DEBATE: The Argument for God From Reason • Cosmic Skeptic vs Max Baker-Hytch
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 янв 2020
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
The argument from reason was popularised by C.S. Lewis, but has a number of specific variations. Max Baker-Hytch is a tutor in philosophy at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, and challenges me in this episode of 'Unbelievable?' to respond to his version of the argument.
'Unbelievable?' is a show on Premier Christian Radio, hosted by my friend Justin Brierly, which brings together Christians and non-Christians for debate and discussion. It hosts some excellent conversations, and it is well worth subscribing (this is my fourth appearance on the show!)
Check it out here: / premierunbelievable
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
More episodes of 'Unbelievable?': / premierunbelievable
Max Baker-Hytch profile and publications: www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/peopl...
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always enjoy being a guest on Justin's show -- be sure to subscribe to Unbelievable (I especially enjoyed the recent Tom Holland vs AC Grayling discussion!): ruclips.net/user/PremierUnbelievable
I feel like a lot of people are going to be thinking of a different Tom Holland...
@@e.d.5766 well don't underestimate the power of Marvel. A c Grayling may just be there new Magneto.
@@e.d.5766 Really? I Marvel as to why _that_ would be the case.
@CosmicSkeptic You’re doing great work man, fascinating to listen to!
British Christians are so much more sophisticated than American apologists.
If there is a god, I pray he gives me the wisdom to stop reading the comments while trying to listen.
😂😂😂 You're not alone!
I once read a book on mindfulness but I kept wanting to skip ahead. I guess I wasn't ready.
🤣🤣 my biggest sin!
@King Kush "Atheists are so smart *their* dumb"; You should write comedy.
@King Kush It isn't necessary to believe anything in order to be an atheist, however, it *is* a necessity of most religions to believe in an invisible, undetectable sky wizard who speaks things into existence. Not dumb at all.
I'm amazed Alex has time for this between RUclips, University, and filming two seasons of Netflix's hit UK Comedy, Sex Education.
@Velmental Audio No, he just strongly resembles the main character, Otis. Just a joke, nothing crazy.
SinHurr good one, caught me off guard 😂
Ahh that's why I thought his face was familiar
Alex J O'Connor, sex therapist
THAT'S WHERE HE'S FROM!!
The host is really good at what he's doing. I appreciate when he stops the conversation and says things like "Let's explain that term to the audience"
He really earns his subscribers. He doesn't hide his bias but then moves on from that being reasonable and fair to all the guests on his show. Really happy to subscribe for the discussions.
@@adamj8099 It's not clear to me if you know this or not: this RUclips channel does not belong to the host, but to the atheist guy, the on on the right
@@cassif19 it is clear to me 😊 I originally watched the video on the Unbelievable channel yesterday. Came here just in case Alex did a bit of a breakdown. But it was just a reupload. I'm subbed to both channels now. Thanks for the heads up though.
That is the only thing he does right. Rest is anoying. It would be better if he just shut up
*Really cool how a Christian talk show host invites atheists on and actually listens to their arguments and gives them time to speak. Props for not being an echochamber. Also, Justin is good at appealing to the layman by defining jargon and giving general summaries of arguments.*
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 *What an awfully uncharitable evaluation of an opposing group.*
@ But he's right.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 How do you know those are Phil's limits?
Phil, love the profile picture. I'm about to play Skyrim right now. Lol
Phil The Logician This is incredibly ironic considering how you randomly called me “soyboy” for absolutely no, apparent reason when all I did was ask Alex for a few tips on studying philosophy. This is hypocrisy at its finest. Perhaps, you should follow your own advice by respectfully engaging with those who happen to hold opposing viewpoints to that of your own, as well as representing their positions and arguments in an honest, respectful, and accurate manner as opposed to simply calling them “soyboy” for no apparent reason. What awfully uncharitable evaluation of an opposing group.
Max: Spends 15 minutes laying out his entire argument.
Alex: Makes a 2 minute reply.
Max: "yeah, so there's quite a lot to respond to..."
Alex has that affect on people.
I swear I am about to fall asleep... This dude talks for 30 minutes straight and Alex has said 3 words so far
Lol he took 20 minutes to basically say so you don’t believe in magic
Max takes so long to get to his point, even watching at double speed it becomes frustrating.
Bryan Stiles YES! I thought the same thing.
I love how a philosophy student is holding his ground against a philosophy professor.
@Alex Summers and with no notes to shuffle through.
Well, it's easy when you're right.
It's not the person it's the ideology he's trying to represent
His belief in religion came not from a logical conclusion but from education and emotional motives.
Therefore any wise man can easily show that he is wrong.
This is the nature of illogical belief
Unless the system is different in the UK, having a DPhil (Ph.D) doesn't make you a professor. But yeah, having a doctorate definitely still puts him up there (especially from Oxford).
Sion Marc Anthony Oh, I didn’t know that. Thank you.
It's always fun to see these debates. I love them.
Okay, I rarely comment but...
Man, how come you´re everywhere? And so fast? Do you literally do nothing but looking for a new video to comment? Sometimes I think I watch a pretty strange mix of videos, but you pop up under most of them, so I likely don´t compare to you.
I don´t know how you do it , but you´re a legend. See you later in some other comment section.
@@josefruzek4462 We are all the same. If I left a comment every time on RUclips, Im sure I would be the same. I see this guy A LOT, meaning that I spend on youtube a lot too, but I also watch a lot of channels where he is nowhere to be found, hence I could also comment there every time.
I think one can quite quickly be everywhere if one is as addicted to youtube as me :p.
Just Some Guy without a Mustache Dude, stop following me
51:52 "Maybe I'm just misunderstanding why this needs to be so complicated"
Me most of the times the Christian guy was speaking
I would have liked Alex to have really hammered a few points:
1. Max is making a supernatural-of-the-gaps argument.
2. Max is making an argument from ignorance.
3. There are many scientists who have bothered to actually get up from their easy chairs, roll up their sleeves, and actually investigate scientifically the questions of consciousness, subjectivity, and mind. They are still at it, but most seem hopeful of eventual, concrete answers.
4. How can Max possibly know that atoms can’t be arranged so as to produce consciousness and rational thought? Indeed, how could he have the foggiest idea one way or another, let alone start assigning probabilities to any of it? Based on what?
yea, if we could observe some kind of "supernatural mechanism" that could produce mental processes, then he could have an argument about how it may be a more likely substrate for our minds.
but of course supernatural "explanations" are not about predictable mechanisms but wishful thinking.
also he's strawmanning physicalism when he claims it forbids the possibility of things like thinking elementary particles or whatever. it's kinda silly, of course. but as long the proposed thought processes have predictive models, such theories are compatible with physicalism.
Yeah I was screaming #4 the whole time
4. Even if he did come to fully understand the entire functioning of a human nervous system before everybody else and thoroughly replicated a human being cell by cell in a lab and his creation didn't work, it still wouldn't follow at all that the very definition of non-existence (for the concept of a non-natural being is invariably predicated on the negation of the very elements that define concrete existence, that is, the presence of constituting elements and location in space-time - as William Lane Craig would put it, a non-natural being is matterles, timeless and spaceless - that is, *nothing, never, nowhere)* is responsible for consciousness or anything we are at all, when every single piece of information confirms our existence is reliant on the functioning of our body. Such a fundamental obviousess is not up to debate. So the non-functioning of Hytch's hypothetical human would confirm, instead, that he commited a mistake. But that would literally be the best case scenario for him. Still wouldn't be worth shit. Before involving anything in any causal relationship one must first confirm its existence or plausibility, at the very least. Before even insinuating at all that our nervous system isn't responsible by the products of its functioning, Hytch would have to begin by demonstrating how the existence of the non-existent could even be remotely plausible in the first place.
Robert Rudolph, I don’t think Max would claim he knows much of anything regarding how the brain actually works. I think he’s just making armchair-philosophical, presuppositional claims. I’m not sure which would be crazier.
I don’t think so, Robert Rudolph. Remember, Max is speaking in terms of a sort of presuppositional philosophy. Presuppositional philosophers aren’t really supposed (in their odd and very classical worldview) to go about hunting down the nuts and bolts of anything. They just lay back in their armchairs muttering about essences, metaphysical abstractions, and the grounding of things, between puffs on their pipes. They’re philosophers, not biologists or neurologists, dammit! They still think they can classically think themselves into the nature of reality. I think Max would be aghast at the notion that he was making any specific scientific claims. I believe he thinks his (largely presuppositional) reasoning is prior to any empirical reasoning on the matter, both temporally and logically.
Again, I remain uncertain which of us paints a crazier picture of him.
Isn't this basically an overly complicated God of the gaps argument? We don't fully understand the biology behind complex thought, therefore something supernatural must fill in the gaps
However we do know more about it than Max contends with. We make incredibly complex networks of associations that allow for simple and complex thought.
I don't think he was asserting "therefore god "must" be the answer", he was making a probabilistic argument. Additionally, there is a unique quality about this "gap", as consciousness appears to not just be mysterious from a materialistic worldview, it appears to be inconceivable. This doesn't mean we must believe in god, but it does mean we need to adapt our materialism to make sense of conscious phenomena. Enter Panpsychism, which is the argument atheists can use to begin to give a starting point to the "consciousness by evolution" argument.
@@williampatrickwoods
I don't think that consciousness is as misterious as some people make it to be. We know how neurons transmit information by means of electrical signals and we know a lot about how they form new connections. We also know the differences in brain activity between a conscious and an unconscious person. Yes, we are missing pieces of the puzzle, but that is miles away from it being an incomprehensible mystery.
I don't think it will ever be philosophy what solves the mystery of consciousness, but medical science
does any theist/deist ever present any evidence for their position.... ever? No. So ----- just more gaps and ignorance arguments.
It doesn't have to be "supernatural". This shows a very limited understanding of the debate and of the history of philosophy and theology. And no, there are certain things about the nature of consciousness that cannot be explained through empirical science and I doubt will ever be. This is because empiricism is itself grounded in the relationship between "consciousness" and the "perceived external".
All this guy is doing is taking the “trouble with explaining consciousness” as evidence of “a problem with naturalism”. Simply, the fact that consciousness can’t be conclusively explained doesn’t mean it’s not natural. In fact, there’s more evidence that it is natural than the ridiculous notion that it’s not, given nothing can be shown to exist that is not natural.
Well said
Most theists and spiritual people don't even understand what you just said
@@alancollins8294 Sadly, this is true.
@Stevo Devo to be fair we don't know how it emerges and since consciousness doesn't appear to serve a function it seems to be an epiphenomenon which could've arisen from neuronal activity but also may be an inherent property of particles in the universe.
[Edit] It *might* serve a function but it's not apparent.
@S Gloobal Haha what kind of website is that? Do you really think a shitty article and a 15 minute podcast from an intelligent design website will convince anyone here? Yo gotta get some more reputable sources, and get them in writing (I am not going to waste my time by listening to a podcast created by a pseudoscientific think-tank).
Interesting discussion, but Dr. Max says *_"atoms-in-motion in the void"_* can't ground reasoning but apparently *_"Non-Atoms in Non-Motion in the Non-Void" [God!]_* does AND this is based on probabilities and non-inference????
*Colour me so not convinced, the colour isn't on the spectrum!* 😎
Can you prove that God is just an imaginary Sky Daddy? ☺
@@azmard4865 burden of proof is on thee
Color
The theologian has immense difficulty in understanding how "intentionality" can emerge from the physical world, but no problem at all in asserting that a non material, non physical, timeless, infinite, spiritual, personal entity can produce a material universe. I know how stuff can produce mind, I don't know how mind can produce stuff. The minds we actually know about, just can't do that sort of thing. We call it magic.
I dont understand what you are saying at all
That's actually a good point. If we are incredulous of matter producing mind why should we be credulous of a mind producing the entire universe? That's something I haven't thought of before. The theist arguments which are mostly pronouncements of incredulity don't seem to resolve that contradiction.
I agree 100%
yep..... arguments from ignorance about how aboutness of the mind comes about can never get u to supernatural space ghost did it
And if it is difficult to see how atoms can form consciousness , how much more difficult to see how a soul-mind can 1) exist 2) manipulate a physical brain. We have the example of the book for atoms being about something. We have no example based on evidence of the metaphysical mind existing nor why such a mind would be any more likely to be “about something”
Right. That's why I don't trust my calculator. There's nothing in there but naturalistic processes, atoms, electrons, etc.. How can it possibly get the right result under those circumstances? That's why I always just go with my gut in matters of math.
but he doesnt know what a number is11!!!1!
Equate your calculator to modernday dictionaries, and you know why this equation does not work. People, and sick people being middlemen. If chinese factoryworkers making calculators, they could mess up a year for the taxcollecter very badly. Human nature with dreams/ideology produce fascists.
Almost all of the errors reached using a calculator are due to input errors by the operator.
And calculators were designed by conscious beings, were they not? So a conscious mind set off those processes.
@@ethanm.2411 Which processes? The input errors by the operator? The power failure that shut the calculator down for two hours?
So glad to see another genuinely engaging debate. Can’t help but admire Alex
40 minutes in and I feel the same way. Alex is a flipping genius.
Alex was like a boomer when debating with some Muslims. I guess Christians aren't the best people to debate with.
After finishing watching the debate, unfortunately I'm still on the side of naturalism, and the question of the nature of consciousness is pretty obvious to me, since it can be altered by merely introducing some chemicals to the body, or the existence of diseases that can change how people reason like schizophrenia (and those same diseases are treated using chemicals, antipsychotics for example) which means it's of a material nature, sure we don't understand consciousness in the sense of explaining how it comes to happen step by step, but that's just a matter of time in my opinion before this issue is going to be resolved.
Adding to that are the cases of animals who show at least some sense of consciousness as we do( seeing themselves in mirrors etc.) making it clear that it has to do with the make up of the brain. We have a more evolved brain that is very prone to cause consciousness in live beings. So change the make up of the physical brain, change its cabability of producing consciousness.
For those of you who are interested in exploring this topic more deeply, here are some videos of an atheist philosopher (who's becoming kinda popular) who makes some very interesting arguments on why he rejects the typical atheist views on the mind body problem, which are property dualism (the mental is merely a property of the physical brain), and elimitivism (anything that can't be found in the brain doesn't exist) . He basically argues for panpsychism.
ruclips.net/video/NVOi8cvEl5Y/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/B7B_RmZQp5Q/видео.html
@@jd2981 thanks, sounds cool. Gonna check that one out some time👍
Even when all this topic "how consciousness can emerge from matter" goes way over my head (especially after listening Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay on TJump channel and reading some comments there ) it is still way more reasonable for me to believe that it comes from the matter.
@@jd2981 Thanks for the links, but basically just another philosopher denying emergence without justification; lots of unfounded assertions and non sequiturs.
Aaahhhhhhh. I'm 7 minutes in and pulling out my hair. That makes me worry that I'm Dunning Krugering on this. I'll listen to the rest because these are great, but can someone point out a flaw in this response?
Saying there is no truth to atomic motion is like saying there is no turn signal to atomic motion, yet with enough atoms behaving predictably we get a whole car and it's working turn signal.
How is this not just absurd reductionism on the host and theist's part?
That's exactly what it is
My thoughts exactly, it sounded like a lot of arguments from ignorance to me 'How can a brain do thoughts?!, I don't get it so it must get them from somewhere else'
This is always the problem with theists that don't understand theism, they are trying to compare apples and xylophones. Belief systems can be of great help to many people, get them through hard times, always having hope for a brighter future, this is the stuff that Christianity should be based on. Anyone that understands theism as a metaphysical philosophy isn't going to get murked down in this, Religion is not science, and it can't be. Unless you can call Jesus over to make his case then you lose before you start, and all you are left with are these hypothetical rabbit holes. If the Virgin Mary were a fighter pilot would she have bombed Dresden? Its really just theater of the absurd.
If I were to try to prove religion to Alex I would take him to meet people with convictions in witnessing miracles, things like that would open his mind as to why people take up religion, this blathering by bobbleheads is painful.
@@Gee-xb7rt But what do you mean by "prove religion to Alex" if not by showing him that the claims about Jesus and god are real? Just showing him how people feel better about theire lives with beliving in it does not make it true, doesnt prove a thing.
@@Gee-xb7rt
This isn't about trying to prove religion, I'm sure Alex is well aware that people have strong convictions, unfortunately strong convictions don't prove squat!!!
Plenty of people with strong convictions in mental health facilities all over the world, I spoke with one man who was absolutely convinced he was Prince Charles
Great! A cosmicSkeptic video, my day just took a turn for the better.
This Ph.D guy can't hold a candle to Alex when it comes to an intellectual debate. He has trouble directly answering/responding to Alex and boiling his own arguments down.
I beg to differ. While he is great, but he is also someone with this "yes but no" kind of attitude. Like, pick a struggle. It is easy to just cherrypick things that are advantageous to you and drop any flawed premises when debunked. Nothing about strong principles.
@@azmard4865 You are asking me to pick an instance of him failing to respond to Alex?
@@azmard4865 that is exactly his premise though, he is poking holes in the argument presented.
A position of agnosia.
I commented this in the original post:
The leaf's anology is fallacious.
A human writing the name is more probable BECAUSE while we have no examples of some wind blowing randomly and generating leaves letters, we have all the evidence/experience that humans do it (well Da, it's LANGUAGE, which CREATED BY HUMANS IN ORDER TO INTERACT WITH OTHER HUMANS), therefore obviously it's more probablistic.
However, in our example it's the other way around. While we have all the examples/evidences/discoveries of things that thought (and fought to death) to be supernatural and realized to be completely natural, we have ZERO examples of one that ended up to actually be a supernatural phenomenon, and currently no reason whatsoever to think that it is actually a real thing or even be possible at all.
When stating that something is more probable given X, you need to demonstrate that X is even exist if you want to state that it is therefore a more reasonable view to hold (as an engine for consciousness in our case, and even then you need to further demonstrate and calculate what the probability that it is indeed has anything to do with consciousness, do the same for the naturalistic view, and compare the two). Otherwise, it is only more reasonable because YOU DEFINE IT TO BE LIKE THAT, and not because it has any bearing in reality.
Plenty of problems with the room /language translation analogy too, both philosophically (google it) and practically, as nowadays AI softwares are not developed with some set of rules "if that do that", but with an artificial neural network which is used for the process of learning, "thinking", and then classically acting.
No need to mention that it is only in its diapers and doesn't include the chemical & biological systems on top of it, so, again, FALLACIOUS.
And please, anyone, correct me if I misunderstood anything, because I found it hard to believe that Alex did not mention these points all across the debate. Although it might be due to his courtesy as he clearly stopped himself several times from loudly identifying these arguments as what they are (arguments from ignorance).
Your take on the leaf analogy was exactly my first thought as well. It's only more probable that someone spelled it out intentionally IF it is actually possible for someone to do such a thing, which in that example it clearly is. With god, however, it would first need to be established that a god can possibly exist at all.
@@colinstuart9526
But God obviously exists, the bible says so.
@@AdamAlbilya1 Oh! Of course! Why didn't I think of that! How foolish of me.
@@colinstuart9526
Yep, at least my d*ck wasn't cut for nothing.
Yes. I wish Alex had addressed this. It’s just so....wrong.
40 minutes in and I'm convinced Max had only encountered the concept of the human brain moments before turning up to the debate.
That made me laugh
That's my distinct impression too. He knows NOTHING about the developments in neuroscience in the past twenty years let alone the past five years. It's just sad.
Neoklis Papacosta Or of animal brains for that matter .
I wonder how many of these folks that contend the mind isn't a property of the brain would allow me to drive nails into their forehead. I suspect they'll balk before I get to take the first swing.
@@zapkvr Max is not into current studies. He has to go back a few decades to get his information... Being current is for nerds.... hahahaha
Congratulations CosmicSkeptic! I'm very happy for you! You are doing great!
Alex you are truely inspiring , im so encouraged to listen to your thoughts as it refreshes the ongoing epistomology .Thank you for being real , keep pressing on brother .
He assumes the brain is trying to produce a consciousness, it’s not, there’s no consciousness cortex in the brain. What we describe as “consciousness” is just the byproduct of the collective functionality of every part of our brain.
So when he says he doesn’t get how ideas would be communicated via the pushing and pulling of physical reactions he doesn’t understand how much is being pushed and pulled. Ideas that you can visualize and verbalize are very complex, it’s a layered projection of many different systems. He should have researched this more.
That's a good way to put it.
Incorrect
You can have all of these things without awareness. Why is there a witness?
So what is the probability of a supernatural explanation when you have 0 evidence of supernatural?
True I was wondering about that while listening. No where is it factored in the probability that such a mysterious thing like a God would exist in the first place.
Funny enough this very question came up recently on "Capturing Christianity" and a philosopher guest was asked about it. Doesn't look like he had a coherent answer:
ruclips.net/video/0tRm6tayai4/видео.html
👏👏
@James Hitch. If it's a nonsensical question and you can't give probabilities for the supernatural, isn't that a big problem for the many apologists who claim that a supernatural ressurection is more probable that a stolen body for example?
@James Hitch. "Whats the probability of something we cant explain. very probable. science cant explain consciousness so what's the probability of a scientific explanation? terrible logic"
I think you need to slow down a little and think about this for a bit. Because you've just come in here a month later making a bunch of nonsesical posts in a row.
Something we can't explain is very probable?
Loved it. Want this kind of discussion more. Thank you guys.
i am also confused as to how Max is so incapable of understanding that creatures evolved to create accurate models of the world around them based on observation and experiences in order to better find prey or run from predators and this is the root of consciousness--of awareness. "intentionality" is just a complex process of fulfilling some sort of base need or desire. A computer could reasonably do this as well if it was advanced enough, especially since we are basically just meant computers.
If your intellectual ability is like a computer program that just takes then how can you trust your own intellectual thoughts?
Computers dont find truth which is what you tried doing In your comment. They just take In input, take it through an algorithm, and spit out something.
Never have I been this early to a Cosmic Skeptic video. If creationists had been this early to the creation of the universe, maybe they would be able to find SOME EVIDENCE for it. Too bad they rely solely on faith.
Last time I was this early I spilled quark-gluon plasma all over my space pants
Yeah just imagine if the bible had the "theory of evolution" and "big bang".
@Gabe Norman I'm open to hearing what you've got to say.
Gabe Norman
Like what for example? Your god making the trees and seed bearing plants before even creating the sun?
Calling the sun and the moon two great lights and afterwards making the stars? Did your god not know the sun is also a star? Did he not know that the moon was a dead rock and simply reflecting the sun’s light?
Stars still being formed in the universe.
Your god is a moron.
Gabe Norman still waiting...
I love that Alex most often shows up to debates and conversations with no notes and no phone. He is truly beyond gifted.
With Max being a professor, I was really hoping for some fresh new theist arguments.
Instead we get a combination of the watchmaker and the incredulity arguments, plus a real obsession with molecules and atoms.
I am a little surprised that no-one mentioned consciousness as an emergent property of the brain (together with the water molecules ≠ wetness example) but that might be a testament to Alex's resourcefulness in bringing new material to the table.
And of course thanks to Justin for hosting. More like this please! :-)
I believe that consciousness being an emergent property of the brain was brought up at some point. I just think the theists dismissed it out of hand and Alex didn't bring it up again to defend it.
I'm sort of disappointed that Alex spent so much time explaining *how* consciousness developed, rather than showing it is possible that consciousness can be made up of the building blocks of the universe. Or asking the theists to prove that it isn't. Instead he let them get away with just asserting that intentionality cannot emerge from naturalistic building blocks without any justification. Very dissatisfying.
Cosmic you're so dayum clear and understandable, keep it up!
Don’t you just love how theists tie themselves in knots when they try to get intellectual regarding the nature of reality.
The more convoluted their arguments are, the higher the chance you will give up on trying to understand the arguments and just accept that the conclusion is true because everything sounds so smart.
Don’t you love how people called “My OpenMind” actually believe in religion
Edgar Olmedo I believe people believe all sorts or weird and wonderful things from Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism , Mormonism and Scientology.
I wouldn’t say that I believe in religion but I see religiosity in others and wonder exactly why they allow themselves to believe such irrational things.
@@cassif19 It sounds like you cant keep up
@@edgarolmedo7166 the idea of secularism came from freemasons or satanic worshipers. So if this idea is based from people who worship satan, then there would be a god.
The strangest behaviour of atoms manifesting into thought, are the thoughts of theists trying to shoehorn theism into reality.
Yeah except the foot going into the shoe doesn’t exist and the shoehorn is a huge sign with Pascal’s Wager on it
Thank “god” Max isn’t one of my professors lol
He’s better than most apologists, but that’s not saying much
Zero evidence of God, plus lots of intellectual argument for God, still equates to zero evidence of God.
@@jacketrussell
"Zero evidence of God, plus lots of intellectual argument for God, still equates to zero evidence of God."
It does not seem like you know what evidence means.... evidence = the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
In Law evidence is also information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
So there are lots of types of evidence the evidence you are talking about that you claim is not evidence is called argumentative evidence for God and argumentative evidence is used in multiple places for example the court system and even in science... but that is not the only evidence for God there are thousands of pieces of evidence for a creator/God... for example testimonial evidence that is also excepted in court after it is tested etc and even used in science for example social science where they give people questionnaires to get their testimony about things for example what they liked etc
The best evidence for a creator is probably cumulative evidence... where all the pieces of evidence taken together makes a super strong case for the existence of a creator...
but seems like you really badly want to believe that there is no evidence for a creator or you are just deceived into thinking there is no evidence for a creator or you try and change the definition of evidence... you probably have really large biases against a creator hypothesis...
@@Maarten927
No one has ever produced good evidence for any God.
All Gods only exist as human constructs.
@@jacketrussell
"No one has ever produced good evidence for any God.
"
See now you change your claim from there not being any evidence to claiming there is not any good evidence... if a person has huge biases then no evidence will be good evidence because they will always just make excuses for the evidence no matter how bad the excuses are... for example lets just see what kind of bad excuses you make for the following good evidence for a creator, because of your huge biases against a creator...
Perhaps you know that scientists have found a programming code at the base of life and we can even store our own programming code on that programming code we can also program on that programming code and scientists have discovered that the programming code at the base of life is read by nano molecular machines and factories in cells that carry out the commands written in it... and they have found design strategies in the programming code like automatic error correction, files within folders, data encryption etc all of these things point to an intelligence because we have never seen such things like this come into being without an initial input from an intelligence...
Scientists are even beginning to find programming code at the base of the universe and not just at the base of life... but atheists are so blinded by their huge biases that they cannot see that this is extremely good evidence for a creator.... not to mention the thousands of other pieces of evidence pointing to a creator that makes the cumulative case for the existence of a creator super strong...
"All Gods only exist as human constructs."
Computer game creators are becoming more and more like God in their games... for example they are not bound by the rules in the game or the gravity or any other law made in the game just like God is not bound by physical laws of His creation... for example not bound by the law of gravity... so a creator is not as far fetch as you think we see creators making their own worlds all the time...
You sound like the flat earthers that see that all other planets are round and then claim our planet is flat... in the same way you see that there are thousands of created worlds and yet you claim we are not created even though we find programming code at the base of life and at the base of the universe...
A creator is the best explanation for the programming code found at the base of life and at the base of the universe..
A creator is the best explanation for the nano molecular machines and factories in cells that read the programming code and carry out the commands written in it...
A creator is the best explanation for the design strategies scientists found in the DNA programming code...
A creator is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe...
and there are thousands of other things that point to the existence of a creator... so open your eyes there is lots of good evidence for a creator... don't let atheists deceive you that claim there is no evidence...
@@Maarten927
Apologists are now reduced to arguing God into existence or invoking quantum level pseudoscience.
There is no winner but the one who gained something valuable from this debate. There is no loser except the one who closed their ears to the opposing side.
@Vayne Carudas Solidor You kind of proved my point.
Well said. these debates are an amazing answer to prejudice. If you wish to challenge your opponents arguments, first respect your opponent.
@Ethan.
Damn, that was very well said! Because it's true!
The quote of the day! Or the month, or... ;)
Ethan M. The one who closed their ears to the opposing side is a loser _only if_ the opposing side had something valuable to say. If their ears were open, and there was nothing to hear, they lost valuable time, which can never be recovered.
@@ethanm.2411 He really didn't prove your point, though. Public debates really shouldn't be had for personal enrichment. They should be had to inform the audience. The winner is the one who comes off as more competent in the given conversation, and I think it's very obvious who came off as competent here.
The theist's argument is: I can't think of anything else, so what else could it be?
The Host's argument is: Well atheists are materialistic only, so can't wait for them to prove Gods can't exist.
I haven't heard CosmicSkeptic's reply yet (at 30min stage), but I bet it gets all tangled up in long definitions.
But the actual real answer is: 1. That's a fallacy by the theist and 2. Atheists don't say no Gods exist!
What atheists are looking for is evidence and reason of that very specific defined God of theirs, and saying why it can't just be physical atoms!!! Doesn't mean therefore God!!! As you need EVIDENCE for that first.
So irritating.
To his defence, he was not making a definite claim, only a claim about probabilities. So he doesn't need definite evidence for Gods existence, he just needs circumstances that would suggest that Gods existence is more probable than Gods nonexistence.
@@numbo655 ok. I'm aware that so far supernatural claimed Gods have a zero probability along with lepricauns and other such things.
I can't see how the probability of claimed Gods could be better than 5th dimension aliens though? Or even a brain in a vat. Actually I'd probably choose magical lepricauns over any God claim too.
@@numbo655 "To his defence, he was not making a definite claim, only a claim about probabilities. So he doesn't need definite evidence for Gods existence, he just needs circumstances that would suggest that Gods existence is more probable than Gods nonexistence."
Well neither are most atheists. They are not saying definitively no gods exists.
''how else''?
@@kimsland999 A personal belief is not a claim
Isn't this basically a god of the gaps argument for the hard problem of consciousness?
yes
No. It would be if he had claimed that it was an argument for theism, or for the Christian God specifically. He explicitly said it wasn't. I don't know how people missed that part.
And in this particular case it's a gap that doesn't exist, but which desperate apologists have to make with the intellectual equivalent of a -rubber crowbar- wet fart.
_Animals wouldn't even HAVE legs if God hadn't made legs for them to have!_ is an equally nonexistent gap. Sounds more childish than their bullshit, but it's really no different. It's all about word choice. Cletus McInbred-Churchgoer knows what legs are but wouldn't understand rationality if it beat his mother/sister with a stick, so it sounds more convincing to deny reality with reason than it does with the same argument about legs.
jhunt5578
And begging the question.
@@EdwardHowton facepalm...
Been a long-time subscriber, I am just stunned at how much you've grown your channel and grown yourself. Good luck in undergrad young man.
Well done by both participants -- thanks!
This is interesting. When he gives the lawn example, he says that the spouse did it, rather than the wind. But that would be the naturalists' world view. Under his world view I would say it's equally likely that god put the leaves there.
Madger Bole no because we know humans invented language and it’s more probable.
How so?
@@CALIJOE13 but then that assumes that we know a god created minds for the argument to work, which we cannot know.
Yes very poor analogy. It seemed to show just the opposite of what he was trying to assert. It only works if we have proof of a spouse existing. A better analogy might have substituted a ghost of a spouse or ghost of an ancestor that no one could prove even existed.
Colin Robertson are you trying to sound philosophical ? Lol dude go to study epistemology. Or better yet please stop commenting.
I think I share Alex’s confusion. I’m failing to see how the ability to conceptualize is a problem. Things are going on in a dog’s head while it sleeps. It can play out imaginary events in its head to some extent. Many animals can solve complex problems (though not nearly to the degree of humans of course). No other animals have a concept of logic or mathematics, partly because they don’t have a language to express it with. And we see time and time again that our brains _aren’t_ very good at discerning truth, though the truth itself tends to make itself evident over time.
Even worms have rudimentary nerves that give them indication of where it's their own body. So it's like the first version of self-awareness. Cats can look at the food and understand if what they see is edible or not. Ability for abstracting is an evolutionary advantage.
Great discussion, learned a lot from both sides, thank you for the video.
One of the better debates I've seen in terms of format, demeanor, content, and moderation.
Rationality comes from a god? Then we'd all be rational lol. Which we're not!
Meh...
@:) :) :) LOL
@:) :) :) because government is a sociña construction which in their current form majoritarianly serve those already rich.
if Alex become a well-known philosopher i will not be surprised.
I think that's what he's going for. The way Alex reasons, you can tell he gonna go far.
@@TomasPetkevicius94 I feel like he'll become a former atheist turned Christian philosopher the same way C S Lewis did, and the bald guy from Trinity Radio will also go through a former Christian now atheist apologist the same way Matt Dillahunty did. Idk, it's just a feeling I got../
The argument you finished with around 50:00 was excellent. I was curious if you could find a way to inform them about how instinct becomes reason and you nailed it. Well done.
Christian reductive arguments are so frustrating.
Dying in the state of mortal sin is even more frustrating.
@Kurt Gödel Especially when the concept of “sin” is a silly fabrication
Jolly Templar Especially when “sins” were altered throughout the centuries
Jolly Templar you won’t be saying that at your own judgement before almighty God. I tremble for you.
"I and the Father are One" - (John 10:30)
Do you understand what that means?
Thank u so much for this channel! I became an atheist on my own around 2nd grade. I never really knew anyone that wasn’t religious. This channel makes me “included”. Thanks!!
then stop being aitheist
I think you missed the opportunity to turn the gun on him. He's making a probabilistic argument. The position he defends is that there are unnatural causes acting on natural effects. Which means we should observe in the brain physical phenomena that are caused by nothing physical, and that carry intention. And that is an extraordinary claim!
I only discovered your channel about a week ago and have watched a considerable amount of your videos over the past few days. I have just come to realise that I have started reading in your voice and so I think it is time for a little break haha
That being said, I’m really enjoying your content.
I'm still staggered by the fact that intelligent people can still buy into the theistic hypothesis, (let alone the Christian one).
Clearly all three individuals are intelligent guys, but theism is nonsense.
There are no good arguments to support it. Only appeals to ignorance. A false belief that it offers objective morality (it doesn't). And the claim it can give people a meaning and purpose (but at what price, and it's just one of many avenues to find a meaningful life).
Probably true, but you can also acknowledge that there are problems with the naturalistic hypothesis. Ending up with the conclusion that we have no free will and thus no real capability for reasoning isn't exactly ideal. Especially when reasoning seems to be the way we ended up at that conclusion in the first place....
@@numbo655 But I mean that wouldnt mean that that is not the case tho. Quite ironic sure but not really false.
Secular Guy
I too am baffled by the same thing. I am an atheist and have a lot of christian friends. They are pretty smart and rational people, but as soon as religion comes up in the conversation, all of that rationality just gets tossed out the window and its frustrating. I plan to ask each of them this question: Would you still be christian if you weren't born into it?
@@Tehz1359 rational and irrational are relative to perception and realization. Theism says life comes from life atheism says life come from inert chemicals. I see life coming from life but i don't see life coming from inert chemicals so i believe theism.
How does it not provide objective morality?
18:55 Mentions Bayes' Theorem - nice! Gives an example where
P(evidence | Hypothesis1)
>> P(evidence | Hypothesis2)
(i.e. if the spouse did it, the leaves forming their pattern are much more provable than if the wind did that). Says that one of the hypothesis thus gets evidential confirmation - correct.
*Then leaves out one of the central Bayesian aspects:* Prior probability. It's not enough to say: "If the spouse would've done it, we would have a much higher expectation of this formation. Therefore the spouse did it." Because we also need to consider the probability that the spouse would go out raking the leaves at all. What if she's in France right now, or in the hospital, or just really busy, or hates all forms of gardening so much that she would rather cut off her hand? Then the prior probability for the spouse doing the work is reeeeaally low. That doesn't mean it can't be the case that she did it - but it must be taken into account.
Connecting this to the theological side: With a powerful deity around, you can say of many events that its likely God would be responsible (rather than something else), *if* he exists. All miracle claims use this logic and in many cases, this makes sense. If God was around, it's plausible that he would've wanted to save the Isrealites from the Egyptians and might've split the Red Sea for this purpose. Much more plausible than that the wind alone would've done that, even in a very windy area/season. But how likely is it (*not* yet considering any evidence, mind you) that God exists? And that's where we get to a tight spot...
TL;DR: A professor ought to know of the two most significant Bayesian components (prior and conditional proabiblity) if he wants to explain it in a few sentences.
Ugh, so basically: "BRANE DIFICULT TO EXPLANE. SO GOD EXISTS."
*BRAIN
Totally agree. Good summary of this argument.
@@davidcooks2379 Naw, it's "BRANE". You can't explain the BRANE with grammar. Only God can.
@@mattiasmalk did you mean the string theory? Sorry I didn't catch the EXPLANE part
@@davidcooks2379 Just having a laugh, all good.
@@davidcooks2379 r/whoosh
Great discussion on a subject I hadn't really thought about. (Sorry lol).
Glad the guy in middle was there. His input by putting the points across in a different way helped me follow the debate more.
This kind of argument nad discussion convinces me again that this kind of philosophy is just making things up for yourself to make you feel better.
And you just described the most prevalent part of modern theology!
I don't understand the problem with thoughts about things originating as an emergent property within the brain.
Neither do I. Philosophers call it the hard problem of consciousness but neurologists have no problem with it.
The problem is a supposed "god" thing isn't required in that answer.
Why can’t you have all of these processes without a witness?
I can't imagine how consciousness can be explained by purely natural processes.
"So what's your explanation?"
It's got to be The Supernatural.
"Okay, let's hear about The Supernatural and how The Supernatural explains consciousness."
Well, it's not natural, not just atoms bumping into each other.
"Got it. It's not about atoms. What is it about and how does it explain consciousness? Just a high level concept of how you imagine that The Supernatural explains this mystery, how it might work."
Well............................................................... Look at that tree!
Lol hilarious
Thank you. The argument from reason is very interesting and convincing in a way. It's a shame the discussion was so short. Yet it gave me some points of reference. The argument from reason is something really worth to study :)
Ahh I’m here so early! I must pay even more attention then
I’m getting to the point where I absolutely cannot stand the dodging and babble coming from the theist arguments. I get it, though. There is very little ground left to retreat the defense of a god to, and it requires increasingly more complicated subversion of logic to achieve. This can’t be easy even for the educated professor. Even so, his attempts are so laughable, I’ve begun to lose hope for the future of the mind in society. We are such simple animals and our minds are not meant to be truthful or logical first. They are meant to survive first, and that has millions of years of “dated” programming behind it. Still, bless Alex for teaching these two with patience and gentle correction. It would have been juicy to lay them flat, but I do like watching Max’s eyes sink towards the end as Alex explains simple evolutionary history effectively annihilating the last hour of his discourse.
Is Alex a human?
In your mind my belief in God is just as logical as your disbelief, is it not?
Lmao. Alex seemed like a boomer when debating with some Muslim scholars. I guess Christian isn't the best one to argue with? Being Atheist can be quite easy, pick anything that you find advantageous and drop it once you are owned and say stuff like "that is not my problem" with that "yes but no" attitude. Like, pick a struggle 😮
I'm with you Alex, I don't see how they're stumbling on things that aren't all that contentious.
Humans imbue something with a conceptual attribute then marvel that it couldn't be without it.
Edit: and that magic put it there all along
Love this
I want to say I really like and respect the show unbelievable and the guy who hosts it. I think it's great to have such a show where the general public can more easily listen to and interact with this type of philosophy and theology. Also I feel like the host tends to do a good job of keeping the conversation moving and making these ideas more easily understandable to the average person. Most of the time moderators seem to interrupt the progression of dialogue, but I think he actually does a great job. I'd love to see you on this show more in the future Alex.
Alex: uploads hour long video
Me: adds to watch later
Also me: forgets about it and doesn’t watch it later.
Me: listen to Watch Later videos on bed before sleeping and dream with them
Ultimately, in my opinion, I believe this question comes down to this: is reason within the realm of experience? If this question is answered with an affirmative, it 'reasons' that it is likely that we obtained knowledge of reason the same way we obtained the instinct to not touch a hot pan.
Excellent talk.
Very fascinating, you are wise beyond your years Alex.
theres no way youve listened to all of it in a minute
@@gerritkruger4014 This was already posted before on Justin Brierly's (the moderator) channel Unbelievable.
@@gerritkruger4014 It doesn't relate to this video specifically, just in general. I just wanted him to see it.
@@xwarrior760 No, I didn't. I just wanted to say something to him, and the best way to get him to see it is to type early. It doesn't relate to this video specifically, just in general.
This sounds pretty much like a rather sophisticated (or sophisticatedly worded) argument from ignorance.
Wolfram Stahl how so?
@@MarblePerception I'd love to give you a comprehensive reply, but I don't remeber which parts of this hour+ long video I was referring to 4 weeks ago ;)
If you are familiar with the argument from ignorance, the parallels in Max's argumentation should be pretty obvious as far as I remember.
@@MarblePerception his argument boils down to we don't know how consciousness arose via materialistic means therefore god must exist. It's really just a textbook example of the Argument from Ignorance.
@@djixi98 One correction: the professor said this is not an argument for the existence of god. It is an argument for the supernatural orgin of the mind. But I agree that it is a suffisticated argument from ignorance.
This is an interesting take on the intersection between philosophy of mind and that of god. It's worth pointing out that there is an extensive literature on what mental representations and intentionality are, who they relate to (i.e just humans?) and how they come to exist.
On that last question, the question is divided into whether these representations are determined/caused by some feature not internal to a person's mind. Frankly, either side can argue their case convincingly without appeal to theology or god (although they can't both successfully convince one person simultaneously!)
Alex, you could have bolstered your argument by appealing to what's known as the teleological theory of mental representation, which quite effectively explains the development from hearing a noise, to hearing that same noise but representing 'danger', to hearing that same noise and representing 'snake', and then poisonous snake, and then rattlesnake, and so on. The theory has also been formulated to account for misrepresentation, although it faces plenty of objections from other directions.
Anyhow, given the data that is the existence of rational thought, I don't think it's more likely than not that the supernatural had something to do with it, which is what Max is trying to argue. Intentionality is as much a puzzle in a theistic world-view as in a non-theistic one, since we have an apparently insurmountable epistemic barrier to the explanation of our representational content (for we can't know whether a god-world is one where he has anything to do with the development of conscious representation or not).
I think that the mental relates more closely with the biological than the theological, so I would look towards a biological/evolutionary explanation for mental phenomena as a priority. Thankfully, evolutionary theory can support the atheist/naturalist's view adequately, and this can reasonably effectively be demonstrated in computed models and simulations, as well as in observations from non-human animals.
Thanks guys for doing this :)
Fantastic debate Alex, you wiped the floor with your opponent. What a joy to watch. Encouraging to see that even at such high level of thought the theist worldview is still exposed to its glaring flaws
Interesting content.
Summary of the first 30 minutes: theist makes a fallacy of division.
There. Now you can skip forward.
Jesus i wish i had read this when i started the video lol.
Jesus? dont you mean 'Kevin'?
@@TokyoElbow Kevin is the new Jesus
@@TokyoElbow Nope. Evoking the powers of a being with none for emphasis.
How was that a fallacy of division? That would make some sense if his argument was a deductive one and he just outright stated that the naturalistic explanation was logically impossible, but that's not at all what he was arguing. He was basically saying that it's improbable that mental phenomena, consciousness (first person experience) came from physical evolutionary processes, as physical phenomena is enough to develop mechanisms for survival in the physical world, and that there's really no need for the development of a first person perspective for an organism to thrive. And well, of course, he believes if something is improbable, it's more reasonable to adopt a more probable explanation.
This was quite the straw man.
My two cents on the conversation. Our intentionality *can* be seen by looking at the electrons in our brain pushing and pulling etc if we interpret the data correctly. There is a layer of data interpretation that has to take place to get from electrons to thoughts about London.
Beautiful discussion. One of the very rare cases where both parties seem to actually try to be honest.
I do find it dangerous when people start ascribing probabilities to anything involving consciousness. Since we don't know what it is or how it emerges, we need to remain agnostic about it. For all we know it's inevitable in some way we don't understand. We can't say that it seems unlikely to be an 'offshoot' of evolution.
Nice subtitle! Reason vs naturalism. It says a lot about the host.
Reason can be flawless, yet provide no evidence whatsoever for God.
All elephants are pink.
Nelly is an elephant.
Therefore Nelly is pink.
A great example from Doctor Who.
Although perhaps more apt is my sandwich example, since they're trying to argue God into existence.
"The perfect sandwich is [your favorite kind of sandwich description here, I use a simple one for brevity]. Since it is more perfect for said sandwich to exist than for it not to exist, then..... huh, weird, the sandwich didn't just poof into existence in my hand so I could eat it. It's almost like just defining things doesn't make them appear in the real world!"
I could come up with a dozen more examples if I were sleepy and brain damaged. Oh wait, I AM sleepy, AND I have brain damage and another brain tumor! Go figure.
@@EdwardHowton - "pink"
We can define anything in the whole Universe, in fact, we can define what might be in other Universes, too, with other forms of time/space and physics.
The very fact that we can see/imagine things that could not possibly exist in someone's artful creation such as in the works of the Dr. Who franchise (I am now binge watching the Thirteenth Doctor) does not mean that they exist other than as depicted/defined.
So in what way do fanciful things exist? Could God be Q or some other character dreamed up by an artful writer? Yes. But not likely, at least in this Universe.
But I must disagree with you about sandwiches. I had one just now poof into existence in my field of vision, provided by a very polite and helpful "god" of the sandwiches. I believe in that "god" and that I can close my eyes and upon opening them again, behold a divine sandwich before me.
@@EdwardHowton - "existence"
Could there exist a poetically defined "God" with all the attributes of that "God" that could make everything better, happy and satisfying?
Yes.
But what would that existence consist of?
@@EdwardHowton - "sandwich"
I really enjoy sandwiches. From the most humble baloney, cheese and tomato sandwich on white bread to the most exotic fusion organic bloody sandwich that has ever been set forth on a plate or banana leaf.
And I frequently say, "this is my favourite sandwich! Indeed this sandwich is the most perfect I have ever experienced." Then tomorrow comes.
Another such perfect one, albeit different, will likely fall into my hands, I hope. ;)
Well, you know what I meant. Human beings can imagine things that don't exist in reality with no difficulty at all. Hell, we can't even avoid doing it unintentionally. Quick, don't think about an invisible rhinoceros. You just did and that's impossible.
So like invisible rhinoceroses or God or Voldemort, we can make things exist in our minds with little difficulty, but you know I was referring to the real world with my sandwich example. I used that most often for... Matt "Sleazeball" Slick's TAG, I think, and the ontological non-argument for nothing whatsoever. "God is a perfect being, yadda yadda has to exist in order to be perfect, duh, der4 Gawduhduh am reelz!@#~!@#!@"
Just because you define a sandwich as perfect doesn't mean one's going to just magically appear in your hand. Which is what most arguments for gods are trying to accomplish. As if the universe has to be altered when some inbred hick makes a proclamation of some inane tripe.
Actually, since this might be my last day with the ability to use a computer, I'll mention that I have a refutation of the 'it is more perfect for God to exist than to not exist' thing that handily fucks that stupid bullshit up.
Things that exist are subject to decay and deterioration, therefore it would be more perfect for a god to not exist than to decay.
This is like "god's not dead" in a alternative universe
OMG!!! I love these debates. Respectful and lots to learn from it. Love you Connor, although I am a Christian.
Good on ya!
Very nice debate, I've watched the whole video
? It’s been out 20 minutes and it’s 1 hour 16 long
@@freescratch645 yup that's the joke
@@freescratch645 it released earlier on the Unbelievable! channel
I do really enjoy when you go on this show, Alex. Often, it is the theist coming to the atheist's territory. That the role is swapped, and it can still be a comfortable atmosphere, speaks to how well the host treats his guests.
was gonna watch this now but it's over an hour long and I have my actual drama A level tomorrow yikes.
Ever heard of watch later?
Rooting for ya!
How are drama exams like?
@Sandcastle • rude and unnecessary comment
Drinking Guinness and watching these debates makes for an awesome evening!
49:09 - Hey Alex! I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts on Donald Hoffman's Case Against Reality. The whole segment leading up to this moment felt like the terms were behind tossed around a bit haphazardly, though of course not with any intent to mislead. I wonder how solid our definitions are on this topic.
Great video once again. Keep em' coming! Cheers
Ah yes, the argument from "My position is so weak that I have to literally throw out the entire basis of reasoning and both begin and end with nothing more than a logical fallacy based in my unfounded assumption".
Always a _super_ convincing ploy. Like telling people they need to buy your crutches but you'll sell them at a discount if they let you break their legs first.
Bruh, that idea wont get out of my head for a whole while now😂👍
I aim to please. Wrapping stuff in comedy helps remember it, sometimes.
But it's not just a joke, it's apt too.
_You need crutches!_
I sure don't!
_No you do because you can't walk!_
I can walk just fine.
_You only think you can walk just fine, in reality you need to walk with crutches because your legs are broken._
My legs aren't broken.
_Sure they are! Now buy these crutches. Hang on, I'll break your legs first._
It's exactly what the rejection of reasoning is. _We need god,_ no we don't, _you need god to reason,_ I can reason just fine, _yes but only because god magically gives you the power to reason, reason wouldn't exist without god._
@@EdwardHowton thanks for that little short story definitly helps one to keep these point better in mind, plus it's quite funny as well 😁👍
@@EdwardHowton This is exactly the reasoning I was raised with! You very aptly summarized it and I'm getting flashbacks now😭😂
@Grasshopper Thank you. I had all the religion stuff thrown at me as a kid but none of it ever stuck. I use observation from dealing with religious people here as the basis for my remarks, so outside confirmation is invaluable.
I always worry that I'm talking out of my ass, despite a _decade_ of this shit. Nice to know I'm not crazy.
26 minutes in:
"It's hard to see why minds that were shaped by an unguided process of natural selection would have the capacity for not just for navigating our way around our physical environment for getting food and that kind of thing but for doing quantum physics and metaphysics and so on"
Isn't being aware of our environment a key element in self preservation?
As a non academic, would I be wrong to think that studying such things to the levels understood by science today so far, is just an extension of that mental process by understanding our place in the universe (a.k.a our environment in a vastly wider context)?
Is it not just the same concept but scaled up?
I would appreciate if Alex or any other academic who may have read my post could comment and perhaps clear that up for my own understanding.
Thanks!
25:57 the solution is non reductive physicalism.
mental states and causation are another entirely different metaphysical category. as part of our property dualism, there is only one kind of substance, the physical, but it has different properties. it can have physical properties and mental properties which are emergent phenomenon. thus things like qualia can be accounted for by emergentism, and i think plausibly that's how we'll explain things like consciousness from a completely naturalistic ontology.
*The theist is completely unconvincing*
Great debate, but ultimately I feel that Max falls foul of the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.
Explaining consciousness with supernaturality is like thinking the leaves didn't form your name because they were arranged by someone you know or formed by total chance, which would both be viable explanations, but instead something else that has no connection to what you already know forming them with no way to ask, confirm or reproduce.
1:13:20
I think that you can explain first person experience by arguing that it's the brains general purpose tool for any task that requires a new kind of computation that the brain is not very familiar with.
This kind of general purpose tool would solve problems by referencing memories certain algorithms from other (familiar) tasks, combining them and altering them until something work.
That general tool would have a "manager" algorithm that decides what algorithms to refer to the problem it is trying to solve and how to alter them and even how to alter itself.
The manager algorithm be the brains personality.
Max seems to be using a very old model of "AI". He needs to check up on recent developments in how computers can "learn".
“How is it that atoms swirling in the brain are about [anything specific]?” In other words, we don’t understand consciousness, so my idea must be right, even though it doesn’t solve the problem, either
I loved the example he presented about the leaves 🍂 🍃 🍁 forming letters, especially the fact that was about something that had nothing to do with god. It does, however, get to the heart of the conversation. We know that people exist, we know that natural events occur, we understand how many things come to be.
IF there is an area which we do not understand, we do not appeal to something for which we do not have evidence in order to clarify the unclear area.
How can we explain something with another “something” that we cannot even demonstrate exists. If we cannot demonstrate it exists, how could we go on to say how it works?
That’s what I saw here, the gentleman on our left points out what he considers to be a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery and makes claims about the ways in which the bigger mystery functions.
36:00 completely agree with this observation. The deduction is dependent on the catalogue of associations that the term (in this case "man") is a stand- in for. The argument then is a simple exercise in substituting different associations with the same term and voila.
Who do you think won the debate and why?
(Edit: Not that it's necessary to have a winner or loser, I am just curious what folks think)
Does there have to be a winner?
Saturn exactly. Unless it was duration of mental masturbation.
Alex, I'm straight as hell, but you in that suit made me question it for a second.
Good. Find a room already.
For clarification, I think Max describes his preferred method of argumentation as that of Inductive Reasoning, where the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based on evidence. I'm not seeing where he commits the argument from incredulity. Perhaps I missed it; can someone provide a timestamp?
So refreshing to have a moderator so intelligent and unsuperfluous unlike so many these days (hello modern-day debates). Bravo.