognitive-Science IS Identity-Metaphysics. An adequate education in the Philosophy of Science is a requirement of post grad Physics, and certainly to get a phd; the reason is that experimental physics, and theoretical physics (by an old school philosophy of science, the only real Scientists (as opposed to Technicians) in the field) can only advance our understanding of science if they both understand what sciences findings have been, and what the philosophical implications have been.
Despite this person's insulting tone, you do present yourself as some version of logically inconsistent for you to speak on religion, world religion, mathematics, the philosophy of science etc etc that you routinely make understandable-errors, particularly when needing/wanting to speak unilaterally. When was the last time the you openly segregated Physicalist Impersonalists (spinsosa, Hegel) "god" concept, and practices like rational-personalism from your adressal of a Theistic, supernatural, and/or creationist God concept, and "faith?" You know the "Faiths" don't get to define religion and god for all of humanity. You may insist that it's clearly implied, or at least understood, but I'd say the "Texas Atheists" and the fundigelicals both are in the racket of pretending your slice of world culture is the whole cake, unless one side will actually take intellectual responsibility in the information age and stop lying. I know it makes your fight for the rationality of our culture with the faithheads and woo-woos (depak, crystal raven-moon, and maharishi yogi) a tiny bit harder (in a "lets-not-be-pedantic" way), and while I loved the brilliant insights in Penrose's Book with his orch theory in it, I see the braindead barrage of dishonest reads of Penrose being used by Creationists, or as evidence for their fckn Theistic God person concept.
Even that A-hole Jordan Peterson tried tricking Penrose into endorsing Peterson's theistic crappolah, but with no luck. What's Penrose talking about being being "consciousness"? Space-time geometry. What's the mysterious intelligent designer? Counterfactual implicate evolutionary processes in the nature of things in a universe, and time. Penrose is a physicalist, not a Theist.
Still, Matt, I wish for you to have the time, and financial security to study world religion/religious-anthropology at an adult level, and to study the history of the philosophy of science, as well as it's current state. I think you'd be enriched by the Upanishads, and Sutras, but you are certainly right that one can get the same "start" in "Identity Metaphysics" when you learn about it is the study of the history of the philosophy of science (when you get to the space-time/quantum-revolutions). Learn some Information-theory ("knowledge wants to be free," "intelligence/life is anti-entropy", etc) and maybe you might even foresee some post-human technological-singularity issues arise as the technologies that will really determine, or overlook the metaphorical ghost in the machine.
Lamda the google neural-net talk-bot already passed the turing test, and we know Lamda is just a compulsive storyteller with evolving statical linguistic-associations and a bunch of cleaver freed-back loops. Im not sure that it is impossible to fake, or repress a conscious observer behind the wheel. I know the horrors of behaviorism have been pushing, or even counting on the inner world of the self being a manufactured/able illusion for almost a century (yet cognitive science, and humanist developmental gestalt psychology has not conceded). You know what was a bizarre implication of discovering that both particle physics and social sciences had to work in statistical realities, and not simple mechanical binary cause and effect, present or not-present, true or false?
I was concerned that the Debunkers war with the hucksters and fundigelicals would try and crush a generation of young scientists willingness to develop and engage their faculties for suppositional thinking; but Im was being an alarmist, not only did Sabine (the woohoo gatekeeper of physics) put out a bunch of "physics explained" videos talking about why we don't do "Debunkers" Science, and what was wrong with the "Skeptics society's" reasoning as science... ultimately. She did a Fckn Video call how I learned to Love Pseudo-Science, and then even videos debunking mistaken dismissals of the physical reality of quantum superposition and state-reduction, and a lot of good science communicators did similarly; Of Course, thats just what soothed my animal anxiety; In reality the Flynn Effect is UnBroken. We do keep getting smarter, and more willing to engage in suppositional thinking, across the board and across the world, decade after decade, regardless of ridiculous fears of power of culture to repress a healthy mind.
Please ... PLEASE.... please... raise your volume by at least 60%....
Your videos are great for hearing while doing an activity like say walking or washing dishes or gardening or cooking or driving or or or ... all stuff that entails too much ambient noise and using blootooth headsets that do not have very high amplification.
If the volume is too loud for the sensibility of some they can always dial their device's volume down... but if the volume is too low even when a device's volume is dialed all the way up then there is nothing one can do... so it is better to have the video source volume be louder than lower.
I use the very same setup to listen to other things like Netflix, or Audible or Prime Video ... and other TH-cam channels... and all are fine... so it is not my equipment.
Please..... PLEASE.....please....raise your volume by at least 60%. The video volume is totally fine....
@@kl7985 I am glad it was ok for you ... it was not for me... and the same device in exactly the same place but viewing other videos had good volume ... so it is not my device ...
Volume is the same as his other vids, dunno what you are on about.
@@michvroom8784 ... yes... it is ... and I have already made the same comment many times on other videos of his.
The volume is fine if I am on a PC with amplified speakers and sitting in a room.
If I am using bluetooth headsets from an iPhone while walking or gardening or washing dishes or in the Mall or driving or doing any activity other than sit down in a quiet room... it is a pain to try and hear it.
@@michvroom8784 ... even if sitting in a quiet room ... if I am eating anything crunchy... the sound of my eating drowns out the video sound.
Listening to these videos is something nice to do while doing other activity that does not require thinking.... and that means too much ambient sound and on devices that do not have high volume ability.
My thoughts are that the Hebrew Bible does not belong to the Jewish people or that the New Testament only belongs to Christians or the Quran to Islam. These writings belong to all of humankind including those that don't believe in the writings.
I'm fuzzy in the way of describing myself as either an Atheist or an Agnostic. I enjoy the writings and I like to cherry pick through the writings for those points that I agree with and then discard those those I find objectionable. But when I do this, I find that I know fall under the label of being an Atheist as I don't accept the core tenets of these religions. I find myself thinking that these religions would be improved if they just redacted all references to God and updated sections that are no longer valid as science has progressed our understanding of the natural world. But then they would no longer be religions.
I suppose that makes me an Atheist by default and yet I still enjoy reading these writings as it gives me an insight into the people of that time. I have no problem going to church. A friend asked that I go with him as it was a special day as he was being raised in the Church of Apostles. I was happy for him and rejoiced in his accomplishment and listened throughout the sermon. Another time I was talking with a Christian and asked if it were proven that there was no God, Devine Jesus or resurrection would she still remain a Christian? Her answer was no and then I found myself arguing the case for Christianity as it does have good points. That just because there is no God, shouldn't mean that you should throw the baby out with the bath water. I found myself, as an Atheist, arguing for Christianity. -Ain't that "f" up.
I do try not to argue with someone's religion as I want to hear their own interpretations and I don't want to influence them or change their beliefs. Their belief makes up part of who they are - why would I want to change that. However, I do have issues with religious leaders and apologists because they have studied these writings along with other contemporary writings and should not have to rely on obfuscation or fallacious arguments to demonstrate that their God is the right God. At a point in listening to religious leaders and apologist my mind just shuts down and the voice in my head just wants to say to them "Oh come on, you don't really believe this sh^&?."
-Just my opinion.
Matt reads the comments??? Oh dear! I better behave better from now on! (
Me too ...
@@ericscaillet2232 😆😇
If this God was real, the religious wouldn't have to jump through so many hoops. Any real God would be evident and we wouldn't need apologists.
Funny, I still mourn that we lost literally to those who wanted to use it wrong.
Coming soon, a mathematical formula for the christian god.
The commenter is partially correct. It's likely that there is no scientifically valid evidence for god because god doesn't EXIST in any detectable way, in other words in any way that affects the physical, measureable universe. If so, we can set that matter to rest.
Is there anything else left over which is worth investigating? We do have a vast "universe" of concepts and formalisms which I, as a computer scientist, can appreciate has an interesting sort of EXISTENCE not necessarily dependent on physical reality.
We usually think of concepts as being the products of a mind, thus ultimately grounded in the physical processes of the hardware on which the mind runs. I see no reason to propose some other grounding for mind. But it's a somewhat more open question as to whether or not concepts can have EXISTENCE independent of a mind. Consider for example Euclid's famous proof that √2 is irrational. Does such a proof require the mind of Euclid to produce it, or is it valid regardless of whether anyone knows of its existence? It's an odd sort of EXISTENCE, to be sure, but there does seem to be something more than arbitrary about it.
In other words, did the proof have to be created, or was it sort of just lying around waiting to be discovered? Ask a dozen mathematicians and you'll get a dozen different answers. Perhaps that qualifies it as a philosophical question.
I want to stay with this idea for a little longer. Set aside for the moment what conceptual existence might mean, and let's just look at the set of all possible concepts. (That is a countably infinite set, by the way.) Euclid's proof is certainly a concept. It happens to be a coherent one. There is also a concept almost like Euclid's proof, but flawed in some way, so that it's not coherent. There are similarly concepts that amount to random noise. And these are all equally first class members of the set of all concepts. Whatever we might say about EXISTENCE applies to all of them.
What this tells us is that the "something more than arbitrary" is not a general property of concepts, but whatever it is that distinguishes an interesting concept from noise. And detecting this, I would argue, requires a mind. Sure, Euclid's proof might have just been lying around all along, but it's just one grain of sand on a beach. You could (weakly) say that it's discovered. But the act of discovery isn't itself significant. It's the act of recognition that picks it out from all the other grains of sand, and that requires an understanding of the principles of proof construction. We have to work through the proof in order to verify its validity. So you could equally, perhaps more strongly, say that it's created.
Now we can properly turn to god as a concept, and what sort of EXISTENCE can be claimed for it. Without any further qualification, we know that this concept has as much existence as any other in the set of all possible concepts, some of which are coherent and some of which are noise. If a given god concept is incoherent noise, the properties of its base conceptual existence are no more interesting than any other noise.
So the real question to ask is which is it, signal or noise, in the case of a given god concept? And further, under what conditions would even a coherent signal be interesting? After all, every tautology is a coherent concept, but these are not generally regarded as interesting.
So, roughly speaking then, I'd be looking for a god concept that has at least the same sort of unifying richness of meaning as Euclid's proof. A good mathematical proof, such as Kurt Gödel's two proofs of undecidability, might qualify as a kind of conceptual god. And if that's not a good match to popular expectation of what a god should be, too bad. It may well be the best we can expect from developing this line of argument.
Matt has often pointed out - and I agree - that defining god as equivalent to something else is not just unnecessary but also problematic because of the implicit baggage that it brings with it. Calling something a formal proof is a claim of mathematical rigor. I think we should stick with that.
If someone has an emotional need to call it god, that's a private matter for them, I guess. It will remain a source of confusion for them, but relatively harmless.
Yah, I'll just stick with" ^x AND ^y = ^(x OR y)
The commenter claiming that logic alone is better for find the truth of reality than science is a direct example of someone believing illogical things thinking they are logical. This is exactly why logic does not outweigh research based science, because as he showed in his comment a great many people's "logic" are exceptionally biased and unable to show direct evidence as well as falsely equating everything towards their own beliefs.
prefer scientism to spiritism..
Right? If there's an option the choice is clear.
Where's Arden? I miss her voice.
💌💌💌💌
One thing that baffles me is the number of philosophers who actually have a degree - meaning they have studied the thing - and who are engaging in all kinds of metaphysical arguments for a god. A god which they often admit (or even proudly claim) is undetectable by science, only to suddenly come up with personal claims of the sort "and here is why I believe this god is the christian god". And after this admission no argument follows, just personal opinions. And you ask yourself how the eff did they get from a vague metaphysical entity to the judeo-christian god who was founded by the bible and who according to the biblical description of his interactions with the world should be very detectable to science.
Makes you think those guys have chosen the wrong profession.
Theology is considered to be part/branch of Philosophy just like Politics or Epistemology.
It usually goes by the name of Philosophy of religion.
@@ari1234a Theology and philosophy of religion are two different disciplines. Some universities will offer double majors/degrees in both (I think it's mandatory to do both together at Oxford) but they are fundamentally two different approaches. Theologians use hermeneutics and exegesis, whereas philosophers of religion (about half of whom are atheists) use propositional/predicate/modal logic to explore both arguments for/against God's existence and what properties it could potentially have.
@@mil401 Yea, but You can get degree of Philosophy in Theology.
"Doctor of Theology (Latin: Doctor Theologiae, abbreviated DTh, ThD, DTheol, or Dr. theol.) is a terminal degree in the academic discipline of theology.
The ThD, like the ecclesiastical Doctor of Sacred Theology, is an advanced research degree equivalent to the Doctor of Philosophy."
"In the academic study of theology, often deeply rooted in the Christian religion, the nomenclature of doctoral degrees varies between Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Philosophy, and Doctor of Sacred Theology. However, Doctor of Ministry is generally understood as a professional doctorate, whereas Doctor of Divinity is a higher academic doctorate, often awarded honoris causa."
@@ari1234a True. Though, one could also get a doctorate of philosophy in economics: but philosophy and economics are still different fields with different methods. Physicists with PhD's have the word "philosophy" in their degree title, but that doesn't also make them philosophers or their field a branch of philosophy, surely?
Philosophy inevitably will overlap with every other field at least a little bit, and though theologians and philosophers of religion often engage with each other's work, what separates the two distinct fields is their methodology. Theologians use hermeneutics and exegesis, whereas philosophers of religion use argumentation that makes use of propositional/predicate/modal logic.
Theology isn't a branch of philosophy any more than economics or physics are.
@@mil401 No i do not imply that being a doctor in mathematics is the same as doctor in medicine.
OP asked "One thing that baffles me is the number of philosophers who actually have a degree - meaning they have studied the thing - and who are engaging in all kinds of metaphysical arguments for a god."
There were people who wrote philosophical works and were theists and fiercely defended their god.
George Berkley, Thomas Aquinas, etc.
Do you disagree that as a Doctor of Philosophy you cannot be a Doctor of Theology or vice versa ?
How can I donate money for your work? I don't see subscription button
"Valid and sound" is redundant, since (by definition) every sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. The person is right that there are people who believe there are sound arguments for the existence of God. But there are also those who believe there are no sound arguments for the existence of God. Determining which of these stances is correct is not a matter of mere arrogant assertion. What is certainly true is that there are no arguments for the existence of God that are uncontroversially accepted as sound, and this remains true even among theists.
That’s true. I’m not sure where this notion that validity has to do just with an argument’s structure comes from?
In my uni logic textbook “Logic (2012) by N. Smith,” validity refers to whether or not an argument’s structure is truth preserving _and_ the premises are sound.
@M C its because you have it backwards. Validity in logic has always referred to structure, and even the phrase you quoted "truth preserving" refers to the structure.
Soundness has always referred to truth of the premises, but often, it includes that the argument is also valid. This is something that varies over time and across sources. Likely because the word " soundness" has many uses not tied to validity.
Except that over time, across fields, subfields etc, soundness doesn't always include validity, and because of constant use (or misuse) of the phrase "valid and sound).
As to the rest, soundness also includes, by implication at least, that the premises are not just true but demonstrated to be true.
So currently, there are no sound and valid arguments for god.
13:44 is the information from the video I was looking for, as I was trying to figure out why when cornered a theist went straight into trying to talk about "metaphysics" and wanted to stay there...
People haven't used 'literally' incorrectly - they've used it HYPERBOLICALLY. And the hyperbolic use of 'literally' became so common that it has become another accepted meaning of the word.
People really need to get over the fact that word uses change over time. Every single day we all use words in ways that would have once been considered "incorrect."
Good point! I still hear people lament the addition of another meaning to the word "gay", which is great IMO, bc the word "homosexual" sounds too clinical. Life is change. Get over it, people!
Wicked comment.
People use it incorractly all the time. Hyperbole requires intent. You can't use a word hyperbolically if you don't know the definition of the word.
With that being said, the definition of "literally" has changed to also mean "figuratively". So now they're not using it incorrectly.
@@friendo6257 They literally made it so you can’t use it incorrectly.
@@G_Demolished If by "they" you mean the people who publish dictionaries you're sort of correct. They don't "make" it any way, they describe the way people use the word.
If by "they" you mean people who use words, then yes, they did. But I prefer to use "we" in that situation.
Claiming to be able to detect the undetectable violates the law of non contradiction, which lies in the category of philosophy, which is the category that the commenter says that this topic belongs in. Am I wrong?
Belief system is beyond pandemic
At 9:00 Matt objects to the claim that "We can use logic to know some things beyond the limitations of the scientific method ... given that absolute truth exists in logic but never in science."
I agree with Matt, but I'm not sure that his treatment of the matter is entirely clear.
In fact, science places a MORE DEMANDING test of a given proposition than formal reasoning does. Formal results only have to be internally coherent. Scientific results ADDITIONALLY have to comport with observation.
The quoted argument presents science as having "limitations," suggesting that it's therefore impoverished. On the contrary, whenever we move from the general to the specific, we should EXPECT the field to narrow. Indeed, it would be bizarre if it did not! And the fact that specific criteria produce fewer results than general criteria is not the fault of methodology, it's a simple result from set theory.
So yes, we can derive "absolute truth" in formal systems, which is both lovely and useful (though as a computer scientist I shudder at the term "absolute truth.") But here also is where a kind of Equivocation Fallacy is smuggled into the argument, because this "absolute truth" is set up, by implication, as BETTER than empirical truth.
That claim has not yet been justified. In WHAT SENSE better? And how would you validate that? Herein lies the equivocation.
Reading theoretical philosophy really requires getting used to the flight of the imagination.
You must really enjoy gazing at your own navel for hours in order to tolerate theoretical philosophy.
One can never find that which does not exist.
This reminds me of a clip from Babylon 5, "What is Truth and what is God?" on youtube. G'Kar comes up with some great philosophy, but then the person just asks the question again, so he sighs and comes up with some bullshit that they think is insightful.
Hi Matt, I'm glad to see that you are keeping well. Thank you for all these great videos - keep them coming please!! I think you should apply for a Lectureship position in Philosophy at the University of Oxford (England). I mean that seriously. And - have you ever thought about doing a video on the philosophy (and even the metaphysics) of Quantum Mechanics? All the Best Matt. Thanks again.
Wouldn’t one need a PhD and a competitive track-record of published papers in order to even apply for a position like that? Getting a lectureship at one of Oxford's collages is especially quite difficult; Matt might be a successful atheist communicator (in the same way there are are science communicators out there like Bill Nye), but I’m not aware of any novel research he has published in philosophy, religious studies or theology?
The philosophy of quantum mechanics? Where does human thinking come into fundamental physics?
In addition; Yes, Buddhism, Humanism, Confuciunism, and many other Nontheistic philosophies are called religion. This is so that the people who are following them are valid and deserve the same level of respect as religions.
Generally agree with you except... I think most philosophers (although probably not a plurality of scientists) would categorize the physical sciences as a subset of metaphysics. Epistemology, which, I believe, is firmly in the realm of metaphysics, is fundamental to the physical sciences (a.k.a. Natural Philosophy.) I would be entertained to hear Dr. Richard Carrier's take on it.
Regarding the rest of your comments - spot on.
Epistemology is metaphysical because of the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Pragmatism is the attempt to remove metaphysics from epistemology by demonstrating that "truth," as classically conceived, is irreverent.
@@ericb9804 I think you meant "irrelevant" - although "irreverent" is far more amusing... I think Matt's description of science's role in logic - determining the truth value of a proposition - would remove that ploy of Pragmatism, as you defined it, from the debate.
Although ultimately undiscoverable, truth (defined as the actual nature of reality) is never irrelevant. Science is the process of developing models of the truth that produce increasingly accurate predictions (and therefore can be said to be closer to the truth.)
Thanks!! rbs
Doh!
@@robertbrucescott8278 so truth is "ultimately undiscoverable," yet also important, for some reason, apparently?
"Science is the process of developing models of the truth that produce increasingly accurate predictions" - No, not "models of truth," models of information. Our predictions are based on our information, our experiences, but we don't need to insist that these experiences or these models are "real" in order to make use of them. It simply doesn't matter if they are "real" or not. Truth is irrelevant.
You are just doubling down on your metaphysics.
@@ericb9804 At some point that becomes a distinction without a difference. The argument that leads to the idea that reality does not matter, sounds an awful lot like the "brain in a vat" argument. (Which, if you follow the "simulated ancestors" model, might have some credence.) Whether our experience is physical or simulated, it arises from some sort of reality, which, while not ultimately discoverable to our limited monkey-brains and monkey-senses (or simulations thereof), continues to provide the experiences that generate the information from which our models are constructed and to which they appeal for validation. I would go so far to say that would apply to a Boltzmann Brain.
Thanks!! rbs
Here is a sound logical argument without empirical justification. P1: The Laws of Thought exist. P2: To say the contrary would entail a contradiction. C: since this is not 'the contrary', the argument is valid.
@@Patchowisky you claimed it was sound and valid... it's neither
If god is only philosophical then it is only a concept and not a reality !
Logic can only be used when the premises can be proven
I would love to see 1 logically valid argument for god
This one reminds me of that old definition of faith put forth by Ambrose Bierce. - "Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
It's the notion of "things without parallel," that reminded me of it. It's not that science *can't* explore the possible existence of a god, or "God," it's that it has no starting point. It doesn't even have a clear definition of what the thing is its looking for. In fact: Every concept of a god that humans have ever had could be wrong, to some degree or another, and yet, there still be an (albeit inexplicable) entity that upon discovery we would call "God." Based on that, I just don't see science as the proper tool to get started with. Once you define it and are able to have some idea of what to test for, then science can come to the table.
So, while I agree with your assessment of this comment, and find the comment itself to have many rational flaws, I get why many believe it's not a scientific question at all. We're talking about a thing that has no parallel in reality. How does one apply the scientific method to that? All you can do is apply the method to claims made about what it supposedly has done within time and space, but even if those claims are demonstrated to be false, it doesn't really tell us much more than the claim itself was wrong. There could still be a god.
"You've made a category error."
I think they did, since they put the abrahamic god in the philosophical category when we're talking about whether or not it's *REAL.*
💌💌💌💌
Matt, this is God. You are right, I don't exist. Thanks
💌💌💌💌)
Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box.
Commenter - //We can use logic to know some things beyond the limitations of the scientific method with more certainty than any current scientific consensus, given absolute truth exists in logic but never in science.//
The common denominator shared by both philosophy and science is that they use deductive logic. The difference between the two disciplines is science uses inductive logic and philosophy does not. In science, if there is ever a conflict between induction and deduction, induction wins. Within the philosophical realm, valid and sound deduction wins because there is no induction to confront.
I consider religion to be a branch of philosophy because of the lack of testing of their ideas. (Science tests - philosophy does not.) Testing ideas provide a method to ground a particular deductive line of reasoning in reality. The history of science is filled with many examples of deductive arguments tested that were shown to be false artifacts of mankind's minds, no matter how beautiful or convincing their ideas were.
Is the God hypothesis one of these false ideas? Can it even be tested? According to the commenter, the concept of God is not necessary to test because it is not a scientific problem, it is a philosophical one. However, asserting God can be proved as absolute truth in deductive logic is an easy pronouncement to claim - but a bit more difficult to actually provide.
It is telling there is no detailed deduction given. Perhaps because there is none?
Logic vs Science. Just compare the results of the "Monty Hall problem" using logic vs experiment and see which is most certain and accurate.
I've heard it argued that literally is sometimes, even by it's old definition, used correctly when it means figuratively. That's based on the belief that it's not people who don't know it's meaning, but on people who are using it for sarcastic emphasis.
💌💌💌💌
I'm not sure I understand all of this...but it sounds good
Genuine attempt at dialog: This video is an example of Matt struggling with what is left of the "theism" implicit in traditional epistemology (as many atheists do). Atheism demands pragmatism as epistemology. Pragmatist epistemology is the elimination of metaphysics; the dissolution (as opposed to "solution") of traditional philosophical problems regarding "truth."
"Science doesn't make truth claims." (7:36) Correct, which is how we know "truth," in the sense you mean, doesn't matter. i.e. the claims of science are demonstrably useful without necessarily being "true." Scientific models are useful, but we don't need to declare that they are "of reality" to make use of them. Utility is the only epistemology we need because...
"Whether or not the premises are actually true is a metaphysical question about what truth is" (7:05). Again correct, but your claim (or rather "acceptance") that "truth" is "that which comports with reality" (7:14) is the metaphysics at the heart of traditional epistemology. Yet, as you point out later, "Metaphysics doesn't get you anywhere" (13:50).
Which motivates Matt to discuss how neither "Science" nor "Logic" can "produce truth," (9:20) yet continue to proceed under the implication that this "truth" is important for some reason. But why should we care about a "truth" that means "correspondence," if we acknowledge that we have no way to access it?
The Correspondence Theory of Truth is a variation of the theist idea that we are to stand in relation to the non-human to achieve what we value. This is Matt's "theism."
My final claim: "Truth," as "correspondence to reality" is metaphysical in the same way that "god" is metaphysical, i.e. they are both non-demonstrable and thus irrelevent. Scientific claims are "justifiable," and scientific claims are always relative to both an audience and a utility. This "justification" to each other for a purpose is the only "truth" we need. This is pragmatism.
You defined truth, but you forgot to define reality.
@@juanausensi499 I'm not sure I know what you mean, if you care to explain, but I'm not sure "reality" needs a "definition."
I know, in an operational sense, what my experiences are and I know what counts as justification, for those are both human endeavors. And this is all I need to make use of a non-correspondence notion of "truth" so I don't see what you seem think "defining reality" would achieve.
@@ericb9804 You definition of truth relies on the concept of reality. No denition of reality means no definition of truth.
You know your experiences but that's not reality, that's your experiences. Not everybody agrees in what 'real' means (for example, moral realists vs moral antirealists). The concept of reality is really the keystone here: you can trace entire worldviews to diferente definitions of reality (materalists, mystics, you name it)
@@juanausensi499 "You definition of truth relies on the concept of reality" - No. My "definition of truth," to the extent pragmatism can be said to have one, is something like "a true statement is a statement that humans find justified, and justification is only relative to an audience and a goal." The whole point of a "deflationary theory of truth," which I am advocating, is that it can be used and understood only in terms of human value and goals. There is no "reliance" on "reality." In other words...
"You know your experiences but that's not reality, that's your experiences" - Yes, exactly. Given that I only know my experiences, but not "reality" why bother trying to speak about "reality" at all? Why not just focus on our experiences and let "reality" be as it may?
@@ericb9804 Because personal experiences can sometimes be shared by others, and sometimes not. The experience of a physical object, let's say a rock in a beach, can be shared by anybody that goes to the beach and looks at the rock. But if somebody dreams of a rock on a beach, or hallucinates about it, that experience is not shareable. Human values and goals don't need to be involved. We can observe animals experiencing the rock all the same.
The set of all those things that can be observed and shared, no matter the observer, it's what I call reality. As you can see, we have different definitions, so providing yours is required when you are trying to define what is truth for you.
Sir, Philosophizing without experimentation is what you are boxing Metaphysics into.
I've known many Physicists and mathematicians, absolutely physicalists who non-the-less outline Thermodynamics, and principles of thermodynamics as Metaphysics, and spend their fckn careers inventing ways to test it and learn from it. They did so, and it correlated with select theories form the past with less ability to test. While the person your addressing may have used the term Deism, I hope you recognize a different between the Theism/Deism and Radical-/Rational-Personalism.
I've been coming to have the differences shoved in my face by continued contact with the "faithful" (abrahamic historic literalist devotionalists). If not, I'm becoming ever more aware of the VARY significant differences (in part because so many in SantMat, ISKCON and Sikhi want to focus only on this one-world-religion pluralist view that all religions must have the same wisdom at their core, but Historic Literalist "Faith" and Consciousness-centered Personalism are not remotely the same except in the most superficial ways; a Hare Krishna devotee trying to imagine and build a connection with a Krishna consciousness within their own consciousness is not the same as a Theist who knows they knows they knows they know nothing but their bible-dogma, and the fear of the lord, or even MOST of the "deists"/soft Historic Literalism.)
That said, I certainly have my issues with what I'd call "Irrational Personalism" in which the actual aim seems to be to confuse one's self, and baith in psychoactive zelotry.
matt read Michelangelo Pe's comment from a week ago!
If only this god they are claiming to be so powerful and glorious to appear and actually show himself, right? Or maybe just send those graphic angels described in their holy book to send a message to humanity that this god does exists. Until that, expect people to "go to hell" cause it's becoming more apparent that just believing blindly isn't working. Or maybe, it is working as this god intends since he's not even showing himself like he did thousands of years ago according to his claimed words.
Don't be lazy in Matt's comments or he might just dunk on you for 20 minutes.
Exactly
I have a million logically valid and sound arguments against the existence of every god, but I left them in my other pants.
💌💌💌💌
"100+ valid and sound arguments for God ". Yet fails to provide 1 sound and valid argument. Hmmm.....
💌💌💌💌
If something exists it must manifest in the universe so you must be able to provide evidence for its existence. The philosophy has limits, and one of them is proving the existence of something. No philosophical thinking can prove anything to exist, at most it can prove it is possible for it to exist. I am planning to make a video about this at some point since the difference is very important and is missed by many people.. Also, is there any good argument for a god? I have never heard about it yet..
Most individuals who bring up metaphysics, (99.9) are really just discussing their personal opinions and biases. Very few people stick to the topic or the definition at hand. So frustrating. I didn't watch the video because I've likely seent it dozens of times in the past. I just wanted to make this point. I would hope that someone would correct me if I'm wrong. Minus the seent, it is the interweb. This is a no troll go zone. Or maybe a no go troll zone. I will decide at a later date.
Apparently, he is unaware of the one hundred plus logically valid and sound rebuttals of the arguments for gods.
Metaphysics is so called because in a particular version of Aristotle's works, it was the book bound after, or next in the scroll after, his _Physics._ That's all it means: physically after _Physics_ in a particular copy.
Here's to Blind Faith:
th-cam.com/video/6FYAW_6kAEw/w-d-xo.html
Matt, I had an argument with someone that decided to try to push deism onto me the other day (I was discussing the reasons that I am an atheist). In the ending, when he had me so irritated that I couldn't be polite anymore, I told him he, "couldn't point to any evidence, because if you could it wouldn't be deism, and without evidence the claim is irrational."
Is my reasoning sound and valid?
@North Korea Is Best Korea i asked Matt, not you.
@North Korea Is Best Korea explain then.
Anytime someone resorts to insults, rather than reason or logic (i.e. agree with me or you are incompetent),
it is reasonable to suspect that they are unable to demonstrate their point with logic or reason.
Have you ever tried teaching science?
Ever try doing it on a debate show over the phone with people who've invested a lot in maintaining the image of authority?
Did you know that Matt is compeltely ignorant of the larger half of world philosophy on Logic? But a bunch of fckn Texan ex-theists aren't going to notice, so Matt's lagging self education and large gaping holes in his world view (or at least about world religion, psychology, the philosophy of science, etc.) goes unnoticed, unchallenged and unchanged.
The texas Atheists are living in the monkey house. They are used to being reductively teleological, intellectually lazy/dishonest, and attracted to authoritarian hierarchies of leaders and leadership anyway.
Traci Haris used to be a counterbalance to Matts shere ignorance and anglocentrism, at least for a decade she was. Now she's gone and Matt STILL wont take a fcking class on religious anthropology, a class on psychology, or hell ANY ANY ANY course of the philosophy of science. NO Matt LOVES his ignorance, and he's basically on the verge of being an outright deceptive science communicator- a pusher of pseudo-science "anthropology".
Its been over a decade of seeing Matt get correct, of seeing him lie about world religion, of seeing him slander better thinkers than him without having ever studied them or their ideas. Matt used to have Traci to negate these flaws with her education and perspective, but that was a long time ago now.
Ive run out of good-assumptions to apologies for Matt with this.
Can prophesy find God seems to be coming true. Let's get all the naysayers and scoffers in here, prophesied about that too. Must be why they said blessed are those who have not seen but believe. Amen
Of course, if G-d is real, and interacts with the material works, then it would be the business of science to quantify those interactions.
The basic gettier problem
Of philosophy That it’s contingency Is based on its definition of justified and warranted belief
💌💌💌💌)
For any argument to be valid and sound philosophically or otherwise you rely on your own judgement of what qualifies the validity and soundness. I guess that means you would know everything therefore being all knowing qualifies you as the greatest human alive today. Sounds logical and valid to me lol