Видео

Yes! I recorded over FaceTime instead of Zoom, my mistake!

I can barely hear it either 😂

Are you serious? Do you know what necessity means in philosophy?

@@cogitoergosum3433 yes you brain let that’s my point. If it’s necessary at t=0 it would still be necessary at t=1 for example if you believe god is the necessary initial item. For oppys view it’s perfectly reasonable to ask where did this necessary stuff go?

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Well not quite, though I see your reasoning. However, the reasoning Oppy uses is very different and hard to refute if you’re a theist (which is why he is not convinced by theism) and made more difficult by virtue of the creation ex nihilo. You will recall that Craig (and Loke) argue for creation ex nihilo, that is creation from absolutely no thing at all. However, both theist and atheist agree and accept that nothing can come from nothing, Craig’s supports this with his ‘nothing can come from nothing, nothing has no potentiality, etc’. (Accepting that there is no logical contradiction entailed in creation from nothing by nothing and Alexander Vilenkin shows this is possible by no cause using the known laws of physics). There are two problems theists often gloss over. Neither physicists or cosmologists agree that was ever a state of nothing at all. What is absolutely known is that the universe that the stuff of the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state. Not only does this mean there is no creation from absolute nothing known (the evidence shows otherwise), but that this state would also be timeless, spaceless and contain an immense amount of potential energy (what Craig calls powerful) and we know that energy does not require anything, not even a mind to actuate an event. So, what can we conclude? 1. There is never (insofar as is known) a state of no thing at all. 2. If there is never a state of no thing then it must necessarily contain everything that becomes the universe, including fine tuning etc. 3. If follows logically and necessarily from the above that as the universe cannot be created from nothing, then the stuff of the universe must, by axiomatic definition, exist necessarily. In the past both Craig and Loke in debate with Graham Oppy have tried to assert that the necessary state of the universe is proceeded by a further necessary state, i.e god. Of course, this is absurd as this is in effect arguing that an explanation of the explanandum is needed (which both argue is absurd when god is reasoned to be necessary, but oddly when god is not implicated they demand an explanation, much in the way an atheist may ask what is the explanation of god. One of the few times I’ve seen Oppy annoyed is when Loke tries to pull this trick and Loke misquotes Oppy’s argument. So you can see that neither Craig or Oppy can provide a valid and sound argument that can unseat Oppy or even give him the slightest cause to reconsider his position, even if we assume creatio ex nihilo, as on the theists own argument nothing comes from nothing. But even if we accept Vilenkins argument, oddly Craig doesn’t cite Vilenkin when he does not conclude the god possibility, then the laws of physics show god is not necessary for anything. Craig and Loke both know this, but never make explicit the implications of Oppy’s valid and sound argument, which not only philosophically robust, but is supported by evidence. So, to conclude, as you do, that the necessary condition is god, is to deny the arguments of Craig and Oppy on grounds of logic, physics and, more importantly, Christian doctrine and theology. I hope I have made clear the way theists claims are formed, means that Oppy is perfectly and rationally justified to reject theist claims. In other words claiming that the stuff of the universe not only did exist, but necessarily had to exist (it could not not existed) with all the potentials to do what’s happened. And all this follows from theist / atheist agreement that from nothing, nothing comes. The atheist clause for this to be true something had to necessarily true. And if so, the theists claim of ex nihilo creation is self refuting. But as I showed even if creatio ex nihilo is possible, Vilenkin is able to show that at the very least, based on the known evidence and laws of physics, god is unnecessary, and can be dispensed with by the use of Occabd razor (as citing god is a wheel in the cog that performs no function in the argument). Peace.

@@cogitoergosum3433 I had to skim over your wall of text because I am busy and don't really have time to get in a deep philosophical debate in a youtube comment section man. Why would you assume I agree with Loke or Craig? I think God is temporal. You sound pretty limited on which theists you follow. I suggest looking into Ryan Mullins more. Most contemporary physicists currently do HOLD that the initial conditions are contingent. I'm not arguing for the kalam here. But putting all that aside I do believe Kenny Pearce in the debate book with Oppy pointed out flaws in his thinking and that Oppy needs to explain how his version aligns with current science.

@@cogitoergosum3433 Josh Siwuade has a paper countering Oppy naturalism and when you analyze first autonomous fact that attributes fit God more. Also if you are thomistic you are arguing initial items essence=existence. Which attributes that fit God more than some natural item.

I am not familiar with Jay Dyer unfortunately. Neither have I looked into transcendental arguments yet.

Yes. @jason1234567yubhjnklkm

Idk man I think it’s fine to hope for the truth of theism. Especially since I think the evidence is counterbalanced, why not wager for a position that offers an afterlife? As opposed to rotting in the ground? I recognise that this applies uniquely to me. It sounds like you’re pretty settled on the issue. I can only ask that you recognise that others are not as convinced as you are; surely that counts for something in your book.

It was talked about in the video, and shown again in your reply (which I appreciate you taking the time to make) that your reasons are emotional rather than logical. Which is why it is so frustrating to someone convinced that theism is not only untrue but irrational. I respect that everyone views the world differently but I think you are allowing your fear of death to sit on the same side of the scale as the evidence for theism, and only for that reason does it even raise the atheist side off the ground. If I may ask you a question, you seem to desire an afterlife and it appears that you assume that afterlife will be a good one. What percentage chance of an eternity in hell would you be willing to take the gamble on before non-existence becomes preferable? For me if there was even a one in a billion chance that I go to hell and the rest of the time I go to eternal bliss, or I could opt out and just stop existing, there is no way I would take that gamble. The risk is far too high.

@@betadecay6503thx for the response! I probably didn’t talk much about the reasons why I find the evidence to be counterbalanced in this video simply because (1) I’m still learning philosophy (2) I’ve heard Nathan talk about these arguments a lot and didn’t want to have him repeat a lot of what he’s already said; however, I haven’t heard much of his thoughts on negative theology and fideism. As for hell…I think at this point one’s theology will come into play. For my part, I think there are overwhelming reasons to be a universalist in this respect. On that view, there is (ultimately) eternal bliss for everyone. Perhaps if hell was required I would not lean toward theism anymore. The overarching theme of the conversation was what should I do if (1) I think the philosophical and scientific evidence is ambiguous with respect to Gods existence and (2) I have a strong emotional pull toward theism for the reasons discussed (fear of death; desire for ultimate justice, purpose; etc.). Should I ignore it? Should I act on it in the form of attending church, mosque, etc.? Are there philosophical and theological perspectives that allow for uncertainty or lack of complete knowledge (e.g. negative theology)? U gotta remember I’m only 18 so this all so new 😂.

​@@PhilosophyVisualised I understand why someone would hear you say: "Perhaps if hell was required I would not lean toward theism anymore" and think you're just engaging in motivated reasoning. However, eternal hell is a debilitating intellectual problem for perfect being theism and so regardless of emotional motivations it's a strong reason to reject a theistic worldview which includes it. If you are completely on the fence between two positions, it's fine in my view to allow pragmatic considerations to determine which way you lean. Additionally, all this talk about being "weak-minded" and we haven't heard an argument as to why that's bad! Why should we care if we're being "weak-minded" in practicing a religion or hoping that God exists if it improves our lives? I legitimately have never heard a developed justification for why that's bad apart from appeals to negative consequences from believing other false things. What is the *specific* harm just from maintaining religious belief itself, and why think that it outweighs the benefits? To the atheist reader: Picture a religious believer who shares all your views on politics, economics, and social life. They believe in God and practice a religion which inspires them to engage in pro-social behavior you approve of. What exactly is bad about them being "weak-minded" and believing something false? I am personally not convinced that believing something false is intrinsically harmful or that any harm it presents cannot be outweighed by other considerations. These considerations can be subject-dependent and not generalizable to the hard-nosed, stoic, atheist ubermenschen who walk among us. You can change my talk of harm to general "badness" if you reject the harm principle. My skepticism over these sorts of arguments is not confined to any specific metaethical view.

@@PhilosophyVisualised it's great that you're questioning and at such a young age you're doing well. Most people never worry themselves too much with whether their beliefs are true. With regards to ultimate justice, this is another problem I have with theism. You rightly acknowledge that it is an emotional line of reasoning and I can completely understand that desire. The problem I see is that it reduces the burden on us, as people, to seek justice here and now. People can do horrible things and get away with it because the universe is completely apathetic towards our ideas and values. With no ultimate arbiter it falls to us to do the best we can rather than leave it to a God that might not be there. Theism, I feel, is the lesser framework for seeking justice, and by extension, the less moral position.

Oppy does frequent discord servers from time to time. He can’t see your comment here but if you shoot him an email I’m sure he’ll respond!

I heard dawn is a sophist :) Hey buddy

@@jmike2039 oh yeah?! Let’s formalize it, the prop is “Dawn is a sophist”, you can take the affirmative 😎

Dad?

W

Hope you enjoy it!

Thanks for taking the time!

Hey, Lance! Someone named @user-kt5gm6wq7x recently commented in this video saying he thinks you're not evaluating the topic in an impartial way. It would interesting be read your thoughts in response to that.