Debate: Something from nothing? | Alex O'Connor vs Cameron Bertuzzi
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 авг 2018
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: teespring.com/stores/cosmicsk...
To anybody who supports (or even considers supporting) my channel monetarily, thank you. I am naturally grateful for any engagement with my work, but it is specifically people like you that allow me to do what I do, and to do so whilst avoiding sponsorship.
-------------------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------------------
Having met him when he hosted a debate between myself and Inspiring Philosophy, I was pleased to be able to debate Cameron Bertuzzi himself, and on an argument I haven't really talked about before, the contingency argument.
The conversation was facilitated by Justin Brierly through his radio show 'Unbelievable', which brings Christians and non-Christians together for conversation. He's hosted discussions recently with people such as Jordan Peterson, Derren Brown, N.T. Wright and Steven Pinker in his 'Big Conversation' series, available below.
This was fairly surface-level, so if you'd like to see a more developed version of Cameron's argument, check the link below. This discussion begins with introductions, then a period of Cameron laying out his argument, before we begin discussing it.
If you'd like to see a more specific rebuttal of Cameron's argument as written on his website, let me know.
-------------------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------------------
Cameron's version of the contingency argument: capturingchristianity.com/upda...
Cameron's website: capturingchristianity.com/
'The Big Conversation' series: • Unbelievable? - The Bi...
Unbelievable: www.premierchristianradio.com...
----------------------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
---------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alexander O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again to Justin for having me on. I've been super busy, but I'm hoping to have a few normal-style videos out soon. Check the description for more information about this discussion.
CosmicSkeptic your are incredible Alex! This was an amazing discussion, I enjoy listening to your well-educated critics. I am an agnostic atheist and find your content inspiring in a way. CONGRATULATIONS on being done with exams!
Please don't pin pointless comments
Les Damn, it's ok, relax
Alex please have a conversation with Ask Yourself about all this stuff and also to understand the philosophical position of a part of the vegan community m.ruclips.net/channel/UCQNmHyGAKqzOT_JsVEs4eag
Do what you have to man. Your life comes before making us interesting videos.
Cameron looks like the typical church youth group guy that tries to convince teens that Jesus is cool with his acoustic guitar.
The killing joke Been playing guitar since I was 14, haha!
Capturing Christianity I knew it. Good to see you can take a little jab.
Yeah I hate those types of people, they came to our school once to try and indoctrinate confused young minds into their religious bullshit.
They clearly haven't read the old testament where god is an evil maniac that throws tantrums when two guys sleep together.
Colin Java
And you clearly haven't read the books by scholars that refute such unfounded claims
The killing joke 😂
Alex, lots of people praise you for having a wisdom and intellect unusual for your age, but I am far more impressed by your patience and composure. An hour of this had my blood pressure spiking several times, and I'm almost twice your age. Bravo.
Derek Burge I’m 51, and I, too, found myself getting enormously irritated at all the shelving and redundancy of the theist. He seems bright enough, I guess, but he is really not up to a debate with Alex. I’m glad I agree with Alex, because he would crush me in a debate! 💙
If I tried to debate Cameron I would not be able to do it with just eventually calling him an idiot and telling him that his argument is a tangled mess of nonsense
i met someone schizophrenic about six years ago, it took about a week to realise "you're imagining things" doesn't work, i'm midway through a book about how surreal life has become since meeting her, and i borrow heavily from kurt vonnegut, i say she lives in a bubble of inter-galactic exclusion jelly and i can only reach in my hand to synch up with her, but seriously i found that a white lie goes a long way, i explained to her that there is this theory of parallel universes and that her reality doesn't always coincide with mine and she needs to explain what she sees and hears as sometimes as they are outside my experience, six years on she at least admits "i have this disability" where once she was in total denial. this is an extreme case, but in any "argument" you have to keep your calm, stick strictly to the point, and not imply the other person is wrong, but lead them to a point where they see their argument has fallacies. can i recommend anthony magnaboscos channel street epistemology for the ideal way of talking the religious out of their beliefs.
i have to say i see your point though, it's one thing to be diagnostically mentally ill, another to be a complete arse. i'm 65 btw.
@@Will-xf3qe try getting him to explain why god says "i love you and i will send you to hell if you don't love me back".
maybe your time would be better spent doing something else
Alex: I have a problem with premise one.
Cameron: We don't have the time here to go into detail.
Alex: I have a basic problem with premise two.
Cameron: Well, that's more than we have time to get into now.
Why are we here then? Cameron just spent the time avoiding filling in the gaps of his argument.
Exactly!
Typical Christian.
In that case it's a waste of time for me to watch this! Thanks for this comment! Glad I didn't watch. I'm sure the people in the video benefited way more over the viewers in this one...
logical delusion don’t you think you should , oh I dunno, decide for yourself ?... lol
i don't think so, the purpose of the video was to present the premises and the counter-arguments to the premises and that is exactly what happened...the premises were presented, and alex offered his counter arguments...what more did you expect
One thing I've learned from Alex's debates is *patience*
Is your patience contingent or predetermined
"It's better to be patient than powerful; and better to have self-control than conquer a city." :)
@@childfreesingleandatheist8899 is your self control contingent or predetermined
@@RR-xz6bv Predetermined
@@g.c.9904 predetermined where? In a book called life?
Watching a lot of CosmicSkeptic. One of the things I like is the clear articulation of philosophical concepts. It is really useful and I am learning a great deal. Thanks!!
doesnt it bother you that he thinks a scientific theory doesnt have to be logical? wasn't logic the reason we adopt scientific method from the first place?
11:05 "I think that apologetics is more of a journey than a destination... theres always going to be room -for growth- *to move the goalposts* "
Just like when science gets new evidence, there’s a new evaluation of the data and new conclusions are made. If the Bible doesn’t tell us absolutely everything about say God and because it’s literature can be interpreted in a variety of ways, what’s wrong with tweaking ideas from Christianity?
@@dominicdarmanin9866 because religions say that things in their holy books are god's word and if they are they should never change because God is never wrong.
@@abhaysreekanth not sure what relevance that has to Tyrel’s point. Maybe it’s for another conversation. Peace bro
@@dominicdarmanin9866 let me put it this way.....science is allowed to change because new data and conclusions can be made in the future . But with religion...it shouldn't be changed or tweaked
@@abhaysreekanth I understand, but many things in religious texts can still be reinterpreted
I love how Cameron's argument falls apart at every stage but they keep well, let's just move on and pretend you grant his premise. I have never seen so much special pleading in one argument. The ironic thing is Cameron's view actually show god needs an explanation. He said self-causation is absurd, then how is the argument that god was self-causation not absurd too?
There is marked difference between self-causation and aseity.
When you completely disregard quantum physics ( like William God of the gaps Lane Craig ) then anything is possible...plus add an invisible entity that lives outside the natural world without evidence...
Cameron: " I researched a lot...but not enough to convince myself to pursue a degree😂 ".
I’ve never heard a theist explain how a being outside the universe and not of matter/energy can interact or cause material to emerge. Doesn’t a Prime Mover have to be part of the universe? That sentence is inherently non-sensical, so you have to provide a theory of interaction to posit a creator.
miller charlie That’s silly to impose such strict standards on the theist. Since when does an explanation require an explanation of the explanation in order to be the best explanation? It’s a very unscientific way to go about things. Imagine how stunted scientific progress would be if we waited until we understood all the detailed mechanics of a theory before accepting it.
Just Did It in order to propose that an agent outside the universe is interacting with the universe you have to have some reason for thinking it happens at all. The very concept of an immaterial being acting on material seems absurd & to be entertained requires some proposal of how that could work. Without such a proposal I don’t know why it would be entertained at all. When scientists propose a new force (say weak nuclear force) they feel some requirement to illustrate how it might work (such as a force carrier & a description of the field). It wouldn’t have been accepted if they just pointed to a gap in the theory and just said the gluon did it.
Terrible format...Cameron talks for 10 minutes straight without interruption, Alex gets like 3 minutes before he gets interrupted and they go back to Cameron.
You're mom I also thought that was unfair, but I’m not sure how else it could have gone on radio. I tried to pause at certain times to see if Alex wanted to come back.
You're mom I noticed that. Long preambles punctuated by quick responses by Alex,
Alex only needs a few minutes to refute this idiots rambling.
Martin Ferguson Awww a butthurt fundy atheist.
LogosTheos you're a fucking idiot.
easy link to 8:55
I love you
You spoil us
Thanks :)
Thankss the christian guy was really starting to piss me off with his boring story
😯 that’s bro
*Cameron talks for about 2 - 3 minutes*
Host: "There's a huge amount that we could unpack here, but I'm going to give you a minute, Alex."
Alex: "That's fine."
I feel like that's been going on the entire debate.
Yes. It sure seemed that Cameron did the majority of the talking.
@@cypherknot yes because alex is only there to deconstruct Cameron’s argument
@@cypherknot not that he did a good job at it
consciousness , omniscience , omnipotence , omnipresent, all loving, all merciful, interactive and personal is parsimonious?
Justin is, in my experience, the most fair an open-minded Christian host of the channels I've seen so far. I think that's very important for an interesting and fair conversation. Cameron could learn a bit from this on his own channel. Alex is probably the nicest of the atheists already :)
Genetically Modified Skeptic is also very nice. Lots of nice atheist advocates around. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris very charming too.
@@laurameszaros9547 Szia Laura! Valóban nagyon kedvesek ezek a faszik de mind mennek a poxiba főni
@@myidentityisamystery5142 Apologies, I never learnt Hungarian.
@@laurameszaros9547 If you're including Dawkins, then you're just reading off your favorite atheists.
I am bloody amazed at my ability to keep up with this. I am even more amazed that someone can conjure up such thoughts. Hats off to both speakers
The problem with Cameron and other apologists are that they do not search for the truth, rather they search for an explanation for why they were right in the first place. This is similar to how psychologists or other researchers can cause experiments to come out the way they wanted because of their inherent bias. This ultimately brings them to miss their own assumptions and unexplained premises and go on to assume that an atheist is doing the same thing to save their atheism, rather than the atheist just finding flaws in their argument and ultimately trying to find truth from a neutral standpoint (like Alex is doing here).
Exactly. Religious apologists begin with a "fact"(belief) then attempt to come up with explanations and evidence to prove it.
Jeremy Figueroa bias applies to everyone. Evolution is a predestination despite no evolutionist being able to support it as science.
Hosoi Archives
You are fake news
next
Hosoi Archives
Evolution isn't predestinate in the way it can go in any direction.
Hosoi Archives
Bias does indeed apply to everyone, it just so happens to apply alittle more to theists. lol
Drinking Game: Take a shot every time the word “contingent” is said 💀
You really want me to die don't you ?...I will probably die 1/4th way through. 🤣
Helpful tip for anyone playing this game.... Call an ambulance first and leave the front door open
Oof! 😂
Really enjoyed this discussion! The format didn’t allow a lot of depth-we really only scratched the surface. Hopefully we can dive deeper in the future. Cheers.
Capturing Christianity hello CC I interpret your contingency argument as just a rewording of the kalam. Is that a fair assessment? If not, could you explain. the assertion of a “necessary” existence doesn’t get you to a god. so then how do you bridge the “necessary existence” to a “god”.
They are pretty similar, however, the contingency argument doesn't say that the universe began to exist--the Kalam does. That's the biggest difference.
The gap from "necessary existence" to "God" is called "The Gap Problem" in the literature. It's what I called "State 2" of the argument. In the discussion with Alex I went the abductive route, mainly for radio, but unfortunately we didn't have a lot of time to discuss the virtues and vices of our theories. I take a more deductive approach to Stage 2 in this article if you're interested: capturingchristianity.com/updated-contingency-argument/
Great job. I'm a subscriber of Alex's and generally feel the same way about things as he does, which is what has drawn me to his channel. I've seen his debates in the past and always feel frustrated they don't really get what he's saying, they talk in circles, they have a challenge keeping a coherent train of thought, and they rarely have compelling arguments. I didn't feel that way at all with this debate. While I didn't fully agree with you I felt you did a great job at presenting your argument and you did make me think. You were easy to follow and well organized. I may go and check your channel out now. BTW i'm a Nikon Photographer too. I love my DSLR, but i'm really looking forward to see what Nikon has in store for their Mirror-less coming out soon. :)
Capturing Christianity The contingency argument you're presenting... is that why you're a Christian?
utubepunk thank you it in no way leads to an Abrahamic god let alone a Christian god but evidence is for some people blind assumption is for others
The moderator talked way too much. He didn’t add anything and just broke the flow of the discussion. Very strange.
Yes I've seen couple of his interviews with Alex, some Jordan Peterson videos etc. He's fucking annoying to be honest and seems to have some sort of power complex, always making others know whos in charge and asserting his dominance.
You people are nuts. He's one of the few good moderators out there.
According to the beliefs of atheists, humans have evolved to become intelligent in a random way, so it is possible for another being to evolve to become smarter than humans ! Isn't that true?
(according to the atheists) If this is true, then it is possible for an intelligent being to come like the rest of the universe from nothing, and after several experiments this creature made humans - this is a possibility based on the beliefs of atheists that affirm that all things came from something unconscious or that they came from nothing, if you believe in this, then, you believe that an intelligent and sophisticated human came by chance, and since we do not control coincidences, it is possible that there was a creature before us of great strength and he made us. This interpretation shows us that the atheist has chosen from among several possibilities the possibility that he likes without proof, and he accuses religious people of the same thing
@@gngamestudio You’re doing wonders for the religious community. Keep it up.
@@gngamestudio by using the words "atheist belief" you are building strawman. The position is not one of positive assertion, only that we see insufficient evidence to warrant belief. By definition, a lack of belief in any god.
There are answers to things like the hard problem of consciousness, and the origin of the universe, but if we do not have the right tools or models to answer these questions it is not rational to assert an answer. That would be like asking a 4 year old to solve Schrodinger's equation.
More of this please, but without the time limit! Great discussion
There doesn’t have to be the question why does everything exist, just how. So many religious people can’t get around this, but there is no reason to presume there must be a why.
reallive571 Oh I wasn’t saying it’s just religious people, however from my experience it is much more common in religious people. Obviously all kinds of people look to derive meaning from life in some way, we are inquisitive by nature. All I’m saying is, there is no evidence to suggest the question necessitates an answer (how ever bleak, nihilistic or depressing that may seem to some people, depending on perspective obviously). There are physical/material reasons everything happens, but to say there must be more reason than that, maybe on a semantic level, is just not true. That’s not to say there isn’t any of that type of meaning, but to say there MUST be or postulate there HAS to be is just not based on any evidence. Yes I’ve heard of Maslow (Hierarchy of needs), I studied him at college and degree level, why do you ask? I’m assuming in relation to the needs of human beings? Including meaning/belonging?
He’s a polite, well thought out guy. But god damn he doesn’t know how to go off script. So much “oh well we have to shelf that for later in my argument” instead of just going with the flow of the debate. A good debater can debate based off the opponents arguments, not just by sticking to a pre thought out script.
Who? Alex?
@@kevinjohnanand no. Cameron
i direct people (esp the religious) to jordan peterson who is the epitome of the hardened debater, JP is a charlatan and i doubt he actually believes in god, but boy can he do hypnosis with those hands. the religious really need to up their game.
Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy too is a great debater. If you're in to scientifical basis or arguments.
who said cameron is a good debater?
How to debunk the contingency argument:
Step 1. Prove that existence itself needs any condition to exist.
Done.
KingDavidusLongScrotum IV aww but that way is no fun, ma' lord
So basically one point Alex has expressed quite early on and which was never adressed.
KingDavidusLongScrotum IV is your picture an Asgard?
δτ
To bad the Trollguy didn't have enough brains to understand this himself. And he considers himself educated what a tool, it was hillarious to watch him get owned by Steve McRae.
KingDavidusLongScrotum IV astronomers don't even accept that
These "proofs" never change.
"If thing which I haven't demonstrated pre-neccitates a God, then God. Therefore God is real."
necessitates*
@@lolhahah21**
Thanks for the consistent uploading Alex!
Sorry, but premise one was already disproven if one bases it on one bible interpretation that everything is according to god's plan. Cameron is obviously very intelligent, but the contingent argument seems to fail. Excellent debate.
I'm still an atheist.
Robert Mills but god didn't have to create things according to this plan .. :D
Lena X with all respect, that makes no sense. Omnipotent, omnipresent.
Lena X
Then he just had a different plan.
How would you tell?
δτ isn't that convenient
Robert Mills
Not exactly: as I have tried to point out, Lena's suggestion does not help her in the way she hoped, since then her god apparently had another plan in mind.
Since creation implies intention, his will to not create everything according to that first plan is by the definition of the word plan just another plan.
Alex: "I think your statement is wrong because of this. Any objections?"
Christian guy: "It is too complicated for me to explain you but am actually right"
... great 🙄
Yeah that's all I kept hearing too! lol
We're going to shelve that for stage 2.
The fact that you said "Christian guy" explains a lot...
@@beelite9612
It explains the fact that I don't know his name, and nothing else. I don't use "christian" as a derogatory term. I'd have no problem calling Alex "the atheist guy", but after being a subscriber for over a year, I finally managed to remember his name.
You've found yourself a pretty bad reason to delegitimize me, and by extension, what I am saying.
@@beelite9612 really? What does it explain?
is it just the lighting, or does alex now have bright white skin? did he die?
Jude Mackie lol
Not a lot of people know this--Alex is actually a vampire with supernatural cognitive abilities.
Why bright white skin? It's worse than death or vampires... he's English!
He did die but it is said that he will rise again on the third day....
Well played.
I love the English, we have so much to thank them for, polite self deprecating humour being just one.
"I'm at a disadvantage here I don't speak British"
I'm even more disadvantaged than you because I don't speak *"... Yank..."*
fynes leigh 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 AMERICAAAA FUCK YEA!
Cameron keeps saying “self causation is absurd” but then refuses to acknowledge that he holds a view that god is self caused. God is not contingent upon a previous event so therefore he could only be self caused. He just justifies this by saying “I don’t consider god to be self caused”. Well then WHAT IS HE???
orderinthecourt100, a figment of his imagination. 😊
I thought Alex made a good point here and one that requires further reflection on my part. A quick response would be something like this: if the universe exists necessarily, it isn’t self-caused either. Necessary things aren’t caused to exist by anything. Here’s another way to think about: does the number nine cause itself to be composite? No. It’s composite by nature. The same is true for any necessary being; it doesn’t cause itself to exist; having self-existence is part of its nature.
Capturing Christianity hmm ok. If god can be necessary and uncaused by his nature, why can’t the cosmos be uncaused by its nature? Not speaking of our local universe but any other universes, etc. Why does it need to be a being? This seems to me to be an obvious violation of Occam’s razor. You’re adding entities beyond necessity. Unless you can show that a “being” is necessary?
orderinthecourt100 That’s when we’d discuss Stage 2 of the argument. I can’t do that with you now, but I develop that thought here: capturingchristianity.com/updated-contingency-argument/
God is absurd.
We went through the “ second argument” like ten times. I cried ten times that day.
"Existence is painful" - Mr. Meeseeks
IM MR. MEESEEKS LOOK AT MEE
I loved the last bit by Alex where he said "I don't know and neither do you"
Loved this conversation, I’d love to have everyone revisit this after refinement
"I don't know" what a brilliant way to end the debate. Fantastic as always Alex, I admire how you don't shy away from appearing on shows that are biased against atheist reason. Keep up the good work.
Doesn’t that makes him an agnostic instead of atheist? Just wondering
@@nataliaabello no, you can say "I don't know" to a lot of questions because science genuinely doesn't know a lot of answers for a lot of our universe but it's better than just saying "I know God did it" without providing any proof, also there is such thing called an agnostic atheist which cosmic skeptic has said he is before. An agnostic atheist believes that there is no God beyond a reasonable doubt but if there was ever evidence proving God then they would believe in that God, I believe a lot of other atheists are agnostic atheists and label themselves that because people misunderstand them as if they're confused about their beliefs
@@imasclepius thanks! The clarifies it!
35:29 to 36:37 "self causation is absurd causation ... I wouldn't look at it (God) in those terms ....That's the best I can say". Most of these philosophical arguments for a deity lead to special pleading.
Not necessarily (no pun intended). Most Theistic worldviews consider 'God' to be 'uncreated' (or uncaused), so anything caused by Him is contingent. He CAN'T be both contingent and necessary :-)
If by special pleading you mean I exempt God and not the universe, that’s false-otherwise you’re ignoring half of the argument (see: Stage 2).
We can break this down a bit. First, lets take something similar "Self Perpetuation"... which is clearly not absurd and is also clearly possible since that's how life procreates. One can wind that backwards to life in its simplest form and ask whether that life, in its simplest form, could arise randomly or not. Saying that it cannot is basically saying that self causation is absurd. Saying that it can is basically saying that self causation is not absurd.
If the earliest life (basically molecular replication, aka RNA-like, or something even earlier) can arise from a chemical processes that came about through a mechanism other than replication, then what we have is a transition from (our definition of) non-life to life which breaks the entire "self causation is absurd causation" argument. In otherwords, the causation no longer needs to be recursive. It no longer needs to be self-causation. The chain of self causation arose from some other source.
There are plenty of examples of seemingly complex transitions. For example, just going from building shacks to building 150 story highrises that lift into the clouds is a transition. There are hundreds of transitions like that, and hundreds more going back through written history. Transitions relating to every aspect of life, including education and knowledge.
So... I find it far more plausible that life arose through a transition and that the "self causation" argument, implying like-through-like, is just nonsense.
-Matt
Trolltician
Would you then, please, present this argument correctly?
Or point to where, you find, they are wrong?
Junker Zn
You are correct and as an example i'll describe an possible but not yet verified version of how first life arose.
..
How is abiogenesis and the emergence of the first cell "magic"?
*Cracks knuckles*
Dissolution of atmospherically produced hydrogen cyanide results in the conversion of vivianite into mixed ferrocyanide salts and phosphate salts, with counteractions provided through neutralization and ion-exchange reactions with bedrock bedrock and meteoritic oxides.
Partial evaporation results in the deposition of the least-soluble salts over a wide area and further evaporation deposits the most-soluble salts in low lying areas.
After complete evaporation, geothermal heating results in thermal metamorphosis of the evaporite layer and the generation of feedstock precursor salts.
Rainfall leads to sequentially leaching feedstocks from the thermally metamorphosed evaporite layer and solar irradiation drove photoredox chemistry.
Convergent synthesis occurs creating arabinose aminooxazoline in the contained glycolaldehyde and the leached feedstocks merge producing two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol, which is the material necessary for metabolism and the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.
The chemical reactions have been mapped in a laboratory setting meaning that it's a viable theory and far from "magic".
Why does things react at all then?, you may ask.
Struckture comes from the way atoms bind themselves into molecular strucktures, organic material is just a molecular struckture held together by chemical bonds.
You can also put atoms together in different ways by forming different sets of chemical bonds. The process of reorganizing atoms by breaking one set of chemical bonds and forming a new set is known as a chemical reaction.
Chemical reactions occur when chemical bonds between atoms are formed or broken. The substances that go into a chemical reaction are called the reactants, and the substances produced at the end of the reaction are known as the products. Different chemical reactions are used in combinations during chemical synthesis in order to obtain a desired product. In biochemistry, a consecutive series of chemical reactions (where the product of one reaction is the reactant of the next reaction) form metabolic pathways. These reactions are often catalyzed by protein enzymes. Enzymes increase the rates of biochemical reactions, so that metabolic syntheses and decompositions impossible under ordinary conditions can occur at the temperatures and concentrations present within a cell.
The general concept of a chemical reaction has been extended to reactions between entities smaller than atoms, including nuclear reactions, radioactive decays, and reactions between elementary particles as described by quantum field theory.
This is why there were no impetus for anything, intent evolved with conciusness.
Excellent video. Truely appreciate the discussion. Thank you all
THI
A totally awesome interviewer, and fascinating topics. Looking forward to part 2
Love these videos
29:21 Cameron : “as you were talking I was trying to think of the best way to put this.” How about you try listening next time.
EXACTLY
😂 yep!
Why assume a necessary _being?_ What's wrong with impersonal forces? Why must there be a conscious creator? Why must the big bang be more mystical than the nuclear fusion inside the Sun?
Άλκης Δ. This concerns the second stage of the argument from contingency. First stage: establishing the existence of a necessary foundation for contingent reality. Second stage: establishing that this necessary foundation is worthy of the name "God", so to speak.
In the literature there are many arguments for the second stage. Briefly, here are a few of them in very very summarized forms:
-the necessary foundation (henceforth "N") being personal would best explain the orderliness of contingent reality. We can tell that N doesn't just randomly cause any random contingent beings; on the contrary, N causes an orderly, harmonious, complex universe with intelligent life and civilization;
-personhood or a free action is plausibly the only way to account for how a contingent reality can be caused by N; N doesn't determinately cause contingent things (otherwise they'd be necessary too) and it doesn't cause them by a mere indeterministic random process either (what could even fix the probabilities of such a process?); an intentional action, analogous to personal explanations, is plausibly the best explanation;
-being that we are part of contingent reality, N is the ultimate cause of consciousness and reason, and so it is plausible that N would have some form of consciousness and reason (especially if one accepts something like a principle of proportionate causality); a theistic N would have more explanatory power since it would be able to account for the presence of consciousness and reason in the universe;
-a theistic N would be able to explain necessary propositions by grounding them in a "Divine Mind", thus avoiding both the problems of platonism and nominalism at the same time;
-there are many arguments to the effect that N would be immaterial, but is also not an abstract object, since N is causally effective. The most plausible candidate for what N could be given that would be an unembodied mind or something close/analogous to that;
-also many arguments to the effect that N would probably have every possible positive property that does not imply an intrinsic limitation, intelligence being such a positive property therefore being present in N;
And more.
Those are just very brief summaries.
Because with BB we only have models.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 "Give me my BB back"
Why must the big bang be more mystical than the nuclear fusion inside the Sun?
Sigh because those events occur AFTER the BB.
@@swamdono Give me my BB or give me death LOL
I feel like Cameron had never considered the deterministic argument and was stumped, hence all of the shelving for part 2.
So how old is Alex, about 18 ? How does someone get so smart at his age, its incredible. Im 43 and some of this and the termonology used goes over my head
Benefits of a classical education, I suppose. ;)
justmadeit2 he is 19 and about to go to university where he will only become smarter, and don’t worry lots of us feel the same way
he thinks A LOT about these topics
White privilege
19 but ok
I am amazed at how more much I need to learn before I can actually understand fully what they’re discussing.
Great content!
And of course the god Cameron is talking about just happens to be the christian god!
The Christian God, namely the only God who exists. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1:20
@enjoyandtraveltheworld Thanks for the article. I looked through most of it. Pretty typical and unimpressive to be honest (have heard/seen all these objections before). Obviously I can't rebut all these "objections" in a RUclips reply, but I'll say a few things. First, the idea that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other is flatly absurd. An honest reading of the text ought to see that the two chapters are highly complementary, with the creation of the entire created order being the focus of chapter 1, and the creation of mankind in particular (details surrounding it) being the focus of chapter 2. Meredith Kline (Old Testament Scholar) has also argued that it was customary in the Ancient Near East to describe events "non-chronologically", suggesting that there's only a contradiction if one imposes (he thinks wrongly) a chronological reading onto the text. I find his argument compelling. Here it is if you're interested: faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Kline_NotRained_WTJ.pdf
Here's another helpful/brief article on this issue of Genesis 1 and 2: www.christiancourier.com/articles/749-do-the-first-two-chapters-of-genesis-contradict-one-another
Skipping to the end of the article you sent, I have never (nor do I think I will ever) understood why people who believe that human beings are essentially accidental and have no intrinsic value can take issue with the supposed "cruelty" of God in the Old Testament. By what standard do you, a highly evolved primate, adjudicate moral claims? I find usually the answer to such a query is based on emotion and arbitrary reasoning. I absolutely believe that God created human beings and the world for His own purposes, and He can dispose of His creation as He wishes, whether we think that's cruel or not. I trust that God knows the nature of right and wrong better than I do. I do not believe it is wrong for God to end the life of those who are entirely dependent on Him for their existence and all the good things they have from Him.
In sum, I would say that most Christians who have engaged with unbelief and criticism of the Bible have run across most of the arguments in the article you sent and have found them unpersuasive to say the least. There are powerful answers to all of the objections I saw in that article. I would also point out the fundamental antithesis between a humanistic way of thinking and a Christian way of thinking. The humanist takes his own reasoning/thinking/feeling to be supreme in his life, the Christian does not. The Christian does not presume to speak/act/live in such an autonomous manner, that is, without a view to how God would have him speak/act/live. This fundamental antithesis is what drives and is at root of these objections, and, I would further submit, is the real reason humanists reject the Bible. They don't want to acknowledge God, nor live for Him. Doing so would mean denying themselves and forsaking their sin. Left to ourselves, we all are unable to give up the pleasures of sin and our desire to be our own master. The Holy Spirit of God can convert sinners through faith in Jesus Christ, giving them a new nature with new desires.
Thanks for the article and have a nice day.
There's obviously a lot of emotion and vitriol in your responses. I don't think it would be profitable for either of us to continue the conversation at this point. That said, I hope you have a great day and wish you happiness in these uncertain times. Peace to you.
When one person in a debate such as this comes to the table already with a conclusion (Christianity), it very much hinders how far the conversation can go.
That's true. Even if it could be shown that a god exists, that alone would not validate Christianity.
When one person in a debate such as this comes to the table already with a conclusion (Not Christianity), it very much hinders how far the conversation can go.
lekmon5555 Only one of them is trying to shoe horn their indoctrinated beliefs into the conversation.
lekmon5555
Well, Alex has been (as usual) remarkably openminded and ostensibly willing to be convinced, if presented sufficient reason.
However, it is unrealistic to expect any results from a debate such as this; it was much too short to allow for in-depth discussion of the different lines they have begun to pursue or following them through to the end.
And since the point of any debate such as this is to convince the other side (at least from the theists perspective), they have to come to the table with an already existing position, namely the one they are going to (try to) make a case for.
This does not hinder the conversation, but sets it off in the first place.
After reading and watching a lot of Lawrence Krauss' works, it has become apparent to me (in simple terms) that the Universe consists of positive and negative energy. These energies equate to zero. So if the energy of the universe equates to zero/nothing, did it even need a cause?
What's to say that the universe didn't spontaneously appear?...on the quantum level, things spontaneously pop in and out of existance all the time.
The simple facts are we (the human race) don't know how the universe came to be, so concluding there IS a "god" and that this "god" was responsible for the universe's existance without a shred of evidence to back it up is just intellectually dishonest.
As an atheist obsessed with hearing the futile arguments for religions, I’m consistently impressed with the various methods theists use to convince themselves they’re not wrong.
blackestjake, that’s mainly why I watch these. They will one day be looked back on as a deceased but inspiring source of artistry
blackestjake ... all about fear... they see it as fighting for their eternal souls...if they ever took an honest look at their nonsense, they could not go on believing and therefore, as they see it, would be giving themselves a death sentence...its a big deal to accept that this life, is the only life and it will come to an end...
I think a problem theists have is that when they speak about God they often approach it from their specific tradition, and that makes the work much harder. Not only do you want to provide rationality for the existence of God but at the same time you feel the burden to provide evidence that this God looks very much like your specific idea of God. I think those are two separate discussions; one, arguments for or against a God, and two, if He does exist how do I want to approach this reality.
Obviously you're obsessed with hearing that. You literally begging. Hahaha!
@Joy Bradford thanks Joy! Ironically I say this as a theist!
+CosmicSkeptic
In my opinion: only "nothing" can come from "nothing", therefore: there NEVER was "nothing" there always was "something" (aka 'everything').
TechnocraticDreadnought Brilliant.
You might like this (maybe) ruclips.net/video/DrWy5WeNr8k/видео.html
I think you’re right. ‘Nothing’ cannot exist, because logically, nothing would possess no qualities - for it to exist, there would have to be some property to permit it to be said to exist.
Hi Chris Coulbeck, I’m afraid I can’t follow your reasoning here. The universe in its present state (ie a physical, observable one) seems to have had a definite beginnning, evidenced by the cosmic microwave background. This does not necessarily mean that ‘nothing’ predated it - as I suggested, the idea of nothing existing is an incoherent concept. We can tentatively suggest that the potential for the currently observed universe must always have been present, although absent of evidence as yet, we can assert very little about this state of reality. I see no way of moving from this point to claiming the need for any kind of personal agent.
Chris Coulbeck There are actually hypothesis going around suggesting the universe was, in a way, always there, and that the bang only got things going.
missymuffin Bouncing Cosmology has been a theory for 40 years, as far as I know, and asserts the hypothesis that the Universe just cycles like a wave. Basically it just cycles through expansion and collapse infinitely.
Awesome conversation :3
Those were some of the first intense philosophical thoughts I had. The idea of nothing and something and how they coexist, or whether they exist atall,etc
The wild speculation of the theist was put to rest very well. Got really crazy at the end with “perfect beings”! Thanks to all for the upload.
Well, i think a quite valid answer for that last question its that if there could be nothing, there would be no one to notice it, so, the only reason to say there is anything, its because we are here and can measure it.
This is the most respectful, explorative debate I have ever watched. Thank you gentlemen, and I mean that word in the best sense.
Yes! Love it when people are respectful even when discussing such personal, emotional topics.
I dont find it was particularly explorative tho. Alex in my opinion had very very good objections to Cameron's premises, and "for the sake of time" they'd immediately move on and Cameron wouldn't have a good response. Alex would have to grant the premise just to move on lol
What an excellent discussion! I loved Alex's explanations of everything. A fantastic conversation!
hardly. it was just the raping of a hapless victim.
At least this debate isnt long.
I still fail to see a difference between any of the cosmological arguments. Causation, motion, contingency. It's all just different ways of saying "Observable things have a specific trait that implies an infinite regress. God is a thing we came up with that has the opposite of that trait that solves infinite regress."
Great job both Cameron and Alex! Very enjoyable show with a lot of meat to chew on, Thanks.
So as far as I understand, his argument boils down to:
If the universe exists then God must exist to have made it.
I think these Cosmological arguments are quite possibly the weakest arguments I've ever heard.
Yea
You dont understand the argument right?
It’s bad when you don’t understand them
Then explain. These arguments seem terrible, enlighten me.
@@aaronbrown8377 if physical reality is contingent then the cause must be transcendent (eternal, immaterial, etc.).
@@mileslegend7140 Then you have two problems.
1. Prove that reality is contingent
and
2. What precludes the forces described in the Big Bang theory from acting as that transcendent force?
The argument asserts its conclusion.
If a religious person is happy to dismiss the concept of infinity in one hand, then how can they believe the concept of eternal damnation in the other hand? Infinity is the concept of unlimited space. Eternity is the concept of unlimited time....but time and space are one in the same.
Logic MoFo infinity can be more than unlimited space/matter, it’s also time. Infiniti isn’t limited to space alone.
Tony Z I know, my mistake, I should have been more specific. It can also be used in a numerical sense.
+Logic MoFo Religion comes with Level Seven Cognitive Dissidence fully pre-engaged.
Infinity isnt space infinity is ...well a concept that marks any "something" that has no final value. So eternity is also infinity
Logic MoFo hell and god are outside of space time. eternal does not mean infinite time, it means outside of time.
Something comes from nothing when nothing thinks it's something.
Cameron is so out of his depth here. Great video Alex
how does cameron explain to his wife getting raped like this?
@@louiscyfer6944 that malevolence is real. You have a choice to do wrong, being benevolent doesn’t mean being weak pacifist
Also it rains on the just as much as the unjust
@@RR-xz6bv what the fuck does that have to do with what this thread is about?
@@RR-xz6bv That has the same relevance as your son riding your neighbour's bicycle. SMH
I have heard, particularly when I was younger, that there were some people in the world that are just more intelligent then 99.9% of people. People that go to high school when their only 12 or 13 and so on. Alex O'Connor is that person I heard about as a young man. Someone please get Alex to the USA ASAP. We need people like him here right now. The, how should I say it, intellectually challenged people are starting to far out number people of even average intelligence.
I'm amazed how Christians have the power to just intuit deep metaphysical laws governing the universe. I wish I, a mere non-believer, had that power
You 4 president 🙂
At 1:00:10 The concept of Cameron's god (Yahweh) is simple (as compared to Zeus)? Really? The first thought that popped into my mind was the whole idea of the Trinity and freewill/sovereignty and CosmicSkeptic went straight to the Trinity at 1:02:07 . Well done.
Also, if a universe creating omniscient being can be thought of as "simple" then surely everything else in the universe would be simpler in comparison.
There by negating the argument of complexity favored by Theists.
+PineCreek
The concept of the trinity has always confused me. I've talked to a couple of friends of mine who are priests, but I fail constantly to comprehend it. It's fortunate that I'm an atheist and have always been. Such religious concepts are way too complex for my tiny brain to wrap around. :)
By simple, Cameron meant God is an unembodied mind with no parts. There are different interpretations among Theists concerning the nature of being and of God. David Bentley Hart may have a more accurate grasp on who God is. He critiques William Lane Craig's "Theistic Personalism," which I can understand. Also, it depends on what you mean by simple and complex. God's thoughts may be complex, but God's state of being shouldn't be, unless I am missing something.
@@fujiapple9675 sounds like what determines God's simplicity or complexity is human imagination.
Yeah what a "deep dive" love it 10/10 always good when you're being rushed through points.
Beautiful debate! I love the conversation & discussion. Well executed from both Alex, Cameron & (Justin?) 👏👏❤
I like and appreciate theists like Cameron Bertuzzi but it's a bit bewildering to me that otherwise intelligent people would even make it to 30+ years old thinking that a theistic god existence is any more than wishful thinking at the end of the day.
Ryan Swanson It's profitable being an authority figure among theists.
Don't underestimate the human mind.
Darth Facist
Yes that's a good way to summarize it. People can trick themselves into believing anything.
Jacob Stevens Your are presupposing religion is false. It has nothing to do with confirmation bias, it isn't a fact that God doesn't exist. All we know is that we exist. We have no idea how we got here. We simply don't know. We can't rule out the possibility of God. All we have is philosophies not absolute certainty. The ambiguity still remains.
J C
Yes you're right. Good point. We can't prove God doesn't exist but we can prove specific things about each religion to be false. I personally believe that even if some sort of God does exist that most likely all current religions are inaccurate in some way. I also want to add that there is no proof that this hypothetical God would want us to worship it. Anyway it would also be ridiculous to claim that God definitely does exist and that's what all religious people do. Furthermore the argument for the existence of God seems a little ridiculous when you consider that fact that people first thought of the idea of gods to explain things they didn't understand. For example: Helios pulling the sun across the sky with his chariot. People believed that gods created everything. From ancient mans point of view people created things therefore everything must have been created by someone. I believe the idea of Gods exist because of humans limited knowledge. Just because things exist doesn't mean they had to be created by a sentient being.
I think Cameron was a total waste of time. Nothing new here. " if it's perfect it must exist" . No pre-supposition there!
Alex was great as usual.
Exactly! Am going elsewhere now. The American is so out of his depth.
Nice job CosmicSkeptic !
I took a shot at every mention of 'contingent'. 7 days later I woke up in intensive care.
i didn’t wake up ever
How far superior alex was here
It might just be me, but the problem all theists have with this question is that, no matter how fancy and convoluted your language becomes, ultimately you end up with the infinite turtles problem.
He wasn't _necesarily_ superior. He was _determined_ to be on the right side.
franson goodwill I think both have good arguments and it is a very good discussion.:)
Over 9000.
franson goodwill Because you agree with him?
This argument is not new. But i really admire the conversation that is being taken place here and we should promote this kind of discussions out there instead of debunking videos. Thumbs up for everyone that is involved in this conversation.
RandomMe93 Cheers!
If "God" is NOT a sentient being then the term "God" would only be referring to the process that led to the Big Bang. In that case God would simply be a series of actions that caused a reaction (the Big Bang). Unless it's possible for the Big Bang to have spawned from nothing. The concept of absolute "nothingness" is something I simply can't wrap my mind around though. I'm not smart enough for that. LOL. The alternative is that "absolute nothingness" is impossible. Humans always want there to be a beginning and end. What if there is no beginning or end of the universe? What if there is no "outside" of existence? Maybe there is no place where existence physically stops. I'm not smart enough to wrap my mind around the concept of true infinity either. I could drive myself mad thinking about the nature of "infinity
Jacob Stevens it is unlikely the process that led to the BB had anything to do with intelligence. As we can see intelligence on earth emerged by natural evolution: possibly random mineral structures, then rna, dna based lifeforms, then organisms with neuronal networks and so on. Anyway almost all things that happen that we know about have a natural cause that we know about but obviously sometimes it’s hard to find the mystery of certain things that happen. In the past there were many more things that we couldn’t explain but now we do.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that nothing can come from nothing. Just like a building can not build itself.
@@ryanj6093 Common sense reasoning is based on our observations of the rules governing the Universe.
If those rules are what reason is based and dependent on, then common sense doesn't necessarily apply to the origins of the Universe and the "time" before its emergence. Prior to the Universe existing, there was no Universe for the rules to exist in, and hence no basis for the validity of reason as we know it.
To reiterate, it is invalid to use common sense reasoning (contingent on the existence of the Universe and the forces within it) to explain the existence and workings of areas external to the Universe and its governing forces.
For example:
While it follows that in our Universe existence cannot emerge from nonexistence (as matter and energy can only be transformed, but not created or destroyed), this is only true under specific conditions and doesn't necessarily apply to areas where the conditions are different/nonexistent.
Therefore, the period "before" the Big Bang (and so before the existence of time, matter, and the rules governing them) is most likely not subject to logic: it is possible that existence can emerge from nonexistence outside the area bound by the laws of the Universe.
@@TheRHOANJINNA common sense reasoning is based on our observations, recordings and repeatability thus science. Anything outside this is not science. Everything has a cause and that cause is the source to any mechanism or creationism. Let's not complicate things here we all aware of what true science is compared to fraud science.
To imagine what nothingness is like, just try to remember how was your perception of the world before you were born. There you go. This routine works also for understanding what death is like.
You've got to appreciate the civility in this discussion and Cameron seems like a good guy. Unfortunately his argument seems dead on arrival but I hope he'll pop up again with something more substantial.
He won't.
The stutter at 56:05 is amazing... great discussion btw
Host.exe has crashed.
Not too far into the video, but once again we have an argument that relies on an undefined god.
If God is a necessary being, and
If nothing happens that is contrary to God's will, and
If God has a perfect plan for everything, and
If God has had that perfect plan throughout his existence, and
Nothing outside the perfect plan can happen or exist, and
All things in the perfect plan MUST happen or exist,
then:
My existence is part of that perfect plan, and
My existence cannot fail to happen, therefore I am a necessary being.
Kos Eighty. Yes You Are!!!! And if you scroll to the very top of this comment section, that is exactly what I was saying. So glad you broke it down this way, that is exactly what I was trying to say.
You're commiting a modal logical fallacy. It's extremely difficult to catch and it's a very common fallacy in modal logic. I have commited it in the past. Let me explain.
This is basically your argument:
P1: neccesarly, God exists.
P2: God has a specific plan.
P3: neccesarly, everything must go according to God's plan.
C: therefore, everything is neccesary.
However, one can only get conclusions about neccesary facts if and only if all premises are neccesary facts. For example:
P1: p is neccesary.
P2: p causes q
C: therefore, q is neccesary.
This is invalid. In order to conclude that q is neccesary, both premises should be about neccesary facts, so...:
P1: p is neccesary.
P2: p neccesarly causes q.
C: therefore, q is neccesary.
This is valid.
In your argument, as formulated above, p2 isn't neccesary. God's plan is contingent. He could have had a different plan.
Thanks for the heads up telling me to skip to 8.55 to avoid the the intros. Everybody should do this (everybody is narcissistic, so won't), but great touch!!.
These pre-scientific, natural language arguments really frustrate me. The idea that you can get at something fundamental about the nature of the universe by using vague language such as "things are necessary" is bewildering to me. When you get down to the best knowledge we have about fundamental physics, even words such as "things" completely lose their meaning and must be treated merely as useful approximations that help meat sacks like ourselves interact with their environment. What sense does it make to speak of something like "things are necessary" when you're just a certain arrangement of particles which can be reorganized at will? Those particles are conserved, so they _must_ exist, which makes them "necessary" by definition -- they can't just vanish. Whether they are organized in the shape of a live human is both a completely different question and completely irrelevant.
Then you go deeper and see that there's no easy way to even differentiate between particles, and that even that is kind of an approximation. Reality as best as we can tell has particles as oscillations in an underlying quantum field, which spans the whole universe and really is just an aspect of it. If I'm really just a special arrangement of a piece of the universe (not something "in" it), who can say, then, what is "necessary" or "contingent"? What sense does _any_ of this make? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't make _any_ sense and theologians should get some new arguments, but nobody wants to do that.
I agree w you. I keep a bottle of balsamic vinaigrette especially for listening to this word salad.
@ㅤㅤღنورღ Michael is not stupid, the argument is stupid. Cameron uses imprecise language to make an argument that assumes its own conclusion. You don't have to be a dick just because your side can't formulate a coherent point.
That is a problem with philosphical conversations like this one, that try to explain core properties of the universe by relying on intuition and common sense and extension of human-centric terminology and categorizaion. It then just frustrates me how they use claims like "I wouldnt know that gravity works the same in the whole universe if i didnt test it I just assume it does based on my surroundings" to make a point, not regarding how noethers theorem already decribes how physical laws HAVE to be the same in the whole universe (Because of time and space symmetry of said laws and that we wouldnt have conservation laws if these symmetries wouldnt hold). This inability to include humanitys best knowledge of the universe in a debate about the universe somewhat discredits their arguments I think
I actually have to disagree with you here. You're right to point out the coarseness of natural language but that's why definitions matter. Instead of 'necessary things' being a prescriptive category its a methodological one. In other words, its less like saying "thing x, and thing y are necessary" and more like saying "to be 'necessary' is to have property x". In the first case (prescriptive category) you have a problem by principle of division, why does the category matter in the first place? Why sort as thing x instead of as thing v? In the second case (methodological category) you have an epistemic problem, how do we know property x exist? How can we recognize property x?
The real advantage of mathematics is that it is self-referential. Any words I use is defined by other words, so nothing about natural language is self-referential. A quantity like a number defines itself. Of course the symbolic representation '1' is not self-referential, but the quantity of 1 is not abstract at all. This gives good clarity to math which is often sorely needed in philosophical debates.
That in itself though cannot be grounds to dismiss any philosophical argument, but should urge prudence. In being consistent with what we say and the words we use.
And to your point of 'things' as useless concept I have to disagree. Where by looking simply at the atomic scale do we get a notion of 'elasticity'? Whatever property 'elasticity' is, describes the thing (a rubber band). Yes, a rubber band is constituted of atoms, in a certain arrangement, but the quality of 'elasticity' describes the entire arrangement, which we can functionally and accurately refer to as a 'thing'. So simply invoking the notion of a 'thing' is not immediately a deadend. This also illustrates the idea of 'methodological category', notice that I defined 'thing' by the whether or not the condition of unity is met. In this case, the quality of elasticity unifies all the disparate, divisible parts which allow for that quality to exist in the first place.
This is a rough example of course, many other 'things' share the quality of 'elasticity' so simply pointing to elasticity is insufficient to name the object a rubber band or not. It was merely to demonstrate that notion of 'things' are useful even in discussions of metaphysics (fundamental reality) as the whole may elucidate properties that the parts individually cannot. And I claim that what describes the whole provides grounds for a 'unity' which we may generally refer to as a 'thing'.
@@nicolasargon1436 " Where by looking simply at the atomic scale do we get a notion of 'elasticity'? "
You don't, but you don't have to because you understand it's an approximate concept that's useful for describing bulk properties of materials. At the most fundamental scale, there is no "elasticity", and in fact, no "materials" whatsoever. If your goal is sufficiently humble -- to come up with an approximate description which is good enough, these emergent bits of simplified physics are very useful. In contrast, the various "things" which show up in theological arguments are ontologically primitive entities which are required to be ontologically primitive in order for the argument to make any sense at all.
This whole contingent argument, like many others, immediately falls apart when you get down to the quantum level.
"Why don't random things just pop into existence?" They do. Hawking radiation proves that nicely. So, does that make all those virtual particle pairs that get split up incontingent?
Hey Derek a bit late (2 years on). On a quantum levels things don't come from nothing. Unless of course you meant a vacuum, which I, and I think Cameron, would argue isn't nothing it's a thing namely space. Anyway, hope you have a nice life if you don't respond.
@@latronemastrucato7288 Hope you have a nice life as well! Yes, nothing and vaccuum are different things, but a true nothing is functionally unfasifiable since it can't exist in this or any other universe as we understand them.
False. If it truly is random we should expect to see new big bangs
@@metaldiscipleWhy? Random doesn't mean everything happens frequently or that there are no rules. A universe may not be creatable within a framework that already has one. We don't know.
1 minute into the "argument" and I thought "this is the same as the uncaused cause", and as it turns out, it was the same argument (facepalm)
Great discussion from both of you (actually all 3 of you).
Lovely birthday present, good work.
I think your point at 26:10 follows precisely. Cameron is definitely saying a "plurality of different contingent things" must be explained by a "single necessary thing" without accounting for the possibility that it could be countless "necessary things".
I agree with Alex. "I don't know", and "neither do you". That's what I've been saying to theists left and right in my online debates with them. They are the ones claiming to know, and they provide evidence that does not meet the standards of evidence to know something using the scientific method of evaluating evidence.
I love to just hide my screen, close my eyes and listen to Justin's voice, it is so calming, even if I will probably never agree with him.
Alex, you keep my brain alert and thinking hard. And I appreciate it.
This type of debate only ever has one winner provided, that is, there’s someone of Alex’s calibre to argue the case. I’m afraid god always loses and there’s a good reason for that! The apologist argument, since Aquinas and perhaps before, is everything is contingent until you get to necessary, and there you find god. Or put differently, we’re here, something must have put us here, hence god.
As for why something rather than nothing. We have no evidence that there is such a state as ‘nothing’. Succeed in defining it and it stops being ‘nothing’.
Geoff Toscano well aquinas didn't stop at this argument and even this argument is like 50 pages long in his works... I don't think you can debunk aquinas this fast
Lena X
How can you make such a general statement?
What if Thomas Aquinas was just extremely wordy?
And consider that the point adressed by Geoff Toscano is the very basis of the argument, the concept of contingency.
If the foundation vanishes, so does the entire argument, regardless of its length.
gods record 0-999,999,999,999
If you can do it for God, why can't I do it for a chicken?
Brian Miller a chicken isn't the highest power
Hosoi Archives ruclips.net/video/Ro3N9DMiyrw/видео.html
Brian Miller
Lol, you win the Internet 🏆🐓
Also, your comment made me think of: "Arise chicken, Arise chicken" , from aquateen hungerforce, lol.
Honestly, I was just expecting Alex to say that. I think he was going to, then changed his mind mid sentence.
Uuuggghhhh .... Crazy frog reincarnated
This was a pretty good conversation even though they have only scratched the surface.
A lot of shelving is needed for this discussion.
A - "There is a universe". B - "There is a universe created by god". A - "Well, you have TWO questions to answer then, right?"
He reminds me of Hitchens. I can see him starting to care less and less about hitting nerves 😂
And like rationality rules, who's response to "you've offended me" is "tough shit"
@@benjaminjenkins2384 atheists are easily offended, everytime I say “oh my god” an atheist loses his shit
@@RR-xz6bv So do Christians...
@@pepeesq.7966 oh my god no you didn’t
@@RR-xz6bv You're not actually making a point, you're just falsely stereotyping atheists and trying to caricaturise them based on that. Not worth a discussion.
Please do a video on books you are reading please ❤ or books you recommend. I know you did one last year I think, but please do it again !
Why do we assume that the answer to how the universe came to be can be found inside it?
Also, if we are to entertain the possibility that something exists outside the universe, outside time and space, then the options become literally endless. How can we sit on our little blue globe (yes, globe) in this vast universe of ours, and just assume that everything works the same way outside space and time as it does inside? How do we know logic even works there? How do we know how anything works there. It is monumentally arrogant, I think, to assume knowledge of what - if anything - exists outside the universe as we know it.
Also, it never ceases to amaze me, that the very people who are so dead-set on following logic to prove god are the same people who find "poof magic" a viable solution to an intellectual problem.
It's the equivalent of a character in a computer game trying to figure out the nature of its existence, oblivious to the fact there is a world outside the inner workings of a computer. Just like Tron...
Henry Leirvoll I think the problem with that is the infinite options. If the options are endless, why does your option matter more than others'? Or why is your option true? Even if God or any higher power exists outside time and space, does this being care whether we acknowledge their existence or not?
My position is "I don't know", and I must admit it is hard for me to accept that anyone could have a stronger answer than that, and claim truth. This, namely because none of us know anything about the parameters and attributes of "outside time and space", yet many of us talk as if we do. As if we know enough to wrap our conclusions with words like "sure it must be" or "It can't be any other way".
We do not know what is outside time and space, if anything at all. All that is fair to say is that it is not the same as inside time and space, because then it would be an expansion of the same. We can only say that if something is there, it is "something different".
That this possible "something different" is the christian god is certainly one maybe on the claim alone, but we cannot use the parameters and attributes of what builds our universe to define what exists outside it.
Time, space and matter so far as we know only exist in our universe and came into existence during the big bang, if this is so than asserting something exists outside of that is to say no thing existed at no time at no place which is nonsense.
This whole concept may be beyond the understanding of our brains.
I would agree that it is, and therefore "I don't know" will be the most honest answer there is. I don't mind that others put the effort into figuring this out, but .. I am not so sure it is even possible.
Cameron seems to have a sincere, deep seated *belief* that he can't rid himself of so he spins words in the form of 'philosophy' like a clever advertising man trying to re-convince himself and sell his belief to others.
*_Why can't he just admit that he doesn't really know._*
The most logical, intellectual arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin can never show that angels exist. *Words do not create reality.*
.
I am trying to picture Cameron advertising cleavers in a clever way. he he.
dbuck53...
Oops... Sorry, a slip of my fingle! Maybe it was a subconscious comment on Cameron's cutting logic! It's corrected now.
At least you've proved that people who can spell do actually read RUclips comments.
*_Thanks for spotting it._*
.
Well, I confess I type cleaver for clever a lot. Sometimes I even wonder how many times the word "cleaver" can show up before the police are at the door wanting to talk to me.
He even argues atheists should get off the argument!
"Anything that is perfect must exist."
I don't know where to start with this statement, it always baffles me. It's like a sentence in a foreign language, I don't get what anybody could find in it.
Why would anything need to exist because it's imagined to be perfect?
How would we define "perfect"?
I agree. I think it's one of those statements that just gets accepted by a person who already believes in a perfect god. "Anything that is perfect must exist", "Well my idea of god is that it is a perfect being and my god must exist, therefore this statement is obviously true." Might be what happens but I don't know for sure. Just a guess.
17:00 I've been getting that since I was 3, it stopped a lot though and for a bit I only got it once a year but in the last few months I have been getting that all the time
The word “why” indicates some sort of existential need / necessity for something to exist. We really should be using the word “how”.
I would like to be shown an example of nothing. I dont know if nothing is a valid question. How can non-being be? It seems to be the same as saying a round square
Tevin Ruff...
Excellent point. As nothing isn't a thing (it's just a word) it doesn't exist. It's just a paradox created by language. In reality non-being is just an idea.
.
Thats kinda the point, leading to the notion that there must be a necessary eternal being
@@eyeam9305 How does a God follow from nothing potentially being an invalid question? Appears to be a non-sequitur fallacy
@@tevinruff2607 oklisten closely. U said " how can non-being be?", implying that it cannot. So there was NEVER "nothing". There was ALWAYS something. Thus, necessary eternal be-ing. I didnt say "God" specifically. U could say its a universe or multiverse too if u really want.
@@eyeam9305 I asked a question. I was not proclaiming a fact. There could in fact be "nothing". My point was there isn't really any good reason to believe either claim yet. Therefore, I see no good reason to believe the conclusion of a necessary being.
best answer always. "I don't know, but you don't know either..."
Thanks!
Good debate!