How can we say that the cosmos is necessary? The cosmos is contingent. It had a beginning as the standard cosmological model stated precisely because it is contingent. The necessary being will not cease to exist precisely because it is necessary.
@@noodlenoggin5854 OK; so, by the same token, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Neo-Nazi Studies, because its value depends on the content of the course, right?
@@thstroyur , Depends on the content of the course. If the content of the Nazi study is biased in support of Nazis, then ya, it'd be a problem. As I've worked directly with hermaphrodites as a healthcare provider, I can appreciate gender fluidity. Not only does nature create physically sexually divergent people, it creates spiritually sexually divergent people as well. Sexuality is expressed across a spectrum in both mind and body in some people in all actuality.
@@TheAaronExperience " If the content of the Nazi study is biased in support of Nazis, then ya, it'd be a problem" I didn't say "study", I said "Studies" - as in a discipline. But yeah, I think it'd be safe to assume that the content of the course of "Neo-Nazi Studies" would be biased in support of Nazis - hence my point. BTW, claiming you "appreciate gender fluidity" by no means mean gender fluidity is a real thing, TBW; your second paragraph is just a big fat argument from emotion, and _that_ is where the steady decline in Western educational standards of my OP comes back to bite us in the ass...
I really like that at 6:00 you put the argument in print in this video, as it allowed me to pause, examine the argument on my own before hearing your analysis, and then listen to your explanation. I am able to exercise my reasoning against not only the argument itself, but yours as well. Thanks! -Jon
There seems to be an equivocation in the use of the word "reason". The reason I created a universe was because I was bored vs because the stochastic nature of entropy allows universes to form spontaneously throughout an infinite span of time.
//the stochastic nature of entropy allows universes to form spontaneously throughout an infinite span of time.// THAT in itself is a contingent rule that doesn't exist by necessity. We live in a universe governed by contingent rules such as this one and that gives rise to an infinite number of sub-universes. But the parent universe could have been otherwise and be governed by a different or opposite law to the one you mentioned. Such a universe holds no logical contradiction and can exist in a possible reality. Anyone making an appeal to laws regarding perceptual and empirical reality has GROSSLY failed to understand the argument from contingency.
Here is a much more honest approach than Craig's... 1) The universe exists. 2) The universe has some explanation for its existence. 3) We do not currently know (nor may we ever know) the explanation for the universe's existence. God is indeed one possibility. However, a universe creating god (or gods) is only one unproven hypothesis. Another explanation is that perhaps absolute nothing, (an absence of matter, energy, space, or time) cannot exist. "Nothing" actually existing is an oxymoron: Without time, when and for how long would Nothing have existed? Without space, where could Nothing have existed? In other words, _Something_ may have always existed as a brute fact, and that something need not be "supernatural" or even intelligent in nature. There are cosmological models in which universes come into existence via quantum fluctuations from empty space, or from a random imbalance of information bits, etc. Every scientist that proposes these models knows them for what they are - untested hypotheses. But they _are_ explanatory. It's too bad theists won't approach their hypothesis in the same manner, rather than making ridiculous, bold assertions of unprovable, untestable "fact."
If it is a possibility what should we do? Does this possibility has such a low probability? Is this measurement impossible? What would convert an atheist? Nothing? GOD is bounded by the SCIENTIFIC methodology? F. Nietzche said he is dead, is that a true moral sentence? If so, why there are so many religions? Is all that just that opium? Is all that just about those other neces.? Is all that the mere moral that somebody told about? It seems to be more than that.
@Tom Reeves - If you start from true 'nothing' (not Laurence Krauss' version of "nothign") and then ask "where did the space-time continuum itself come from [and the laws that govern all matter therein] come from?", I think the questions you're asking tend to dissipate. This includes "where did the multiverse come from?" and "where did the quantum vacuum come from?" It would appear that these things are contingent on Something, and we would naturally ask "what is that something?" Since that causal agent gave rise to matter, space, time, and intelligence It seems reasonable to me that the causal agent must then be (necessarily) non-material, not subject to space and time ..and also intelligent.
I would amend it slightly to "god is, indeed, on possibility for a very narrow subset of definitions or characteristics for god -- because certain god-definitions are self-refuting or impossible, making god 'not a possibility'.
I would understand Craig's "argument" as a definition of "God", not as an argument for its existence. Trouble is, from what I know about him, it doesn't seem to be the definition he otherwise uses.
I am a theist, but I always enjoy listening to your videos. They are usually well thought out and intelligent. Something that is too rare these days. thanks
@@niceshotmano Because he fails to address most things, just says "I am skeptical of that" and I lack belief in that instead of using counter arguments to address real arguments
@@Terry-nr5qn You should point out which things haven't been addressed for discussion in the interest of all our learning. This guy is on a weekly (?) show that takes any callers, and has made a career out of these debates. I find him to be pretty thorough.
@@Terry-nr5qn He points to the bold assertions and fallacies in their arguments. That is rebuttal enough. What else would be "using counter arguments" in your opinion? You are trying to shift the burden of prove. It's on the theist to provide evidence for their claims. To cite Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Merely asserting that a) The universe has a cause and b) That cause must be (a personal) god can simply be dismissed unless any evidence for that has been provided. That is what skepticism is about. You do not believe until the evidence is provided. The default position can't be to believe unless disproven because you would have to believe basically any nonsensical claim. Matt clearly points out all the unfounded assertions and logical fallacies in their arguments and does a fantastic job.
This argument would be considerably less wanky if it were just phrased as the "argument from cause and effect" or "But who made the universe?", because that's what they're getting at, if you divorce it from the deliberately opaque philosophy jargon. They're just saying that it seems that things are caused by other things, and when it comes to the beginning of all things, they want (instead of concluding that causality might not be a hard-and-fast rule, or that the universe might be infinitive or circular, or that we just don't know) to shove their favourite myths into that space, then dodge the fact that this solves nothing.
It's basically an argument for Deism, a red herring when it comes to any arguments for Theism, because even if they prove Deism true, they CANNOT prove that it has anything to do with Theism. They presuppose any Creator being must be singular, intelligent, willful, capable (and hates foreskin and loves bloodshed), but they can't prove any of it. They can't prove it was just one being, or any being at all, or an intelligent being, or a capable being, or a being that made the universe intentionally. By employing this argument they're arguing for some extraterrestrial from another dimension based on an old book written by primitive poets and shepherds. It's ridiculous.
Well the universe is flat, and I don't think the phrase is wanky and definitely not deliberately opaque. Its an old way of speaking. And I personally like it :)
The argument would be considerably less wanky if it was not defined philosophically. IF we assume that... Yeah, awesome. WHY would we assume? Is there a reason that this assumption is any bit preferable about all the other options? Show a convincing argument that it is not just assumable but LIKELY. And there the argument already breaks down. IFs do not make definite claims but result in possibilities, CONTINGENT on the assumption being true... Leave the cosmology to the astrophysicists and Quantum-Theorists, Philosophy has other playing fields where it is better fitted to deliver useful results.
As toxic as youtube comments can be, I do enjoy reading them and they occasionally yield interesting discussions. I appreciate you leaving them enabled, in contrast to the AE policy on youtube.
@Marlin Bundo Good point. Some toxicity is necessary as you would agree that weeds need potent poison like some disgusting ideas. Challenging wilful ignorance and deception may be the only option if confronting illogical arguments. Notwithstanding, the interlocutor may suffer cognitive impairment.
@@ericscaillet2232 I need help to be precise by consuming alphabet soup with dictionary dinners. Too much Indian curry, and I cope with thesaurus. Thank you for your kind words and introduction of a new verb. Your encouragement means a lot to me, and I anticipate reading your contribution to the content of Saint Matt’s material.
+Come Let us Reason Not believing the claim is true, is not the same as believing a claim is false. If theism is believing a god, or god's exist, and using any of the common meaning of the prefix "a", atheism is not believing a god, or god's exist. Again not believing a god, or god's exist, is not the same as believing no god, or god's exist.
This is one of those arguments (like the ontological argument) that is so technical that it's hard to address when you first come across it, but something about it just feels wrong without knowing exactly what is wrong about it.
@@stein1919 aside from personal experience, i don't think I've heard any arguments for the existence of a deity that isn't some form of the argument from ignorance.
@@zacharyberridge7239 or at least leads to an argument from ignorance. Because the best evidence I've heard is of things we can't explain, that seem divine. But as Matt points out several times in his time in public speaking, until you can demonstrate the 'why' is God, then you're just assuming.
@@denverarnold6210 What premise do you disagree with: 1. There are limited things 2. Limited things can have an explanation 3. The totality of limited things cant be explicable in terms of limited things 4. Therefore the can be an unlimited thing. 5.An unlimited thing would have perfect nature. 6. Something necessary and perfect would need to span all possible worlds (S5) 7. Therefore something perfect exists. This perfect thing would be unlimited. So none quantifiable and lacking nothing which perfectly justifies Theistic believes in assuming this unlimited thing is God. All the traits of this unlimited thing lead to God.
"If the universe has a reason for its existence, then that reason is God." Uh, like Matt said, how did we get to that leap? I don't necessarily agree with Matt when he says there IS a reason for it, but we need to define "reason". If it is synonymous with "cause", ok. If it means "purpose", nope. Anyway, to address my first question (and Matt's ) on how did we make this automatic leap to God... 1. Which god? 2. How did you establish it was not any other gods? 3. Why does it have to be a god at all? Why not pixies, leprechauns, an eternal supercomputer, aliens, etc.? 4. And, we always seem to get back ultimately to the old question: if it WAS god, then such a thing/being must be real and must be contingent on something, too. If you say no, it/He has always existed, then prove it with more than assertions. You can't because if God has been around before time itself existed (I know "before time" is a weird way of putting it, so go ahead and insert "outside of time"), then explain what that means and how you know it. You can't. That's supernatural, and you can only go on faith or hope, which automatically is a deal breaker when trying to prove anything (including Nessie, Bigfoot, or aliens).
I agree. I heard a great comparison (can't remember where I heard it) of religion to Bigfoot that made a lot of sense to me. It basically goes like this.... Believers will assert with this step by step process that there must be a god and then take another step further to try to prove their god and belief system to be true using all sorts of arguments that assume that a god has already been shown to exist. This is comparable to them trying to prove facts about the mating habits, rituals, dietary restrictions and physiology of Bigfoot with the evidence we currently have for Bigfoot existing, which is basically none. They are putting the cart before the horse when assuming that their first argument has shown that a god exists when it really hasn't come anywhere close. So therefore, all the arguments they are making for their specific religion are essentially pointless because they haven't proved a god could even POSSIBLY exist let alone does, and explaining the mating rituals of Bigfoot is in fact quite useless because you have to first show that Bigfoot is actually real. I would take one exception to what you said and it might seem like a minor quibble. But I always refrain from using the words 'hope' and 'faith' synonymously. They are quite different things. I think faith should be exposed for what it really is, which is believing something that you don't know to be true, having insufficient or no evidence to back it up. If we let them use faith also mean hope it really muddies up the water and further obfuscates what they really mean when they are using the word faith. It's ok to have hope, but hope is very different than faith. Otherwise, we'll said. :)
Steve, yup. As for faith vs. hope, please note that I wrote "or" between them. I wasn't trying to make them synonymous. And, I'll respectfully disagree with the way you described faith, if you don't mind. Like Matt often says, and I agree, it's a REASON for believing what you have little or no evidence of. It's not the believing itself (which I think is how you phrased it). Faith is an empty reason for believing, whether based on hope or fear or ignorance or whatever.
Glen Hill Glen, I don't mind at all! In fact quite the opposite, as you bring up a very good point on the question of what faith is. One that, admittedly, I am not sure I have ever really thought about much. So I thought about it. And I have come to the conclusion that we are BOTH correct in a sense... partly because we might be at risk of arguing over semantics but also because I think faith is such an ill-conceived, inane and poorly defined concept in the first place. But I would appreciate hearing what you think. Let me explain very briefly what I mean. There are many different ways that faith has been defined...but the two main ones here that we are addressing are faith as... a) the reason for believing something in lieu of evidence, and b) a belief which does not require evidence to be held (which is the one in line with my definition... 'believing something you don't know to be true'). So it basically boils down to whether faith is the act of believing with insufficient evidence, or the reason FOR that belief BECAUSE there is insufficient evidence. And I'm not sure it's easy to answer because it is used in so many different ways which only further obfuscstes what it really is. And it might be both. Peter Boghossian describes faith as "pretending to know what you don't know" or "belief without evidence". Matt Dillahunty describes faith as the excuse(or reason) people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. These are ironically my two favorite definitions given for faith. Consider these two statements that could be made by believers: A) "I have faith that god is real." and B) "I believe god is real because I have faith." We hear these both all the time. In A they are seemingly using faith as the belief itself. In B they are giving faith as the reason for the belief they have. This shows how the context is important. I am still inclined to think that faith is the act of believing without evidence, rather than the reason. If faith is defined as the reason for belief, we still aren't clear on what that reason actually is. And to clarify, I do realize you went further and said it could be based on fear, hope, ignorance etc. and you were more describing what it is rather than giving a definition. I just personally feel that if it is described as the act of believing without evidence, it is easier to focus on the lack of evidence aspect which is really what is important. If it is defined as the reason, it gets harder to lock down an actual definition and thus opens the door for all sorts of different descriptions of faith given by believers which just further obfuscates the fact that it is based on a lack of evidence. I'm interested in what you think about this as I've never really addressed it before. It's an interesting point. I think that the important thing here though is to just remember that at the center of every definition I have found, there is a lack of evidence. And it seems that the belief is held not just in spite of the absence of evidence, but BECAUSE there is no evidence. And they claim that to be a virtue and I see nothing virtuous or honest about a position like that. So in that respect we both agree. And I apologize for presuming that you were using faith and hope as synonymous terms. When I read it the first time I got that impression but upon rereading I can see what you are saying. That being said I would still be cautious about grouping those two together as many believers do in fact use them synonymously. And you rarely see anyone say they believe in god because they HOPE he exists. Most believers wouldn't claim hope is the reason they give for believing, but many times when pressed to explain what faith is, they will define it as hope. I can hope a god exists and still be an atheist. I tend to try not to involve hope in the discussion as it just, to me, gives undue credibility to faith and further obscures the issue at hand, which is why anything without evidence should be believed in the first place. Again, this is just my opinion and it is a minor quibble and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Hope what I'm trying to say makes sense! Lol.
"faith is such an ill-conceived, inane and poorly defined concept" That pretty much says it all. I don't expect any Christians to weigh in on this here, so we're left with our own educated guesses. I don't agree that faith is the act of believing. It is something that tends to support one's beliefs. You've seen/heard it before when you ask WHY a Christian believes despite some scientific proof against statements or events in the Bible. "Well, you just gotta have faith." This is why I say it is more of a reason, justification, lame support, whatever, for believing instead of the act itself. What pisses me off is when a Christian is a scientist and still denies scientific evidence. There's a RUclips clip about an atheist talking to a Christian astronomer, and the astronomer clearly states that if he found something in his research that opposed something in the Bible, he'd go with what the Bible said instead. That's just not even rational! But it's faith. Sheesh. I've heard both of those definitions you cited. I think Aron Ra uses Peter's. Faith is an intangible thing, and that's the most troublesome point. It's not a certainty, but it seems to be a hope in the certainty. Or even a wish in some cases. It depends on the Christian, I guess. As some would say, many Christians don't really, REALLY believe, because they have not read or studied their Bible. They only get their information once a week in church. Perhaps faith is that sense of SELF-reassurance that belief is justified. Christians and many atheists who have converted will talk about their fear of Hell. Even atheists can't dispel that from their minds at times. It's the long-imbued sense of fear/guilt/punishment that keeps it in their minds, I think. (I'm no psychologist.) So, faith for the unconverted Christian might also have roots in that, too. In other words, say that you have a reason to believe ***or else***! " it seems that the belief is held not just in spite of the absence of evidence, but BECAUSE there is no evidence. And they claim that to be a virtue" Yup. Another copout. The best I can offer to combat crappy responses like that is to try appealing to their reasoning faculties in other areas. Christians aren't stupid in most cases, just stubborn, and they may be very intelligent in any other aspect of life. So, I use the Bigfoot or Nessie examples. If you can use the Socratic method with that, it should follow that with enough slow, deliberate comparison to Christian beliefs, they will at least see there is a disconnnect going on. As Matt has often said, you can't expect to convert a Christian in one conversation, but you can instill doubt. The more they hear to reinforce that doubt and the more you can provide a means for skeptical evaluation of it, the more likely they will eventually come to the correct conclusion.
A lot of confusion between causality and contingency here. Part of the problem is in the initial premises of the argument which he seems to borrow from William Ln., Craig who is not the best expostulator of the contingency argument. One must discuss the principle of sufficient reason when discussing contingency. The essence of the contingency argument, is that if a thing exists and is contingent there must be something outside of that thing which is not contingent, which is necessary, and such a necessary being must
Step 1 - Make up a multi-step logical proof Step 2 - Make sure one of the steps includes "God is real" Step 3 - End with "Therefore God is real" Seems legit.
But that's not what Thomad Aquinas did - his whole argument is that it is impossible to demonstrate that there is no cause for energy moving through time and space - yes, he applies the cause "to be proof as what we call as God" but he even admits that if you take out his presupisition of god you are still left with a cause, what was this cause? You cannot get something from nothing. These are basic scientific rules of law - You cannit have energy move without it having been once moved , and what moved it? Matt tottally ignores this and even states and encourages you to be ignorant the time being.
@@alanismorrissette4742 no man. You're absolutely correct up until you say what was this cause. That's the whole point of all this. The atheists admits they don't know the theists pretend they do
@@alanismorrissette4742 so its either there is a cause or there isnt a cause. It could very well be that there isnt a cause and it just is...as much as any god can just be without there needing to be a causer of that god. If there is a cause, now, which cause is it? And why should I accept whatever explanation when the explanation cant possibly be verifiable or testable ...it will just be an argument. As Matt has said in other debates...its yes, no, or i dont know. The theist wins if its yes. The other "player" wins if it's no or i dont know. Whoever doesn't have the burden of proof has 2 ways of being right...the one with burden of proof only has 1 way.
@@alanismorrissette4742 The problem is that the word "god", depending on definition, implies all sorts of baggage that has nothing to do with answering the question. If you carve all that off (as Spinoza does in Ethics) you are left with very little and if you want to call that god you are just equivocating on what "god" is usually taken to mean.
+Come Let us Reason Since you appear to be just posting and running I figure I'll do the same too! You are wrong... Matt is a human being not a parrot. Check mate. Wow this is fun!
***** Maybe one day I can be as smart as you and rub elbows with the elite of the world as you do. Probably not though see you got it all figured out and I'm fucking stupid.
I am Matt Dillahunty and YOU ARE JUST MAKING A CLAIM. I am super skeptical and believe nothing because everything is a claim. Hahaha, I am such a stable genius.
@@milkshakeplease4696 this is an example of a straw man. Matt never once said he doesn't believe in anything. Atheism is not the belief nothing exists. It's the lack of belief in a god. You may be 100% God is real, but he's not. It's not up to him to prove there's no god because he's not claiming there's no god. You, on the other hand, claim there is a god, so it's up to you to prove it.
Matt it would be nice if you disprove or explain why the properties of inmaterial, powerful , timless.. etc are not necessary for the cause of the universe. Or at least if the cosmos could have those propoerties
Better would be, as Matt says towards the end of the video "why not acknowledge that we do not currently have an explanation " In other words why make one up? (my view)
@@rogerdenrog I mean i don't know if you are familiar with the arguments posed by theists to justify the properties of the cause of the universe, but they are quite convincing to me (i'm pretty ignorant on phylosophy, so that's why i would love to hear rebuttals to those).
@@TopoTopaco Here i might try to argue . All of the justifications fail either by God of the gaps , appeal to ignorance , Special pleading or False dichotomy . There are no theistic arguments for the beggining of the universe that does not have a logical flaw . Therefore not valid . Its their claim that the Universe can only be created by a being that is based on properties of immaterial , powerfull , timeless , etc. the burden of proof is not them hence . And the problem with infinite regress about the possibility of eternal multiverse cannot be falsified , because mathematically it is valid , their whole mental gymnastics are based on logic and science that is invalid , but if you use infinite eternal multiverse as a cause somehow it is impossible . If their mind ( of which there's no evidence can exist as a immaterial not bound by matter ) or agent exists in nothing ( timeless, immaterial , uncaused , spaceless ,timeless therefore its nothing . So far our evidence is impossible that minds only with pure intent can cause material change of state , but their claim is that their agent's or God's mind can , even tho there's no evidence that a mind can change any state without being bound and immersed in it . They have no backings for that too . There's alot of arguments in nature of how an abstract functional concept can have the same timeless , spaceless ,imaterial , causeless etc. effect without being an agent . Example is the abstract " Clockwork rule of random events " that was ones posed , there is a clock of a rule that once it reaches in some state it causes random events to happen ( such as multiverses and a sudden expansion of one ) by single chance . This scenario doesn't need an agent just an abstract rule to continuosly keep on creating random events of which a material universe might pop . This even after accepting the premise that our Universe had a beggining instead of just " There was a something eternal of which was expanding and then some random unwanted event caused it to start expanding violently 100x as more . There alot more better scenarios till you get to the agent but somehow they jump straight to it .
Matt, I fucking love you. Every time I watch you. I learn something new. I learn a new way of looking at apologetics and philosophy, Thank you for this
+Come Let us Reason You're right, atheist have been saying the same thing for years, that's why Christianity is dying on its arse. the Bible has been debunked scientifically and historically I'm afraid, that's why Christian have to re-interpret it's readings to fit modern knowledge. Or, you can do what the creationists do and lie about current scientific understanding. lol
+Come Let us Reason Hello Mr Pot, let me introduce you to mister kettle. The regurgitation of the same claims and arguments, for centuries or millenia, and with no evidence except perhaps the testimony of adherents 'personal experiences', is the trademark of every major religion today and throughout history. Progress in human history has only ever come from recognising the difference between the wheat and the chaff in our knowledge, weeding out the chaff, and planting more wheat. Religions are just lazy cultivators of knowledge, they don't do enough weeding.
+Come Let us Reason Aside from the amazing irony in your comment David addressed what you just said is Matt read the bible but I did too. Then leapt to his interpretation of christianity isn't consistent with mine and mine is right because I say so. Which means that he doesn't know it. It's kind of a microcosm of the god argument from the religious side. This is the way I see it and that means it's true. It's really an arrogant way to look at things.
I think Matt has misunderstood about concept of contingency.. This argument doesn't relies on causes and effects like he said in this video. Contingent simply mean 1. dependence on other thing to exist, 2. unnecessary to exist. For example, the existence of my house DEPENDENCE on the existence of bricks. However, even if the brick does exist, my house DOESN'T NECESSARILY have to be exist. It can be built into your house, someone else house, or even other infrastructure. Therefore my house should be a contingent thing.
He explained at the beginning that there are 2 types of "contingency" we can talk about: causal contingency, and sustaining contingency. You mean the second one
17:35 you misunderstand Dr. Craig's definition of 'universe'. By it he means all of space, time and matter. Hence if the universe has an explanation, it cannot be "contingent on the multiverse" since they are synonyms, and it clearly cannot "somewhere else in the cosmos" as you suggest since there is no "somewhere else".
Too bad Craig doesn't ever get that explicit. He relies on vagaries and obfuscation so he can commit equivocation fallacies down the road. Craig, nor anyone else, has any data on "all space, time and matter." So why is he making statement on it?
Given ----> from nothing, nothing comes Therefore ---> Creation is not possible Given ---> Something exists, [self evident] Therefore ---> By brute fact something has always existed
I'm an apatheist. I believe whether God exists or not is irrelevant. If God does or doesn't exist, nothing changes. Reality would be the same either way. If God does exist, it doesn't care if we believe in it, or it would demonstrate its existence. God wouldn't need your faith. Only a liar trying to sell you something would need your faith. Since there's no good evidence a god exists, God is either indifferent or non-existent. Either way, it doesn't matter.
Especially as it neither proves that god MUST be the reason only asserts it (and we already have the assertion that it exists without any contingency necessary... and it also assumes that there is necessarily a reason for the universe to exist. Good lock proving that.
+Come Let us Reason ...well, off the top of my head, first, I get plenty of humor in putting over self important douche bags (you for example) in their place. second, had nothing better to do while taking a shit, third, humans and humanity are something I want to evolve beyond bronze age backwood inbred dipshit mythology and actually find their place (and evolve beyond that place to near god-like) in this universe and we won't do it while sucking on the mythological dick(s) of ancient god(s) formed in primitive minds and acting like unlearned spastic instinctual hairless apes begging in a large open-form Skinner box for anecdotal scraps from the tables of fictional beings not demonstrated by the material physical universe. lastly, the universe exists because the universe exists and it gives evidence that only it exists and nothing else. if a god is not of or from or within the universe then the universe gives no correlation to a deity, especially not our universe which has no need for a cause and can self replicate or have easily created itself. see Susskind et al for a lesson in some physics.
+Come Let us Reason It's important to know whether a god exists or not and that god would have an effect on science. A natural god or instead a advanced being that is not a god.
1. It is possible to think of at least one non-god-based reason for the existence of the universe. 2. The premise presupposes the existence of what the line of reasoning is trying to prove.
I enjoyed the video. Well thought-out and articulate. I’m a Thomistic theist myself, and I couldn’t help but notice that he kept referring to God as “a being.” Thomas Aquinas doesn’t understand God as “a being,” but rather “being itself” (ipsum esse). Hence, I was actually quite pleased at the end when he stated that he thought that “being, existence itself” is the uncaused cause. I think he and Aquinas may have that in common after all. Of course, this video and Aquinas disagree (a lot) on the properties of this Uncaused Cause... but those properties are beyond the scope of the 5 Ways.
The only point of contigency that i still dont get its how something that always have existed would NEED to have a cause But i disagree completely of the atheists that belittle Aquinas, this dude was genius
The word "universe" is handy, but also ambiguous. What does the word mean ? We decide what it means ! We can make up any definition we like. I like to include everything for all time. For example, the universe is everything that has existed, does exist or ever will exist.
I plan on stopping any discussion, that asserts anything. until there is a reason given for the assertion, Or definitions to explain what is meant. thanks Matt.
+Mark12:30 Assertion without evidence is fallacious. Faith is the most dishonest position anyone can hold on any subject, please explain to me anything else you have faith in with any amount of confidence without evidence supporting that faith. I can't think of a single thing. I feel bad for people with faith, I just wish they could understand why.
Luminiferous Ethan Firstly, I have no idea what you mean or where you get that idea. Secondly a Thomist is not necessarily an ancient philosopher. There are several Thomists today.
2 problems. First, people are trying to slip 2 meanings in for "reason." They start out talking about physical cause and then try to slip in an implied purpose without demonstrating that any purpose exists. Second, neither I nor anyone else has ever seen any caused thing which did not have a natural cause. So why should anyone assume that anything had a supernatural cause just because he cannot identify the natural cause?
4:54 That is physically false: if the sun goes away the light keeps traveling in the space and time. As a matter of fact if we lived for example 1 light year away from the sun when it disappears, you would not know it and it would still exist based on your system of reference.
Whats your point? I get you want to be pedantic but he only used it to explain a concept to laypeople, you could change the light example for whatever as long as it made it clear and the definition he stated of sustained contingency would be the same
I'm a Muslim and I'd love to see that. Mohammed Hijab, while he gets aggressive, is surely an intelligent person and so is Matt. Would love to see an exchange between these two.
I'd also like Matt to debate him. The debate he did with Cosmic Skeptic was messy. Would love to see Matt dig in on the issue instead of get side tracked trying to present a moral argument against it.
Watchmaker Fs Some of the objections aren't very good. He doesn't engage with gap problems. A necessary fact cannot cease to be true. There are objections to the PSR, yet he doesn't touch on them. He seems to confuse "being" with "agent." If something exists, that is a being by definition.
@@Rayalot72 What definition? You appear to be confusing a being, which generally means an intelligent entity, with the state of being, which is an entirely different usage.
Genuine question: In regards to the causal versus sustaining contingency, don’t the contingent products have to be brought about by a necessary cause? In other words, in Matt’s example, how can the necessary cause of a causally contingent universe cease to exist? Wouldn’t the cause need to be infinite as well?
It would. If it did cease to exist it would be dependant on time and space for the act of ending to take place. Therefore the necessary must be infinite.
Matt, I'm curious - since you mentioned Kalam, it made me think of WLC (naturally)... and his continued refusal to debate you (I assume this is still true ?). I think you'd do so well, given your mastery of all these various arguments, and your logical mind - quick thinking, etc. However, as you've noted, he's big on refusing to debate people who don't have Doctorates (in something). What I was wondering was, did he make a unique exception for his debate with Christopher Hitchens, some years ago, at Biola Univ ? was that a random 1-time thing, given Hitch's vocal presence, back then ? It seems he should afford you a similiar "exemption", no ? :-) Hope you get a chance, at some point, or - if not with Craig himself, maybe one of his apprentices, who will no doubt take up Kalam in his stead, whenever he retires / passes, etc - in the future ! Take care, and thanks for your work.
When I've had this argument used (from a Christian), at the end I will agree and confirm with "praise Allah, we now know his truth" and I'll immediately get a "no, no, no, it doesn't show that a Muslim god exists!" Well then, there equally no way it shows that your version exists then either. It's usually dropped after that since the only reason they want to use it is to prove "their" god. If it can't, it quickly loses any value.
*for the existence of A god. Not the existence of god. When you say it like that people naturally assume youre talking about their god like there is only one choice and you have already dismissed all others apart from theirs
Good. I like to expose their biased assumptions...that said, these arguments tend to apply to the/a god of classical theism (or similar) and are viewed as arguments for "the one god" (even if its characteristics differ from argument to argument and person to person). If that assumption bears out, it's trivial to show that it applies to gods other than theirs (as I think I pointed out in this and several other videos). :)
I think you may have little awereness of how you come accross. I would recommend that, in the future, you take a couple of minutes and ask of yourself "What is my objective in commenting? Will my comment achieve this objective?" before you comment.
As usual, if you want to convince anybody that your god is real, you have to bring evidence. If you want to convince anybody that Matt Dillahunty is a fraud for encouraging religious skepticism, you need to prove that he is wrong for being a skeptic. Unfortunately, you have yet to impress anybody here.
+NicosMind There is a real supreme reality that did big bang the universe into existence, evolve humans from apes, does maintain and rule the universe from start to finish. That existence called God was discovered & documented with extraordinary peer reviewed studies by the secular natural sciences. The 100% all natural God is composed of laws of nature & forces of physics.
"The universe exists, therefore god is the reason." Why can't the reason be because Voltron action figures? There is just as much evidence to support the belief the universe exists for Voltron action figures as there is for a god being the reason (more so because we can show that Voltron action figures are actually real, can't say the same for a god), so why don't we argue that Voltron action figures are the reason the universe exists instead?
I have never understood how evidently intelligent, educated people like WLC can't see the logical gap between "a necessary cause" and "an immortal, metaphysical, transcendent, personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity"
Mohamud Ahmed irrelevant. “We don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable epistemological position, and does not just mean that anyone else’s unfounded guess must be right, regardless of the fact that the guesser can’t think of anything else.
@Mohamud Ahmed Thank you so much for telling everyone that I'm a dishonest person. I really appreciate how you can see into my mind over the internet and tell me what my motivations are. Thank you for not being confrontational with _insults,_ or anything. I really like being called a liar. Ah, I see you've edited that out. But I saw it. Again, we go from First Cause or Unmoved Mover (which may not need to be invoked - there are cosmological hypotheses on how this can happen, but there is some reasoning behind it. At least it shows that there is more than one possible answer). And again, you have not answered how you get from the dispassionate, impersonal Uncaused Cause (which may not be a necessary condition) to "immortal, metaphysical..." etc. The fact that a book written by human beings makes a statement does not make it true. Other holy books such as the Vedas give different statements, just as unfounded. I am prepared to discuss this with you dispassionately and objectively, but if you call me a liar or imply that I am acting dishonestly again, I'm not going to respond to you. Deal?
@Mohamud Ahmed I accept your apology. However, I would add that the idea that atheists, _in general,_ secretly know that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, reportedly vengeful deity that hates non-believers and could destroy them in a heartbeat makes absolutely no sense. Nobody would dare to be a non-believer if they really knew that. Will you accept that? Right, to address your first point: a universe _ex nihilo._ My first reaction would be to ask why you think nothing is a more natural state than something. There are very good reasons to believe that in our universe as it is at present, the attainment of nothing is impossible. Scientists are limited in the hardness of the vacuum they can create because virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time. And one of the most fundamental scientific laws is that of the conservation of mass-energy: mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, though it can be changed into a different form. The Big Bang was _not_ the emergence of the Universe and its mass-energy from nothing, but its rapid expansion from a much denser state. That much denser state cannot be explained by current scientific knowledge, but it is definitely not nothing. So my question to you is: why is "nothing" a necessary condition for the starting point of the cosmos? I would be grateful if you could leave quotes from the Quran out, as I don't have a copy, although a long time ago I did read the Pickthall translation, which I believe is regarded by Islamic scholars as the best English translation. But I would like the argument to be based on logic and epistemology: what we know, and how we know it.
@Mohamud Ahmed But if nothing is not a tenable state (and there is good reason to believe it is at least not a stable state), then it's irrelevant what its powers might or might not be.
I'm Christian and I think Matt Dillahuny is an excellent philosopher. I like the way you present things and debate, I've seen your 3 hour conversation with the apologetics academy and I really liked the way you keep things objective
TibiCogitate The question is not implying a reification of the concept of philosophical nothingness into a state of affiars. What it is implying is that there must be a reason for why anything that is existent, exists at all. Why A when it could be not A. If not A is a possibility then there may or must be a substantial reason underling the fact that A has be actualized.
bdf2718 We exist, true. But it is the case that despite such an awareness we still lack a substantial explanation for this particular state of affairs.
+Justin Orosz As Matt, and many others point out, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. "I don't know" is a better answer than "I know God did it because reasons." "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better answer than "I know God did it because this book which is full of factual errors told me God did it." It would be nice to have an answer. Which is why people are working on it.
Totally disagree with you, but I really liked your video and I thought you did a great job presenting your thoughts and I enjoyed it. Good job and thanks.
Actually it doesn't matter whether or not anyone can identify something _within_ the universe that is not contingent. Applying any such argument to the container, the universe itself, is a category error. Before successfully using the argument from contingency, you would need to also present evidence that the universe is in the same category as the items it contains. So far, the assertion that the universe is contingent is just that, an empty assertion. Until evidence can be presented to back up that assertion, the argument from contingency is just a word game.
tedgrant2 "the container doesn't exist." I'm pretty sure the universe exists. And that it has a lot of stuff in it, less than 5% of which we can actually see.
@@siim605 Well I dont know if that's necessarily true. It sounds like he has been a deist for a while. So it surprises me that a half hour video convinced him otherwise
I have never in my life seen anyone make such a video that they look so uncomfortable with the contingency argument lol. He brought not a single substance to debunk the contingency argument except “oh the universe maybe necessary” Loool, To say the universe is necessary means it had no beginning or end and you have absolute zero evidence to that fact.
Hi Matt hope you’re well. Let’s have a civil discussion, would you agree to my following premise, the universe is either dependant or independent?. Now before you say this is a false dichotomy Fallacy I would like to remind you that the premise has no other options to the contrary. So we can’t apply that fallacy 😊.
I found myself arguing from this fallacy multiple times before... Admittedly, it's embarrassing but thank you Matt for helping me (indirectly) see it clearly. (:
He didn't prove the arguments wrong though - He only demonstrated their strengths, but made an argument based on cause, which he even admitted could be a god. All he did was take out the presupisition of the cause being a god but he's still left with what causes these arguments. Which he totally ignores. He also lies by ommision by leaving out the fact Thomas Aquinas even admitted this himself, that he doesn't know what the cause is but it's impossible to demonstrate there is no cause. Something cannot come from nothing , energy cannot move without having once been moved through time and space - that's Aquinas entire argument. - it's sad how dishonest Matt is sometimes. 33:41 - he's literally telling you to be ignorant.
@@alanismorrissette4742 Wow you really don't even know what you are talking about. "energy cannot move without having once been moved through time and space - that's Aquinas entire argument". Can you please point me to the source of Aquinas saying that? That is totally backwards and not what Aquinas said. "he's literally telling you to be ignorant." He is literally telling us the be honest by saying that we don't know the cause of the universe or if it even has one. Funny how you flip that on its hat. "He didn't prove the arguments wrong though". Arguments aren't right or wrong, premises are right or wrong. Arguments are valid or invalid. And an argument is only valid if the conclusion always follows from its premises being true. It doesn't require the premises to actually be true and therefore doesn't make the conclusion true. "He also lies by ommision by leaving out the fact Thomas Aquinas even admitted this himself, that he doesn't know what the cause is but it's impossible to demonstrate there is no cause." How is it relevant what Thomas Aquinas admitted at any point for the validity of the argument or the truth of the premises? You really seem to be very confused. Also Matt basically says exactly that.
@@alanismorrissette4742 Why do religionists keep presenting this pointless argument? If "nothing" cannot come from "nothing" then neither can a "god". What you are arguing is, Something came or made from "nothing", created everything else out of the SAME "nothing" then returned itself to a state of undetectable "nothingness"? If you claim "magic" as in, this proposed "god" somehow exists outside space and time? Where does it exist? You are arguing it exists within the "nothingness"? If something is there, then it is not nothingness? This is an impossibility, like a square circle it CANNOT be. You have just proven the impossibility of your "gods" existence? We have NO evidence of "nothing"? Perhaps something ALWAYS existed. There is no need for this SOMETHING to be sentient or aware. The argument disproves itself.
Hi Matt, It is not possible to explain "the existence of Existence" (using your words). This is because existence is an irreducible concept. And for any thought or conjecture to be articulated, existence must first be assumed
"Accident" presumes intent, no? In order for something to be an accident, then it must be the case that someone intended not to do that thing (or at least did not intend to do the thing). If that's the case, then it's a bit silly to say that atheists think we're here by accident. That's quite the opposite of what we think.
I didn't realize I was making this mistake in arguments before, so I appreciate the clarification (I too thought accident presumed an intent that didn't happen)
The word has two definitions. The first and most commonly used of which is an intent not to do something and it happens anyway (unexpectedly and unintentionally). Car accident, accident at a factory, accidental fall, etc. Edit: Hm, I'm actually not so sure now. I'll give it more thought. Your definition is one I never hear (though it is one) in colloquial speech. Non-intent. This is why I deny that anything happened "by accident" though that is not technically the case. I'll have to clarify if it comes up in the future.
A car accident is when you drive into something that you *didn't* intend to. Expressing your thought this way round shows Matt's explanation is correct.
I'm an agnostic atheist, but I'll play the devil's advocate. It seems to me that you're evading the problem of infinity. If the universe (or cosmos whatever you wish to call it) was eternal, i.e. it has existed for an infinite amount of time, then this very moment would never arrive. This is because reaching this very moment means that an infinite moments of time relapsed, but this is impossible because infinite will never end, so we can't reach this moment. But here we are, which means that the cosmos is not infinte. Why would we say that the universe isn't necessary? The answer to this question is easy. If the cause of the universe existed for eternity, then the effect should as well have existed for eternity. But this is not the case with our universe. Our universe did not exist for eternity. It did begin to exist. This means that an intelligent agent brought it into being. Now you may want to resort to saying that the cosomos has existed forever. But this brings us back to zero. The idea of an infintie past is not coherent. It is coherent when you talk about math and potentiality. But an actual inifinity seems to me a bad argument for the reasons I explained above. One more thing, you said that god may have created the universe then ceased to exst. This is absurd. I can't believe you would commit such a fallacy. God, by definition, is eternal. If he could cease to exist, he wouldn't be eternal. he wouldn't be necessay thing.
Premise 1: "If the [god] was eternal, i.e. it has existed for an infinite amount of time, then this very moment would never arrive. This is because reaching this very moment means that an infinite moments of time relapsed, but this is impossible because infinite will never end, so we can't reach this moment." Premise 2: "God, by definition, is eternal." Conclusion: God does not exist.
+CorwynGC this is a strawman. God is said to be timeless. He doesn't exist within time. Now you can argue that this makes no sense, but you would be resorting to red herring. So you are mistaken in assuming that time applies to god
Levi black That is something that people *made up* to avoid this argument. Unless you can SHOW that a god is timeless (whatever that means), you can't claim it. You claimed that god was eternal. Eternal MEANS existing in all time. So not timeless.
@Les Brown There have been many beliefs about gods... gods of rain, thunder, etc. All of them are supernatural beings. Maybe I should have asked whether anyone can demonstrate that any supernatural being is possible. I am not postulating a god. I am asking about evidence that any god, or now, any supernatural being, is possible.
@Les Brown I am asking for evidence that any supernatural being is possible. N o t h i n g e l s e. Please stop going off on tangents. (Some people think there are gods related to atmospheric conditions. That would be one example of a conceivable god.) I do not believe there are any gods. I am asking for evidence that any supernatural being is even *possible*. It is not enough to say that we don't know it is impossible. I agree, but that doesn't show that it is possible.
Les Brown Based on your answers, This topic seems too abstract for you to understand, but I will give an analogy. If I ask, “Can you give evidence that it is possible for a human to live on Venus?,” you don’t have to talk about a specific person, not even whether it is male or female, adult or infant. Yes, that information might help in some environments (it wouldn’t on Venus), but it is not necessary to discuss the evidence
👨🏼💼.. So I ask you again.. How was the universe created? 👽 You are not capable of comprehending or accepting the truths of existence.. 👨🏼💼Answer the question! 👽The universe was not created. 👨🏼💼Really? .. But you can't create something out of nothing.. 👽 That is correct. 👨🏼💼 So there it is .. Only a creator can make something from nothing. 👽 That is incorrect. 👨🏼💼 Wait.. You just contradicted yourself 👽 Nothing, by definition, does not exist. 👨🏼💼 So? 👽 Since nothing cannot exist... What is left is existence. Existence is infinite. It has no end. No beginning. And therefore no creator. 👨🏼💼 Wait. But you said there's an origin to the universe. 👽 Yes 👨🏼💼There it is. I caught you in a lie. 👽 This universe is not existence. It is an infinitely small part of existence. 👨🏼💼 Right.. So.. Now you are talking nonsense Again, how was the universe created so miraculously? 👽 This universe is a spontaneous event... And inevitable within the eternity of existence. Every event, can, will, and has happened. Including this universe. There are infinite number of universes. Virtually all cannot harbor so-called life. This universe is, by chance, stable. 👨🏼💼 So.. Life "just happened", right? 👽 In this universe, yes. Life, as you call it, is an inevitable consequence... Of this universe's physical properties. 👨🏼💼 So are you telling me we're just random? 👽 Yes. This universe is indifferent to so called life. 👨🏼💼 How so? 👽 Life on this and every world can be destroyed... At any time by a multitude of random events. 👨🏼💼 Such as.. 👽 What you would term.. Supernova, solar flare, asteroid impact. 👨🏼💼 So the universe doesn't care if live or die? 👽 Correct. 👨🏼💼 I don't believe that for a second. We're more than just random. 👽 As I said, you are not capable of accepting... The truths of existence. 👨🏼💼 So, if we're just "random"... Then there's no meaning to the universe.. 👽That is correct. 👨🏼💼 So if there's no meaning in the universe... Then what's the point of living. 👽 There is meaning. 👨🏼💼 You just contradicted yourself again.. 👽 Meaning lives in the mind. 👨🏼💼 No, no, no. You can't live a full life.. You can't live a life at all if you think that meaning is somehow made up. 👽 Your species conjures meaning.. But operates under the false belief that meaning is a mystical plan. It is not. 👨🏼💼 So, what is meaning? 👽 Meaning is what you make it.
At the 3rd green point you would not have gotten that response but rather a "we don't know that". it seems that at the quanum level something can come from nothing and does so all the time.
I believe in the argument for god, by the argument from contingency. However, it does not follow that god is Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, or Vishnu. To understand god then we need to study the universe, that which we know to exist, not assertions of faith.
@@spaceghost8995 Everything is determined by the universe, where the building blocks of life (bacteria and if you will viruses) are provided by the universe. Just call god all the things we don't understand, and not "we can't explain this so god did it" . When the unified field theory is complete (for example) then part of god will disappear, when our knowledge is complete (if ever) then god will disappear. This god does not give us our moral ground, only the stars that give us our carbon base.
The way I see it, the Cosmos *must* exist, since if it didn't, nothing would exist. But, "nothing" cannot exist, due to its very nature of being not anything. "Nothing" does not exist, therefore something must exist. Right?
Mohamud Ahmed the contingency argument defines god into existence, that's why it's garbage. Analytic arguments don't support the premises with evidence.
Mohamud Ahmed demonstrate premise 1 & 2. The burden of proof is on you sport. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Get to it. How do you know that the universe has a beginning?
@Mohamud Ahmed I don't think that's right; things are never really "made into existence." When you think about making things, what you're really doing is combining stuff that already exists in a useful way. Your premise relies on initially there being nothing, and the universe having "come into existence," that is: the existence of nothing is the default of the universe. Afaik, this view has no scientific basis as we don't really know how to observe* "before" the big bang. *I extend the definition of observing something to also include the observation of its effects, and sound mathematical predictions based on a current leading scientific model
@Mohamud Ahmed to me you are simply moving the post. We don't know if the universe has a beginning. Science and not religion has shown how it seems that our local presentation of the universe seems to have started at some point, but we don't know or currently have a way to investigate what happened before that. By saying that the universe must have a beginning but God doesn't have a beginning seems like the post is being arbitrarily moved and granting God properties that we refuse to give the universe. We all seem to agree that the universe exists but we don't agree in the existence of God so it seems to me that we have to grant more properties that are not in any way verifiable to God than what we would have to give to the universe.
*wiskadjak* What, Frankie and Benji ? Makes more sense than "god" - we at least know that mice exist and so can cause something. They could even be trans-dimensional beings, why not.
This is all fascinating as an intellectual exercise but there's only one important question which theists must answer "Can you prove the existence of your god by getting it to physically manifest ?". If the answer is "No" then you don't believe them.
Mohamud Ahmed, if God has no effect on the physical world in which we humans live, what difference could it possibly make to us whether God exists or not?
@Mohamud Ahmed if you wish us to believe that your god exists then you need it to physically manifest. You can make any number of excuses why it cannot do this but we do not have to believe them. The onus is on you.
@Mohamud Ahmed I don't need "belief" in a deity or anything else in the religious sense of "belief". I need proof or I don't believe it. And keep it civil please.
Thanks Matt, I just saw your presentation and I have to say is the best explanation of this argument that I ever came across. English is not my first language and I have read many articles and books in spanish (which is my native language) about this topic. Yours is still more clear or clearer than the ones I read in spanish. I can see why theist would be terrified of you.👏 👏
"God of the gaps" is when you insert supernatural explanation into a natural phenomena. This is supposed to be the first explanation for all that is natural, contingent, etc... It is something that, by definition, can't be solved by science. But, why do actual research when you can just cry "God of the gaps" and be done with it?
How about the argument from Chartle (me) 1) if a god created the universe, he must have created what he liked 2) things that we see in abundance in the universe he must like more , or at least more of , than things he created less of 3) therefore we can assume God loves lifeless rocks , expanses of darkness and loves large clouds of swirling gas , his favorite lifeforms are clearly euglena and bacteria
M A.M Nope. The argument uses this (IMO nonexistent) property called "contingency" to draw arbitrary relationships between things with arbitrary boundaries, then "reasons" that since an infinite regress is impossible, there must be "something" noncontingent that gets the god label for whatever stupid reason. It's a stop-gap. It's a panacea. Possibility needs to be demonstrated, but so does impossibility.
TheMarsCydonia No. The default is that it is not possible. This is different from holding the position that X is impossible. It's the same distinction between not guilty and innocent.
By not engaging with the arguments for the second premise, you've effectively taken what could have been a debunking and made it into an introduction to the argument.
@deadend well, it's pretty clear that it's not meant to be an introduction. Maybe it's not meant to be a thorough debunking, but it's definitely meant to be at least a undermining. All I'm saying is I'm disappointed that it's less of a debunking and more of an introduction. Like, if he has answers to the stage two arguments, I'd like to hear them.
I got the following closing statement from a Muslim banging on about his version of the Teleological argument. 'The reason why this argument is potent is because it strips everything back to core ideas which make sense of our idea of God' I translated that as, 'We 'know' that our God is True which means that the God proven by the Teleological argument is our God.' He thought it was 'inappropriate' when i raised my Space Pixie God against his for some reason(?).
If after the explosion everything came to be then God is! You can argue that God is not conscious that is up to you but to deny that a first cause does not exist is illogical
Hi Mr. Dillahunty, I thoroughly enjoyed this video, but as a Catholic and Thomist I'd like to remark about something you said. I would appreciate a response, if you'd be so kind. You did something quite remarkable between 30:50-31:13, where you said that something we can know with a large degree of certainty is that Existence exists necessarily. I haven't seen any of your other videos, so please don't take offense in me asking this, but are you aware that you (possibly accidentally) described the Catholic Church's (more-or-less) official stance on *what* God *is*? In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas incorporated the (mostly) pre-Christian Greek ideas about what he would call "God" into his most well known work, the Summa Theologica. Philosophers such as Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus deduced from the natural world that there must be some universal principle which essentially amounts to existence itself. Heraclitus called it the Logos, Plato called it The Good, Aristotle called it the Prime Mover, Plotinus called it The One, and St. Thomas calls it God, or sometimes "ipsum esse subsistens" (subsistent existence itself). Where I think you fall off St. Thomas' path is in your understanding of what "existence itself" means. If I understand correctly (and do mistake me if I'm wrong), you take "existence" to mean the totality of things which exist in the cosmos. St. Thomas' understanding of "existence" is rather that it is simple. Absolutely simple in fact, I'm talking about the doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity. Anything which is composed cannot be necessary, because it is contingent (in the sustaining manner you described) on its component parts. Therefore that which is necessary (existence itself) is composed of no parts. It isn't even strictly correct to say that it exists, because to exist is to have existence, but Existence itself does not *have* existence, but rather *is* existence. It simply *is*. St. Thomas makes arguments for the commonly known divine attributes of God being appropriate to ipsum esse subsistens in the Summa Theologica (specifically Prima Pars, Questions 3-13). I'm not sure if you've changed your view over the past 3.5 years regarding whether we can know existence to exist necessarily, but assuming that you still accept that, after reading the arguments outlined in the mentioned section of the Summa Theologica, what prevents you from becoming a classical theist (not a Christian, mind you, but someone who believes in God in the way the aforementioned philosophers did, without any mention of the Christ)? The relevant sections of the Summa Theologica can be found here: www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm I appreciate you reading this if you do, and eagerly await your answer. All the best.
It doesn't seem like he understands the Kalam argument. 27:05 - that is incorrect. First, they won't mention "God" and there is an explanation they give which probably cannot be adequately taught in a 35 min video without unraveling current biases, assumptions, misconceptions, etc. I was hoping this video would be more....
If you define "God" as being the reason the Universe exists, then if the Universe exists for a reason, God exists. But that says nothing about the nature of God. How you get from there to "Therefore the God of Abraham is the true God." is what puzzles me.
Can anyone remind me of the argument that starts "suppose all knowledge of the universe exists inside this circle"? I heard someone reference it the other day but I can't remember how the rest goes.
This is followed by illustrating a single point somewhere within the circle to represent the knowledge of either an individual or the collective of humanity (depending on how the apologist wishes to go), and that it must be logical that the knowledge of a god lies somewhere within that circle that is not within the single point.
I like the fact that Matt stays away from saying cause by using the word contingency. This explains a lot of why uncertainty has more to do with the thinking. LOL
Essentially it comes down to people being afraid to admit that they don’t know something and especially afraid that they don’t know something that seems to be the ultimate question of their and everything’s entire existence. So because of admitting that they don’t know something that is ultimately the biggest possible question is scary or because they can’t think of other possibilities (like Matt mentioning the cosmos beyond the universe) they assume or at least hope that this big scary gap in our knowledge is where God can and must be placed And of course this is all even assuming that the universe is contingent on anything at all. That has not and never will be proven. “It exists because it exists” will always be a possibility. I can’t assert it to be true but that’s not the point, if you can’t assert it to be false then the entire contingency argument cannot really be accepted.
I have listened to the whole video and the fact that a lot of people who react are impressed by hid 'arguments, it shows how poor are atheists intellectually when it comes to philosophy about the existence of God. If you are impressed by what he is saying, then you haven't been reading anything about this subject.
Time 7:43 We can stop all arguments right here. Something that is eternal could not by itse very definition has a cause or be contingent. There is no point going any further, as everything else will be based off this faulty idea. We can also say that the two contingencies discussed are not classified because the argument is for both. Also anything that is sustaining contingency is also a causal contingency.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of a single thing that exists, that we have universally accepted as existing. In other words, everything that we agree exists we have come to that knowledge through verifiable evidence through our senses. Has there ever been anything that we universally agree as existing that hasn't had actual evidence, as opposed to arguments? And why does there have to be an explanation for existence? If there weren't existence we wouldn't have this conversation. Existence is necessary.
The nature of material reality, which is contingent and transient, gives us a reasonable basis for believing in the necessary being, which is essential and eternal, from which material reality initially came.
I disagree with Matt saying “The universe might be contingent on a multiverse or something in the cosmos.” The first point; A multiverse is a universe that comes from another universe and so forth. Its impossible that any of that would even start without something being infinite. Each of those universes came from another and each universe is limited. There needs to be something infinite to start. And he claims that just something in the cosmos did it yet that doesn’t answer anything it just makes more questions so we still have no answer. A good answer is better than no answer at all
Step 1 - Remind people that I live in Hawaii with a badass cliffside home and I do not have to work. Step 2 - Remind my fellow atheists and agnostics that winning an argument with people is as easy as referring to Step number 1. THAT is how I win with ANY fuckin argument. 'Cause at the end of the day, the only thing I give a shit about is knowing my wife and I are going to bed in a badass home in Hawaii we have owned for years. I am not braggin' but if you're just living life to argue, you're LAGGIN', Brah!
@@tomjackson7755 Nope, as t you wish you could awaken from. Hilarious.....you must think NOBODY can live in Hawaii! LOL If you had half a fuckin stone in your head, you'd have checked out my account, gone to my website and found out I live in Hawaii. Jesus....people are fuckin creepy when they troll.
isn't the problem of the eternal universe only really a problem for causal contingency, since eternal precludes prior (temporal) causes? Wouldn't 'sustaining' contingency only require simultaneously existence of the 'sustaining' thing, rather then prior existence?
I would have two major issues with this argument, one occurs within the argument, and the other is in the entire basis of the argument. I would challenge the claim that "if the universe is contingent, it must be contingent on something non-contingent"... why? The universe could exist contingent on something else contingent that is contingent on something else, which may be contingent or non-contingent itself. You can claim that it requires something non-contingent to avoid an infinite regress, but that only says that somewhere back in the regress something must be non-contingent, not necessarily the one directly before the universe. But more importantly, what's the justification for claiming that everything must either be contingent or necessary? Can we prove that all things which exist are either contingent or necessary, or is that in itself just a bald assertion? Maybe some things just exist. They are not necessary, nor contingent. At least at the quantum level, this appears to be true, regardless of how uncomfortable that tends to be. Much of what occurs at the quantum level (as far as i understand it) makes no "logical sense" in our "macro existence"... but these things are still "true". So, we can have things that are both non-contingent AND non-necessary at the quantum level, so it seems a leap to say that at every other level, everything must be one or the other.
First of all some definitions: - Being: something that exists, state of existence. - Dependent/contingent being: something which existence depends on something else, otside of itself. for example: my phone is dependent on the existence of the specific company, if that specific company would not exist, then my phone would not exist. - Dependent being exists - A world with ONLY dependent beings cannoto exist ( by world I mean the totality of existence ) - Therefore the simple fact that there is existence( because we exist) implies that our world is not composed of only dependent beings. Sow there must be an in-dependent/necessary being which is the foundation of all the dependent beings, which accounts for why there is something rather than nothing.
@@Fraterchaoraterchaos dependent being: something wihich existence depends on something else, outside of itself. we can say that the dependent being has it's existence on another.( another being outside of itself ) Let we suppose a world with only dependent beings. - in this world every being has it's existence on another. - sow no being has it's existence on it's own ( in principle, in a non-derivative way ) - therefore there is no existence at all, because there is no source from wich to derive it.( the existence ) it is like asking : Is there water in a world with ONLY empty bottles? in this world there is no water because there is no source from which to derive the water in the first place. the empty bottle in this example is an analogy to the dependent being, and the water is an analogy to existence. If you disagree I will be glad to know your reasons.
@@musaaziri3568 I didn't ask you for a definition of "dependent"... I know what the word means. I asked you to prove that "a world with ONLY dependent beings cannot exist" you totally failed to provide a single piece of evidence, you just made some silly philosophical arguments. You may not be aware of this yet, but I will tell you a secret, you cannot argue god into existence. Provide EMPIRICAL PROOF of your statement. Otherwise, stop bothering me.
@@Fraterchaoraterchaos look, I give to you a rational argument for why a world with only dependent beings canno exist. If you think that it is invalid, than bring on your rational objections. If you don't have any rational objection, than you cannot simply deny it because you don't understand it or because you don't like it.
At 11:16 there is a catch: "How did God appear in this chain of thought"? But there actually is no catch. It may be interpreted (and I claim - it is implied) to conclude that if there is a reason for the Universe to exist, then we're going to call this reason "God" and there you have it. No mystery, just a sophistic definition. If we've established that there is a reason for the Universe to exist then I, say, define "God" to be this exact reason. Doesn't tell us anything about this "God", but allows interlocutors to save some time if we accept the premise
I'm not sure I agree that "everything that exists had a reason". I feel that some abstract axiomatic concepts like the number one in math would "exist", but clearly don't have a "reason" in the "necessary" or "contingent" sense.
A question on necessary existence: There is a version of this that states that: if things can be infinite (in time or space), or without a time dimension... "something that can possibly happen, will necessarily happen". Which implies that even neccessary existence don't even require a direct necessary, logical cause. And thus: even things that exist as a necessary result of this... can still be contigent on an external cause?
First premise is already questionable. The fact that something exists outside of time does not necessarily mean that all possible events will necessarily occur. Please justify that conclusion. And furthermore, the conclusion you draw from this statement is invalid. How do you go from "anything that can happen with a timeless thing, will necessarily happen" to "and therefore necessary objects do not need a necessary cause."? If the object is by definition, necessary, then it must exist for a reason, even if the reason is "some property of this object makes its existence necessary". Then you go on to state a conclusion that necessary causes can create contingent objects, which is a concept that is valid even absent the assumption that timeless objects produce necessary causes, so long as a necessary cause can exist.
capefear56 "the fact that something exists outside of time does not necessarily mean that all possible events will necessarily occur" Well perhaps the 'no time-demension' is indeed a bit of a stretch here. But if you have an infinite timeline (towards the future fe), if something can happen, at some point it will. Or if you have an infinite amount of universes, something that can happen in those universes, will happen. Howe-ever unlikely an event; if it is possible; it will happen if the opportunities for it to happen reach infinity. "If the object is by definition, necessary, then it must exist for a reason, even if the reason is "some property of this object makes its existence necessary". " I was trying to point out a subtle difference: the necessity of something that would come into existence (see above), would not really be due to a property the thing has. But to the act of creating the circumstances. Perhaps and example: if you flip a coin there is a very unlikely chance it will end up on its edge. If you flip it (approaching) an infinite times; at some point it will happen.. necessarily. But there is nothing about the coin itself that makes it necessary to stand on it's edge. The existence of the 'coin-on-edge' is contigent, on an external cause. "Then you go on to state a conclusion that necessary causes can create contingent objects" Indeed, but in the video there are two options persented: either something is contingent upon an external cause. Or something is necessary to exist for in internal cause. I felt there was a lack in the video to this idea that, though this universe may be contigent upon something external.. it's possible that it is still necessary for it to exist.
P.G. Burgess Jesus, you're slow. First of all, you assume the validity of multiverse theory immediately to do away with the problem of mutually exclusive timelines. Secondly, even with the idea of an infinite number of timelines, and an infinite number of 'coin flips', what is your objection to the idea that, however improbable, you could just eternally flip heads? Is there anything preventing this phenomenon from occurring? Secondly, you don't seem to understand what "necessary" means in philosophy. You said "the necessity of something that would come into existence (see above), would not really be due to a property the thing has. But to the act of creating the circumstances." If a timeless object is creating the circumstances by which an another object exists, then the object is now contingent, even if the circumstances, or "cause" is a necessary result of another object's existence. It does not exist for its own properties, but because of the properties of another object causing its existence. Necessary does not refer to this idea that "it must exist, no matter what" but rather "the internal properties of the object necessitate its existence". You're confused by the term "necessary".
capefear56 " what is your objection to the idea that, however improbable, you could just eternally flip heads? Is there anything preventing this phenomenon from occurring?" Yes, the fact that you can always flip the coin once more... The limit of an event not occuring approaches 0 at infintiy. "Necessary does not refer to this idea that "it must exist, no matter what" but rather "the internal properties of the object necessitate its existence". If those statements are different, can you give an example of one that only is supported by one of them? Is there something that necessitates it's own existence but does not need to exist? Anyway, i don't think i disagree with you that much. My point was that in the video the idea is addresses "contigent vs necessary things". But not what you refer to as "a necessary cause" or a "cause that is a necessary result of another object's existence". Something you seem to agree is a valid idea.. Perhaps i missed that in the video.. i am a bit slow apperently ;-).. can you point to where that was adressed?
P.G. Burgess Apologies for snapping earlier. It's a character flaw that I have been trying to improve upon. I don't think you're slow, just a little confused on this issue. I do not have to demonstrate, via examples, the existence of an object that possesses internal properties that allows it to exist absent external causes, necessary or otherwise. Matt himself said that creating an example of this phenomenon was really difficult. Again, necessary in this instance only refers to the object possessing INTERNAL properties that necessarily allow it to exist. It's merely a definition for a hypothetical object. Whether or not an example of this object exists does not influence the fact that something like an external cause, even if necessary, does not make the resulting object necessary. Think of it this way : if the timeless object creating necessary causes was to, as a result of some other influence, perhaps timeless itself, be destroyed or modified in such a way that it is no longer timeless, then whatever object that was created via the necessary causes could no longer exist on its own. This is because the cause of its existence is not internalized. Modification of this cause-dependent object will not invalidate its existence, because its existence is contingent upon an external factor (the other timeless object).
I don't think you really understand what is meant by contingency and the implications of something existing that is not contingent. There is no premise in the argument from contingency that "the universe is contingent" All the argument needs to be sound is the existence of *one* contingent being. Given that, you necessarily arrive at a non-contingent being, since an infinite regression of contingent beings cannot in principle account for the contingency of the first So, you may say, why can't the universe itself be a non-contingent being? Well, what it means be a non-contingent being is to exist solely by virtue of yourself and to have no conditions for your own existence. But the universe is conditioned by all sorts of things. Most fundamentally, it is conditioned by virtue of being composed of parts. A thing that is composed of parts is necessarily caused by those parts, for the parts exist in priority to the whole. Therefore, in principle, a non-contingent being cannot be composed of parts and as such must be absolutely simple. Only a reality whose essence and existence are identical can fit the bill. For only this reality can truly be said to be metaphysically ultimate and unconditioned. As you can see simply substituting "the universe" just doesn't work
It seems to me that he agreed that the universe is contingent upon something, we just currently have no idea what that thing which it rests upon might be, and that asserting God as the only possibility without actually demonstrating it and saying "well, can you come up with a better idea," seems like an argument from ignorance.
"WHY does existence, exist"--one thing we need to understand is that our language is loaded. It carries more than the ordinary intended meaning--it has a history of implications behind it. "Why"--just a plain ordinary word--but when it comes to the objective reality of the universe, "why" is meaningless. It is a word that IMPLIES meaning, purpose, intent. "Why" is therefore not an appropriate word to use when discussing the objective properties of the universe. "HOW" might be better. How does the universe exist, rather than "why".
That is the creationist argument as it is very often used by christians: An invisible magical daddy friend magicked everything into existence from nothing. Atheists stay away from such childish nonsense.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
How can we say that the cosmos is necessary? The cosmos is contingent. It had a beginning as the standard cosmological model stated precisely because it is contingent. The necessary being will not cease to exist precisely because it is necessary.
You just mixed up universe and cosmos. At least the way these words where used in this video.
It's like Konrad is the only one who listened to the video
Hard to believe I’d be coming back to this video 3 years later not just as a viewer, but watching this for a college class 😂
Not for me - the steady decline in Western educational standards has been apparent ever since "Gender Studies" became a thing...
@@thstroyur there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Gender Studies, its value depends on the content of the course.
@@noodlenoggin5854 OK; so, by the same token, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Neo-Nazi Studies, because its value depends on the content of the course, right?
@@thstroyur , Depends on the content of the course. If the content of the Nazi study is biased in support of Nazis, then ya, it'd be a problem.
As I've worked directly with hermaphrodites as a healthcare provider, I can appreciate gender fluidity. Not only does nature create physically sexually divergent people, it creates spiritually sexually divergent people as well. Sexuality is expressed across a spectrum in both mind and body in some people in all actuality.
@@TheAaronExperience " If the content of the Nazi study is biased in support of Nazis, then ya, it'd be a problem" I didn't say "study", I said "Studies" - as in a discipline. But yeah, I think it'd be safe to assume that the content of the course of "Neo-Nazi Studies" would be biased in support of Nazis - hence my point.
BTW, claiming you "appreciate gender fluidity" by no means mean gender fluidity is a real thing, TBW; your second paragraph is just a big fat argument from emotion, and _that_ is where the steady decline in Western educational standards of my OP comes back to bite us in the ass...
I really like that at 6:00 you put the argument in print in this video, as it allowed me to pause, examine the argument on my own before hearing your analysis, and then listen to your explanation. I am able to exercise my reasoning against not only the argument itself, but yours as well.
Thanks!
-Jon
Hey jon are you alive ?
@@redblueblur6321what type of question is this bro😭
@@Pannhandle876 😂😂😂 i mean 7 years have passed, i just checked on him 🤣
@@redblueblur6321 He hasn't answered, I'm starting to worry
There seems to be an equivocation in the use of the word "reason". The reason I created a universe was because I was bored vs because the stochastic nature of entropy allows universes to form spontaneously throughout an infinite span of time.
//the stochastic nature of entropy allows universes to form spontaneously throughout an infinite span of time.//
THAT in itself is a contingent rule that doesn't exist by necessity. We live in a universe governed by contingent rules such as this one and that gives rise to an infinite number of sub-universes. But the parent universe could have been otherwise and be governed by a different or opposite law to the one you mentioned. Such a universe holds no logical contradiction and can exist in a possible reality.
Anyone making an appeal to laws regarding perceptual and empirical reality has GROSSLY failed to understand the argument from contingency.
@@khalifahamza513 ❤
Here is a much more honest approach than Craig's...
1) The universe exists.
2) The universe has some explanation for its existence.
3) We do not currently know (nor may we ever know) the explanation for the universe's existence.
God is indeed one possibility. However, a universe creating god (or gods) is only one unproven hypothesis. Another explanation is that perhaps absolute nothing, (an absence of matter, energy, space, or time) cannot exist. "Nothing" actually existing is an oxymoron: Without time, when and for how long would Nothing have existed? Without space, where could Nothing have existed? In other words, _Something_ may have always existed as a brute fact, and that something need not be "supernatural" or even intelligent in nature. There are cosmological models in which universes come into existence via quantum fluctuations from empty space, or from a random imbalance of information bits, etc. Every scientist that proposes these models knows them for what they are - untested hypotheses. But they _are_ explanatory. It's too bad theists won't approach their hypothesis in the same manner, rather than making ridiculous, bold assertions of unprovable, untestable "fact."
If they did, they wouldn't be theists.
If it is a possibility what should we do?
Does this possibility has such a low probability?
Is this measurement impossible?
What would convert an atheist?
Nothing?
GOD is bounded by the SCIENTIFIC
methodology?
F. Nietzche said he is dead, is that a true moral sentence?
If so, why there are so many religions?
Is all that just that opium?
Is all that just about those other neces.?
Is all that the mere moral that somebody told about?
It seems to be more than that.
@Tom Reeves - If you start from true 'nothing' (not Laurence Krauss' version of "nothign") and then ask "where did the space-time continuum itself come from [and the laws that govern all matter therein] come from?", I think the questions you're asking tend to dissipate. This includes "where did the multiverse come from?" and "where did the quantum vacuum come from?"
It would appear that these things are contingent on Something, and we would naturally ask "what is that something?"
Since that causal agent gave rise to matter, space, time, and intelligence It seems reasonable to me that the causal agent must then be (necessarily) non-material, not subject to space and time ..and also intelligent.
I would amend it slightly to "god is, indeed, on possibility for a very narrow subset of definitions or characteristics for god -- because certain god-definitions are self-refuting or impossible, making god 'not a possibility'.
I would understand Craig's "argument" as a definition of "God", not as an argument for its existence. Trouble is, from what I know about him, it doesn't seem to be the definition he otherwise uses.
I am a theist, but I always enjoy listening to your videos. They are usually well thought out and intelligent. Something that is too rare these days. thanks
Yes,but he fails.
@@exequielassad5773 Care to explain how? I disagree.
@@niceshotmano Because he fails to address most things, just says "I am skeptical of that" and I lack belief in that instead of using counter arguments to address real arguments
@@Terry-nr5qn You should point out which things haven't been addressed for discussion in the interest of all our learning.
This guy is on a weekly (?) show that takes any callers, and has made a career out of these debates. I find him to be pretty thorough.
@@Terry-nr5qn He points to the bold assertions and fallacies in their arguments. That is rebuttal enough. What else would be "using counter arguments" in your opinion? You are trying to shift the burden of prove. It's on the theist to provide evidence for their claims. To cite Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Merely asserting that a) The universe has a cause and b) That cause must be (a personal) god can simply be dismissed unless any evidence for that has been provided. That is what skepticism is about. You do not believe until the evidence is provided. The default position can't be to believe unless disproven because you would have to believe basically any nonsensical claim. Matt clearly points out all the unfounded assertions and logical fallacies in their arguments and does a fantastic job.
This argument would be considerably less wanky if it were just phrased as the "argument from cause and effect" or "But who made the universe?", because that's what they're getting at, if you divorce it from the deliberately opaque philosophy jargon.
They're just saying that it seems that things are caused by other things, and when it comes to the beginning of all things, they want (instead of concluding that causality might not be a hard-and-fast rule, or that the universe might be infinitive or circular, or that we just don't know) to shove their favourite myths into that space, then dodge the fact that this solves nothing.
It's basically an argument for Deism, a red herring when it comes to any arguments for Theism, because even if they prove Deism true, they CANNOT prove that it has anything to do with Theism. They presuppose any Creator being must be singular, intelligent, willful, capable (and hates foreskin and loves bloodshed), but they can't prove any of it. They can't prove it was just one being, or any being at all, or an intelligent being, or a capable being, or a being that made the universe intentionally. By employing this argument they're arguing for some extraterrestrial from another dimension based on an old book written by primitive poets and shepherds. It's ridiculous.
Well the universe is flat, and I don't think the phrase is wanky and definitely not deliberately opaque. Its an old way of speaking. And I personally like it :)
The argument would be considerably less wanky if it was not defined philosophically.
IF we assume that...
Yeah, awesome. WHY would we assume? Is there a reason that this assumption is any bit preferable about all the other options? Show a convincing argument that it is not just assumable but LIKELY.
And there the argument already breaks down. IFs do not make definite claims but result in possibilities, CONTINGENT on the assumption being true... Leave the cosmology to the astrophysicists and Quantum-Theorists, Philosophy has other playing fields where it is better fitted to deliver useful results.
It could be called the "We hope you don't understand this argument argument"
"Who made the universe?" Who says it was a who?
As toxic as youtube comments can be, I do enjoy reading them and they occasionally yield interesting discussions. I appreciate you leaving them enabled, in contrast to the AE policy on youtube.
@Marlin Bundo
Good point. Some toxicity is necessary as you would agree that weeds need potent poison like some disgusting ideas. Challenging wilful ignorance and deception may be the only option if confronting illogical arguments. Notwithstanding, the interlocutor may suffer cognitive impairment.
@@VaughanMcCue verbosing is your fortee
@@ericscaillet2232
I need help to be precise by consuming alphabet soup with dictionary dinners. Too much Indian curry, and I cope with thesaurus.
Thank you for your kind words and introduction of a new verb.
Your encouragement means a lot to me, and I anticipate reading your contribution to the content of Saint Matt’s material.
@@VaughanMcCue 😅
Saying I don't know is too uncomfortable for some.
It's especially hard when you've been told your whole life that you do know. So you have to unlearn that and then also say "I don't know."
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
I think I understand... The concept of god is necessarily contingent upon and sustained by human imagination.
I'd say the concept of god is necessarily contingent upon and sustained by human ignorance.
+BigRalphSmith I'd agree
Prove it.
And do you believe in a god?
+Come Let us Reason
Not believing the claim is true, is not the same as believing a claim is false. If theism is believing a god, or god's exist, and using any of the common meaning of the prefix "a", atheism is not believing a god, or god's exist. Again not believing a god, or god's exist, is not the same as believing no god, or god's exist.
This is one of those arguments (like the ontological argument) that is so technical that it's hard to address when you first come across it, but something about it just feels wrong without knowing exactly what is wrong about it.
it sounds technical, but it's basically god of the gaps.
@@stein1919 aside from personal experience, i don't think I've heard any arguments for the existence of a deity that isn't some form of the argument from ignorance.
@@zacharyberridge7239 or at least leads to an argument from ignorance. Because the best evidence I've heard is of things we can't explain, that seem divine. But as Matt points out several times in his time in public speaking, until you can demonstrate the 'why' is God, then you're just assuming.
Bertrand Russell once said something similar
@@denverarnold6210 What premise do you disagree with:
1. There are limited things
2. Limited things can have an explanation
3. The totality of limited things cant be explicable in terms of limited things
4. Therefore the can be an unlimited thing.
5.An unlimited thing would have perfect nature.
6. Something necessary and perfect would need to span all possible worlds (S5)
7. Therefore something perfect exists.
This perfect thing would be unlimited. So none quantifiable and lacking nothing which perfectly justifies Theistic believes in assuming this unlimited thing is God. All the traits of this unlimited thing lead to God.
"If the universe has a reason for its existence, then that reason is God."
Uh, like Matt said, how did we get to that leap? I don't necessarily agree with Matt when he says there IS a reason for it, but we need to define "reason". If it is synonymous with "cause", ok. If it means "purpose", nope.
Anyway, to address my first question (and Matt's ) on how did we make this automatic leap to God...
1. Which god?
2. How did you establish it was not any other gods?
3. Why does it have to be a god at all? Why not pixies, leprechauns, an eternal supercomputer, aliens, etc.?
4. And, we always seem to get back ultimately to the old question: if it WAS god, then such a thing/being must be real and must be contingent on something, too. If you say no, it/He has always existed, then prove it with more than assertions. You can't because if God has been around before time itself existed (I know "before time" is a weird way of putting it, so go ahead and insert "outside of time"), then explain what that means and how you know it. You can't. That's supernatural, and you can only go on faith or hope, which automatically is a deal breaker when trying to prove anything (including Nessie, Bigfoot, or aliens).
I agree. I heard a great comparison (can't remember where I heard it) of religion to Bigfoot that made a lot of sense to me.
It basically goes like this....
Believers will assert with this step by step process that there must be a god and then take another step further to try to prove their god and belief system to be true using all sorts of arguments that assume that a god has already been shown to exist.
This is comparable to them trying to prove facts about the mating habits, rituals, dietary restrictions and physiology of Bigfoot with the evidence we currently have for Bigfoot existing, which is basically none.
They are putting the cart before the horse when assuming that their first argument has shown that a god exists when it really hasn't come anywhere close.
So therefore, all the arguments they are making for their specific religion are essentially pointless because they haven't proved a god could even POSSIBLY exist let alone does, and explaining the mating rituals of Bigfoot is in fact quite useless because you have to first show that Bigfoot is actually real.
I would take one exception to what you said and it might seem like a minor quibble. But I always refrain from using the words 'hope' and 'faith' synonymously. They are quite different things.
I think faith should be exposed for what it really is, which is believing something that you don't know to be true, having insufficient or no evidence to back it up. If we let them use faith also mean hope it really muddies up the water and further obfuscates what they really mean when they are using the word faith. It's ok to have hope, but hope is very different than faith.
Otherwise, we'll said. :)
Steve, yup. As for faith vs. hope, please note that I wrote "or" between them. I wasn't trying to make them synonymous. And, I'll respectfully disagree with the way you described faith, if you don't mind. Like Matt often says, and I agree, it's a REASON for believing what you have little or no evidence of. It's not the believing itself (which I think is how you phrased it). Faith is an empty reason for believing, whether based on hope or fear or ignorance or whatever.
Glen Hill Glen, I don't mind at all! In fact quite the opposite, as you bring up a very good point on the question of what faith is. One that, admittedly, I am not sure I have ever really thought about much.
So I thought about it. And I have come to the conclusion that we are BOTH correct in a sense... partly because we might be at risk of arguing over semantics but also because I think faith is such an ill-conceived, inane and poorly defined concept in the first place. But I would appreciate hearing what you think. Let me explain very briefly what I mean.
There are many different ways that faith has been defined...but the two main ones here that we are addressing are faith as... a) the reason for believing something in lieu of evidence, and b) a belief which does not require evidence to be held (which is the one in line with my definition... 'believing something you don't know to be true').
So it basically boils down to whether faith is the act of believing with insufficient evidence, or the reason FOR that belief BECAUSE there is insufficient evidence. And I'm not sure it's easy to answer because it is used in so many different ways which only further obfuscstes what it really is. And it might be both.
Peter Boghossian describes faith as "pretending to know what you don't know" or "belief without evidence".
Matt Dillahunty describes faith as the excuse(or reason) people give for believing something when they don't have evidence.
These are ironically my two favorite definitions given for faith.
Consider these two statements that could be made by believers:
A) "I have faith that god is real."
and
B) "I believe god is real because I have faith."
We hear these both all the time. In A they are seemingly using faith as the belief itself. In B they are giving faith as the reason for the belief they have. This shows how the context is important. I am still inclined to think that faith is the act of believing without evidence, rather than the reason. If faith is defined as the reason for belief, we still aren't clear on what that reason actually is. And to clarify, I do realize you went further and said it could be based on fear, hope, ignorance etc. and you were more describing what it is rather than giving a definition. I just personally feel that if it is described as the act of believing without evidence, it is easier to focus on the lack of evidence aspect which is really what is important. If it is defined as the reason, it gets harder to lock down an actual definition and thus opens the door for all sorts of different descriptions of faith given by believers which just further obfuscates the fact that it is based on a lack of evidence.
I'm interested in what you think about this as I've never really addressed it before. It's an interesting point.
I think that the important thing here though is to just remember that at the center of every definition I have found, there is a lack of evidence. And it seems that the belief is held not just in spite of the absence of evidence, but BECAUSE there is no evidence. And they claim that to be a virtue and I see nothing virtuous or honest about a position like that. So in that respect we both agree.
And I apologize for presuming that you were using faith and hope as synonymous terms. When I read it the first time I got that impression but upon rereading I can see what you are saying.
That being said I would still be cautious about grouping those two together as many believers do in fact use them synonymously. And you rarely see anyone say they believe in god because they HOPE he exists. Most believers wouldn't claim hope is the reason they give for believing, but many times when pressed to explain what faith is, they will define it as hope. I can hope a god exists and still be an atheist. I tend to try not to involve hope in the discussion as it just, to me, gives undue credibility to faith and further obscures the issue at hand, which is why anything without evidence should be believed in the first place.
Again, this is just my opinion and it is a minor quibble and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Hope what I'm trying to say makes sense! Lol.
"faith is such an ill-conceived, inane and poorly defined concept"
That pretty much says it all. I don't expect any Christians to weigh in on this here, so we're left with our own educated guesses.
I don't agree that faith is the act of believing. It is something that tends to support one's beliefs. You've seen/heard it before when you ask WHY a Christian believes despite some scientific proof against statements or events in the Bible. "Well, you just gotta have faith." This is why I say it is more of a reason, justification, lame support, whatever, for believing instead of the act itself.
What pisses me off is when a Christian is a scientist and still denies scientific evidence. There's a RUclips clip about an atheist talking to a Christian astronomer, and the astronomer clearly states that if he found something in his research that opposed something in the Bible, he'd go with what the Bible said instead. That's just not even rational! But it's faith. Sheesh.
I've heard both of those definitions you cited. I think Aron Ra uses Peter's. Faith is an intangible thing, and that's the most troublesome point. It's not a certainty, but it seems to be a hope in the certainty. Or even a wish in some cases. It depends on the Christian, I guess. As some would say, many Christians don't really, REALLY believe, because they have not read or studied their Bible. They only get their information once a week in church. Perhaps faith is that sense of SELF-reassurance that belief is justified.
Christians and many atheists who have converted will talk about their fear of Hell. Even atheists can't dispel that from their minds at times. It's the long-imbued sense of fear/guilt/punishment that keeps it in their minds, I think. (I'm no psychologist.) So, faith for the unconverted Christian might also have roots in that, too. In other words, say that you have a reason to believe ***or else***!
" it seems that the belief is held not just in spite of the absence of
evidence, but BECAUSE there is no evidence. And they claim that to be a
virtue"
Yup. Another copout. The best I can offer to combat crappy responses like that is to try appealing to their reasoning faculties in other areas. Christians aren't stupid in most cases, just stubborn, and they may be very intelligent in any other aspect of life. So, I use the Bigfoot or Nessie examples. If you can use the Socratic method with that, it should follow that with enough slow, deliberate comparison to Christian beliefs, they will at least see there is a disconnnect going on. As Matt has often said, you can't expect to convert a Christian in one conversation, but you can instill doubt. The more they hear to reinforce that doubt and the more you can provide a means for skeptical evaluation of it, the more likely they will eventually come to the correct conclusion.
A lot of confusion between causality and contingency here. Part of the problem is in the initial premises of the argument which he seems to borrow from William Ln., Craig who is not the best expostulator of the contingency argument. One must discuss the principle of sufficient reason when discussing contingency. The essence of the contingency argument, is that if a thing exists and is contingent there must be something outside of that thing which is not contingent, which is necessary, and such a necessary being must
Step 1 - Make up a multi-step logical proof
Step 2 - Make sure one of the steps includes "God is real"
Step 3 - End with "Therefore God is real"
Seems legit.
But that's not what Thomad Aquinas did - his whole argument is that it is impossible to demonstrate that there is no cause for energy moving through time and space - yes, he applies the cause "to be proof as what we call as God" but he even admits that if you take out his presupisition of god you are still left with a cause, what was this cause? You cannot get something from nothing. These are basic scientific rules of law - You cannit have energy move without it having been once moved , and what moved it?
Matt tottally ignores this and even states and encourages you to be ignorant the time being.
@@alanismorrissette4742 no man. You're absolutely correct up until you say what was this cause. That's the whole point of all this. The atheists admits they don't know the theists pretend they do
@@alanismorrissette4742 Saying you don't know, and have no way of knowing, the answer to a question is not to ignore it.
@@alanismorrissette4742 so its either there is a cause or there isnt a cause.
It could very well be that there isnt a cause and it just is...as much as any god can just be without there needing to be a causer of that god.
If there is a cause, now, which cause is it? And why should I accept whatever explanation when the explanation cant possibly be verifiable or testable ...it will just be an argument.
As Matt has said in other debates...its yes, no, or i dont know. The theist wins if its yes. The other "player" wins if it's no or i dont know.
Whoever doesn't have the burden of proof has 2 ways of being right...the one with burden of proof only has 1 way.
@@alanismorrissette4742 The problem is that the word "god", depending on definition, implies all sorts of baggage that has nothing to do with answering the question. If you carve all that off (as Spinoza does in Ethics) you are left with very little and if you want to call that god you are just equivocating on what "god" is usually taken to mean.
One of modern times most intelligent and well spoken men. Bravo Matt
+Come Let us Reason Since you appear to be just posting and running I figure I'll do the same too! You are wrong... Matt is a human being not a parrot. Check mate. Wow this is fun!
***** Maybe one day I can be as smart as you and rub elbows with the elite of the world as you do. Probably not though see you got it all figured out and I'm fucking stupid.
It doesn’t take much to impress you it seems. Read some books.
I am Matt Dillahunty and YOU ARE JUST MAKING A CLAIM. I am super skeptical and believe nothing because everything is a claim. Hahaha, I am such a stable genius.
@@milkshakeplease4696 this is an example of a straw man. Matt never once said he doesn't believe in anything. Atheism is not the belief nothing exists. It's the lack of belief in a god. You may be 100% God is real, but he's not. It's not up to him to prove there's no god because he's not claiming there's no god. You, on the other hand, claim there is a god, so it's up to you to prove it.
Matt it would be nice if you disprove or explain why the properties of inmaterial, powerful , timless.. etc are not necessary for the cause of the universe. Or at least if the cosmos could have those propoerties
Better would be, as Matt says towards the end of the video "why not acknowledge that we do not currently have an explanation " In other words why make one up? (my view)
@@rogerdenrog I mean i don't know if you are familiar with the arguments posed by theists to justify the properties of the cause of the universe, but they are quite convincing to me (i'm pretty ignorant on phylosophy, so that's why i would love to hear rebuttals to those).
@@TopoTopaco Here i might try to argue . All of the justifications fail either by God of the gaps , appeal to ignorance , Special pleading or False dichotomy . There are no theistic arguments for the beggining of the universe that does not have a logical flaw . Therefore not valid . Its their claim that the Universe can only be created by a being that is based on properties of immaterial , powerfull , timeless , etc. the burden of proof is not them hence .
And the problem with infinite regress about the possibility of eternal multiverse cannot be falsified , because mathematically it is valid , their whole mental gymnastics are based on logic and science that is invalid , but if you use infinite eternal multiverse as a cause somehow it is impossible . If their mind ( of which there's no evidence can exist as a immaterial not bound by matter ) or agent exists in nothing ( timeless, immaterial , uncaused , spaceless ,timeless therefore its nothing .
So far our evidence is impossible that minds only with pure intent can cause material change of state , but their claim is that their agent's or God's mind can , even tho there's no evidence that a mind can change any state without being bound and immersed in it . They have no backings for that too . There's alot of arguments in nature of how an abstract functional concept can have the same timeless , spaceless ,imaterial , causeless etc. effect without being an agent .
Example is the abstract " Clockwork rule of random events " that was ones posed , there is a clock of a rule that once it reaches in some state it causes random events to happen ( such as multiverses and a sudden expansion of one ) by single chance . This scenario doesn't need an agent just an abstract rule to continuosly keep on creating random events of which a material universe might pop . This even after accepting the premise that our Universe had a beggining instead of just " There was a something eternal of which was expanding and then some random unwanted event caused it to start expanding violently 100x as more . There alot more better scenarios till you get to the agent but somehow they jump straight to it .
Matt, I fucking love you. Every time I watch you. I learn something new. I learn a new way of looking at apologetics and philosophy, Thank you for this
he presented points ive never heard before. So yeah, learned something new
+Come Let us Reason
You're right, atheist have been saying the same thing for years, that's why Christianity is dying on its arse.
the Bible has been debunked scientifically and historically I'm afraid, that's why Christian have to re-interpret it's readings to fit modern knowledge. Or, you can do what the creationists do and lie about current scientific understanding. lol
+Come Let us Reason Hello Mr Pot, let me introduce you to mister kettle. The regurgitation of the same claims and arguments, for centuries or millenia, and with no evidence except perhaps the testimony of adherents 'personal experiences', is the trademark of every major religion today and throughout history. Progress in human history has only ever come from recognising the difference between the wheat and the chaff in our knowledge, weeding out the chaff, and planting more wheat. Religions are just lazy cultivators of knowledge, they don't do enough weeding.
+Come Let us Reason You scared of hell?
+Come Let us Reason Aside from the amazing irony in your comment David addressed what you just said is Matt read the bible but I did too. Then leapt to his interpretation of christianity isn't consistent with mine and mine is right because I say so. Which means that he doesn't know it. It's kind of a microcosm of the god argument from the religious side. This is the way I see it and that means it's true. It's really an arrogant way to look at things.
1) The Universe exists
2) God did it
3) ???
4) Profit
1.5) Atheist YTer strawman
I'm an atheist, but that's a major straw man.
It's a joke guys
I think Matt has misunderstood about concept of contingency.. This argument doesn't relies on causes and effects like he said in this video. Contingent simply mean 1. dependence on other thing to exist, 2. unnecessary to exist. For example, the existence of my house DEPENDENCE on the existence of bricks. However, even if the brick does exist, my house DOESN'T NECESSARILY have to be exist. It can be built into your house, someone else house, or even other infrastructure. Therefore my house should be a contingent thing.
In what way then can we say that the universe is contingent on something for its existence?
He explained at the beginning that there are 2 types of "contingency" we can talk about: causal contingency, and sustaining contingency. You mean the second one
17:35 you misunderstand Dr. Craig's definition of 'universe'. By it he means all of space, time and matter. Hence if the universe has an explanation, it cannot be "contingent on the multiverse" since they are synonyms, and it clearly cannot "somewhere else in the cosmos" as you suggest since there is no "somewhere else".
Too bad Craig doesn't ever get that explicit. He relies on vagaries and obfuscation so he can commit equivocation fallacies down the road. Craig, nor anyone else, has any data on "all space, time and matter." So why is he making statement on it?
Given ----> from nothing, nothing comes
Therefore ---> Creation is not possible
Given ---> Something exists, [self evident]
Therefore ---> By brute fact something has always existed
I'm an apatheist. I believe whether God exists or not is irrelevant. If God does or doesn't exist, nothing changes. Reality would be the same either way.
If God does exist, it doesn't care if we believe in it, or it would demonstrate its existence. God wouldn't need your faith. Only a liar trying to sell you something would need your faith.
Since there's no good evidence a god exists, God is either indifferent or non-existent. Either way, it doesn't matter.
"If the universe has a reason for its existence, the reason must be god." What genius thunk that one up? (eyeroll)
Especially as it neither proves that god MUST be the reason only asserts it (and we already have the assertion that it exists without any contingency necessary... and it also assumes that there is necessarily a reason for the universe to exist. Good lock proving that.
That's a bit of a straw-man mate.
+Come Let us Reason ...well, off the top of my head, first, I get plenty of humor in putting over self important douche bags (you for example) in their place. second, had nothing better to do while taking a shit, third, humans and humanity are something I want to evolve beyond bronze age backwood inbred dipshit mythology and actually find their place (and evolve beyond that place to near god-like) in this universe and we won't do it while sucking on the mythological dick(s) of ancient god(s) formed in primitive minds and acting like unlearned spastic instinctual hairless apes begging in a large open-form Skinner box for anecdotal scraps from the tables of fictional beings not demonstrated by the material physical universe.
lastly, the universe exists because the universe exists and it gives evidence that only it exists and nothing else. if a god is not of or from or within the universe then the universe gives no correlation to a deity, especially not our universe which has no need for a cause and can self replicate or have easily created itself. see Susskind et al for a lesson in some physics.
+Come Let us Reason It's important to know whether a god exists or not and that god would have an effect on science. A natural god or instead a advanced being that is not a god.
1. It is possible to think of at least one non-god-based reason for the existence of the universe. 2. The premise presupposes the existence of what the line of reasoning is trying to prove.
This is a great explanation in easy-to-understand terms of the Argument from Contingency. Glad to get a bit more educated today!
I enjoyed the video. Well thought-out and articulate. I’m a Thomistic theist myself, and I couldn’t help but notice that he kept referring to God as “a being.” Thomas Aquinas doesn’t understand God as “a being,” but rather “being itself” (ipsum esse). Hence, I was actually quite pleased at the end when he stated that he thought that “being, existence itself” is the uncaused cause. I think he and Aquinas may have that in common after all.
Of course, this video and Aquinas disagree (a lot) on the properties of this Uncaused Cause... but those properties are beyond the scope of the 5 Ways.
The only point of contigency that i still dont get its how something that always have existed would NEED to have a cause
But i disagree completely of the atheists that belittle Aquinas, this dude was genius
What does “being itself” mean to a materialist like myself?
The word "universe" is handy, but also ambiguous.
What does the word mean ? We decide what it means !
We can make up any definition we like. I like to include everything for all time.
For example, the universe is everything that has existed, does exist or ever will exist.
I plan on stopping any discussion, that asserts anything. until there is a reason given for the assertion, Or definitions to explain what is meant. thanks Matt.
+Come Let us Reason Only in your head. 😊
+Come Let us Reason Where doing what which one?
Amen! Oh, sorry, bad phrase. I mean... Yes! Good idea.
+Mark12:30 Assertion without evidence is fallacious. Faith is the most dishonest position anyone can hold on any subject, please explain to me anything else you have faith in with any amount of confidence without evidence supporting that faith. I can't think of a single thing. I feel bad for people with faith, I just wish they could understand why.
That is called the "Argument From STFU".
Any fair Thomist would listen to Mr. Dillahunty and just shake their head.
And any 10th grade science student would listen to a Thomist and just shake their head.
Luminiferous Ethan
Why?
@@kjustkses because ancient philosophical thought experiments have nothing to do with how reality actually works.
Luminiferous Ethan
Firstly, I have no idea what you mean or where you get that idea. Secondly a Thomist is not necessarily an ancient philosopher. There are several Thomists today.
Please explain the Thomist argument.
The existence of Matts head is necessarily contingent upon a 'bald' assertion.
*rimshot*
Haha Good one ;)
2 problems. First, people are trying to slip 2 meanings in for "reason." They start out talking about physical cause and then try to slip in an implied purpose without demonstrating that any purpose exists. Second, neither I nor anyone else has ever seen any caused thing which did not have a natural cause. So why should anyone assume that anything had a supernatural cause just because he cannot identify the natural cause?
4:54 That is physically false: if the sun goes away the light keeps traveling in the space and time. As a matter of fact if we lived for example 1 light year away from the sun when it disappears, you would not know it and it would still exist based on your system of reference.
Whats your point? I get you want to be pedantic but he only used it to explain a concept to laypeople, you could change the light example for whatever as long as it made it clear and the definition he stated of sustained contingency would be the same
@@juanfrancisconavarrorodrig567 There is nothing like pedantic for a scientist. Ergo, wrong hypothesis lead to wrong conclusions.
"Here we are."
Now get back to work.
Matt please debate Mohammed Hijab !
I'm a Muslim and I'd love to see that. Mohammed Hijab, while he gets aggressive, is surely an intelligent person and so is Matt. Would love to see an exchange between these two.
I'd also like Matt to debate him. The debate he did with Cosmic Skeptic was messy. Would love to see Matt dig in on the issue instead of get side tracked trying to present a moral argument against it.
Hijab was very dishonest in the way he presented his debate with Cosmic Skeptic. I don't think he operates in good faith.
How can someone dislike a video like this? It's pure educational, come on...
Watchmaker Fs The Atheist labelled ...and the defense mechanism of religion is involved.
Watchmaker Fs Some of the objections aren't very good.
He doesn't engage with gap problems.
A necessary fact cannot cease to be true.
There are objections to the PSR, yet he doesn't touch on them.
He seems to confuse "being" with "agent." If something exists, that is a being by definition.
Because theists will dislike it just because it's Matt
@@Rayalot72 What definition? You appear to be confusing a being, which generally means an intelligent entity, with the state of being, which is an entirely different usage.
@@roqsteady5290 The ontological definition. Being does not refer to intelligence or agency at all in cosmological arguments.
Genuine question: In regards to the causal versus sustaining contingency, don’t the contingent products have to be brought about by a necessary cause? In other words, in Matt’s example, how can the necessary cause of a causally contingent universe cease to exist? Wouldn’t the cause need to be infinite as well?
It would. If it did cease to exist it would be dependant on time and space for the act of ending to take place. Therefore the necessary must be infinite.
The real question is should the contingent be infinite. The current propositions are theories and not conclusive or absolute.
Matt, I'm curious - since you mentioned Kalam, it made me think of WLC (naturally)... and his continued refusal to debate you (I assume this is still true ?). I think you'd do so well, given your mastery of all these various arguments, and your logical mind - quick thinking, etc. However, as you've noted, he's big on refusing to debate people who don't have Doctorates (in something). What I was wondering was, did he make a unique exception for his debate with Christopher Hitchens, some years ago, at Biola Univ ? was that a random 1-time thing, given Hitch's vocal presence, back then ? It seems he should afford you a similiar "exemption", no ? :-) Hope you get a chance, at some point, or - if not with Craig himself, maybe one of his apprentices, who will no doubt take up Kalam in his stead, whenever he retires / passes, etc - in the future ! Take care, and thanks for your work.
When I've had this argument used (from a Christian), at the end I will agree and confirm with "praise Allah, we now know his truth" and I'll immediately get a "no, no, no, it doesn't show that a Muslim god exists!" Well then, there equally no way it shows that your version exists then either. It's usually dropped after that since the only reason they want to use it is to prove "their" god. If it can't, it quickly loses any value.
Table Salt they never prove a specific deity it’s funny they all make the same arguments 😂
@@kadnan6111
They don't worship a specific deity. They worship the creator (whatever name people address Him).
*for the existence of A god. Not the existence of god. When you say it like that people naturally assume youre talking about their god like there is only one choice and you have already dismissed all others apart from theirs
Good. I like to expose their biased assumptions...that said, these arguments tend to apply to the/a god of classical theism (or similar) and are viewed as arguments for "the one god" (even if its characteristics differ from argument to argument and person to person).
If that assumption bears out, it's trivial to show that it applies to gods other than theirs (as I think I pointed out in this and several other videos). :)
+Come Let us Reason exactly how does this discredit me?
I think you may have little awereness of how you come accross. I would recommend that, in the future, you take a couple of minutes and ask of yourself "What is my objective in commenting? Will my comment achieve this objective?" before you comment.
As usual, if you want to convince anybody that your god is real, you have to bring evidence. If you want to convince anybody that Matt Dillahunty is a fraud for encouraging religious skepticism, you need to prove that he is wrong for being a skeptic. Unfortunately, you have yet to impress anybody here.
+NicosMind There is a real supreme reality that did big bang the universe into existence, evolve humans from apes, does maintain and rule the universe from start to finish. That existence called God was discovered & documented with extraordinary peer reviewed studies by the secular natural sciences. The 100% all natural God is composed of laws of nature & forces of physics.
"The universe exists, therefore god is the reason."
Why can't the reason be because Voltron action figures? There is just as much evidence to support the belief the universe exists for Voltron action figures as there is for a god being the reason (more so because we can show that Voltron action figures are actually real, can't say the same for a god), so why don't we argue that Voltron action figures are the reason the universe exists instead?
I usually go with Spiderman.
Blasphemer! It's obviously Superman!
You fucking heathen! Avengerism is the only path to salvation!
Of course it's Superman. He died to save us from Doomsday, and he will resurrect in a near future! This is my prophecy.
You rang?
I have never understood how evidently intelligent, educated people like WLC can't see the logical gap between "a necessary cause" and "an immortal, metaphysical, transcendent, personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity"
Mohamud Ahmed irrelevant. “We don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable epistemological position, and does not just mean that anyone else’s unfounded guess must be right, regardless of the fact that the guesser can’t think of anything else.
@Mohamud Ahmed Thank you so much for telling everyone that I'm a dishonest person. I really appreciate how you can see into my mind over the internet and tell me what my motivations are. Thank you for not being confrontational with _insults,_ or anything. I really like being called a liar.
Ah, I see you've edited that out. But I saw it.
Again, we go from First Cause or Unmoved Mover (which may not need to be invoked - there are cosmological hypotheses on how this can happen, but there is some reasoning behind it. At least it shows that there is more than one possible answer).
And again, you have not answered how you get from the dispassionate, impersonal Uncaused Cause (which may not be a necessary condition) to "immortal, metaphysical..." etc.
The fact that a book written by human beings makes a statement does not make it true. Other holy books such as the Vedas give different statements, just as unfounded.
I am prepared to discuss this with you dispassionately and objectively, but if you call me a liar or imply that I am acting dishonestly again, I'm not going to respond to you. Deal?
@Mohamud Ahmed I accept your apology. However, I would add that the idea that atheists, _in general,_ secretly know that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, reportedly vengeful deity that hates non-believers and could destroy them in a heartbeat makes absolutely no sense. Nobody would dare to be a non-believer if they really knew that. Will you accept that?
Right, to address your first point: a universe _ex nihilo._ My first reaction would be to ask why you think nothing is a more natural state than something. There are very good reasons to believe that in our universe as it is at present, the attainment of nothing is impossible. Scientists are limited in the hardness of the vacuum they can create because virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time.
And one of the most fundamental scientific laws is that of the conservation of mass-energy: mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, though it can be changed into a different form. The Big Bang was _not_ the emergence of the Universe and its mass-energy from nothing, but its rapid expansion from a much denser state. That much denser state cannot be explained by current scientific knowledge, but it is definitely not nothing.
So my question to you is: why is "nothing" a necessary condition for the starting point of the cosmos? I would be grateful if you could leave quotes from the Quran out, as I don't have a copy, although a long time ago I did read the Pickthall translation, which I believe is regarded by Islamic scholars as the best English translation. But I would like the argument to be based on logic and epistemology: what we know, and how we know it.
@Mohamud Ahmed I have also read _A Universe From Nothing._ Professor Krauss pretty much says that a real "nothing" may not be a possible state.
@Mohamud Ahmed But if nothing is not a tenable state (and there is good reason to believe it is at least not a stable state), then it's irrelevant what its powers might or might not be.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Because if there were nothing, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
I'm Christian and I think Matt Dillahuny is an excellent philosopher. I like the way you present things and debate, I've seen your 3 hour conversation with the apologetics academy and I really liked the way you keep things objective
Its been 5 years, are you still Christian?
"Why is there something instead of nothing" is a really stupid question. Nothing can't "be." It's not an option.
TibiCogitate The question is not implying a reification of the concept of philosophical nothingness into a state of affiars. What it is implying is that there must be a reason for why anything that is existent, exists at all.
Why A when it could be not A. If not A is a possibility then there may or must be a substantial reason underling the fact that A has be actualized.
There is something rather than nothing, because if there were nothing rather than something then we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
bdf2718 We exist, true. But it is the case that despite such an awareness we still lack a substantial explanation for this particular state of affairs.
+Justin Orosz
As Matt, and many others point out, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. "I don't know" is a better answer than "I know God did it because reasons." "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better answer than "I know God did it because this book which is full of factual errors told me God did it."
It would be nice to have an answer. Which is why people are working on it.
bdf2718 I'm an atheist, are you implying I'm a theist?
Beautifully done!
Totally disagree with you, but I really liked your video and I thought you did a great job presenting your thoughts and I enjoyed it. Good job and thanks.
If there is anything that doesn't have a reason for it's existence, then the argument fails.
Is there anything ?
Think !
Actually it doesn't matter whether or not anyone can identify something _within_ the universe that is not contingent. Applying any such argument to the container, the universe itself, is a category error. Before successfully using the argument from contingency, you would need to also present evidence that the universe is in the same category as the items it contains. So far, the assertion that the universe is contingent is just that, an empty assertion. Until evidence can be presented to back up that assertion, the argument from contingency is just a word game.
@@broddr
Beautifully stated except for one little detail.
The container doesn't exist.
We invented that concept.
@deadend
God doesn't have a reason either.
@deadend
What I meant was...
There is no reason for a god to exist.
tedgrant2 "the container doesn't exist." I'm pretty sure the universe exists. And that it has a lot of stuff in it, less than 5% of which we can actually see.
Matt thank you so much for this video! I was a deist until now!
It took one question (Do you really believe in God?) and one second to respond (Uhh, nope)
Never looked back.
It took one half hour video to convince you out of your deism?
@@CedanyTheAlaskan Deism is a pretty weak position to be in, yeah. I was a deist for like only like a week or two when I was 14/15ish.
@@siim605 Well I dont know if that's necessarily true.
It sounds like he has been a deist for a while. So it surprises me that a half hour video convinced him otherwise
This video doesn't disprove God, and it never even attempts to. I don't know how this video could make you an atheist.
I have never in my life seen anyone make such a video that they look so uncomfortable with the contingency argument lol. He brought not a single substance to debunk the contingency argument except “oh the universe maybe necessary” Loool, To say the universe is necessary means it had no beginning or end and you have absolute zero evidence to that fact.
You don't understand they burden of proof. You must rule that out to declare otherwise
Hi Matt hope you’re well. Let’s have a civil discussion, would you agree to my following premise, the universe is either dependant or independent?. Now before you say this is a false dichotomy Fallacy I would like to remind you that the premise has no other options to the contrary. So we can’t apply that fallacy 😊.
@@AliDawah Ali he needs dawah let's give him dawah 😂😂
Hijab already smashed Alex 🙏
I found myself arguing from this fallacy multiple times before... Admittedly, it's embarrassing but thank you Matt for helping me (indirectly) see it clearly. (:
Not for the existence of a god, but for other trivial things.
He didn't prove the arguments wrong though - He only demonstrated their strengths, but made an argument based on cause, which he even admitted could be a god. All he did was take out the presupisition of the cause being a god but he's still left with what causes these arguments. Which he totally ignores.
He also lies by ommision by leaving out the fact Thomas Aquinas even admitted this himself, that he doesn't know what the cause is but it's impossible to demonstrate there is no cause.
Something cannot come from nothing , energy cannot move without having once been moved through time and space - that's Aquinas entire argument. - it's sad how dishonest Matt is sometimes.
33:41 - he's literally telling you to be ignorant.
@@alanismorrissette4742 Wow you really don't even know what you are talking about.
"energy cannot move without having once been moved through time and space - that's Aquinas entire argument".
Can you please point me to the source of Aquinas saying that? That is totally backwards and not what Aquinas said.
"he's literally telling you to be ignorant."
He is literally telling us the be honest by saying that we don't know the cause of the universe or if it even has one. Funny how you flip that on its hat.
"He didn't prove the arguments wrong though".
Arguments aren't right or wrong, premises are right or wrong. Arguments are valid or invalid. And an argument is only valid if the conclusion always follows from its premises being true. It doesn't require the premises to actually be true and therefore doesn't make the conclusion true.
"He also lies by ommision by leaving out the fact Thomas Aquinas even admitted this himself, that he doesn't know what the cause is but it's impossible to demonstrate there is no cause."
How is it relevant what Thomas Aquinas admitted at any point for the validity of the argument or the truth of the premises? You really seem to be very confused. Also Matt basically says exactly that.
@@alanismorrissette4742 Why do religionists keep presenting this pointless argument?
If "nothing" cannot come from "nothing" then neither can a "god".
What you are arguing is, Something came or made from "nothing", created everything else out of the SAME "nothing" then returned itself to a state of undetectable "nothingness"?
If you claim "magic" as in, this proposed "god" somehow exists outside space and time? Where does it exist? You are arguing it exists within the "nothingness"?
If something is there, then it is not nothingness? This is an impossibility, like a square circle it CANNOT be. You have just proven the impossibility of your "gods" existence?
We have NO evidence of "nothing"? Perhaps something ALWAYS existed. There is no need for this SOMETHING to be sentient or aware.
The argument disproves itself.
@@alanismorrissette4742 I love your music but you're talking total rubbish, see *trixn* above.
When you are discussing an argument, could you please leave the argument on-screen while discussing it to make it easier to follow?
Hi Matt,
It is not possible to explain "the existence of Existence" (using your words). This is because existence is an irreducible concept. And for any thought or conjecture to be articulated, existence must first be assumed
"Accident" presumes intent, no? In order for something to be an accident, then it must be the case that someone intended not to do that thing (or at least did not intend to do the thing). If that's the case, then it's a bit silly to say that atheists think we're here by accident. That's quite the opposite of what we think.
accident doesn't presume intent, it's used synonymously with an absence of intent.
I didn't realize I was making this mistake in arguments before, so I appreciate the clarification (I too thought accident presumed an intent that didn't happen)
The word has two definitions. The first and most commonly used of which is an intent not to do something and it happens anyway (unexpectedly and unintentionally). Car accident, accident at a factory, accidental fall, etc.
Edit: Hm, I'm actually not so sure now. I'll give it more thought.
Your definition is one I never hear (though it is one) in colloquial speech. Non-intent. This is why I deny that anything happened "by accident" though that is not technically the case. I'll have to clarify if it comes up in the future.
A car accident is when you drive into something that you *didn't* intend to. Expressing your thought this way round shows Matt's explanation is correct.
Your intent was to make A happen, but B happened instead. B happened WITHOUT intent.
The universe was created by Captain Marvel.
This is proven by the Shazam Cosmological Argument.
Lazy thinker. This is why I'm not an atheist
@Hector Defendi yawn - internet athiest are such boring people, lol
@Hector Defendi Who like Jay Dyer? He would destroy someone like Matt Dilahunty in a debate.
@Hector Defendi Matt is dishonest about morality and the teleological argument; he has to be for his world view to make sense.
Thank you for this fantastic presentation! A model of calm, sound reasoning, rational skepticism, and intellectual humility.
I'm an agnostic atheist, but I'll play the devil's advocate.
It seems to me that you're evading the problem of infinity. If the universe
(or cosmos whatever you wish to call it) was eternal,
i.e. it has existed for an infinite amount of time,
then this very moment would never arrive. This is because reaching this very moment means that an infinite moments of time relapsed,
but this is impossible because infinite will never end, so we can't reach this moment.
But here we are, which means that the cosmos is not infinte. Why would we say that the universe isn't necessary? The answer to this question
is easy. If the cause of the universe existed for eternity, then the effect should as well have existed for eternity. But this is not the case with our universe.
Our universe did not exist for eternity. It did begin to exist. This means that an intelligent agent brought it into being. Now you may want to
resort to saying that the cosomos has existed forever. But this brings us back to zero. The idea of an infintie past is not coherent. It is coherent when
you talk about math and potentiality. But an actual inifinity seems to me a bad argument for the reasons I explained above. One more thing, you said that god may have created
the universe then ceased to exst. This is absurd. I can't believe you would commit such a fallacy. God, by definition, is eternal. If he could cease to exist, he wouldn't
be eternal. he wouldn't be necessay thing.
Premise 1: "If the [god] was eternal,
i.e. it has existed for an infinite amount of time,
then this very moment would never arrive. This is because reaching this
very moment means that an infinite moments of time relapsed, but this is impossible because infinite will never end, so we can't reach this moment."
Premise 2: "God, by definition, is eternal."
Conclusion: God does not exist.
+CorwynGC this is a strawman. God is said to be timeless. He doesn't exist within time. Now you can argue that this makes no sense, but you would be resorting to red herring. So you are mistaken in assuming that time applies to god
Levi black
That is something that people *made up* to avoid this argument. Unless you can SHOW that a god is timeless (whatever that means), you can't claim it.
You claimed that god was eternal. Eternal MEANS existing in all time. So not timeless.
Go watch Vsauces video on supertasks. it should help explain how to deal with infinity
is it intuitive to think that everything started by chance and then the blind cosmos started inventing its own laws/rules and started to obey it ?
It's intuitive to say I don't know. Because I don't. And neither do you. You just claim to.
This is the part where you say "I don't know" because that's the truth. But nah, you make assertions lmao.
@@rivvy2138 logic and reasoning ? science is based on logic isn't ?
Can anyone demonstrate that a god is even possible?
@Les Brown At least a supernatural entity. It wouldn't have to be supreme. But I'm talking about a god, not the idea of a god.
@Les Brown There have been many beliefs about gods... gods of rain, thunder, etc. All of them are supernatural beings.
Maybe I should have asked whether anyone can demonstrate that any supernatural being is possible.
I am not postulating a god. I am asking about evidence that any god, or now, any supernatural being, is possible.
@Les Brown I am asking for evidence that any supernatural being is possible. N o t h i n g e l s e. Please stop going off on tangents.
(Some people think there are gods related to atmospheric conditions. That would be one example of a conceivable god.)
I do not believe there are any gods. I am asking for evidence that any supernatural being is even *possible*. It is not enough to say that we don't know it is impossible. I agree, but that doesn't show that it is possible.
@Les Brown I am not clear where you said there is not evidence that a supernatural being is possible. But this was the best hour of my life.
Les Brown Based on your answers, This topic seems too abstract for you to understand, but I will give an analogy. If I ask, “Can you give evidence that it is possible for a human to live on Venus?,” you don’t have to talk about a specific person, not even whether it is male or female, adult or infant. Yes, that information might help in some environments (it wouldn’t on Venus), but it is not necessary to discuss the evidence
👨🏼💼.. So I ask you again..
How was the universe created?
👽 You are not capable of comprehending or accepting the truths of existence..
👨🏼💼Answer the question!
👽The universe was not created.
👨🏼💼Really?
.. But you can't create something out of nothing..
👽 That is correct.
👨🏼💼 So there it is
.. Only a creator can make something from nothing.
👽 That is incorrect.
👨🏼💼 Wait.. You just contradicted yourself
👽 Nothing, by definition, does not exist.
👨🏼💼 So?
👽 Since nothing cannot exist...
What is left is existence.
Existence is infinite.
It has no end. No beginning.
And therefore no creator.
👨🏼💼 Wait. But you said there's an origin to the universe.
👽 Yes
👨🏼💼There it is. I caught you in a lie.
👽 This universe is not existence.
It is an infinitely small part of existence.
👨🏼💼 Right.. So.. Now you are talking nonsense
Again, how was the universe created so miraculously?
👽 This universe is a spontaneous event...
And inevitable within the eternity of existence.
Every event, can, will, and has happened. Including this universe.
There are infinite number of universes.
Virtually all cannot harbor so-called life.
This universe is, by chance, stable.
👨🏼💼 So.. Life "just happened", right?
👽 In this universe, yes.
Life, as you call it, is an inevitable consequence... Of this universe's physical properties.
👨🏼💼 So are you telling me we're just random?
👽 Yes.
This universe is indifferent to so called life.
👨🏼💼 How so?
👽 Life on this and every world can be destroyed... At any time by a multitude of random events.
👨🏼💼 Such as..
👽 What you would term.. Supernova, solar flare, asteroid impact.
👨🏼💼 So the universe doesn't care if live or die?
👽 Correct.
👨🏼💼 I don't believe that for a second. We're more than just random.
👽 As I said, you are not capable of accepting... The truths of existence.
👨🏼💼 So, if we're just "random"... Then there's no meaning to the universe..
👽That is correct.
👨🏼💼 So if there's no meaning in the universe...
Then what's the point of living.
👽 There is meaning.
👨🏼💼 You just contradicted yourself again..
👽 Meaning lives in the mind.
👨🏼💼 No, no, no. You can't live a full life..
You can't live a life at all if you think that meaning is somehow made up.
👽 Your species conjures meaning.. But operates under the false belief that meaning is a mystical plan. It is not.
👨🏼💼 So, what is meaning?
👽 Meaning is what you make it.
At the 3rd green point you would not have gotten that response but rather a "we don't know that". it seems that at the quanum level something can come from nothing and does so all the time.
I believe in the argument for god, by the argument from contingency. However, it does not follow that god is Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, or Vishnu. To understand god then we need to study the universe, that which we know to exist, not assertions of faith.
Idiot.
Why are calling the universe a god? Why not call bacteria and viruses god? They are the ones actually deciding our fate.
@@spaceghost8995 Everything is determined by the universe, where the building blocks of life (bacteria and if you will viruses) are provided by the universe. Just call god all the things we don't understand, and not "we can't explain this so god did it" . When the unified field theory is complete (for example) then part of god will disappear, when our knowledge is complete (if ever) then god will disappear. This god does not give us our moral ground, only the stars that give us our carbon base.
Why do people hate to say that they don't know?
The way I see it, the Cosmos *must* exist, since if it didn't, nothing would exist. But, "nothing" cannot exist, due to its very nature of being not anything. "Nothing" does not exist, therefore something must exist. Right?
Argument from contingency: defining god into existence.
Mohamud Ahmed the contingency argument defines god into existence, that's why it's garbage.
Analytic arguments don't support the premises with evidence.
Mohamud Ahmed whatever evidence supports the premises.
What ya got? Oh, all opinions are subjective dude🤦
Mohamud Ahmed demonstrate premise 1 & 2.
The burden of proof is on you sport. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.
Get to it.
How do you know that the universe has a beginning?
@Mohamud Ahmed I don't think that's right; things are never really "made into existence." When you think about making things, what you're really doing is combining stuff that already exists in a useful way. Your premise relies on initially there being nothing, and the universe having "come into existence," that is: the existence of nothing is the default of the universe. Afaik, this view has no scientific basis as we don't really know how to observe* "before" the big bang.
*I extend the definition of observing something to also include the observation of its effects, and sound mathematical predictions based on a current leading scientific model
@Mohamud Ahmed to me you are simply moving the post. We don't know if the universe has a beginning. Science and not religion has shown how it seems that our local presentation of the universe seems to have started at some point, but we don't know or currently have a way to investigate what happened before that. By saying that the universe must have a beginning but God doesn't have a beginning seems like the post is being arbitrarily moved and granting God properties that we refuse to give the universe. We all seem to agree that the universe exists but we don't agree in the existence of God so it seems to me that we have to grant more properties that are not in any way verifiable to God than what we would have to give to the universe.
If the universe has an explanation for its existence it must be the mice.
*wiskadjak* What, Frankie and Benji ? Makes more sense than "god" - we at least know that mice exist and so can cause something. They could even be trans-dimensional beings, why not.
@Mohamud Ahmed Because mice are small and unassuming, maybe? hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Mice
It seems the argument from contingency is contingent on flawed logic.
This is all fascinating as an intellectual exercise but there's only one important question which theists must answer "Can you prove the existence of your god by getting it to physically manifest ?". If the answer is "No" then you don't believe them.
Mohamud Ahmed, if God has no effect on the physical world in which we humans live, what difference could it possibly make to us whether God exists or not?
@Mohamud Ahmed You need to show that there is such a thing as the "metaphysical" otherwise I will not believe you'
@Mohamud Ahmed if you wish us to believe that your god exists then you need it to physically manifest. You can make any number of excuses why it cannot do this but we do not have to believe them. The onus is on you.
@Mohamud Ahmed I don't need "belief" in a deity or anything else in the religious sense of "belief". I need proof or I don't believe it. And keep it civil please.
Thanks Matt,
I just saw your presentation and I have to say is the best explanation of this argument that I ever came across. English is not my first language and I have read many articles and books in spanish (which is my native language) about
this topic. Yours is still more clear or clearer than the ones I read in spanish.
I can see why theist would be terrified of you.👏 👏
This is the God of the Mother Of All Gaps.
"God of the gaps" is when you insert supernatural explanation into a natural phenomena. This is supposed to be the first explanation for all that is natural, contingent, etc... It is something that, by definition, can't be solved by science. But, why do actual research when you can just cry "God of the gaps" and be done with it?
How about the argument from Chartle (me)
1) if a god created the universe, he must have created what he liked
2) things that we see in abundance in the universe he must like more , or at least more of , than things he created less of
3) therefore we can assume God loves lifeless rocks , expanses of darkness and loves large clouds of swirling gas , his favorite lifeforms are clearly euglena and bacteria
I hate this argument. At its core, it's just special pleading along with an assumption that infinite regress is not a possibility.
You'll have to prove that infinite regress is porssible
M A.M
Nope.
The argument uses this (IMO nonexistent) property called "contingency" to draw arbitrary relationships between things with arbitrary boundaries, then "reasons" that since an infinite regress is impossible, there must be "something" noncontingent that gets the god label for whatever stupid reason. It's a stop-gap. It's a panacea.
Possibility needs to be demonstrated, but so does impossibility.
If infinite regress cannot be proven possible, thus the default should be that it is impossible?
TheMarsCydonia
No. The default is that it is not possible. This is different from holding the position that X is impossible. It's the same distinction between not guilty and innocent.
TheZooCrew Please define
By not engaging with the arguments for the second premise, you've effectively taken what could have been a debunking and made it into an introduction to the argument.
And... what?
@deadend well, it's pretty clear that it's not meant to be an introduction. Maybe it's not meant to be a thorough debunking, but it's definitely meant to be at least a undermining. All I'm saying is I'm disappointed that it's less of a debunking and more of an introduction. Like, if he has answers to the stage two arguments, I'd like to hear them.
I got the following closing statement from a Muslim banging on about his version of the Teleological argument.
'The reason why this argument is potent is because it strips everything back to core ideas which make sense of our idea of God'
I translated that as, 'We 'know' that our God is True which means that the God proven by the Teleological argument is our God.'
He thought it was 'inappropriate' when i raised my Space Pixie God against his for some reason(?).
Thanks, but no thanks, Matt; I'd rather not think of my parent's "method of procreation".
Why? Are you still 12 that the idea your parents having sex still makes you blush? Its literally how all life works. Thats what procreation is.
Why isn't this guy president?
The best presidents don't want to be president, but do so out of a sense of duty. I think Matt would fall under this category.
George Washington
He’s too smart and atheist
Not crooked or a liar.
@James Curtis, one can be some thing without wanting to be that thing. for example, you can be an idiot without wanting to be one.
In the beginning, there was a god.Then god exploded ...
If after the explosion everything came to be then God is! You can argue that God is not conscious that is up to you but to deny that a first cause does not exist is illogical
@@igboman2860 This is you: 29:40 to 29:49
Hi Mr. Dillahunty, I thoroughly enjoyed this video, but as a Catholic and Thomist I'd like to remark about something you said. I would appreciate a response, if you'd be so kind.
You did something quite remarkable between 30:50-31:13, where you said that something we can know with a large degree of certainty is that Existence exists necessarily.
I haven't seen any of your other videos, so please don't take offense in me asking this, but are you aware that you (possibly accidentally) described the Catholic Church's (more-or-less) official stance on *what* God *is*? In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas incorporated the (mostly) pre-Christian Greek ideas about what he would call "God" into his most well known work, the Summa Theologica. Philosophers such as Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus deduced from the natural world that there must be some universal principle which essentially amounts to existence itself. Heraclitus called it the Logos, Plato called it The Good, Aristotle called it the Prime Mover, Plotinus called it The One, and St. Thomas calls it God, or sometimes "ipsum esse subsistens" (subsistent existence itself).
Where I think you fall off St. Thomas' path is in your understanding of what "existence itself" means. If I understand correctly (and do mistake me if I'm wrong), you take "existence" to mean the totality of things which exist in the cosmos. St. Thomas' understanding of "existence" is rather that it is simple. Absolutely simple in fact, I'm talking about the doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity. Anything which is composed cannot be necessary, because it is contingent (in the sustaining manner you described) on its component parts. Therefore that which is necessary (existence itself) is composed of no parts. It isn't even strictly correct to say that it exists, because to exist is to have existence, but Existence itself does not *have* existence, but rather *is* existence. It simply *is*.
St. Thomas makes arguments for the commonly known divine attributes of God being appropriate to ipsum esse subsistens in the Summa Theologica (specifically Prima Pars, Questions 3-13). I'm not sure if you've changed your view over the past 3.5 years regarding whether we can know existence to exist necessarily, but assuming that you still accept that, after reading the arguments outlined in the mentioned section of the Summa Theologica, what prevents you from becoming a classical theist (not a Christian, mind you, but someone who believes in God in the way the aforementioned philosophers did, without any mention of the Christ)?
The relevant sections of the Summa Theologica can be found here:
www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
I appreciate you reading this if you do, and eagerly await your answer.
All the best.
I wonder if calling it "Argument from Dependency" would not have been a better choice of words.
Oh, just Matt talking about philosophy while not knowing about philosophy. Nothing new.
Oh, just Tony trying to dismiss Matt talking about philosophy, without actually giving any reason whatsoever. Standard whinging.
It doesn't seem like he understands the Kalam argument. 27:05 - that is incorrect. First, they won't mention "God" and there is an explanation they give which probably cannot be adequately taught in a 35 min video without unraveling current biases, assumptions, misconceptions, etc. I was hoping this video would be more....
If you define "God" as being the reason the Universe exists, then if the Universe exists for a reason, God exists. But that says nothing about the nature of God. How you get from there to "Therefore the God of Abraham is the true God." is what puzzles me.
Can anyone remind me of the argument that starts "suppose all knowledge of the universe exists inside this circle"? I heard someone reference it the other day but I can't remember how the rest goes.
This is followed by illustrating a single point somewhere within the circle to represent the knowledge of either an individual or the collective of humanity (depending on how the apologist wishes to go), and that it must be logical that the knowledge of a god lies somewhere within that circle that is not within the single point.
What about a causal contingency? Can it be demonstrated by it's body.
Like autopsy.
I like the fact that Matt stays away from saying cause by using the word contingency. This explains a lot of why uncertainty has more to do with the thinking. LOL
Essentially it comes down to people being afraid to admit that they don’t know something and especially afraid that they don’t know something that seems to be the ultimate question of their and everything’s entire existence. So because of admitting that they don’t know something that is ultimately the biggest possible question is scary or because they can’t think of other possibilities (like Matt mentioning the cosmos beyond the universe) they assume or at least hope that this big scary gap in our knowledge is where God can and must be placed
And of course this is all even assuming that the universe is contingent on anything at all. That has not and never will be proven. “It exists because it exists” will always be a possibility. I can’t assert it to be true but that’s not the point, if you can’t assert it to be false then the entire contingency argument cannot really be accepted.
I have listened to the whole video and the fact that a lot of people who react are impressed by hid 'arguments, it shows how poor are atheists intellectually when it comes to philosophy about the existence of God. If you are impressed by what he is saying, then you haven't been reading anything about this subject.
Must be true if you say so.
Happy to examine your issues with it.
Time 7:43 We can stop all arguments right here. Something that is eternal could not by itse very definition has a cause or be contingent. There is no point going any further, as everything else will be based off this faulty idea. We can also say that the two contingencies discussed are not classified because the argument is for both. Also anything that is sustaining contingency is also a causal contingency.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of a single thing that exists, that we have universally accepted as existing. In other words, everything that we agree exists we have come to that knowledge through verifiable evidence through our senses. Has there ever been anything that we universally agree as existing that hasn't had actual evidence, as opposed to arguments?
And why does there have to be an explanation for existence? If there weren't existence we wouldn't have this conversation. Existence is necessary.
Your doing a fine job Matt doing what your doing.
The nature of material reality, which is contingent and transient, gives us a reasonable basis for believing in the necessary being, which is essential and eternal, from which material reality initially came.
Show me evidence of such a being.
I disagree with Matt saying
“The universe might be contingent on a multiverse or something in the cosmos.”
The first point; A multiverse is a universe that comes from another universe and so forth. Its impossible that any of that would even start without something being infinite. Each of those universes came from another and each universe is limited. There needs to be something infinite to start.
And he claims that just something in the cosmos did it yet that doesn’t answer anything it just makes more questions so we still have no answer.
A good answer is better than no answer at all
Saying "I don't know" is a good answer because we literally don't know.
13:26 Necessary existence doesnt cease because it is independent for its existence but you are changing the meaning of necessary existence here.
Step 1 - Remind people that I live in Hawaii with a badass cliffside home and I do not have to work.
Step 2 - Remind my fellow atheists and agnostics that winning an argument with people is as easy as referring to Step number 1.
THAT is how I win with ANY fuckin argument. 'Cause at the end of the day, the only thing I give a shit about is knowing my wife and I are going to bed in a badass home in Hawaii we have owned for years.
I am not braggin' but if you're just living life to argue, you're LAGGIN', Brah!
Then you woke up and had to go flip burgers.
@@tomjackson7755 Nope, as
t you wish you could awaken from. Hilarious.....you must think NOBODY can live in Hawaii! LOL If you had half a fuckin stone in your head, you'd have checked out my account, gone to my website and found out I live in Hawaii. Jesus....people are fuckin creepy when they troll.
OCDlove
You may have won the emotional argument but not the intellectual one
Thank you. Appreciate your ability to explain concepts so clearly.
isn't the problem of the eternal universe only really a problem for causal contingency, since eternal precludes prior (temporal) causes? Wouldn't 'sustaining' contingency only require simultaneously existence of the 'sustaining' thing, rather then prior existence?
I would have two major issues with this argument, one occurs within the argument, and the other is in the entire basis of the argument.
I would challenge the claim that "if the universe is contingent, it must be contingent on something non-contingent"... why? The universe could exist contingent on something else contingent that is contingent on something else, which may be contingent or non-contingent itself. You can claim that it requires something non-contingent to avoid an infinite regress, but that only says that somewhere back in the regress something must be non-contingent, not necessarily the one directly before the universe.
But more importantly, what's the justification for claiming that everything must either be contingent or necessary? Can we prove that all things which exist are either contingent or necessary, or is that in itself just a bald assertion? Maybe some things just exist. They are not necessary, nor contingent.
At least at the quantum level, this appears to be true, regardless of how uncomfortable that tends to be. Much of what occurs at the quantum level (as far as i understand it) makes no "logical sense" in our "macro existence"... but these things are still "true".
So, we can have things that are both non-contingent AND non-necessary at the quantum level, so it seems a leap to say that at every other level, everything must be one or the other.
First of all some definitions:
- Being: something that exists, state of existence.
- Dependent/contingent being: something which existence depends on something else, otside of itself. for example: my phone is dependent on the existence of the specific company, if that specific company would not exist, then my phone would not exist.
- Dependent being exists
- A world with ONLY dependent beings cannoto exist
( by world I mean the totality of existence )
- Therefore the simple fact that there is existence( because we exist) implies that our world is not composed of only dependent beings.
Sow there must be an in-dependent/necessary being which is the foundation of all the dependent beings, which accounts for why there is something rather than nothing.
@@musaaziri3568 prove the statement that:
"- A world with ONLY dependent beings cannoto exist"
@@Fraterchaoraterchaos dependent being: something wihich existence depends on something else, outside of itself. we can say that the dependent being has it's existence on another.( another being outside of itself )
Let we suppose a world with only dependent beings.
- in this world every being has it's existence on another.
- sow no being has it's existence on it's own ( in principle, in a non-derivative way )
- therefore there is no existence at all, because there is no source from wich to derive it.( the existence )
it is like asking : Is there water in a world with ONLY empty bottles?
in this world there is no water because there is no source from which to derive the water in the first place.
the empty bottle in this example is an analogy to the dependent being, and the water is an analogy to existence.
If you disagree I will be glad to know your reasons.
@@musaaziri3568 I didn't ask you for a definition of "dependent"... I know what the word means.
I asked you to prove that "a world with ONLY dependent beings cannot exist"
you totally failed to provide a single piece of evidence, you just made some silly philosophical arguments.
You may not be aware of this yet, but I will tell you a secret, you cannot argue god into existence.
Provide EMPIRICAL PROOF of your statement. Otherwise, stop bothering me.
@@Fraterchaoraterchaos look, I give to you a rational argument for why a world with only dependent beings canno exist.
If you think that it is invalid, than bring on your rational objections.
If you don't have any rational objection, than you cannot simply deny it because you don't understand it or because you don't like it.
At 11:16 there is a catch: "How did God appear in this chain of thought"?
But there actually is no catch. It may be interpreted (and I claim - it is implied) to conclude that if there is a reason for the Universe to exist, then we're going to call this reason "God" and there you have it. No mystery, just a sophistic definition.
If we've established that there is a reason for the Universe to exist then I, say, define "God" to be this exact reason. Doesn't tell us anything about this "God", but allows interlocutors to save some time if we accept the premise
How do we know the universe isn't itself a necessity?
I'm not sure I agree that "everything that exists had a reason". I feel that some abstract axiomatic concepts like the number one in math would "exist", but clearly don't have a "reason" in the "necessary" or "contingent" sense.
A question on necessary existence:
There is a version of this that states that: if things can be infinite (in time or space), or without a time dimension... "something that can possibly happen, will necessarily happen".
Which implies that even neccessary existence don't even require a direct necessary, logical cause.
And thus: even things that exist as a necessary result of this... can still be contigent on an external cause?
First premise is already questionable. The fact that something exists outside of time does not necessarily mean that all possible events will necessarily occur. Please justify that conclusion.
And furthermore, the conclusion you draw from this statement is invalid. How do you go from "anything that can happen with a timeless thing, will necessarily happen" to "and therefore necessary objects do not need a necessary cause."?
If the object is by definition, necessary, then it must exist for a reason, even if the reason is "some property of this object makes its existence necessary".
Then you go on to state a conclusion that necessary causes can create contingent objects, which is a concept that is valid even absent the assumption that timeless objects produce necessary causes, so long as a necessary cause can exist.
capefear56
"the fact that something exists outside of time does not necessarily mean that all possible events will necessarily occur"
Well perhaps the 'no time-demension' is indeed a bit of a stretch here. But if you have an infinite timeline (towards the future fe), if something can happen, at some point it will. Or if you have an infinite amount of universes, something that can happen in those universes, will happen.
Howe-ever unlikely an event; if it is possible; it will happen if the opportunities for it to happen reach infinity.
"If the object is by definition, necessary, then it must exist for a reason, even if the reason is "some property of this object makes its existence necessary". "
I was trying to point out a subtle difference: the necessity of something that would come into existence (see above), would not really be due to a property the thing has. But to the act of creating the circumstances.
Perhaps and example: if you flip a coin there is a very unlikely chance it will end up on its edge. If you flip it (approaching) an infinite times; at some point it will happen.. necessarily. But there is nothing about the coin itself that makes it necessary to stand on it's edge.
The existence of the 'coin-on-edge' is contigent, on an external cause.
"Then you go on to state a conclusion that necessary causes can create contingent objects"
Indeed, but in the video there are two options persented: either something is contingent upon an external cause. Or something is necessary to exist for in internal cause.
I felt there was a lack in the video to this idea that, though this universe may be contigent upon something external.. it's possible that it is still necessary for it to exist.
P.G. Burgess
Jesus, you're slow.
First of all, you assume the validity of multiverse theory immediately to do away with the problem of mutually exclusive timelines. Secondly, even with the idea of an infinite number of timelines, and an infinite number of 'coin flips', what is your objection to the idea that, however improbable, you could just eternally flip heads? Is there anything preventing this phenomenon from occurring?
Secondly, you don't seem to understand what "necessary" means in philosophy. You said "the necessity of something that would come into existence (see above), would not really be due to a property the thing has. But to the act of creating the circumstances."
If a timeless object is creating the circumstances by which an another object exists, then the object is now contingent, even if the circumstances, or "cause" is a necessary result of another object's existence. It does not exist for its own properties, but because of the properties of another object causing its existence.
Necessary does not refer to this idea that "it must exist, no matter what" but rather "the internal properties of the object necessitate its existence".
You're confused by the term "necessary".
capefear56
" what is your objection to the idea that, however improbable, you could just eternally flip heads? Is there anything preventing this phenomenon from occurring?"
Yes, the fact that you can always flip the coin once more... The limit of an event not occuring approaches 0 at infintiy.
"Necessary does not refer to this idea that "it must exist, no matter what" but rather "the internal properties of the object necessitate its existence".
If those statements are different, can you give an example of one that only is supported by one of them? Is there something that necessitates it's own existence but does not need to exist?
Anyway, i don't think i disagree with you that much.
My point was that in the video the idea is addresses "contigent vs necessary things". But not what you refer to as "a necessary cause" or a "cause that is a necessary result of another object's existence".
Something you seem to agree is a valid idea..
Perhaps i missed that in the video.. i am a bit slow apperently ;-).. can you point to where that was adressed?
P.G. Burgess
Apologies for snapping earlier. It's a character flaw that I have been trying to improve upon. I don't think you're slow, just a little confused on this issue.
I do not have to demonstrate, via examples, the existence of an object that possesses internal properties that allows it to exist absent external causes, necessary or otherwise. Matt himself said that creating an example of this phenomenon was really difficult. Again, necessary in this instance only refers to the object possessing INTERNAL properties that necessarily allow it to exist. It's merely a definition for a hypothetical object. Whether or not an example of this object exists does not influence the fact that something like an external cause, even if necessary, does not make the resulting object necessary.
Think of it this way : if the timeless object creating necessary causes was to, as a result of some other influence, perhaps timeless itself, be destroyed or modified in such a way that it is no longer timeless, then whatever object that was created via the necessary causes could no longer exist on its own. This is because the cause of its existence is not internalized.
Modification of this cause-dependent object will not invalidate its existence, because its existence is contingent upon an external factor (the other timeless object).
I don't think you really understand what is meant by contingency and the implications of something existing that is not contingent. There is no premise in the argument from contingency that "the universe is contingent"
All the argument needs to be sound is the existence of *one* contingent being. Given that, you necessarily arrive at a non-contingent being, since an infinite regression of contingent beings cannot in principle account for the contingency of the first
So, you may say, why can't the universe itself be a non-contingent being? Well, what it means be a non-contingent being is to exist solely by virtue of yourself and to have no conditions for your own existence. But the universe is conditioned by all sorts of things. Most fundamentally, it is conditioned by virtue of being composed of parts. A thing that is composed of parts is necessarily caused by those parts, for the parts exist in priority to the whole. Therefore, in principle, a non-contingent being cannot be composed of parts and as such must be absolutely simple. Only a reality whose essence and existence are identical can fit the bill. For only this reality can truly be said to be metaphysically ultimate and unconditioned. As you can see simply substituting "the universe" just doesn't work
It seems to me that he agreed that the universe is contingent upon something, we just currently have no idea what that thing which it rests upon might be, and that asserting God as the only possibility without actually demonstrating it and saying "well, can you come up with a better idea," seems like an argument from ignorance.
"WHY does existence, exist"--one thing we need to understand is that our language is loaded. It carries more than the ordinary intended meaning--it has a history of implications behind it. "Why"--just a plain ordinary word--but when it comes to the objective reality of the universe, "why" is meaningless. It is a word that IMPLIES meaning, purpose, intent. "Why" is therefore not an appropriate word to use when discussing the objective properties of the universe. "HOW" might be better. How does the universe exist, rather than "why".
Okay fair enough . Nothing became something and then the universe happened
That is the creationist argument as it is very often used by christians: An invisible magical daddy friend magicked everything into existence from nothing.
Atheists stay away from such childish nonsense.
@@Ploskkky I said fair enough.
@@igboman2860 I'd like to know how you've reached that conclusion