@@TheWorldTeacher Dog you are wild. To answer your question I disagree with both Oppy and Rasmussen. I'm an agnostic and a naturalist, but unsure of materialism. Although I disagree with both, I thought they both made interesting points and I took a lot away from the discussion.
I am always excited to listen to Graham Oppy. He's had a great deal of influence in my theology, and it is a shame his work is not as well known as other naturalists (perhaps because his (a)theology is better thought out and humbler).
Love Oppy. He is a professional. Don’t agree with his idea that we need to have at least one argument for God which is compelling on its own as opposed to a series of arguments that accumulate force, but he is an amazing thinker and always challenges me to more study. Wish atheists were tending towards Oppy rather than Dawkins. Good dialog about the method of grounding reality.
Agreed. Oppy is an atheist who actually knows philosophy. It is really sad to see the atheist side represented by those who do not even seem to know the basics of logical reasoning.
@Donald Nadeau It seems to me that the argument for the resurrection entails many other arguments for a Christian worldview. If the resurrection occurred, then it follows that miracles occur, that there is life after death, that Jesus is in fact the Messiah foretold in OT scripture (e.g. Isaiah 53), that Christianity can be differentiated as objective truth compared to other religious worldviews, that God has demonstrated his divine attributes, etc. All of these propositions which Christians would like to uphold and defend seem to be entailed on the back of this one event. If we have reasonable reason to assent to the historic argument for the resurrection, then perhaps this is the "single knock down argument" atheists are looking for.
A recent guest on my Catholic podcast recommended I interview Dr. Graham Oppy, so I reached out. To my delight, he agreed to be my next guest. I will interview Dr. Graham Oppy, God willing, next Wednesday. If all goes well it should be recorded, edited, reviewed, approved, and finally published within a few weeks from now. I am looking forward to it.
@@TheWorldTeacher The word person in theology is an analogy, God is not a person in the same way you or I are persons. Rather the essential part of person means one who possess both an intellect and a will, in Catholic theology at least. Your criticism therefore is gravely mistaken.
@@TheWorldTeacher You have in this one sentence supposedly derived an is from an ought. It does not follow that if a judgment is made about a matter without sufficient facts to support that judgment that the judgment is evil. This is going from saying that something is to saying something is wrong, which is an invalid move. Furthermore, even if a judgment is unsupported by facts, it does not even follow that that judgment is wrong. Lastly, you are obviously utterly ignorant of Catholic theology if you disagree with what I said in my previous comment. I honestly cannot tell if you are an insanely motivated crazy person to be doing this for so long, or just a troll. If you are a troll then you are doing a great disservice to everyone by spreading your stupid and meaningless comments all over places where people are legitimately trying to seek the truth. If you are not a troll you are very badly misinformed about the world and I feel sorry for you.
@@TheWorldTeacher, I'm a monist too. Panentheism is just the view that everything is in God; like a dream is inside someone's mind. So they are not mutually exclusive.
@@TheWorldTeacher I agree that to apply to that ultimate reality such anthropomorphic features is unjustified, but that doesn't mean that it is not personal in some sense (although we should redefine the concept of personhood for that matter). It seems to me that to think of that as a machine producing world is a bit off. I'm not familiar with Hindu theology so pardon me for that.
What the sciences need from philosophers is conceptual clarity. This can sometimes be a huge game-changer. For example, if it turned out that the very concept of a beginningless series of events terminating now is incoherent, then cosmologists would need to restrict themselves to finite models. That's huge. There are many other examples like this: Some interpretations of quantum mechanics may be incoherent. Schrodinger's paper with the cat analogy was meant to show that the Copenhagen approach of his day was incoherent and should be rejected.... Much of modern cognitive science is based on conceptual muddles from the 17th century that have yet to be exorcised, and some of them (quite ironically and surprisingly) play a role in the incoherence of some interpretations of QM! So, clarity on one matter can sometimes help with another. Anyway, it seems sad to me that most philosophers whose work intersects with science are content to provide "seedbeds", as Oppy put it, and they acquiesce to scientific consensus far too quickly. If a string of words is meaningless, it doesn't matter how many scientists think it expresses a truth. It doesn't.
As a Christian I have great respect for Dr Oppy. He has a superb mind and he is careful in his arguments. While I disagree with many of his conclusions and find flaws in some of the premises he puts forth, this does distract in any way from him being a great thinker. I especially like his calm and measured approach. Guys like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris do a dis-service to not only atheistic arguments but to higher thought in general. In significant contrast to Dr. Oppy, those men as most of the internet atheists live in a world of self contradiction, logically disproven arguments, and rhetoric. The world would be a better place if atheism raised its game to the level of Dr Oppy. The argument about the existence of God would be elevated from its current internet gutter to the level of civil and calm intellectual discourse. As to the answer to the fundamental question of why is there anything rather than nothing, I think Dr. Oppy's possibilities are incomplete. I think there is a fourth option and that option is that it was the will of a personal agent that exists beyond space and time that had the power and knowledge to bring the universe into being. Dr. Rasmussen assumes this 4th option as a part of the 2nd option of necessity but this is incorrect because even if God (the personal agent described above) exists necessarily, it doesn't follow that he would have to create a universe. There is no necessary reason to compel the creation of the Universe. Regarding the question of what is required to make a successful theistic argument, Oppy's response is the better philosophical response and Rasmussen's response was the most popular response. I do not find the idea that and arguments success is measured on the basis of how many believe it, because most people are morons and most of what they believe is either objectively false or just coincidentally true because it has never been intellectually examined. Oppy's response there is superior as it requires the detailed examination of arguments based of the virtues of the argument and not its popular appeal. Dr Oppy makes the assertion that materialism is more simple than they the theistic explanation and that Theism must make up the lost ground in explanatory power. This has problems when examined more closely. Materialism has a number of complex mechanisms that a required that theism does not. Darwinism is an example. Give this, it is not at all clear that materialism is more simple. As to his other point that Theism needs more explanatory power, regardless of if needs it or not it has a vastly more powerful explanatory power. The fine tuning of the universe is rationally unexplainable by the materialist the origin of the universe is rationally unexplainable by the materialist, the emergence of life is rationally unexplainable by the materialist, and with the continuing discoveries in biology in the irreducible complexity of life since the discovery of DNA, now even Darwin's theory is not rationally defensible except for variation within species which has been confirmed. On the question of why or how a perfect being could produce imperfection. The answer is design and purpose. If a perfect being created a universe that was not intended to be permanent but rather was intended to server a specific goal then the highest value of that universe is not perfection but the intended goal. The Bible points to the purpose of all creation was to have created creatures who would freely choose to spend eternity with their creator. This goal requires freedom of choice and thus moral evil to be possible. It also does not require a perfect universe, in fact an imperfect universe can be useful in bringing the maximal amount of people into personal relationship with the creator (God). I think as it relates to the question of God's existence, the idea that one should rely on a single compelling argument or proof, rather than a multitude of arguments providing a preponderance of evidence is fundamentally flawed in a couple of immediately apparent ways. The first is that strictly speaking there is no such thing as proof in any discipline outside mathematics thus no compelling argument (by which he means definitive argument or proof) is possible in cosmology. Second, everything in science and culture relies on the preponderance of evidence or in other words a deferral to the best explanation.
*The World Teacher - Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda* if you really want to spread your ridiculous message then quit trying to spread it on comment sections where nobody is going to take you seriously at least make some RUclips videos and start debating people on video then people won’t think you are just an idiot with a bunch of free time looking for attention on a bunch of comment sections.
@Roger Mills bruh im muslim we believe in jesus too we just think he never got crucified nor was he God and i do agree with u lets say God exists the religion which is his is supposed to be on par with observations and have no contradictions old bible is not found we have a corrupted one so ya i do agree that bible is man made since if it was from God it wont have errors and Quran has no errors and u can question me about it but wait a minute i have question do u believe we formed from molecules without intervention of God? aka abiogenesis?
@Roger Mills then i have to disagree life cannot form without design allow me to explain The common perception presented in many text books and in the media is that life arose from non-life in a pool of chemicals about 3.8 billion years ago. The claim by evolutionists is that this formation of life was the result of time, chance, and natural processes. It is well known that biological molecules (specifically amino acid bonds) are destroyed in the presence of oxygen, making it impossible for life to evolve. Oxygen is a poisonous gas that oxidises organic and inorganic materials on a planetary surface; it is quite lethal to organisms that have not evolved protection against it [P. Ward and D. Brownlee, Rare Earth, p.245] In the atmosphere and the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. [C. Thaxton, W. Bradley, and R. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, p.66] Therefore, in order to avoid this problem, evolutionists propose that earth’s first atmosphere did not contain any freestanding oxygen; however evolutionists then proceed to dig themselves into a deeper hole (as which is often the case). 1. There is no scientific proof that the Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere such as evolutionists require. Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed formed in an oxygen atmosphere. [H. Clemmey and N. Badham, “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence,” Geology 10: 141] 2. In that scenario, a fatal problem also arises. Since the ozone is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. It there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton in his book: Evolution A Theory in Crisis notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen, we have none either. Because life could not have originated on land, some evolutionists propose that life started in the oceans. The problem with life starting in the oceans, however, is that as original molecules formed; the water would have immediately destroyed them through a process called hydrolysis. Hydrolysis, which means “water splitting,” is the addition of a water molecule between two bonded molecules (two amino acids in this case), which causes them to split apart. Many scientists have noted this problem. Besides breaking up polypeptides, hydrolysis would have destroyed many amino acids [Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology Vol. 1, p. 411-412] In general the half lives of these polymers in contact with water are on the order of days and months - time spans which are surely geologically insignificant. [K. Dose, The Origin of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry p. 69] Furthermore, water tends to break chains of amino acids apart. If any proteins had formed in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated. [R Morris, The Big Questions, p. 167] Scientifically, there is no known solution for how life could have chemically evolved on the earth. Let’s look at some other interesting facts of life: First, there are over 300 different types of amino acids. However, only 20 different amino acids are used in life. Second, each type of amino acid molecule comes in two shapes commonly referred to as left-handed and right-handed forms. Only left-handed amino acids are used in biological proteins; however, the natural tendency is for left and right handed amino molecules to bond indiscriminately. Third, the various left-handed amino acids must bond in the correct order or the protein will not function properly [Mike Riddle, Can Natural Processes Explain The Origin of Life?] Scientists know today that it is only because of the instructions (information) in DNA that only left-handed amino acids are linked in the proper order. Cells link amino acids together into proteins, but only according to INSTRUCTIONS encoded in DNA and carried in RNA. [G.B. Johnson, Biology: Visualising Life, p. 193] DNA, RNA, and proteins all need each other as an integrated unit. Even if only one of them existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle and wait for the other parts to evolve because they would dissolve or deteriorate. Since scientists have been unable to create life, they are forced to speculate through research and sometimes “sleight of hand” how it “might” have arrived on earth. Such as: - It happens naturally “The formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random” [Ian Musgrave, “Lies, Damned lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations,” TalkOrigins] Explanation This is an incorrect statement. If it happens naturally, then why can't scientists duplicate this in the lab? Amino acids do not spontaneously bond together to make proteins. First, it takes a source of energy to do this. Second, the natural tendency is to bond left- and right-handed amino acids, but life requires all left-handed amino acids. Third, they must be in the correct order or the protein will not function properly. Fourth, it requires the instructions of DNA to get the right amino acids. Where did DNA come from? Fifth, protein molecules tend to break down in the presence of oxygen or water. Questions for evolutionists Where and how did DNA acquire the enormous amount of information (instructions) to form a protein? There is no known natural explanation that can adequately explain the origin of life, or even a single protein. Since oxygen is known to destroy molecular bonds, and since the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere (meaning no ozone) would cause all potential life to be destroyed by ultraviolet rays, how could life have formed? Since water breaks down the bonds between amino acids (a process called hydrolysis), how could life have started in the oceans? Using all their intelligence and all the modern advances in science, have scientists ever created DNA or RNA in a laboratory through unguided naturalistic processes? Is there any observed case where random chance events creates complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA? its not that its hard its that its impossible
Josh’s point in minute 19 that for every philosopher that concludes and argument is good there is a philosopher who thinks it is otherwise seems true about the meaningful arguments e.g. God does/ does not exist. The way we can tie break has to do with the population who believes the premises are true. So many would reject liebniz’s version of the argument from contingency based on rejection of his strong version of PSR. But lesson it to Craig, Wright’s or Pruss’s version and it can go through. Kalam rests on whether someone believes that everything that begins to exist has a cause. If we ignore equivocations by people like Krauss, the argument can go through. But there is always a population who for honest intellectual reasons don’t find these premises to be true and so reject the argument.
I've complained a lot on various videos about Oppy's issue with assigning necessity, but I think I've found an even more serious issue with his preferred view of modality: I agree with the common-history bit, but he says they diverge because of "chances". And he seems to mean pure chance (otherwise there will be issues with a naturalistic view of the initial divergence). But that's not an explanatory account. To say things diverged by chance is to _withhold explanation,_ not to give one. By contrast, a very popular account of modality is a "powers" account, and it would ground the divergences throughout history in the causal powers of actual things. This is explanatory. We have something to point to, rather than just saying "it just happened" or "chance". As such, a "powers" view is prima facie much much better than Oppy's preferred view; but then the very initial divergences are going to need not just chance but the exercise of power, and we're off to the races toward something more like Theism than Naturalism....
I got the gut feeling that the property 'perfection' would be problematic for the natural world, as i would see it as something like maximum entropy, with nothing that would lead to a start, or any change, nothing to move on. I suspect that at least a grain of imperfection is a necessity. Excellent discussion btw! Both were great 😊
A more complete Kalam argument should be “all physical things that have a beginning, have a physical cause.” When we think of cause and effect, it’s always within a real and present physical context.
Well then a theist wouldn’t find it very tenable any more since they believe that there is agent causation all around us. For instance, there was a material cause to the model T of the internal combustion engine, but it was also caused by Henry Ford.
@@whatsinaname691 Hi there, I totally agree. Theists wouldn’t want to accept this because it necessitates that God be physical, since all physical effects come from physical causes. Even Henry Ford was a physical human who created something physical; the internal combustion engine. However, I don’t think theists can argue with this. I can see them adding something to the physical, which they think is nonphysical such as agency and intentionality. Even these though are tied to a physical brain and are themselves physiological in nature.
@@davidlines7 I would dispute the necessity of a material cause (which seems awfully similar to Phillipe Leon’s seminal argument against God) by affirming an idealist model that’s predicated on the fact that the mind doesn’t seem to be dependent on the brain and it does appear to be just the other way around.
@@whatsinaname691 Cool so just to be clear, are you disputing the necessity for a material/physical cause for the mind? Please correct me if I am wrong, it seems you believe the mind is some immaterial thing. If that is so, then what is the mind made of? Even if it is something immaterial, it must be real and present in some substantive way. How does this nonphysical mind control our physical bodies? How can our physiology affect an immaterial mind? Our emotions, thoughts, and even learning itself are physiological processes that are brain dependent, so what about our mind is non physical? Please don’t take it like I’m trying to barrage you with a lot of questions, I’m just trying to get a good understanding of where you’re at. If I don’t respond to your response tonight, I’ll respond tomorrow. Great conversation so far!
@@davidlines7 I dispute not just the physical cause for the mind, but physical things writ large. I’m a form of Objective Idealist like Bernardo Kastrup and hold that everything that exists can be reduced to the mental. On this interpretation, I hold that the brain is like a CD player that plays purely mental information and brain damage affecting how people behave is analogous to a broken record. (I try to be loose with analogy since it can detract from substance). Other reasons that I hold this is that it allows for wave function realism (a modern development in physics) and for the preservation of the standard interpretation in Quantum Mechanics. Both of these I find to be very accurate descriptions of reality and competing physicalist models just don’t hold up very well or bring along an unsettling degree of baggage. Furthermore, this view resolves the hard problem of consciousness by allowing for consciousness to come first and from there we build the model. In my view, there really isn’t any gap between conscious experience and reality itself, which in itself entails a strongly theistic worldview. In summation, my answer to your specific questions is that I discard the physical-mental distinction and say that all is mental. Feel free to wait until tomorrow to respond or to ask further clarification questions. I assume that you’re either a reductionist or an Epiphenomenalist, so I’ll have questions of my own once you are comfortable sharing your views.
I think a deep issue with how Dr. Oppy thinks about the matter is that he seems to regard free decisions in the same way we regard the mechanical outputs of a machine. This isn't surprising, since he thinks living organisms are moist machines. But, the theoretical superiority of theism over his "favorite view" is partially in that the existence of THIS contingent world, rather than the other ways it could have been, is a brute contingency on his view; whereas it's a free choice on the theistic view. God is a self-moving agent, like us. So, His decisions aren't outputs from specifiable inputs. Now, it's true that there are desires and intentions, but these are not substances, nor are they themselves causal. So, while Oppy's favorite view had the initial state evolve into this one... just because it happened to, theism has a perfectly familiar explanatory mechanism: free choice. This also gets into why the perfect being could end up with an imperfect world, at least for a while. Lesser beings with their own minds and wills would clearly be able to freely choose sub-optimally, and God could let them, if He had morally sufficient reasons, and if He were going to eventually fix it all and undo the bad effects when the reasons had been satisfied. That's exactly what the Bible says He's been doing and will do. Not that Oppy should take the Bible's word for it, but it shows that there is no logical impossibility in constructing such a view.
I would say it is just as familiar to expect chance as it is to expect intention, by just thinking of my everyday life. I did not get the impression that he thought of anything as a machine. I take it that you mean with machine something that is Newtonian in nature, ie a reversible system. I got this impression because they both agreed on nondeterminism while a reversible system has to be deterministic. I think his opposition was more to the point of a perfect system extending imperfectly. The only way I can see that happening is if the extension is not intentional but probably spontaneous, for example the perfect system created rules by which objects arise instead of creating objects directly. There should be much more to say about this and I got the impression from both of them that they wanted to talk about that more. I'm happy to hear your thoughts on this.
@@noneatallatanytime I may not have understood some of your points completely, so please forgive me if I'm off-base. I would start by remarking that our everyday life is only full of *apparent* chance. Whereas agent causation is not just apparent. I would add (though this only occurred to me now) that a "chancy" unfolding of things from the necessary beginning makes me wonder why such chancy world-altering events don't keep happening. With an agent, it's clear it would only act when it chose to. The imperfection of the current world is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, at least partially attributable to the free actions of agents other than the original agent that created the world. So, there is no reason to wonder how imperfection comes from the original creator, since it doesn't. Just like you said: It created the system in which free agents could come to exist, and they freely chose imperfection.
@@Mentat1231 I think your first question/point can be answered by large sample bases. This is a philosophical paradox of at what point does one more become more or less meaningless (think voting). Put your way, the reason world altering events of chance aren't happening is because there are currently so many events/stuff for another events to not be significant. An example of a significant event would be that the speed of light would half. It isn't, because there are so many parts of the whole system the probability is too low. I am sure in Graham's world view the speed of light possibly changed often in the beginning of the universe. Chance, as they meant, was the concept of no explanation. I.e if there is no way of knowing why something happening we say it is chance. But to your point, we see it as chance until we find that there is an explanation or reason or cause. To your second point, we are in agreement. However, Graham's objection seemed to be pointing to that such a beginning would not be perfect. In other words, what do we mean with perfection and what difference does it make to the world being imperfect? I am not sure about the answers because I have not thought about it but I found it interesting that this was their point of disagreement. My question about God would be, is the all knowing being limited to create a world in its image? Or is it free to create rules/agents or objects that are imperfect? Potentially a kind of misotheistic view.
@@noneatallatanytime As long as everything actually does have an explanation, even when some things don't appear to for a time, there's no actual chance. So, the way things played out would be the only way they could have (ergo, lots of metaphysical necessity that we wouldn't normally want to affirm). The way out is if the necessary cause is an "agent" (i.e. has free will). I don't know about perfections, but I know that a necessary being could make contingent choices, if it's the kind of thing that makes choices (again: an agent). That being said, you mention the property of being "all-knowing". What role were you thinking that property would play? Did you have in mind knowledge of the future?
@@Mentat1231 When we say that the something is unexplained until it is explained, to me, means that there is such a thing as unexplained. In other words, it is possible that any given thing at any given moment can be unexplained in the sense that it is unexplainable, i.e. chance. In this way, it is possible to have agents but it is also possible to not have agents. I am of the kind that don't want to make a claim that I have no way of making. For example, I don't want to make the claim the the uncertainty principle is only uncertain from our perspective but underneath is actually certain. I am much happier with saying I don't know what is underneath and rather explore any kind of underlying structure, rather than imposing what is apparent from my perspective on what lies beneath. Does that make sense? My point, at this point anyway, is that you can replace 'choices' with 'chances' and still end up with the same outcome. Therefore it seems to me that the question comes down to explanatory power which is where their discussion was going but time ran out. It seems that you see a problem with replacing "choice" with "chance" and perhaps you can illustrate for me what that problem is? If you don't have a problem maybe you can clarify what I misunderstood? Regarding "all-knowing", I am thinking of a system that has everything in it and by way of extension only extends itself in some dimensions. I am saying 'extends' because produce or create can imply two separate systems, which they both agreed on was not what they were talking about. In this sense, "all-knowing" is not a property of the system but a description of the whole system. I mean it as as a suggestion for what "perfect" can mean, not to say that that is what Josh meant.
26:17 Oppy changes his formula from showing from premises one already believes are true that their worldview doesn’t obtain to them rejecting one of the premises. This doesn’t represent inconsistency at all but rather some demonstrating that they in fact do t hold the beliefs you claim are inconsistent. This is not an example of his original statement.
I wonder if perfection can really be a fundamental property. In other words, is God omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent because he is perfect? Or is he perfect because he is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent etc.? It seems to me that usually we say that a thing is perfect, or even just good, because it has a certain number of positive attributes. But if we were to take that view, perfection would no longer be absolutely simple.
That sounds a little like the Euthyphro dilemma "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" which current theology seems to think is answered by simply alluding to God's nature which is good, so they grab both horns and say 'problem solved.' But you are changing it to be is God perfect because he's all that (all the omnis) , or is he an omni-God because he is perfect. It seems both are missing the point. IF God is the standard for perfection and/or the standard for good, of what value is our 'rating' him as good OR perfect? What do we know of 'positive attributes' beyond what God told us are positive attributes. We have no independent standard so at most it's a tautology and at worst, we are simply deluded and have no idea what we're saying or what we might mean by any rating.
I don't think there is a dilemma here. I would define a perfect being along the following lines: "A being that has all great making properties to their maximal extent". So if a being has all great making properties to their maximal extent, then that being is perfect. And if a being is perfect, then it has all great making properties to their maximal extent. It's just a matter of being definitionally true. A bit like how we can say that the quantity that is equal to half of 2 is 1, and 1 is the quantity that is equal to half of 2. It's just a matter of being definitionally true.
@Capturing Christianity I suspect that Graham thinks to figure out what's metaphysically possible or necessary we'd have to do that scientifically. I think this because, according to his answer to am's question, he thinks that to show that Aguirre's model is metaphysically possible we'd need a scientific consensus. So Aguirre's model could be conceivable yet not metaphysically possible. I think Josh accepts that conceivability is a guide to possibility, while I think Graham rejects this. I think this is the major difference between them with regards to figuring out the properties of the necessary being. So it puzzles me that Graham didn't have a problem with Rasmussen's point about irrelevant differences between the triangle and octagon. It seems to me that Graham should also appeal to scientific consensus in this instance.
At around 42:30 Dr Oppy is describing the Many-World-Interpretation of Quantum Physics and explaining "chance" in the branching of worlds. However, in this QM interpretation the "reason" we have this world is that our world's particular quantum states have "evolved" (see Quantum Darwinism) into these states and remain fixed (MWI is strictly deterministic; though the manifestation of quantum states in our world are stochastic).... so, it isn't by chance... it's by the Law of Natural Selection, i.e. that particular law is prior to quantum laws. So, what Dr Oppy is saying is that our universe came about through the evolution of quantum states (he does not say this, but this is what MWI implies). So, the metaphysics in the Aguirre model would be the Law of Natural Selection... because, that single law precedes physics proper.This would be the only scientific approach to metaphysical consensus. But, the problem with this is that there exists around 9 different theories of evolution.... and most probably, some chap would say all quantum states obey Convergent Darwinism and therefore all the branched worlds would be the same!
Darwin's Greatest Hits.... You wonder why: "So it puzzles me that Graham didn't have a problem with Rasmussen's point about irrelevant differences between the triangle and octagon." The reason is because if Dr Oppy made an issue out it, it would defeat his own a priori's of his world-view... Dr Oppy's world view works like this: Dr Rasmussen: "A pig-pen is a place where farmers husband pigs." Dr Oppy: "Yes, that is correct, BUT that's just "chance" because in a possible world it is "something" you write with."
5:20 I have a fundamental problem with the notion of "tool of explanatory power" when "demanding an explanation" it seems like just a way of making stuff up when we don't have enough data.
@Oners82 No, I understand his point, I don't think you understand how science works, or it's function. Science does not give you an answer because you demand one, Science does not care about your feelz.
@Oners82 Yes, My issue is with the word "demand", that is the crux of the matter, it is not just sloppy language, it is a precise philosophical concept. Explain to me the difference between a "demanded explanation" and a scientific hypothesis. Science as a "thing" is sloppy or metaphorical language.
I don't see how you could ever solve this issue of whether being 'maximally powerful' counts as the most simple theory. Sure, you can make an argument for it but it's so far outside of our experiences and what we know from science that its hard to see how we could ever gain much confidence in it or make any conclusions based on it. I think it illustrates a point that while the general idea of theory simplicity makes sense, it seems to be way over played in these types of discussions. I mean, if you've got two models which equally explain the data, you wouldn't choose a more complicated one that needed - that makes sense. But aside from that situation, I'm not sure why considering simplicity is useful? Even if we grant that 'maximally powerful' is more simple and that that matters, shouldn't we also consider possibility? We have no examples of anything that is 'maximally' powerful, not to mention many of God's other supposed properties such as an 'unembodied mind' so shouldn't that count against the theory compared to anything that has limited power and therefore matches every example of anything we've ever come across which lends more to its possibility?
That's a very interesting point, though I think there's also a case to be made based on our experience. I think a good measure of simplicity for explanations can be: the number of causally independent entities proposed. This seems to be true because considering two sets of causally independent entities: (A, B, C), and (A, B), the set (A, B, C) is inherently less likely to exist than the set (A, B), because for (A, B, C) to exist, (A, B), also has to exist. Now, it seems that our experiences show that a single causal entity can only bring about the same result. For example, it seems reasonable that if you were in an empty universe and threw an object toward a certain direction, that object would never stop unless another causal entity made it stop. If you were to add an additional causal entity (such as a force that would deaccelerate that object, and that force was constant, every time you threw the object, it would always stop at the same place. Compare that with the actual universe, where you can throw objects, and they will never stop at the same place, and we know that to be caused by the existence of multiple interacting causal entities. Seems to me, then, that from our experience, we can see that variation is the result of the interaction of multiple causal entities. So, it seems that experience does show that a single causal entity will result in maximal values. I agree, though, that it is hard to transpose to more qualitative properties of a supposed being. What are your thoughts?
Reality will not be understood until Consciousness (the ‘hard problem’ for Western Philosophy’ is understood). God is all there is and Consciousness is all there is, nothing exists without either, so it is safe to assume they are One and the same.
1. I agree with Josh about how to evaluate the simplicity of a theory. For Graham, if there are a series of items a1 to an each explaining the next, adding another item (a0), no matter how simple is a0, is a theoretical loss. But I personally disagree. Because if we prefer a1-an to a0-an why we should not prefer a2-an to a1-an? Why not simply accept the 10-min-world hypothesis? In the causal order, in my idea, is the simplicity of the initial state and not the whole chain that counts. 2. I am a moral anti-realist. So for me, "perfection" is our evaluation of a thing and not a real single property of it. And therefore, I cannot go further with his perfect theory. Moreover, even if I was realist, for me perfection would be a composite adjective constituted by many perfections... 3. On modality, I prefer theories with more contingencies and fewer necessities. And I have a very hard time conceiving of a concrete entity that is necessarily existent. It seems impossible. 4. The question of whether initial singularity or God is simpler is a bit confusing for me. We have to get a more grip on both ideas to evaluate them.
The thing is though that withe the whole 10 minute thing, i would have no explanation for how the universe cam into existence with ita current state of affairs. But with geaham's model, i can have a necessary state of affairs that thrn evolved or developed into the state of afairs we have now. So like, perhaps the universe exists in some cosmic void where space-time and energy are generated through random fluctuations in the meta-fabric of the cosmos (the cosmos being the reality within which our universe exists) and a random fluctuation lead to the universe being formed and eventually leading to this state of affairs. And yiu can say that things have an existential inertia. Once a state of affairs is actualised, the state of affairs continues until something causes it to be otherwise, or the state of affairs are innately temporary (like a spring which bounces back in its place due to the nature of the bonds). Just as theists believe god has a nature, the cosmos has an intrinsic nature. The only difference is that the cosmos wouldnt necessarily have a mind or thoughts or what have you. And it may be describable in mathmatics. Personally i dont know and i think remaining agnostic on the subject until we can get a model that generates some predictions or is at least can be worked into our mathametical models is best.
@@mothernature1755 I'm not sure if it's coherent to talk about things being actualized because of how that implies an actualizer actualizing a potential, which is something a naturalist can hardly accept.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I’m not sure that there isn’t a naturalist explanation for actuality, but if you mean to say that this implies a powers based grounding for modality, then that is possible (and would entail God). Is that what you’re saying?
Oppy's argument against theism, is essentially that it adds an additional commitment to what he thinks naturalism can account for (without God). Essentially it's a form of occam's razor. Oppy would need to justify his claim that naturalism (which assumes nature) can in fact account for it. So far, I do not think he has.
i love philosophy because you can spend your entire life studying it and get a phd and yet this can still happen: Cameron: why is there something rather than nothing Oppy: the short answer is i don’t know
1:05:00 Josh's speculations about consciousness remind me of the coyote running full speed into a solid rock wall covered by his own painted tunnel giving the illusion of a path.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf > naturalism doesn't have an answer to the mind-body problem I'm sorry. We're already past that. > Religion offers explanatory No, it just avoids the question.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf > naturalism doesn't have an answer to the mind-body problem I'm sorry. We're already past that. > How are we past it? Because we already have an answer to the mind-body problem. Your assertion is like saying that naturalism can't solve flight or long distance communication. We already have those too.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf The mind body problem? How, other than assertion, does religion offer explanatory power? It seems at best it pushes it out/back/up out of the reach of any empirical analysis. Here's how naturalism explains the mind body problem, the mind is produced in/is a function of the cells of a functioning brain. I know of nothing that is conscious that doesn't have a brain, so there is a link. And when the brain ceases to function or when it is impaired with drugs/anesthetics/damage, consciousness seems to disappear as if on cue and comes back when the damage or impairment is healed/no longer in effect.
Oppy would be a horrible spy. If captured, this would be how things would go: Capturer: "Tell us all your secrets!" Oppy: "Well, if you put my feet to the fire, I would say that my secrets are..." **procedes to spill all his secrets**
I wish so much there were a way for me to talk through the issue of necessity with Dr. Oppy. There is a piece he's missing, and it doesn't seem that Rasmussen, or even people like William Lane Craig or Alex Pruss are noticing it (though I've shared some of it on Pruss' blog).
@@alfred9916 Basically, you can't just grant something "necessary" status. There are reasons why something would exist necessarily rather than contingently, just as there are reasons why some contingent things exist and some fail to exist. It comes down to the conditions. There are required and sufficient conditions for any contingent thing to exist, and the explanation for why some exist and some happen not to is because the sufficient conditions were met for the ones and not for the others. A necessarily existing thing would need to be such that it had no required conditions, and so ANY state of affairs would be sufficient. And it is a logical contradiction to say both "X's sufficient conditions are all in place" and "X doesn't exist". So, the non-existence of this thing would literally entail a contradiction. However, only a very very small sub-set of things could possibly have this sort of existence. The so-called "singularity" has various properties, and could clearly have been otherwise. But God is postulated to be a perfectly simple being and He doesn't even require space, time, matter, or energy. So, He is a better candidate for necessary existence. Moreover, His necessary existence comes along with both freedom of the will and moral perfection, and so He explains why there would be contingent things, and in particular why we should end up existing. In any case, analyzing WHY some things are contingent (they have required conditions), and why some things fail to exist (their required conditions weren't met), would -- I think -- lead to a much more plausible analysis on Oppy's part (and Rasmussen's for that matter).
@@alfred9916 What I don't understand about the prime-cause of reality being /necessary/ is that 'necessity' is a property. It is a property about the thing that makes it come to exist no matter what. So if the prime-cause of reality has a property that makes it come to exist no matter what, then my question is -- Ok, so there was a point when the initial thing didn't exist before it existed, so then how in the holiest of all hells did it have the property to make itself come to exist before it existed? Did the property that existed to make the initial cause 'necessary' exist before it existed in order to make itself exist necessarily? Necessary initial causes which began to exist seems utterly incoherent to me. It seems to me there is just simply no way out of the initial thing or prime cause of reality existing eternally.
@@jesserochon3103 Thanks for those thoughts. I think you are making an error about the nature of necessity. Something that is necessary doesn't "come to exist", since that would assume that the thing's non-existence is possible. Rather, a necessary thing has always existed, and will always exist. Therefore one doesn't run into the issue of there being a time before the necessary thing, because that necessary thing never "came to exist". An initial cause is a first cause, but that doesn't mean that the first cause came into being at that time. Rasmussen would agree that the cause is eternal (he believes that cause is God, and God is eternal). Does this mean that the past would be infinite? No. It might be that God exists outside of time, but causing from an atemporal the universe (or whatever the first effect was). Another model is that God exists outside of time prior to creation, but when he creates he steps into time and becomes temporal. None of these models require God to begin to exist. So, therefore we can have both a necessary first cause, and a finite past without diving into incomprehensibility.
If God exists by himself BEFORE creation then the world he exists in is PERFECT (since it contains only him and he's perfect by hypothesis).So it can't be that God saw the world he was in to be in need of improvement then he started creating.He couldn't have seen the world to be lacking in any way to be in need of correction. So Josh's explanation of why a perfect God had to stray from perfection is unconvincing.
I dont think the perfect being was compelled to stray from perfection, but perhaps it saw value in certain states of affairs that could only be instantiated through finite creatures.
Let's rephrase the question then: Why would God make something imperfect whether he made it in time or outside of time ? since there's one possible world in which only God exists ,which means the created world is not necessary like God.But if it's not then why does it exist ?
I think God does exist but it is beyond our comprehension. It makes sense to me the thing we label as God has manifested itself to all the different forms of consciousness and experiences possible.. the purpose and meaning of this could be many but being able to expirence love, relationships and pleasure in all forms possible might be a good summery..
24:20 Oppy says rhetorically, What does dressing up as an argument gain? The ability to think carefully about an inconsistency or incoherence! Seems the obvious answer. We need careful study of our beliefs and examination of the premises that undergird them in order to determine where we hold false beliefs! This type of method founds all of our mathematical, historical, scientific, and philosophical knowledge so why abandon it when we get to questions as important as is there a God? Rhetorically it won’t be as formal but still premises our interlocutor holds more likely to be true which don’t comport with major features of their worldview. It seems prima facie false.
I see that your comment was made 2 years ago but it's a good question so I will do my best at answering for anyone stumbling into the comment section. Exposing inconsistencies only works if your interlocutor agrees with the premises. Often I find theist make argument where it seems they are taking premises from their world view and arriving (not suprisingly) at their world views conclusion. The kind of argument me and Oppy prefers are the ones that start from my world view and arrives at some absurdity. I personally think apologetics arguments aren't really meant to persuade non-thesists but serve to strengthen the resolve of the theists. For example: William Lane Craig spends more time on (and almost exclusively presents) the a-theory version of the Kalam than the b-therory version even though he sometimes claims he has a b-theory and most naturalists are b-theorists.
@@Oskar1000 He defends the a theory of time because he thinks it's correct and considers defending a b theory of time version of the Kalam to be almost a waste of time, I suspect. No pun intended.
You could prove God exists but none of rhe theology follows..Nothing you know and love,here and now will be 8n an afterlife.Living to infinity? YIKES !
Either absolutely nothing is the foundation for all of reality including metaphysics, or God is the foundation for all reality. Its a no-brainer. No need for 2 hours of philosophy.
@@breambo3835 How about this option. Foundational reality is shmod. Shmod has all the attributes of god except for the mental qualities like knowledge, qualia, consciousness, and intentionality.
Those don't seem to be the only two options. I assume there could be an eternal natural existence out of which universes emerge. I don't see how God can be the foundation for all reality in that it doesn't seem that God created the essential basis of mathematics and logic. God could not create the 'fact' that 2+2=4 in that he could have created it differently or that 'fact' didn't exist and then...it did Even if there were absolutely NOTHING...no universe...no god...nothing. It is an implicit fact that 2 of something added to 2 more of that thing would always be 4 of that thing even if nothing existed. The basis for mathematics is contingent. Even God with all his power could not make it so that 2 of something is 3 of that thing at the same time. And even God with all his power cannot make A be A and not A simultaneously.
Theoretical physicists should study epistemology and rid themselves of verificationism which atheists and theists philosophers alike agree is incoherent (for a half-century now).
Yeah, so once your complaining I’m being dishonest (when I not only know I’m not, but also know that you don’t have privileged access to my mind; and I didn’t even state a self-contradiction) my motivation to further discuss the matter with you equals zero. Bye.
Hi Mark. I think simplicity alone is not the arbiter or a better theory, but instead is one tool along with others such as explanatory power we can used to find the most probable theory. Josh’s theory as he lays out in his book “how Reason can lead to God”, I found to be very compelling it put a logical sharpness to casual thoughts I’ve had about the foundation of reality. With respect to you it seems like calling something nonsense is a conversation stopper. Both of these philosophers are respected thinkers who would never (i assume) call each other’s view nonsense, but instead would seek deeper understanding of the other’s view.
21:45 or so Oppy jumps in with the idea that an argument ca also take many aspects of a persons worldview and show how they are inconsistent! Argument for God from the existence of objective moral values and duties seems to be of this type . Atheists are as moral as theist. Due to there perception of objective moral duties such as killing babies for fun is always wrong, atheist don’t do this. But on atheism how would these objective duties obtain? The universe doesn’t spot these duties out like it creates atoms and quarks and galaxies. Further to whom would we owe these duties?
I don't think objective morals exist, so don't have to offer an account as to 'whom' they depend on. What morals do exist seem to depend on the functioning of the evolved human brain, which grew to its current level of complexity in societal groups.
Great Discussion. Oppy and Rasmussen were both excellent
@@TheWorldTeacher if both people are deluded then why are you even bothering to comment under the video?
@@TheWorldTeacher "slave", that made me lol. What's the truth then?
@@TheWorldTeacher
Dog you are wild.
To answer your question I disagree with both Oppy and Rasmussen. I'm an agnostic and a naturalist, but unsure of materialism. Although I disagree with both, I thought they both made interesting points and I took a lot away from the discussion.
I am always excited to listen to Graham Oppy. He's had a great deal of influence in my theology, and it is a shame his work is not as well known as other naturalists (perhaps because his (a)theology is better thought out and humbler).
Love Oppy. He is a professional. Don’t agree with his idea that we need to have at least one argument for God which is compelling on its own as opposed to a series of arguments that accumulate force, but he is an amazing thinker and always challenges me to more study. Wish atheists were tending towards Oppy rather than Dawkins.
Good dialog about the method of grounding reality.
Agreed. Oppy is an atheist who actually knows philosophy. It is really sad to see the atheist side represented by those who do not even seem to know the basics of logical reasoning.
Having a series of arguments that don't compel individually can also be part of an argument against God.
@Donald Nadeau It seems to me that the argument for the resurrection entails many other arguments for a Christian worldview. If the resurrection occurred, then it follows that miracles occur, that there is life after death, that Jesus is in fact the Messiah foretold in OT scripture (e.g. Isaiah 53), that Christianity can be differentiated as objective truth compared to other religious worldviews, that God has demonstrated his divine attributes, etc. All of these propositions which Christians would like to uphold and defend seem to be entailed on the back of this one event. If we have reasonable reason to assent to the historic argument for the resurrection, then perhaps this is the "single knock down argument" atheists are looking for.
Dawkins is better at marketing. Thats why most of them tend toward dawkins
@Donald Nadeau This is demonstrably false and shows you haven't even touched the historical arguments for the resurrection.
This is awesome!
@@TheWorldTeacher Why do you think Graham Oppy is deluded? both of these guys are great philosophers
*The World Teacher - Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda* Oppy and Rasmussen are highly respected philosophers on all sides of the spectrum.
A recent guest on my Catholic podcast recommended I interview Dr. Graham Oppy, so I reached out. To my delight, he agreed to be my next guest. I will interview Dr. Graham Oppy, God willing, next Wednesday. If all goes well it should be recorded, edited, reviewed, approved, and finally published within a few weeks from now. I am looking forward to it.
@@TheWorldTeacher Yes, I am a Theist. I am a Monotheist. I am a Christian. I am a Catholic. Thanks for asking.
@@TheWorldTeacher Please remember that you might be wrong. Have a nice day.
@@TheWorldTeacher
The word person in theology is an analogy, God is not a person in the same way you or I are persons. Rather the essential part of person means one who possess both an intellect and a will, in Catholic theology at least. Your criticism therefore is gravely mistaken.
@@TheWorldTeacher
You have in this one sentence supposedly derived an is from an ought. It does not follow that if a judgment is made about a matter without sufficient facts to support that judgment that the judgment is evil. This is going from saying that something is to saying something is wrong, which is an invalid move. Furthermore, even if a judgment is unsupported by facts, it does not even follow that that judgment is wrong. Lastly, you are obviously utterly ignorant of Catholic theology if you disagree with what I said in my previous comment. I honestly cannot tell if you are an insanely motivated crazy person to be doing this for so long, or just a troll. If you are a troll then you are doing a great disservice to everyone by spreading your stupid and meaningless comments all over places where people are legitimately trying to seek the truth. If you are not a troll you are very badly misinformed about the world and I feel sorry for you.
This was a pleasure to watch! 2 excellent philosophers.
@@TheWorldTeacher, what is your position on all of this?
@@TheWorldTeacher, in other words, you are a panentheist if I understand you correctly.
@@TheWorldTeacher, I'm a monist too. Panentheism is just the view that everything is in God; like a dream is inside someone's mind. So they are not mutually exclusive.
@@TheWorldTeacher I agree that to apply to that ultimate reality such anthropomorphic features is unjustified, but that doesn't mean that it is not personal in some sense (although we should redefine the concept of personhood for that matter). It seems to me that to think of that as a machine producing world is a bit off.
I'm not familiar with Hindu theology so pardon me for that.
If Graham Oppy talked to you like you were 5 years old, your IQ would still go up after listening to him.
As a theory your proposition fails, as evidenced by Josh.
What the sciences need from philosophers is conceptual clarity. This can sometimes be a huge game-changer. For example, if it turned out that the very concept of a beginningless series of events terminating now is incoherent, then cosmologists would need to restrict themselves to finite models. That's huge.
There are many other examples like this: Some interpretations of quantum mechanics may be incoherent. Schrodinger's paper with the cat analogy was meant to show that the Copenhagen approach of his day was incoherent and should be rejected.... Much of modern cognitive science is based on conceptual muddles from the 17th century that have yet to be exorcised, and some of them (quite ironically and surprisingly) play a role in the incoherence of some interpretations of QM! So, clarity on one matter can sometimes help with another.
Anyway, it seems sad to me that most philosophers whose work intersects with science are content to provide "seedbeds", as Oppy put it, and they acquiesce to scientific consensus far too quickly. If a string of words is meaningless, it doesn't matter how many scientists think it expresses a truth. It doesn't.
As a Christian I have great respect for Dr Oppy. He has a superb mind and he is careful in his arguments. While I disagree with many of his conclusions and find flaws in some of the premises he puts forth, this does distract in any way from him being a great thinker. I especially like his calm and measured approach. Guys like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris do a dis-service to not only atheistic arguments but to higher thought in general. In significant contrast to Dr. Oppy, those men as most of the internet atheists live in a world of self contradiction, logically disproven arguments, and rhetoric. The world would be a better place if atheism raised its game to the level of Dr Oppy. The argument about the existence of God would be elevated from its current internet gutter to the level of civil and calm intellectual discourse.
As to the answer to the fundamental question of why is there anything rather than nothing, I think Dr. Oppy's possibilities are incomplete. I think there is a fourth option and that option is that it was the will of a personal agent that exists beyond space and time that had the power and knowledge to bring the universe into being. Dr. Rasmussen assumes this 4th option as a part of the 2nd option of necessity but this is incorrect because even if God (the personal agent described above) exists necessarily, it doesn't follow that he would have to create a universe. There is no necessary reason to compel the creation of the Universe.
Regarding the question of what is required to make a successful theistic argument, Oppy's response is the better philosophical response and Rasmussen's response was the most popular response. I do not find the idea that and arguments success is measured on the basis of how many believe it, because most people are morons and most of what they believe is either objectively false or just coincidentally true because it has never been intellectually examined. Oppy's response there is superior as it requires the detailed examination of arguments based of the virtues of the argument and not its popular appeal.
Dr Oppy makes the assertion that materialism is more simple than they the theistic explanation and that Theism must make up the lost ground in explanatory power. This has problems when examined more closely. Materialism has a number of complex mechanisms that a required that theism does not. Darwinism is an example. Give this, it is not at all clear that materialism is more simple. As to his other point that Theism needs more explanatory power, regardless of if needs it or not it has a vastly more powerful explanatory power. The fine tuning of the universe is rationally unexplainable by the materialist the origin of the universe is rationally unexplainable by the materialist, the emergence of life is rationally unexplainable by the materialist, and with the continuing discoveries in biology in the irreducible complexity of life since the discovery of DNA, now even Darwin's theory is not rationally defensible except for variation within species which has been confirmed.
On the question of why or how a perfect being could produce imperfection. The answer is design and purpose. If a perfect being created a universe that was not intended to be permanent but rather was intended to server a specific goal then the highest value of that universe is not perfection but the intended goal. The Bible points to the purpose of all creation was to have created creatures who would freely choose to spend eternity with their creator. This goal requires freedom of choice and thus moral evil to be possible. It also does not require a perfect universe, in fact an imperfect universe can be useful in bringing the maximal amount of people into personal relationship with the creator (God).
I think as it relates to the question of God's existence, the idea that one should rely on a single compelling argument or proof, rather than a multitude of arguments providing a preponderance of evidence is fundamentally flawed in a couple of immediately apparent ways. The first is that strictly speaking there is no such thing as proof in any discipline outside mathematics thus no compelling argument (by which he means definitive argument or proof) is possible in cosmology. Second, everything in science and culture relies on the preponderance of evidence or in other words a deferral to the best explanation.
Moose I think the creation of imperfect beings by a perfect one is best explained in Genesis.
*The World Teacher - Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda* if you really want to spread your ridiculous message then quit trying to spread it on comment sections where nobody is going to take you seriously at least make some RUclips videos and start debating people on video then people won’t think you are just an idiot with a bunch of free time looking for attention on a bunch of comment sections.
@Roger Mills do u realise evolution does not affect theism in any way lmao
also no we didnt evolve
specifically humans
wanna talk about it
@Roger Mills bruh im muslim
we believe in jesus too we just think he never got crucified nor was he God
and i do agree with u
lets say God exists
the religion which is his is supposed to be on par with observations and have no contradictions
old bible is not found we have a corrupted one so ya i do agree that bible is man made since if it was from God it wont have errors
and Quran has no errors and u can question me about it
but wait a minute
i have question
do u believe we formed from molecules without intervention of God?
aka abiogenesis?
@Roger Mills then i have to disagree
life cannot form without design
allow me to explain
The common perception presented in many text books and in the media is that life arose from non-life in a pool of chemicals about 3.8 billion years ago. The claim by evolutionists is that this formation of life was the result of time, chance, and natural processes.
It is well known that biological molecules (specifically amino acid bonds) are destroyed in the presence of oxygen, making it impossible for life to evolve.
Oxygen is a poisonous gas that oxidises organic and inorganic materials on a planetary surface; it is quite lethal to organisms that have not evolved protection against it [P. Ward and D. Brownlee, Rare Earth, p.245]
In the atmosphere and the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. [C. Thaxton, W. Bradley, and R. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, p.66]
Therefore, in order to avoid this problem, evolutionists propose that earth’s first atmosphere did not contain any freestanding oxygen; however evolutionists then proceed to dig themselves into a deeper hole (as which is often the case).
1. There is no scientific proof that the Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere such as evolutionists require. Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed formed in an oxygen atmosphere. [H. Clemmey and N. Badham, “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence,” Geology 10: 141]
2. In that scenario, a fatal problem also arises. Since the ozone is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. It there was no oxygen, life could not start.
Michael Denton in his book: Evolution A Theory in Crisis notes:
What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen, we have none either.
Because life could not have originated on land, some evolutionists propose that life started in the oceans. The problem with life starting in the oceans, however, is that as original molecules formed; the water would have immediately destroyed them through a process called hydrolysis. Hydrolysis, which means “water splitting,” is the addition of a water molecule between two bonded molecules (two amino acids in this case), which causes them to split apart. Many scientists have noted this problem.
Besides breaking up polypeptides, hydrolysis would have destroyed many amino acids [Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology Vol. 1, p. 411-412]
In general the half lives of these polymers in contact with water are on the order of days and months - time spans which are surely geologically insignificant. [K. Dose, The Origin of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry p. 69]
Furthermore, water tends to break chains of amino acids apart. If any proteins had formed in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated. [R Morris, The Big Questions, p. 167]
Scientifically, there is no known solution for how life could have chemically evolved on the earth.
Let’s look at some other interesting facts of life:
First, there are over 300 different types of amino acids. However, only 20 different amino acids are used in life.
Second, each type of amino acid molecule comes in two shapes commonly referred to as left-handed and right-handed forms. Only left-handed amino acids are used in biological proteins; however, the natural tendency is for left and right handed amino molecules to bond indiscriminately.
Third, the various left-handed amino acids must bond in the correct order or the protein will not function properly
[Mike Riddle, Can Natural Processes Explain The Origin of Life?]
Scientists know today that it is only because of the instructions (information) in DNA that only left-handed amino acids are linked in the proper order.
Cells link amino acids together into proteins, but only according to INSTRUCTIONS encoded in DNA and carried in RNA. [G.B. Johnson, Biology: Visualising Life, p. 193]
DNA, RNA, and proteins all need each other as an integrated unit. Even if only one of them existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle and wait for the other parts to evolve because they would dissolve or deteriorate.
Since scientists have been unable to create life, they are forced to speculate through research and sometimes “sleight of hand” how it “might” have arrived on earth. Such as:
- It happens naturally
“The formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random” [Ian Musgrave, “Lies, Damned lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations,” TalkOrigins]
Explanation
This is an incorrect statement. If it happens naturally, then why can't scientists duplicate this in the lab? Amino acids do not spontaneously bond together to make proteins. First, it takes a source of energy to do this. Second, the natural tendency is to bond left- and right-handed amino acids, but life requires all left-handed amino acids. Third, they must be in the correct order or the protein will not function properly. Fourth, it requires the instructions of DNA to get the
right amino acids. Where did DNA come from? Fifth, protein molecules tend to break down in the presence of oxygen or water.
Questions for evolutionists
Where and how did DNA acquire the enormous amount of information (instructions) to form a protein? There is no known natural explanation that can adequately explain the origin of life, or even a single protein.
Since oxygen is known to destroy molecular bonds, and since the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere (meaning no ozone) would cause all potential life to be destroyed by ultraviolet rays, how could life have formed?
Since water breaks down the bonds between amino acids (a process called hydrolysis), how could life have started in the oceans?
Using all their intelligence and all the modern advances in science, have scientists ever created DNA or RNA in a laboratory through unguided naturalistic processes?
Is there any observed case where random chance events creates complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA?
its not that its hard
its that its impossible
Josh’s point in minute 19 that for every philosopher that concludes and argument is good there is a philosopher who thinks it is otherwise seems true about the meaningful arguments e.g. God does/ does not exist. The way we can tie break has to do with the population who believes the premises are true.
So many would reject liebniz’s version of the argument from contingency based on rejection of his strong version of PSR.
But lesson it to Craig, Wright’s or Pruss’s version and it can go through.
Kalam rests on whether someone believes that everything that begins to exist has a cause. If we ignore equivocations by people like Krauss, the argument can go through. But there is always a population who for honest intellectual reasons don’t find these premises to be true and so reject the argument.
I've complained a lot on various videos about Oppy's issue with assigning necessity, but I think I've found an even more serious issue with his preferred view of modality: I agree with the common-history bit, but he says they diverge because of "chances". And he seems to mean pure chance (otherwise there will be issues with a naturalistic view of the initial divergence). But that's not an explanatory account. To say things diverged by chance is to _withhold explanation,_ not to give one. By contrast, a very popular account of modality is a "powers" account, and it would ground the divergences throughout history in the causal powers of actual things. This is explanatory. We have something to point to, rather than just saying "it just happened" or "chance". As such, a "powers" view is prima facie much much better than Oppy's preferred view; but then the very initial divergences are going to need not just chance but the exercise of power, and we're off to the races toward something more like Theism than Naturalism....
I like Jerry Well’s argument from modalities, which shows that if modality is grounded in powers, then God exists
You expect too much from this blathering moron.
As far as I know, by chances he only means chances on a quantum level and I think those have at least some scientific explanation.
I got the gut feeling that the property 'perfection' would be problematic for the natural world, as i would see it as something like maximum entropy, with nothing that would lead to a start, or any change, nothing to move on. I suspect that at least a grain of imperfection is a necessity.
Excellent discussion btw! Both were great 😊
Graham view on Josh's position is on-point! 57:11
Really enjoyed the whole thing!
A more complete Kalam argument should be “all physical things that have a beginning, have a physical cause.” When we think of cause and effect, it’s always within a real and present physical context.
Well then a theist wouldn’t find it very tenable any more since they believe that there is agent causation all around us. For instance, there was a material cause to the model T of the internal combustion engine, but it was also caused by Henry Ford.
@@whatsinaname691 Hi there, I totally agree. Theists wouldn’t want to accept this because it necessitates that God be physical, since all physical effects come from physical causes. Even Henry Ford was a physical human who created something physical; the internal combustion engine.
However, I don’t think theists can argue with this. I can see them adding something to the physical, which they think is nonphysical such as agency and intentionality. Even these though are tied to a physical brain and are themselves physiological in nature.
@@davidlines7 I would dispute the necessity of a material cause (which seems awfully similar to Phillipe Leon’s seminal argument against God) by affirming an idealist model that’s predicated on the fact that the mind doesn’t seem to be dependent on the brain and it does appear to be just the other way around.
@@whatsinaname691 Cool so just to be clear, are you disputing the necessity for a material/physical cause for the mind? Please correct me if I am wrong, it seems you believe the mind is some immaterial thing. If that is so, then what is the mind made of? Even if it is something immaterial, it must be real and present in some substantive way. How does this nonphysical mind control our physical bodies? How can our physiology affect an immaterial mind? Our emotions, thoughts, and even learning itself are physiological processes that are brain dependent, so what about our mind is non physical? Please don’t take it like I’m trying to barrage you with a lot of questions, I’m just trying to get a good understanding of where you’re at. If I don’t respond to your response tonight, I’ll respond tomorrow. Great conversation so far!
@@davidlines7 I dispute not just the physical cause for the mind, but physical things writ large. I’m a form of Objective Idealist like Bernardo Kastrup and hold that everything that exists can be reduced to the mental. On this interpretation, I hold that the brain is like a CD player that plays purely mental information and brain damage affecting how people behave is analogous to a broken record. (I try to be loose with analogy since it can detract from substance). Other reasons that I hold this is that it allows for wave function realism (a modern development in physics) and for the preservation of the standard interpretation in Quantum Mechanics. Both of these I find to be very accurate descriptions of reality and competing physicalist models just don’t hold up very well or bring along an unsettling degree of baggage. Furthermore, this view resolves the hard problem of consciousness by allowing for consciousness to come first and from there we build the model. In my view, there really isn’t any gap between conscious experience and reality itself, which in itself entails a strongly theistic worldview.
In summation, my answer to your specific questions is that I discard the physical-mental distinction and say that all is mental. Feel free to wait until tomorrow to respond or to ask further clarification questions. I assume that you’re either a reductionist or an Epiphenomenalist, so I’ll have questions of my own once you are comfortable sharing your views.
We all learn when great thinkers clash.
My brain hurts-but I’m sure my mind has been expanded
I think a deep issue with how Dr. Oppy thinks about the matter is that he seems to regard free decisions in the same way we regard the mechanical outputs of a machine. This isn't surprising, since he thinks living organisms are moist machines. But, the theoretical superiority of theism over his "favorite view" is partially in that the existence of THIS contingent world, rather than the other ways it could have been, is a brute contingency on his view; whereas it's a free choice on the theistic view. God is a self-moving agent, like us. So, His decisions aren't outputs from specifiable inputs. Now, it's true that there are desires and intentions, but these are not substances, nor are they themselves causal. So, while Oppy's favorite view had the initial state evolve into this one... just because it happened to, theism has a perfectly familiar explanatory mechanism: free choice.
This also gets into why the perfect being could end up with an imperfect world, at least for a while. Lesser beings with their own minds and wills would clearly be able to freely choose sub-optimally, and God could let them, if He had morally sufficient reasons, and if He were going to eventually fix it all and undo the bad effects when the reasons had been satisfied. That's exactly what the Bible says He's been doing and will do. Not that Oppy should take the Bible's word for it, but it shows that there is no logical impossibility in constructing such a view.
I would say it is just as familiar to expect chance as it is to expect intention, by just thinking of my everyday life. I did not get the impression that he thought of anything as a machine. I take it that you mean with machine something that is Newtonian in nature, ie a reversible system. I got this impression because they both agreed on nondeterminism while a reversible system has to be deterministic.
I think his opposition was more to the point of a perfect system extending imperfectly. The only way I can see that happening is if the extension is not intentional but probably spontaneous, for example the perfect system created rules by which objects arise instead of creating objects directly. There should be much more to say about this and I got the impression from both of them that they wanted to talk about that more.
I'm happy to hear your thoughts on this.
@@noneatallatanytime
I may not have understood some of your points completely, so please forgive me if I'm off-base. I would start by remarking that our everyday life is only full of *apparent* chance. Whereas agent causation is not just apparent. I would add (though this only occurred to me now) that a "chancy" unfolding of things from the necessary beginning makes me wonder why such chancy world-altering events don't keep happening. With an agent, it's clear it would only act when it chose to.
The imperfection of the current world is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, at least partially attributable to the free actions of agents other than the original agent that created the world. So, there is no reason to wonder how imperfection comes from the original creator, since it doesn't. Just like you said: It created the system in which free agents could come to exist, and they freely chose imperfection.
@@Mentat1231 I think your first question/point can be answered by large sample bases. This is a philosophical paradox of at what point does one more become more or less meaningless (think voting). Put your way, the reason world altering events of chance aren't happening is because there are currently so many events/stuff for another events to not be significant. An example of a significant event would be that the speed of light would half. It isn't, because there are so many parts of the whole system the probability is too low. I am sure in Graham's world view the speed of light possibly changed often in the beginning of the universe.
Chance, as they meant, was the concept of no explanation. I.e if there is no way of knowing why something happening we say it is chance. But to your point, we see it as chance until we find that there is an explanation or reason or cause.
To your second point, we are in agreement. However, Graham's objection seemed to be pointing to that such a beginning would not be perfect. In other words, what do we mean with perfection and what difference does it make to the world being imperfect? I am not sure about the answers because I have not thought about it but I found it interesting that this was their point of disagreement.
My question about God would be, is the all knowing being limited to create a world in its image? Or is it free to create rules/agents or objects that are imperfect? Potentially a kind of misotheistic view.
@@noneatallatanytime
As long as everything actually does have an explanation, even when some things don't appear to for a time, there's no actual chance. So, the way things played out would be the only way they could have (ergo, lots of metaphysical necessity that we wouldn't normally want to affirm). The way out is if the necessary cause is an "agent" (i.e. has free will).
I don't know about perfections, but I know that a necessary being could make contingent choices, if it's the kind of thing that makes choices (again: an agent). That being said, you mention the property of being "all-knowing". What role were you thinking that property would play? Did you have in mind knowledge of the future?
@@Mentat1231 When we say that the something is unexplained until it is explained, to me, means that there is such a thing as unexplained. In other words, it is possible that any given thing at any given moment can be unexplained in the sense that it is unexplainable, i.e. chance. In this way, it is possible to have agents but it is also possible to not have agents. I am of the kind that don't want to make a claim that I have no way of making. For example, I don't want to make the claim the the uncertainty principle is only uncertain from our perspective but underneath is actually certain. I am much happier with saying I don't know what is underneath and rather explore any kind of underlying structure, rather than imposing what is apparent from my perspective on what lies beneath. Does that make sense?
My point, at this point anyway, is that you can replace 'choices' with 'chances' and still end up with the same outcome. Therefore it seems to me that the question comes down to explanatory power which is where their discussion was going but time ran out.
It seems that you see a problem with replacing "choice" with "chance" and perhaps you can illustrate for me what that problem is? If you don't have a problem maybe you can clarify what I misunderstood?
Regarding "all-knowing", I am thinking of a system that has everything in it and by way of extension only extends itself in some dimensions. I am saying 'extends' because produce or create can imply two separate systems, which they both agreed on was not what they were talking about.
In this sense, "all-knowing" is not a property of the system but a description of the whole system. I mean it as as a suggestion for what "perfect" can mean, not to say that that is what Josh meant.
You have come a long way with the studio set up.
26:17 Oppy changes his formula from showing from premises one already believes are true that their worldview doesn’t obtain to them rejecting one of the premises.
This doesn’t represent inconsistency at all but rather some demonstrating that they in fact do t hold the beliefs you claim are inconsistent.
This is not an example of his original statement.
Oppy has a terrific mind. Very organized.
You gotta be shitting me.
I wonder if perfection can really be a fundamental property. In other words, is God omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent because he is perfect? Or is he perfect because he is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent etc.?
It seems to me that usually we say that a thing is perfect, or even just good, because it has a certain number of positive attributes. But if we were to take that view, perfection would no longer be absolutely simple.
That sounds a little like the Euthyphro dilemma "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" which current theology seems to think is answered by simply alluding to God's nature which is good, so they grab both horns and say 'problem solved.' But you are changing it to be is God perfect because he's all that (all the omnis) , or is he an omni-God because he is perfect. It seems both are missing the point. IF God is the standard for perfection and/or the standard for good, of what value is our 'rating' him as good OR perfect? What do we know of 'positive attributes' beyond what God told us are positive attributes. We have no independent standard so at most it's a tautology and at worst, we are simply deluded and have no idea what we're saying or what we might mean by any rating.
I don't think there is a dilemma here.
I would define a perfect being along the following lines: "A being that has all great making properties to their maximal extent".
So if a being has all great making properties to their maximal extent, then that being is perfect. And if a being is perfect, then it has all great making properties to their maximal extent.
It's just a matter of being definitionally true.
A bit like how we can say that the quantity that is equal to half of 2 is 1, and 1 is the quantity that is equal to half of 2.
It's just a matter of being definitionally true.
51:51 to 52:20 sums up Josh's position.
To like 52:36 ish
@Capturing Christianity I suspect that Graham thinks to figure out what's metaphysically possible or necessary we'd have to do that scientifically. I think this because, according to his answer to am's question, he thinks that to show that Aguirre's model is metaphysically possible we'd need a scientific consensus. So Aguirre's model could be conceivable yet not metaphysically possible. I think Josh accepts that conceivability is a guide to possibility, while I think Graham rejects this. I think this is the major difference between them with regards to figuring out the properties of the necessary being.
So it puzzles me that Graham didn't have a problem with Rasmussen's point about irrelevant differences between the triangle and octagon. It seems to me that Graham should also appeal to scientific consensus in this instance.
At around 42:30 Dr Oppy is describing the Many-World-Interpretation of Quantum Physics and explaining "chance" in the branching of worlds.
However, in this QM interpretation the "reason" we have this world is that our world's particular quantum states have "evolved" (see Quantum Darwinism) into these states and remain fixed (MWI is strictly deterministic; though the manifestation of quantum states in our world are stochastic).... so, it isn't by chance... it's by the Law of Natural Selection, i.e. that particular law is prior to quantum laws.
So, what Dr Oppy is saying is that our universe came about through the evolution of quantum states (he does not say this, but this is what MWI implies).
So, the metaphysics in the Aguirre model would be the Law of Natural Selection... because, that single law precedes physics proper.This would be the only scientific approach to metaphysical consensus.
But, the problem with this is that there exists around 9 different theories of evolution.... and most probably, some chap would say all quantum states obey Convergent Darwinism and therefore all the branched worlds would be the same!
Darwin's Greatest Hits....
You wonder why:
"So it puzzles me that Graham didn't have a problem with Rasmussen's point about irrelevant differences between the triangle and octagon."
The reason is because if Dr Oppy made an issue out it, it would defeat his own a priori's of his world-view... Dr Oppy's world view works like this:
Dr Rasmussen: "A pig-pen is a place where farmers husband pigs."
Dr Oppy: "Yes, that is correct, BUT that's just "chance" because in a possible world it is "something" you write with."
TRADUZCAN ESTA JOYITA
5:20 I have a fundamental problem with the notion of "tool of explanatory power" when "demanding an explanation" it seems like just a way of making stuff up when we don't have enough data.
@Oners82 No, I understand his point, I don't think you understand how science works, or it's function. Science does not give you an answer because you demand one, Science does not care about your feelz.
@Oners82 Yes, My issue is with the word "demand", that is the crux of the matter, it is not just sloppy language, it is a precise philosophical concept. Explain to me the difference between a "demanded explanation" and a scientific hypothesis. Science as a "thing" is sloppy or metaphorical language.
But what if lack of data IS our situation - then we're all stuck - ath- or theists.
I don't see how you could ever solve this issue of whether being 'maximally powerful' counts as the most simple theory. Sure, you can make an argument for it but it's so far outside of our experiences and what we know from science that its hard to see how we could ever gain much confidence in it or make any conclusions based on it.
I think it illustrates a point that while the general idea of theory simplicity makes sense, it seems to be way over played in these types of discussions. I mean, if you've got two models which equally explain the data, you wouldn't choose a more complicated one that needed - that makes sense. But aside from that situation, I'm not sure why considering simplicity is useful?
Even if we grant that 'maximally powerful' is more simple and that that matters, shouldn't we also consider possibility? We have no examples of anything that is 'maximally' powerful, not to mention many of God's other supposed properties such as an 'unembodied mind' so shouldn't that count against the theory compared to anything that has limited power and therefore matches every example of anything we've ever come across which lends more to its possibility?
That's a very interesting point, though I think there's also a case to be made based on our experience. I think a good measure of simplicity for explanations can be: the number of causally independent entities proposed. This seems to be true because considering two sets of causally independent entities: (A, B, C), and (A, B), the set (A, B, C) is inherently less likely to exist than the set (A, B), because for (A, B, C) to exist, (A, B), also has to exist.
Now, it seems that our experiences show that a single causal entity can only bring about the same result. For example, it seems reasonable that if you were in an empty universe and threw an object toward a certain direction, that object would never stop unless another causal entity made it stop. If you were to add an additional causal entity (such as a force that would deaccelerate that object, and that force was constant, every time you threw the object, it would always stop at the same place. Compare that with the actual universe, where you can throw objects, and they will never stop at the same place, and we know that to be caused by the existence of multiple interacting causal entities. Seems to me, then, that from our experience, we can see that variation is the result of the interaction of multiple causal entities.
So, it seems that experience does show that a single causal entity will result in maximal values. I agree, though, that it is hard to transpose to more qualitative properties of a supposed being.
What are your thoughts?
@1:15:30 - big question
Reality will not be understood until Consciousness (the ‘hard problem’ for Western Philosophy’ is understood). God is all there is and Consciousness is all there is, nothing exists without either, so it is safe to assume they are One and the same.
1. I agree with Josh about how to evaluate the simplicity of a theory. For Graham, if there are a series of items a1 to an each explaining the next, adding another item (a0), no matter how simple is a0, is a theoretical loss. But I personally disagree. Because if we prefer a1-an to a0-an why we should not prefer a2-an to a1-an? Why not simply accept the 10-min-world hypothesis? In the causal order, in my idea, is the simplicity of the initial state and not the whole chain that counts.
2. I am a moral anti-realist. So for me, "perfection" is our evaluation of a thing and not a real single property of it. And therefore, I cannot go further with his perfect theory. Moreover, even if I was realist, for me perfection would be a composite adjective constituted by many perfections...
3. On modality, I prefer theories with more contingencies and fewer necessities. And I have a very hard time conceiving of a concrete entity that is necessarily existent. It seems impossible.
4. The question of whether initial singularity or God is simpler is a bit confusing for me. We have to get a more grip on both ideas to evaluate them.
The thing is though that withe the whole 10 minute thing, i would have no explanation for how the universe cam into existence with ita current state of affairs. But with geaham's model, i can have a necessary state of affairs that thrn evolved or developed into the state of afairs we have now. So like, perhaps the universe exists in some cosmic void where space-time and energy are generated through random fluctuations in the meta-fabric of the cosmos (the cosmos being the reality within which our universe exists) and a random fluctuation lead to the universe being formed and eventually leading to this state of affairs. And yiu can say that things have an existential inertia. Once a state of affairs is actualised, the state of affairs continues until something causes it to be otherwise, or the state of affairs are innately temporary (like a spring which bounces back in its place due to the nature of the bonds). Just as theists believe god has a nature, the cosmos has an intrinsic nature. The only difference is that the cosmos wouldnt necessarily have a mind or thoughts or what have you. And it may be describable in mathmatics. Personally i dont know and i think remaining agnostic on the subject until we can get a model that generates some predictions or is at least can be worked into our mathametical models is best.
@@mothernature1755
I'm not sure if it's coherent to talk about things being actualized because of how that implies an actualizer actualizing a potential, which is something a naturalist can hardly accept.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I’m not sure that there isn’t a naturalist explanation for actuality, but if you mean to say that this implies a powers based grounding for modality, then that is possible (and would entail God). Is that what you’re saying?
Oppy's argument against theism, is essentially that it adds an additional commitment to what he thinks naturalism can account for (without God). Essentially it's a form of occam's razor. Oppy would need to justify his claim that naturalism (which assumes nature) can in fact account for it. So far, I do not think he has.
i love philosophy because you can spend your entire life studying it and get a phd and yet this can still happen:
Cameron: why is there something rather than nothing
Oppy: the short answer is i don’t know
1:05:00 Josh's speculations about consciousness remind me of the coyote running full speed into a solid rock wall covered by his own painted tunnel giving the illusion of a path.
y
@@anglozombie2485 Because his speculations aren't real -- there is no path there.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf
> naturalism doesn't have an answer to the mind-body problem
I'm sorry. We're already past that.
> Religion offers explanatory
No, it just avoids the question.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf
> naturalism doesn't have an answer to the mind-body problem
I'm sorry. We're already past that.
> How are we past it?
Because we already have an answer to the mind-body problem. Your assertion is like saying that naturalism can't solve flight or long distance communication. We already have those too.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf The mind body problem? How, other than assertion, does religion offer explanatory power? It seems at best it pushes it out/back/up out of the reach of any empirical analysis. Here's how naturalism explains the mind body problem, the mind is produced in/is a function of the cells of a functioning brain. I know of nothing that is conscious that doesn't have a brain, so there is a link. And when the brain ceases to function or when it is impaired with drugs/anesthetics/damage, consciousness seems to disappear as if on cue and comes back when the damage or impairment is healed/no longer in effect.
Oppy would be a horrible spy. If captured, this would be how things would go:
Capturer: "Tell us all your secrets!"
Oppy: "Well, if you put my feet to the fire, I would say that my secrets are..." **procedes to spill all his secrets**
I wish so much there were a way for me to talk through the issue of necessity with Dr. Oppy. There is a piece he's missing, and it doesn't seem that Rasmussen, or even people like William Lane Craig or Alex Pruss are noticing it (though I've shared some of it on Pruss' blog).
what is the missing piece?
@@alfred9916
Basically, you can't just grant something "necessary" status. There are reasons why something would exist necessarily rather than contingently, just as there are reasons why some contingent things exist and some fail to exist. It comes down to the conditions. There are required and sufficient conditions for any contingent thing to exist, and the explanation for why some exist and some happen not to is because the sufficient conditions were met for the ones and not for the others. A necessarily existing thing would need to be such that it had no required conditions, and so ANY state of affairs would be sufficient. And it is a logical contradiction to say both "X's sufficient conditions are all in place" and "X doesn't exist". So, the non-existence of this thing would literally entail a contradiction. However, only a very very small sub-set of things could possibly have this sort of existence. The so-called "singularity" has various properties, and could clearly have been otherwise. But God is postulated to be a perfectly simple being and He doesn't even require space, time, matter, or energy. So, He is a better candidate for necessary existence.
Moreover, His necessary existence comes along with both freedom of the will and moral perfection, and so He explains why there would be contingent things, and in particular why we should end up existing.
In any case, analyzing WHY some things are contingent (they have required conditions), and why some things fail to exist (their required conditions weren't met), would -- I think -- lead to a much more plausible analysis on Oppy's part (and Rasmussen's for that matter).
Mentat1231 Hmm, maybe. I think that you might be misunderstanding a little about necessity. But I need to think about it. Thanks!
@@alfred9916 What I don't understand about the prime-cause of reality being /necessary/ is that 'necessity' is a property. It is a property about the thing that makes it come to exist no matter what. So if the prime-cause of reality has a property that makes it come to exist no matter what, then my question is -- Ok, so there was a point when the initial thing didn't exist before it existed, so then how in the holiest of all hells did it have the property to make itself come to exist before it existed?
Did the property that existed to make the initial cause 'necessary' exist before it existed in order to make itself exist necessarily?
Necessary initial causes which began to exist seems utterly incoherent to me.
It seems to me there is just simply no way out of the initial thing or prime cause of reality existing eternally.
@@jesserochon3103 Thanks for those thoughts. I think you are making an error about the nature of necessity. Something that is necessary doesn't "come to exist", since that would assume that the thing's non-existence is possible. Rather, a necessary thing has always existed, and will always exist. Therefore one doesn't run into the issue of there being a time before the necessary thing, because that necessary thing never "came to exist". An initial cause is a first cause, but that doesn't mean that the first cause came into being at that time. Rasmussen would agree that the cause is eternal (he believes that cause is God, and God is eternal). Does this mean that the past would be infinite? No. It might be that God exists outside of time, but causing from an atemporal the universe (or whatever the first effect was). Another model is that God exists outside of time prior to creation, but when he creates he steps into time and becomes temporal. None of these models require God to begin to exist. So, therefore we can have both a necessary first cause, and a finite past without diving into incomprehensibility.
When you are in a box and you don't know it? Who says there has to be one non-contingent being/object/thing? The holy-ten are why all things are
If God exists by himself BEFORE creation then the world he exists in is PERFECT (since it contains only him and he's perfect by hypothesis).So it can't be that God saw the world he was in to be in need of improvement then he started creating.He couldn't have seen the world to be lacking in any way to be in need of correction. So Josh's explanation of why a perfect God had to stray from perfection is unconvincing.
I dont think the perfect being was compelled to stray from perfection, but perhaps it saw value in certain states of affairs that could only be instantiated through finite creatures.
but a world containing only a perfect creature is already perfect in value ..there's nothing more valuable to add to it.
If you can add value to a perfect world then that world wasn't perfect to begin with.
Let's rephrase the question then: Why would God make something imperfect whether he made it in time or outside of time ? since there's one possible world in which only God exists ,which means the created world is not necessary like God.But if it's not then why does it exist ?
Perfect value is not the same as ALL value. What would be missing from a world with ONLY God is you.
I think God does exist but it is beyond our comprehension. It makes sense to me the thing we label as God has manifested itself to all the different forms of consciousness and experiences possible.. the purpose and meaning of this could be many but being able to expirence love, relationships and pleasure in all forms possible might be a good summery..
50.41 inductive reasoning (Graham Oppy) vs Deductive reasoning (Josh Rasmussen) interesting
In a philosophical debate it doesn't matter if your counter argument has different reasoning than the original argument
Josh is cute 🥰
These are my two favorite 800 lb. Gorillas in this area.
Did we really hear that there are affects without causes?
That seems to be part of quantum mechanics but I don't pretend to understand it.
24:20 Oppy says rhetorically, What does dressing up as an argument gain?
The ability to think carefully about an inconsistency or incoherence! Seems the obvious answer. We need careful study of our beliefs and examination of the premises that undergird them in order to determine where we hold false beliefs!
This type of method founds all of our mathematical, historical, scientific, and philosophical knowledge so why abandon it when we get to questions as important as is there a God?
Rhetorically it won’t be as formal but still premises our interlocutor holds more likely to be true which don’t comport with major features of their worldview. It seems prima facie false.
I see that your comment was made 2 years ago but it's a good question so I will do my best at answering for anyone stumbling into the comment section.
Exposing inconsistencies only works if your interlocutor agrees with the premises. Often I find theist make argument where it seems they are taking premises from their world view and arriving (not suprisingly) at their world views conclusion.
The kind of argument me and Oppy prefers are the ones that start from my world view and arrives at some absurdity.
I personally think apologetics arguments aren't really meant to persuade non-thesists but serve to strengthen the resolve of the theists.
For example:
William Lane Craig spends more time on (and almost exclusively presents) the a-theory version of the Kalam than the b-therory version even though he sometimes claims he has a b-theory and most naturalists are b-theorists.
@@Oskar1000
He defends the a theory of time because he thinks it's correct and considers defending a b theory of time version of the Kalam to be almost a waste of time, I suspect. No pun intended.
Oppy Graham vs Gerald Anderson (")>
You could prove God exists but none of rhe theology follows..Nothing you know and love,here and now will be 8n an afterlife.Living to infinity? YIKES !
Either absolutely nothing is the foundation for all of reality including metaphysics, or God is the foundation for all reality.
Its a no-brainer. No need for 2 hours of philosophy.
Why do you think that?
@@chad969
Well what other options are there?
@@breambo3835 How about this option. Foundational reality is shmod. Shmod has all the attributes of god except for the mental qualities like knowledge, qualia, consciousness, and intentionality.
Those don't seem to be the only two options. I assume there could be an eternal natural existence out of which universes emerge.
I don't see how God can be the foundation for all reality in that it doesn't seem that God created the essential basis of mathematics and logic. God could not create the 'fact' that 2+2=4 in that he could have created it differently or that 'fact' didn't exist and then...it did Even if there were absolutely NOTHING...no universe...no god...nothing. It is an implicit fact that 2 of something added to 2 more of that thing would always be 4 of that thing even if nothing existed. The basis for mathematics is contingent. Even God with all his power could not make it so that 2 of something is 3 of that thing at the same time. And even God with all his power cannot make A be A and not A simultaneously.
Should study physics and incorporate it into these philosophies IMO
Theoretical physicists should study epistemology and rid themselves of verificationism which atheists and theists philosophers alike agree is incoherent (for a half-century now).
@@ubergenie6041 It also seems true that philosophers know more about science than scientists know about philosophy.
I just don't see how Josh thinks his view is simpler. His view is quite the opposite of simplicity and frankly nonsense.
Yes, it appears to be his mantra.
Why is it nonsense? And why is it the opposite of simplicity?
It has greater explanatory scope and at least equal simplicity.
Yeah, so once your complaining I’m being dishonest (when I not only know I’m not, but also know that you don’t have privileged access to my mind; and I didn’t even state a self-contradiction) my motivation to further discuss the matter with you equals zero. Bye.
Hi Mark. I think simplicity alone is not the arbiter or a better theory, but instead is one tool along with others such as explanatory power we can used to find the most probable theory. Josh’s theory as he lays out in his book “how Reason can lead to God”, I found to be very compelling it put a logical sharpness to casual thoughts I’ve had about the foundation of reality. With respect to you it seems like calling something nonsense is a conversation stopper. Both of these philosophers are respected thinkers who would never (i assume) call each other’s view nonsense, but instead would seek deeper understanding of the other’s view.
21:45 or so Oppy jumps in with the idea that an argument ca also take many aspects of a persons worldview and show how they are inconsistent!
Argument for God from the existence of objective moral values and duties seems to be of this type .
Atheists are as moral as theist.
Due to there perception of objective moral duties such as killing babies for fun is always wrong, atheist don’t do this.
But on atheism how would these objective duties obtain?
The universe doesn’t spot these duties out like it creates atoms and quarks and galaxies.
Further to whom would we owe these duties?
I don't think objective morals exist, so don't have to offer an account as to 'whom' they depend on.
What morals do exist seem to depend on the functioning of the evolved human brain, which grew to its current level of complexity in societal groups.