I think it's brilliant that you created a channel on philosophy that presents philosophical arguments using the Socratic method. It allows for the presentation of both sides of an argument using a philosophical tool in itself.
Excellent video again! I'm a big fan of how these are formatted. I'm a bigger fan of how charitable the discussion is set-up. One of the big problems that I often see is that when philosophical disagreement occurs, any given side might want to state that what convinces them, personally, just is what's reasonable and that the other side has no valid (even prima facie) reason for believing what they do. Being able to have both sides state, "That seems reasonable" or "That's fair, I understand" is becoming progressively less common, so I greatly appreciate it in this script!
What's interesting is how Agrippa's Trilemma applies to both the validity of knowledge and the nature of existence. One either has to posit existence as a self-referential and self-justifying entity, existence as a series of causes which necessitate each other which leads to infinite regress, or existence relying on a dogmatically asserted foundation (like God). There are basic logical problems with all three of these, so I'm often unconvinced by anyone who makes an argument resembling any of them.
If we reject the principle of sufficient resson, how would we justifiably categorize what has sufficient reasons and what doesnt? I feel like it would be difficult to defend that things only in this universe have sufficient reasons. We dont have access to things outside our universe.
I love this channel. I hate the philosophy of existentialism as defined by Sartre. Sorry if I got angry about a reading you did of a fictional character. I think there exists theories in the world that are "non falsifiable". In other words you can't prove that God does not exist, but the converse is also true. You can't prove that God exists. That is where faith comes in. If we go back to the very annoying philosophy of solipsism, we can't even really be sure that anything exists outside our mind. But we can certainly hope that an external world exists, in fact we can even have faith that it does. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Many of us struggle with our faith, but if God does exist it looks obvious to me that he created a universe where faith is needed, and where science and reason which I love can only get you so far. Well good luck and keep up the good work gentalmen. I love how this channel does not tell you what to think, but rather tells you about the major ideas but also tells you how they have been qiestioned.
If God exists, and interacts with the world the way the Bible says God has and does, then it should be easy for the tri-omni God to prove its existence and win most people over to live the good life and join God in heaven. In fact, I would expect this of a tri-omni God. The fact God doesn't actively make itself known to people on a regular basis, for each new generation of people, is a key reason to not believe in the tri-omni God. And if a non-tri-omni being exists/existed just to create the universe, we have no reason to pray to it on that account alone.
@@AndyAlegria this thinking puts God in a box, as well as dangerously assumes that God owes humans anything. He does not, if anyone owes anything, it is us to God, not the other way around. At least that's the way I see it 🤷🏻♂️ although I get where you're coming from, with something that exists outside of space and time, it's hard to really understand the true nature of that thing, so the only means we have to even try to "understand" God, is human methods, which won't ever give concrete results, which leads us to the conclusion of being theist, agnostic, or atheist.
@@Thorshammerwin "assumes that God owes humans" is a good assumption. The Bible repeats that God wants us to join it in Heaven. An ALL good God would do everything it can to help us join it in heaven,, which is why prophets (including Jesus) were supposedly imparted with knowledge of God. A correct decision cannot be made without accurate information and so it is logical that God would do everything possible to make us aware of its existence. At best, the lack of effort to provide credible evidence of God's existence means that God, if it exists, is not tri-omni. At worst, I have no credible knowledge of God's existence because God doesn't exist.
Even if the LCA succeeds, the 'necessary being' could be the universe itself. The proposition that 'nothing exists' is logically incoherent. So something HAS to exist, necessarily.
I would say fallacy of composition for the universe and special pleading fallacy for a god ... and no, we do not all accept the principle of sufficient reason, I do not, it makes no sense to postulate it as a principle. We just make some basic assumptions for the universe we live in, but those does not apply to the universe as a whole
Chemistry proves that the properties of parts can be different than the properties of the whole. We could then argue that quantum particles are parts of a whole (atomic particles) so probably have different properties. Likewise, the universe is a whole made up of atomic parts so it too has different properties. You could then safely believe in the principle of sufficient reason for atomic level material, with which we are most familiar and for which the principle seems to always hold true, without having to admit that the universe or the quantum realm must follow the same rule. What do you think?
Not accepting the principle of sufficient reason implies that the world is random, that anything can happen just like that without a cause or explanation. Predictions become meaningless since everything can occur randomly; even your own memory becomes unreliable as some memories may just disappear and be replaced by random ones just like that. You could also experience hallucinations because, why not? "It doesn't make sense" is no longer a valid argument, and thus the world becomes a chaotic mess.
I think the Mathematical aspect to this argument can tackle the part whole objection. Any set that has more than one member is dependent upon his members for the whole of it's reality. The universe is contingent upon his parts to make up the whole of universe. therefore the universe can't be a necessary being.
Even there is sufficient reason to say the universe must have a 'creator' or better wording the cause(s) of its arising/manifestation, it doesn't necessarily mean such a cause need to have an anthropomorphic, supernatural conscious being/deity i.e., "God" behind such a process. If there is observable and plausibly rules of regularity that underlie the workings of things or phenomena in the universe, it would just be sufficient reason to stop at these impersonal rules and regularities which are behind it.
@@mageofwar5438 Which one? There are so many to choose from, past and present including the Bibles god Yahweh, who evolved from a pagan Canaanite storm god.
Excellent video. But I think they failed to deal with infinite regress and the Necessary and the fact that quantum levels only communicate the the cause SEEMS random and we don’t know it, not enough to postulate a jettisoning of one of the, if not the, most fundamental assumption in science, philosophy and life. Really good job though. Loved it. Subscribing!
I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that the PSR (i.e., the Principle of Sufficient Reason) presupposes "God" (or at least, a "God-like" Mind) as ultimate reality, since only minds can entertain "reasons". JPB
This video is kind of misleading from the start. PSR isn't necessarily cosmological.It can be used both ways it can be used as ontological argument. It doesn't assumes temporal cause existential causes are more focused in PSR . So basically necessary being is something that which can't fail to exist and is not dependent any other for it's existence . The necessary being bestows existence upon contingent quiddities. Thus his existence can't be preceded by non existence, it can't be made of parts as he would be dependent upon these parts to make up his reality.
If you accept the principle of sufficient reason we still would not know if the cause is a god or not, and to avoid the black & white fallacy we dont know if it is one cause or multiple causes and we still dont know those causes so Agnosticism is the best approach.
You should have referred to imam Ghazali who came up with this argument in the 17th chapter of the tahaffud Al falasifa in 11th century. Good video tho. I will add however that the opposition used quantum physics to make his point against cause and effect, and seems to have forgotten that the arbitrary understanding of cause and effect is shaky, since we cannot definitively prove cause and effect. If we are using the arbitrary understanding of causality we ought to be consistent with it
Why does our causation need to be a God? The creation of worlds would more likely be a technological achievement of an advanced civilization or some kind of mind-like entity that has nothing to do with a concept of divinity. It would be safer to say we have a causation or even a "creator" and not make the leap of it being "God".
Not because the universe needs a cause doesn't mean we can just plug in whatever cause we think it is. This does not prove that god exist. It's like saying, there is a rainbow cereal in my bowl. I don't know who put it there. Oh, it must be the unicorn.
I'm curious, is the voice of the guy on the left actually the same person as the one on the right, but just processed through a filter or deliberate accent? Can the existence of the guy on the left be proven, or is it just a trick?
The PSR also makes free will impossible, as our minds and toughts are contingent, that is, they can fail to exist. So every single choice of us is in reality explained by previous causes.
Saying the universe can exist without a cause is like saying a mountain can exist without a cause. Does anyone truly expect any form to “just exist”? Size doesn’t change things either, even if something were the size of the strings postulated in string theory, it would still be like the mountain in needing a cause. The question that really needs to be asked and answered is why God doesn’t need a cause, but the universe does. The answer, I think, is that anything with form (mountains, trees, atoms, the strings from string theory, etc.) needs a cause simply because it could have been otherwise and there needs to be something to determine why it, out of millions of other possibilities that could have been actualized, was actualized. Without such accounting, you’ve basically taken away the means by which it could have come into existence. Without a means to come into existence, i.e., a cause, there is no way for something to come into existence, which for me rules out quantum indeterminism and the laws of existence being different outside the universe, as logic does not vary from universe to universe, just as 2 + 2 doesn’t equal to something different in different universes, the fact that “individualized” contingent things need causes (and everything is contingent, by the way, a point I’ll get back to later) is not a merely physical fact but a conceptual and logical one, physical reality following logic. The only thing that could truly serve as the real “beginning” of existence is formlessness. Some might think that at the beginning there would have to be nothingness. But nothingness is a certain “way” of existing, in that, it is not way X or way Z, by excluding all other possibilities, nothingness needs a reason why it does so. Whereas if you don’t exclude anything, if you let everything just “be,” then everything exists simultaneously in superposition, sort of like a quantum wave function, except all the possibilities actually exist. To put it differently, God is not like a tree that one posits exists and then posits exists necessarily. If you put it like that, then people will indeed be suspicious of why God can exist without a cause, but the universe can not. God exists, rather, as a result of being uncaused (rather than being necessarily existent). In the beginning, if there were no causes anywhere in reality, then there would be nothing to dictate that reality be a certain way. If there are no causes to dictate that reality be a certain way, then reality is no ONE particular way, but every way possible because it doesn’t “decide” or actualize one possibility over all others. Thus, God, being the “uncaused cause,” is like a superposition of all possibilities. If we rule out uncaused events, whether they be quantum indeterminism or events outside our universe, on the basis of the fact that without any means of happening or coming into existence, something can not happen or come into existence, and that means, any means, being a cause, then we’re left with two types of causation: externally caused events and internally caused, as there are only two things to cause events; self and other. External causation refers to when something outside of something causes it to act. The cause is external, like one pool ball hitting another and causing it to move. Internal causation is when something causes itself to act. Since determining for itself when and how to act basically amounts to choice, internal causation basically amounts to free will. Like Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason states, everything can not be dependent, otherwise they would have nothing to derive their dependent existence from. In the case of events, there can not be necessary events, and since there can not be only externally caused, dependent events, this means that a chain of causes must always ultimately rest on an internally caused, or self-caused event, which means that the very first event in existence would have to be an act of free will, and who else’s free will would it be except God?
Prove that free will alone has the ability to affect both the matter/energy and forces of the universe. I haven't seen any science that says it can be done.
@@AndyAlegria I don’t know the answer to your question for sure as of yet, but my best guess is that free will is energy which then materializes matter. E=mc2.
@@drybeanburrito The universe started as a singularity which was all energy (no matter) so I could postulate that the universe itself had the free will to expand (big bang) into material existence. I guess that would make the universe itself a god. More importantly, I'm pretty sure the argument that a god existed before the universe includes God existing before the presence of energy. If energy is required for free will, and energy can transform into matter (which it does), then energy has always existed and God is not necessary.
@@AndyAlegria They say energy can not be created or destroyed. Maybe God/consciousness was potential energy and free will converted it into kinetic energy?
So is God a being in time & space? If yes, then we really don't have any proof that anything that exists in time & space can just "exist" without a cause + If God is outside time & space, then how does he even interact with our world? He might as well be a non-factor And yes... I got these arguments from Kant lol
I can imagine a world where God does not exist, no logical contradiction here, but is imagination a reliable method for accessing modal propositions(e.g God is a necessary/contingent being)?
No conflation at all: The rules pertaining to the parts couldn’t exist without them 1st subsisting in the whole; the source of the rules. The universe cannot be a brut fact because the laws exist. Therefore by necessity, what must’ve caused material reality is something immaterial & infinite; something that the question “what caused it? “ simply does not apply due to that it’s infinite & immaterial.
This video keeps conflating the terms 'brute fact', 'necessary fact' and 'necessary being'. Here is the difference: - A brute fact is a fact for which there is no explanation, not even an unknown one. It simply is and that's all that there is to it. - A necessary fact is a fact that is necessarily true meaning that it cannot be any other way without contradiction. It is true in all possible worlds. - A necessary being is a being that necessarily exists to ground all of contigent reality. Necessary beings by definition don't depend upon anything else, they explain their own existence. Tldr: Necessary facts and necessary beings do have (self-contained) explanations whereas brute facts lack explanations entirely.
So, problem 1. It is a contingent fact that when measured, a particular electron is spin up. If the PSR held then there would be a sufficient reason that it is spin up and now spin down. But all our science tells us that there is no reason that this particular electron is spin up in this particular occasion. So the PSR is wrong. (ie it only takes one black swan to refute "all swans are white") Problem 2, How can a necessary fact explain a contingent fact? A necessary fact cannot be otherwise, a contingent fact can. Let's say a particular fact could be A or B. If it was A then the explanation would explain why it is A and not B. If it was B then the explanation would explain why it was B and not A. In other words if the fact changes then so does the explanation, hence the explanation is also contingent. So a necessary fact can't explain a contingent fact. So if there are any contingent facts then there must be at least one fact that is true for no reason at all. And problem 1 suggests that it is possible for something to be true for no reason at all. So a necessary being cannot explain a contingent universe.
particles not popping out of anything, because they can't be pin pointed or velocity measured leads to dark matter and dark energy. isn't that making chance an all powerful creator god, just without the attributes of kindness and love.
TLDR; You can't get a necessary truth out of amassing a bunch of contingent truths, which means the universe is NOT necessary. I have a difficulty with saying that the universe is necessary, IF we identify the universe as the sum of all contingent truths. If the universe is the sum of all contingent truths, does that mean it has to be contingent? Is this subject to the fallacy which says the whole has all the same properties as its parts? That is definitely a fallacy, because if you consider an elephant which is heavy, you can't assign the property of being heavy to each of its fundamental particles, which are all lightweight individually considered. Yet, for simet things, it's not fallacy, if I see a bunch of red lego 2 by 2 bricks, and make them into a wall, it's NOT a fallacy to say that the wall must be red. I think the universe, the sum total of contingent truths, is more like the lego wall than the elephant. Consider this: if I take one contingent truth, that I have my socks on my feet, and add another contingent truth, that I have glasses on my head, I am justified by thinking that the conjunction of those truths is also contingent. In other words, when you conjoin contingencies with other contingencies, you don't get necessity. Imagine the universe were just a bunch of socks and glasses, no matter how many socks or glasses I add, I still can't a necessary universe. Our universe under my stipulative definition that it's the sum total of contingent parts is metaphysically the same as a bunch of socks and glasses. Therefore, the universe can't be a necessary fact. If the PSR is true, then there would have be one or more necessary truths that explain each of the contingent truths in the contingent universe if the PSR is true. Therefore we cannot appeal to the whole universe as the necessary explanation to all of its parts.
Even if the PSR is true, why do we need to posit an elaborate god with a personality? It may be that as we better understand the Higgs Boson, its necessary existence will become self evident-and every several trillion years, it gives rise to a universe. This is much simpler than positing a baroque god concerned about foreskins. Occam’s Razor?
Where do you get this "elaborate god" and "baroque god concerned with foreskins" nonsense from? Did you just make up a bunch of crap because you thought that it sounded witty and clever? If so, I must say that you failed miserably -- at sounding witty and clever, that is. According to Aquinas, God is not at all "elaborate" or "baroque"; He is in fact quite simple in His non-contingent fully actualized eternal perfection. I take it you have never heard of the doctrine of divine simplicity. BTW, Okham's razor is merely a heuristic for evaluating competing hypotheses. As God is an elegantly simple concept with all-encompassing explanatory power, it remains an unavoidable and imperishable conclusion to all metaphysical speculations, whether you like or not.
There are are no moments in spacetime in which the universe did not exist. Using temporal language such as "before the universe began" or spatial language such as "outside the universe" doesn't make sense. Our notion of causality is developed within the presentation of spacetime here in the universe we inhabit. Trying to apply that notion to the universe itself doesn't work.
Brilliant videos. Awesome debates! I was born in a religious family but later bacame aware of its flaws when i started reading other books. I have now realized that humans created languages, myths, gods, religions, laws because the wanted to protect their belongings. Creating gods and laws were human response to animalistic savagry. they were scared. Now humans are much smarter and build boundaries according to common sense and laws agreed by logical conclusions. When you look at the tribesmen of Amazon now, you can seen yourself in 1000 years from now when human have achived so much that they look at us as we look at the savages of Amazon! I wish we could see that day but we are limited by our life time! just couple of years ago people bilieved that the Earth is the center of the universe and what will humanity achive amazes me but we wont br around 😣
Yeah... but you still cannot falsify God, nor provide the better alternative. So, I am unsure of this childish view of religion that is void of any transcendental reasoning.
@@NamaeofLife The video itself provided an "equivalent" (I'm not going to claim better) alternative, that the universe exists as a necessary brute fact. I have overwhelming proof that the universe exists. I do not have convincing proof that God exists. Occom's Razor, a statistically useful assertion, tells me to go with the simpler explanation, which is a universe without God. I am open to the possibility of God's existence, I just haven't gotten the necessary proof yet.
@@augustodelerme7233 The colony in which I live executes people if they think otherwise! So it's very risky. Even your imediate family members wont find your trace. One can only blieve in One God.
Liked your point about how you compared God being a brute fact to the universe being a brute fact. Never thought about it like that. Keep up the good work guys ❤
That's a flawed comparison since natural laws would not apply to God. Why would we expect laws of the natural world to apply or explain what is outside the natural world?
It is this kind of deliberation that prompts me to ask whether any (proposed) correspondence between God and the universe is univocal or merely analogical. For example, if no aspect of the universe can be identified as being the source and ground of its own existence (i.e., if no "God" can be identified within it), then how could the universe as a whole be a necessary being? JPB
@@cba4389if there's no reason or explanation for God's existence, yeah its just brute. Also PSR isn't a natural law, I don't know where you got that from.
at 7:00 I dont understand the argument of saying that "because x and y have a mom then the whole human race has a mom". Firstly, how does this relate to cause and effect? In that example what would be the cause and what would be the effect. Maybe there is a cause and effect but I am not seeing it. Maybe if we reformulate his argument into mothers giving birth: "Because x was born from a mother and y was born from a mother, the human race was born from a mother". In this example we can see a cause and effect. However, we are comparing completely different things a human race is not the same thing as a human, therefore we cannot say that the human race is born from a mother because human and human race are not comparable in this scenario.
As well, we could apply this principle from the micro level, to the human level, to the macro level. I dont see why at some point we could not apply this principle to the Universe.
it is more likely that god does exists looking at ontological argument , the cosmological arguments ,the moral argument , the argument from reason although it is also more likely that it is not the same as we think of god when looking at the problem of evil ,free will vs predestination though the later arguments don't reject god's existence it certainly causes some problems
I love you guys and oftentimes your content, but let's read Schopenhauer this time, the argument is just no good. Btw, we have to distinguish between the cause and reason of the effect, and it is not hard to realize the cause and effect can only exist as states of matter, in which matter alone is the perceptibility of the principle.
It's still just another way of defining god into existence and therefore unconvincing, notwithstanding all the assumptions - only one god, which just happens to be the one that person believes in, ofc. At least it's not the Ontological Arg, tho, which is, quite honestly, just embarrassing.
I agree that defining God into existence is futile, but I've had a couple of experiences that have led me to believe in a higher power that cannot be defined or explained with human intellect but that you have to experience to understand the existence of. My first experience was what I would on some level call a near death experience and the second was taking ayahuasca. I believe based on things I've read and people I've talked to that those who have had similar experiences will know what I'm talking about and understand the inherent incomprehensibility of some higher power that we're all a part of. edit: I also believe it is this experience that is the origin of the human concept of God and is what all the different religions are trying to describe.
@@HotelMari0Maker Ayahuasca? Did Joe Rogan send you into this comment section? 😄It's hard for me to imagine coming out of that experience as a theistic believer. That's a bit of a leap from what is effectively surely just a wild hallucination. Consciousness is a bigger mystery than god. Is it an emergent quality of physical processes? That's a reasonable question to ask.
@@XiagraBalls I believe the mystery of consciousness and God to be linked. And I understand its hard for you to imagine that experience. I don't expect anyone to imagine it except in very specific circumstances.
@@HotelMari0Maker Do all people who have a near death experience and who take ayahuasca have the SAME experience? If that were so, I would be more convinced. However, from what I've read, people have different (sometimes conflicting) experiences, which calls them into question.
Our current instantiation of space time seems to, now show the method of investigating what was around before the big bang or admit we currently don't know....
if you only do good things because God says to and you wouldn't do them if you didn't believe, then you are just a bad person. Some people don't need an eternal parent to make them behave.
I think that it's plausible that there is a reason this Universe exists, at all, and not any other. I think a good reason to think it was a mind that caused it is that I don't think anything but a mind can itself cause something without being caused to cause something itself. In other words, no physical thing will do anything unless caused to do so, but minds seem capable of doing things without being caused by anything but our will to do it. I think the Universe displays incredibly intricate and impressive features, making me thing the mind that created the Universe is very powerful and wise. We could call this mind a God but it doesn't satisfy the typical theistic sense of the word 'God.' That's about as far as I'm willing to say seems right to me. Maybe this God means to be good, I could see that. Perfectly good, powerful, and wise seems hard to imagine to me, though, seeing as there is really a lot of suffering that occurs daily on this Planet alone. But that's just my opinion
@@eklektikTubb It depends on who you ask, but I don't think the mind being just a function of a human brain, whatever exactly that would mean, is a coherent view
@@Rspknlikeab0ssxd Interesting. Show me a mind that exists without a human brain. I don't think you can do so but it would be fascinating if you could prove me wrong.
The universe is not a contingent entity. The definition of universe is the collection of all there is. A universe is necessary in all possible worlds. If some possible world does not contain a universe, then it is not a possible world, after all, this possible world does not exist, thus being impossible.
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj The universe itself is also beyond space and time since it is the very concept of space and time. Only the objects inside the universe are bounded by the rules of space and time. Your exception for your made-up deity is not justified.
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj Yeah. Just like theism do. In order for god to even create the universe, time must already exist. The concept of creation is time-dependent. Also, if your god doesn't exist in time, then how can someone even claim that such being exists at all? How do you define existence?
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj You just made an absurd claim. You assert that god exists beyond space and time, but doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever for how it is even possible to claim existence outside of space and time. Remember, the concept of universe is "the collection of everything that exists".
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj Cool, i already studied all of those arguments, and i arrived a the opposite conclusion 🤷♂️ Let me challenge the "perfection" of the God you love to claim. 1) God should be perfect in every aspect. 2) So, God must be a perfect creator. 3) A perfect creator is one who creates perfect creations. 4) There is imperfection is humanity. 5) So, God cannot be perfect.
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj Well, i do not have any previous experience with nothingness, so i do not know how things work there. In order for causality to work, time must already exist, so your claim that something caused time is absurd. I just claim the universe itself is necessary. There is no need to add extra steps.
The principle of sufficient reason does not prove God exist. If the universe is a contigent existence with a cause it does not mean that the cause is God or a deity.
True, plus to avoid the white & black fallacy we dont know if it is one cause or multiple and we still dont know those causes so agnosticism is the best approach
On the contrary, Aquinas proposed five major proofs for the existence of God. According to Peter Kreeft, there are at least 20 solid arguments for the existence of God.
Love the way you explain these ideas so well. Brilliant for people like me interested in philosophy. I must admit, of all the arguments for God’s existence, this one, based on Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), along with the ontological argument, are pretty convincing arguments, though both have their critics. For the case against the ontological argument, we have Kant’s notion that existence is not a property and Schopenhauer who sees the argument as some kind of ‘conjuring trick’ (If valid, you could define anything into existence). Both arguments provide a good case against the ontological argument. For the case against Leibniz, Russell pointed to the fallacy of composition: that just because we have a mother, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the universe has a mother, as referenced in your video. Wonderful the way you get all the crucial points into these videos. Please keep them coming.
@@johngagat6408 As far as i know, dreams happen in brain, they are consequences of our physical and mental state. How you think, what you eat, what types of evening movies you watch, all of that can have an impact on your dreams.
@@eklektikTubb science cannot confirm that neither dreams nor memories are produced or stored in the brain. But it can confirm that the brain, along with DNA, act like a receiver/transmitter. So, from where are these signals?
Empiricism scientism = infinite regression = oxymoron. Allaah is As-Shomad = the only one necessary being. Stop by Efdawah, Scdawah, thought adventure podcast, Mohammed Hijab, Subboor Ahmad, Sapience Institute, muslim metaphysician, muslim lantern, Abdullah Al Andalusi, muslim Skeptic youtube channels live streams and have friendly fruitful discussions insya Allah.
Check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology, volume 1 "Philosophy of Religion" available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
I think it's brilliant that you created a channel on philosophy that presents philosophical arguments using the Socratic method. It allows for the presentation of both sides of an argument using a philosophical tool in itself.
Thank you :)
Excellent video again! I'm a big fan of how these are formatted. I'm a bigger fan of how charitable the discussion is set-up. One of the big problems that I often see is that when philosophical disagreement occurs, any given side might want to state that what convinces them, personally, just is what's reasonable and that the other side has no valid (even prima facie) reason for believing what they do. Being able to have both sides state, "That seems reasonable" or "That's fair, I understand" is becoming progressively less common, so I greatly appreciate it in this script!
U guys have helped me through many a level tests thank you 🙏🏻
So glad we could help :)
What's interesting is how Agrippa's Trilemma applies to both the validity of knowledge and the nature of existence. One either has to posit existence as a self-referential and self-justifying entity, existence as a series of causes which necessitate each other which leads to infinite regress, or existence relying on a dogmatically asserted foundation (like God). There are basic logical problems with all three of these, so I'm often unconvinced by anyone who makes an argument resembling any of them.
GOD exists, period
Are you claiming that?
@@mycroftholmes7379 he's God, obviously he exists.
@@mycroftholmes7379 What do you think, genius?
No he absolutely does not
@@TrovENT You do not exist. You are merely an annoying figment of someone’s imagination.
Great video! Highly recommend for anyone studying philosophy to watch their series!
Thank you :)
If we reject the principle of sufficient resson, how would we justifiably categorize what has sufficient reasons and what doesnt? I feel like it would be difficult to defend that things only in this universe have sufficient reasons. We dont have access to things outside our universe.
Necessary entities do have an explanation. It is that they have an explanation in their own nature
I love this channel. I hate the philosophy of existentialism as defined by Sartre. Sorry if I got angry about a reading you did of a fictional character.
I think there exists theories in the world that are "non falsifiable". In other words you can't prove that God does not exist, but the converse is also true. You can't prove that God exists.
That is where faith comes in. If we go back to the very annoying philosophy of solipsism, we can't even really be sure that anything exists outside our mind. But we can certainly hope that an external world exists, in fact we can even have faith that it does.
Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Many of us struggle with our faith, but if God does exist it looks obvious to me that he created a universe where faith is needed, and where science and reason which I love can only get you so far.
Well good luck and keep up the good work gentalmen. I love how this channel does not tell you what to think, but rather tells you about the major ideas but also tells you how they have been qiestioned.
If God exists, and interacts with the world the way the Bible says God has and does, then it should be easy for the tri-omni God to prove its existence and win most people over to live the good life and join God in heaven. In fact, I would expect this of a tri-omni God. The fact God doesn't actively make itself known to people on a regular basis, for each new generation of people, is a key reason to not believe in the tri-omni God. And if a non-tri-omni being exists/existed just to create the universe, we have no reason to pray to it on that account alone.
@@AndyAlegria this thinking puts God in a box, as well as dangerously assumes that God owes humans anything. He does not, if anyone owes anything, it is us to God, not the other way around. At least that's the way I see it 🤷🏻♂️ although I get where you're coming from, with something that exists outside of space and time, it's hard to really understand the true nature of that thing, so the only means we have to even try to "understand" God, is human methods, which won't ever give concrete results, which leads us to the conclusion of being theist, agnostic, or atheist.
@@Thorshammerwin "assumes that God owes humans" is a good assumption. The Bible repeats that God wants us to join it in Heaven. An ALL good God would do everything it can to help us join it in heaven,, which is why prophets (including Jesus) were supposedly imparted with knowledge of God. A correct decision cannot be made without accurate information and so it is logical that God would do everything possible to make us aware of its existence. At best, the lack of effort to provide credible evidence of God's existence means that God, if it exists, is not tri-omni. At worst, I have no credible knowledge of God's existence because God doesn't exist.
Even if the LCA succeeds, the 'necessary being' could be the universe itself. The proposition that 'nothing exists' is logically incoherent. So something HAS to exist, necessarily.
Y’all should do a video on the presuppositional argument aka TAG
I would say fallacy of composition for the universe and special pleading fallacy for a god ... and no, we do not all accept the principle of sufficient reason, I do not, it makes no sense to postulate it as a principle. We just make some basic assumptions for the universe we live in, but those does not apply to the universe as a whole
Chemistry proves that the properties of parts can be different than the properties of the whole. We could then argue that quantum particles are parts of a whole (atomic particles) so probably have different properties. Likewise, the universe is a whole made up of atomic parts so it too has different properties. You could then safely believe in the principle of sufficient reason for atomic level material, with which we are most familiar and for which the principle seems to always hold true, without having to admit that the universe or the quantum realm must follow the same rule. What do you think?
@@AndyAlegriasounds sound :D
Not accepting the principle of sufficient reason implies that the world is random, that anything can happen just like that without a cause or explanation. Predictions become meaningless since everything can occur randomly; even your own memory becomes unreliable as some memories may just disappear and be replaced by random ones just like that. You could also experience hallucinations because, why not? "It doesn't make sense" is no longer a valid argument, and thus the world becomes a chaotic mess.
I think the Mathematical aspect to this argument can tackle the part whole objection. Any set that has more than one member is dependent upon his members for the whole of it's reality. The universe is contingent upon his parts to make up the whole of universe. therefore the universe can't be a necessary being.
Even there is sufficient reason to say the universe must have a 'creator' or better wording the cause(s) of its arising/manifestation, it doesn't necessarily mean such a cause need to have an anthropomorphic, supernatural conscious being/deity i.e., "God" behind such a process. If there is observable and plausibly rules of regularity that underlie the workings of things or phenomena in the universe, it would just be sufficient reason to stop at these impersonal rules and regularities which are behind it.
Your videos are always nice to listen to.
Thank you
The Universe has no obligation to explain itself.
Neither does God.
@@mageofwar5438 Which one? There are so many to choose from, past and present including the Bibles god Yahweh, who evolved from a pagan Canaanite storm god.
@@thewb8329 Oh, really? Which one do you worship?
What an incurious mind you have! The universe cries out for an explanation!
Excellent video. But I think they failed to deal with infinite regress and the Necessary and the fact that quantum levels only communicate the the cause SEEMS random and we don’t know it, not enough to postulate a jettisoning of one of the, if not the, most fundamental assumption in science, philosophy and life.
Really good job though. Loved it. Subscribing!
Since you made a vid about the PSR, it'll be nice to see a vid about Leibniz's metaphysical system in general.
I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that the PSR (i.e., the Principle of Sufficient Reason) presupposes "God" (or at least, a "God-like" Mind) as ultimate reality, since only minds can entertain "reasons".
JPB
What is necessary existence in philosophy?
This video is kind of misleading from the start. PSR isn't necessarily cosmological.It can be used both ways it can be used as ontological argument. It doesn't assumes temporal cause existential causes are more focused in PSR . So basically necessary being is something that which can't fail to exist and is not dependent any other for it's existence . The necessary being bestows existence upon contingent quiddities. Thus his existence can't be preceded by non existence, it can't be made of parts as he would be dependent upon these parts to make up his reality.
If you accept the principle of sufficient reason we still would not know if the cause is a god or not, and to avoid the black & white fallacy we dont know if it is one cause or multiple causes and we still dont know those causes so Agnosticism is the best approach.
The cartoon character on the left was conflating contingency with cause.
It's a common mistake. Took me a while to figure that out myself.
You should have referred to imam Ghazali who came up with this argument in the 17th chapter of the tahaffud Al falasifa in 11th century. Good video tho.
I will add however that the opposition used quantum physics to make his point against cause and effect, and seems to have forgotten that the arbitrary understanding of cause and effect is shaky, since we cannot definitively prove cause and effect. If we are using the arbitrary understanding of causality we ought to be consistent with it
Why does our causation need to be a God? The creation of worlds would more likely be a technological achievement of an advanced civilization or some kind of mind-like entity that has nothing to do with a concept of divinity. It would be safer to say we have a causation or even a "creator" and not make the leap of it being "God".
I am here because of Siiig..
Same man
The uncertainty principle exists because we’re dumb and don’t have the tools yet
Not because the universe needs a cause doesn't mean we can just plug in whatever cause we think it is. This does not prove that god exist. It's like saying, there is a rainbow cereal in my bowl. I don't know who put it there. Oh, it must be the unicorn.
I'm curious, is the voice of the guy on the left actually the same person as the one on the right, but just processed through a filter or deliberate accent? Can the existence of the guy on the left be proven, or is it just a trick?
9:11
Actually, given the results of the "Bell Inequality Experiment", we are warranted to doubt it.
I wish your channel was more popular
The PSR also makes free will impossible, as our minds and toughts are contingent, that is, they can fail to exist. So every single choice of us is in reality explained by previous causes.
Not true:ruclips.net/video/3Pfn6xJ1dqk/видео.html
Saying the universe can exist without a cause is like saying a mountain can exist without a cause. Does anyone truly expect any form to “just exist”? Size doesn’t change things either, even if something were the size of the strings postulated in string theory, it would still be like the mountain in needing a cause.
The question that really needs to be asked and answered is why God doesn’t need a cause, but the universe does.
The answer, I think, is that anything with form (mountains, trees, atoms, the strings from string theory, etc.) needs a cause simply because it could have been otherwise and there needs to be something to determine why it, out of millions of other possibilities that could have been actualized, was actualized. Without such accounting, you’ve basically taken away the means by which it could have come into existence. Without a means to come into existence, i.e., a cause, there is no way for something to come into existence, which for me rules out quantum indeterminism and the laws of existence being different outside the universe, as logic does not vary from universe to universe, just as 2 + 2 doesn’t equal to something different in different universes, the fact that “individualized” contingent things need causes (and everything is contingent, by the way, a point I’ll get back to later) is not a merely physical fact but a conceptual and logical one, physical reality following logic.
The only thing that could truly serve as the real “beginning” of existence is formlessness. Some might think that at the beginning there would have to be nothingness. But nothingness is a certain “way” of existing, in that, it is not way X or way Z, by excluding all other possibilities, nothingness needs a reason why it does so. Whereas if you don’t exclude anything, if you let everything just “be,” then everything exists simultaneously in superposition, sort of like a quantum wave function, except all the possibilities actually exist.
To put it differently, God is not like a tree that one posits exists and then posits exists necessarily. If you put it like that, then people will indeed be suspicious of why God can exist without a cause, but the universe can not. God exists, rather, as a result of being uncaused (rather than being necessarily existent). In the beginning, if there were no causes anywhere in reality, then there would be nothing to dictate that reality be a certain way. If there are no causes to dictate that reality be a certain way, then reality is no ONE particular way, but every way possible because it doesn’t “decide” or actualize one possibility over all others. Thus, God, being the “uncaused cause,” is like a superposition of all possibilities.
If we rule out uncaused events, whether they be quantum indeterminism or events outside our universe, on the basis of the fact that without any means of happening or coming into existence, something can not happen or come into existence, and that means, any means, being a cause, then we’re left with two types of causation: externally caused events and internally caused, as there are only two things to cause events; self and other.
External causation refers to when something outside of something causes it to act. The cause is external, like one pool ball hitting another and causing it to move.
Internal causation is when something causes itself to act. Since determining for itself when and how to act basically amounts to choice, internal causation basically amounts to free will.
Like Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason states, everything can not be dependent, otherwise they would have nothing to derive their dependent existence from. In the case of events, there can not be necessary events, and since there can not be only externally caused, dependent events, this means that a chain of causes must always ultimately rest on an internally caused, or self-caused event, which means that the very first event in existence would have to be an act of free will, and who else’s free will would it be except God?
Prove that free will alone has the ability to affect both the matter/energy and forces of the universe. I haven't seen any science that says it can be done.
@@AndyAlegria I don’t know the answer to your question for sure as of yet, but my best guess is that free will is energy which then materializes matter. E=mc2.
@@drybeanburrito The universe started as a singularity which was all energy (no matter) so I could postulate that the universe itself had the free will to expand (big bang) into material existence. I guess that would make the universe itself a god. More importantly, I'm pretty sure the argument that a god existed before the universe includes God existing before the presence of energy. If energy is required for free will, and energy can transform into matter (which it does), then energy has always existed and God is not necessary.
@@AndyAlegria They say energy can not be created or destroyed. Maybe God/consciousness was potential energy and free will converted it into kinetic energy?
So is God a being in time & space? If yes, then we really don't have any proof that anything that exists in time & space can just "exist" without a cause
+ If God is outside time & space, then how does he even interact with our world? He might as well be a non-factor
And yes... I got these arguments from Kant lol
I can imagine a world where God does not exist, no logical contradiction here, but is imagination a reliable method for accessing modal propositions(e.g God is a necessary/contingent being)?
No conflation at all: The rules pertaining to the parts couldn’t exist without them 1st subsisting in the whole; the source of the rules.
The universe cannot be a brut fact because the laws exist. Therefore by necessity, what must’ve caused material reality is something immaterial & infinite; something that the question “what caused it? “ simply does not apply due to that it’s infinite & immaterial.
You can say there is some necessary foundation for the universe, but it need not be conscious, therefore no God.
Great Stuff.
PSR leads you to necessitarianism. Why was that left out?
This video keeps conflating the terms 'brute fact', 'necessary fact' and 'necessary being'. Here is the difference:
- A brute fact is a fact for which there is no explanation, not even an unknown one. It simply is and that's all that there is to it.
- A necessary fact is a fact that is necessarily true meaning that it cannot be any other way without contradiction. It is true in all possible worlds.
- A necessary being is a being that necessarily exists to ground all of contigent reality. Necessary beings by definition don't depend upon anything else, they explain their own existence.
Tldr: Necessary facts and necessary beings do have (self-contained) explanations whereas brute facts lack explanations entirely.
That is so good. Hello from Czech republic.
Brilliant mates!
Thank you
So, problem 1. It is a contingent fact that when measured, a particular electron is spin up. If the PSR held then there would be a sufficient reason that it is spin up and now spin down. But all our science tells us that there is no reason that this particular electron is spin up in this particular occasion. So the PSR is wrong. (ie it only takes one black swan to refute "all swans are white")
Problem 2, How can a necessary fact explain a contingent fact? A necessary fact cannot be otherwise, a contingent fact can. Let's say a particular fact could be A or B. If it was A then the explanation would explain why it is A and not B. If it was B then the explanation would explain why it was B and not A. In other words if the fact changes then so does the explanation, hence the explanation is also contingent. So a necessary fact can't explain a contingent fact.
So if there are any contingent facts then there must be at least one fact that is true for no reason at all. And problem 1 suggests that it is possible for something to be true for no reason at all.
So a necessary being cannot explain a contingent universe.
incredible video and well putted !
particles not popping out of anything, because they can't be pin pointed or velocity measured leads to dark matter and dark energy. isn't that making chance an all powerful creator god, just without the attributes of kindness and love.
TLDR; You can't get a necessary truth out of amassing a bunch of contingent truths, which means the universe is NOT necessary.
I have a difficulty with saying that the universe is necessary, IF we identify the universe as the sum of all contingent truths. If the universe is the sum of all contingent truths, does that mean it has to be contingent? Is this subject to the fallacy which says the whole has all the same properties as its parts? That is definitely a fallacy, because if you consider an elephant which is heavy, you can't assign the property of being heavy to each of its fundamental particles, which are all lightweight individually considered. Yet, for simet things, it's not fallacy, if I see a bunch of red lego 2 by 2 bricks, and make them into a wall, it's NOT a fallacy to say that the wall must be red. I think the universe, the sum total of contingent truths, is more like the lego wall than the elephant. Consider this: if I take one contingent truth, that I have my socks on my feet, and add another contingent truth, that I have glasses on my head, I am justified by thinking that the conjunction of those truths is also contingent. In other words, when you conjoin contingencies with other contingencies, you don't get necessity. Imagine the universe were just a bunch of socks and glasses, no matter how many socks or glasses I add, I still can't a necessary universe. Our universe under my stipulative definition that it's the sum total of contingent parts is metaphysically the same as a bunch of socks and glasses. Therefore, the universe can't be a necessary fact. If the PSR is true, then there would have be one or more necessary truths that explain each of the contingent truths in the contingent universe if the PSR is true. Therefore we cannot appeal to the whole universe as the necessary explanation to all of its parts.
Even if the PSR is true, why do we need to posit an elaborate god with a personality? It may be that as we better understand the Higgs Boson, its necessary existence will become self evident-and every several trillion years, it gives rise to a universe. This is much simpler than positing a baroque god concerned about foreskins. Occam’s Razor?
Where do you get this "elaborate god" and "baroque god concerned with foreskins" nonsense from? Did you just make up a bunch of crap because you thought that it sounded witty and clever? If so, I must say that you failed miserably -- at sounding witty and clever, that is.
According to Aquinas, God is not at all "elaborate" or "baroque"; He is in fact quite simple in His non-contingent fully actualized eternal perfection. I take it you have never heard of the doctrine of divine simplicity.
BTW, Okham's razor is merely a heuristic for evaluating competing hypotheses. As God is an elegantly simple concept with all-encompassing explanatory power, it remains an unavoidable and imperishable conclusion to all metaphysical speculations, whether you like or not.
Sir please make video on obsession and it's cure in philosophy...
There are are no moments in spacetime in which the universe did not exist. Using temporal language such as "before the universe began" or spatial language such as "outside the universe" doesn't make sense.
Our notion of causality is developed within the presentation of spacetime here in the universe we inhabit. Trying to apply that notion to the universe itself doesn't work.
I take it you don't believe in eternity.
@lysanderofsparta3708 If there are no moments in time in which the universe didn't exist, then the universe is eternal in that sense.
@@llkiii3139 That makes no sense at all. You really suck at basic logic.
Brilliant videos. Awesome debates! I was born in a religious family but later bacame aware of its flaws when i started reading other books. I have now realized that humans created languages, myths, gods, religions, laws because the wanted to protect their belongings. Creating gods and laws were human response to animalistic savagry. they were scared. Now humans are much smarter and build boundaries according to common sense and laws agreed by logical conclusions. When you look at the tribesmen of Amazon now, you can seen yourself in 1000 years from now when human have achived so much that they look at us as we look at the savages of Amazon! I wish we could see that day but we are limited by our life time! just couple of years ago people bilieved that the Earth is the center of the universe and what will humanity achive amazes me but we wont br around 😣
Good for u because god is a delusion belief
Yeah... but you still cannot falsify God, nor provide the better alternative. So, I am unsure of this childish view of religion that is void of any transcendental reasoning.
You should consider Agnosticism
@@NamaeofLife The video itself provided an "equivalent" (I'm not going to claim better) alternative, that the universe exists as a necessary brute fact. I have overwhelming proof that the universe exists. I do not have convincing proof that God exists. Occom's Razor, a statistically useful assertion, tells me to go with the simpler explanation, which is a universe without God. I am open to the possibility of God's existence, I just haven't gotten the necessary proof yet.
@@augustodelerme7233 The colony in which I live executes people if they think otherwise! So it's very risky. Even your imediate family members wont find your trace. One can only blieve in One God.
Liked your point about how you compared God being a brute fact to the universe being a brute fact. Never thought about it like that. Keep up the good work guys ❤
That's a flawed comparison since natural laws would not apply to God. Why would we expect laws of the natural world to apply or explain what is outside the natural world?
It is this kind of deliberation that prompts me to ask whether any (proposed) correspondence between God and the universe is univocal or merely analogical. For example, if no aspect of the universe can be identified as being the source and ground of its own existence (i.e., if no "God" can be identified within it), then how could the universe as a whole be a necessary being?
JPB
@@cba4389And that's why the fine tunning argument does not work properly
@@cba4389if there's no reason or explanation for God's existence, yeah its just brute. Also PSR isn't a natural law, I don't know where you got that from.
@@ragnarokfps You just talk in circles. You can't even make a weak case for atheism. No case at all, and you know it.
at 7:00 I dont understand the argument of saying that "because x and y have a mom then the whole human race has a mom". Firstly, how does this relate to cause and effect? In that example what would be the cause and what would be the effect. Maybe there is a cause and effect but I am not seeing it.
Maybe if we reformulate his argument into mothers giving birth: "Because x was born from a mother and y was born from a mother, the human race was born from a mother". In this example we can see a cause and effect. However, we are comparing completely different things a human race is not the same thing as a human, therefore we cannot say that the human race is born from a mother because human and human race are not comparable in this scenario.
As well, we could apply this principle from the micro level, to the human level, to the macro level. I dont see why at some point we could not apply this principle to the Universe.
Do you believe in the existence of God. Why or Why not
it is more likely that god does exists looking at ontological argument , the cosmological arguments ,the moral argument , the argument from reason although it is also more likely that it is not the same as we think of god when looking at the problem of evil ,free will vs predestination though the later arguments don't reject god's existence it certainly causes some problems
I love you guys and oftentimes your content, but let's read Schopenhauer this time, the argument is just no good. Btw, we have to distinguish between the cause and reason of the effect, and it is not hard to realize the cause and effect can only exist as states of matter, in which matter alone is the perceptibility of the principle.
What I’m getting from this is Pantheism
Things do pop up at the micro AND macro level. Compared to the universe we are all gadddam Quarks.
Excellent
Thank you!
@@PhilosophyVibe I know everyone is saying this but the way you present arguments for both viewpoints makes this superb.
It's still just another way of defining god into existence and therefore unconvincing, notwithstanding all the assumptions - only one god, which just happens to be the one that person believes in, ofc. At least it's not the Ontological Arg, tho, which is, quite honestly, just embarrassing.
I agree that defining God into existence is futile, but I've had a couple of experiences that have led me to believe in a higher power that cannot be defined or explained with human intellect but that you have to experience to understand the existence of.
My first experience was what I would on some level call a near death experience and the second was taking ayahuasca.
I believe based on things I've read and people I've talked to that those who have had similar experiences will know what I'm talking about and understand the inherent incomprehensibility of some higher power that we're all a part of.
edit: I also believe it is this experience that is the origin of the human concept of God and is what all the different religions are trying to describe.
@@HotelMari0Maker Ayahuasca? Did Joe Rogan send you into this comment section? 😄It's hard for me to imagine coming out of that experience as a theistic believer. That's a bit of a leap from what is effectively surely just a wild hallucination.
Consciousness is a bigger mystery than god. Is it an emergent quality of physical processes? That's a reasonable question to ask.
@@XiagraBalls I believe the mystery of consciousness and God to be linked. And I understand its hard for you to imagine that experience. I don't expect anyone to imagine it except in very specific circumstances.
@@HotelMari0Maker Do all people who have a near death experience and who take ayahuasca have the SAME experience? If that were so, I would be more convinced. However, from what I've read, people have different (sometimes conflicting) experiences, which calls them into question.
The argument of the purple guy are moot, since the universe has a beginning.
Our current instantiation of space time seems to, now show the method of investigating what was around before the big bang or admit we currently don't know....
@@bodricpriest8816there was no before the Big Bang if time started with the Big Bang
Amazing.. video
Thank you!
The Fallacy of Composition is still a fallacy, no matter how many fancy schmanzy terms you dress it up with.
Call it God = obedience to God
Call it brute fact = follow personal whims and desires, no objective morality.
if you only do good things because God says to and you wouldn't do them if you didn't believe, then you are just a bad person. Some people don't need an eternal parent to make them behave.
I think that it's plausible that there is a reason this Universe exists, at all, and not any other. I think a good reason to think it was a mind that caused it is that I don't think anything but a mind can itself cause something without being caused to cause something itself. In other words, no physical thing will do anything unless caused to do so, but minds seem capable of doing things without being caused by anything but our will to do it. I think the Universe displays incredibly intricate and impressive features, making me thing the mind that created the Universe is very powerful and wise. We could call this mind a God but it doesn't satisfy the typical theistic sense of the word 'God.' That's about as far as I'm willing to say seems right to me. Maybe this God means to be good, I could see that. Perfectly good, powerful, and wise seems hard to imagine to me, though, seeing as there is really a lot of suffering that occurs daily on this Planet alone. But that's just my opinion
Interesting line of reasoning, but... isnt mind just a function of human brain?
@@eklektikTubb It depends on who you ask, but I don't think the mind being just a function of a human brain, whatever exactly that would mean, is a coherent view
You sound like a platonist the nous created the universe from its mind
@@Rspknlikeab0ssxd Interesting. Show me a mind that exists without a human brain. I don't think you can do so but it would be fascinating if you could prove me wrong.
@@augustodelerme7233 I'm an immaterialist much like George Berkeley
Amazing debate lol, so intellectual
Thank you!
If God doesn't exist you don't exist, you are the proof God exist....Al-Ghaashiya 16/26
I exist because the universe exists.
The universe is not a contingent entity. The definition of universe is the collection of all there is. A universe is necessary in all possible worlds. If some possible world does not contain a universe, then it is not a possible world, after all, this possible world does not exist, thus being impossible.
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj The universe itself is also beyond space and time since it is the very concept of space and time. Only the objects inside the universe are bounded by the rules of space and time. Your exception for your made-up deity is not justified.
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj Yeah. Just like theism do. In order for god to even create the universe, time must already exist. The concept of creation is time-dependent. Also, if your god doesn't exist in time, then how can someone even claim that such being exists at all? How do you define existence?
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj You just made an absurd claim. You assert that god exists beyond space and time, but doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever for how it is even possible to claim existence outside of space and time. Remember, the concept of universe is "the collection of everything that exists".
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj Cool, i already studied all of those arguments, and i arrived a the opposite conclusion 🤷♂️
Let me challenge the "perfection" of the God you love to claim.
1) God should be perfect in every aspect.
2) So, God must be a perfect creator.
3) A perfect creator is one who creates perfect creations.
4) There is imperfection is humanity.
5) So, God cannot be perfect.
@RafsanulHaq-vd6rj Well, i do not have any previous experience with nothingness, so i do not know how things work there. In order for causality to work, time must already exist, so your claim that something caused time is absurd. I just claim the universe itself is necessary. There is no need to add extra steps.
If god is a brute fact, then so is the universe.
Wrong. God is necessary and the universe is contingent.
The principle of sufficient reason does not prove God exist. If the universe is a contigent existence with a cause it does not mean that the cause is God or a deity.
By what other term would you call the cause of the universe?
True, plus to avoid the white & black fallacy we dont know if it is one cause or multiple and we still dont know those causes so agnosticism is the best approach
@@augustodelerme7233 Not enough people mention black & white fallacy in discussions like these. Thanks.
The metaphysical buck has to stop somewhere... and that somewhere is where God is.
First
There are no proofs for the existence of any GODS, period.
On the contrary, Aquinas proposed five major proofs for the existence of God. According to Peter Kreeft, there are at least 20 solid arguments for the existence of God.
Love the way you explain these ideas so well. Brilliant for people like me interested in philosophy.
I must admit, of all the arguments for God’s existence, this one, based on Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), along with the ontological argument, are pretty convincing arguments, though both have their critics.
For the case against the ontological argument, we have Kant’s notion that existence is not a property and Schopenhauer who sees the argument as some kind of ‘conjuring trick’ (If valid, you could define anything into existence). Both arguments provide a good case against the ontological argument.
For the case against Leibniz, Russell pointed to the fallacy of composition: that just because we have a mother, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the universe has a mother, as referenced in your video.
Wonderful the way you get all the crucial points into these videos. Please keep them coming.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed.
I love this video to
I do agree that the universe wasn’t here all the time
A dream has no cause
Says who?
@@eklektikTubb says me
@@johngagat6408 As far as i know, dreams happen in brain, they are consequences of our physical and mental state. How you think, what you eat, what types of evening movies you watch, all of that can have an impact on your dreams.
@@eklektikTubb science cannot confirm that neither dreams nor memories are produced or stored in the brain. But it can confirm that the brain, along with DNA, act like a receiver/transmitter. So, from where are these signals?
@@johngagat6408 That is nonsense. Of course they are stored in brain and science CAN confirm it.
Empiricism scientism = infinite regression = oxymoron. Allaah is As-Shomad = the only one necessary being. Stop by Efdawah, Scdawah, thought adventure podcast, Mohammed Hijab, Subboor Ahmad, Sapience Institute, muslim metaphysician, muslim lantern, Abdullah Al Andalusi, muslim Skeptic youtube channels live streams and have friendly fruitful discussions insya Allah.
This is 🔥🔥🔥🔥. Thank u🙏🥳🤍