I'm trying to keep up with all the comments. I welcome any and all views. Try to be respectful to others and have a sense of humor. ;) I appreciate all the interaction, this really is, in my opinion, one of the most, if not the most, exhilarating conversations humans can have. I respect anyone taking this question seriously!
4:07 You're free to think science will not be able to answer a question. No one denies your ability to have opinions. The question is, "what reason do we have to think your opinion has merit?"
Why would your opinion about my opinion potentially lacking merit have merit? At any rate, we are all clearly guessing here, but for the record (one could always be wrong) I don't see how science could have the tools possible to answer how/why anything exists. It doesn't seem to be a question of IQ or gathering more knowledge, etc... Science may at some point discover we live in a simulation or that "many worlds" are real... Again, the problem remains... At some level something came into existence... even if... that something that came into existence now exists forever and appears to have existed forever... (mind bending)
@dillonfreed Scientists have directly observed that even after removing all energy and material from a space, that immediately new particles (both virtual and more permenant) and energy appear to fill that space. This shows evidence that a state of no existence or a space with nothing present is unstable. This is part of observed science. Why can the explanation for why something must exist be, "because nothingness is an unstable state"?
@@lhvinny Characterising vacuum/zero-point energy and the kinds of fluctuations that go on in the regions you describe as "no existence" is not right. As the term "zero-point energy" suggests, there is in fact *some* energy in such regions, arising from the zero-point energy associated with whatever quantum fields are filling the region up. The basic features of quantum mechanics which govern the dynamics of those fields even in those vacuum regions requires that such energy is present. So it's not really fair to call this a genuine case of 'creation ex nihilo', since these regions are still occupied by quantum fields obeying dynamical laws (which is, arguably, what *everything* is). I have a background in both physics and philosophy and find it quite plausible that these sorts of cosmological questions about the *absolute* origins of the universe may well be outside of what the science (more specifically, physics) can deliver. And even if we can answer this question of origins, we haven't answered every question you might want to answer about explanations for existence. I am still an atheist as none of this, for me, really constitutes good evidence for theism.
@@dillonfreed It may well be that cosmology finds some good evidence for the universe being cyclical in nature, in which case it seems like we would at least have some exhaustive knowledge of the "global" features of cosmological history. This doesn't actually exhaust all of the possible questions you could have about why anything exists. See my earlier comment above where I talk about that more.
@joop5415 I didn't call it creation ex nihilo. I said, instead, that virtual particle pairs fill any place where we attempt to remove everything from, making a true state of nothing impossible. I do not think it is inappropriate to say that "nothing" is an unstable state, and that it is also fair to say that the instability of "nothingness" can be a good part of a reason why there must be something. Oh, I certainly understand that science cannot answer every question. I did not try to advocate that it could. What I am suggesting is that scientific investigation may shed some light about this specific question.
It's always sunny in Philadelphia has a great quote for this. (this is how i imagine any conversation going with you lol) Mac: See? It's all a part of his divine plan, Dennis. And that's locked in, so we're good. Dennis Reynolds: Okay, so all we have to do is nothing? Mac: No. No, because, uh, we have free will, Dennis, which means that, um, we have to take the necessary steps to make sure that that plan comes to fruition. Dennis Reynolds: Which is predetermined? Mac: Yes. Dennis Reynolds: But it doesn't matter what we do if it's all predetermined. You see how your argument doesn't make any sense? Mac: Uh, that's correct. But it doesn't have to make sense, because that's where the faith comes in. Right? I have faith that what I'm saying makes sense. Dennis Reynolds: Okay, so even if it doesn't make sense, your faith makes it make sense. Mac: Correct. Dennis Reynolds: Got it! Okay, so there's no way to have a rational conversation with you. Mac: No. (confused look)
Funny dialogue. But that isn't how a dialogue with me would go, there are sophisticated ways of dealing with free will and predetermination. Thanks for the comment ;)
Theists believe something always existed too and they call it "God" and assign human qualities to it. The question "Why does everything exist?" is an endless abyss. We don't know why the universe exists. We probably never will and this question has no discernible impact on reality. If everything exists because of a god then why does god exist? "Why" is a human invention. Some people find comfort in making up answers. Your position is certainly dogmatic. You are assigning properties to putative entity that you believe exists for purely philosophical reasons. You think that it is timeless and formless. I don't know of any religion that teaches of a "formless presence". The Bible tells us that we are in his image. Seems to me your position is "God exists and he can be whatever anybody wants him to be." I think also that the idea that "Spirituality is a sign of a weaker intelligence." is a straw man. I've never heard anybody say it. Some of the most brilliant people in history were theists. Criticizing a specific belief as dogma does not imply that the believer is stupid. "The fact that anything at all exists is nuts." No it isn't. If nothing existed we wouldn't be here to talk about it. It doesn't make sense that it wouldn't exist. I think this idea of existence being amazing comes from the idea that somebody(who must have existed in the first place) designing it. If a god can exist without a cause, why can't the universe have that property? No need to multiply entities beyond necessity.
Theists believe something always existed too and they call it "God" and assign human qualities to it. The question "Why does everything exist?" is an endless abyss. But it must be explored, it cannot be simply ignored by saying “why is a human invention.” The question will remain and there are really two possible answers (I’ll truncate from the 3) - either nature (matter/energy/other dimensions/Kraussian nothingness(if you will)/etc.) existed forever or there is God, which again, to me seems more likely. Why? Because God by God’s nature would have to be uncreated, nature to me seems less likely to exist as an uncreated thing. That’s a much deeper discussion. Yes, why can be an endless abyss, hence certain spiritual traditions have asserted that we must transcend our minds to find the truth. But that leads to a subjective verification of God’s existence. We do not know “why” the universe exists and probably never will - perhaps when we die (who knows). It's not a straw man to assert that many atheists believe a lower IQ is associated with being religious (some studies also have suggested this). It’s a common attack on religious believers. Have you really not seen this? And of course, this question has a discernable impact on reality: people's religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs directly impact society everyday - and religious belief essentially comes down to this question. Where did this come from? If you view people as only atoms, you may not care if they live or die - there is nothing. metaphysical to worry about. If you are religious, you may think his metaphysical presence acts in the human world and commands you to kill apostates. Of course, people can also use these beliefs for good as well. Nearly every religion has some idea of God being a presence beyond time and space - what they add onto it after that may differ. But this sort of the main idea in most all theisms. It’s my understanding that image in the Bible doesn’t mean a physical image but in reason and consciousness and morality, or it could mean something like imagination. The bible represents the idea I’m talking about better as “I am that I am.” But again, I'm not deeply religious. “The fact that anything at all exists is nuts. No it isn't” - imo, yes it is. Lol. thanks for the comment
3:14 Yes, definitions are important. The problem is that "God" is not well defined and inconsistently defined from person to person. Studies have been done where the concept of God is not consistent even within specific religions and sects. Gods are most definitely made in thr image of man and not the other way around.
That doesn't really have any bearing on that which I am saying. (And in my other video, I point out that I am speaking of a general metaphysical presence... and after that people can project anthropomorphic qualities onto that presence... with a variety of flavors.... They can also believe that presence desires for you to commit terrorism or child sacrifice... But once more that's a different debate that what I am talking about here... And I too, think most religious ideas are whacky and can be evil. Btw - a much longer discussion - If God exists, it seems just as God cannot be created, God could not possibly be evil... But that's a 100 hour discussion
There are problems with an infinite past: An infinite past can create logical paradoxes, such as the impossibility of traversing an infinite sequence to arrive at the present moment.
@@dillonfreed provided Causality runs linearly, as we experience it -- or runs at all, as it could all be simultaneously real, and our perception is all that actually determines its apparent linearity. I actually don't like that explanation, since my intuition says that my cognition must run in one direction for a good reason, but I don't think it's a bad proposition. The idea that Causality 'unfurls' from a singularity is more appealing to me. But I'm still agnostic on the reality of the situation. We don't have sufficient evidence to declare what is _beyond_ the singularity our models run back to.
I come from a neuroscience background too, and actually agree with a lot of your points. With that said, I'd still ultimately consider myself an atheist. A few thoughts, for what they're worth: 1) You say that no serious metaphysical/spiritual thinker believes in a magical sky fairy. That sounds like a no true scotsman argument. Considering how much influence Christianity, with a very literal reading of the Bible, has on American politics (and similar patterns in many other countries), I think it’s fair that a lot of extremely smart/powerful people believe in the “magical sky fairy.” I suppose this doesn't really impact your argument, but it makes it sound like you're trying to broadly characterize atheists by the worst atheists, and theists by the best theists. 2) You seem to be implicitly making a division between the natural and the supernatural (though not sure you'd use those specific phrases). Why? Why should we conceive of God/God's influence separate from the rest of the universe, rather than apart of it? To me that feels like a way to shut down thinking. As an analogy, it's currently unknown why the universe is expanding. We could just say it's God or the supernatural, and stop thinking about it. Instead scientists call it "dark energy," and it's thought of as a purely natural phenomenon, even though we don't understand it and it's possible we might never understand it. 3) You say things don't last forever. That's unproven. No one has ever witnessed something cease to exist. It may transform into something else, but so far there's always been something. 4) Your thoughts hinge on the question, why is there something rather than nothing? That question implicitly assumes "nothing" is somehow the default. We've only observed something. We've never observed nothing. I don't think "nothing" is possible, personally. To me, it's an unnecessary complication to make up a different state of the universe (nothingness), assume that's how things "should be," then ask why it's not that way. 5) I believe you're smart. Honestly. Repeatedly asserting over and over that you're smart is off-putting. The people who doubt you aren't going to be convinced by you saying you study neuroscience. 6) This is tangential, but I'm curious as to your other religious thoughts. For example, is it reasonable to believe a man named Jesus died and then came back to life, and somehow that means we no longer deserve eternal punishment? If that's reasonable, is it equivalently reasonable to believe in things like Scientology?
That's a second step, "which one" or better yet, which qualities would a God have. (I think religions contain an overwhelming amount of projection....) So I'm merely concerned with the possibility of a metaphysical being being possible. What people consider the nature of this metaphysical... well that starts to become "religion." I'm concerned with something more basic than that! thanks for the comment! ;)
First of all. "Atheists should respect serious spirituality" Most atheists do, do not confuse religion with spirituality it's two different things, you can have a spirituality and be an atheist, atheist simply means "The lack of belief in gods" in that way, there are multiple spiritualities who are atheistic in nature. Druids believe in the power of nature as a power above, that nature is alive and is the source of all life. Buddhists believe in spirits, the Devas, but don't believe in gods. If you count the atheist religions, your video becomes absolutely flabbergasting because the majority of atheists do respect spirituality and have some degree of it buddhism by itself has 7% of the world population who do not believe in gods and are therefore atheists, but have spirituality. I myself am an atheist, I do not believe in gods, but I am druidic, with a bardic grade in the Order of Bards ovates and Druids, so I have spirituality, but to me, personally, and I in no way talk about the rest of the OBOD members, only myself, the idea of an omnipotent all powerful deity is ridiculous, nature is the power above us, it's what allows life to exist and is in no way conscious in doing it, nature is chaotic. What atheists don't like and do not respect is the authoritarian nature of the abrahamic religions, you know the ones who do the whole "believe what I believe or you will be tortured for eternity". So your video starts with the wrong premise to begin with, and I am in no way saying, that there aren't any disrespectful atheists who are unaccepting of spirituality, I'm saying that stating as if the majority of atheists are people like that is erroneous if you use the correct definition of atheism, so you really need to update this video and explain what you mean by "Atehist" to begin with and specify that when you say atheists you mean the a-hole ones. "Three camps one states out of nothing" No one is claiming that, like 0% of people claim that, what people say is "I don't know" and are immediatly met with a "God of the gaps fallacy" i.e- "If you don't know therefore god", to which the answer is, "Why your god though? why not the hindu gods? or the greek ones?" and then the conversation goes to faith, it's their god because they believe it's their god, no explanation why, and then the conversation turns to "if faith is a reliable way of knowing if it's true or not?" and this is the part, wherer normally religious people start saying that I'm gonna burn in hell, then the conversation turns to morality. yeah been a few rounds around that block. Point is, There are multiple scientific hypothesis for the universe, but the majority of people are not scientists, so the honest answer is "I don't know", but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation, we don't need to know how things work for them to work, your car engine does not work based on faith after all, jumping at it and saying "if you don't know therefore god" does not help the conversation and is ridiculously dishonest. "It's illogical" Why? "And another view" No, WHY is it illogical for those people to believe that? you made a conclusion, you need to explain that conclusion, is it ilogical because there is no evidence of that? If that is so, then why is it wrong for those same people that believe that to put the same evidence standards on people who have a spirituality. But this is all completely unimportant because no one believes that.the most widely believe explanation is the big banf theory which btw, Theory, in physics, is the highest level, meaning that to disprove it, equals an automatic nobel prize, and the big bang theory does have many evidence in it's favour,you have hubble's law, The discovery and measurement of the cosmic microwave background and the relative abundances of light elements produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Observations of galaxy formation and evolution. Do I understand what any of that means? well not really, does that mean there is no evidence? no... it means I personally am not a physicist, like I said, I don't need to understand those things, I just know they are things. Now the next question in that logic path is "Where does the big bang come from?" To which I can say, that as far as I know, there are only hypothesis, maybe none of them are true, maybe they are all true, I just know that just because I don't have an explanation, does not mean it equals "god" cause THAT ignores all logic.if at this point we have not found any evidence a deity had a hand in it, there is no reason to believe it had a hand in it, as far as my spirituality goes, it's all part of nature, the universe follows natural laws therefore, I have no logical reason to doubt my spirituality. Now, I would respond to the rest of the video but I'm only 1 minute and a half in, and I already wrote a thesis and I have to go to work and given the size of your video I would write a book, my fault, not yours. So, to conclude this, uh, no, check your definitions, check the science, it's all there, I don't understand it, maybe you willl who knows? all I know is that the majority of atheists don't like religions not spirituality by definition. uh yeah... good luck to you.
3:24 If you wish to define God as uncreated, you can do so. There is still no reason to believe it until you give some evidence that the claim in your definition is true. I can define "Megan Fox" as "your mom." That does not obligate you to believe that Megan Fox is your mom just because I define her that way. I could even go as far as proving that Megan Fox exists. That still would be insufficient to show that my definition is correct. "We are getting close to the ontological argument." Indeed, which is a problem since even the best version of it just tries ro define god into existence.
No, you have to define God as uncreated, it's literally not God if God is created. You can disagree that such a presence exists, but if you add created onto God then you therefore on no longer speaking of God that any serious spiritual thinker would consider God. As soon as you ask, "Who created God?" you negate the concept of God. God cannot be created, because that which created God would be God. Ofc, you can reject this idea, I understand that it is illogical, but so are the other positions - which is my point.
@dillonfreed "you have to define God as uncreated." No, we don't. Definitions are arbitrary. There are plenty of gods, still believed in today, that were born or otherwise created. I think it is inappropriate to call every pagan out there who believes in The Horned God to be a "non-serious spiritual thinker."
I'm an atheist and I won't make my atheism your problem as long as you don't make your spirituality my problem. I may think your beliefs are ridiculous, but if that is my opinion, I should keep it to myself because it's going to make me look like a jerk, and I don't want to be a jerk. Do you want to be a jerk?
Belief in a God, generally speaking, is nothing to ridicule or to consider ridiculous. (Religious beliefs, some of them anyway, sure). I don't ridicule atheists for not believing as the arguments against God are not completely pointless and in some cases compelling. And of course, to any honest person, the arguments for God's existence are not and probably will never be debunked. No one should force their views on others - atheists or believers.
@@dillonfreed you don't get it. You don't need to force your views on me in order to make them my problem. It's like a dude who doesn't wash: he's not forcing you not to wash by not washing, but his smell is your problem. If you want to believe in spirituality, cool, be my guest. It becomes my problem when you think your beliefs deserve my respect. If you don't respect my atheism, I don't care. Feel free to believe I'm in denial -- like Ray Comfort doe -- I don't care. I love Bob Dylan, if you think he's rubbish, I don't care. But if I play Bob Dylan really loudly, I'm making it your problem.
What makes 3 more logically plausible than 2? Both include forever existence. The 3rd simply adds a condition of an omniscient, omnipotent, so on so forth. 3 is just 2 with added specificity, which logically makes it less plausible since it is the same thing, just more specific.
2 is a "nature." (That would include even simulations and "many worlds" - still nature as I see it). And nature - atoms, rocks, quantum foam, even other dimensions, or whatever - don't, by their nature, have to exist. At least that's the viewpoint from #3. 3 is metaphysical substrate within and beyond all things, thus if all universes/simulations (if you believe in such) were to disappear, #3 would still remain as it is uncreated and simply Exists. In certain spiritual texts it is that which Is beyond existence and non-existence, beyond creation and destruction. My view is that nature cannot by its nature be eternal. But again, I respect atheist views on this, but for me, 3 makes the most sense and actually seems least implausible.
@@dillonfreed I mean okay, but then you're just discounting a part of "nature" as "non-nature". If you are describing a thing that has done stuff to anything (none the less everything ever) then it exists. It is not "beyond existence". This argument is just semantics and wordplay to make special conditions at this point. A exists A made everything A is not part of everything despite "everything" meaning all inclusive.
Why is the wrong question perhaps.. how things work is a better question.. The common cosmology does not say universe came from nothing.. Non exsistance is illogical we can’t really imagine nothing.. With god or a simulator you still will have who created and why was god created 😂😂😂😂
If you watch the video, I point out a Simulator would still require an answer as to where the Simulator came from. Again, God cannot be created.... If God is created that would not be God. You can find that argument funny, but extremely intelligent people have taken it seriously for a few centuries. It doesn't mean it is right, but laughing doesn't exactly do away with the argument. The actually argument against that claim is something like existence is not a necessary quality for God... too much to get into here but thanks for all your comments ;)
I think it's fine to say ''I don't know''. I am not convinced God is real. I am not convinced God is not real. Since I have no good reason to believe God is real, I am not a Theist, and take the default position of Atheism.
Yea, I think they are describing "agnostic" - i think that's reasonable ;) I think all these positions are reasonable to an extent and totally not at the same time lol
The idea that a god creating the universe/everything being the logical position to you, is because you believe in a god. The mere fact that nothing spiritual, metaphysical, etc. has ever been shown to exist to me points to the idea that those things are pure fiction. Whether or not something is logical in the face of brute facts is meaningless. Logic is not the path to true facts, it’s simply a tool we can use to analyze facts. But at the end of the day only the brutal reality in front of us matters. Since, by your logic, all of the choices are illogical I’ll choose the choice with the fewest presuppositions, which is that “something” has always existed. If science can never answer this quandary that doesn’t mean fiction becomes truth. By the way, the universe is not a thing or an object, it’s a place. It’s a space within which all things exist.
I didn't always believe in God. But consider the defintion of "metaphysical" - it means beyond or afeter physics - I think it is comical that reason/logic of science would ever "prove" God exists or that the "metaphysical" is real. I do think if that if a million years go by and we've conducted a eons of science and this mystery still remains, it would tend to point to something metaphysical being a source. Because science can't answer some questions doesn't mean God exists. But it also doesn't mean God is a fiction. I'm not suggesting that I believe in God bc science cannot answer a question, I'm suggesting that belief in God is reasonable considering what God's nature would have to be to be God. Every comment here, for the most part, is just sort of proving my point: you make a calculation about which is hte most unreasonable to you. Good news! When we die, we'll likely all find out lol thanks for your comment.
10:31 "nothing makes sense, therefore god" seems incorrect to me. "Things exist. Something needs to make them. Therefore god." Doesn't work either. What is the syllogism that goes from "stuff exists" to the conclusion "an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being must exist." I don't see it going that far, nor for it needing to. A being that died during the big bang is not a god according to your definition (since it is not eternal) but would check all the boxes necessary to account for what we see. A being that only knows how to set up a universe, but not all future nor all past events is not your definition of god but also works. A being that can start a universe but cannot manifest within reality to us is indistinguishable, in terms of what we can discern, from a god that simply chooses not do manifest. This. Therefore, means that omnipotence is not required but would still fit the bill. None of the three characteristics of God are required and all are shaved away by Occam's Razor.
I'll make a video in response to these. it's too much to write. but they all have answers of course.... there is nothing new really to be written on this topic lol. it doesn't mean the answers will satisfy you, but your/atheist answers, also, are not satisfactory to many people..
You can be “flippant” about it. For a couple of reasons. 1 It’s possible to be an atheist in each of your 3 positions. Just because there was a creator, doesn’t make it a God, you said so yourself. 2 We currently have now way to investigate before the Planck epoch, or even if ‘before’ is a cogent concept there. This may well be the case for the duration of our species. For many of us, not knowing is uncomfortable. However, making stuff up out of our ignorance is also uncomfortable. I am in no way denigrating the ‘personal experience’ type belief. I don’t believe any of us can pre-judge how we would react if we had ‘an experience’. To be facetious for a moment, I have just had a strange experience. I guessed in about 60 seconds you were brought up Catholic only for it to be confirmed after 15 minutes!
Your answer isn't being flippant, you are taking the question seriously, which you have to if you are a serious person. I disagree in regards to the ultimate doesn't have to be God. My point was, even if the "Simulators" or whatever, exist - the ultimate question still remains - why does anything exist? The Final answer, in my opinion, would be God. I was raised Catholic is a very, very lax manner. I did first communion and don't know if I attended after that more than a dozen times. Thanks for your comment.
@@dillonfreed Yes, ‘flippant’ is probably the wrong word. However, it’s trivially easy for me to posit a ‘creator’ that isn’t a God, and that means that your third option does not necessitate a God and it’s still possible to be an atheist in that third option. There is further leg-work required to move from this plain ‘creator’ to what anyone would consider a God. Normally this leg-work involves imbuing the ‘creator’ with attributes beyond the necessary ones. The dispassionate view of this, is that it is a process of humanising the ‘creator’ to aid relatability in the masses (and often someone to blame). How far along this path different religions have gone is a fascinating topic. My interest is epistemology, and the fact of the matter is, none of us actually ‘know’ why there’s something rather than nothing. So I’m always interested in those that think they do.
There is no ultimate answer, and there never will be. Because once there is an answer to any question, the goalposts are moved so that there is no longer an answer. That's how we got to where we are now.
I don't disagree, and I think that's also why there are only two positions from a "faith' standpoint - you believe in God or are ultimately agnostic. It does make fun discussion though lol thanks for the comment
No you don't have to believe anything. You can make a judgement of "most probable" and leave it at that. You can reserve judgement until you are truly convinced.
Sure, I still tend to think people fall into those 3 camps. I mean we could probably trim it to 2 - you either believe the "universe" (by that I mean stuff) in some sense is eternal or something, or God is.
@@dillonfreed I really don't see any solution to the problem of eternity, least of all, a god. There is no criticism of a past-eternal universe model that would not apply equally to a past-eternal god. If anything, including a god, can be infinite, then Infinity could be a property of the "stuff" itself. I don't believe or disbelieve in eternity at this point. I simply don't have enough information, but I assert that IF the concept applies to reality in any way, it still gives no credence to a god claim over naturalism.
@dillonfreed trying to define a being into existence is a stupid argument. That's all that the ontological argument attempts to do. Therefore it is stupid. If an argument can be used to argue that unicorns exist, it is stupid.
@@dillonfreed No, he's right, the ontological argument is stupid. You're basically defining God into existence. If this is your argument… God is perfect. A necessary quality of perfection is existence. Therefore God exists. Your defining God as perfect. You're not demonstrating that God is perfect. Further, why doesn't this work. Magical sky fairies are perfect. It necessary quality of perfection is existence. Therefore, magical sky fairies exist
The reason Theists keep referencing this idea that the universe "popped into existence from nothing" might be because they believe God did exactly that - He popped it into existence out of nothing? Why would serious spirituality be about believing some concept? Or worse believing in something for no good reason ("it cannot be known" according to you). What is serious in having a personal opinion about the "great mystery"?
To think God popped into being from nothing would make nothing God - as it created God - and not the God that popped into being, that is the idea. God, by God's nature, cannot infinitely regress. In my mind - and I understand many disagree - God makes more sense as an ultimate source of everything/anything as God would, by nature and defintion, have no cause. Nature, by its nature and definition, has to have a cause. (Nature would also include something like what Krauss calls nothing). Thanks for the comment ;)
There is a long history (nearly every major religion and mystical tradition) of speaking of God as a timeless metaphysical presence derived from reasoning and mystical experience. It could simply be wrong thinking or merely a psychological brain state. I don't really know any movies that speak of God in a sophisticated way. I enjoy a sense of humor tho ;)
For Kant, time is a mode of intuition/perception. That is, it is not an inherint aspect of the universe, but is how we organize perceptual information. It (along with space, and the categories) allows us to gain a kind of knowledge about the world, but is missapplied when we delve into metaphysics. We do it, of course. We can't help but to do it. It is the only way we know. But, it does not help us know such things (which are independent of our own framework).
As for the qustion of God, I think that it is less an epistemological matter, and more of a normative (but personal) matter. That is, the question, Do I believe in God cannot be translated to some dry question about whether there is some x with so and such qualities, and x exists. Having faith in God is not anything like 'believing that some x exists with (or without) evidence' but is more akin to having faith in one's spouse or community or, more accurately, in my view, faith in the world (i.e. 'creation', the only possible mark of this Being whom is--inherintly--deserving of your trust). This is why I think that the problem of evil is at the heart of the matter. A moral or ethical complaint is always at the same time a kind of 'critique' of the world (and so creation itself, if one believes in God). To have faith in God is to have a kind of trust that, in some sense, in some way, all will be made right.
I tend to like Kant's split of the phenomena/noumena realms. Overall, I tend to agree with Kant (for the most part) - and his motivation, correct me if I'm wrong, was to save religious faith. On an aside, some people consider Kant the genesis of post modernists (cf. Objectivists). ;) thanks for the comment
@@Not_that_Brian_Jones Yes, that's essentially my view, the intellectual arguments for or against God are just fun and cognitively stimulating. I do also think that apologetics hold some value for people who lack faith - they demonstrate arguments for God aren't so easily dismissed as pop atheists would like you to believe. But quite frankly, religious people need atheists as well.
@@dillonfreed I've heard about that idea, that Kant was somehow 'post modern'. That's amazing to me, given that he was a central and towering figure in the modern period, and that he is one of the primary figures that post modernism is trying to overcome. I don't know much about objectivism, but I assume the issue is with both his ethics (which they seem to misunderstand as a kind of self sacrificing altruism) and his denial of knowledge/metaphysics (i.e. to make room for faith). I understand that they take themselves to have solved Hume's problem of induction. IDK, maybe, but I think that Kant is the only one that produced anything like a plausible solution. And yes, I agree that the arguments for God are worth taking seriously. I'm something of an atheist, but I usually don't identify as an atheist for fear of being confused with the 'new atheists'.
There are two options regarding the omni characteristic claims: they are at full strength and are impossible, or they are weakened (making them no longer omni) to the point where they lose all of their useful meaning. Some apologists go so far as to say I would qualify as omnipotent under their definition.
@dillonfreed So, completely circular reasoning? You determined that someone who believes on magical sky Faries cannot be serious because no serious spiritual thinker believes in magical sky faries? Do series spiritual thinkers use such obvious logical fallacies often too?
This type of response is funny to me. You know what I meant-the point is that no serious spiritual thinkers or philosophers consider God to be a magical sky fairy. That's a strawman. If you engage with those who think and write about God in earnest, you will not encounter such ideas. Of course, it is possible a serious spiritual thinker will make a case for a sky fairy, lol. It's also just silly to pretend not to know what I meant, lol. A better line of attack, if you want to do this, would be to say it's an argument from authority... but of course, when we debate, we want to engage with the best version of the other side's views, no?
@@dillonfreed Let's try it this way. What is the difference between your God and a magical sky fairy? Why is your God the stuff of serious thinkers and magical sky fairies are not?
2:02 "things don't exist forever, right?" Wrong. First law of thermodynamics makes it clear that energy exists forever. Also, since forever means, "for all time," that means time also has existed forever. It is important not to conflate eternal with forever, which is a common layman mistake.
This is quibbling, I was just speaking extemporaneously. The point was, ofc, a thing cannot exist forever into the indefinite past, it had to come into existence at some point - even energy.
@@dillonfreed If you want to call showing that your question and conclusion that nothing exists forever is false "quibbling," go for it. Who says that there is an infinite past to exist into forever? Energy does not come into existence. It can't. Prove that energy can be created. I dare you to try to proce the 1st law of thermodynamics wrong, and then to explain why you have not collected your Nobel Prize for doing so.
@@lhvinny Speaking of layman, space-time energy continuum don't exist before the Big Bang and will be lost forever once suck into a Black hole. You think you know.
The problem with religion is that saying "We don't know at the moment" is just not good enough and those who practice it would rather go with something that was made up by bronze age theologians than admit that we just don't know and we might never know... Also what is nothing? If you look at your empty hand it looks like nothing is in it, but that could not be further from the truth... Where there are breathable air particles there is something!
There is an argument that there is no such thing as nothing, it's an impossibility. Something just has to be.... I don't hold that view personally, some atheists hold that view (I don't think it resolves anything really). And even if "Bronze Age" thinkers believed in God, it would not mean God doesn't exist - that does not follow. I think you are making a probability argument, you think God is less probable than not. I'm also not "religious" per se -I'm spiritual (for lack of a better word - I don't like that word that much). Thanks for the comment tho :)
@@dillonfreed I have to admit, I don't like spiritual much, either... It feels slightly disingenuous, as if all these ideas don't come from people who were trying to control the masses through religion, be it Zeus, Osris, Odin and their pantheons, or a 'humble' carpenter from Galilee (let's face it using the word 'humble' for a man who seemed to constantly proclaim he was not only the son of God, but others in his name would then suggest was ACTUALLY God, is a bit much...If he was a historical figure at all, of course.) Or a nobleman who gained enlightenment. I always rather liked the idea of neopaganism, that nature is sacred, but their dependence on astrology irks me.
When has anyone ever seen anything ever popping into existence from nothing or disappearing into complete oblivion? Answer: never. Matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. They just change from one form to another. There's nothing illogical about infinite existence except in the impoverished human imagination that is fixated on beginnings, endings, and scarcity because those are the ingredients of all the stories and myths that we tell ourselves.
I mean, Krauss tried to suggest that in his book - that things pop intoa nd out of existnece from obliviion - but there are still complex mathematics and the Standard Model that seem to underpin his nothing... Don't you wonder where they came from? But you fit into category 2 - that STUFF just was always here. I respect that position, I just have I suppose moved past that for myself. I don't see it that way any longer. thanks for the comment ;)
@@dillonfreed Even in Krauss's model, empty space isn't really nothing. It is a constantly boiling cauldron of quantum fields in which other forms of matter and energy can spontaneously arise. His title, "A Universe from Nothing", is really meant as a little bit of a joke. Kind of like Stephen Pinker's book, "The Blank Slate", in which he spends almost every chapter refuting the idea contained in the title. Stating that you have "moved past" the view that existence is eternal implies an assumption that your view of unsubstantiated beginnings and endings is somehow more advanced and insightful. How so? Because it better conforms to human level experience and mythological narratives, or for some more objective scientific reason?
I can't really see that any three of these options are "illogical" as such, and as best I can tell your 3rd category is a subcategory of your 2nd. If the 2nd category says "something always existed and explains what *currently* exists", then God seems to count here. An atheist will just say that it's not something like God (i.e. a personal being) but something obeying physical or causal laws. Another line of questioning that I think is ultimately more relevant is about the possibility of non-existence. Ignore the issue of the past, whether the past of the physical universe is finite or infinite, created or uncreated, etc. The universe's existence (whether finite or infinite into the past) is either contingent (it is possible that it did not exist at all) or necessary (it is impossible for it to not have existed at all). If it is contingent, then it seems like we've left some explanatory gap: why this possibility rather than some other? Why not nothing, or a universe with an entirely different physical set up? Perhaps we need to invoke some necessary, external power to determine why it *ever* existed rather than *never* existed. The alternative is to say that the universe itself is necessary, or otherwise that some objectively indeterminate but itself necessarily existing process is responsible for its existence. Popular philosophy of religion seems to focus an awful lot on the beginning of the universe as some special moment in its history, not on the fact of the universe's existence simpliciter. It *could be* that we need to invoke an omnipotent God in order to explain the universe's existence *even if it is infinite into the past* if we thought that the universe was otherwise contingent. This is precisely what a number of ancient Western and Eastern religions posit: God not as the *cause* of the beginning of the universe, but as its *ground* (in the technical sense that "ground" is used in philosophy).
It's not a dumb belief to posit a metaphysical presence as the source of existence. You can disagree with it, but it's actually something, again, serious people consider as a possibility. Saying "I don't know" is a fine position, but you can't them claim you know that another position is stupid. If you don't know, then you don't know. ;) thanks for the comment
So you're saying that something being created out of nothing is illogical (who's arguing that ALL things just popped into being?), something that's eternal and evolving is illogical (why does it have to be eternal?), and believing in a deity that is eternal and created the universe is illogical, BUT it's less illogical than popping into existence or things evolving, so atheists should respect spirituality. What???? I don't know about those first 2 in your list but if I believe the last one then a lot of other things that seem illogical must be true. Seems illogical that there are beings powerful enough to do all of the things a god would have to do to create a universe, seems illogical that a god would create a bunch of beings and then watch what they do in order to judge them, seems illogical that some people would meet one of these beings, converse with said being, write down what the being said, run back to town and try to get everyone to do what the being said, seems illogical that people would believe it, seems illogical that there would actually be several instances where people met beings, wrote down all the stuff, ran back to town, and got a bunch of people to believe it, seems illogical that some of these beings would be bothered by strange things like foreskins or eating pork or showing too much ankle skin, and... I think you get the point. I'm an atheist and I do try to be respectful towards people but I do not have to respect 'serious spirituality.' I respect people's right to have their beliefs and to believe the hell out of them and to go to church and dance with poisonous snakes or whatever but I do not have to respect ideas. And honestly I think people put way too much stock in their own beliefs. My beliefs about the universe are about as important as an ant's fart. What do I believe? I believe that the methods of science work and so I believe what scientific consensus says. What does science say about why things are here? I don't know and I don't care because it in no way affects my daily life and things change all the time and I'm not keeping up. Idk, your whole argument kind of seems like a straw man argument. You're arguing against what atheists BELIEVE?? Atheists have beliefs like this??? Ok. What about a song? Doesn't that pop into being from nothing. Musician sitting there picking his nose and BAM! melody! 10 minutes later he has a song. Something from nothing. And we know evolution exists. We get different flu shots every year. Why? Because the flu evolves. So parts of those 1st two are now seeming more logical... Hmm... I really don't think this can be broken into 3 or any number of camps and it's kind of a pointless question. Why does the universe exist??? WHY??? WHY IS THIS TREE HERE IN THE- Because it grew there. HOW did it grow there? Now that's an interesting, useful, and answerable question...
I still think, generally speaking, those three camps hold up, but of course, I'm not being academic and precise here, just having a conversation. As I've stated many times, I respect atheists (used to be one), but for me personally, I'm shifted my view on this. Thanks for the comment!
I think god is the easiest answer, because it can fill any gap, I don’t know that it’s the best answer. If the was the top and bottom of religious discourse that would be the least controversial thing. It’s the fact that people have added characteristics to god and asserted that god has revealed to people that they are to act a certain way and we have historically used this to dictate laws. That’s the controversial bit. No one cares that you find the complexity and absurdity of the universe is best explained by the existence of god.
Yea, I mostly agree. I think much of religion ridiculous, but this fundamental question - why is there something rather than nothing, where did "this" come from - for me (and i've been on the other side) a metaphysical explanation makes the most sense. But of course, I recognize that's not true for everyone and understand why this is so.
from a purely logical perspective the third option, the existence of god is just the second option but asigning inteligence to it. which is less likely but not impossible. the uncreated atribute is intelectual bullshit. the question is? did something come from nothing or did something always exist? both cant be true at the same time, and saying uncreated is like saying its both
I don't see it quite that way. The second option is the idea that nature, in some form, whether laws or quantum stuff always existed. In my view, the 3rd option suggests that the "thing" that always existed was a Being/Presence that's I suppose we could use the word conscious (but I have problems with that word... but it'll suffice). I think there is a difference here. While I understand that it seems like intellectual BS, there is something real to it in my estimation. God by definition cannot be created, or it wouldn't be God. But this is getting into the weeds of the ontological argument. And that is a good question - worth thinking about ;) fun to think about Thanks for you comment ;)
So you're saying things can't come from nothing, oh wait, except god...but you believe people can resurrect...and theres a magic dimension where your loved ones go when they die...and youre the logical one? Just because you dont know the answer, doesnt mean you should throw away your logic.
The fact that anything exists is pretty magical imo lol... I didn't say that I'm the logical one, I said to me, the idea of a metaphysical being is least illogical to me. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean that there is no God. Again, I respect and understand the atheists position. Logic is not thrown away bc you believe in God. That does not follow. Even if the only reason people believed in God was because they were afraid to die, that has nothing to say, actually, about whether or not God exists. A merely psychological motivation for believing something would not automatically undo the reality of the thing one believed in, one could believe in God simply out of fear of death and God still exist. thanks for hte comment ;)
You feel things need a “reason to exist”. That’s a fallacy. So many of your positions can be dispelled by watching a few science videos. What you think is “illogical” fits perfectly within science. Your ability to not understand it is about you.
The idea that science explains why anything exists is a fallacy. Science does not even understand what it is studying, at a fundamental level. What is science describing and where did it come from to perform science on it? I understand science very well, I am a scientist (neuroscience) and have a relatively robust layman's understanding of physics.
You’re using the term “logical” when what you might mean is “comprehensible” or “conceivable” or even "rational." Both the concept of an eternal universe and the concept of a necessary being creating the universe are logical in their own right; neither is inherently more or less logical than the other. Logic is objective; it’s based on principles and rules that apply universally. An argument is either logically sound or it isn’t, independent of personal opinions. However, individuals might find one theory more rational than the other based on their own perspectives and judgment. The only truly illogical concept, in my opinion, is the idea of nothing giving rise to something. This is a clear contradiction because nothing is defined as the absence of everything, including space and time. By contemplating “nothing,” we inadvertently transform it into something. I think everyone should reject that.
Yea I don't disagree, I'm speaking just more or less colloquially here, not using the terms academically or in very precisely. Probably should in the future ;) Thanks for the comment!
@@dillonfreed I completely agree, it’s more important now than ever, though. You’re operating on a different level of understanding, and the person you’re responding to, just can't grasp that. It's infuriating!
At 6:27 you say that a universe has to be created, and just before that you state that God is an entity defined by not having been created. This is just an assertion that you haven't demonstrated. In a broader sense, you are also begging the question since you define the universe as being a creation which insinuates a creator, but we haven't established that the universe is a creation. To respond to your broader point, I do not think atheists should respect spirituality. You argue that God is a valid answer to why anything exists, or at least as valid as existence always having been. The problem is that, if one wants to be rational, you cannot accept either answer yet. The truth is, we just have no idea about the nature of existance right now, and it's folly to accept the answer that makes the most sense to you right now, because we can't know how accurate that answer is. We can speculate about how much we will know in the future, but intil we have more understanding about the cosmos, it's just not rational to believe either option. "I don't know, because there is simply not enough information" is the answer here. You can take a position if you are inclined, but as far as we know, every other answer is equally likely. I do want to say, as a vehement antitheist who thinks religion is a poison to human development, I actually do feel that this video is a breath of fresh air. You seem genuinely interested in the topic, whereas many others in your field are very dishonest. I hope you see why "There's not enough information, so I won't take a strong stance on it yet" is the more rational answer.
Thanks for the post. I have many problems with religion as well - we'd probably agree, but I think there is room for a type of spirituality (I don't love that word but that's all we have for now) that can be both scientific and mystical (without overlapping). I don't think you could "prove" God's existence. Which is a problem, God would have to be outside the scientific paradigm in my estimation. For me the illogical of the whole situation almost hints at a God - at least on some days! lol The broader philosopchial point is that God, by his/its nature would have to be uncreated. Nature, by its nature, seems to me, must be created. Mind bendingly, even if we proved nature to be an unborn and undying "eternal" there must be some explanation for how something eternal arrived in the first place. I understand positing God seems like I'm doing the same thing, except that God, by definition, must be uncreated. And by saying by defintion, i mean the nature of God must be uncreated, or it is not God. God would have to be ground layer of that which is... and if we go deeper, we can start to reason about the qualities such a God might have. Of course, for some people it's a massive leap to suggest God, a move made by someone scared of death and dying and throwing their hands up at the mystery of it all. I don't think it's throwing my hands up, it's suggesting that it seems entirely impossible for sicence to answer why anything exists. I understand the atheist postiion (I used to be there). Now, I'm a person who believes, is nudged (not convicned) toward God based on philosophy (but in the end, mainly believe based on things other than reason, but that is another convo and one that DEFININTELY would not satisfy people who don't believe - understandable as well lol)
At 1:27 you say "It is illogical." when you don't understand the matter . . . so it is illogical to you. Explore and understand the physics of the matter and then get back to us.
I mean fundamentally there is still something here to study and we don't know where it came from - even a Kraussian nothingness. I've read Krauss, I get the argument and his candidates for what nothingness are... but if physics had answered the question, there would be no discussion to be had here.
@@dillonfreed So you understand that while you may be in a room where nothing but you, and air are . . . something may enter that room from some other room? That there may an orifice so small that you can not detect it, yet something at a very large pressure can enter and squash you like a bug in a microsecond?
"metaphysical ideas deserve respect" No, they do not. Here are some metaphysical ideas "2+2=5", "It's morally acceptable for a 40 year old man to marry an 8 year old girl," "genocide and slavery are good", "mushrooms belong on pizza", "three is a holy concept". I cannot respect that. Just being an opinion does not make it worthy of respect. The other problem I see is you seem to be using the Christian god interchangeably with "god is something that cannot be created" and the two are separate concepts. One does not mean the other. Besides, saying what is and isn't "serious" spirituality gets you on a quick flight to Scotland.
Strange and evil customs and ideas can be projected onto the metaphysical concept of God, which I make explicitly clear in a separate video. I'm not talking about that here, but rather the possiblity that a metaphysical entity, which we would call God, is a legitimate option to believe in - and it is legitimate, even if it isn't your cup of tea ;) Indeed, once you believe such a entity is possible, people can then delude themselves into thinking they are commanded, Idk, to blow up a bus full of children or something. But in this video, I'm not even near to talking about the nature of God - but only the fact (I think this is a fact) that it is totally reasonable to believe in God as the source of the universe and that there are decent arguments for that proposition. Notice I didn't say convincing or proof. And I don't think for a moment, they are knockdown arguments - but they also aren't, in anyway debunked. And yes, people will fight over anything. Metaphysical or not. There is no dearth of secular slaughter, as I'm sure you know. Serious spirituality, meaning a spirituality that considers science and recognizes God is not some man in the clouds, is what I mean. I'm not a Christian, but there are aspects in the Bible (I am that I am, for isntnace) which would align with what I am speaking of here when I speak of God. thanks for hte comment! :)
If God exists, it would be "our God' ;) The idea is that God is that which is not created or dependent upon anything else for existence. Only God could have those qualities as by definition matter, energy, other dimensions, etc. etc. do not seem to have an explanation as to how they could be uncreated and just exist. Only a God could possibly have those qualities as God. That's my view... trust me, I understand that atheists see this as switching one unexplainable thing for another, but I simply don't see it that way (at least not entirely, though using reason to contemplate God is mostly futile in the final analsysis).
@@dillonfreed So basically all you are saying is your god is an idea you have, and nothing more. LOL What's worse is your idea has no foundations in a reality we can all agree on. ???? Does any kind of "holy scripture" accurately reflect YOUR GOD, or actions of it?
The lack of interest in finding any evidence for the belief of a metaphysical being is what makes it so silly. There is no reason to suspect a metaphysical being. I can easily trace any evidence you give me back to someone’s brain. You seem to be very concerned about how your intellect is perceived. I have a loved one that has a much higher IQ than I and yet believes several of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories. You seem to think good ideas come from high IQs. Well so do many of the worst.
Several people in a previous video said I should "study science" and have a low IQ -and that religious believers are "stupid" - thus in this video, I just pointed out exactly what you are pointing out - this is not really a question of IQ as smart people also believe in God and some low IQ people don't. (it does seem on average, atheists have higher IQs, but that's, well, on average...) You can't find evidence of something metaphysical, can you? It's literally beyond physics, beyond nature- thus beyond science. Mystics throughout histroy have suggested the only "evidnece" is something like revlation, enlightment, etc. Atheists therefore (smartly) simply deny the possiblity of the metaphysical, and in so doing, think sicence will answer everything. I dont' deny the metaphysical and don't think science can. I don't think, generally speaking, more time will allow science to answer certain questions. Thanks for the comment ;)
I suppose it is possible that science, somehow, answers where the universe came from (not just the universe, but I mean anything at all in any world or any dimension). The point of my video is that you cannot simply just dismiss these arguments with a one-liner and lolz. lol. Though I do appreciate a sense of humor! But listen, I could also gently accuse you of wishful thinking that science will provide such an answer in the future. The question itself, if you consider what science is and does, seems to be absolutely (I use that term very consciously) beyond the realm of science.
@@dillonfreed I will say that science has a much better track record of supplying answers than the wishful thinking of religion. I see no reason not to believe that trend will continue!
@@slik00silk84 sure. But two things: 1) trends don't always maintain and 2) we have to wonder if science is even capable of answering the questions posed here. They seem to lack the tools - which is good news for philosophers lol (and spiritual folk)
@@dillonfreed Oh pshaw! The scientific trend has a much better trend record than the religious trend, which if anything is digressing, as we explore and learn more and more about the foundations of religion. Such that the trend of the religious is sinking towards the realization that religious is largely, if not entirely, based on "wishful thinking." Alas . . . if there was only some actual solid empirical evidence for religion?
I'm trying to keep up with all the comments. I welcome any and all views. Try to be respectful to others and have a sense of humor. ;) I appreciate all the interaction, this really is, in my opinion, one of the most, if not the most, exhilarating conversations humans can have. I respect anyone taking this question seriously!
4:07 You're free to think science will not be able to answer a question. No one denies your ability to have opinions. The question is, "what reason do we have to think your opinion has merit?"
Why would your opinion about my opinion potentially lacking merit have merit?
At any rate, we are all clearly guessing here, but for the record (one could always be wrong) I don't see how science could have the tools possible to answer how/why anything exists. It doesn't seem to be a question of IQ or gathering more knowledge, etc... Science may at some point discover we live in a simulation or that "many worlds" are real... Again, the problem remains... At some level something came into existence... even if... that something that came into existence now exists forever and appears to have existed forever... (mind bending)
@dillonfreed Scientists have directly observed that even after removing all energy and material from a space, that immediately new particles (both virtual and more permenant) and energy appear to fill that space.
This shows evidence that a state of no existence or a space with nothing present is unstable.
This is part of observed science. Why can the explanation for why something must exist be, "because nothingness is an unstable state"?
@@lhvinny Characterising vacuum/zero-point energy and the kinds of fluctuations that go on in the regions you describe as "no existence" is not right. As the term "zero-point energy" suggests, there is in fact *some* energy in such regions, arising from the zero-point energy associated with whatever quantum fields are filling the region up. The basic features of quantum mechanics which govern the dynamics of those fields even in those vacuum regions requires that such energy is present. So it's not really fair to call this a genuine case of 'creation ex nihilo', since these regions are still occupied by quantum fields obeying dynamical laws (which is, arguably, what *everything* is).
I have a background in both physics and philosophy and find it quite plausible that these sorts of cosmological questions about the *absolute* origins of the universe may well be outside of what the science (more specifically, physics) can deliver. And even if we can answer this question of origins, we haven't answered every question you might want to answer about explanations for existence. I am still an atheist as none of this, for me, really constitutes good evidence for theism.
@@dillonfreed It may well be that cosmology finds some good evidence for the universe being cyclical in nature, in which case it seems like we would at least have some exhaustive knowledge of the "global" features of cosmological history. This doesn't actually exhaust all of the possible questions you could have about why anything exists. See my earlier comment above where I talk about that more.
@joop5415 I didn't call it creation ex nihilo. I said, instead, that virtual particle pairs fill any place where we attempt to remove everything from, making a true state of nothing impossible.
I do not think it is inappropriate to say that "nothing" is an unstable state, and that it is also fair to say that the instability of "nothingness" can be a good part of a reason why there must be something.
Oh, I certainly understand that science cannot answer every question. I did not try to advocate that it could. What I am suggesting is that scientific investigation may shed some light about this specific question.
It's always sunny in Philadelphia has a great quote for this. (this is how i imagine any conversation going with you lol)
Mac: See? It's all a part of his divine plan, Dennis. And that's locked in, so we're good.
Dennis Reynolds: Okay, so all we have to do is nothing?
Mac: No. No, because, uh, we have free will, Dennis, which means that, um, we have to take the necessary steps to make sure that that plan comes to fruition.
Dennis Reynolds: Which is predetermined?
Mac: Yes.
Dennis Reynolds: But it doesn't matter what we do if it's all predetermined. You see how your argument doesn't make any sense?
Mac: Uh, that's correct. But it doesn't have to make sense, because that's where the faith comes in. Right? I have faith that what I'm saying makes sense.
Dennis Reynolds: Okay, so even if it doesn't make sense, your faith makes it make sense.
Mac: Correct.
Dennis Reynolds: Got it! Okay, so there's no way to have a rational conversation with you.
Mac: No. (confused look)
Funny dialogue. But that isn't how a dialogue with me would go, there are sophisticated ways of dealing with free will and predetermination. Thanks for the comment ;)
@@dillonfreed and yet you didn't address any of them
Theists believe something always existed too and they call it "God" and assign human qualities to it. The question "Why does everything exist?" is an endless abyss. We don't know why the universe exists. We probably never will and this question has no discernible impact on reality. If everything exists because of a god then why does god exist? "Why" is a human invention. Some people find comfort in making up answers. Your position is certainly dogmatic. You are assigning properties to putative entity that you believe exists for purely philosophical reasons. You think that it is timeless and formless. I don't know of any religion that teaches of a "formless presence". The Bible tells us that we are in his image. Seems to me your position is "God exists and he can be whatever anybody wants him to be." I think also that the idea that "Spirituality is a sign of a weaker intelligence." is a straw man. I've never heard anybody say it. Some of the most brilliant people in history were theists. Criticizing a specific belief as dogma does not imply that the believer is stupid. "The fact that anything at all exists is nuts." No it isn't. If nothing existed we wouldn't be here to talk about it. It doesn't make sense that it wouldn't exist. I think this idea of existence being amazing comes from the idea that somebody(who must have existed in the first place) designing it. If a god can exist without a cause, why can't the universe have that property? No need to multiply entities beyond necessity.
I will respond, just don't have time right now!
Theists believe something always existed too and they call it "God" and assign human qualities to it. The question "Why does everything exist?" is an endless abyss. But it must be explored, it cannot be simply ignored by saying “why is a human invention.” The question will remain and there are really two possible answers (I’ll truncate from the 3) - either nature (matter/energy/other dimensions/Kraussian nothingness(if you will)/etc.) existed forever or there is God, which again, to me seems more likely. Why? Because God by God’s nature would have to be uncreated, nature to me seems less likely to exist as an uncreated thing. That’s a much deeper discussion.
Yes, why can be an endless abyss, hence certain spiritual traditions have asserted that we must transcend our minds to find the truth. But that leads to a subjective verification of God’s existence. We do not know “why” the universe exists and probably never will - perhaps when we die (who knows).
It's not a straw man to assert that many atheists believe a lower IQ is associated with being religious (some studies also have suggested this). It’s a common attack on religious believers. Have you really not seen this?
And of course, this question has a discernable impact on reality: people's religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs directly impact society everyday - and religious belief essentially comes down to this question. Where did this come from? If you view people as only atoms, you may not care if they live or die - there is nothing. metaphysical to worry about. If you are religious, you may think his metaphysical presence acts in the human world and commands you to kill apostates. Of course, people can also use these beliefs for good as well.
Nearly every religion has some idea of God being a presence beyond time and space - what they add onto it after that may differ. But this sort of the main idea in most all theisms. It’s my understanding that image in the Bible doesn’t mean a physical image but in reason and consciousness and morality, or it could mean something like imagination. The bible represents the idea I’m talking about better as “I am that I am.” But again, I'm not deeply religious.
“The fact that anything at all exists is nuts. No it isn't” - imo, yes it is. Lol. thanks for the comment
@@dillonfreed Thank you for your response. I enjoy learning the perspective of others.
3:14 Yes, definitions are important. The problem is that "God" is not well defined and inconsistently defined from person to person. Studies have been done where the concept of God is not consistent even within specific religions and sects. Gods are most definitely made in thr image of man and not the other way around.
That doesn't really have any bearing on that which I am saying. (And in my other video, I point out that I am speaking of a general metaphysical presence... and after that people can project anthropomorphic qualities onto that presence... with a variety of flavors.... They can also believe that presence desires for you to commit terrorism or child sacrifice... But once more that's a different debate that what I am talking about here... And I too, think most religious ideas are whacky and can be evil. Btw - a much longer discussion - If God exists, it seems just as God cannot be created, God could not possibly be evil... But that's a 100 hour discussion
We've never observed anything cease to exist or begin to exist from nothing, so I disagree that an infinite past is illogical.
There are problems with an infinite past: An infinite past can create logical paradoxes, such as the impossibility of traversing an infinite sequence to arrive at the present moment.
@@dillonfreed provided Causality runs linearly, as we experience it -- or runs at all, as it could all be simultaneously real, and our perception is all that actually determines its apparent linearity.
I actually don't like that explanation, since my intuition says that my cognition must run in one direction for a good reason, but I don't think it's a bad proposition. The idea that Causality 'unfurls' from a singularity is more appealing to me. But I'm still agnostic on the reality of the situation. We don't have sufficient evidence to declare what is _beyond_ the singularity our models run back to.
I come from a neuroscience background too, and actually agree with a lot of your points. With that said, I'd still ultimately consider myself an atheist. A few thoughts, for what they're worth:
1) You say that no serious metaphysical/spiritual thinker believes in a magical sky fairy. That sounds like a no true scotsman argument. Considering how much influence Christianity, with a very literal reading of the Bible, has on American politics (and similar patterns in many other countries), I think it’s fair that a lot of extremely smart/powerful people believe in the “magical sky fairy.” I suppose this doesn't really impact your argument, but it makes it sound like you're trying to broadly characterize atheists by the worst atheists, and theists by the best theists.
2) You seem to be implicitly making a division between the natural and the supernatural (though not sure you'd use those specific phrases). Why? Why should we conceive of God/God's influence separate from the rest of the universe, rather than apart of it? To me that feels like a way to shut down thinking. As an analogy, it's currently unknown why the universe is expanding. We could just say it's God or the supernatural, and stop thinking about it. Instead scientists call it "dark energy," and it's thought of as a purely natural phenomenon, even though we don't understand it and it's possible we might never understand it.
3) You say things don't last forever. That's unproven. No one has ever witnessed something cease to exist. It may transform into something else, but so far there's always been something.
4) Your thoughts hinge on the question, why is there something rather than nothing? That question implicitly assumes "nothing" is somehow the default. We've only observed something. We've never observed nothing. I don't think "nothing" is possible, personally. To me, it's an unnecessary complication to make up a different state of the universe (nothingness), assume that's how things "should be," then ask why it's not that way.
5) I believe you're smart. Honestly. Repeatedly asserting over and over that you're smart is off-putting. The people who doubt you aren't going to be convinced by you saying you study neuroscience.
6) This is tangential, but I'm curious as to your other religious thoughts. For example, is it reasonable to believe a man named Jesus died and then came back to life, and somehow that means we no longer deserve eternal punishment? If that's reasonable, is it equivalently reasonable to believe in things like Scientology?
I will respond later, I have read it! Thank you for the comment! :) Just in a rush right now!
Why god? If you can demonstrate that, which one?
That's a second step, "which one" or better yet, which qualities would a God have. (I think religions contain an overwhelming amount of projection....) So I'm merely concerned with the possibility of a metaphysical being being possible. What people consider the nature of this metaphysical... well that starts to become "religion." I'm concerned with something more basic than that! thanks for the comment! ;)
@dillonfreed it sounds to me that on some level you're describing an adult version of a childs "invisible friend".
First of all.
"Atheists should respect serious spirituality"
Most atheists do, do not confuse religion with spirituality it's two different things, you can have a spirituality and be an atheist, atheist simply means "The lack of belief in gods" in that way, there are multiple spiritualities who are atheistic in nature.
Druids believe in the power of nature as a power above, that nature is alive and is the source of all life.
Buddhists believe in spirits, the Devas, but don't believe in gods.
If you count the atheist religions, your video becomes absolutely flabbergasting because the majority of atheists do respect spirituality and have some degree of it buddhism by itself has 7% of the world population who do not believe in gods and are therefore atheists, but have spirituality.
I myself am an atheist, I do not believe in gods, but I am druidic, with a bardic grade in the Order of Bards ovates and Druids, so I have spirituality, but to me, personally, and I in no way talk about the rest of the OBOD members, only myself, the idea of an omnipotent all powerful deity is ridiculous, nature is the power above us, it's what allows life to exist and is in no way conscious in doing it, nature is chaotic.
What atheists don't like and do not respect is the authoritarian nature of the abrahamic religions, you know the ones who do the whole "believe what I believe or you will be tortured for eternity".
So your video starts with the wrong premise to begin with, and I am in no way saying, that there aren't any disrespectful atheists who are unaccepting of spirituality, I'm saying that stating as if the majority of atheists are people like that is erroneous if you use the correct definition of atheism, so you really need to update this video and explain what you mean by "Atehist" to begin with and specify that when you say atheists you mean the a-hole ones.
"Three camps one states out of nothing"
No one is claiming that, like 0% of people claim that, what people say is "I don't know" and are immediatly met with a "God of the gaps fallacy" i.e- "If you don't know therefore god", to which the answer is, "Why your god though? why not the hindu gods? or the greek ones?" and then the conversation goes to faith, it's their god because they believe it's their god, no explanation why, and then the conversation turns to "if faith is a reliable way of knowing if it's true or not?" and this is the part, wherer normally religious people start saying that I'm gonna burn in hell, then the conversation turns to morality. yeah been a few rounds around that block.
Point is, There are multiple scientific hypothesis for the universe, but the majority of people are not scientists, so the honest answer is "I don't know", but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation, we don't need to know how things work for them to work, your car engine does not work based on faith after all, jumping at it and saying "if you don't know therefore god" does not help the conversation and is ridiculously dishonest.
"It's illogical"
Why?
"And another view"
No, WHY is it illogical for those people to believe that? you made a conclusion, you need to explain that conclusion, is it ilogical because there is no evidence of that? If that is so, then why is it wrong for those same people that believe that to put the same evidence standards on people who have a spirituality.
But this is all completely unimportant because no one believes that.the most widely believe explanation is the big banf theory which btw, Theory, in physics, is the highest level, meaning that to disprove it, equals an automatic nobel prize, and the big bang theory does have many evidence in it's favour,you have hubble's law, The discovery and measurement of the cosmic microwave background and the relative abundances of light elements produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Observations of galaxy formation and evolution.
Do I understand what any of that means? well not really, does that mean there is no evidence? no... it means I personally am not a physicist, like I said, I don't need to understand those things, I just know they are things.
Now the next question in that logic path is "Where does the big bang come from?"
To which I can say, that as far as I know, there are only hypothesis, maybe none of them are true, maybe they are all true, I just know that just because I don't have an explanation, does not mean it equals "god" cause THAT ignores all logic.if at this point we have not found any evidence a deity had a hand in it, there is no reason to believe it had a hand in it, as far as my spirituality goes, it's all part of nature, the universe follows natural laws therefore, I have no logical reason to doubt my spirituality.
Now, I would respond to the rest of the video but I'm only 1 minute and a half in, and I already wrote a thesis and I have to go to work and given the size of your video I would write a book, my fault, not yours.
So, to conclude this, uh, no, check your definitions, check the science, it's all there, I don't understand it, maybe you willl who knows? all I know is that the majority of atheists don't like religions not spirituality by definition.
uh yeah... good luck to you.
3:24 If you wish to define God as uncreated, you can do so. There is still no reason to believe it until you give some evidence that the claim in your definition is true.
I can define "Megan Fox" as "your mom." That does not obligate you to believe that Megan Fox is your mom just because I define her that way. I could even go as far as proving that Megan Fox exists. That still would be insufficient to show that my definition is correct.
"We are getting close to the ontological argument." Indeed, which is a problem since even the best version of it just tries ro define god into existence.
No, you have to define God as uncreated, it's literally not God if God is created. You can disagree that such a presence exists, but if you add created onto God then you therefore on no longer speaking of God that any serious spiritual thinker would consider God. As soon as you ask, "Who created God?" you negate the concept of God. God cannot be created, because that which created God would be God. Ofc, you can reject this idea, I understand that it is illogical, but so are the other positions - which is my point.
@dillonfreed "you have to define God as uncreated." No, we don't. Definitions are arbitrary.
There are plenty of gods, still believed in today, that were born or otherwise created. I think it is inappropriate to call every pagan out there who believes in The Horned God to be a "non-serious spiritual thinker."
@@dillonfreedthis is called “defining god into existence” and it’s not an answer.
I'm an atheist and I won't make my atheism your problem as long as you don't make your spirituality my problem. I may think your beliefs are ridiculous, but if that is my opinion, I should keep it to myself because it's going to make me look like a jerk, and I don't want to be a jerk. Do you want to be a jerk?
Belief in a God, generally speaking, is nothing to ridicule or to consider ridiculous. (Religious beliefs, some of them anyway, sure). I don't ridicule atheists for not believing as the arguments against God are not completely pointless and in some cases compelling. And of course, to any honest person, the arguments for God's existence are not and probably will never be debunked. No one should force their views on others - atheists or believers.
@@dillonfreed you don't get it. You don't need to force your views on me in order to make them my problem. It's like a dude who doesn't wash: he's not forcing you not to wash by not washing, but his smell is your problem. If you want to believe in spirituality, cool, be my guest. It becomes my problem when you think your beliefs deserve my respect. If you don't respect my atheism, I don't care. Feel free to believe I'm in denial -- like Ray Comfort doe -- I don't care. I love Bob Dylan, if you think he's rubbish, I don't care. But if I play Bob Dylan really loudly, I'm making it your problem.
What makes 3 more logically plausible than 2? Both include forever existence. The 3rd simply adds a condition of an omniscient, omnipotent, so on so forth. 3 is just 2 with added specificity, which logically makes it less plausible since it is the same thing, just more specific.
2 is a "nature." (That would include even simulations and "many worlds" - still nature as I see it). And nature - atoms, rocks, quantum foam, even other dimensions, or whatever - don't, by their nature, have to exist. At least that's the viewpoint from #3. 3 is metaphysical substrate within and beyond all things, thus if all universes/simulations (if you believe in such) were to disappear, #3 would still remain as it is uncreated and simply Exists. In certain spiritual texts it is that which Is beyond existence and non-existence, beyond creation and destruction. My view is that nature cannot by its nature be eternal. But again, I respect atheist views on this, but for me, 3 makes the most sense and actually seems least implausible.
@@dillonfreed I mean okay, but then you're just discounting a part of "nature" as "non-nature".
If you are describing a thing that has done stuff to anything (none the less everything ever) then it exists. It is not "beyond existence". This argument is just semantics and wordplay to make special conditions at this point.
A exists
A made everything
A is not part of everything despite "everything" meaning all inclusive.
Why is the wrong question perhaps.. how things work is a better question..
The common cosmology does not say universe came from nothing..
Non exsistance is illogical we can’t really imagine nothing..
With god or a simulator you still will have who created and why was god created 😂😂😂😂
If you watch the video, I point out a Simulator would still require an answer as to where the Simulator came from. Again, God cannot be created.... If God is created that would not be God. You can find that argument funny, but extremely intelligent people have taken it seriously for a few centuries. It doesn't mean it is right, but laughing doesn't exactly do away with the argument. The actually argument against that claim is something like existence is not a necessary quality for God... too much to get into here but thanks for all your comments ;)
I think it's fine to say ''I don't know''. I am not convinced God is real. I am not convinced God is not real. Since I have no good reason to believe God is real, I am not a Theist, and take the default position of Atheism.
Yea, I think they are describing "agnostic" - i think that's reasonable ;) I think all these positions are reasonable to an extent and totally not at the same time lol
The idea that a god creating the universe/everything being the logical position to you, is because you believe in a god.
The mere fact that nothing spiritual, metaphysical, etc. has ever been shown to exist to me points to the idea that those things are pure fiction. Whether or not something is logical in the face of brute facts is meaningless. Logic is not the path to true facts, it’s simply a tool we can use to analyze facts. But at the end of the day only the brutal reality in front of us matters.
Since, by your logic, all of the choices are illogical I’ll choose the choice with the fewest presuppositions, which is that “something” has always existed. If science can never answer this quandary that doesn’t mean fiction becomes truth.
By the way, the universe is not a thing or an object, it’s a place. It’s a space within which all things exist.
I didn't always believe in God. But consider the defintion of "metaphysical" - it means beyond or afeter physics - I think it is comical that reason/logic of science would ever "prove" God exists or that the "metaphysical" is real. I do think if that if a million years go by and we've conducted a eons of science and this mystery still remains, it would tend to point to something metaphysical being a source.
Because science can't answer some questions doesn't mean God exists. But it also doesn't mean God is a fiction. I'm not suggesting that I believe in God bc science cannot answer a question, I'm suggesting that belief in God is reasonable considering what God's nature would have to be to be God.
Every comment here, for the most part, is just sort of proving my point: you make a calculation about which is hte most unreasonable to you. Good news! When we die, we'll likely all find out lol thanks for your comment.
10:31 "nothing makes sense, therefore god" seems incorrect to me.
"Things exist. Something needs to make them. Therefore god." Doesn't work either.
What is the syllogism that goes from "stuff exists" to the conclusion "an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being must exist." I don't see it going that far, nor for it needing to.
A being that died during the big bang is not a god according to your definition (since it is not eternal) but would check all the boxes necessary to account for what we see.
A being that only knows how to set up a universe, but not all future nor all past events is not your definition of god but also works.
A being that can start a universe but cannot manifest within reality to us is indistinguishable, in terms of what we can discern, from a god that simply chooses not do manifest. This. Therefore, means that omnipotence is not required but would still fit the bill.
None of the three characteristics of God are required and all are shaved away by Occam's Razor.
I'll make a video in response to these. it's too much to write. but they all have answers of course.... there is nothing new really to be written on this topic lol. it doesn't mean the answers will satisfy you, but your/atheist answers, also, are not satisfactory to many people..
@dillonfreed I asked for a syllogism. I didn't realize that took a long time to write.
You can be “flippant” about it. For a couple of reasons.
1 It’s possible to be an atheist in each of your 3 positions. Just because there was a creator, doesn’t make it a God, you said so yourself.
2 We currently have now way to investigate before the Planck epoch, or even if ‘before’ is a cogent concept there. This may well be the case for the duration of our species.
For many of us, not knowing is uncomfortable. However, making stuff up out of our ignorance is also uncomfortable.
I am in no way denigrating the ‘personal experience’ type belief. I don’t believe any of us can pre-judge how we would react if we had ‘an experience’.
To be facetious for a moment, I have just had a strange experience. I guessed in about 60 seconds you were brought up Catholic only for it to be confirmed after 15 minutes!
Your answer isn't being flippant, you are taking the question seriously, which you have to if you are a serious person.
I disagree in regards to the ultimate doesn't have to be God. My point was, even if the "Simulators" or whatever, exist - the ultimate question still remains - why does anything exist? The Final answer, in my opinion, would be God.
I was raised Catholic is a very, very lax manner. I did first communion and don't know if I attended after that more than a dozen times.
Thanks for your comment.
@@dillonfreed Yes, ‘flippant’ is probably the wrong word. However, it’s trivially easy for me to posit a ‘creator’ that isn’t a God, and that means that your third option does not necessitate a God and it’s still possible to be an atheist in that third option.
There is further leg-work required to move from this plain ‘creator’ to what anyone would consider a God. Normally this leg-work involves imbuing the ‘creator’ with attributes beyond the necessary ones. The dispassionate view of this, is that it is a process of humanising the ‘creator’ to aid relatability in the masses (and often someone to blame). How far along this path different religions have gone is a fascinating topic.
My interest is epistemology, and the fact of the matter is, none of us actually ‘know’ why there’s something rather than nothing. So I’m always interested in those that think they do.
God is a magic sky fairy I’m sorry it is exactly what your talking about
I didn't know you were a believer! That's awesome. Glad you know what God is ;)
There is no ultimate answer, and there never will be. Because once there is an answer to any question, the goalposts are moved so that there is no longer an answer. That's how we got to where we are now.
I don't disagree, and I think that's also why there are only two positions from a "faith' standpoint - you believe in God or are ultimately agnostic. It does make fun discussion though lol thanks for the comment
No you don't have to believe anything. You can make a judgement of "most probable" and leave it at that. You can reserve judgement until you are truly convinced.
Sure, I still tend to think people fall into those 3 camps. I mean we could probably trim it to 2 - you either believe the "universe" (by that I mean stuff) in some sense is eternal or something, or God is.
@@dillonfreed I really don't see any solution to the problem of eternity, least of all, a god. There is no criticism of a past-eternal universe model that would not apply equally to a past-eternal god. If anything, including a god, can be infinite, then Infinity could be a property of the "stuff" itself.
I don't believe or disbelieve in eternity at this point. I simply don't have enough information, but I assert that IF the concept applies to reality in any way, it still gives no credence to a god claim over naturalism.
9:34 I have no idea of the authors of the ontological are stupid. The argunent itself is, and Plantinga's modal version of it fairs no better.
it's not a stupid argument ... it just isn't' convincing to you and that's fine
@dillonfreed trying to define a being into existence is a stupid argument. That's all that the ontological argument attempts to do. Therefore it is stupid.
If an argument can be used to argue that unicorns exist, it is stupid.
@@dillonfreed No, he's right, the ontological argument is stupid. You're basically defining God into existence. If this is your argument…
God is perfect.
A necessary quality of perfection is existence.
Therefore God exists.
Your defining God as perfect. You're not demonstrating that God is perfect. Further, why doesn't this work.
Magical sky fairies are perfect.
It necessary quality of perfection is existence.
Therefore, magical sky fairies exist
The reason Theists keep referencing this idea that the universe "popped into existence from nothing" might be because they believe God did exactly that - He popped it into existence out of nothing? Why would serious spirituality be about believing some concept? Or worse believing in something for no good reason ("it cannot be known" according to you). What is serious in having a personal opinion about the "great mystery"?
To think God popped into being from nothing would make nothing God - as it created God - and not the God that popped into being, that is the idea. God, by God's nature, cannot infinitely regress. In my mind - and I understand many disagree - God makes more sense as an ultimate source of everything/anything as God would, by nature and defintion, have no cause. Nature, by its nature and definition, has to have a cause. (Nature would also include something like what Krauss calls nothing). Thanks for the comment ;)
A formless presence what is a formless presence.. 😂😂😂 sorry to many movies are in there 😊
There is a long history (nearly every major religion and mystical tradition) of speaking of God as a timeless metaphysical presence derived from reasoning and mystical experience. It could simply be wrong thinking or merely a psychological brain state. I don't really know any movies that speak of God in a sophisticated way. I enjoy a sense of humor tho ;)
For Kant, time is a mode of intuition/perception. That is, it is not an inherint aspect of the universe, but is how we organize perceptual information. It (along with space, and the categories) allows us to gain a kind of knowledge about the world, but is missapplied when we delve into metaphysics. We do it, of course. We can't help but to do it. It is the only way we know. But, it does not help us know such things (which are independent of our own framework).
As for the qustion of God, I think that it is less an epistemological matter, and more of a normative (but personal) matter. That is, the question, Do I believe in God cannot be translated to some dry question about whether there is some x with so and such qualities, and x exists. Having faith in God is not anything like 'believing that some x exists with (or without) evidence' but is more akin to having faith in one's spouse or community or, more accurately, in my view, faith in the world (i.e. 'creation', the only possible mark of this Being whom is--inherintly--deserving of your trust).
This is why I think that the problem of evil is at the heart of the matter. A moral or ethical complaint is always at the same time a kind of 'critique' of the world (and so creation itself, if one believes in God). To have faith in God is to have a kind of trust that, in some sense, in some way, all will be made right.
I tend to like Kant's split of the phenomena/noumena realms. Overall, I tend to agree with Kant (for the most part) - and his motivation, correct me if I'm wrong, was to save religious faith. On an aside, some people consider Kant the genesis of post modernists (cf. Objectivists). ;) thanks for the comment
@@Not_that_Brian_Jones Yes, that's essentially my view, the intellectual arguments for or against God are just fun and cognitively stimulating. I do also think that apologetics hold some value for people who lack faith - they demonstrate arguments for God aren't so easily dismissed as pop atheists would like you to believe. But quite frankly, religious people need atheists as well.
@@dillonfreed I've heard about that idea, that Kant was somehow 'post modern'. That's amazing to me, given that he was a central and towering figure in the modern period, and that he is one of the primary figures that post modernism is trying to overcome.
I don't know much about objectivism, but I assume the issue is with both his ethics (which they seem to misunderstand as a kind of self sacrificing altruism) and his denial of knowledge/metaphysics (i.e. to make room for faith). I understand that they take themselves to have solved Hume's problem of induction. IDK, maybe, but I think that Kant is the only one that produced anything like a plausible solution.
And yes, I agree that the arguments for God are worth taking seriously. I'm something of an atheist, but I usually don't identify as an atheist for fear of being confused with the 'new atheists'.
4:49 Omnipotence and omnipresence are both impossible. If you wish to define God that way, you are simply defining god out of existence.
That's not the case, but I'll have to do another video on it.
There are two options regarding the omni characteristic claims: they are at full strength and are impossible, or they are weakened (making them no longer omni) to the point where they lose all of their useful meaning.
Some apologists go so far as to say I would qualify as omnipotent under their definition.
7:47 How did you determine that someone who believes in magical sky faries is not serious?
bc no serious spiritual thinker talks about magical sky fairies.
@dillonfreed So, completely circular reasoning? You determined that someone who believes on magical sky Faries cannot be serious because no serious spiritual thinker believes in magical sky faries?
Do series spiritual thinkers use such obvious logical fallacies often too?
This type of response is funny to me. You know what I meant-the point is that no serious spiritual thinkers or philosophers consider God to be a magical sky fairy. That's a strawman. If you engage with those who think and write about God in earnest, you will not encounter such ideas. Of course, it is possible a serious spiritual thinker will make a case for a sky fairy, lol. It's also just silly to pretend not to know what I meant, lol. A better line of attack, if you want to do this, would be to say it's an argument from authority... but of course, when we debate, we want to engage with the best version of the other side's views, no?
@@dillonfreed I didn't ask about God. I asked about magical sky fairies. But thanks for clarifying.
@@dillonfreed Let's try it this way. What is the difference between your God and a magical sky fairy? Why is your God the stuff of serious thinkers and magical sky fairies are not?
2:02 "things don't exist forever, right?" Wrong.
First law of thermodynamics makes it clear that energy exists forever.
Also, since forever means, "for all time," that means time also has existed forever.
It is important not to conflate eternal with forever, which is a common layman mistake.
This is quibbling, I was just speaking extemporaneously. The point was, ofc, a thing cannot exist forever into the indefinite past, it had to come into existence at some point - even energy.
@@dillonfreed If you want to call showing that your question and conclusion that nothing exists forever is false "quibbling," go for it.
Who says that there is an infinite past to exist into forever?
Energy does not come into existence. It can't.
Prove that energy can be created. I dare you to try to proce the 1st law of thermodynamics wrong, and then to explain why you have not collected your Nobel Prize for doing so.
@@lhvinny Speaking of layman, space-time energy continuum don't exist before the Big Bang and will be lost forever once suck into a Black hole.
You think you know.
We do not have to believe something illogical. Nobody knows what happened before the plank time, and it is ok to say I don’t know.
sure, and it's also ok to say I think God might exist
@@dillonfreed That is illogical, just like you said it was.
The problem with religion is that saying "We don't know at the moment" is just not good enough and those who practice it would rather go with something that was made up by bronze age theologians than admit that we just don't know and we might never know... Also what is nothing?
If you look at your empty hand it looks like nothing is in it, but that could not be further from the truth... Where there are breathable air particles there is something!
There is an argument that there is no such thing as nothing, it's an impossibility. Something just has to be.... I don't hold that view personally, some atheists hold that view (I don't think it resolves anything really). And even if "Bronze Age" thinkers believed in God, it would not mean God doesn't exist - that does not follow. I think you are making a probability argument, you think God is less probable than not. I'm also not "religious" per se -I'm spiritual (for lack of a better word - I don't like that word that much). Thanks for the comment tho :)
@@dillonfreed I have to admit, I don't like spiritual much, either... It feels slightly disingenuous, as if all these ideas don't come from people who were trying to control the masses through religion, be it Zeus, Osris, Odin and their pantheons, or a 'humble' carpenter from Galilee (let's face it using the word 'humble' for a man who seemed to constantly proclaim he was not only the son of God, but others in his name would then suggest was ACTUALLY God, is a bit much...If he was a historical figure at all, of course.) Or a nobleman who gained enlightenment. I always rather liked the idea of neopaganism, that nature is sacred, but their dependence on astrology irks me.
When has anyone ever seen anything ever popping into existence from nothing or disappearing into complete oblivion? Answer: never. Matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. They just change from one form to another. There's nothing illogical about infinite existence except in the impoverished human imagination that is fixated on beginnings, endings, and scarcity because those are the ingredients of all the stories and myths that we tell ourselves.
I mean, Krauss tried to suggest that in his book - that things pop intoa nd out of existnece from obliviion - but there are still complex mathematics and the Standard Model that seem to underpin his nothing... Don't you wonder where they came from? But you fit into category 2 - that STUFF just was always here. I respect that position, I just have I suppose moved past that for myself. I don't see it that way any longer. thanks for the comment ;)
@@dillonfreed Even in Krauss's model, empty space isn't really nothing. It is a constantly boiling cauldron of quantum fields in which other forms of matter and energy can spontaneously arise. His title, "A Universe from Nothing", is really meant as a little bit of a joke. Kind of like Stephen Pinker's book, "The Blank Slate", in which he spends almost every chapter refuting the idea contained in the title. Stating that you have "moved past" the view that existence is eternal implies an assumption that your view of unsubstantiated beginnings and endings is somehow more advanced and insightful. How so? Because it better conforms to human level experience and mythological narratives, or for some more objective scientific reason?
I can't really see that any three of these options are "illogical" as such, and as best I can tell your 3rd category is a subcategory of your 2nd. If the 2nd category says "something always existed and explains what *currently* exists", then God seems to count here. An atheist will just say that it's not something like God (i.e. a personal being) but something obeying physical or causal laws.
Another line of questioning that I think is ultimately more relevant is about the possibility of non-existence. Ignore the issue of the past, whether the past of the physical universe is finite or infinite, created or uncreated, etc. The universe's existence (whether finite or infinite into the past) is either contingent (it is possible that it did not exist at all) or necessary (it is impossible for it to not have existed at all). If it is contingent, then it seems like we've left some explanatory gap: why this possibility rather than some other? Why not nothing, or a universe with an entirely different physical set up? Perhaps we need to invoke some necessary, external power to determine why it *ever* existed rather than *never* existed. The alternative is to say that the universe itself is necessary, or otherwise that some objectively indeterminate but itself necessarily existing process is responsible for its existence.
Popular philosophy of religion seems to focus an awful lot on the beginning of the universe as some special moment in its history, not on the fact of the universe's existence simpliciter. It *could be* that we need to invoke an omnipotent God in order to explain the universe's existence *even if it is infinite into the past* if we thought that the universe was otherwise contingent.
This is precisely what a number of ancient Western and Eastern religions posit: God not as the *cause* of the beginning of the universe, but as its *ground* (in the technical sense that "ground" is used in philosophy).
I will respond, I read it, just don't have time right now!
@@dillonfreed No worries mate
What is so hard with... I DONT KNOW
I am an atheist and i have no idea why or how we are here, but i have no need to adopt some dumb beleif
It's not a dumb belief to posit a metaphysical presence as the source of existence. You can disagree with it, but it's actually something, again, serious people consider as a possibility. Saying "I don't know" is a fine position, but you can't them claim you know that another position is stupid. If you don't know, then you don't know. ;) thanks for the comment
Sad that Rodney Dangerfield is no longer alive. He was much funnier than you could ever hope to be while complaining about the lack of respect.
Put some respect on metaphysics name
So you're saying that something being created out of nothing is illogical (who's arguing that ALL things just popped into being?), something that's eternal and evolving is illogical (why does it have to be eternal?), and believing in a deity that is eternal and created the universe is illogical, BUT it's less illogical than popping into existence or things evolving, so atheists should respect spirituality. What???? I don't know about those first 2 in your list but if I believe the last one then a lot of other things that seem illogical must be true. Seems illogical that there are beings powerful enough to do all of the things a god would have to do to create a universe, seems illogical that a god would create a bunch of beings and then watch what they do in order to judge them, seems illogical that some people would meet one of these beings, converse with said being, write down what the being said, run back to town and try to get everyone to do what the being said, seems illogical that people would believe it, seems illogical that there would actually be several instances where people met beings, wrote down all the stuff, ran back to town, and got a bunch of people to believe it, seems illogical that some of these beings would be bothered by strange things like foreskins or eating pork or showing too much ankle skin, and... I think you get the point. I'm an atheist and I do try to be respectful towards people but I do not have to respect 'serious spirituality.' I respect people's right to have their beliefs and to believe the hell out of them and to go to church and dance with poisonous snakes or whatever but I do not have to respect ideas. And honestly I think people put way too much stock in their own beliefs. My beliefs about the universe are about as important as an ant's fart. What do I believe? I believe that the methods of science work and so I believe what scientific consensus says. What does science say about why things are here? I don't know and I don't care because it in no way affects my daily life and things change all the time and I'm not keeping up. Idk, your whole argument kind of seems like a straw man argument. You're arguing against what atheists BELIEVE?? Atheists have beliefs like this??? Ok. What about a song? Doesn't that pop into being from nothing. Musician sitting there picking his nose and BAM! melody! 10 minutes later he has a song. Something from nothing. And we know evolution exists. We get different flu shots every year. Why? Because the flu evolves. So parts of those 1st two are now seeming more logical... Hmm... I really don't think this can be broken into 3 or any number of camps and it's kind of a pointless question. Why does the universe exist??? WHY??? WHY IS THIS TREE HERE IN THE- Because it grew there. HOW did it grow there? Now that's an interesting, useful, and answerable question...
I still think, generally speaking, those three camps hold up, but of course, I'm not being academic and precise here, just having a conversation. As I've stated many times, I respect atheists (used to be one), but for me personally, I'm shifted my view on this. Thanks for the comment!
I think god is the easiest answer, because it can fill any gap, I don’t know that it’s the best answer.
If the was the top and bottom of religious discourse that would be the least controversial thing. It’s the fact that people have added characteristics to god and asserted that god has revealed to people that they are to act a certain way and we have historically used this to dictate laws. That’s the controversial bit. No one cares that you find the complexity and absurdity of the universe is best explained by the existence of god.
Yea, I mostly agree. I think much of religion ridiculous, but this fundamental question - why is there something rather than nothing, where did "this" come from - for me (and i've been on the other side) a metaphysical explanation makes the most sense. But of course, I recognize that's not true for everyone and understand why this is so.
from a purely logical perspective the third option, the existence of god is just the second option but asigning inteligence to it.
which is less likely but not impossible.
the uncreated atribute is intelectual bullshit. the question is?
did something come from nothing or did something always exist? both cant be true at the same time, and saying uncreated is like saying its both
I don't see it quite that way. The second option is the idea that nature, in some form, whether laws or quantum stuff always existed. In my view, the 3rd option suggests that the "thing" that always existed was a Being/Presence that's I suppose we could use the word conscious (but I have problems with that word... but it'll suffice). I think there is a difference here.
While I understand that it seems like intellectual BS, there is something real to it in my estimation. God by definition cannot be created, or it wouldn't be God. But this is getting into the weeds of the ontological argument.
And that is a good question - worth thinking about ;) fun to think about
Thanks for you comment ;)
So you're saying things can't come from nothing, oh wait, except god...but you believe people can resurrect...and theres a magic dimension where your loved ones go when they die...and youre the logical one? Just because you dont know the answer, doesnt mean you should throw away your logic.
The fact that anything exists is pretty magical imo lol... I didn't say that I'm the logical one, I said to me, the idea of a metaphysical being is least illogical to me. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean that there is no God. Again, I respect and understand the atheists position. Logic is not thrown away bc you believe in God. That does not follow. Even if the only reason people believed in God was because they were afraid to die, that has nothing to say, actually, about whether or not God exists. A merely psychological motivation for believing something would not automatically undo the reality of the thing one believed in, one could believe in God simply out of fear of death and God still exist. thanks for hte comment ;)
You feel things need a “reason to exist”. That’s a fallacy.
So many of your positions can be dispelled by watching a few science videos. What you think is “illogical” fits perfectly within science. Your ability to not understand it is about you.
The idea that science explains why anything exists is a fallacy. Science does not even understand what it is studying, at a fundamental level. What is science describing and where did it come from to perform science on it? I understand science very well, I am a scientist (neuroscience) and have a relatively robust layman's understanding of physics.
You’re using the term “logical” when what you might mean is “comprehensible” or “conceivable” or even "rational." Both the concept of an eternal universe and the concept of a necessary being creating the universe are logical in their own right; neither is inherently more or less logical than the other. Logic is objective; it’s based on principles and rules that apply universally. An argument is either logically sound or it isn’t, independent of personal opinions. However, individuals might find one theory more rational than the other based on their own perspectives and judgment.
The only truly illogical concept, in my opinion, is the idea of nothing giving rise to something. This is a clear contradiction because nothing is defined as the absence of everything, including space and time. By contemplating “nothing,” we inadvertently transform it into something. I think everyone should reject that.
Yea I don't disagree, I'm speaking just more or less colloquially here, not using the terms academically or in very precisely. Probably should in the future ;) Thanks for the comment!
@@dillonfreed I completely agree, it’s more important now than ever, though. You’re operating on a different level of understanding, and the person you’re responding to, just can't grasp that. It's infuriating!
At 6:27 you say that a universe has to be created, and just before that you state that God is an entity defined by not having been created. This is just an assertion that you haven't demonstrated. In a broader sense, you are also begging the question since you define the universe as being a creation which insinuates a creator, but we haven't established that the universe is a creation.
To respond to your broader point, I do not think atheists should respect spirituality. You argue that God is a valid answer to why anything exists, or at least as valid as existence always having been. The problem is that, if one wants to be rational, you cannot accept either answer yet. The truth is, we just have no idea about the nature of existance right now, and it's folly to accept the answer that makes the most sense to you right now, because we can't know how accurate that answer is.
We can speculate about how much we will know in the future, but intil we have more understanding about the cosmos, it's just not rational to believe either option. "I don't know, because there is simply not enough information" is the answer here. You can take a position if you are inclined, but as far as we know, every other answer is equally likely.
I do want to say, as a vehement antitheist who thinks religion is a poison to human development, I actually do feel that this video is a breath of fresh air. You seem genuinely interested in the topic, whereas many others in your field are very dishonest. I hope you see why "There's not enough information, so I won't take a strong stance on it yet" is the more rational answer.
Thanks for the post. I have many problems with religion as well - we'd probably agree, but I think there is room for a type of spirituality (I don't love that word but that's all we have for now) that can be both scientific and mystical (without overlapping). I don't think you could "prove" God's existence. Which is a problem, God would have to be outside the scientific paradigm in my estimation. For me the illogical of the whole situation almost hints at a God - at least on some days! lol The broader philosopchial point is that God, by his/its nature would have to be uncreated. Nature, by its nature, seems to me, must be created. Mind bendingly, even if we proved nature to be an unborn and undying "eternal" there must be some explanation for how something eternal arrived in the first place. I understand positing God seems like I'm doing the same thing, except that God, by definition, must be uncreated. And by saying by defintion, i mean the nature of God must be uncreated, or it is not God. God would have to be ground layer of that which is... and if we go deeper, we can start to reason about the qualities such a God might have. Of course, for some people it's a massive leap to suggest God, a move made by someone scared of death and dying and throwing their hands up at the mystery of it all. I don't think it's throwing my hands up, it's suggesting that it seems entirely impossible for sicence to answer why anything exists. I understand the atheist postiion (I used to be there). Now, I'm a person who believes, is nudged (not convicned) toward God based on philosophy (but in the end, mainly believe based on things other than reason, but that is another convo and one that DEFININTELY would not satisfy people who don't believe - understandable as well lol)
At 1:27 you say "It is illogical." when you don't understand the matter . . . so it is illogical to you. Explore and understand the physics of the matter and then get back to us.
I mean fundamentally there is still something here to study and we don't know where it came from - even a Kraussian nothingness. I've read Krauss, I get the argument and his candidates for what nothingness are... but if physics had answered the question, there would be no discussion to be had here.
@@dillonfreed So you understand that while you may be in a room where nothing but you, and air are . . . something may enter that room from some other room? That there may an orifice so small that you can not detect it, yet something at a very large pressure can enter and squash you like a bug in a microsecond?
"metaphysical ideas deserve respect" No, they do not. Here are some metaphysical ideas "2+2=5", "It's morally acceptable for a 40 year old man to marry an 8 year old girl," "genocide and slavery are good", "mushrooms belong on pizza", "three is a holy concept". I cannot respect that. Just being an opinion does not make it worthy of respect. The other problem I see is you seem to be using the Christian god interchangeably with "god is something that cannot be created" and the two are separate concepts. One does not mean the other. Besides, saying what is and isn't "serious" spirituality gets you on a quick flight to Scotland.
Strange and evil customs and ideas can be projected onto the metaphysical concept of God, which I make explicitly clear in a separate video. I'm not talking about that here, but rather the possiblity that a metaphysical entity, which we would call God, is a legitimate option to believe in - and it is legitimate, even if it isn't your cup of tea ;)
Indeed, once you believe such a entity is possible, people can then delude themselves into thinking they are commanded, Idk, to blow up a bus full of children or something. But in this video, I'm not even near to talking about the nature of God - but only the fact (I think this is a fact) that it is totally reasonable to believe in God as the source of the universe and that there are decent arguments for that proposition. Notice I didn't say convincing or proof. And I don't think for a moment, they are knockdown arguments - but they also aren't, in anyway debunked.
And yes, people will fight over anything. Metaphysical or not. There is no dearth of secular slaughter, as I'm sure you know. Serious spirituality, meaning a spirituality that considers science and recognizes God is not some man in the clouds, is what I mean.
I'm not a Christian, but there are aspects in the Bible (I am that I am, for isntnace) which would align with what I am speaking of here when I speak of God.
thanks for hte comment! :)
LOL The universe can't exist forever, , , BUT your god can?
If God exists, it would be "our God' ;) The idea is that God is that which is not created or dependent upon anything else for existence. Only God could have those qualities as by definition matter, energy, other dimensions, etc. etc. do not seem to have an explanation as to how they could be uncreated and just exist. Only a God could possibly have those qualities as God. That's my view... trust me, I understand that atheists see this as switching one unexplainable thing for another, but I simply don't see it that way (at least not entirely, though using reason to contemplate God is mostly futile in the final analsysis).
@@dillonfreed So basically all you are saying is your god is an idea you have, and nothing more. LOL What's worse is your idea has no foundations in a reality we can all agree on. ???? Does any kind of "holy scripture" accurately reflect YOUR GOD, or actions of it?
Maybe you need a dictionary?
I have a pretty large vocabulary lol, but did I misspeak?
The lack of interest in finding any evidence for the belief of a metaphysical being is what makes it so silly. There is no reason to suspect a metaphysical being.
I can easily trace any evidence you give me back to someone’s brain.
You seem to be very concerned about how your intellect is perceived. I have a loved one that has a much higher IQ than I and yet believes several of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories.
You seem to think good ideas come from high IQs. Well so do many of the worst.
Several people in a previous video said I should "study science" and have a low IQ -and that religious believers are "stupid" - thus in this video, I just pointed out exactly what you are pointing out - this is not really a question of IQ as smart people also believe in God and some low IQ people don't. (it does seem on average, atheists have higher IQs, but that's, well, on average...)
You can't find evidence of something metaphysical, can you? It's literally beyond physics, beyond nature- thus beyond science. Mystics throughout histroy have suggested the only "evidnece" is something like revlation, enlightment, etc. Atheists therefore (smartly) simply deny the possiblity of the metaphysical, and in so doing, think sicence will answer everything. I dont' deny the metaphysical and don't think science can. I don't think, generally speaking, more time will allow science to answer certain questions.
Thanks for the comment ;)
@@dillonfreedyou are sure welcome.
I wish your channel success.
LOL You don't know enough to even begin to assert what answers science might provide in the future. You are simply engaging in "wishful thinking."
I suppose it is possible that science, somehow, answers where the universe came from (not just the universe, but I mean anything at all in any world or any dimension). The point of my video is that you cannot simply just dismiss these arguments with a one-liner and lolz. lol. Though I do appreciate a sense of humor! But listen, I could also gently accuse you of wishful thinking that science will provide such an answer in the future. The question itself, if you consider what science is and does, seems to be absolutely (I use that term very consciously) beyond the realm of science.
@@dillonfreed I will say that science has a much better track record of supplying answers than the wishful thinking of religion. I see no reason not to believe that trend will continue!
@@slik00silk84 sure. But two things: 1) trends don't always maintain and 2) we have to wonder if science is even capable of answering the questions posed here. They seem to lack the tools - which is good news for philosophers lol (and spiritual folk)
@@dillonfreed Oh pshaw! The scientific trend has a much better trend record than the religious trend, which if anything is digressing, as we explore and learn more and more about the foundations of religion. Such that the trend of the religious is sinking towards the realization that religious is largely, if not entirely, based on "wishful thinking." Alas . . . if there was only some actual solid empirical evidence for religion?