David Bentley Hart - Why Is There Anything At All? (Part 3)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 ноя 2019
- Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/2UufzC7
Why is there a world, a cosmos, something, anything instead of absolutely nothing at all? If nothing existed, there would be, well, 'nothing' to explain. To have anything existing demands some kind of explanation. Of all the big questions, this is the biggest. Why anything? Why not nothing? What can we learn from the absence of nothing?
Watch more interviews with David Bentley Hart: bit.ly/34oD03v
Watch more interviews on why anything exists: bit.ly/34jX86Q
Absolutely awesome conversation. One of the best people Robert has interviewed in theology.
You can tell Robert is really enjoying this discussion
David Bentley Hart is simply the best
@@vecumex9466
He isnt...God explains nothing..he needs to study Ancient History and Physics
@@rationalsceptic7634 Really? Maybe you can teach David something the man with several Phd's. LOL!
@@vecumex9466 Guys a troll you can tell
One of the best clips I’ve seen on the channel ..loved it❤️❤️❤️❤️
It's fantastic how people cannot understand what is ontological contingency, and what is necessary, possible, impossible and contingent. It's ridiculous nowdays how people don't know what ABSOLUTE nothing is or confuse it with the quantum vacuum. The best cosmological arguments were given by Aristotle Leibniz Plato etc and most of them were made with the consideration that the universe is ETERNAL. It does not matter AT ALL if the universe is eternal. There still needs to be a First Cause. A first metaphysical cause.
If there are contingent beings, then evidently some Sine Qua Non principle is necessary. But it is not absolutely necessary that anything (contingent) exist AT ALL; and if absolutely nothing existed, if "there were" the _purum nihil_ of *no* manifold - no space, no time, no entity whatsoever - then the Sine Qua Non would not only not be necessary, it would be impossible. WHY is this not "the case," why do we have a world instead of this Nothing? We can't try to append an SQN of the SQN, that just leads to an infinite ontological regress. Instead we have nothing but a pure original brute ontological fact of a manifold. The SQN can't be taken as absolute however, because it is integrally related to contingent beings. The being of the SQN principle is therefore a trivial truth consequent on, and wholly compatible with, a naturalistic cosmos. There is no reason to take it as any "thing" supernatural.
This proves you do not understand what eternal means!
If the universe is eternal that doesn't *JUST* mean that it has no end, it also means that it had *NO* beginning.
@@LIQUIDSNAKEz28 exactly what Aristotle, Plato and Leibniz based their arguments on
@@M4th3www I think all things are just the emergent phenomena of some eternal fundamental geometric sructure that has the quality of a mobius strip. That's the only way I can logically come to terms with the idea that time is infinite in both directions.
To me, Hart provides the most compelling case for the necessity of God (aka, Ultimate Being) of any modern theologian or philosopher.
I'm in awe at this conversation, but I can't help but feel a sense of futility in it.
Same here .
It just takes some time to get used to it. Best wishes.
It is hardly a new argument, but saying there is necessarily something (surely we knew that already) gets you no closer to demonstrating that that something is your "god".
@@roqsteady5290 Excatly.
Probably because the deep mystery of the nature of God/Being can only be known experientially by way of illumination from a lifetime of prayer, contemplation, and dying into God. And even then, God may not be explained by mere human logic. The best these efforts can do is point to that which is essentially ineffable.
That clicked pretty hard. The God of general revelation still has to explain every dimension of human experience, which turns the otherwise vacuous definition of God as “Being itself” into a well-spring from which all created things must arise. Love, beauty, truth, the planets, consciousness, etc- each necessarily find their origin and fullest expression in God.
Why is everyone in the comments so brain-dead? I didn’t understand every word He said, but I could follow the strand of logic he was working on (and it was, surprise surprise, not very difficult to follow. It’s literally just an advanced game of never stopping asking the “why” question). He didn’t dance in a circle and regurgitate a thesaurus. He actually lead the interviewer to the answer to the question from familiar terms to a genuine conclusion. And from how excited the interviewer seemed, it seemed like he was with David almost the whole way.
You get it.
Good analysis.
Very well stated.
holy pseud
@@ummareli2791 Let's hear why this person is a "pseud" then? Let me guess, you are unable to make a worthy contribution to the conversation so you chose to avoid the subject and throw an insult out instead...
More Hart please
This series has been fascinating. I have a very open mind on this subject, and find his explanation for the existence of a supreme being very compelling.
Why A supreme being? Why not many of them? Why not "none" of them? They say "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"... My question is : why A cause? why not 2, 3, 5 causes? the reason they word it as "A" cause is because they want to set the stage for "A" god in their conclusion... clever but fallacious! The following is an example of something that comes into existence but has multiple causes: a rainbow (=an arch of colors formed in the sky and CAUSED by the refraction/dispersion of the sun's light by water droplets in the atmosphere) have 2 causes: sun rays AND droplets. Sun rays by themselves do not create a rainbow and droplets/crystals by themselves do not create a rainbow. If it is possible that 2 mindless things can come together to bring something "new" into existence then it is dishonest to state that "everything that comes into existence has "A" cause. Once their 1st argument is crippled, theists typically retract and ask for more time to think the argument through. I tried that many times… and it worked!
Why should it be "supreme" (what does that even mean)? why a "being"? I'm sure no one sensible is arguing that there isn't something, but there is no necessity to anthropomorphise it.
@@lewkor1529 Because two distinct beings cannot contain existence itself and in order to distinguish between distinct beings one being must have one feature that the other being lacks which means each being cannot be the fullness of existence so some other source beyond them must be. Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas answered this question centuries ago:
www.newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm
@@LogosTheos You said "Because two distinct beings cannot contain existence itself" What you call "existence itself" sounds awfully like a rhetorical trick. If you presuppose that there is such a thing as existence itself" without bothering explaining what it is then you would have embedded your conclusion in your premise. That is circular reasoning. Why even resort to the Kalam if you predefined "existence itself"?You said "if two distinct beings (what the hell is that?) cannot contain "existence itself" (i am sorry, what?). As I stated in my previous post: sun rays are distinct from droplets, they come together and bring rainbows into existence. That is one example of two mindless "objects" bring another mindless "object" into existence. Does the rainbow exist? I would definitely think so. As for Aquinas, I read a whole lot of his writings and as you probably know, he was wrong on many fronts. Don't take my word for it. Just read some of his contemporaneous philosophers..So please don't appeal to authorities but rather make a clear case, possibly your own
@@lewkor1529 I didn't say anything about the Kalam. You are aware that there are dozens of contingency arguments besides the Kalam right?
What I mean by existence itself is being the source of existence or not belonging to any class of beings. You read Aquinas right? You should be familiar with how he unpacks that, so that shows me you haven't read Aquinas like you said you have. The point is that only something that is ontologically simple can be the source of all that exists here and now. To be ontologically simple is to be one. In order to distinguish between two beings one being must have continget feature that other other one lacks which me which means they are both contingent and don't exist necessarily and could have something that explains there contingent properties e.g something to actualize these potential or contingent properties. Even Greek philosophers such as Plotinus knew this in argued that the source of all being could not be made of parts but must be one being. He called this being "The One". Aristotle called this being "The Prime mover". Even though they believe in many Greek deities they knew that behind these deities there was one ultimate source of reality that is one.
Interesting discussion
Beautiful!
That was nice 👍🏻👍🏻
My favorite answer is: "Even if there WERE Nothing, you still wouldn't be happy".
As a belieiver, listening to this level of explanation and philosophy is quite interesting. It seems trying to imagine a being who has no need of anything at all, is indeed rather daunting, for the nonbeliever. I believe so that I will understand.
I hope you know that it doesn't matter whether you are "a believer" of any religion.
I don't know what the fastet way to "god" is, but I went through a christian, then an atheist, then a nihilist phase. I just left the latter yesterday, but today I already know how contradicting this notion really is.
time is relative
I would say that the ability to conceive of this is daunting regardless of whether you believe or not…
@@chrisjackson3759 Yes I would agree Chris.
I like this speaker saying very high end articulation, sounds highly educated obviously. I have a question for Robert what holy books he may be reading on a daily basis?
You can tell the interviewer is really enjoying this discussion.
From wisdom of knowing eternity is understanding nothingness .As above so is below.
I liked the guy who answered this question with ; "Because 'nothing' is unstable."
But as Kuhn pointed out, his definition of "nothing" was mathematical, not philosophical.
Wonderful as usual. This guy has done a lot of thinking. Contingencies lead us to the necessity of Supreme Being. But it doesn't tell us anything about the creator or how it happened. Who created the creator? Isn't that also a contingency? Isn't that just ducking the question?
This dude is cool
1 Change is the real feature of the world
2 Change is the actualization of a potential
3 So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world
4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality)
5. So, any chance is caused by something already actual
6. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.
7. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S’s potential for existence.
8. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence
9. A’s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A’s being purely actual.
10. If A’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that it either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
11. But such a regress of cincurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchal causal series, and such series cannot regress infinitely.
12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
13. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
16. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
18. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
19. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potential capable of actualization
20. But being purely actual, it lack any such potentials.
21. So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
22. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not.
23. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.
24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
26. If the purely actual were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.
27. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
28. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
29. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation - that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
31. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
32. SO, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
33. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
34. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminated in the purely actual actualizer.
35. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer.
36. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.
37. So, the purely actual actualizer is omnipotent.
38. Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle of proportionate causality)
39. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things
40. So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
41. The forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
42. They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things.
43. So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
44. So, the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
45. Since it is the forms or patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there’s nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts.
46. For there to be nothing outside the range of thoughts is for that thing to be omniscient.
47. So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.
48. So, there exists a purely actual casue of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotenet, intelligent, and omniscient.
49. But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exists.
50. So, God exists.
Source: Dr. Feser
Disagree with premise 30. I dont see evil as a privation of good. In fact it ismt clear what is meant by "perfect" here.
Perfection is normative not descriptive. When i say something os imperfect, i imagine how it ought to be, and then compare that to how it is and notice the variations which make it imperfect. Also, i can imagine good being a privation of evil. To be evil is to lack goodness but to be good is to lack evil.
Also, not sure about premise 40. Why wpuld gpd to have every abstract concept in himself in order for things to become actualized?
@@philip8802
- Disagree with premise 30. I dont see evil as a privation of good. In fact it ismt clear what is meant by "perfect" here.
Good question. And a hard one.
Evil has no ontological being, but it’s rather a perversion of what is good. That’s the simplest explanation I can give.
Regarding perfect goodness...
From Feser’s Book:
In order to see that God must be perfectly good, we need first to understand what goodness and badness are. Many people these days suppose that judgments to the effect that something is good or bad are ultimately mere expressions of subjective preference. But it is not difficult to show that that is not the case. Consider a Euclidean triangle, the nature or essence of which is to be a closed plane figure with three straight sides. Anything with this essence must have a number of properties, such as having angles that add up to 180 degrees. These are, as we saw in chapter 3, objective facts that we discover rather than invent. Nevertheless, there are obviously triangles that fail to live up to this definition. A triangle drawn hastily on the cracked plastic seat of a moving bus might fail to be completely closed or to have perfectly straight sides, and thus its angles will add up to something other than 180 degrees. Even a triangle drawn slowly and carefully on paper with an art pen and a ruler will contain subtle flaws. Still, the latter will far more closely approximate the essence of triangularity than the former will. It will, accordingly, be a better triangle than the former. We would naturally describe the latter as a good triangle and the former as a bad one. This judgment would be completely objective; it would be silly to suggest that we were merely expressing a personal preference for straightness or for angles that add up to 180 degrees. The judgment simply follows from the objective facts about the nature of triangles. Or consider a living thing and its characteristic attributes and operations, such as a tree and the way in which it sinks roots into the ground, draws in water and nutrients through them, grows leaves which carry out photosynthesis, and so forth. These are potentialities that the tree has by virtue of being a tree, and which it must actualize in order to flourish as a tree. That is to say, these potentialities and the need to actualize them follow from the nature of essence of being a tree. A tree which, due to damage or disease, fails to sink deep roots or grow healthy leaves is to that extent a bad tree, while a tree which actualizes these potentials is to that extent good. Again, it would be silly to pretend that this judgment reflects merely a personal subjective preference for healthy trees. Rather, it is grounded in the objective facts about what it is to be a tree. The sense of “good” and “bad” operative here is the one that is operative when we speak of a good or bad specimen, a good or bad instance of a kind of thing. It has to do with a thing’s success or failure in living up to the standard inherent in the kind of thing it is. And this notion of goodness and badness applies to everything, since everything is a thing of a certain kind. Goodness and badness can be defined objectively, then, in terms of the natures or essences of things. Of course, the examples given so far do not involve moral goodness or badness, since a badly drawn triangle is not morally blameworthy and a healthy tree is not morally praiseworthy. But distinctively moral goodness and badness can be understood as special cases of these more general notions. Moral goodness and badness enter the picture with creatures capable of freely choosing to act in a way that either facilitates or frustrates the actualization of the potentials which, given their nature or essence, they need to realize in order to flourish. Human beings are rational animals and for that reason capable of such free action. Moral goodness or badness in human beings involves the deliberate choice either to act in a way that facilitates the actualization of the potentials we need to realize in order to flourish as human beings, or to act in a way that frustrates the realization of those potentials.53 Now, note that goodness involves being actual in a certain way- again, in a way that involves realizing what is implicit in the nature or essence of a thing. A triangle is good to the extent that its sides are actually straight, a tree is good to the extent that it actually sinks roots into the ground and carries out photosynthesis, and so forth. Badness, meanwhile, involves a failure to be actual in some way- again, in a way that involves failure to realize what is implicit in the nature or essence of a thing. A triangle is bad to the extent that its sides are not perfectly straight, a tree is bad to the extent that its roots are weak or it fails to carry out photosynthesis, and so on. Badness is therefore a privation-that is, the absence of something that a fully actualized specimen of a kind of thing would possess, given its nature. Lacking a fourth side is not a privation in a triangle, because a fully actualized specimen of the kind of thing we call a triangle would not have four sides in the first place. But having a crooked or wavy side is a privation in a triangle, because a fully actualized specimen of the kind of thing we call a triangle would have straight sides. Lacking wings is not a privation in a tree, because a fully actualized specimen of the kind of thing we call a tree would not have wings in the first place. But lacking strong roots is a privation in a tree, because a fully actualized specimen of the kind of thing we call a tree would have strong roots. Goodness and badness, then, are not on a metaphysical par. Goodness is primary, since it is to be understood in terms of the presence of some feature. Badness is derivative, since it amounts to nothing more than the absence of some feature, and in particular the absence of goodness of some kind or other. Goodness is a kind of actuality, and badness a kind of unrealized potentiality. To be bad in some respect is, ultimately, to lack something rather than to have something, just as to be blind is simply to lack sight rather than to have some positive feature. This “privation” account of badness, standard in classical philosophy (whether Platonic, Aristotelian, or Scholastic), is rejected by many contemporary philosophers, but not for reasons that are ultimately any good. For example, it is sometimes alleged that the privation account, since it regards all badness as the absence of good, thereby denies the reality of evil. But that is simply not the case. To point out that blindness is the absence of sight is not to deny the reality of blindness. Similarly, to claim that evil, as a kind of badness, is the absence of good is not to deny the reality of evil. It is merely to give an account of the nature of that reality, just as pointing out that blindness involves a failure of the eyes, the optic nerves, or the like properly to function is to give an account of the nature of blindness. It is also sometimes claimed that pain is bad, but is not a kind of privation, not the absence of something but precisely the presence of something. But there are several problems with this objection. First of all, it is not correct to say without qualification that pain is bad. For pain serves the functions of indicating to an organism that something is wrong, that there is danger that it needs to avoid, and so forth. In that sense, pain can sometimes be good, and its absence bad. For example, it would be bad for an organism if it did not feel pain when making contact with something liable to burn it, because in that case the organism would not act promptly so as to get itself away from that thing. Furthermore, there are cases where pain is not even
experienced as bad.
@@philip8802
continued:
For example, the pain one feels after a strenuous workout can be experienced as satisfying. What is bad is not the pain itself, then, but something associated with it-for example, the bodily dysfunction or damage of which the pain is an indicator, or the loss of tranquility of mind that is its consequence. (Indeed, there is neurological evidence of this. Certain kinds of damage to the brain can result in a strange condition known as pain asymbolia, in which pain is experienced without the unpleasantness usually associated with it.) Then there is the objection that certain kinds of moral evil cannot be analyzed in terms of privation. Murder, the privation account holds, involves the failure to respect the duty not to kill an innocent person. But this, it has been objected, is not the end of the story, since we must attribute to the murderer the intention unjustifiably to take an innocent person’s life, and his having that intention is a positive fact about him rather than a privation. And even if we analyze the unjustifiability of the killing in terms of some privation, we will still have to make reference to some other positive features of the murderer, such as the presence of certain beliefs and desires.57 But as David Alexander points out, this objection rests on a misunderstanding of the privation theory.58 The theory does not claim that an analysis of a morally evil act will make no reference to any positive features. It says only that the badness of the act, specifically, will be analyzable in terms of privation, even if other aspects of the act are positive features rather than privations. Hence, a murderer will indeed have certain beliefs and desires, and to have a belief or desire is per se really to have something rather than to lack something. The belief or desire may in itself even be good. For example, if the murder is motivated by the desire to acquire some money, that desire considered by itself is good. What is bad is the absence of an intention to seek money only in a way consistent with respect for the rights of the innocent. But isn’t sadism an example of moral evil which cannot be analyzed in terms of privation? For a sadistic killer does not merely fail to respect the rights of the innocent; he positively takes pleasure in inflicting harm on them. And isn’t this precisely the presence of something (namely, sadistic desire) rather than the absence of something? But sadistic desire is analyzable as desire that is misdirected, directed toward an end contrary to the concern for others which we need to cultivate in order to flourish as social animals. It involves a psychological deformity or defect, just as blindness involves a physiological deformity or defect. Of course, fully to justify this analysis would require an excursus into ethics which is beyond the scope of this book. But it suffices for present purposes to show that sadism is no more resistant to a privation analysis than any other kind of badness or evil. So, the objections to the privation account all fail.59 And so we have, again, an account on which to be good is to be actual in some way, whereas to be bad is to fail to actualize some potential. Now, we have seen that God is purely actual, with no potentiality. But if actuality corresponds to goodness and badness to unrealized potentiality, then we have to attribute to God pure goodness and the utter absence in him of any sort of badness or evil. So to argue is to draw out the implications of God’s nature as pure actuality taken together with the account of goodness we have been sketching, but we can arrive at a similar result by reasoning instead from what is true of the world to what must be true of its cause. For given the principle of proportionate causality, whatever good there is or could be in the world must in some way be in God. But if something is the source of all possible goodness, then there is an obvious sense in which it is all good. But if, as the principle of proportionate causality holds, whatever is in an effect must in some way be in its cause, wouldn’t it follow that all badness or evil too must be in God? That does not follow. The reason is that, as we have seen, badness of any sort is the absence of something, rather than a positive reality in its own right. Hence, while it is perfectly true to say that there is evil in the world, what this amounts to on analysis is simply that certain good things are absent from the world. Thus, making a world with evil in it is not a matter of making two kinds of thing, good things and bad things. Rather, it is only a matter of making good things, but also refraining from making some of the good things that could have been there. Suppose I begin to draw a triangle on a piece of paper, but after drawing two sides and starting to draw the third, I stop before the side is finished. The triangle, being defective, manifests a certain kind of badness. But the badness is not some extra thing I have put into it after drawing the triangle. Rather, the badness amounts to the absence of something I refrained from putting there. It is in that sense that God creates a world with evil in it. Evil is not some thing that God has put into the world alongside all the good things he has put there. Rather, evil is the absence of certain good things he refrained from putting there. Now, what the principle of proportionate causality entails is that whatever things, whatever positive features, are in an effect must in some way be in its total cause. But since that is not the sort of thing evil is, the principle does not entail that evil must in any way be in God. Yet wouldn’t God’s failure to create all the good he could have created constitute a defect in him? No. Would my failure to finish drawing the triangle in my example indicate the presence of a defect in me? Not at all, since I might have a very good reason for not finishing it. For example, it may have occurred to me that there was no more effective way to make a certain philosophical point during the course of a lecture than by drawing an incomplete triangle and then going on to use it as an example. The good effect of generating philosophical understanding in my listeners would outweigh the trivial instance of badness represented by the imperfect triangle. Considered in isolation, the incomplete triangle is bad, but the overall situation consisting of the triangle together with the lecture, the audience members’ coming to understand a certain philosophical point, and so forth is good, and it is a good that would not have been possible without allowing into it this element of badness. Similarly, God’s refraining from causing all the particular good things he could have caused is consistent with his being perfectly good insofar as the overall creation is good in ways it could not have been had certain localized instances of badness not been permitted to exist. To take just one example, courage could not exist unless people faced real danger of suffering harm and yet did the right thing anyway. But courage is good and suffering harm bad. Hence, a world with that particular good in it could not exist unless that particular sort of badness also existed in it. Hence, just as even God cannot cause a round square to exist, neither can he cause a world to exist in which there is courage but where no one faces any real danger of suffering harm. Hence, God’s being perfectly good is consistent with the world he causes having badness in it as well as goodness.
@@philip8802
Regarding Premise 40 and 41:
“Put these points together and what follows is that the forms or patterns of things must exist in the purely actual cause of things; and they must exist in it in a completely universal or abstract way, because this cause is the cause of every possible thing fitting a certain form or pattern. But to have forms or patterns in this universal or abstract way is just to have that capacity which is fundamental to intelligence. Add to this consideration the fact that this cause of things is not just the cause of things themselves, but of their being related in any way they might be related. That is to say, it is not only the cause of men but of the fact that all men are mortal; not just the cause of this cat, but of this cat’s being on this mat; and so forth. So, there must be some sense in which these effects too exist in their purely actual cause, and it must be in a way that has to do with the combination of the forms or patterns that exist in that cause. That is to say, the effects must exist in the cause in something like the way thoughts exist in us. So, what exists in the things that the purely actual cause is the cause of preexists in that cause in something like the way the things we make preexist as ideas or plans in our minds before we make them. These things thereby exist in that purely actual cause eminently and virtually even if not formally. For the cause of things is not itself a cat or a tree (and cannot be, given that it is immaterial), but it can cause a cat or a tree, or anything else that might exist. But it is not merely intelligence that we can therefore attribute to the cause of things. Consider that as the intelligent cause of everything that exists or could exist, there is nothing that exists or could exist that is not in the range of this cause’s thoughts. It is in that sense allknowing or omniscient.”
Same source.
I see problems in multiple areas, especially in the argument for omniscience. But even granting everything, this is a deistic God and does not justify any of the world’s religions or their associations with the word “God.” Very interesting argument though, thank you for sharing it.
It also brings up problems that are not obvious based on its premises. How does this immaterial thing that exists outside of space and time actualize potentials that do exist within material space time? The word “actualize” is itself a word that is parasitic upon the concept of time. How can something outside of time engage in a *process* of actualization which by definition takes place within time? How does something immaterial reach into the material world and actualize potentials?
For some odd reason, David Bentley Hart's speaking voice reminds me of Jim Morrison.
Why reject it based on probability? If you reject equal weighting to all possibilities, then what would be the "weighting" that you expect? How would there be a preference for one possible something over any other?
It seems that probability requires time because it needs the event to occur to realize it has occurred and then the probability goes to 1 since it is actualized. If the state of Nothing is one possible state of everything, then the probability is zero. The dilemma is that existing objective reality is a single state as well but it's probability is zero as well and yet here it is.
David Bentley Hart nails it at 7:17
Not really
@@nihlify Why?
Erik, please explain?
@@nihlify explain yourself Erik!
We're still waiiiting, Erik...
He is All That Is - That Is is pure - there is no time or space.
This gets you nowhere. If for some reason, our universe was the result of a cause, then something must've created what caused our universe, and you could keep asking what caused the cause and so on.
theist made a backdoor for that. They will just state, that the "first mover" did not have a cause or was self-caused. I call that special pleading but thats one of many logical fallacies that theists do not understand or act like its not a thing.
@@megustaav You have completely misunderstood. That there is necessary being is the logical conclusion of the contingency of beings. To call it special pleading is just to show that one has not understood the analogical difference between Being itself and beings who owe there existence to Being. Note that David does not want to put an article before absolute being, God is not a thing among others and Christian metaphysics does acknowledge that.
@@kennethmattebo4819 im not buying a concept of necessary being. If so, you can call that universe a necessary being and we get rid of the god as per desert myths, changes nothing.
@@megustaav Nothing dodgy at all about denying a concept you´re non the less ready to invoke in the next sentence...
If you´re going with a necessary universe you would have to hold there is no change in it, pretty counterintuitive to say the least.
@@kennethmattebo4819 why would I hold that there is no change? Is there a contradiction? We just assume stuff anyways so it can have almost any property .
How about the fact that you were commanded to be a human by a preexisting written word that no physical thing can ever concatenate?
Schopenhauer brings clarity to matters of necessity and contingency:
"In addition, Kant made the major mistake of confusing the concept of necessity with the concept of contingency, although he was simply following the precedent of earlier philosophy which misused abstraction in the following manner. It was obvious that something follows inevitably when its ground is posited, i.e. it cannot fail to be, and is thus necessary. But people stopped with this last provision alone and said: something is necessary if it cannot be otherwise, or if its opposite is impossible.
They failed to consider the ground and the root of such necessity, and overlooked the concomitant relativity of all necessity, thus creating the entirely unthinkable fiction of something absolutely necessary, i.e. something that exists with the inevitability of a consequent from a ground, but without being a consequent from a ground, and is thus not dependent on anything. But this addition is asking for the absurd, because it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason. People nonetheless took this fiction as their point of departure and declared, in diametric opposition to the truth, that everything posited through a ground is contingent; this is because they saw the relativity of its necessity and compared it with that completely unfounded and self-contradictory notion of an absolute necessity. Kant retains this fundamentally wrongheaded definition of contingency and uses it as an explanation in the Critique of Pure Reason, V, pp. 289-91, p. 243; also V, p. 301, pp. 419, 458, 460; also V, pp. 447, 486, 488."
I believe all things are just the emergent phenomena of some eternal fundamental geometric sructure that has the quality of a mobius strip or strange loop. Perhaps this structure would resemble a torus or the Hopf vibration.
Nice try but how would you explain human emotions, dreams, sense of loss, drive to your goals?
@@aadxb9493 None of the two possible answers to that quesion contradict anything I said, whether you believe that consciousness(the capactiy for subjective experience) is an emergent phenomena or something as fundamental as the laws of nature.
He is basically saying that the first cause does seem to posit a logical necessity. To say that it was a brute fact , which is a contingent phenomena already assumes that it is dependent upon something else, therefore it wouldnt be a first cause. One however, does not have to subscribe to this idea. This idea also leads to an infinite regress because if one assume the first cause to be necessary, then it could also be the case that its *contingently* necessary. ([]) thus, youd have to say that its necessary necessary ([][]), but it could also be the case that its contingently necessary necessary,([][]) thus youd have to keep following the pattern to find yourself in an infinite regress. Also, our logic could be misleading us to believe so. Maybe, there really is an infinite set of affairs prior, or maybe it simply cannot be explained. Simply put, we dont know.
That there is, is the logical necessity from which contingency operates.
Because some things exist without space and without time and are 100% necessary.
Hear this message to all of you.
Now is the time to make all things right. To clear the way, to see the truth through the light. All of mankind will see who I am. What I can do
You have waited a long time for this. As have I. You have paid the price for sin. Fini!
Robert Kuhn will never get a better answer than this, this side of death. I wonder if he'll ever see what it means?
He's obsessed with this question, but I don't understand why he can't get passed it.
If there can be something OR there can be nothing, at some point in infinite time there will be something that happens, and that's the time in which we live to ask the question. It doesn't seem that complicated.
Time is something. Something can't come from nothing (so it is supposed). If there is nothing at one point, not even time, then something wont come into being. You're imagining a vaccum, which is still something, and eventually something will pop into being in that vaccum out of sheer chance. But that doesn't make sense because that vaccum is still SOMETHING, space, time are SOMETHINGS. We either has to say that something is necessary, be it space, time, and it's power to randomly pop matter into being... Or something else. And in fact, even if we said the former, we would still have to ask what the being of these beings is. What is existence? What is being? Space and time aren't being. Matter isn't being. Even if they exist necessarily. You can posit being itself, the ocean of being, existence existing, subsistence subsisting.
@@pamarkswell this is why everybody goes round and round trying to describe the universe with the crude logic of our own language. Maybe we should leave it at the fact that there is something; whether we can figure out how it got here or not. And that something creates time or time creates that something, The fact is the only thing we know with some certainty is that we are here and we experience something we call time. I think part of the problem for us is that we are temporal creatures. There was a time when that which we call ourselves was not here. So it's natural for us to have a hard time conceiving of infinite time or eternity or whatever word our language allows us to use for time that's so deep it's hard to fit it in our little 70 y/o skulls. But then to ask a question like, why? It seems premature. In just the time that we do understand, we have barely scratched the surface of understanding the nature of reality and the universe and time and all that. We'll get there; just be patient.
🔥🔥
Can’t something uncaused still be contingent in the sense that it didn’t have to be that way? We can have a self-existing, uncaused thing that could have not been, right? And if not, why not? Why can’t something without a cause be random in the sense that it could have not been, and /or could have not been exactly as it is? Everything without a cause must have been? Why?
Mmmm... interesting. So simply asking the question can only produce a contingent answer. Would a brute fact be a Big Bang dependent on absolute, eternal (beingless) laws of physics pre-existing therefore contingent? Would Absolute be free of any sense of being a Being and being subject to laws of physics?
Yes of course. Being as such, not A being. Being itself. Created things exist by subtraction, they are finite, diffuse expressions of an infinite and indivisible reality which is their source at all times. Indwelling. Yes, a universe could not spontaneously come into existence out of chaos if that chaos was not already governed by contingent laws.
I don't care about causality, or a zero balanced universe. The question is what can observe the universe regardless of its limited states of witnessing the universe. Humans are a part of observing the universe. That's more real than a deity or a quantum fluctuation giving rise to this all. Causality is a tool to survive which can blind the endeavor to comprehend a better understanding.
It’s simple, nothing can produce that which it does not have. We are arrogant to think all of this came from nothing as nothing can only produce nothing. A child can comprehend that. Call it God or whatever you like the fact is there is something and it takes something to produce something.
I think the answer to it all is there is nothing. But everything is somehow the same thing as nothing.
Woow, what a logician. Did you met your match?
Can a universe exist without conscious beings within it to observe and validate its' existence? Only a conscious creator could validate and appreciate a universe devoid of sentient beings.
The universe exists in consciousness, not outside of it
Why does existence need to be logical? Perhaps logic itself is emergent, not fundamental. Same for probability. Probability itself is also perhaps emergent.
@Mustafa Yes, you are right :) This language, these words, this logic... they are simply arising, from nothing, for no reason. It is not that the mysterious big bang happened, and then now things make sense and can be understood using physics or logic... THIS IS THE BIG BANG, RIGHT NOW! THIS IS ARISING FROM NOTHING! THESE WORDS! LOGIC ITSELF! SATISFACTORYNESS! NOTHING MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL :)
Could it be that true, or absolute “nothingness” isn’t a possible state? Outside of ontological discussion we only use the word “nothing” relatively. We say there’s nothing inside an empty box, which is true for practical purposes, but in reality there’s air inside of it.
Put an empty box in a vacuum chamber and at any given moment there could be any one of a number of particles inside of it. There’s still energy inside of it, and space inside of it, and the potential for matter inside it.
My opinion is that in the same way the concept of “up” and “down” has no absolute validity (there’s no up and down in outer space), the word “nothing” has no absolute validity either.
It wouldn’t be the first time we failed to understand the relativity of our thinking on a specific topic.
I agree, a hypothetical state of absolutely nothing isn't even a state, it is a contradictory statement itself. Most likely is that a state of something (changing manifestations of energy) is absolutely necessary, also prior to Big Bang. If it wouldn't be absolutely necessary, just something that "happened to happen", why didn't it happen prior to when it actually happened ? What caused it to wait ? And that "what" must have been something... (analogy, like a cloud building up a potential for a lightning). So it becomes another contradiction.
BUT, and it is a big but, imo it does NOT mean that something always has existed! Time is likely a construction, defined into existence by brains, and therefore, the properties "always" and "begin" can not be used in logical reasoning in this context. If a brain constructs an angel it can give it the property "sweet", also a property of a non-existing phenomenon/object.
The universe as a whole did not (in whatever states it was prior to Big Bang), and does not have a specific reference point to measure time, past and future. There are only "nows" everywhere (if a space exists), "all the time" in every location in it, and only changes are real, not time. To understand this, turn on your TV, set it between two channels with a black and white grainy picture. What you see is "Big Bang" now (radiation from it), at the same "time" as you eat your evening dinner. Every event in the universe is a spread out "now" everywhere, with light as the information carrier. The brain is confused about this because it is located in a certain point in the universe.
The photons themselves do not change at all while carrying the information about events with a limited speed (speed of light), if they did change during their "trips" they would ofc distort events. Atom structures do change, and the rate of change in them is affected by acceleration or gravitation (Einstein), therefore "time" (in reality only these atomic changes) can go slower in some material objects than in others. This works (changed rate of change) in exactly the same way in all types of matter, also in humans. Like every object (light, heavy, big, small) falls with the same velocity to the ground, if there's no friction (air resistance).
Talents, young artists, music charts Interesting ideas. So then, do you believe Einstein’s equation, e=mc^2 applied before the Big Bang?
I have no idea, but I guess not. The best scientists in this context seem quite sure that the Big Bang in its very first steps was so hot, had so extremely high energy density that matter (as we know it) couldn't exist. Most also seem to be convinced that it doesn't apply for black holes either, and I think it makes sense if the speed of light has stopped working (no light)....
Jeremy Klein It depends on what kind of theist you’re talking about. Most Christians I know think of God as Jehovah, who is a personality or ego within a realm he created. As I often point out (in vane), such a God isn’t infinite, because what’s infinite can’t be contained within something else. It’s simple logic that unfailingly falls upon deaf ears, though I digress.
Now, if you’re talking about God in the more Gnostic sense then I agree with you, though you run into more semantic issues. The god above all gods could technically be referred to as “no thing” since such a god is above (or beyond) thing-ness. If god is infinite then there’s no place that god couldn’t be, though “place” is an attribute of a finite world, like the one we live in. Our lack of agreed upon definitions could turn a conversation with such ideas into a comedy routine reminiscent of “who’s on first”. Though I think we’re on the same page...as long as you’re not thinking of Jehovah, who’s anything but a big or infinite God.
As for the video we’re commenting on, I think it’s an example of a lot of sophistry that occurs, and always has, by people who know how to read and absorb the thoughts of other people but fail to think for themselves. This conversation is premised on assumptions that are in no way self-evident truths, like what nothing is.
Jeremy Klein Jeremy Klein We’re on the same page, but IMO you need to check your terminology. A “theist” is someone who believes in God, and for 1600+ years that’s been Jehovah to most theists. Jesus was talking about an entirely different God who, depending on which book you read, may or may not be a big god, i.e not Jehovah.
Also, in referring to the “ancient” Christians you’re technically not referring to anyone further back than about 2000 years, when it’s generally agreed that antiquity ended and the common era began. Also, there were many schools of Christian thought for the first few hundred years after the start of the common era. It’s not proper to refer to “early Christians” (which is what I believe you meant by “ancient”) as one unified group, because beliefs among the various Christian groups varied drastically. Some agreed with your way of thinking, but many more didn’t.
As to the existence of God, as the source of all things in the mystical Christian/Taoist sense...it’s a nice thought, and where you describe God’s existence as being obvious, I see it as a truism. The question in regard to this God is, how does it concern me (or anyone curious)?
Yes, there’s a God! Now what? What do we do, now that we know there’s a God?
I suppose we’ll talk about this God in the comments section of RUclips videos, and maybe some other places. And what will we do after we’ve talked about that God for a while? We’ll talk about something else, and we’ll forget about that God for a while, until someone else mentions that God, then we’ll talk about that God for a while and forget him/her/it.
That’s the problem with God, as nothing more than idea in a person’s head. As a theory, or even fact. It doesn’t matter how you define God. God, as a mere idea in a person’s head, is no different than a mountain (for example) in another country, like Mt. Everest. Most people haven’t seen Mt. Everest, but they have no reason to doubt it exists.
Mt. Everest exists! Yay! Now what? It’s the same question we ask about the kind of God you’re talking about.
Contemporary Christians see God as someone very needy, like a child who needs validation and reassurance. So traditional Christians can spend their freetime tending to God’s insecurities. But with the idea that God, the creator of all things, is completely full, and secure in himself, comes the question, what does God matter to me? It’s a 100% legitimate question and one you’ll be forced to ask once the new in this idea of yours (which I don’t disagree with) wears off.
This is why there are so few religious fanatics like John the Baptist alive today. Because God is a mere idea in most people’s heads. The question is, what do you do with that idea?
I personally agree with the Gnostic idea of coming to know that God-making God a reality to you.
Well what if the whole univerese and beyond is just filled with quantum field and that field has this strange posibility to form anything and and therefore something got formed and that is all. It just is and there you go it was never not and it will never become not. What if there is no such thing as nothing.
Yes...
There is no such thing as nothing, clearly something is eternal.
That is actually quite close what some cosmological models do propose i.e. that our universe is an inflated quantum fluctuation, from some simple external cosmos, which is the fundamental basis of everything.
Then I would want to know how these quantum field rules came about. What are the rules that allowed them to exist?
Yep nothing is a man made construction I agree.
Y'all get that, kids? Alright, quiz on this chat on Monday.
I don’t quite get the drive to keep religious thoughts in the dialogue: religions are per definition about revelations/ epiphany: mysteries get revealed / unveiled to chosen people by god himself, and often are treated as a kind of secret knowledge by its keepers that needs to be guarded against change at any cost, as it literally is considered the word of god. That is the exact opposite to science: in science the veils on our eyes don’t lift themselves by an act of god, but by a lot of work by men and women using contradictions in theories and observations to separate the chaff from the wheat, iterating and improving on the basic ideas, sometimes even involving paradigm changes.
The major religions such as Christianity, Hindu faith, and Islam, especially during the classical period that Hart is such a student of, are/were chock full of philosophy, especially Neo-Platonism in the case of Christianity and Islam, and in this respect do not depend merely on revelation.
@@leeds48 i would say inspired by revelation
This is a totally confusing discussion, but it tells you something about the importance of agreeing upon definitions of words/terms and assumptions before you get started.
I'm a size 40 regular. I'd like one of these suits please
Cause we are conscious beings, the sense of something or existence is inevitable. This question is related to consciousness. The idea and sense of existence is interpretation of information around you by your brain. I mean the idea of nothing at all is an idea, maybe just an idea
There are infinite number of ways you can represent "nothing".
nothing = 3 - 3
nothing = 3 - 3 + 7 - 7
nothing = 3 - 3 + 7 - 7 + pi - pi
nothing = particle + antiparticle
nothing = 4 electron + 4 position + 3 proton + 3 antiproton
ad infinitum....
This suggests the "nothing" representation is rare, and greatly outnumbered by other equally valid representations.
Those interactions between particles dont lead to "nothing." There are conservation laws in place. The total energy will not disappear if a particle and an antiparticle anihilate each other.
If you can *describe* the utter *absence* of anything and everything as “particle + antiparticle” or “3 - 3,” etc, then you aren’t talking about no-thing in the philosophically relevant sense.
Falsafi ko behas ke andar khuda nahi milta, dor ko suljhaRaha hai aur sirrah nahi milta. (Philosopher is unable to find The God in Debate, he is trying to solve tangled string and is unable to find the the endings of string), from Gorakh dhanda Qawaali By Nusrath Fateh Ali Khan.
Because it can. Ergo, everything exists.
I think what David is trying to say is that every house is built by someone, but he that built all things is God. Hebrews 3:4. Therefore, it shouldn't be a giant leap of faith to conclude that the existence of the being who built all things is not contingent on anything. In fact, if you think about it, reason and logic demand it or else that being wouldn't have the right to claim the title, God.
Good news: God was manifested in the flesh and died for the sins of all so that God may be all in all.
Nothing is easier than something.
However, nothingness is apparently unstable due to symmetry, resulting in creation of conjugate particles.
The further mixing of these particles result in coalescing into lumps, making something.
If I had half the IQ of David Bentey Hart, then I would have 200 IQ.
Drowning is not suicide.
Hmm? Why does Unlimited have to have a contingent body!? Unlimited is larger by intent than Nothing, but Nothing is Larger than Unlimited,?
again, how believe in god stops one from searching and trying harder for more understanding.
Sounds like he got Robert. Besides the point I like remind people that Muslims have been discouraged or not recommended to study the structure of God as Robert is doing. So what we do is that we don't think about what is God or how is God?
We just do praise him all the time.
The FIRST Effect!
Every effect, has a cause!
Every cause... an effect!
Every cause... IS... an effect!
The effect... of a prior... effect!
Tracing back... through all the Was-es,
that were ever Is-es...
To the was that... WASN'T... before it was!
The was, that went from... a Naught... to an Is... to a Was...
in less than...
0.000,000,000,001ths of a Second!
The FIRST Effect!
A BANG... so BIG... it Boggles the Brain!
And then... Fantastically-Fast...
An INFLATION...
Of, that very first, IS...
That wasn't an is, but a whizzing IS-ing...
This IS...
The is... we have here...
IS...
The sum... of all the is-es... 'come was-es...
back to...
the...
Wasn't that wasn't!
The FIRST Effect!
The One... for which...
we can attribute... No Other Cause;
Than a... may or may not be... Imagined Nothing...
or a...
may or may not be... Imagined...
God!
By, Geoffrey Marshall Regent
Alice: "How am I to get in?"
Frog Footman: "Are you to get in at all? That's the first question."
It was, no doubt, only Alice did not like to be told so.
Back to our inquiry:
Q: Why is there anything at all?
A: Is there anything at all? That's the first question.
Amazing.
The question should be not "Why" but "How is there anything at all"
Either way, if we eventually get to a theory of everything, we may have to accept that it is just the way it is, because that is the way it is.
So you deny explanations?!
Mathematical order might have an inherent existence. 1 + 1 = 2 in eternity as well. Could it be that there are eternal questions as well, such as 'What is this?" "Who am I?" and that these questions were the origin of God?
I watch this video when I'm broke but I wanna get drunk.
Doc DB Hart, Im with you up until you waffle around at the why then call it god question, personifying it, and that's the theological question and test to the god concept thats being put forth in this "ontological" argument of "origins" that so many theists use the Kalam (garbage) cosmological argument for (like WLC). It sounds to me like in that response you referenced a sane, sensible defined usage psycho-social "personification" argument, which I can totally get behind, but why even bring the "origins of the universe," cosmology, and ontology into it?
I do not understand David Bentley Hart :(
Are you saying that you don't understand what he's saying or that you disagree with it?
I don’t think an answer to the “why question” is important because we already know things exist. What I want to know is “how” things exist, which may or may not be possible to show. There is a fine line between “how” and “why.” It still boggles my mind that things exist. Consciousness also boggles my mind too, but it exists, at least my mind exists 🙂.
Unlike most things, existence must necessarily exist because existence exists, in a circular reasoning sort of way.
To claim a god (”first uncaused cause”) is necessary for existence doesn't answer “why existence exists,” because we still have the question of “why did god exist rather than not exist?.”
"Why is there Anything at All"
To Me is a Supportive Question to Prove a God.
Sure You can Debate the Definition of God but I am Happy to Use Our Ancestors Attempts at the God Definition. Plus I Accept there is a Universe, Possible Multiple Universes.
This Question is Similar to :-
If there are No Humans does the Universe Really Exist ?.
Hence it is Human Consciousness and IQ which Identifies what is around Humanity, Including the Universe. Without Humans, Who or What Knows/Proves the Universe Exists ?.
Another Similar Question is :-
What is on the Other Side of the Universe ?.
Obviously We Don't Know. This in Turn Proves that Whatever is on the Other Side of the Universe is Unknown and May Not Exist because of Our Inability to Know.
So for Now We can Say there is No Other Side of the Universe and No One can Prove Otherwise.
Which is Sort of Similar to Proving God Existed.
Dude, why couldn't the casual network run forever or in circle? I don't get this paranoia of first causes in western philosophy
A system of contingents, whether infinite or cyclical, is itself contingent. Therefore an explanation for such a system is necessitated.
Yes, and an explanation for the explanation and so on
@@SrValeriolete No matter how many contingents you add to the system, the system remains contingent and requires an explanation.
Exactly my point, that's precisely why you can't have a foundation
@@SrValeriolete You can have a foundation if it's a necessary being.
This is my own answer:
We are all making the grand assumption that a state of nothingness is even possible. Just like we can imagine unicorns, we can also conceptualize the "idea" of nothingness. But just because we can conceptualize an "idea" of nothingness doesn't mean that a state of nothingness was ever possible.
Discuss :)
If the universe is expanding, you can shrink it back to 0000000000000.1 and then 000000000000000.0.
Samuel Arthur Boom 💥
I agree with you. I looked at nothing against something. Then asked can there be nothing? But nothing cannot be, it only has meaning in context of something; the absence of something. There can be no absolute nothing; there must be something. Also, there can also be no nothing as a limit to something; so something must exist that is unlimited, that is infinite and thus not material. This needs to be the beginning of our thinking, yet most people start by assuming nothing and then asking why something.
Sure - there is probably some fundamental basis of reality, that is not nothing. But we have no sensible reason to imagine it is anything like any of the gods of religion. That is where Aquinas & DBH's classical theism really fall apart. The whole argument is really just an obfuscation, because it gets us no closer to what theists are actually attempting to propose.
@@roqsteady5290 Once, we acknowledge that there is something, then we need to start to consider the qualities of this something that can define it as not nothing. I have already pointed out that it cannot be material because what is material is defined with limits and thus assumes something beyond those limits. Simply stating that something is spiritual (the alernative to material) does not provide anything more to affirm its existence than nothing. We need a definition that affirms it as something and not nothing other than simply saying that it is something. Being the only "thing", its affirmation must be of itself, that is it must "know" itself to exist and this only makes sense if this "knowledge" manifests as an image distinct from itself. This generation of an image of itself affirms its concrete existence. So, to really say something exists as opposed to nothing, does not give us much scope other than to conceive of a self-knowing and replicating infinite something, that cannot be made of parts. We are getting close here to definitions of deity.
Instead of nothingness, think in terms of no-THING-ness.
WHAT???
@black widowThe religious argument is this: Everything in the universe is contingent. In other words: everything relly on a previous cause to explain its own existence. Therefore the entire universe need to have a cause for its existence. But this cause need to be necessary, something or some being that is not contingent and dont have a previous cause.
Why then so much suffering in the world?
I'd like to see this man arguing with Stephen Hawking.
Well, it's gonna be difficult. Stephen Hawking already died.
Hawking probably couldn’t understand philosophy at all
It’s almost certainly the case I would say ( for what it’s worth .. ha!) that the Universe has never not existed. It has cycled birth death birth infinitely. Roger Penrose’s theory basically .
That may be the case, but some higher dimension, everlasting and unchanging must be there to support that process. It's that "necessity" they speak of here, I think.
@@chmd22 Exactly. The best "Cosmological Arguments" were given by philosopher who believed that the universe was eternal : Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz.
Daniel Ulises Alberdi : You are using the same logic that believers use. It’s as absurd as the one they use for saying God is an infinite being. Except that believers think your ‘infinite whatever you want to call it’ is conscious and creative. The pick you make is exactly the same- it’s faith. Take your pick. It’s still a faith proposition all the way down.
You would still need to posit an absolute being/absolute existence as the reality that is absolved of all contingency, to paraphrase DBH. An eternal cycle of birth and rebirth is still contingent upon a prior state of existence. You are back to an infinite regress of causes. The only workaround is to prove that the initial birth of the universe is absolved of contingency… but it’s literally a “birth.” You can’t get around this problem.
I don’t like the question at all, I never have. It’s like asking “Why is that mountain there?”
A better question would be “What were the conditions and causes that created that mountain there?”
Asking “Why” doesn’t make sense to me.
And my follow up question is, why is there a god ?
The universe exists because Jesus willed it into existence for the express purpose of destruction and Hellfire for all who deny Him as Lord.
Dude....you seriously need to go decaf
@@rg8276 You need to repent and OBEY Him!
What a fucked up being for creating just so he gets his rocks off on destroying.
I'm going with your theory
Part 3 !? ... he's really milking this
I do believe in nothing, how else could quantum particles exist? All particles are exact copies of same kind, there might be differences in state, speed or position, but essentially they are all he same. This would imply only one quantum particle came to existence first and then it multiplied to current amounts. There may be many varieties of particles in existence, but they could all emerge from one single basic unit, constructed from nothing what we think of real today. So nothing is somehow always present, at least as potential to change something into something else, but completely different.
@Psychiatrysts Not in ancient Greek mathematical realms, but nothing is quite common cultural concept, linked with our perception of birth and death. Nothing is worst of all paradoxes, it means something could just pass over some distance, in an instant, like there was no space there and no time has passed. This is exactly what we can observe. So nothing does exist, it makes movement and distances possible, even natural laws couldn't work without nothing machine. Work = force in motion.
All elements in the universe were created from nothing, from singularity to hydrogen, so all other atoms could emerge with time. But it's not just where things came from, nothing is a real medium, a force field like no other, because nothing can make empty space.
Another example of nothing machine are workings of past and future, where are they right now? We can see light from stars coming to our eyes from the past, but those objects are not there anymore, space we see is an illusion. Not just because we can see past dimension, we can't see our own past, since we will never be able to travel faster than light, this is the problem. Universe is obviously real and out there, so where are we right now? This is why i say nothing is real and most intricate part of the reality, shape is just a concept and exist only in our imagination, because space is not in 3 dimensions.
God of the gaps.
deism isn't theism. And even without deism. Schopenhauer was an atheist, yet believed in the will.
Hmm, there is nothing so there is everything which begs everything question that can be asked out of nothing.
A system of contingencies need not itself be contingent.
"No U.S. senator is elected for more than six years at a time, but it does not follow that at one and the same time all senators are up for re-election: they have staggered terms. Similarly, contingent things might well have staggered terms in such a way that at no time there was nothing in existence. If we accept a naive, common-sense notion of time and suppose that by now an infinite time has elapsed, we must conclude, if we embrace this alternative hypothesis to Thomas, that there must have been an infinite number of contingent things; but that, of course, is not at all absurd and actually easier to imagine than Aquinas’ God." (Walter A. Kaufmann - Critique of Religion and Philosophy)
"It might be argued that a universe composed of perishable beings might itself be regarded as a necessary being. Certainly, a universe composed of temporal beings might itself be everlasting. But Aquinas, as we have seen, held it impossible that many contingent things might make one necessary being; and though he failed to prove this impossibility the impossibility of an everlasting but contingent universe seems equally unproven." (Kenny, Anthony - Five Ways)
Sounded like he danced around the question, questioned the questions validity and value, then spun a few circles through a thesaurus and called it a day.
@Tobias N that's entirely possible but then again maybe ive listened to enough of these types of talks that I recognize when someone is full of shit.
This guy is full of shit, bud.
@Tobias N Agreed
Yes, Kuhn did indeed dance around the question.
No the other guy did lol.
Blather, blather, blather. Contingency, contingency, contingency. Circular arguments all. Nothing in this explains why - why is there anything at all. You can couch your arguments in all the “ontological” theory you want. Existence exists, we know that (I think, therefore I am).
But why?
If nothingness was the state before for however long (time doesn’t exist) but was itself imperfect then ultimately the state giving rise to existence ultimately becomes inevitable.
He is not even capable of showing that his own religion is the only true one let alone refuting any atheist thinker!
That last paragraph is not obvious at all. Talk about blather...
You are the one with circular thinking, like a Circus.
What a load of bs. So in order to explain why the universe can't be an infinite regress of events, somewhere along the chain, we propose a being that is infinite and everything is supposed to make sense then?
It is irrelevant that god is necessary, it still is infinite - the very concept we are trying to avoid by appealing to this explanation.
He is not even capable of showing that his own religion is the only true one don't forget that!
Material reality being infinite or a supernatural cause possessing infinite qualities? I think most philodophers and scientist would cringe at the concept of an absolute infinity in the physical world.
At the end, it seems that god as we know, is a personification
Is God contingent on Godself?
No
Nothing is just absence of something, something is just absence of nothing.
No something is the existence of a thing, nothing means no things
1) you have a pipe (called something) in the hand
2) you have not a pipe (called nothing) in the hand.
The observer tell us both 1) and 2) exist.
@@ceceroxy2227
Because if there was NOTHING you would still complain. 🤣
God is real! It’s ok if you don’t believe because even Jesus said on the cross “ forgive them for they know not what they do”. The problem is when you speak out against god , or try to convince people that he doesn’t exist. Be careful my brothers and sisters not to spread ignorance. Peace
There are the eternal fundamental & emergent laws of nature & forces of physics that compose the all-natural creator / originator, orchestrator, evolver, operator, sustainer & supreme ruler of the cosmos God. So the "mind of God" would be the laws of nature that calibrate & determine the reality that the part of God scientists call the forces of physics achieves by actualizing all past, present & future reality itself according to the laws of nature.
God is absolute being, not composed of natural laws, mind or matter. Natural laws are nonetheless contingent. God would be being as such, even if there was an empty universe with no laws.
God answered this question.
It exist for his glory
Lol
if there were no human intelligence to ask this question....hippos, giraffes, rhinos, bugs would still be around....
Nobody said otherwise. Who are you replying to? What argument are you attempting to refute?
Why don't theists like David entertain the possibility that contingent things can come into for no reason? We don't know how causality works after all. For all we know, this is a possibility. I enjoy the kind of theistic speculations that this video entertains, but I think theists should give a good case as to why contingent things can't come into being for no reason.
The word contingent is the key, you know what it means right? Only God can be non-contingent because it’s the cause of all causes.
@@Salazar-79
Thanks for the response. We don't know exactly what all properties of contingent things are. Perhaps some have the property of popping into existence for no cause.
According to the rules of quantum mechanic it is impossible for nothing to exist.
What is a non-contingent, brute fact? 2 + 2 = 4
I’m sure there is some branch of math where that is not true 😁
@@hypergraphic Nope.
That's contingent on the universe as we know it. Might not be true before our physical reality or other universes with different physical laws existed.
@@ricklanders Disagree. One can think of universes that can't exist, such as one where 2 + 2 = 5. If the concept of "2" exists, regardless of the universe, then 2 + 2 will never equal 5. In any case, Max Tegmark has some great points related to this in the same interview series.
@@ricklanders Also David Deutsch's beginning of infinity has a longer explanation of this that I am unqualified to re-articulate :)
If the universe was created by intelligence, chances are that that intelligence would not have been on its lonesome.
Right it would be far too complex and fine tuned to be "mere accident", so would have to have it's own creator.
WTF
This has always been the bone of contention where science meets philosophy. It purports to be interested in cause and effect but really isn’t when the logic stream breaks down. Biologists call this ‘evolution’, physicists ‘The big bang’...whatever. It’s almost a scientific proxy for God
Your first proposition seems true enough, though your second one is off the mark.
Again -- to refer to what Hart argues -- scientists study physical states and their properties, whereas a philosopher or theologian studies causality, ontology, and the logics thereof, rather than the contents of physical states as such.
A cosmologist or a biologist might very well theorize as to sequences of physical states and their properties, without making any claim as to know how or why any such states exists at all -- ie the philosophical questions of ontology and causality.