In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the Strong Nuclear Force. 2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the Strong Nuclear Force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
@@MilliePlateau Heck yeah! We're all taught Newton and his way of thinking about the universe but all that changed about a year ago with the Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement and that the universe is "not locally real". NASA's mirror universe theory is a leading theory now and Leibniz is our leading theorist. So friggin cool 😎. Also, 0D Ether theory > 2D Gravity theory Also, also open-system ectropy > closed-system entropy (since everything 1D, 2D, 3D is created at the quantum and destroyed at the cosmological). The Monad has an event horizon at the quantum scale and black holes have an event horizon at the cosmological scale. The zero-of you has an event horizon that only your soul/quarks (0D mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts) can pass through. Nerdgasm haha. Two years ago if you said "if the 1D, 2D, 3D is removed from a person then what is left?" the answer was nothing. Now, nothing is the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the strongest force in the known universe i.e. the Strong Nuclear Force is 6000 trillion trillion trillion (36 zeroes after 6k) times stronger than the force of gravity (which is a failed theory and wasn't a force ever). So happy we built that Large Hadron Collider to get the strong force to let go of the quarks to measure them.
Just so you know the pic you used of the guy with the Dawkins book is actually satire. He’s actually an animator and works on the show smiling friends you should check it out.
I hold that a 'first cause' is superfluous. I hold existence exists, and that to assume there is a cause for existence is nothing but a convenient rationalization for a mountain of bolony.
@@lemongrab9001 Exactly. That makes existence primary and non-existence, 'nothing', as derivative, as a concept that only has meaning in relation to a something and denotes its absence. Implicit in this understanding is that time is in the universe, the universe is not in time.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Demonstrate that the universe is not impacted by time yet it contains it. Also, you see how that's circular, you have to justify and show how the universe is, not just state it's the opposite of nothing. How can you be sure that the universe exists as you describe it or that we exist in it, or that we have an accurate experience of it?
@@lemongrab9001 About the universe not being impacted by time and yet contains it; is that your thing or is that something you think I am saying? About circularity; in my view the way to end circularity is by establishing a premise. My premise is that existence exists and any first cause is superfluous and misdirecting.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 ok so that's your premise. Now justify your position please. Demonstrate that this is the case. Concepts such as Zero then are also seen as misdirected also? Which is a fundamental law of mathematics we use to understand the universe.
Another way of saying that space, and time are relative to the observer, is 'simulated'. If that's the case, then it proves God's existence because it takes conscious intent (the first cause), to simulate anything.
May I ask what you're thoughts our on Paul Tillich, who argues that seeing God as a first cause, neccesary being etc... Makes us view God as a being instead of Being itself?
Oh, more on materialism. Another devastating blow: there is exactly nothing concrete about materialism. Materialism actually reifies an abstraction, because in ordinary experience, we do not actually perceive atoms without quality. We perceive qualities like "big", "long", "red", "green", et cetera. If anything, idealism is actually more grounded, since it does say that the qualities we perceive in everyday life are not actually epiphenomenal illusions entirely constructed by the mind.
Ok what would you say is the relationship between brain activity and experience? If experience has a real-ness to it beyond the relations of neural networks, why does stimulating brain activity directly trigger experience?
@@gabri41200 You have never observed a pure physical process outside of mind and what you call sensations is but a feeling appearing in your mind/conciousness, a mind can easily imagine stuff just look at your dreams at night where you feel all kinds of sensations and still there is no pure physical object in your dream, only mind dreaming stuff up, matter can't create anything because it has no telos or purpose or mind even, but mind can imagine and dream etc and has purposes and telos, so if we go by the normal view of matter, it would be a bigger leap to jump from a mindless purposeless non living thing to produce dreams, imagination, feelings etc, then the other way around.
@@adamq8216 dreaming is just the neurons recreating and mixing previous neurological events. This is why dreams (my dreams at least) look very similar to AI art.
Why does it seem implausible that matter might produce mind but plausible that spirit (i.e., God or any non-physical entity) can create matter? Now, if matter can create mind, reason is nothing but complex interactions of matter. Further, does the naturalist need to presuppose causes. I suppose he does as a convenience, but strictly speaking, interactions need not be subsumed under cause and effect. Nor does contingency ever need to be mentioned, as everything is both "contingent" on everything else and "necessary" as the product of deterministic processes. I am not learned as you are on such matters, so please take any trivialities I might have typed as the result of my ignorance and not bad faith mocking. I am not a naturalist myself, but I'm not a theist either. I agree that assuming the regularity of the cosmos (in itself) and that we actually have grasped such regularities (in addition) as uncalled for. However, I find it equally as bizarre that those answers are apparently so readily found in a book. (Which, to tell the truth, I haven't read in its entirety, but has anyone read every book?) Now I understand, if one has a certain experience that aligns with what is written somewhere, that writing becomes more plausible, but myself, I fail to trust my own senses, so I doubt such an experience would have the same effect. And good day to you!
Because God is an omni-potent, mechanized map of all that exists and doesn't in relation to himself. His legend desires mystery only to decide itself how one should react, because obviously there are predictable causes and effects, but there's a reason we still use aphorisms like "complex system" to relate ideas which have no concurrent human systems of analysis. The alternative is deference to the painfully obvious meaning embedded in our human existence.
It’s not entirely accurate that God is only “spirit”. This is most evident in the incarnate Jesus. More than that, God created heaven and earth, not just earth. What you’re calling “spirit” is something God also created.
Something either has existence in itself or in an other. If everything would have an existence in an other, nothing would have existence in itself. But if this is the case nothing exists because nothing has existence. So there is something that has to have existence only in itself. Therfore something necessaraly pure existence without any limitation.
Additionally, while the attack on materialism is very good, there needs to be an equally vehement attack on nominalism, which this video does not do. Not enough people attack nominalism and it is unfortunate that a lot of religiously-minded people end up defaulting to crypto-nominalism as a way to justify their faith. Nominalism is linked to materialism and nominalism leads to the death of religion and of all culture. And yes, I have a burning hatred for nominalism, because many of the ills of the modern world can be traced to nominalism. Nominalism leads to materialism and nihilism because it basically denies that our minds can ever know the real what-ness of things. Matthew Raphael Johnson is right to call nominalism the ontology of death. Matthew Raphael Johnson is also right to say that some version of Platonic realism (I would argue that Orthodoxy is one of them) is the only real alternative to nominalism.
If god is infinitely complicated and infinitely vast, then explaining him is just as ontologically impossible as naturalism. Just because we can't figure out every detail of the natural world or identify the first cause through naturalism doesn't mean it is a better explanation than god. I may be a bit behind, as I haven't seen all your videos yet, but there are a lot of unfounded claims you make that leave plenty of holes in your reasoning. Aside from that, great video, very thought provoking and interesting. Christianity tells us god is the prime mover and source of existence. Science tells us physical laws and quantum uncertainty explain our existence. Buddhism tells us there is no essential core or explanation for our existence. All philosophy is valuable.
The Self-reflexivity argument is straight up not true. Particles are not just projectiles. atoms have desires (filling their valance shells) and exert force to achieve these desires (bonds/attraction). That sounds like a self-reflexive actor to me. We are a system of atoms -- A system of desires/actions down to our fundamental building blocks.
The problem with first cause argument is that you introduce an entity that requires no first cause to exist - a self-created or an eternal entity. But once you've introduced the possibility of anything self-creating or existing eternally, nothing precludes this material world from being eternal or creating itself ex nihilo. Do better. One avenue would be to argue that if there are finite entities that we can observe, of smaller and greater size, and by necessity there must be an infinite entity encompassing all entities and not bound by anything, i.e. the Universe, by analogy the cats' rudimentary consciousness and our greater consciousness require an infinite arena of Absolute Consciousness to exist, i.e. God. Another avenue would be to argue strict idealism (a very difficult position to argue coherently, but Hegel and other German Idealists made it possible), the Universe being created by our consciousness, or Geist. The infinite arena where this creation unfolds and the very capacity for such creation miraculously gifted to us - that would be conclusively God and God's works. So it's not God > World > People > TikTok dances, but all one and the same, unfolding in time in the theater of our consciousness.
@@XooxyBoo which bro do you mean? Him or me? Be that as it may, what you said is pretty much how Kojeve interprets Hegel and how Buddhism understands reality
I see what you could be getting at. But I am failing to understand it completely. For example, how could our consciousness create the universe? I am not well versed in philosophy (forgive me), but there seems to be no epistemic evidence that our consciousness creates the universe.
@@jacobandrus2705 this position is not shared among all philosophers, only the ones of the more idealistic or metaphysical (if not to say mystical) bent. It is also quite difficult to demonstrate rigorously (and to half-ass it would be to trash it completely). I'll try to do a drive-by version: You've probably learned by now from different popular science sources that we cannot talk about properties of a particle (position, momentum, etc), until a measurement is made. We can take this one step further: until we learn something about the world (that is, until our interaction produced a change in our consciousness and vice versa, our consciousness guided our interaction), we can't say anything about it. Not even if it's there, if this or that element of the world exist. Moreover, before we can interact with something we must carve it out of the undifferentiated whole. Before we can interact with this elephant, we need to agree on it being separate from the background, from the savannah. Who decides, where savannah ends and elephant begins? Where does this boundary lie other than in our consciousness? You can be the most hardcore materialist and yet there are no electrons, protons or quarks marked "elephant" vs. "savannah". So if you take these notions to an extreme you can kind of get at the extreme idealistic position. German Idealism FTW! (Still, that was the most haphazard, ramshackle explanation ever, sorry)
@@mentalitydesignvideo no worriest whatsoever! I appreciate the response and clarity. And you are saying that this corresponds to how Buddhists (or maybe even hinduists) may view reality? Where have you made this connection? I am curious If I am not mistaken, this sort of epistemology may not be too far from some Orthodox consensus. The elephant and the savannah are nevertheless mankinds naming of these animals, because mankind has named them as Adam did in Eden. The cosmos is given to man as a gift and he is to bless it and give it back to God There may be some shared belief, even if its small, among both sides? I am not sure. Forgive me if I am misguided, I am young and uninformed but am needing some more philosophical discussion
TEXT: God is the first cause. How do we know this about Him? Well it's clear that everything we encounter in the world seems to lack an explanation or reason for its existence. They don't self-referentially account for themselves, so there must be some ground for their existence. There's a few very popular arguments against naturalism. The first one concerns the immediate certainty of non-physical reality; i.e. the conscious experience of the world, which so self-evidently refutes naturalism that it's often ignored... The law of identity even in its most abstract form¹ proves the irreducibility of experience to natural processes. There is no reality IN the brain that IS experience², so experience is not neurons firing in the physical brain. Experience qua³ experience is not reducible to natural phenomena and has its own reality as the substance of our inner life as free and rational beings. Connected to the ontological failure of naturalism is its epistemic corollary most popularly argued by C.S. Lewis in "Miracles." The basic thrust of the argument against naturalism, known as the argument from reason, is that any argument is itself unnaturalistic; i.e. it consists of a self-reflexive reason, not merely a mindless and ultimately random process of particles interacting. Natural forces and particles possess no self-reflexivity and know nothing of reasons, subject only to spontaneous physical processes. Thus to argue for naturalism is self-refuting, as it consists of providing a reason for a worldview that negates the possibility of reasoning. There's a third limitation of naturalism that is only intelligible in light of the communal ontology. It begins not by doubting naturalism's ability to account for its presuppositions, but by analyzing the content of reality as disclosed in the immediacy of sensory experience. We know intuitively that reality follows a set of patterns, the most fundamental being cause and effect as the basis for all intelligibility and our capacity as beings to exist in a familiar, safe, and ordered world. Analyzing causes and effects reveals a vast tapestry of relations in their splendor, all of which ultimately point to God as the self-actualized and living ground of creation. Every object and event finds itself within an interconnected network of objects and events through space and time. No thing is ever self-isolated as everything receives its being through communion with another who has in turn received their being through communion causes and effects are equal to reason⁴ and reality, respectively. A cause is the reason for the existence of the effect. For example, biting one's lip is the cause or reason for one's mild annoyance. However upon reflection it becomes clear that annoyance is not accounted for solely by the cause but already existed in potential in the teeth, in the nervous system, in the brain and the entirety of the body. Thus⁵ we revise our understanding of cause and effect as a particular Force (cause) exerting itself upon an object with pre-existing properties leading to a change within the object (effect). We then hastily conclude that annoyance is merely the result of properties of the human being in communication with the particular Force. For practical purposes we must accept that in a manner not purely arbitrary that certain causes lead to certain effects consistently, which requires a reduction of the complexities of the infinite web of relations within a given Here And Now. The temptation is to universalize this pragmatic reduction into metaphysical accounts of reality, thereby obscuring the inner relation of all parts of reality with one another. If we do this we fail to see the essentially communal nature of all reality and fall into abstractions that isolate entities into atoms, moments, and data points. The reduction into Here And Now allows for a specific cause and a specific effect to be isolated or abstracted and brought present to hand. In the grander scheme of things this abstraction hasn't answered the fundamental question that's the basis of cause and effect in general: What is the reason or explanation for, or of, reality? In reducing annoyance to being merely the product of one particular force or cause acting upon one particular set of properties is to metaphysically speaking pass the burden if reality's ground onto the causes of both. We're left with an unending series of events a bad infinity and we're on the run attempting to find a first cause to ground and explain the totality of relations that are utterly contingent upon one another since no cause or effect possesses an account of themselves in themselves. They're necessarily dependent upon what lies beyond them but within a purely naturalistic framework. Any attempt to pierce into the Beyond only leads to a vain repetition of contingent natural phenomena. At no point can the naturalist discover the first relation of first Giver that is ontogically necessitated by the contingency of all entities upon each other. If everything is contingent upon another for their being there must be a source or ground of every contingent being that self-actualized and not contingent upon the world. The self-actualized first Giver is God. And I don't want to disciunt the usefulness and necessity of Natural Science. But my argument is that naturalism necessarily ends in an illogical and impossible infinite regression. The naturalist's description of reality is in truth ontologically impossible. The only possible solution other than creationism is monism, which we'll discuss in another post. Saint Sophrony of Essex writes in "We Shall See Him As He Is" (quote) "It has been granted to me to contemplate different kinds of light and lights. The light the artist knows when elated by the beauty of the visible world. The light of philosophical contemplation that develops into a mystical experience. Let us even include the light of scientific knowledge, which is always and inevitably of very relative value. I've been tempted by manifestations of light from hostile spirits." (unquote) The light of scientific knowledge consists of the revelation of the eternal 'logoi' of creatures i.e. the inner rationality of the created world. However, St. Sophrony is quick to note that these are relative lights in the precise sense that they only have meaning or significance in relation to the Eternal Light of the Triune God. Aside from true love, any human activity is idolatrous when taken as its own self-defining end. The contemplation of the beauty and splendor of God's creation is nothing idolatrous in itself; still, when abstracted from its proper place in the hierarchy of human activities it becimes a stumbling block to the vision of the light of the personal God. But suppose scientific knowledge is understood as inherently relative to the knowledge of God as the I AM. In that case it becomes a means of demonstrating both the existence, and perhaps more importantly the character of the God Who created us rather than obscuring the nost primordial and essential truth of our being. ¹A = A (A =/= B) ²Experience =/= brain activity ³ qua conjunction FORMAL in the capacity of; as being. "(he's hard to pin down if you get him on entertainment qua entertainment" [Ox. Lang.] ⁴ Cause = reason Effect = reality ⁵ Cause = particular force Object = entity with pre-existing properties affected by the cause
@@JudgeGideon823 I wasn't impressed. I've heard all these arguments many times before, and he seems to be pandering to people who already find them convincing rather than providing insights for people who don't. A lot of unexplained assumptions.
@@elik4325well I hear plenty of unexplained assumptions from naturalists, very naive to think humans know everything when we can’t even see a full range of colors or perceive non linear time. Best they come up with is random weird arguments like multiverses
@@ФилософияотБэнни Sure, here are some things he didn't explain: 1) Why there is "no reality in the brain that is experience" or why the law of identity proves the irreducibility of experience to natural processes. We observe that physically altering a person's brain correspondingly alters the conscious experience of that person, including incapacitating their rational faculties while maintaining other aspects such as sight or touch. This to me shows that natural processes constitute conscious experience. 2) Why reason requires "Self-Reflexivity" to be valid. I don't see why the context from which the act of reasoning emerges refutes it's validity. Reasoning is reasoning no matter why it's happening. 3) Why the self-actualized first giver is "God" as opposed to anything else.
Consciousness is a bit of an odd duck in philosophy. There's very little you can do to accurately describe it as separate from the brain, as all aspects of consciousness can be described with brain functions. If consciousness is our awareness, then destroying our thoughts destroys consciousness. If consciousness is our sensations, then destroying our senses destroys consciousness. If memories are our consciousness, then destroying those destroys consciousness. What you're left with when you're done removing brain functions from the concept of consciousness is an inert kernel of being that can do nothing within physical reality. It cannot observe, think, feel, store memory, or even be aware of itself. If you could somehow switch these pure, reduced consciousnesses between two minds, you would not be able to tell that a switch was made, even if your own consciousness was involved in the switch. The non physical consciousness describes nothing, does nothing, and experiences nothing. The existence of this concept of consciousness, which is apparently void of all physicality or interaction does nothing to disprove naturalism. Although, whether or not non-physical things like ideas exist is in itself an interesting concept to think about, as we can preform the same reductions to ideas by removing the mediums in which they exist (mentally, audibly, visually, digitally etcetera). It seems too that ideas only exist when linked to physical patterns and shared between each other, just as consciousness. I for one do not see consciousness as what is left when you remove brain functions from the mental experience, rather I think all these things are inherently aspects and pieces of each of our individual consciousnesses. It is unfortunate that the consciousnesses of us all reside almost entirely within our own mind (and partially within auxiliary tools we have invented, glasses, notebooks), but this appears to be the reality which we live in. Our brains are computers made of meat made of atoms that generate our personal experiences. I believe that beyond physical, natural reality, there also exists the non-physical mental realm. Though an idea from the mental realm cannot cause things within the physical realm to happen on their own, unless physical objects facilitate firstly the existence of ideas and secondly act for them. I think the fallacy that mental constructs such as the mind or ideas necessitate the existence of a god stems from the misconception that humans and their thoughts are separate from nature in some way. Our brains are evolved from physical natural reality and generate natural non-physical ideas. Using these ideas to prove naturalism is entirely logical when you consider that the only things that can generate these ideas are physical.
I would say that correlation does not always equate to causation, especially as its applied to the problem of mind and matter, which is part of a classic philosophical problem related to the issue of the one and the many, which can be applied to this argument as well. When you assume the mind, its contents and abstract objects in general exist WITHIN physical processes ONLY, then not only does this necessarily assume that these abstract categories are themselves physical (if we are being logically consistent) ,but more specifically, it assumes that there really is no such thing as abstractions of any kind at all, as physical process can only give birth to physical processes in the same way that dogs can give birth to other dogs and not cats, because of the huge ontological difference and function between the two. The problem with this type of materialist worldview is that it is self negating, as we rely on these very abstractions to be able to even hold a worldview at all. The self, time/space, meaning, universal law (like the laws of logic), freewill are just a few examples of these very abstract categories, which resemble nothing like material things whatsoever, nor do they function like them. These categories are nonempirical, and yet without them, empiricism is not possible, thus, they must exist because of the literal impossibility of the contrary. To argue against abstract categories is to utilize them simultaneously. Even matter itself relies on abstract categories. So even though the 2 are linked together, they really are ontologically distinct/different from one another as well and play different roles. Distinction does not entail division/separation , and this is exactly applied to god himself too. So the transcendental argument for god does not hinge on the idea that mind is separate from matter and/or nature in any way, thats a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The argument entails that only a divine mind has explanatory power and justificatory force for why we have minds/personhood, logic and abstract ideas etc, at all. Some impersonal force of nature being posited as the source of persons/ living beings is logically inconsistent because the impersonal can never really know anything, it cannot intend or think creatively about anything, it has no life within itself, no ability to relate, to think, act freely using freewill etc. Personhood transcends the impersonal for these very reasons just described.
@@myfavoritesongs12345 Abstract concepts can certainly exist within physical confines only. A great example of this phenomenon is the chair thought experiment, where you are asked to take away atoms from an object that is obviously a chair and to find the point where it stops being a chair. This point is hard to find or even define, as chairs are an abstract concept, even though they, like the mind are entirely physical. "Abstractions" are little more then simplified labels for complex phenomena. Waves (of water) are collections of water, salt, biotic, and other such material flowing in patters of alternating amplitude. A videogame is a program on a computer, made of transistors and electrical signals that displays an interactive environment. The mind is the process of a brain, consisting of the senses and several complex internal processes. Just because it would be too exhasting to explain each minute physical detail does not mean the abstractions do not exist, rather abstractions are emergent structures made by and through physical systems. Additionally, a lack of understanding does not necessitate the existence of a divine/non-physical component. That is a god of the gaps fallacy. Unfortunately, we humans did not evolve to understand things at the base atomic/quantum levels. Our world is to complex for that, and the very survival of all animals depends on the ability to process complicated physical signals into mentally digestible abstractions .
@@maxwellsimon4538 Theres a fundamental flaw with your argument, and that is the assumption that abstracts, like the mind are entirely physical, which is an oxymoron. abstractions by their very definition are nonphysical, they wouldnt be abstractions if they were physical. Secondly, abstract objects are nothing like physical objects in their mode of being, and to better illustrate this point, ill use the mind as an example, as abstractions are ultimately contained in a mind anyway. The minds mode of being is completely different from a material object. A dog is a dog, and a cat is a cat, one does not come from the other because they exist within different family trees, same applied to mind and matter. The mind has to capacity to have meaningful experiences, personal relationships, seek truth, use logic based on the laws of logic, hold a worldview, be ethical, conscious decision making (freewill) etc. The material world does not posses such qualities and is continuously stuck in a monotonous existence that is absolutely unlike the characteristics of a mind whatsoever. Again two different "family trees". In fact, such qualities of mind are not subject to any form of empiricism, you will never find the laws of logic under a microscope, because these categories are nonempirical by nature. At the same time, these qualities serve as preconditions for the possibility of knowledge and experience. Even the material world itself relys on abstract categories to justify its own existence, because matter would not make any sense otherwise. Empirical investigations are not possible without the existence of these preconditions as well, so they exist because its impossible for them not to, otherwise we cant even think logically. To consistently posit that impersonal forces gives rise to personal life, is to undermine personal life and reduce it back into the impersonal. It renders ones own worldview nonsensical and self defeating.
@@maxwellsimon4538 I dont recall saying a lack of understanding necessitate the existence of divine mind, quite the opposite is actually what i mean to say if i havent clarified already. Understanding doesnt make sense in a paradigm full of dead matter that does not even know what that means.
@@myfavoritesongs12345 Apologies for misinterpreting your argument. However, I still don't think you understand where abstract objects come from, or what exactly I mean by abstract objects. Almost all things in some way are technically abstract, as they are compounds of simpler things. For the sake of argument, lets say that the simplest pieces of physical matter are quarks and electrons and whatever. In that scenario, even atoms are abstract object, composed of simple objects, yet still entirely physical. We have just placed another definition upon the collection as it is convenient for further categorization. The same goes for the mind, since it can only exist and only be facilitated through physical matter, it too can be considered part of the physical world. To try and separate the mind and brain as not both being derived from matter is like forgetting that dogs and cats are both mammals. Also the very idea that there even exists a "personal life" beyond the "impersonal forces" is to ignore the fundamental truth of reality and give in to the illusion of separation. There is no nonsense if you work to truly understand that all is one.
Define a "cause". I still don't understand what that means. I get what it means for something to cause something but what is a "first cause"? Everything in the world does have a reason for its existence, even reality and existence itself does become it is by definition, existence itself and is all that exists. "There is no reality in the brain that is experience." We don't know that, we know to little about consciousness. How does cause and effect lead to god? I agree there must be the higher thing for which the reason everything exists if that is wgat you are saying but god himself would also need a reason right?
This becomes a very loose definition of God though, that which naturalism cannot explain. It still depends upon the ideas of naturalism, the 'dark energy' of naturalism. If anybody denied 'God' in this sense they would surely be foolish and short sighted. But how can we go from this idea of God to religious dogma and doctrine without going further than this knowledge of God allows? Why does this signify a loving God rather than infinite simulations?
I’m not an expert so I might not be able to answer other questions but I’m pretty sure the answer to this is that, the reason that it becomes the Christian God and not others is because through Christianity epistemology, it becomes the most linear and logically plausible stance under these logical circumstances. For example: many other religions including monotheistic ones such as Islam, detach the understanding or knowledge that we have if the Universe with the mind of God, and if God made the Universe through Himself, how can we understand the Universe if there is not the relation between man and God as there is in the Christian dogma.(man was made in the image if God) spiritually/logically. Also the fact of infinite Universes doesn’t negate anything of there being a God or not. The point of the beginning of those still stands. It isn’t against our dogma to theorize infinite Universes either but again we can’t prove it definitively either.
@@B4RT0Lomei I'm no expert either so no worries! I understand your point, but I guess my point is there seems to be a transition from cold, hard deductive logic of proving ontological impossibility, to a more intentional and idealistic logic of these ideas best fit the facts (basically it feels better). I am not coming from an atheist position, and perhaps this video is more aimed at getting people who have convinced themselves the is the only logical consistent position to think again. But I do find it troubling that that people would use this argument to then try and prove their dogmatic image of God and reality. I think understanding religion symbolically and ritualistic gets around these issues of dogmatism, but I still think it is wrong for people to claim that their religion emerges out of these ontological claims in a logically consistent way, there is at least a switch from deductive to inductive logic that I think is not as clean as they would like to imagine
@@mayonnaisenin2198 well the guy who posts this is Orthodox so of course the deist positions he holds is Christian, but I see your point as well. I think that perhaps this video is aimed not so much about being why Orthodoxy is right but why theism is.
The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Sure, naturalism is incoherent, but that doesn't imply conventional theism. All it implies is that there must be something like a "first cause", "first mover" or "ground of all being". What does that really mean though? You can interpret it as implying conventional theism if you want, but you can just as well interpret it as implying Azathoth (that is, an utterly non-moral, utterly unknowable and utterly alien, impersonal first cause/first mover/ground of all being. However, if something like Azathoth is the first cause of everything natural, then that's just the pragmatist account of naturalistic atheism. Ultimately, there is no reason to think conventional theism is any more likely than the first mover being Azathoth. Actually, the closer you look at what theism claims (for example in the Book of Job, when God is portrayed as "speaking from the whirlwind" and as punishing Job for no reason whatsoever (no reason at all, hidden or unhidden), or due to a cynical and bored "bet" with an angel, the harder it is to even distinguish the God of theism from Azathoth. There is, however, a lot of reason to question the veracity of any revelation. The synoptic gospels clearly borrow from common sources and frequently borrow passages from one another, while Acts is believed by most scholars to have been written by the author of Luke, and the author of the book of John is clearly aware of the existence of the synoptic gospels. That means there is no independent attestation of the gospels. Paul speaks of "scriptures", but he is believed by scholars to have written his epistles before the gospels were written, and the "Master" he describes bears very little resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels, and seems to have different priorities. For example, Paul likes talking about how bad sex is obsessively, but in the Gospels Jesus seems uninterested in the morality of sex (for example in the scene where a woman who has committed adultery is brought before him and he says that's wrong, but also seems not to care much, and just tells the woman not to do it again and go on her way. Jesus spends almost all of the gospel narratives talking about very different issues, unlike the God of Paul, who Paul portrays as seeing sexual morality as a central concern. As Paul says himself, he never actually met Jesus either and never saw anything except in a private vision while walking to Damascus. There are plenty of other incoherencies in the books considered part of the New Testament as well, both internally and with the books considered part of the Old Testament, which Judaism has correctly never viewed as compatible with the New Testament for a wide variety of reasons. Within the Tanakh or the Old Testament, there are plenty of other inconsistencies as well, both between different texts and between texts and the archaeological record. Archaeology in Jerusalem shows the city as far less old than it is claimed to be, while most scholars agree that Judaism emerged out of Caananite polytheism, rather than being the religion of another group of people who invaded (there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever of any invasion, as portrayed in the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, etc., and all of the evidence which has been found points to the clear absence of any such invasion). There are, incidentally, many similar problems with the historicity of accounts portrayed in the Quran. Similar problems also occur with many historical claims made in Hinduism and Buddhism. The upshot is that the ontological proof of "God" isn't so much wrong as empty, because the "God" or "first cause" it proves necessarily has to be entirely emptied of any and all conventionally theistic attributes (e.g., revelation, miracles, attributes of love, justice, goodness, mercy, etc.) in order to be provable. The ontological proof of "God" is therefore a giant bait and switch. It pretends to prove theism, but when you actually look at it closely, what it actually proves is equally compatible with naturalistic atheism or with theism. What theists actually want to prove with the ontological argument is no closer to having been proved even when you accept every step in the ontological argument. All that theists really manage to prove with the ontological argument is that theists don't understand what naturalistic atheism actually claims. All naturalistic atheism claims is that everything that exists and everything that happens in nature is natural, and that there is no evidence that whatever produced nature is anything but impersonal and non-moral. You can try arguing against that claim, but not with the ontological argument. Even if you do, you'll have a lot more trouble proving that wrong. Very likely, you'll have to rely on debunkable miracle claims in order to try to argue with that, and good luck trying to experimentally verify the existence of a miracle. Even if you could find clear evidence of a miracle (as occurs in the Netflix show Hellbound, for example), it would be anybody's guess whether whatever produced the miracle was moral or non-moral, or even personal or non-personal. Even in the highly dubious event that an alleged miracle were actually verifiable and appeared to have a moral and personal cause in some fashion, we would still be stuck trying to find some evidence that the cause of such a bizarre and exotic event was any more moral or personal than Chat-GPT is when it appears superficially to display qualities like politeness or concern for your well-being, or causes the words "have a nice day!" to appear on your screen along with a smiley emoji. Who knows what that means? Even the creators of Chat-GPT don't know exactly why its doing that, and they can see its source code. The alleged impersonal or personal origin of any miracle, even if there were proof of it, would be far, far less clear than what we can say about Chat-GPT.
@@mathfrom0to96 Deism is belief in a personal and usually moral God who just doesn't intervene in the universe after creating it. Usually, deism also claims that this God gave humans reason, that reason is able to prove deism, and that God gave humans reason so they could prove the existence of a deistic God. Naturalistic atheism doesn't claim any of those claims of deism. What naturalistic atheism claims is that reason gives us no good argument that there is any personal and moral God, whether theistic or deistic. Something beyond nature must have presumably created nature, but we have no evidence that whatever presumably gave rise to nature is anything but impersonal and non-moral. If something beyond nature gave rise to nature, but that utterly alien, indescribably bizarre cause of nature was impersonal and non-moral, then that would be as incompatible with deism as it would be incompatible with theism. We have no reason to think that isn't the case. Given that, claims about a personal God, including the Deistic claims, are pretty clearly just abstractions projecting our own image onto the unknowably vast, inhuman universe and whatever may have given rise to it. Shouldn't we feel embarrassed when contemplating that theism generally involves claiming that an unknowable and alien, omniscient being is obsessed with bizarre minutia such as whether or not a particular group of clever primates eats oysters or fish (Judaism), the proper way for you to cut your toenails and how often (Islam), or when and where it is important to ban women from speaking (Corinthians 14:34-35)? All of those concerns sound like what they are: human, all too human. At least the deists have a sense of embarrassment and choose to at least make far-fetched claims in hopes of elevating some genuinely amazing and beautiful phenomena like human life and human reason. Theism generally has more gall in what it chooses to elevate.
Even your framing of naturalistic atheism runs into problems. If nature is entirely impersonal and non-moral, where does subjectivity come from? Where does something as personal as consciousness come from? In fact where does mind come from? Reality must ultimately be personal. For one, this explains where our consciousness comes from. For another, since reality is essentially the Universal Mind, you don't also have to explain how does the subjective arise from the objective - to try to explain this is impossible. A subject is also an object but an object is not necessarily a subject.
This video makes so many unsupported assumptions it’s hard to know where to start. For example on consciousness you have no argument against positions like identity theory, functionalism, hylomorphic physicalism… you just begged the question against naturalism by assuming a priori that mental states can’t be natural states. You don’t even define what sense of “natural” you mean. Virtually every single argument suffers from completely ignoring the alternative positions. I suggest you actually read some philosophers on this topic.
Functionalism and physicalism doesn't explain consciousness. Consciousness is irreducible. Everything we do assumes consciousness, so it is entirely absurd to suggest that consciousness can somehow be reducible to something else. I don't regard Daniel Dennett as a serious philosopher of mind. Anyone who tries to explain away consciousness and free will instead of actually attempting to seriously explain these things has denied himself the right to be called as such. I could also ask you to do the same by telling you to read David Chalmers.
How could something create time? It would have to exist before time. The concept before requires time by definition (even exist I feel requirea time to make any sense). I feel like no matter how hard you try to think about this you run into an intractable contradiction. Could you shed some light on this?
This conflates naturalism with materialism. Our immaterial consciousness is perfectly natural. As for god being the first cause, that’s baseless, special pleading, and an argument from ignorance. This argument has been demonstrated to be the silly thing it is for a long time and you just completely ignored the multitude of criticisms numerous people have made it against it over the years. You say you don’t know how the universe could’ve always existed therefore something else always existed… this magical answer you just made up which doesn’t have to follow the rules you already set for all things… just because you want it to… based on nothing at all. That’s obviously not logical at all lol and I’m confident that that would be clear to you that was the case if you weren’t already committed to your conclusion before looking for arguments for it
@@johncharleson8733 I’ve never heard of an argument against this millennia old argument for god that did involve the multiverse. But anyway, there have been arguments made against these for millennia since they were first made, including many made by religious people themselves. It is not hard to google and find many arguments of all kinds against every argument for god. They may even be among the most common of all philosophical arguments. I found it very odd that this ages old argument for god was made and not a single of the many criticisms made against it was mentioned, as if none have been ever made. If you’re sincerely interested in discovering the truth about the value of arguments for and against god, look them up.
Nevertheless, the causal approache to God is fruitless, because it portraits a unknowable dead god, that is somewhere there behind the chain of causes & ffects. Moreover, as you said: the natural approache of the stonehearted leaves him but a perception of infinite causality, leading him to monism. On the other hand, even by reaching the conclusion that there is a God, because there are created effects, we are no different than the gentils, who as well know that God is not like anything of the created, says st Gregorios o Palamas. Thus, the Transcendental argument rests the best noetic approache to explain the living God, in who's likness are the laws of the cosmos created. In the end, all reasonable predications of the Transcending all reason hyper essential God are in the bese case a candil, compaired to the sun of the personal communion. Those who know not God are fallen away from reason and their reason is foolish. They have eyes & will not see.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (GOD) Dear brother, Suppose, I took your photo. Now, time starts to your photo (1seccond, 2 sec... etc). So, before the time started to your photo (before the 1st second), it wasn't there. Today, we know that, everything changes with time (earth, sun, stars...). So, everything comes under time. Time has 2 attributes. Beginning and ending. So, everything had a beginning. Since they began, they change with respect to time. So, before they began (before the 1st second), Scientifically they don't exist. So, there must me NOTHING before they began. Nothing to everything is creating. As you said, all the combined intelligence of human cannot create a grain of sand from nothing. So, the INTELLIGENT CREATIVE FORCE is THE CREATOR. GOD Created everything from nothing. Love from India...
How do you know time has a beginning or an end? Things within time have these attributes, but time itself does not necessarily need to. Time is simply the flow of one moment to another, a boundless dimension that can only move in one direction.
Kinda awkward that you're using "Naturalism" as equivalent to "Materialism" tbh. Naturalism is the study of nature. It's the polar counterpart of metaphysics. The two are co-dependent.
@@barnaclejones822 I honestly can't think of anyone else who uses the word "naturalism" to mean "materialism". Naturalism is the study of nature. If he thinks there is a conflict between naturalism and theism then he must be one of those "reality is a simulation" people or something.
@@Formscapes literally the first results for "naturalism" on google are philosophy btw it was actually harder for me to find mentions of the word that aren't related to philosophy
How does the argument from contingency not give you an absolutely simple God. To be composed (have parts like “energies”) would imply a “part giver.” Anything put together requires a trancendant constructor who is himself not constructed. Contingency is one reason energies are hard to get behind. How do the orthodox understand the energies in light of the argument from contingency.
If you're proving the Christian God then these arguments don't prove that God to be the God. If this argument is just proving that God exists then well done!
the video is titled "The Ontological Impossibility of Naturalism" his point is merely that naturalism is false, he's not trying to assert that Christianity is true. if you're looking for that, he has many other videos regarding Christian theology, more specifically Orthodox.
God is a term for 'that which we do not understand.' We used to say God or the Devil was the cause, then we discovered the reasons for things. God is only a term for 'that which we do not understand.' Seems to me God is the reason for less and less all the time.
It seems like you need this to be untrue. That's because, no matter what, everybody assumes their prepositions to be true. This goes for atheists or theists and everybody else.
Again, confusion between epistemology and ontology. The subject/object distinction is not a material/imaterial distinction. It's like a man who's been tied to a chair all his life and concludes that the universe is a circle with him at the center, but in truth the point of space he occupies is no more a center than any other, it's simply his point. Proof of this is that, if we can't describe our own experience in material terms, we can't describe that of others either (which is a priori as material or immaterial, depending on the presupposition, as ours - so it's not a matter of substance). The second argument is a petition of principle: there is no reflexivity/reason in matter, so there is not just matter. But a materialist would obviously not admit that there is no reason in matter. The third argument got me: I was baited by fancy words ("communal ontology") only to end up with a hackneyed tale of infinite regress of causes. We're not quite sure what form his argument actually takes, though. He seems to combine a story of efficient causes with a principle of sufficient reason, but in any case his argument falls flat on its face: that all the elements of the universe are causally connected (that's what he means by "communion" - a very oriented term, by the way) is completely independent of any story of efficient cause or necessity. Finally, he concludes: science isn't bad as long as scientists admit that God exists. Ok bro.
This is an appeal to Ignorance. This reasoning is no more sophisticated than Kent Hovind with a thesaurus. “because I cannot conceive how existing material interactions can account for a conscious experience therefore my conscious experience must derive from some ineffable, impossible to observe yet rhetorically convenient thing.” “I don’t know, therefore X” -an argument from ignorance. The naturalist simply says “We don’t know, but we’re working each day towards a better explanation and in the interest of parsimony, presume the phenomena can be accounted for using demonstrably existent features, until previously unknown interactions and forces are discovered in the process of our investigation” “We don’t know. Therefore we don’t know.” Which is true by tautology.
It seems to me you used god of the gaps, if science doesn't understand something (such as our beginning) than it must be gods doing. Egyptians used gods to explain the sun and universe around them, and so did so many other cultures. Than science proved them wrong, also real science never alleges ifinite cause and affect. They just simply do not know the beginning, that does not mean god is responsible though. Believe what you want, but if you want to prove your case, show real concrete, provable evidence. Edit: I do feel I was a bit rude to you guys so I apologize. However, all of you fell to philosophical arguments to “prove” god. That’s not how it works. That’s not how you prove something. Such a massive claim like a god has to have a lot of evidence to back it up. Something like a black hole existing is a massive claim, however we have sufficient evidence to back it up. The universe can do a great many things by itself no god included, things nobody understands. Who’s to say it can’t create itself?
This is a common modern interpretation but this is not really how they believed in other gods. Aside from that, not really sure how he used "gods of the gaps". In regards to our beginning You either posit "God", as in, the first cause/unmoved mover or fall into infinite regress.
@@drooskie9525 I literally explained it to you. We all know there must have been a beginning at some point however that does not imply god did it. That’s what god of the gaps is and it’s what he used.
@@pennygirl015 By necessity, it has to be. There's nothing fallacious about it. There has to be something outside of the "system". If the Big Bang was caused by something mechanistic, there would still have to be something beyond that... unless you want to propose the universe is eternal I guess?
@drooskie9525 No, that's not what I'm saying. Yes, we don't understand what caused the big bang, but too posit that it has to be god is copium. There is just about as much evidence for that as if I said Barney made the universe. You're strawmanning scientists here they never once said everything's infinite. If science does not understand something, it does not mean an all-powerful entity needs to exist.
@@telosbound I mean its just a sad attempt at rhetoric at this point. It's like the only thing these people know is rhetoric. Or all they know are mediocre arguments. To assume that only naturalism follows science is dishonest. There already are versions of idealism that are, if anything, more scientific than naturalism. In fact idealism is more scientific since it does not assume that anything that exists must be spatially bound. Already I can think of Bernardo Kastrup's analytic idealism. Or Chris Langan's CTMU. Or Whitehead's pan-experientialism.
@@telosbound Also btw: recently I'm convinced that the cosmological argument is invalid and the price that one will have to pay if he uses it is too high. The cosmological argument kind of implicitly assumes a mechanistic universe. Christopher Langan put forth what I think is a superior argument for God that does not require one to assume a mechanistic universe. It is as follows: - There can be nothing outside reality. Reality (we have not said what this is, so don't assume anything first) must contain everything that is real. So any cause of change that is real enough to affect reality would be within reality. - Any definition of reality must be within reality. Therefore, reality must define itself. - The mind and reality have an intricate kinship. What is real must be what is intelligible (the core of Platonic metaphysics). If reality were not intelligible, you and I could not be talking about it in the first place, since reality would just become unintelligible noise. However, if the mind and reality have a close kinship, then reality must also be mind-like. - So reality must define itself and is mind-like. This suggests that reality is self-conscious. Additionally, this shows that everything that exists are simply thoughts of Nous. So this has proven a "being" that is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
@@telosbound Should also note that Christopher Langan may call this "pantheism", but it is not really the same as how we understand the term. For one, he calls it "holopantheism". Secondly, the mere sum of creatures do not constitute intelligible reality (God in the sense of the Platonic Nous for Langan). Intelligible reality is greater than all of the parts that He contains ("He" is appropriate because this is the Universal Consciousness). The Universal Consciousness has structure and relations that link these parts and the parts cannot be abstracted away from the structure and vice versa. This is much more akin to panentheism than pantheism.
You walk I to this video with a presupposition that there is a creator and fail to understand basic laws of nature. This argument is so "interesting" that it can work for all religions. From Abrahamic to Hindu or even Greek and Roman if we're generous. You claim naturalism fails. Where and how exactly? You omit what those "naturalists" claim, only giving a brief mention without explaination. Dear reader - I point to people like Aaron Ra for you to check out for yourself. Or if you want more academic style - Genetically Modified Sceptic, and Cosmic Sceptic.
@@fromthesouthofafrica6815 i'm more of a historian and ui's insulting to suppose that I need to defend questions, rather than the person who states claims without justification. As to Aaron Ra - what is wrong with him? He's a well educated man mostly in areas of evolution and anthropology. If you want more philosophical stuff - those 2 guys i recommended later are great in this case.
Well it ought to work for all religions considering that this argument is for theism and not Orthodoxy in specific, you don't talk to a hardcore naturalist in terms of ones own specific belief system when there's no grounding between your viewpoints, instead an argument of substance upon the nature of reality to explain the basis for theism is necessary. Anything else would just be wasted. Out of curiosity, how exactly would someone with your viewpoint account for the inherent subjectivity of consciousness?
he isn't trying to "prove" Orthodox Christianity, only trying to disprove naturalism, hence the title of the video being "The Ontological Impossibility of Naturalism." his point is that naturalism is ontologically impossible and is self-refuting. he has other videos about Christian theology specifically, this is still theology, but the purpose of the video is not to assert that Orthodoxy is the truth- only that naturalism isn't.
Looking forward to this
Everything is polycausal and contingent until we approach the One Cause.
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the Strong Nuclear Force.
2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the Strong Nuclear Force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.
Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others.
This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".
Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered:
(1) entelechies or created monads (§48),
(2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and
(3) spirits or rational souls (§82).
Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of
(1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable.
The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).
In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."
The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.
(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.
This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe,
0D is the center of the mirror universe]:
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
Leibniz or Newton:
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe.
In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective.
On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view.
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective.
Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
@@ready1fire1aim1 Excellent! Thank you so much for sharing! You have made me into a Leibniz reader, I promise.
@@MilliePlateau
Heck yeah! We're all taught Newton and his way of thinking about the universe but all that changed about a year ago with the Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement and that the universe is "not locally real".
NASA's mirror universe theory is a leading theory now and Leibniz is our leading theorist. So friggin cool 😎.
Also, 0D Ether theory > 2D Gravity theory
Also, also open-system ectropy > closed-system entropy (since everything 1D, 2D, 3D is created at the quantum and destroyed at the cosmological).
The Monad has an event horizon at the quantum scale and black holes have an event horizon at the cosmological scale.
The zero-of you has an event horizon that only your soul/quarks (0D mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts) can pass through. Nerdgasm haha.
Two years ago if you said "if the 1D, 2D, 3D is removed from a person then what is left?" the answer was nothing. Now, nothing is the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the strongest force in the known universe i.e. the Strong Nuclear Force is 6000 trillion trillion trillion (36 zeroes after 6k) times stronger than the force of gravity (which is a failed theory and wasn't a force ever).
So happy we built that Large Hadron Collider to get the strong force to let go of the quarks to measure them.
I always enjoy your posts and this one is no exception. Thanks.
Just so you know the pic you used of the guy with the Dawkins book is actually satire. He’s actually an animator and works on the show smiling friends you should check it out.
Argument from contingency is probably strongest argument for a first cause.
I can't wait for that monism video. Good job on this one sir ☦️
Nice video telosbound
I hold that a 'first cause' is superfluous. I hold existence exists, and that to assume there is a cause for existence is nothing but a convenient rationalization for a mountain of bolony.
So existence just is. Okay
@@lemongrab9001 Exactly. That makes existence primary and non-existence, 'nothing', as derivative, as a concept that only has meaning in relation to a something and denotes its absence. Implicit in this understanding is that time is in the universe, the universe is not in time.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Demonstrate that the universe is not impacted by time yet it contains it.
Also, you see how that's circular, you have to justify and show how the universe is, not just state it's the opposite of nothing. How can you be sure that the universe exists as you describe it or that we exist in it, or that we have an accurate experience of it?
@@lemongrab9001 About the universe not being impacted by time and yet contains it; is that your thing or is that something you think I am saying? About circularity; in my view the way to end circularity is by establishing a premise. My premise is that existence exists and any first cause is superfluous and misdirecting.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 ok so that's your premise. Now justify your position please. Demonstrate that this is the case. Concepts such as Zero then are also seen as misdirected also? Which is a fundamental law of mathematics we use to understand the universe.
Another way of saying that space, and time are relative to the observer, is 'simulated'. If that's the case, then it proves God's existence because it takes conscious intent (the first cause), to simulate anything.
Very good. These short videos can help a lot of people.
When a tree falls in the forest and nomone is there to hear it, for what reason did it fall?
Would Monism essentially be the belief in a ground of being that isn’t necessarily personal, like the Neo-Platonic One?
May I ask what you're thoughts our on Paul Tillich, who argues that seeing God as a first cause, neccesary being etc... Makes us view God as a being instead of Being itself?
Oh, more on materialism. Another devastating blow: there is exactly nothing concrete about materialism.
Materialism actually reifies an abstraction, because in ordinary experience, we do not actually perceive atoms without quality. We perceive qualities like "big", "long", "red", "green", et cetera. If anything, idealism is actually more grounded, since it does say that the qualities we perceive in everyday life are not actually epiphenomenal illusions entirely constructed by the mind.
Fantastic and God Bless
The universe in existence is the symphony orchestrated and conducted by the intelligent design of the creator, God.
Very nice, could anyone recommend any books that further expand on this argument?
Ok what would you say is the relationship between brain activity and experience? If experience has a real-ness to it beyond the relations of neural networks, why does stimulating brain activity directly trigger experience?
@@telosbound how does this soul\matter interface works? Something that influences and its influenced by physical processes must also be physical.
@@telosbound Also, why can something immaterial create matter, but matter can't create something immaterial?
@@gabri41200 You have never observed a pure physical process outside of mind and what you call sensations is but a feeling appearing in your mind/conciousness, a mind can easily imagine stuff just look at your dreams at night where you feel all kinds of sensations and still there is no pure physical object in your dream, only mind dreaming stuff up, matter can't create anything because it has no telos or purpose or mind even, but mind can imagine and dream etc and has purposes and telos, so if we go by the normal view of matter, it would be a bigger leap to jump from a mindless purposeless non living thing to produce dreams, imagination, feelings etc, then the other way around.
@@adamq8216 how can you assert that matter has no mind?
@@adamq8216 dreaming is just the neurons recreating and mixing previous neurological events. This is why dreams (my dreams at least) look very similar to AI art.
Why does it seem implausible that matter might produce mind but plausible that spirit (i.e., God or any non-physical entity) can create matter?
Now, if matter can create mind, reason is nothing but complex interactions of matter.
Further, does the naturalist need to presuppose causes. I suppose he does as a convenience, but strictly speaking, interactions need not be subsumed under cause and effect.
Nor does contingency ever need to be mentioned, as everything is both "contingent" on everything else and "necessary" as the product of deterministic processes.
I am not learned as you are on such matters, so please take any trivialities I might have typed as the result of my ignorance and not bad faith mocking.
I am not a naturalist myself, but I'm not a theist either. I agree that assuming the regularity of the cosmos (in itself) and that we actually have grasped such regularities (in addition) as uncalled for. However, I find it equally as bizarre that those answers are apparently so readily found in a book. (Which, to tell the truth, I haven't read in its entirety, but has anyone read every book?)
Now I understand, if one has a certain experience that aligns with what is written somewhere, that writing becomes more plausible, but myself, I fail to trust my own senses, so I doubt such an experience would have the same effect.
And good day to you!
Because God is an omni-potent, mechanized map of all that exists and doesn't in relation to himself. His legend desires mystery only to decide itself how one should react, because obviously there are predictable causes and effects, but there's a reason we still use aphorisms like "complex system" to relate ideas which have no concurrent human systems of analysis. The alternative is deference to the painfully obvious meaning embedded in our human existence.
It’s not entirely accurate that God is only “spirit”. This is most evident in the incarnate Jesus.
More than that, God created heaven and earth, not just earth. What you’re calling “spirit” is something God also created.
You could take an Idealist route and say that everything is fundamentally mental
Something either has existence in itself or in an other. If everything would have an existence in an other, nothing would have existence in itself. But if this is the case nothing exists because nothing has existence. So there is something that has to have existence only in itself. Therfore something necessaraly pure existence without any limitation.
“naturalism” is a gaytheistic and soy materialist belief. thanks for dunking on the atheists again, very nice content
Bigotted comments getting likes from creator.
Again theism derives not from the intellect, but from the heart, which is mired in pig ignorant hatred.
Great video!
Additionally, while the attack on materialism is very good, there needs to be an equally vehement attack on nominalism, which this video does not do. Not enough people attack nominalism and it is unfortunate that a lot of religiously-minded people end up defaulting to crypto-nominalism as a way to justify their faith. Nominalism is linked to materialism and nominalism leads to the death of religion and of all culture. And yes, I have a burning hatred for nominalism, because many of the ills of the modern world can be traced to nominalism. Nominalism leads to materialism and nihilism because it basically denies that our minds can ever know the real what-ness of things. Matthew Raphael Johnson is right to call nominalism the ontology of death. Matthew Raphael Johnson is also right to say that some version of Platonic realism (I would argue that Orthodoxy is one of them) is the only real alternative to nominalism.
If god is infinitely complicated and infinitely vast, then explaining him is just as ontologically impossible as naturalism. Just because we can't figure out every detail of the natural world or identify the first cause through naturalism doesn't mean it is a better explanation than god. I may be a bit behind, as I haven't seen all your videos yet, but there are a lot of unfounded claims you make that leave plenty of holes in your reasoning. Aside from that, great video, very thought provoking and interesting.
Christianity tells us god is the prime mover and source of existence.
Science tells us physical laws and quantum uncertainty explain our existence.
Buddhism tells us there is no essential core or explanation for our existence.
All philosophy is valuable.
The Self-reflexivity argument is straight up not true. Particles are not just projectiles. atoms have desires (filling their valance shells) and exert force to achieve these desires (bonds/attraction). That sounds like a self-reflexive actor to me. We are a system of atoms -- A system of desires/actions down to our fundamental building blocks.
why is infinite regression illogical?
The problem with first cause argument is that you introduce an entity that requires no first cause to exist - a self-created or an eternal entity. But once you've introduced the possibility of anything self-creating or existing eternally, nothing precludes this material world from being eternal or creating itself ex nihilo.
Do better.
One avenue would be to argue that if there are finite entities that we can observe, of smaller and greater size, and by necessity there must be an infinite entity encompassing all entities and not bound by anything, i.e. the Universe, by analogy the cats' rudimentary consciousness and our greater consciousness require an infinite arena of Absolute Consciousness to exist, i.e. God.
Another avenue would be to argue strict idealism (a very difficult position to argue coherently, but Hegel and other German Idealists made it possible), the Universe being created by our consciousness, or Geist. The infinite arena where this creation unfolds and the very capacity for such creation miraculously gifted to us - that would be conclusively God and God's works.
So it's not God > World > People > TikTok dances, but all one and the same, unfolding in time in the theater of our consciousness.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 bro basically said there is no God but at the same time we are God because we created everything 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@XooxyBoo which bro do you mean? Him or me?
Be that as it may, what you said is pretty much how Kojeve interprets Hegel and how Buddhism understands reality
I see what you could be getting at. But I am failing to understand it completely. For example, how could our consciousness create the universe? I am not well versed in philosophy (forgive me), but there seems to be no epistemic evidence that our consciousness creates the universe.
@@jacobandrus2705 this position is not shared among all philosophers, only the ones of the more idealistic or metaphysical (if not to say mystical) bent. It is also quite difficult to demonstrate rigorously (and to half-ass it would be to trash it completely).
I'll try to do a drive-by version:
You've probably learned by now from different popular science sources that we cannot talk about properties of a particle (position, momentum, etc), until a measurement is made. We can take this one step further: until we learn something about the world (that is, until our interaction produced a change in our consciousness and vice versa, our consciousness guided our interaction), we can't say anything about it. Not even if it's there, if this or that element of the world exist. Moreover, before we can interact with something we must carve it out of the undifferentiated whole. Before we can interact with this elephant, we need to agree on it being separate from the background, from the savannah. Who decides, where savannah ends and elephant begins? Where does this boundary lie other than in our consciousness? You can be the most hardcore materialist and yet there are no electrons, protons or quarks marked "elephant" vs. "savannah".
So if you take these notions to an extreme you can kind of get at the extreme idealistic position.
German Idealism FTW!
(Still, that was the most haphazard, ramshackle explanation ever, sorry)
@@mentalitydesignvideo no worriest whatsoever! I appreciate the response and clarity. And you are saying that this corresponds to how Buddhists (or maybe even hinduists) may view reality? Where have you made this connection? I am curious
If I am not mistaken, this sort of epistemology may not be too far from some Orthodox consensus. The elephant and the savannah are nevertheless mankinds naming of these animals, because mankind has named them as Adam did in Eden. The cosmos is given to man as a gift and he is to bless it and give it back to God
There may be some shared belief, even if its small, among both sides? I am not sure. Forgive me if I am misguided, I am young and uninformed but am needing some more philosophical discussion
TEXT:
God is the first cause. How do we know this about Him? Well it's clear that everything we encounter in the world seems to lack an explanation or reason for its existence. They don't self-referentially account for themselves, so there must be some ground for their existence. There's a few very popular arguments against naturalism. The first one concerns the immediate certainty of non-physical reality; i.e. the conscious experience of the world, which so self-evidently refutes naturalism that it's often ignored... The law of identity even in its most abstract form¹ proves the irreducibility of experience to natural processes. There is no reality IN the brain that IS experience², so experience is not neurons firing in the physical brain. Experience qua³ experience is not reducible to natural phenomena and has its own reality as the substance of our inner life as free and rational beings.
Connected to the ontological failure of naturalism is its epistemic corollary most popularly argued by C.S. Lewis in "Miracles." The basic thrust of the argument against naturalism, known as the argument from reason, is that any argument is itself unnaturalistic; i.e. it consists of a self-reflexive reason, not merely a mindless and ultimately random process of particles interacting. Natural forces and particles possess no self-reflexivity and know nothing of reasons, subject only to spontaneous physical processes. Thus to argue for naturalism is self-refuting, as it consists of providing a reason for a worldview that negates the possibility of reasoning.
There's a third limitation of naturalism that is only intelligible in light of the communal ontology. It begins not by doubting naturalism's ability to account for its presuppositions, but by analyzing the content of reality as disclosed in the immediacy of sensory experience. We know intuitively that reality follows a set of patterns, the most fundamental being cause and effect as the basis for all intelligibility and our capacity as beings to exist in a familiar, safe, and ordered world. Analyzing causes and effects reveals a vast tapestry of relations in their splendor, all of which ultimately point to God as the self-actualized and living ground of creation. Every object and event finds itself within an interconnected network of objects and events through space and time. No thing is ever self-isolated as everything receives its being through communion with another who has in turn received their being through communion causes and effects are equal to reason⁴ and reality, respectively. A cause is the reason for the existence of the effect. For example, biting one's lip is the cause or reason for one's mild annoyance. However upon reflection it becomes clear that annoyance is not accounted for solely by the cause but already existed in potential in the teeth, in the nervous system, in the brain and the entirety of the body. Thus⁵ we revise our understanding of cause and effect as a particular Force (cause) exerting itself upon an object with pre-existing properties leading to a change within the object (effect). We then hastily conclude that annoyance is merely the result of properties of the human being in communication with the particular Force. For practical purposes we must accept that in a manner not purely arbitrary that certain causes lead to certain effects consistently, which requires a reduction of the complexities of the infinite web of relations within a given Here And Now. The temptation is to universalize this pragmatic reduction into metaphysical accounts of reality, thereby obscuring the inner relation of all parts of reality with one another. If we do this we fail to see the essentially communal nature of all reality and fall into abstractions that isolate entities into atoms, moments, and data points. The reduction into Here And Now allows for a specific cause and a specific effect to be isolated or abstracted and brought present to hand. In the grander scheme of things this abstraction hasn't answered the fundamental question that's the basis of cause and effect in general: What is the reason or explanation for, or of, reality?
In reducing annoyance to being merely the product of one particular force or cause acting upon one particular set of properties is to metaphysically speaking pass the burden if reality's ground onto the causes of both. We're left with an unending series of events a bad infinity and we're on the run attempting to find a first cause to ground and explain the totality of relations that are utterly contingent upon one another since no cause or effect possesses an account of themselves in themselves. They're necessarily dependent upon what lies beyond them but within a purely naturalistic framework. Any attempt to pierce into the Beyond only leads to a vain repetition of contingent natural phenomena. At no point can the naturalist discover the first relation of first Giver that is ontogically necessitated by the contingency of all entities upon each other. If everything is contingent upon another for their being there must be a source or ground of every contingent being that self-actualized and not contingent upon the world. The self-actualized first Giver is God. And I don't want to disciunt the usefulness and necessity of Natural Science. But my argument is that naturalism necessarily ends in an illogical and impossible infinite regression. The naturalist's description of reality is in truth ontologically impossible. The only possible solution other than creationism is monism, which we'll discuss in another post.
Saint Sophrony of Essex writes in "We Shall See Him As He Is" (quote) "It has been granted to me to contemplate different kinds of light and lights. The light the artist knows when elated by the beauty of the visible world. The light of philosophical contemplation that develops into a mystical experience. Let us even include the light of scientific knowledge, which is always and inevitably of very relative value. I've been tempted by manifestations of light from hostile spirits." (unquote) The light of scientific knowledge consists of the revelation of the eternal 'logoi' of creatures i.e. the inner rationality of the created world. However, St. Sophrony is quick to note that these are relative lights in the precise sense that they only have meaning or significance in relation to the Eternal Light of the Triune God. Aside from true love, any human activity is idolatrous when taken as its own self-defining end. The contemplation of the beauty and splendor of God's creation is nothing idolatrous in itself; still, when abstracted from its proper place in the hierarchy of human activities it becimes a stumbling block to the vision of the light of the personal God. But suppose scientific knowledge is understood as inherently relative to the knowledge of God as the I AM. In that case it becomes a means of demonstrating both the existence, and perhaps more importantly the character of the God Who created us rather than obscuring the nost primordial and essential truth of our being.
¹A = A (A =/= B)
²Experience =/= brain activity
³ qua conjunction FORMAL
in the capacity of; as being. "(he's hard to pin down if you get him on entertainment qua entertainment" [Ox. Lang.]
⁴ Cause = reason
Effect = reality
⁵ Cause = particular force
Object = entity with pre-existing properties affected by the cause
As a naturalist myself I was hoping you would make a video like this.
So, what are your thoughts after this video?
@@JudgeGideon823 I wasn't impressed. I've heard all these arguments many times before, and he seems to be pandering to people who already find them convincing rather than providing insights for people who don't. A lot of unexplained assumptions.
@@elik4325well I hear plenty of unexplained assumptions from naturalists, very naive to think humans know everything when we can’t even see a full range of colors or perceive non linear time. Best they come up with is random weird arguments like multiverses
@@elik4325 "A lot of unexplained assumptions." - name one
@@ФилософияотБэнни Sure, here are some things he didn't explain:
1) Why there is "no reality in the brain that is experience" or why the law of identity proves the irreducibility of experience to natural processes. We observe that physically altering a person's brain correspondingly alters the conscious experience of that person, including incapacitating their rational faculties while maintaining other aspects such as sight or touch. This to me shows that natural processes constitute conscious experience.
2) Why reason requires "Self-Reflexivity" to be valid. I don't see why the context from which the act of reasoning emerges refutes it's validity. Reasoning is reasoning no matter why it's happening.
3) Why the self-actualized first giver is "God" as opposed to anything else.
Consciousness is a bit of an odd duck in philosophy. There's very little you can do to accurately describe it as separate from the brain, as all aspects of consciousness can be described with brain functions. If consciousness is our awareness, then destroying our thoughts destroys consciousness. If consciousness is our sensations, then destroying our senses destroys consciousness. If memories are our consciousness, then destroying those destroys consciousness. What you're left with when you're done removing brain functions from the concept of consciousness is an inert kernel of being that can do nothing within physical reality. It cannot observe, think, feel, store memory, or even be aware of itself. If you could somehow switch these pure, reduced consciousnesses between two minds, you would not be able to tell that a switch was made, even if your own consciousness was involved in the switch. The non physical consciousness describes nothing, does nothing, and experiences nothing.
The existence of this concept of consciousness, which is apparently void of all physicality or interaction does nothing to disprove naturalism. Although, whether or not non-physical things like ideas exist is in itself an interesting concept to think about, as we can preform the same reductions to ideas by removing the mediums in which they exist (mentally, audibly, visually, digitally etcetera). It seems too that ideas only exist when linked to physical patterns and shared between each other, just as consciousness.
I for one do not see consciousness as what is left when you remove brain functions from the mental experience, rather I think all these things are inherently aspects and pieces of each of our individual consciousnesses. It is unfortunate that the consciousnesses of us all reside almost entirely within our own mind (and partially within auxiliary tools we have invented, glasses, notebooks), but this appears to be the reality which we live in. Our brains are computers made of meat made of atoms that generate our personal experiences.
I believe that beyond physical, natural reality, there also exists the non-physical mental realm. Though an idea from the mental realm cannot cause things within the physical realm to happen on their own, unless physical objects facilitate firstly the existence of ideas and secondly act for them. I think the fallacy that mental constructs such as the mind or ideas necessitate the existence of a god stems from the misconception that humans and their thoughts are separate from nature in some way. Our brains are evolved from physical natural reality and generate natural non-physical ideas. Using these ideas to prove naturalism is entirely logical when you consider that the only things that can generate these ideas are physical.
I would say that correlation does not always equate to causation, especially as its applied to the problem of mind and matter, which is part of a classic philosophical problem related to the issue of the one and the many, which can be applied to this argument as well. When you assume the mind, its contents and abstract objects in general exist WITHIN physical processes ONLY, then not only does this necessarily assume that these abstract categories are themselves physical (if we are being logically consistent) ,but more specifically, it assumes that there really is no such thing as abstractions of any kind at all, as physical process can only give birth to physical processes in the same way that dogs can give birth to other dogs and not cats, because of the huge ontological difference and function between the two. The problem with this type of materialist worldview is that it is self negating, as we rely on these very abstractions to be able to even hold a worldview at all. The self, time/space, meaning, universal law (like the laws of logic), freewill are just a few examples of these very abstract categories, which resemble nothing like material things whatsoever, nor do they function like them. These categories are nonempirical, and yet without them, empiricism is not possible, thus, they must exist because of the literal impossibility of the contrary. To argue against abstract categories is to utilize them simultaneously. Even matter itself relies on abstract categories. So even though the 2 are linked together, they really are ontologically distinct/different from one another as well and play different roles. Distinction does not entail division/separation , and this is exactly applied to god himself too. So the transcendental argument for god does not hinge on the idea that mind is separate from matter and/or nature in any way, thats a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The argument entails that only a divine mind has explanatory power and justificatory force for why we have minds/personhood, logic and abstract ideas etc, at all. Some impersonal force of nature being posited as the source of persons/ living beings is logically inconsistent because the impersonal can never really know anything, it cannot intend or think creatively about anything, it has no life within itself, no ability to relate, to think, act freely using freewill etc. Personhood transcends the impersonal for these very reasons just described.
@@myfavoritesongs12345 Abstract concepts can certainly exist within physical confines only. A great example of this phenomenon is the chair thought experiment, where you are asked to take away atoms from an object that is obviously a chair and to find the point where it stops being a chair. This point is hard to find or even define, as chairs are an abstract concept, even though they, like the mind are entirely physical. "Abstractions" are little more then simplified labels for complex phenomena. Waves (of water) are collections of water, salt, biotic, and other such material flowing in patters of alternating amplitude. A videogame is a program on a computer, made of transistors and electrical signals that displays an interactive environment. The mind is the process of a brain, consisting of the senses and several complex internal processes. Just because it would be too exhasting to explain each minute physical detail does not mean the abstractions do not exist, rather abstractions are emergent structures made by and through physical systems.
Additionally, a lack of understanding does not necessitate the existence of a divine/non-physical component. That is a god of the gaps fallacy. Unfortunately, we humans did not evolve to understand things at the base atomic/quantum levels. Our world is to complex for that, and the very survival of all animals depends on the ability to process complicated physical signals into mentally digestible abstractions .
@@maxwellsimon4538 Theres a fundamental flaw with your argument, and that is the assumption that abstracts, like the mind are entirely physical, which is an oxymoron. abstractions by their very definition are nonphysical, they wouldnt be abstractions if they were physical. Secondly, abstract objects are nothing like physical objects in their mode of being, and to better illustrate this point, ill use the mind as an example, as abstractions are ultimately contained in a mind anyway. The minds mode of being is completely different from a material object. A dog is a dog, and a cat is a cat, one does not come from the other because they exist within different family trees, same applied to mind and matter. The mind has to capacity to have meaningful experiences, personal relationships, seek truth, use logic based on the laws of logic, hold a worldview, be ethical, conscious decision making (freewill) etc. The material world does not posses such qualities and is continuously stuck in a monotonous existence that is absolutely unlike the characteristics of a mind whatsoever. Again two different "family trees". In fact, such qualities of mind are not subject to any form of empiricism, you will never find the laws of logic under a microscope, because these categories are nonempirical by nature. At the same time, these qualities serve as preconditions for the possibility of knowledge and experience. Even the material world itself relys on abstract categories to justify its own existence, because matter would not make any sense otherwise. Empirical investigations are not possible without the existence of these preconditions as well, so they exist because its impossible for them not to, otherwise we cant even think logically. To consistently posit that impersonal forces gives rise to personal life, is to undermine personal life and reduce it back into the impersonal. It renders ones own worldview nonsensical and self defeating.
@@maxwellsimon4538 I dont recall saying a lack of understanding necessitate the existence of divine mind, quite the opposite is actually what i mean to say if i havent clarified already. Understanding doesnt make sense in a paradigm full of dead matter that does not even know what that means.
@@myfavoritesongs12345 Apologies for misinterpreting your argument. However, I still don't think you understand where abstract objects come from, or what exactly I mean by abstract objects. Almost all things in some way are technically abstract, as they are compounds of simpler things. For the sake of argument, lets say that the simplest pieces of physical matter are quarks and electrons and whatever. In that scenario, even atoms are abstract object, composed of simple objects, yet still entirely physical. We have just placed another definition upon the collection as it is convenient for further categorization. The same goes for the mind, since it can only exist and only be facilitated through physical matter, it too can be considered part of the physical world. To try and separate the mind and brain as not both being derived from matter is like forgetting that dogs and cats are both mammals.
Also the very idea that there even exists a "personal life" beyond the "impersonal forces" is to ignore the fundamental truth of reality and give in to the illusion of separation. There is no nonsense if you work to truly understand that all is one.
Cause/effect….relational to the larger or the smaller…nature is relational to what on the larger side? Definitionally?
Define a "cause". I still don't understand what that means. I get what it means for something to cause something but what is a "first cause"?
Everything in the world does have a reason for its existence, even reality and existence itself does become it is by definition, existence itself and is all that exists.
"There is no reality in the brain that is experience." We don't know that, we know to little about consciousness.
How does cause and effect lead to god?
I agree there must be the higher thing for which the reason everything exists if that is wgat you are saying but god himself would also need a reason right?
This becomes a very loose definition of God though, that which naturalism cannot explain. It still depends upon the ideas of naturalism, the 'dark energy' of naturalism. If anybody denied 'God' in this sense they would surely be foolish and short sighted. But how can we go from this idea of God to religious dogma and doctrine without going further than this knowledge of God allows? Why does this signify a loving God rather than infinite simulations?
I’m not an expert so I might not be able to answer other questions but I’m pretty sure the answer to this is that, the reason that it becomes the Christian God and not others is because through Christianity epistemology, it becomes the most linear and logically plausible stance under these logical circumstances. For example: many other religions including monotheistic ones such as Islam, detach the understanding or knowledge that we have if the Universe with the mind of God, and if God made the Universe through Himself, how can we understand the Universe if there is not the relation between man and God as there is in the Christian dogma.(man was made in the image if God) spiritually/logically. Also the fact of infinite Universes doesn’t negate anything of there being a God or not. The point of the beginning of those still stands. It isn’t against our dogma to theorize infinite Universes either but again we can’t prove it definitively either.
@@B4RT0Lomei I'm no expert either so no worries! I understand your point, but I guess my point is there seems to be a transition from cold, hard deductive logic of proving ontological impossibility, to a more intentional and idealistic logic of these ideas best fit the facts (basically it feels better). I am not coming from an atheist position, and perhaps this video is more aimed at getting people who have convinced themselves the is the only logical consistent position to think again. But I do find it troubling that that people would use this argument to then try and prove their dogmatic image of God and reality. I think understanding religion symbolically and ritualistic gets around these issues of dogmatism, but I still think it is wrong for people to claim that their religion emerges out of these ontological claims in a logically consistent way, there is at least a switch from deductive to inductive logic that I think is not as clean as they would like to imagine
@@mayonnaisenin2198 well the guy who posts this is Orthodox so of course the deist positions he holds is Christian, but I see your point as well. I think that perhaps this video is aimed not so much about being why Orthodoxy is right but why theism is.
good video
The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Sure, naturalism is incoherent, but that doesn't imply conventional theism. All it implies is that there must be something like a "first cause", "first mover" or "ground of all being". What does that really mean though? You can interpret it as implying conventional theism if you want, but you can just as well interpret it as implying Azathoth (that is, an utterly non-moral, utterly unknowable and utterly alien, impersonal first cause/first mover/ground of all being. However, if something like Azathoth is the first cause of everything natural, then that's just the pragmatist account of naturalistic atheism. Ultimately, there is no reason to think conventional theism is any more likely than the first mover being Azathoth. Actually, the closer you look at what theism claims (for example in the Book of Job, when God is portrayed as "speaking from the whirlwind" and as punishing Job for no reason whatsoever (no reason at all, hidden or unhidden), or due to a cynical and bored "bet" with an angel, the harder it is to even distinguish the God of theism from Azathoth.
There is, however, a lot of reason to question the veracity of any revelation. The synoptic gospels clearly borrow from common sources and frequently borrow passages from one another, while Acts is believed by most scholars to have been written by the author of Luke, and the author of the book of John is clearly aware of the existence of the synoptic gospels. That means there is no independent attestation of the gospels. Paul speaks of "scriptures", but he is believed by scholars to have written his epistles before the gospels were written, and the "Master" he describes bears very little resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels, and seems to have different priorities. For example, Paul likes talking about how bad sex is obsessively, but in the Gospels Jesus seems uninterested in the morality of sex (for example in the scene where a woman who has committed adultery is brought before him and he says that's wrong, but also seems not to care much, and just tells the woman not to do it again and go on her way. Jesus spends almost all of the gospel narratives talking about very different issues, unlike the God of Paul, who Paul portrays as seeing sexual morality as a central concern. As Paul says himself, he never actually met Jesus either and never saw anything except in a private vision while walking to Damascus. There are plenty of other incoherencies in the books considered part of the New Testament as well, both internally and with the books considered part of the Old Testament, which Judaism has correctly never viewed as compatible with the New Testament for a wide variety of reasons. Within the Tanakh or the Old Testament, there are plenty of other inconsistencies as well, both between different texts and between texts and the archaeological record. Archaeology in Jerusalem shows the city as far less old than it is claimed to be, while most scholars agree that Judaism emerged out of Caananite polytheism, rather than being the religion of another group of people who invaded (there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever of any invasion, as portrayed in the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, etc., and all of the evidence which has been found points to the clear absence of any such invasion).
There are, incidentally, many similar problems with the historicity of accounts portrayed in the Quran. Similar problems also occur with many historical claims made in Hinduism and Buddhism.
The upshot is that the ontological proof of "God" isn't so much wrong as empty, because the "God" or "first cause" it proves necessarily has to be entirely emptied of any and all conventionally theistic attributes (e.g., revelation, miracles, attributes of love, justice, goodness, mercy, etc.) in order to be provable. The ontological proof of "God" is therefore a giant bait and switch. It pretends to prove theism, but when you actually look at it closely, what it actually proves is equally compatible with naturalistic atheism or with theism. What theists actually want to prove with the ontological argument is no closer to having been proved even when you accept every step in the ontological argument. All that theists really manage to prove with the ontological argument is that theists don't understand what naturalistic atheism actually claims.
All naturalistic atheism claims is that everything that exists and everything that happens in nature is natural, and that there is no evidence that whatever produced nature is anything but impersonal and non-moral. You can try arguing against that claim, but not with the ontological argument. Even if you do, you'll have a lot more trouble proving that wrong. Very likely, you'll have to rely on debunkable miracle claims in order to try to argue with that, and good luck trying to experimentally verify the existence of a miracle. Even if you could find clear evidence of a miracle (as occurs in the Netflix show Hellbound, for example), it would be anybody's guess whether whatever produced the miracle was moral or non-moral, or even personal or non-personal. Even in the highly dubious event that an alleged miracle were actually verifiable and appeared to have a moral and personal cause in some fashion, we would still be stuck trying to find some evidence that the cause of such a bizarre and exotic event was any more moral or personal than Chat-GPT is when it appears superficially to display qualities like politeness or concern for your well-being, or causes the words "have a nice day!" to appear on your screen along with a smiley emoji. Who knows what that means? Even the creators of Chat-GPT don't know exactly why its doing that, and they can see its source code. The alleged impersonal or personal origin of any miracle, even if there were proof of it, would be far, far less clear than what we can say about Chat-GPT.
Sure, but as a 'conventional theist', you can argue against the deist position
@@mathfrom0to96 Deism is belief in a personal and usually moral God who just doesn't intervene in the universe after creating it. Usually, deism also claims that this God gave humans reason, that reason is able to prove deism, and that God gave humans reason so they could prove the existence of a deistic God.
Naturalistic atheism doesn't claim any of those claims of deism. What naturalistic atheism claims is that reason gives us no good argument that there is any personal and moral God, whether theistic or deistic. Something beyond nature must have presumably created nature, but we have no evidence that whatever presumably gave rise to nature is anything but impersonal and non-moral. If something beyond nature gave rise to nature, but that utterly alien, indescribably bizarre cause of nature was impersonal and non-moral, then that would be as incompatible with deism as it would be incompatible with theism. We have no reason to think that isn't the case.
Given that, claims about a personal God, including the Deistic claims, are pretty clearly just abstractions projecting our own image onto the unknowably vast, inhuman universe and whatever may have given rise to it. Shouldn't we feel embarrassed when contemplating that theism generally involves claiming that an unknowable and alien, omniscient being is obsessed with bizarre minutia such as whether or not a particular group of clever primates eats oysters or fish (Judaism), the proper way for you to cut your toenails and how often (Islam), or when and where it is important to ban women from speaking (Corinthians 14:34-35)? All of those concerns sound like what they are: human, all too human.
At least the deists have a sense of embarrassment and choose to at least make far-fetched claims in hopes of elevating some genuinely amazing and beautiful phenomena like human life and human reason. Theism generally has more gall in what it chooses to elevate.
No responses?
Even your framing of naturalistic atheism runs into problems. If nature is entirely impersonal and non-moral, where does subjectivity come from? Where does something as personal as consciousness come from? In fact where does mind come from?
Reality must ultimately be personal. For one, this explains where our consciousness comes from. For another, since reality is essentially the Universal Mind, you don't also have to explain how does the subjective arise from the objective - to try to explain this is impossible. A subject is also an object but an object is not necessarily a subject.
Starting off with an Argument From Ignorance is not a good tactic.
This video makes so many unsupported assumptions it’s hard to know where to start.
For example on consciousness you have no argument against positions like identity theory, functionalism, hylomorphic physicalism… you just begged the question against naturalism by assuming a priori that mental states can’t be natural states.
You don’t even define what sense of “natural” you mean. Virtually every single argument suffers from completely ignoring the alternative positions.
I suggest you actually read some philosophers on this topic.
Yes highly naive and narrowly sighted view.
Functionalism and physicalism doesn't explain consciousness. Consciousness is irreducible. Everything we do assumes consciousness, so it is entirely absurd to suggest that consciousness can somehow be reducible to something else.
I don't regard Daniel Dennett as a serious philosopher of mind. Anyone who tries to explain away consciousness and free will instead of actually attempting to seriously explain these things has denied himself the right to be called as such. I could also ask you to do the same by telling you to read David Chalmers.
How could something create time? It would have to exist before time. The concept before requires time by definition (even exist I feel requirea time to make any sense).
I feel like no matter how hard you try to think about this you run into an intractable contradiction. Could you shed some light on this?
The eternal is a mystery to us, where human comprehension falls short and any attempt to explain it in words and concepts become contradictory.
This conflates naturalism with materialism. Our immaterial consciousness is perfectly natural.
As for god being the first cause, that’s baseless, special pleading, and an argument from ignorance. This argument has been demonstrated to be the silly thing it is for a long time and you just completely ignored the multitude of criticisms numerous people have made it against it over the years. You say you don’t know how the universe could’ve always existed therefore something else always existed… this magical answer you just made up which doesn’t have to follow the rules you already set for all things… just because you want it to… based on nothing at all.
That’s obviously not logical at all lol and I’m confident that that would be clear to you that was the case if you weren’t already committed to your conclusion before looking for arguments for it
What "multitude of criticisms numerous people have made it against it over the years" would that be---idiocy like the "multiverse"?
@@johncharleson8733 I’ve never heard of an argument against this millennia old argument for god that did involve the multiverse.
But anyway, there have been arguments made against these for millennia since they were first made, including many made by religious people themselves. It is not hard to google and find many arguments of all kinds against every argument for god. They may even be among the most common of all philosophical arguments. I found it very odd that this ages old argument for god was made and not a single of the many criticisms made against it was mentioned, as if none have been ever made.
If you’re sincerely interested in discovering the truth about the value of arguments for and against god, look them up.
So maths is god. I can get behind that!
Nevertheless, the causal approache to God is fruitless, because it portraits a unknowable dead god, that is somewhere there behind the chain of causes & ffects. Moreover, as you said: the natural approache of the stonehearted leaves him but a perception of infinite causality, leading him to monism. On the other hand, even by reaching the conclusion that there is a God, because there are created effects, we are no different than the gentils, who as well know that God is not like anything of the created, says st Gregorios o Palamas. Thus, the Transcendental argument rests the best noetic approache to explain the living God, in who's likness are the laws of the cosmos created. In the end, all reasonable predications of the Transcending all reason hyper essential God are in the bese case a candil, compaired to the sun of the personal communion. Those who know not God are fallen away from reason and their reason is foolish. They have eyes & will not see.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
(GOD)
Dear brother,
Suppose, I took your photo. Now, time starts to your photo (1seccond, 2 sec... etc). So, before the time started to your photo (before the 1st second), it wasn't there.
Today, we know that, everything changes with time (earth, sun, stars...). So, everything comes under time.
Time has 2 attributes. Beginning and ending. So, everything had a beginning. Since they began, they change with respect to time.
So, before they began (before the 1st second), Scientifically they don't exist. So, there must me NOTHING before they began.
Nothing to everything is creating. As you said, all the combined intelligence of human cannot create a grain of sand from nothing.
So, the INTELLIGENT CREATIVE FORCE is THE CREATOR. GOD Created everything from nothing.
Love from India...
How do you know time has a beginning or an end? Things within time have these attributes, but time itself does not necessarily need to. Time is simply the flow of one moment to another, a boundless dimension that can only move in one direction.
So your using the argument by nessesary being.
Kinda awkward that you're using "Naturalism" as equivalent to "Materialism" tbh. Naturalism is the study of nature. It's the polar counterpart of metaphysics. The two are co-dependent.
Yeah I would say that's a pretty big mistake he makes.
it's a very commonly used term in philosophy. can't really get mad at him for it
@@barnaclejones822 I honestly can't think of anyone else who uses the word "naturalism" to mean "materialism". Naturalism is the study of nature. If he thinks there is a conflict between naturalism and theism then he must be one of those "reality is a simulation" people or something.
@@Formscapes google, wikepedia, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, etc
@@Formscapes literally the first results for "naturalism" on google are philosophy btw
it was actually harder for me to find mentions of the word that aren't related to philosophy
Thank You Form this Video. Good work and perfect explanation. You reasoning perfectly resonated with me.
based contingencyposting
How does the argument from contingency not give you an absolutely simple God. To be composed (have parts like “energies”) would imply a “part giver.” Anything put together requires a trancendant constructor who is himself not constructed. Contingency is one reason energies are hard to get behind. How do the orthodox understand the energies in light of the argument from contingency.
If you're proving the Christian God then these arguments don't prove that God to be the God. If this argument is just proving that God exists then well done!
he isn't
the video is titled "The Ontological Impossibility of Naturalism" his point is merely that naturalism is false, he's not trying to assert that Christianity is true. if you're looking for that, he has many other videos regarding Christian theology, more specifically Orthodox.
🔥🔥
God is a term for 'that which we do not understand.' We used to say God or the Devil was the cause, then we discovered the reasons for things. God is only a term for 'that which we do not understand.' Seems to me God is the reason for less and less all the time.
Thats a laughably false and fallacious claim.
@@justchilling704 prove it.
@@ubermensch0072 You made the claim prove my judgement wrong.
@@justchilling704 'God of the gaps'
@@ubermensch0072 What does that have to do with this convo?
Cartoonish.
Seems like you NEED this to be true.
It seems like you need this to be untrue. That's because, no matter what, everybody assumes their prepositions to be true. This goes for atheists or theists and everybody else.
Again, confusion between epistemology and ontology. The subject/object distinction is not a material/imaterial distinction. It's like a man who's been tied to a chair all his life and concludes that the universe is a circle with him at the center, but in truth the point of space he occupies is no more a center than any other, it's simply his point. Proof of this is that, if we can't describe our own experience in material terms, we can't describe that of others either (which is a priori as material or immaterial, depending on the presupposition, as ours - so it's not a matter of substance).
The second argument is a petition of principle: there is no reflexivity/reason in matter, so there is not just matter. But a materialist would obviously not admit that there is no reason in matter.
The third argument got me: I was baited by fancy words ("communal ontology") only to end up with a hackneyed tale of infinite regress of causes. We're not quite sure what form his argument actually takes, though. He seems to combine a story of efficient causes with a principle of sufficient reason, but in any case his argument falls flat on its face: that all the elements of the universe are causally connected (that's what he means by "communion" - a very oriented term, by the way) is completely independent of any story of efficient cause or necessity.
Finally, he concludes: science isn't bad as long as scientists admit that God exists. Ok bro.
This is an appeal to Ignorance. This reasoning is no more sophisticated than Kent Hovind with a thesaurus.
“because I cannot conceive how existing material interactions can account for a conscious experience therefore my conscious experience must derive from some ineffable, impossible to observe yet rhetorically convenient thing.”
“I don’t know, therefore X”
-an argument from ignorance.
The naturalist simply says “We don’t know, but we’re working each day towards a better explanation and in the interest of parsimony, presume the phenomena can be accounted for using demonstrably existent features, until previously unknown interactions and forces are discovered in the process of our investigation”
“We don’t know. Therefore we don’t know.”
Which is true by tautology.
Wrong.
It seems to me you used god of the gaps, if science doesn't understand something (such as our beginning) than it must be gods doing. Egyptians used gods to explain the sun and universe around them, and so did so many other cultures. Than science proved them wrong, also real science never alleges ifinite cause and affect. They just simply do not know the beginning, that does not mean god is responsible though. Believe what you want, but if you want to prove your case, show real concrete, provable evidence.
Edit: I do feel I was a bit rude to you guys so I apologize. However, all of you fell to philosophical arguments to “prove” god. That’s not how it works. That’s not how you prove something. Such a massive claim like a god has to have a lot of evidence to back it up. Something like a black hole existing is a massive claim, however we have sufficient evidence to back it up.
The universe can do a great many things by itself no god included, things nobody understands. Who’s to say it can’t create itself?
I LOVE YOUR COMMENT
This is a common modern interpretation but this is not really how they believed in other gods.
Aside from that, not really sure how he used "gods of the gaps". In regards to our beginning You either posit "God", as in, the first cause/unmoved mover or fall into infinite regress.
@@drooskie9525 I literally explained it to you. We all know there must have been a beginning at some point however that does not imply god did it. That’s what god of the gaps is and it’s what he used.
@@pennygirl015 By necessity, it has to be. There's nothing fallacious about it. There has to be something outside of the "system". If the Big Bang was caused by something mechanistic, there would still have to be something beyond that... unless you want to propose the universe is eternal I guess?
@drooskie9525 No, that's not what I'm saying. Yes, we don't understand what caused the big bang, but too posit that it has to be god is copium. There is just about as much evidence for that as if I said Barney made the universe. You're strawmanning scientists here they never once said everything's infinite. If science does not understand something, it does not mean an all-powerful entity needs to exist.
LOL
Naturalism and materialism are the ONLY possibilities.
>makes a statement that is proven false by the video
>doesn't elaborate
@@telosbound
I mean its just a sad attempt at rhetoric at this point. It's like the only thing these people know is rhetoric. Or all they know are mediocre arguments.
To assume that only naturalism follows science is dishonest. There already are versions of idealism that are, if anything, more scientific than naturalism. In fact idealism is more scientific since it does not assume that anything that exists must be spatially bound. Already I can think of Bernardo Kastrup's analytic idealism. Or Chris Langan's CTMU. Or Whitehead's pan-experientialism.
@@telosbound
Also btw: recently I'm convinced that the cosmological argument is invalid and the price that one will have to pay if he uses it is too high. The cosmological argument kind of implicitly assumes a mechanistic universe.
Christopher Langan put forth what I think is a superior argument for God that does not require one to assume a mechanistic universe. It is as follows:
- There can be nothing outside reality. Reality (we have not said what this is, so don't assume anything first) must contain everything that is real. So any cause of change that is real enough to affect reality would be within reality.
- Any definition of reality must be within reality. Therefore, reality must define itself.
- The mind and reality have an intricate kinship. What is real must be what is intelligible (the core of Platonic metaphysics). If reality were not intelligible, you and I could not be talking about it in the first place, since reality would just become unintelligible noise. However, if the mind and reality have a close kinship, then reality must also be mind-like.
- So reality must define itself and is mind-like. This suggests that reality is self-conscious. Additionally, this shows that everything that exists are simply thoughts of Nous. So this has proven a "being" that is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
@@telosbound Should also note that Christopher Langan may call this "pantheism", but it is not really the same as how we understand the term. For one, he calls it "holopantheism". Secondly, the mere sum of creatures do not constitute intelligible reality (God in the sense of the Platonic Nous for Langan). Intelligible reality is greater than all of the parts that He contains ("He" is appropriate because this is the Universal Consciousness). The Universal Consciousness has structure and relations that link these parts and the parts cannot be abstracted away from the structure and vice versa. This is much more akin to panentheism than pantheism.
Kid named science
This is so freakin' childish.
cope
Seethe
Well, this was some bullshit
Quit being rude.
You walk I to this video with a presupposition that there is a creator and fail to understand basic laws of nature.
This argument is so "interesting" that it can work for all religions. From Abrahamic to Hindu or even Greek and Roman if we're generous.
You claim naturalism fails. Where and how exactly? You omit what those "naturalists" claim, only giving a brief mention without explaination.
Dear reader - I point to people like Aaron Ra for you to check out for yourself. Or if you want more academic style - Genetically Modified Sceptic, and Cosmic Sceptic.
Lol, the fact you can't argue it yourself is telling of your supposed logic. Aron Ra uses some of the worst philosophical arguments for atheism.
@@fromthesouthofafrica6815 i'm more of a historian and ui's insulting to suppose that I need to defend questions, rather than the person who states claims without justification.
As to Aaron Ra - what is wrong with him? He's a well educated man mostly in areas of evolution and anthropology.
If you want more philosophical stuff - those 2 guys i recommended later are great in this case.
Well it ought to work for all religions considering that this argument is for theism and not Orthodoxy in specific, you don't talk to a hardcore naturalist in terms of ones own specific belief system when there's no grounding between your viewpoints, instead an argument of substance upon the nature of reality to explain the basis for theism is necessary. Anything else would just be wasted.
Out of curiosity, how exactly would someone with your viewpoint account for the inherent subjectivity of consciousness?
recommending Aron Ra is the atheist equivalent to a creatonist recommending a megachurch apologist
he isn't trying to "prove" Orthodox Christianity, only trying to disprove naturalism, hence the title of the video being "The Ontological Impossibility of Naturalism." his point is that naturalism is ontologically impossible and is self-refuting. he has other videos about Christian theology specifically, this is still theology, but the purpose of the video is not to assert that Orthodoxy is the truth- only that naturalism isn't.