Inspiring Philosophy vs Cosmic Skeptic on the Moral Argument for God
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июл 2018
- In this live discussion, Cosmic Skeptic (Alex O'Connor) and Inspiring Philosophy (Michael Jones) discuss the moral argument for God's existence.
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: / capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Thanks to all of our patrons for your continued support! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: capturingchristianity.com
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchristianity.com/fre...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchristianity.com/ult...
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#CosmicSkeptic #InspiringPhilosophy #MoralArgument
"“Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.” - GK Chesterton
Morality like art is in the eye of the beholder
@@ddrse right. And some beholders matter more than others.
@@MPaulHolmesMPH and that is your beheld opinion
The question is why should the line be drawn in the first place, the inference is it's because of our moral responsibility to God.
@Purposefull Arrangement and then they change their mind.
I didn’t have two hours, so I set it 2x speed and had everyone talk like Ben Shapiro
ben shapiro is very fake
@@jeffreyeggstein329 ok
@@jeffreyeggstein329 Just to state your opinion here like that means nothing, also his comment still stands that Ben Shapiro talks rather quickly regardless of your opinion of him. Be relevant please
@@nathanpenick959 lol
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm a Christian and I really appreciate Cosmic Skeptic. I think he is open, honest and thoughtful.
SeEms LeGiT
i agree
@good question Actually very true.
@good question he is, but so was Cyrus and he was celebrated in the scripture for being a halfway decent nonbeliever. You can recognize both.
Yeah Cosmic Skeptic is pretty entertaining and intelligent although I disagree with him.
Summary of the debate:
CS: What reason do we have do trust our moral intuitions?
IP: What reason do we have do doubt our moral intuitions?
Both are very good questions.
@@jonathanmcentire970 I like IP, but I think he should have given at least some positive arguments for moral realism.
sounds reasonable
@@ob4161 same for both
Yet siding with our moral intuitions seem to be justified as a default position from which to be persuaded out of.
who else was totally surprised that IP had a big tattoo on his chest
He's ex military I think, pretty cool!
I’m embarrassed to admit I thought he was wearing a blue shirt underneath his pink shirt.
@@andrewferguson8032
I I thougt he haved like some sort of kinfe?
But if I remember I think IP went to military or was in the military for like most of hes years being an agnostic
It is more important in these types of debates to maintain civility than to aggressively try to trump the other.
The Manager
said 1 year ago
"It is more important in these types of debates to maintain civility than to aggressively try to trump the other."
Good advice, unless of course you are a desperate Christian apologist who thinks keeping the babies in the faith is more important than making sense.
@@barryjones9362 Odd, you seem to be under the false impression that Cosmic skeptic was triumphant here. lol
@@leonardu6094 I'm willing to discuss with you any biblical, Christian or apologetics subject you wish. Deal?
@@barryjones9362 Uh.... sure i guess. what do you have in mind? I guess i should first ask if you're an atheist?
@@leonardu6094 I'm an atheist. What would you like to discuss? Perhaps this could be more effective if we jump right to the one biblical or Christian argument that you believe most powerfully demonstrates the unreasonableness of any non-christian belief.
You should be skeptical about your skepticism.
Drew Fletcher curb your skepticism. Lol
Skeptical about everything but their own capability to reason. Quite funny. Darwin speaks on this in his book
Who says skeptics aren't skeptical about their own skepticism?
And you should be skeptical about your skepticism about your skepticism about your skepticism.
@@homeyjeromy Many of the skeptics themselves through their own words and behavior.
Capturing Christianity is now one of my favorite podcasts. Very good setting to understand both point of views because the debate lasts for more than two hours.
This was an interesting debate concerning the nature of morality, and whether moral realism is true, but it went deeper than that. I think Michael won the debate for multiple reasons. 1) He made a distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology that I am not sure Alex fully grasped; 2) Alex claimed we should be skeptical of moral facts, but offered no reason to be skeptical of moral facts in the first place, which would imply that there would be good reason to be skeptical of his own skepticism; and 3) He tried to exclude himself from the burden of proof, even though he was making moral claims, just as Michael did.
EXACTLY plis alex actually contradicted himself as he said that Islam is morally wrong in one video AND THEN IN ANOTHER HE SAID THAT MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE WTF???? LMFAO
Dm X - in other words, he was stealing from God, like all atheists do.
yes
I'm 40 minutes in, and so far it's already seeming fairly obvious why Michael won the debate. Let me ask you a question: how much time did Michael spend in the first 40 minutes _defending_ his moral argument? You won't need a stop watch to calculate that since the answer is zero seconds. Surely that shouldn't make sense, right? It should have been the other way around; Alex should have been the one asking questions, not Michael.
Put simply, Michael was able to distract Alex and thus avoid challenges to his initial argument. The conversation was a whole lot of empty noise which benefited Michael. I'd say Michael is an adept debater, but Alex made it surprisingly easy for him. Alex should have shut Michael down and insist on talking about Michael's argument.
Is Michael homosexual? Does anyone know?
I'm on team IP here, mostly because you can't simply "question everything" or all maths and science would fall apart. CS didn't deal with the fact that all areas of knowledge include "properly basic beliefs" or "axioms" or "common sense". CS is suggesting that I should be so hyperskeptical of the fact that "the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line" that I throw out all mathematics? The reasoning CS applied to moral realism, suggesting we should start by being skeptical of intuitions like these, and shouldn't accept a position, simply because we can imagine possible alternatives, isn't how any field should work. We accept the BEST explanation UNTIL we get confirmation that our intuitions/axioms are incorrect. For example, I could throw out the intuition about straight lines by saying "Maybe it's not" and then I could tell every mathematician that they shouldn't subscribe to any mathematics seeing as they are based on an intuition. But this would not be how knowledge is constructed. I could throw out all science simply because "Maybe our intuition that the laws of nature will remain consistent is wrong!". But nobody is throwing out all science and mathematics. We shouldn't throw out moral realism for the exact same reasons!
Amen amen. Amen.
There's a difference between the intuition of some mathematical truth, and the intuition we have towards morality (when) fact exists that severely undercut our intuitions on the latter.
What facts undercut this? Evolution. Intuitions to cooperate and not harm each other is exactly what we expect.
This discounts the additional step people make to, we feel this so there must be some external moral reference point generating these intuitions.
We have access to perfectly reasonable facts that explain our moral intuitions. Leaping to some other belief is irresponsible
@@SpicyCurrey Interesting points! You should look up Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. It directly defeats the point you make!
@@lizzard13666 Plantinga's arguments are not defeaters for evolution. He speaks on properly basic beliefs, and argues a naturalist worldview based on evolution that we should not trust our brain as a 'reliable belief forming process' as evolution doesn't select for truth, but survivability.
None of this addresses the fact that evolution happens, and perfectly explains our moral intuitions. This is a red herring
@@SpicyCurrey Bro ... that's not even close to replying to what I said?
the person mediating this does an excellent job IMO. love how you slow it down for us, and can certainly say you’ve improved from the first debate I saw with IP on
That was intersting ! Thanks to every of the participants
Really enjoy these conversations over and above the sound bites that Bill Mahr and Joe Rogan spout off on their shows. Respect for Alex being cordial and not being heated. I follow IP channel and have a ton more respect after hearing this discussion.
Yep 👍
Alex's skepticism being a good reason to doubt intuition only works if he was agnostic about morality, but in the beginning he said he is a non-cognitivist which is a positive claim of belief. His own standard only allows for agnosticism on the issue not a positive belief.
He would just be taking the position from most plausibility from his point of view. Like we at least experience morals as thoughts, and morals sometimes do align with preferences. Like I personally would prefer to not murder, and not be murdered. So with minimal facts he can take a position without being agnostic, and still be open minded. That is also how the scientific method works, and look at where that got us with all the helpful things like the internet.
spacedoohicky "...he can take a position without being agnostic, and still be open minded." So he can have faith in his position. Got it.
Not necessarily. A non-cognitivist denies the claim that ethical propositions are truth apt. Much like an agnostic denies the claims made by theists that gods exist. It can just be disbelief of claims made by cognitivists. And considering he clarified his position, that's been established. You seem to be trying to force him into a position by disregarding the context of everything else he said.
@@cloudoftime
I wonder if any of the theists who upvoted the OPs comment will respond to you.
Man... I remember when CapturingChristianity only had like 1.6 k followers. Amazing to see how far he has come
I just found this channel. I like inspiringphilosophy but I also like debates and such as this also it's good to see a picture of Michael so thanks for this video.
This didn't seem like a debate. It felt more like a great conversation to me! Love to see it
This was a phenomenal conversation! As far as winning and losing, people have the wrong idea of these things. I’d encourage folks to take these conversations as a way of learning about each perspective free of opinion. Both individuals made incredible points and if this dialogue was still taking place I’d still be listening. I think both gentlemen made some valid points to support their position. I wouldn’t exactly say O’Connor lost this discussion as I don’t see a clear “winner”. The folks that tend to disagree with O’Connor’s views for the most part are those who can’t fathom morality as being subjective. IP made solid points to show the possibility of morality being objective. I’m grateful to have listened to this exchange. I wouldn’t declare a winner or loser. This was a very healthy and stimulating discussion to appreciate. 🤙🏼
Yeah I'm tired of the whole adversarial verbal sparing crap.
Just have a conversation and bounce ideas off each other.
"can't fathom to be subjective". Well, i think the 'subjective' might be confused with ambiguous/unclear matter.
If you doubt morality, then live against it in all regards and come back and tell me what you've learned.
If one were to do that and came to the conclusion that they would prefer to live morally, that would merely affirm their subjective morality: that they have an intuition to act morally. But they would be no closer to being convinced of objective morality: that they ought to act morally. No one is denying that we have moral intuitions, but some are unconvinced that that means the moral intuitions themselves are objective.
I realise I haven't defined "objective". Here, I mean absolutely true regardless of any desire or goal; a categorical imperative. This isn't the definition of objective used in the sciences and many other disciplines. Using those other definitions, I am convinced that morality is objective because there is an implied goal of reducing suffering.
This is a stupid thing to say.
That is the most ridiculous thing I've read today.
Read crime and punishment
You can't do that in society. You have to pretend that it is real to a certain extent unless you go out and live in nature by yourself.
What an amazing video. And what amazing Gentlemen, all 3 of You.
Cosmic Skeptic's epistemology is too inconsistent. In one instance he's okay with experience justifying realism but then denies how experience can justify moral realism. Either experience doesn't grant knowledge, which saws off the branch he sits on, or he needs more arguments to deny moral realism which he doesn't have.
Monistic Idealism The main issue is that he doesn't understand ethics 101. He confuses epistemology with ontology, cannot distinguish between descriptive oughts and prescriptive oughts, cannot distinguish between moral duties and moral values, and confuses metaphysics with epistemology. When all he does is read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, Coyne, etc who are ignorant of philosophy it isn't a surprise he makes all these elementary errors.
Jackson Long For one Sam Harris is a extremely poor representation of moral realism. Sam Harris isn't an expert in ethics and CS relies too heavily on him. It is better to read, _"Moral Realism"_ by Kevin DeLapp or _"Moral Realism: A Defense"_ by Russ Shafer-Landau.
He is not saying that experience justifies moral realism. He even says so. What he is saying is that objectively, the cup either exists or does not exist, regardless of what he experiences. However, he says that murder is neither objectively good nor objectively bad, regardless of how he feels about it.
While CS does not say this, one argument that murder is neither objectively good nor bad is the simple fact that there is no objective reason why we should or shouldn't murder people. All reasons that can be presented, such as "murder is detrimental to society," just push the question back another step because there is no objective reason why we should care about what is good for society. We may feel like we should do what is good for society, but that does not make it objective. The same can be said of God - whether or not we feel that we should do what god wants doesn't mean that objectively we should do what god wants. And what objective reason can be given to say that we should care what god wants?
Susan Garry "What he is saying is that objectively, the cup either exists or does not exist, regardless of what he experiences."
Just like moral realism? Objective morality exists regardless of our subjective experience, in fact that's the definition of it. I don't know how he's trying to imply that objectivity applies to one (sensory) but not to the other (morality)
Susan Garry "objectively, the cup either exists or does not exist, regardless of what he experiences"
That is a contradiction. If the cup doesn't exist objectively that means it's existence is grounded in his subjective experience. If the cup does objectively exist it exists independent of his subjective experience. CS has a hilarious epistemology that is based on his absolute confusion between epistemology (knowledge) and ontology (existence) which has been pointed out by many including his own subscribers on his recents videos! If he read ANY introductory textbook on ethics one of the first things he would learn is how to distinguish between moral epistemology and moral ontology.
"one argument that murder is neither objectively good nor objectively bad is the simple fact there is no objective reason why we should or shouldn't murder people"
This begs the question against moral realism by assuming just because there is moral disagreement about moral facts then no facts exist. But this is a non-sequitur. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean there isn't an objective fact about the matter. Some scientists use scientific reasoning to argue for either string theory or loop quantum gravity which are competing theories. Does that means that there are no objective scientific facts about reality?
Again objective moral facts aren't based on feelings so to say, "we may _feel_ like we should do what is good for society, but that doesn't make it objective" is not only to attack a strawman, but to confuse epistemology with ontology once again. You need to learn how to think for yourself instead of being a fan and defending CS blatant errors that are even called out by his own atheist subscribers.
Hey Cameron!
I am a big fan of your channel! It's one of my favorites actually!
Please, have more of this "friendly debates /discussions" with Michael and Alex.
They both have such great and interesting point of views, i was enjoying their back and forth so much that I literally listened to the whole thing all at once without even realizing!
1:09:36 It really makes me happy how polite cosmic skeptic is here:) ~ a local Christian
Alex is in the minority of RUclips atheists that are actually civil and polite despite disagreeing with a debate opponent. His discussion with WLC was very good; they were even laughing with each other at points.
Alex is a class act, and his civility makes me actually listen to his points rather than dismiss him as an angry atheist.
If you actually think he is in the minority then oh boy you have no idea how many civil atheist channels there are. Logicked, paulogia, prophet of zod etc.
@@medleysa You, like many other religious people, seem to get your views on things/people from pastors and sunday school. Did your pastor tell you atheists were all mean while simultaneously telling you a loving god drowned an entire world....but it's the atheists that are mean? This is why living in a religious bubble is so bad for a mind, it causes you to know nothing about the real world.
@@510tuber no. My interactions with atheists online showed me most are angry and resort to either mocking or “more moral than you” tactics to win arguments.
Great discussion... both are remarkable YT thinker in their respective worldview. It just confirms more “theism” to me.
nice debate, IP clearly did his homework
annoyingdude76 his videos have a lot of study behind them.
He makes so many weak points.
@inrealtime23
1) He appeals to "moral progress", which implies nothing about meta-ethical grounding.
@inrealtime23
1a) He specifically mentioned something about the comparison between Roman society and our society, which is irrelevant.
@inrealtime23
2) He repeatedly conflated laws and morality, which are not the same.
Very fascinating debate highly recommend it
This was really frustrating to watch, simply because Alex was completely incapable of distinguishing moral ontology from moral epistemology. I think this was because he misunderstood the argument for realism as circular logic. The argument isn't that we experience, therefore it must be true. Rather, it's that we're justified in believing morality exists objectively because of our moral experience, and there is no defeater for that experience. Very similar to the way we experience an objective external world through our senses.
After a tedious battle over who has the burden of proof, Alex finally decided to offer a defeater in moral realism by saying that how we apprehend morality can be universally subjective. The problem is, if he's saying that means morality isn't objective, then he's guilty of the genetic fallacy. But more importantly, he's going back into moral epistemology. It got even more annoying when he just started *asserting* morality is subjective without an argument. I think this guy needs to brush up on the different branches of philosophy. I even picked up towards the end that he didn't understand the concept of "possible worlds" either, because he kept saying "possible universe" LOL
It's especially great to hear him then critisized christianity and religion as a whole when he himself doesn't have ,by his own logic,the tools to do so,or anyone else for that matter,and doesn't even realise how self defeating his reasonning is.
I've seen this critique of Alex before on other RUclips debates. I'm somewhat new to these philosophical arguments so thanks for sharing.
The issue with morality, being objective, what do you mean by the word moral? You and I have different definitions, once we agree on a definition we can say morality is objective based on the definition or morality we agree on, but until we agree on a definition we can’t say there is an objective definition of morality.
I don't think that's correct. It's not that he was confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. He just doesn't believe in moral ontology. In other words to him it's a non-thing. IP saying "moral ontology" would be like saying "moral ice cream", or "moral blue" in this context. There's no way to attack that other than epistemology if there's no ontology to work from.
Also isn't the whole "you're confusing ontology with epistemology" an IP talking point. He sure does love to say that. I don't understand it. If we acquired knowledge of ultimate nature of reality that would be an epistemic understanding of ontology. So the two are not in opposition.
Stephen Pamphile i mostly agree with what you said, but i dont think that belief in external world is in the same category with belief in objective morality becausw of our moral intuition.
IP was quite clearly the victor in this particular debate.
Eazy CS is trash
Not really.
Alistair Ware Everyone agrees it is the case.
@@tonybanks1035
Everyone agrees what? That IP won? Hardly, although views will obviously be biased in that way on a religion channel.
@@rossvaneldik3562
First, asserting that you have truth is not an argument, and second, yes, you absolutely CAN lose even if you happen to be right (which IP isn't).
As I see it, morality is objective, meaning any particular action in any particular case is either moral or immoral to a greater or lesser degree. The ultimate arbiter of course being God, the highest authority who has maximal wisdom and goodness. The Lord knows we lack the wisdom to always know what to do even if we desire for perfect goodness. Thus he expects us to be transformed by Christ, guided by his teachings and the Holy Spirit, and otherwise use our God-given agency to pursue greater wisdom.
He didn't have to tell us it's wrong to be a sadist, but "love your neighbor as yourself" about covers it. He didn't teach us to end slavery: he told us to love our neighbor as ourselves. He expects us to use our brains to learn wisdom for different environments and cultures and races that we can develop better moral systems, all of which fall short of his standard, but to different degrees.
What makes an action "right" or "wrong" in your opinion?
@@AsixA6 doing what's in line with logos is what's right, and working against logos is wrong. I know that's not very descriptive, because it takes a lot to understand logos; so as a close proxy, I would generally say what's good is what's in tune with the natural order. For instance, a boy growing up to be a man, marrying, and fathering children is right. Eating poorly, becoming diseased, chopping your penis off, and killing yourself is wrong.
@@YOSUP315 _"doing what's in line with logos is what's right, and working against logos is wrong."_
Why should anyone do or not do what's in line with this supposed "logos" thing's opinion?
Thanks for sharing your subjective opinion...
@@YOSUP315 What makes those things objectively right or wrong?
I don't quite follow CS reasoning. How can you denounce something as "wrong" if you deny morality is objective? Was his standard solely pain avoidance?
_Hitchens-two-step_ :
Morality is said to be subjective when it suits you, and treated as objective when it suits you.
You. Cant.
Andrius Bandzinas is that an objectively true statement or subjectively true and if it subjectively true what logic did you use?was it objective logic or was it whatever logic you think of? And if that’s true is logic subjective?
Andrius Bandzinas right but if moral subjectivism is objectivity true then there is a moral standard which must be applied to truth pertains to being in accordance with fact or reality. And if reality is essentially subjective to individual agents then there is no objective state of the universe.
Andrius Bandzinas if something is true (subjective ism or objective Ism) than is must exist in reality which to exist is to have objective reality
Re: the discussion of doctors and carpenters, this moral question is why supply-demand curves are useful to the field of economics.
After listening to this I’ve Concluded Cosmic Skeptic’s position is in line with that of Matt Dillahunty’s “I’m not convinced” and so I’ll take the position of skepticism so I don’t need to provide a best explanation but rather just bring down your position by exposing “flaws” in your position
What’s the alternative? Asserting positions without evidence? Shifting the burden of proof? The Argument from Ignorance fallacy?
Well done IP!
Morality is objective. Some things are absolutely bad and some things are absolutely good.
And why?
@demigodzilla Mate, I don't believe in objective morality.
I believe that there are things that cause pain, and by our empathic nature, we will be forced to relive that which we did to others, fully knowing the impact we had. Or perhaps we shall take the victim's place ourselves, having the measure turned unto us again.
@demigodzilla It's justice. What has been done shall be returned to the one who did it.
Why?
@demigodzilla Yeah, no. God is the judge, jury and executioner.
Given that nobody else has complete knowledge over all things, there's nobody else who can be absolutely fair.
The Flood, which God probably didn't do in reality, was done because all the people He drowned were disinhibited hedonistic psychopaths. Their hearts were twisted and corrupt, and the Earth was filled with violence.
literally all of this is flying over my head but its also so interesting to hear lmao
1:26:25 So just to clarify this, the person Mike Jones was referring to was Dirk Willems. The rest of the story is the same
Cameron was right to clarify subjectivism vs emotivism. Subjectivism is the view that our moral judgements are truth-apt, and when true refer to subjective facts about attitudes (preferences, opinions, etc.). Emotivism is the view that moral judgements are not truth-apt, but rather are expressions of our attitudes.
Compare the statement "I like cake", which when true refers to the fact that I like cake, with "yum, cake!" which is not capable of being true or false and does not refer to anything.
How we experience morality has nothing to do with either subjectivism or emotivism. Our having subjective experiences of morality is not the same as morality itself being subjective. It didn't sound like Cosmic Skeptic actually said anything that would warrant moral subjectivism.
This all boils down to whether or not moral values are objectively binding. CS seems to be saying, "they may be objective, but there aren't any good arguments to make me think so. We have this strong feeling or intuition that they're objective, but that feeling may be the result of programming from evolution given its socially advantageous nature."
IP offers some arguments for the objectivity of moral values, but IMO his strongest argument is the shared intuition argument. Again, though, this intuition may itself be illusory. IP seems to have misunderstood CS's argument about how we would react if we were programmed via evolution to regard blue as objectively superior to all other colors, IF we had that kind of programming then, yes, we would react very strongly to color differences. Obviously we don't have that programming, but IF we did, then we'd have similar reactions to morality. CS's point is that IF our moral intuitions are an illusory product of evolution programming us, then that would indeed explain our strong reactions. I.E. the mere existence of the intuitions isn't enough to prove that they're accurate reflections of reality.
IF IF IF we accept the intuition as true and as reflecting reality, Then we would have an argument worth exploring (though godless normative realism is possible too). But I don't see how we can prove the intuition. It seems that this whole debate hinges on whether or not we accept our moral intuitions, and it seems that reasonable people can disagree on this and still be reasonable.
The cosmic skeptic started to babble and run in circles when he tried to describe his view on morals. That's when I knew there was no reason to continue to listen. IP won before it even began basically...
@@NN-wc7dl
The guy babbled trying to explain his position. If you cant explain your position on a subject in a clear concise manner then please do not debate.
"The whole basis for skepticism is that you take nothing for granted" ; Does that mean we are not permitted to doubt the modern critical principal?
(1:00:00) say it, we (Christians) ultimately believe the what differentiates a moral proposition stems from WHO God is.
And that flows into what His (moral "10") commandments are. A description of His character in a prescriptive form of commands for humanity, who are made in His image.
There is probably a Trinity argument in the explanation of the decalogue as originating from a description of God's character, somewhere.
For God commands what is good because HE IS GOOD.
"Good to see you", without a smile on his face. . . =(
Everyone’s a critic XD
Looking through the comment section.
Stated the critic.
Critic inception
...
Moral facts don't supervene on subjective facts (it's possible for the moral facts to differ while the subjective facts hold constant), so they cannot be wholly comprised of subjective facts.
1:07:57
Correlation is not causation, just because moral values and moral duties correlate, that does not mean that one necessarily implies the other
This is stupid, it is in the name, MORAL duty, it is moral because it is in accordance to moral values.
Tbh, Alex tries, but he isn't on IP's level.
@@davelanger
Really? To you maybe. I think you think too much of his accent. Maybe you are in love? That's delusion...
Wow. Which one of them has a PhD?
IP did a video on a hyperdimensional cube and the trinity. It was so incoherent it was laughable.
But, to be sure I wasn't nuts I sent it to a PhD friend at LSU, he sent it to a professor there and well, turns out IP again has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
He's not that smart my dude...
@@briangueringer3673
Hmmmm...I've listened to many people who hold PhD's in various and assorted disciplines and they don't seem so smart either when they say that God is not out of the question yet they run straight into the fire and claim to know something is out there that we don't understand and can't describe even with out advanced degrees and rather expensive computers running simulation after simulation to no gain.
'
IP doesn't claim any of what he says is the Gospel Truth but merely speculates on what we are finding...
Just like a million PhD's swimming in a fish pond thinking their little thoughts and the much smaller fish swim along with them because they think they are following a leader.
What did Jesus cost his followers? Nothing. They didn't have to provide anything for him but did it out of love and respect.
To build a LHC bigger than the last one (as some suggest may be needed) will cost trillions of dollars.
Do the math and figure out how many homeless people we can house and feed with that and educate those who need it to get out of the poverty they are finding themselves from too many children and not enough education.
And not the Planned Parenthood type of education that will sell all the baby parts to the highest bidder and suppress minorities.
@@peli_candude554 You are all over the place.
The comment about Alex not being on IP level is a joke. I noticed you ignored his video I sent around.
He holds a bunch of minority positions and says what he has to , to remain possibly right. Not very impressive really.
He also said in his gman debate he doesn't have the holy spirit help him understand the text, he just figures it out....
Not much to see here really..
@@briangueringer3673
LOL...you claim I'm all over the place but if you follow the statements they are actually going in the same direction. We spend trillions of dollars building large complex machines to try to test our hunches about how things work only to find we need a bigger complex machine that will cost brazillions more without any guarantee that they will produce any usable information.
What are you talking about gman debate? If IP or anyone is reading the original Bible in it's original language you don't actually need the Holy Spirit because it's like reading any book. Not saying the Holy Spirit won't help but it is not always needed just like you don't need the Holy Spirit to see that spending money on machines so we can produce more machines so we can have a glimpse into the mind or down the throat of God.
We can find God in our own backyards without any help from machines, drugs, or other intoxicants if we just shut up and listen to the cries of the babies in the village below. You know, the ones starving to death while the star gazers fill their coffers with dream money.
And I really am lost when you say I ignored his video? Whose video and where did you send it around?
What are you talking about?
But what if I begin to doubt doubting? What if I become sceptical about being skeptical?
As C.S.Lewis said:
You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.
Idk why people always quote Lewis lol, how about the part where he said animals can't feel pain? How about when he said Jesus was either a madman or god therefore he must be god? He's not that bright.
Same reason people respected and considered Bruce Lee a "physically quotable" martial artists even before he learned grappling from Gene Lebell who easily scooped him off his feet on one subject. Pobody nerfect but that doesn't mean they are able to be learned from. Dean Lister lost a submission bout with Josh Barnett because he made a mistake is he no longer worth to learn from? No.
@@510tuber So because he was wrong (in your opinion) elsewhere, he’s wrong everywhere? How does that follow?
I follow you on the madman argument - agreed. But I’ve read a lot of Lewis and never come across him saying that animals feel no pain. He did suggest the possibility that they might not know pain as humans do - which seems to me possible - but I’ve never seen him deny animal pain. Do you have a source for that?
It's one thing when you are searching for reasons for why something is objectively true and/or moral, and it's another thing when you are searching for reasons to say something is not objectively true and/or moral. In the end, no amount of reasons would be sufficient.
Cosmic Skeptic should approach this type of debate completely differently: Instead of wasting time defending an irrelevant and complicated position of his own, he should push his opponent to state his position and defend it. Next time someone says "by the way, what's your position", just say "It depends on the debate. There are lots of positions that seem to have merit, and I'm not obliged to pick one in particular. Now... back to the question. How do you define the moral argument?"
That's stupid
Does the cosmic skeptic just dismiss the concept of properly basic beliefs entirely?
He is not anti-foundationalist. He, along with some other naturalists, have boiled down most morals to their most basic foundations, and then demonstrated how they can be explained in evolutionary, cultural, environmental, and societal ways, or, more broadly, in philosophically naturalistic terms.
I have a playlist of some classroom lectures by Robert Sapolsky on Human Behavioral Psychology that explain the philosophically naturalistic view of morality and much other human behavior. It is broken down in a simple explanation in the first lecture, and then the subsequent lectures provide a demonstration of the theory and the supporting evidence.
For not having free will, Alex has a lot of opinions.
@@tex959 Are you free to not believe free will exists?
@@tex959 Perhaps you call it a gotcha question because it exposes the flaw in your argument.
In your position there's actually no way to know if a) what you're claiming is true and b) if you even believe it
@@tex959 Of course our environment and upbringing influence our decisions. Do you believe people mature and reject their environment and upbringing? If so, how?
What would be the point of watching that?
It's like Dr. Sam Harris writing a book denying free will, but then wants us to read it. Boggles the mind.
@@tex959 I dismiss arguments that are not logically sound.
@@tex959 I think it is important to understand the theological philosophy of free will.
We are most certainly influenced by things outside our control such as our upbringing, community, genetics and environment in general. There are decisions and choices that one could argue we have no control over such as food preferences or hobbies. This is irrelevant as to whether or not free will exists.
Free will involves issues of morality: the decision to hurt someone for example. It involves deep, personal matters such as the decision to marry someone. How to raise children. Career decisions. It requires the ability to not only evaluate evidence and personal experience, but to make decisions counter to them.
To what extent do factors beyond our control impact our choices? I have no idea, but I don't believe they are the overriding factor.
I see no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that explains away free will. I also don't see human behavior consistent with there being no free will. Furthermore, the philosophy of determinism is illogical to me.
CC why are you asking CS a bunch of questions in the middle of the debate?
Just a little suggestion to those involved in the discussion in the video: it makes for a better viewing experience if you look into the camera, especially when speaking. Just meant to be helpful, that's all.
Michael( Inspiring Philosophy) definitely won the debate
He never supported his claim that morality is objective so, no, he failed miserably. He even admits morality is feeling(intuition) that certain actions are "right" or "wrong" to do.
jwkivy now how many arguments are in this video, I want to tell what they talked about. Let’s see. 1 argument doesn’t mean he failed miserably.
jwkivy if he was able to defend his other arguments, than I wounding say that is failing
@@jacobpinto5175 Dude, your comment is incoherent gibberish. IP never supported his claim of objective morality. He just kept pretending intuition(a feeling) = objective. He failed miserably.
jwkivy they were debating on moral arguments for God, if he fails one argument, he didn’t fail the entire debate. And Cosmic skeptic is bad in his own way too
Although I don't agree with Cosmic Skeptic on this issue, I find unlike other athiests, he's very consistant with his world view, which I respect.
Still though, he got trounced in this debate
TRUTH
The Curly Catastrophe I doubt even he understands the extent of what his embarrassment should be. He doesn’t understand elementary philosophical concepts.
No he didn't.
Here’s a game:
Every time they say the word “objective” read a verse in the Bible.
How far can you get starting at genesis?
What author is it that Michael keeps mentioning? Ruche ferlando?
Great discussion! As usual, IP came on top :-)
Stick man Sam ! What up brah?
Taylor Shipley check out philosophical intuition; it’s different than a lay definition of intuition
*@Whaddo You Meme??* Doing well, bro! Can't wait for your next vid! :-)
at the beging yep but not at the end xp
Are you 12 years old? Grow up.
Why wouldn't Alex doubt the laws of logic or mathmatics? It seems like his epistemology would call for that.
Daniel Cartwright Doubting doesn’t mean reflexively disbelieving. It means going through the process of evaluating whether or not you have good reason to accept it.
@ 1:01:45 What is the difference between bad (ie putting my hand on the stove) and moral bad? Putting someone else’s hand on the stove!
I think Alex is saying that it is objectively wrong to insist that objective morality exists.
1:12:00
Cosmic is criticizing a school of moral realism, deontology, not moral realism itself.
Last time I watched a Cosmic Skeptic debate it was with Frank Turek and he (CS) defined objective as "existing even if humans didn't" and thought that he couldn't even prove his own existence. Nice to see he's progressing. Maybe one day he'll become a Christian.
UnratedAwesomeness Actually this abstract approach to God does not lead to Christianity. Even Judaic or Islamic Theology is closer to what this approach would lead to. Perhaps not even those, maybe just deism.
Actually, it seems you've misunderstood the philosophical pursuit for God. Arguments like the Unmoved Mover and the One, necessarily conclude that there is a force sustaining our existence as they deal with hierarchical causality. Also, an unactualized actualized (unmoved mover) would necessarily need to possess all the divine attributes of Christianity's God and must be a single entity by it's very nature. If you want a good explanation of why this is, some pop-apologetical videos can help, but I'd suggest reading Edward Freser to *start*. When people claim the arguments lead to deism or polytheism, it's honestly because they just don't know how the arguments work (no offense, as you probably heard this from a source which you trusted). Once we arrive at monotheism, you're right, the arguments don't really push us to Christianity fully. But that was never in question. Christianity has a real edge over Islam and Judaism on it's historical basis and Biblical consistency. It's a multi step program basically ;)
UnratedAwesomeness what I trying to say is what you said from the sentence. " once we get to monotheism".
Also, what I meant was that trinitarian concepts are not philosophically derivable. The Islamic And probable Jewish narrative of Jesus(as a Jewish reformer or something along those lines?), are much more sensible than a human is both man and god ontologically. That's what I meant. The logic is weird and the anthropomorphism seems quite absurd.
UnratedAwesomeness the last statement you made. "Historical basis". But that's the thing, we are trying to derive GOD on a philosophical basis, and the theology does partially resonate with Christinaity(other than the anthropomorphic concepts), but it resonates arguably perfectly with Islamic(orthodox) and Jewish theology(orthodox).
We have a similar idea, but no it doesn't. Islamic God has ant idea of an imperfect God who, according to the Qu'ran, only loves Muslims and for him to be merciful he has to unjustly wipe away your sins. Only in Christianity has God justly purchased forgiveness and thus his virtues do not contradict one another.
Either way, if someone comes to accept monotheism on a philosophical basis, studying each would be the next logical conclusion. While not explicit in my original comment, comparing theology of islam, judaism, and christianity would possibly lead someone to a accepting christianity, so i think my original comment still holds.
Edit:
One could also make an argument from the problem of love in a unitarian God (who would have no loving relationship prior to creation) rather than a binitarian or trinitarian.
So if we're trying to see which religion best fits philosophical understanding, I think Christianity rules supreme.
Also, anthropomorphic concepts exist in all three monotheistic religions but explicitly as metaphors. Isaiah 55:8 '“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.' Is an example off the top of my head. Other examples exist demonstrating that Biblical Christianity shows God as being formless except for the incarnation, all powerful, all knowing, existing everywhere, etc.
Something that was neglected was free will and also good and bad as defined as one improves where as one destroys.
Something is moral if it doesn't cause others to suffer or experience pain (definiton at 59:32 applys). This makes moral objective because we can think if something would cause others pain and then judge. This is also reflected by the commandments because in summary you should strive for "Love" which includes the absence of pain. Also pain is the biological indicator of something not being right with your body like if it prevents you from getting deliberately hurt (e.g. a hot cooktop).
This makes Moral to be subjective at the same time as every person sees the consequences and the magnitude of pain an action could cause different. A coach might say that the benefit of staying fit is worth the pain of the exercises while the trainee might not see it that way.
CS is conflating absolute with objective. Nothing is wrong or right according to his veiw. There is nothing outside of personal opinion.
@demigodzilla Who is he to say anything lies outside of personal opinion? Though gravity is a law, it could be fake and Newton could have been wrong. The big bang might not be true, there is always a slight possibility. As Aron Ra says, nothing is for sure, it is just more probable than less at times.
We are rational to trust our moral intuitions in the absence of any defeater. Doubt alone does not provide sufficient warrant that our intuitions are false. It may be possible our intuitions are wrong but possibilities come cheap.
Why aren’t the debater’s youtube links in the description?
As for Jones' point about disliking Craig's formulation of the Moral Argument, that criticism is already dealt with every time he presents the argument, more specifically in addressing the first premiss. He usually says something like what he says during his Defenders series classes. His statement from Defenders Series 1, concerning the first premiss of his formulation of the Moral Argument, is this:
"But it seems to me, wholly apart from that, it is very plausible in and of itself. Consider what naturalism says. Naturalism is the view that there is no God and that all that exists is just physical objects in space and time - just the natural world is all that exists. On naturalism, what foundation is there for objective moral values?[1] More particularly, what is the basis for the objective value of human beings on naturalism? If God does not exist as a sort of transcendent anchor point for moral values, then it is hard to see why human beings would be special or that the morality that has evolved among human beings would be objectively binding. Why think that we would have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what would impose these obligations upon us? On naturalism, we are just products of biological and social evolution, and the values that we embrace today are simply the socio-biologically relative byproducts of the system of evolution."
www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-moral-argument/moral-argument-part-1/#_ftnref1
Since the contrapositive of the first premiss, If there is no God, then objective moral values and duties do not exist, is, If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists, the two are logically equivalent. This means that they are either both true or both false. The above statement, which is put forward by non-theist philosophers as well (such as Bertrand Russel, as Craig points in the aforementioned class), constitutes reason to believe that they are both true, not both false. The idea being that if objective morality exists, then the only explanation, it seems, that could even possibly be given is that the source that grounds objective moral values and duties must be a rational, and therefore, personal being that transcends humanity and issues such commands and duties.
CS' arguments are ultimately general arguments against realism of almost any kind. Yes, if we thought blue was "good" we might jail anyone who gets a green car. And if we experienced -- via said experience being ingrained in us by our evolutionary ancestry -- that there are pink unicorns flying next to each person's right shoulder, we would think that's true too; so what?
The problem with doubting our intuitions, which is certainly not a bad thing in and of itself, is that we can always imagine them being different. If that's the case, why trust any of them? When the moderator brought up the example of the past being real or not, CS said it can be doubted but ultimately, the arguments against moral realism are stronger than the arguments against the claim that the past isn't real.
Okay, suppose so, but that still doesn't tell us why he believes the past is real. What arguments can be offered for that claim? The only thing we have to rely on is our intuition of the past. Why then should we believe the past is real?
CS also flirted with physical anti-realism since it works just as well as an explanation for scientific discoveries. We need not believe that the hypotheses we test -- perhaps after basing them on our intuitions -- actually conform to some objective external world. We need only believe some hypotheses conform to our collective intuitions of the external world. That says nothing about whether our experience of the external world is generally reliable.
Following this line of reasoning we would be left with very little beliefs. Even theorems in mathematics are based on axioms, many of which are unprovable; why not doubt those? The real-world applications of math can be dismissed by some versions of physical anti-realism, too. What's next? The laws of logic? Never mind the existence of minds other than one's own, something we don't even experience.
If that's the price of moral anti-realism or non-cognitivism, I think I'll pass. The arguments for realism aren't perfect (and no argument is perfect anywhere in the philosophical literature), and human intuitions are certainly fallible. But the alternatives lead to epistemic suicide. The cost is just too high.
"uhhh yes i can answer that but it really needs some unpacking..." means, I know you have me, but i can waffle for 10 mins until we need to move on because I love my sin and it's making me lots and lots of money and i think i can eventually find a smarter way of dealing with this because obviously it's untrue... I just haven't delved down that rabbit hole deep enough... yet... again... still"
that is literally CS perfectly said Arno
A very key point in the debate is at 29:54 when Michael Jones said "keep going on that" and alex said "what do you mean." Alex seemed to think that his doubt in of itself was enough to dismiss moral realism where as in order to really dismiss moral realism, he should have provided a reason. For this reason I think Michael won the debate.
Gods foreknowledge of our choices does not negate our free will. God foreknows what we "will" do, but, God also foreknows what we "could" have done, but did not.
A great discussion but I thought IP really missed an opportunity when Alex gave his color preference example. I found Michael's answer unsatisfactory. He should have countered Alex by informing him that you simply cannot even use an example such as "If everyone was predisposed to think blue was the best color then in that world it would be very difficult to conceive color as only a subjective preference." Why can you not use that argument? Because we already have knowledge in this world that color is a subjective preference. We don't have an outside knowledge of morality on those terms. So Alex was clearly begging the question. He assumes morality is subjective to make his point. We don't have an outside knowledge of morality and because of that there is absolutely no reason to question its intuition. In the same way, we cannot conceive the laws of logic, another rational enterprise, as anything but a necessary objective framework, which we all intuit.
Alex's big mistake in this discussion was misunderstanding how "intuition" is being used. He can't disassociate the word with a "feeling" while Michael is using it in the epistemological sense in order to understand ontology. We intuit that logic exists, math is objective, the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago, and we're not brains in a vat. These are not feelings. They are self-evident truths. The same can be said for morality. Alex did not have any satisfactory answers for why this is not the case. Equating it to color preference or hunger or an extension of pain all assume subjectivity in order to deny intuition. His skepticism is completely unwarranted.
i found IP's answer good but yours is also pretty satisfying
Good point, a color isn’t a good example. IP should’ve stated that and then given him an example like a law such as burglary or murder. Even though they’re dark, it drives the point better.
Even then, CS wouldn’t have given a good explanation. If morality was subjective, then you couldn’t imprison murderers because they could say that it’s just a matter of opinion and they determined that murder is okay morally.
Damn y’all really out here just missing the point and thinking you’re smart hahaha.
I think that IP won this debate. I think there were better points given on Michael’s side. I personally believe that the moral argument still stands.
@demigodzilla torturing small babies is evil
@demigodzilla how?
@demigodzilla i meant where in bible did God do that?
Intelligence is created by concoussness, without concoussness there is no intelligence, so therefore without concoussness there is NO CREATION.
I think a lot of the problem is that people are so dead set against any kind of dualism or pluralism because of the interaction problem. However, we seem to allow for some problems and not others depending on our bias and belief toward the world. For example we can't really interact with the past or the future but we allow for induction and inference because it correlates, even though it's problematic. We end up relying on how pragmatic the results are.
Why shouldn't we do the same with morality. Metaphysics can't be measured because it seems tautological. Two plus two equals four because two plus two equals four yet it seems seems somehow built into the world. Morality can't be empirically measured anymore than you can measure mind or psyche or mathematics with a yardstick.
Intuitively and even rationally the metaphysics and the physics seem mutually contingent. Nature seems to be set up with the metaphysics running alongside the physics.
Two waters plus two waters equals four Waters because finite beings experience patterns and agree to categorize and name them.
American, physical and logical Laws are grounded in the constitution, the universe and reality itself; but I believe the inverse is also right. The Constitution, the universe and reality itself are grounded in natural laws.
If the Absolute Infinite omnitemporal being exist, it is the cosmic agent, both immanent and transcendent and it has holistic mereological Primacy.
From a finite perception and experience, morality is real subjectively and objectively because the 1 Everything is the only possible ideal Observer capable of making a judgment on what morality is, and what is moral; and maybe I'm anthropomorphizing here, but it seems that in order to know Reality it has to be experienced objectively and and subjectively from a bird's-eye view, and every actual occurrence within it; and the relationship between occurrences must be experienced in the same way all the way down. It's necessary to know what it's like to be a bat as well as what the bat is like from all other perspectives.
Reality is given to finite beings through metaphor and allegory and we have to act on heuristics but I think the 'Good and the True' is really out there; and really in here.
The Logos
Thinking Out Loud here... It is "good" to be a doctor just as it is good to be an engineer or a plumber or a baker or a Candlestick maker. From this perspective, "doctor" is a subcategory of "good", just as all these other vocations are also good. So you don't have to choose to be a doctor, you can choose any vocation, and that would be good.
It is *not* good to choose to be a lazy bum sitting on the side of the street begging for handouts.
Now we can move to moral imperatives: you ought to do good by choosing a vocation (to the extent you are able). You ought to not choose to, be a lazy bum.
( I'm spitballing it here, and open for Corrections)
What are you getting at? Are you just asserting what you think are moral facts, or?
Cosmic Skeptic thinks the ends justify the means in regards to causing pain.
Joy Bradford yes I agree I’m some situations yes it is true, but obviously not always just depending on the true objective reasons for the pain and ends of the cause.
Correct. The pain of cutting open someone's throat for an emergency tracheotomy is justified.
Hey Alex, who is 'we' when determining your objective moral principles?
On the question of the guard chasing an escaped prisoner across a frozen lake and falling through the ice and then being rescued by the escaped prisoner who he then arrests resulting in the prisoner being executed a few days later; perhaps it all happened so that a moral philosopher could use it as the basis for a moral argument a few centuries later. At least the prisoner has achieved a sort of immortality.
Lol I don't think Cosmic Skeptic would upload this debate on his channel after all that schooling IP gave him. But if he does then props to him! :)
I'm here from Cosmic Skeptic's facebook page, yet to watch the video.
Just came here from the same. HIGHLY doubt Alex was owned. Especially after all the times I've seen apologists claim victory after totally embarrassing themselves intellectually in debates.
Guess well see.
Mrposter42 Let us know how you think it went!
Well a little over an hour into it. So far I see Alex trying his best to drag the other guys into an actual discussion instead of just reading quotes and making claims as statements of truth that they say needs no discussion.
Why are so many apologists prone to toss out quotes left and right as if that is actual evidence of anything?
So the end result. Alex wasn't really debating but more trying to teach some other guys how to debate. Or really just how to have a philosophical discussion at all.
If you think this is a debate, or especially that Alex "lost", then you really need to rethink your understanding of philosophy. Just a reminder of why I quit bothering listening to apologists. A premise isn't a baseless claim that you then build on to a supposedly proven conclusion. A premise must first be demonstrated to be true before you can move on. Shocking I know!
He’s using objective language to try to speak subjectivism... poor poor skeptic.
demigodzilla there’s nothing to understand because it’s false logic
@@quikskoprbro968
There is no such thing as "false logic", get an education bro.
And?????????????? Whats the problem? Whats the contradiction?
@@marcossidoruk8033 if he’s a subjectivist he cause say things like humans have intrinsic value. He’s contradicting himself.
@@secondson1186 1. Learn to write.
2. You are confused, he is a moral non-realist and you generalise saying he is a subjectivist (btw, that is not even a philosophical term) and that he cannot use objective language for some reason??
Loved this and certainly lean towards Alex’s line of thinking.
I see I reason presented here to think morality is any more objective than beauty, deliciousness, etc.
I really appreciate the discussion on both sides, the format for the most part was great, and look forward to seeing more conversations like this,
Travis Harger Carnal instincts are not on the same level as moral though or instincts
you should then first learn to stop judging subjectivly since this debate clearly went to IP
Dm X Dude you don’t have to go around defending IP to people who clearly don’t even understand the vocab to grasp what he is saying
welp that is true too i guess
This all boils down to *whether* or not moral values are *objectively binding.* CS seems to be saying, "they *may* be objective, but there aren't any good arguments to make me think so. We have this strong feeling or intuition that they're objective, but that feeling may be the result of programming from evolution given its socially advantageous nature."
IP offers some arguments for the objectivity of moral values, but IMO his strongest argument is the shared intuition argument. Again, though, this intuition may itself be illusory. IP seems to have misunderstood CS's argument about how we would react *if* we were programmed via evolution to regard blue as objectively superior to all other colors, IF we had that kind of programming then, yes, we would react very strongly to color differences. Obviously we don't have that programming, but IF we did, then we'd have similar reactions to morality. CS's point is that IF our moral intuitions are an illusory product of evolution programming us, then that would indeed explain our strong reactions. I.E. the mere existence of the intuitions isn't enough to prove that they're accurate reflections of reality.
IF IF IF we accept the intuition as true and as reflecting reality, *Then* we would have an argument worth exploring (though godless normative realism is possible too). But I don't see how we can prove the intuition. It seems that this whole debate hinges on whether or not we accept our moral intuitions, and it seems that reasonable people can disagree on this and still be reasonable.
If they aren't objectively binding then they aren't objective moral values in the first place.
I think IP had strong points more than CS. He had made claims but yet has not disprove them. He said we should doubt every thing while giving no reason whatsoever. IP have made very good points but CS has not refuted them clearly. He just trying to "understand" or "unpack". I heared like 10 to 15 times. Although the skeptic was better off than in the nonsequitor show with IP vs GodlessEngineer.
I would have loved to have debated Cosmic. I have seen many of his videos and they are always way off the mark.
TRUE
Sterling Contreras Can I please have some examples. I think I am too dumb to figure them out on my own.
Debunking morality on the theist side and atheist one but then contradicting himself stating that islam is morally wrong
all his videos on gods existence
@the manager.
I made a video addressing the major flaws in his arguments in his video on proving that morality subjective even if god exists.
Check it out and you’ll see how he’s inconsistent and all over the place.
ruclips.net/video/kfyjHdj-A9k/видео.html
'learned' from the master Richard Dawkins then. Dawkins spends first half of his God delusion book claiming there can be no real morality or definitive definition of right and wrong in attempt to debunk argument from morality then goes right into second half clutching his pearls on how amoral and wrong the God of the old testament is.
Based on ? ....his own bias it seems rather than any moral basis - which of course doesn't exist.
51:00 - 53:00 - I feel like Micheal was not understanding Alex here. Alex wasn't saying that those humans picked blue subjectively just 'because' or as a preference - he was saying these humans all had an internal intuitive instinct to think that blue was the best color - i.e. it just 'feels' right that everything should be blue - and this universal agreement among these albeit strange humans would really think that green is wrong. Obviously these humans that think blue is the best color internally don't exist - but I get what Alex is saying here. There's no reason to think their internal intuition about blue is objective even though they, for some reason, all agree that it is.
For myself, I know it feels very certain to think that murder, rape, etc. are generally wrong, and if everyone agrees to this intuition that pain is bad, we really would think these things are objective. But Alex is saying they are not based on anything objective. In a way, it's similar to what Matt says on this topic - that if humans agree to well-being as a foundation for morality, then you may make objective assessments about murder, rape, etc. to develop a consistent, objective morality. But the foundation for that moral system would still be subjective, even if almost everyone intuitively would agree with it.
It's too bad they later got hung up on the word pain. I agree - pain is not a good term. Matt's Well-being terminology would have been better. But the dialog shifted away from what I thought was the actual interesting point that Alex made and it went on to something far less interesting and fairly pointless imo. Michael won the exchange here, and it's a shame because Alex should not have allowed the discussion to get hung up on a word. That's on him.
"But Alex is saying they are not based on anything objective". What that objective is transcends and includes human subjectivity.I propose unity consciousness.When/if we become aware we are all of manifestation,we would relate from that place and obviously would not want to rape,steal..from whom.All are morals stem from the fact there is no separation.
I don't understand why he didn't call him out on when he claim something to be true. His(CS) worldview cant account for that either.
Yes it can.
The issue I take with Alex is always the same. He has said it in this, directly, he is agnostic. It would look the same if that was true or false, that objective morals exist. If you take that position, then you are logically forced to say, 'I don't know.'. It is where he should fall from what he is saying, as it logically follows, but he doesn't say that. He just has a vast distaste for having to prove himself. Thus, the consistent push to say you must be in the middle ground, but objective moral do not exist. Why Alex? Because you honestly believe something you do not desire to defend. That is not being honest with those that hear you. It is a real issue, & not hard to see thru if one takes even a slight peek at your statements.
So what really is the reason you want people to go at least to the agnostic position? If you have a case, just give it. There is a real sinister vibe I get from people who just want you to deny what you believe because it might be false. That is any belief. Might be true, I have evidence for that. Where is the evidence it is false? If not, your doubt is unwarranted.
God could be watch Alex. What if your wrong? Is that enough to believe?
@Joy Bradford Hello, so it seems like 99% of philosophers agree that morality doesnt come from God directly. Even very religious philosophers believe that we are able to figure out whats moral and whats not by reasoning alone. One of the arguments for this would be that if something is moral because god said, morality is arbitrary. If theres nothing God based it on his morality is completelly random, rape might as well be okay. This may sound like a blow to religious ideas but its actually great since you can argue even with atheists and be succesful. TL;DR Morality doesnt come from any God, it is a property of universe we can unpack using our minds.
@@NervylHraje Well the problem with this thinking is the moral argument isn't saying we can't find morality without God(we could theoretically rationalize what's moral and come to a correct conclusion), but rather without God there is no basis for morality or the existence of rationality. The argument of arbitrary morality misunderstands the Christian view of God, God doesn't just say what's moral and what's not rather immorality is the opposite of God and the existence of it was necessary for a meaningful existence. All this means that morality is simply what is closest to God's will and that without God's existence there is no rational basis for morality or meaning without believing in a supernatural world of forms as proposed by Plato which would mean you're practically not an atheist.
Jakub Kučera or as some philosophers avoided this problem is by saying that God is good and he aims for good. Therefore you avoid the problem of morality being arbitrary.
@Joy Bradford
That sits on a set of concepts that must be laid out in arguments. It is down to what you can Evidence as real. I believe it to be the Christian God, but that isn't just a single argument to get there from God must be. Logically, God must be though.
If you get this are you interested in hearing them?
@@NervylHraje
That is half true. Your sense of morality has been argued as apparent by some, but not 99%. That isn't the same as how you know it must be. Epistemology isn't Ontology.
You need God to exist for morals to be real. Otherwise it is your opinion & a waste. Good & Evil are absolute terms or they lack meaning. Subjective morality doesn't afford you any right to claim anything Evil or Good. It is a dislike or like based on a gut feeling & equal to those that lack such a feeling to claim it not real. In short, you feel it is wrong, but you have no clue if it really is. That is unless God exists.
So CS read some watered down A.J.Ayer and thought it was the end of things?
No matter how bad we think a person is, when they die their body gives nutrients to the earth. So that's why creation is good no matter what.
What's the difference between moral non-cognitivism and nihilism
Listening to CS is painful. The equivocation, goal post moving, and descriptives, notwithstanding his total lack of philosophical knowledge. The only books CS has read are Harris and Dawkins which he completely argued with until it was pointed out that both are philosophical failures.
How can anyone say that "murder" and "rape" can be morally subjective? How can anyone claim that, as WLC puts it, torturing a child for fun is subjectively amoral?
What if someone wants to become an abortion doctor? Is that a good thing, or morally reprehensible?
What Alex is arguing here is for "pragmatic ethics", which he doesn't even realize, and should have been called out on.
Throughout the discussion Alex is convinced that morality can develop thorough situational criteria.
His doctor example, for instance. Sorry, no! Becoming a doctor is not a moral imperative and has no a priori position. Especially if said doctor becomes Gosnell.
In Alex's world Gosnell has no a priori moral accountability. Neither does the person who becomes a doctor for financial gain by becoming a plastic surgeon in Hollywood.
The doctor disruptive argument has no meaning to the question.
The evolution thing is equally meaningless. After all, we are human beings endowed with the ability to reason, right? I mean, Alex thinks he reasons.
I believe the point that's missed is that in a totally "evil" world doing good would be considered evil, just as doing evil would be evil. In other words, in a totally evil world there would be no distinction between good and evil. But, in a world in which good exists distinctions can be made between good and evil, and moral "oughts" exist a priori.
In a world in which reproduction requires the forcible taking of a mate, without which promulgation could not occur, then it wouldn't be rape. In our world individuals have an inalienable right to the products of their own will and self determination. The only way an individuals will can be undermined is through force.
Is Alex actually arguing that an individuals will can be undermined by force?
What Alex won't say here is that the individual is not responsible for his actions regardless how heinous, since everything is determined as per his naturalistic ideology, and therefore no free will.
What Alex doesn't realize that according to his own naturalistic ideology no statement or claim is true or false, meaning that he can't argue against and belief anyone has since it's the result of genetic determinations.
In Alex's world there is no moral accountability. God doesn't exist so how could there be? In Alex's world there are just "bad acts" and actors.
In Alex's world once society has determined what is bad, like conservatism and the belief in a moral authority and judge we call God, Man can achieve a utopian world were every individual evolved the capacity to do only good. As long as Man conforms to what Alex has determined to be good with no opposition.
I suggest Alex take his head out of Dawkins and Harris's books, take his own advise and doubt what he believes, and look up current findings on intuition, and Kants "Theory of Mind".
Sorry Alex, there's nothing new under sun. You're no exception.
Peace.
Exactly. Reading new atheist literature such as Harris, Dawkins, Coyne, Krauss, Hitchens, etc will make you philosophically ignorant.
The basis for morality is subjective but if we agree on the goal (well being of people) we can make objective claims about what is better for well being and what is not. Simple as that. Morality is objective.
@@oneandonlyaviationenthusiast: Well said.
@@oneandonlyaviationenthusiast Agreed👍
@@oneandonlyaviationenthusiast I'm sorry but that idea is naiive. You can't answer all moral questions just with the premise of well being of people.
Does the theist actually need moral realism to make his case? It seems to me that a simple argument based solely on the fact that people are sensitive to moral reasons for action is enough. Arguably, the existence of organisms that are sensitive to or respond to moral reasons for actions is more likely to exist if God exists than if naturalism is true.
Im not sure about your point there at the end of your comment, but regarding your first question: No, the theist does not have to. Plenty of theistic philosophers are neutral towards moral realism or anitrealism in their case for the existence of God
ma guy the theist has a name lol btw this debate isnt even about atheism or theism so why even bring up ''theist'' or ''atheist''
and btw what you mean it has nothing to do with god bro what are you talking about????
By "the theist", I mean a theist IN GENERAL. A person who affirms the existence of a god. Not any of the guys in the video. And the discussion is about the moral argument FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE. That's what the title of the video, "The Moral Argument", is referring to.
yes but mentioning his positione is weird as if i would say ''the black guy'' was debating the ''white guy''
what you mean ''not any of the guys in the video'' ma guy CS is a atheist and IP is a theist still i was just saying that i think you should name them instead of calling them there world views and kinda categorizing them in it
not really the video title dosent say anything about that ''the Moral argument - InspiringPhilosophy vs Cosmic skeptic'' you can also refer the moral argument to be the argument for objective morality since in the debate itself the god argument with morality wasnt brought up for a long time
The deeper you dig into Philosophy,Science etc The more youll understand how 'Language ' is the inevitable hard problem... Humanity is in need to devise a greater and more sophisticated tool that will replace LANGUAGE
Impossible.
Prem Acharya even if we did, we will just realize more the more things we can't comprehend or whatever
Nothing can come close to God, even the True Nothingness can't
They have it’s called music.
While discussing morality, it's nature and origins, is a very interesting topic; You couldn't use morals to prove existence of a wooden plank in your garage, let alone a supreme, almighty being.
You can use other methods to prove an almighty being. IP does offer a more convincing case than not on his channel.
Consensus does not equal objectivity. You can have _collective_ morality without it being _objective_ morality.
"Our group decided by consensus that circumcision is wrong and unnecessarily cruel to a newborn, so we will act to prevent it."
"Our group has a god that demands circumcision, and we believe God's commands are good, so we will act to enforce it."
If two groups could conceivably disagree that something is moral, as in the case of circumcision, no matter the size of each opposing group, then clearly morality is not objective. It is only the dominant opinion that determines what is moral for a group, and law (both religious and secular) is only a reflection of that dominant view. Slavery was "moral" until it was no longer the dominant view that it was moral.
Why is circumcision "easy"? If it's so easy then address the issue directly instead of deflecting to the "harder" one.
It doesn't of itself disprove the possibility of an objective morality. However it does create the need to for anyone claiming an objective morality to demonstrate it exists against strong evidence otherwise.
Every moral argument I see is based on a mind's conclusion and that means it's subjective. Even if that mind is a proposed god.
The Mormon Informant "Consensus does not equal objectivity"
Of course it doesn't Mr. Strawman.
You are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology.
Alexander Hamilton If the case for objective reality comes from the consensus of a group's intuition ("everyone intuitively agrees that X is wrong, therefore morality is objective"), then the presence of two groups with opposing intuition disproves that argument.
Cosmic Skeptic ironically vindicates Inspiring philosophy and proves his point. Poor guy
@@ShouVertica I made this comment 3 days ago and i don't remember specifically what i was talking about then. But an interesting detail i picked up is what Alex said about the reason for his skepticism. He states that if there even exists a possibility that he could be wrong about what he currently knows, then that's ample reason for him to doubt even his own intuitions (especially when it comes to moral objectivity). By his own standards we should doubt everything, even our own skepticism, which would be self refuting for him.
I guess in order to convince skeptic, is to obviously give external evidence of why morality is an objective rather than just our intuition or I would say illusion. For example if you can proof that universe was indeed created by God or something else, then it would be good way to show. I mean this is really possible to do, if you deny the premise that you only exist
IP is the best if it comes down to arguing empirical data in general but this debate was about a topic that was welp not really supportive of this
Here's the thing with that it could be said the same thing about laws of logic laws of science numbers and Mathematics because mathematics is basically the language of the universe it's the order of which Things Are. E=mc2 f=ma. Etc. His worldview fails according to the proof he wants according
Is any claim that says that someone “ought to” or “should” do something inherently moral?
If so, then how do you answer the following question:
Should you trust reason?
If you say yes, that’s a moral claim. If you say no, that’s still a moral claim, but it’s self refuting, because then you can’t trust anything you claim
If you say yes, you must determine if that claim is subjective or objective. If it’s subjective, then you can’t objectively say that your reason is even reliable, and you can’t even prove reality exists. If it’s objective, then you believe in objective morality.
But maybe it’s ammoral. “I don’t know if I SHOULD trust reason. I just know I can.” But that’s circular. You have to reason to the fact that you can reason reliably.
It seems like the only reason you trust reason is because you know you SHOULD, intuitively, and such a claim is objective and moral.
*The World Teacher - Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda* yes. I’m a Christian
*The World Teacher - Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda* Really? There’s no evidence for God? Are you open to any evidence of which you may not be aware? I’d take a look at Inspiring Philosophy’s RUclips channel. His series on the resurrection of Jesus is especially thorough. To simply say “there will never be evidence for God” or something if that nature is a presuppositional position, and I’d encourage you to consider that there could be evidence you just haven’t looked into yet.
*The World Teacher - Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda* I did read your comment, and I don’t think it’s quite fair for one to assume that the reason I believe in God is based on one or more of those 4 reasons. It’s a little condescending to act like as a theist I’m just a gullible individual who just believes what I hear or accepts miracle claims blindly. I encourage you to examine the evidence for the resurrection in part 2 of Inspiring Philosophy’s playlist on the resurrection. I believe in God because I am convinced that He exists, not because I *want to* or because I was raised that way. There are many people who believe in God who were not raised that way and are very skeptical by nature, and to say that they just accept this belief even though there “never will be evidence” is a little shortsighted
The resurrection of Jesus is paramount to Christianity, and I encourage you to explore it.
God bless