Alex O'Connor vs Cameron Bertuzzi • Why is there something rather than nothing?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.premier.org.uk/unbelievablenewsletter
RUclips atheist Alex O’Connor (aka Cosmic Skeptic) debates apologist Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity.
They discuss the argument from contingency and whether the existence of the universe is contingent on a necessary being - God.
Cosmic Skeptic
cosmicskeptic....
Capturing Christianity
capturingchrist...
For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable-newsletter
*Justin, This is in relation to your 'dice' analogy video. Do you understand that the odds of ANY combination of values the physical constants could be, is EXACTLY the same?*
The reason why and how there is something rather than nothing is because the cause of everything we call everything including all time, space and matter was necessary rather than contingent, therefore this cause has always existed. If the cause of time, all space and all mater (our known Universe) has a beginning none of these could have logically created themselves by and from nothing. To claim every came from nothing and by nothing would be a magical claim, not a science or sound philosophical claim.
Also, if one is to claim that things that have a cause are "necessary" because determinism is true and thus nothing caused is really "contingent"; this claim kind of eliminates the relationship meaning of the terms contingent as "caused" and it's opposite term "necessary" as eternal without a cause. Contingent in it's simple meaning means "has a cause and a beginning". The fact that if this causal process was determined or not is therefore irrelevant and does not mean, "determined therefore necessary". That is conflating different terms. In this sense something caused and with a beginning whether in a determined process/result or not cannot be "necessary" because necessary infers eternal without a beginning or cause. The caused things with a beginning in comparison to "necessary things" are always contingent of the cause and in their beginning regardless of if it's the result of a determined process or not.
I'm definitely on the atheist side but I have to say that the host does a fantastic job of moderating these discussions in an impartial way. Much respect.
completely agree
I'm not. He didn't give any strong evidence showing things aren't contigent.
Right at the end the host asked the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? Alex replied, I don't know. It could have been a very short debate.
True, and it is the only correct answer to the question.
The reason why and how there is something rather than nothing is because the cause of everything we call everything including all time, space and matter was necessary rather than contingent, therefore this cause has always existed. If the cause of time, all space and all mater (our known Universe) has a beginning none of these could have logically created themselves by and from nothing. To claim every came from nothing and by nothing would be a magical claim, not a science or sound philosophical claim.
The reason why and how there is something rather than nothing is because the cause of everything we call everything including all time, space and matter was necessary rather than contingent, therefore this cause has always existed. If the cause of time, all space and all mater (our known Universe) has a beginning none of these could have logically created themselves by and from nothing. To claim every came from nothing and by nothing would be a magical claim, not a science or sound philosophical claim.
@@WgWilliams The problem is when you claim to have a personal relationship with this First Cause and that it whispers sweet nothings in your ear.
I would argue that God, like your own existence or thoughts, needs no justification.
Alex is incredibly impressive. Thoughtful, articulate, polite, British... He hits every box😂. I thought this was a great conversation but I think Alex very easily took the day with the debate. Provided good counters to Cameron's arguments that Cameron could not overcome while all Cameron could do was make fallacious arguments back. Have Alex on more please!!!
Just as aside for Cameron, it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Gravity works the same everywhere in the Universe.
Of course it has. Every planet has its own gravitational force. If you’re talking about space, there is no gravity and if you’re talking about outside the universe then we don’t know for sure but all we do know is within our solar system, gravity definitely is a thing
Gravity doesn't work. It's just the bending of spacetime caused by massive objects
MOD - "So Cameron can you bring the Contingency argument to its conclusion?"
Cameron - " Well because of all the other arguments"
What???
why does anything exist? This question can be expanded to anything and everything even to God, cause to say that a necessary being just exists because it exists as Cameron said is circular. Also if you know the initial conditions of the gum ball machine and the speed and other factors at which it is rotating, you'll know which ball necessarily will come out.
Well if we extend this to god you are suggesting there could be an infinite regress and meaning un ending cycle who created god and who created who created god and who created who created who created god? and we could go on forever meaning there won't be a creation in the first place and being here as humans we know there must be an un caused cause which we simply call it god how do we know that that's another story but that's a fact that can't be denied, And I would like to give an example on infinite regress in case you didn't get it, If we imagine an infinte row of people and the very first guy in this row asks the next one to lend him a dollar and whom he asks ask the one after him and so on if this goes on forever that dude can't get the dollar. hope you understand it's called the infinite regress fallacy you could look it up on the web. Good luck :D
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
Beginning of the debate 9:27
Search for Truth, thank you, and those polite as you too. GOD bless!!
Alex kept trying to use determinism to disprove contingency but doesn’t it do the opposite? I mean a predetermined thing is something that needed something before it to bring about its existence.
When Bertuzzi comes up with something new (and not already debunked soundly) wake me up....
What did he say that’s been “debunked”?
@@justchilling704 Pretty much everything which comes out of his mouth in these clips. Tell me something you think hasn't been and I'll reply...
@@silknfeathers Okay nvm I thought you actually had something in mind you just disagree with him.
@@justchilling704 No, I don't "just disagree with him". I have listened to a number of his video presentations and he almost invariably talks crap;. His assertions (at least those arguing for the existence of a god) are consistently incorrect. Again, if you have anything specific you feel is not incorrect, please let me know...
The contingency argument, at first, does look like a strong arm in the so-called God debate. But as Alex eloquently shows, it falls short in many areas and cannot be taken as a ‘proof of existence’. It would seem that all rational arguments fall short, one way or another, and that the only course of action for believers is to opt for a Kierkegaard ‘leap of faith’, even though this too has its own shortcomings.
Believing in the opposite also requires a “leap of faith” so I suppose it’s pick your poison. I choose to put my faith in a God rather than a lack thereof.
If you're looking for proof, you're not going to find it. Arguments like these seek to establish it's more likely than not that something like God exists
I stopped this half way through. Why?, you might ask. First off, thank you for the question! So very kind of you. Second, Alex does the same trick every argument. If you talk ontological, he asks epistemological questions. That is an example, of his M.O.. It is intended to throw the other person off, not address the issues at hand. I have always found it intellectually dishonest, regardless of source.
It is not required to argue for the existence of the argument that produced the axioms of this argument. In other words, if I am arguing for god's existence, I do not need to prove his attributes origin is valid. It is axiomatic accepted, so you can talk about this.
Simply, is such a being real, that has these attributes? That is the argument. If you want to argue those other arguments, you need to start back at the basics. Not deviate from the present argument mid-argument. Again, Alex's M.O., deviation.
Sorry, Alex. I really dislike being disparaging. You are clearly bright, but you just dance around the topic, rather than engaging the argument at hand. I simply haven't the time to half engage in fifty different arguments, & never work one out, so you can say, 'So, why can you say that about god?'.
If you want to ask that, start with that argument. It logically is the proper course. The Contingency argument has nothing to do with where the axiomatic statements about god come from. I get why teens like your channel though.
If you engage the first argument (which I was not fond of), there was good traction there for your side. This could have been productive. Or you could have swung it around to a more pertinent argument you wanted, without the slight of hand. Either way, I hope you come around. I know you can make better arguments & defenses. It is a question of will, not ability with you.
I do not need to question if I can question. It is like the idea of redness. We have to point to it, & no argument exists to defend it. At least none that are conclusive.
Questioning it without warrant, is illogical, all the same. That area of philosophical discourse always ends up with shrugs & winks. It is pissing in the wind, if you will pardon the phrase. Again, teens love that stuff. I try to work in areas that have value. Maybe some day, we will have a hold on that, but rehashing old arguments does not further knowledge.
God Bless all you guys. I am sure someone loves this type of content, just not me.
Insightful comment...a lot of people get on him for not separating ontology with epistemology so your frustration is not alone.
you wrote a lot without saying anything, you could have used that space to prove god. what a pity!
Sebastian Apolo
I cannot prove anything except that I exist. Beyond that the next thing that has a rigorous proof is mathematics. Beyond that it is all evidence based (all branches of science included), not proof. Not even the cosmic skeptic has proof of anything beyond himself existing, or he is no skeptic.
Now then, there is plenty of evidence that god exists. Did you honestly want it? I can safely say that those who think there is no reason to believe have not honestly looked. Are you truly interested?
mackdmara
nah I doubt you would provide something new, I mean not even the best theists apologist have ever provided something logical is always the same fallacies over and over again
Sebastian Apolo
I see, you are infallible no matter what I had. At least your honest about your beliefs.
That said, why say I could have taken that time to prove god? You make no sense. Does not want to argue, claims I should have bothered presenting proof. Proof has been here for way over two thousand years. Just about anyone can get a copy also.
God is real, & although there are fallacious arguments, I do not give them. You should try reading the four gospels as history. You might just find Jesus is not such a bad guy, might even have come to save you, for all you know. Only life, guidance, Love, & eternity on the line. Not that you need any of that in life. Think about it.
God Bless
So many words.... so little substance
@Tropical Garden
Agreed. Blah blah blah, both guys only made one point each in an hours worth of discussing.
@@brando3342 More on Alex part. He is talking so many points and stray to so many paths to explain just one subject.
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
The one thing that was missed by the Christian apologist that could have been granted to the atheist is that the universe is both deterministic and indeterministic. God knew the end from the beginning, but we also have inclination freewill and choice. So, on different levels of reality or existence we find both. I'm a Christian theistic believer and believe God is ultimate reality. Great debate and both sides respectfully put their point of views forward without speaking over each other.
Seems strange (though polite, I guess) that rarely do atheists point out that 99.999% of religious apologists were born into and indoctrinated with their beliefs and now that they're adult, seem to be coming up with arguments just to confirm what they were forced to believe as children. As friendly and nice as many of them seem, isn't this intellectually bankrupt? Shouldn't you start with a blank slate then reason and rationalize your way to your belief structure?
I think you should, and I also think you'll have a very hard time backing up that statistic
Many of us did just that. I deconstructed my faith until I spent a season as an agnostic and then reconstructed a faith through reason and rationale, among other things.
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
A couple things. I've heard the contingency argument many times before, and it has some insane potency when put forth in the right way. I think Cameron should have done some things differently.
1. I understand he was trying to summarize the argument to make it easy to follow, but sometimes more premises is better. Spell it out in detail, show how one premise leads to the next. There's a lot more that could have been said in between the lines here to solidify the argument.
2. Support the premises! I really was hoping to hear something metaphysical like all things are the combination of Form and Matter and composite objects depend there existence upon something else, etc. Even some physics showing that the Big Bang took place, or some reason to show that we cannot traverse an infinity. We need something to support the argument, because there really is good evidence behind it.
3. The contingency argument basically takes the PSR and says "it applies to objects, it applies to the universe, it applies to the causal chain as a whole, it applies to everything." Then you argue that these things cannot be necessary. Its a one two punch. Only then do you bring God into the equation. So once we have the evidence from 2, then 3 can kick in and we can show the universe in so many ways needs an explanation outside itself.
If you want someone who knows more about Contingency, (which there aren't many), check out Michael Jones of "Inspiring Philosophy" or Joshua Rasmussen of "Worldview Design."
@Oners82 you dont know the argument went. All those objections have been responded to. If you simply "deny" these things then you have to deal with absurd consequences which even the atheist would not want to accept. Not as simple as youre making it out to be.
@Oners82 how do you deny the possibility of necessary beings and how does the argument fail because of that? genuinely asking...
@Oners82 Thanks so much for explaining... I really have to think about this "if there is a possible world where nothing exists then it necessarily follows that all things that do exist are in fact contingent because they only exist in some possible worlds." I've never thought about that. Is it a different sphere of arguments to ask if a nothing world can exist if it cannot be observed? What if God is defined by existence, itself?
@Oners82 Thank you, I am going to check it out.
I find this argument to only show that the universe is contingent upon something and that something is also contingent and so on
Well, that would be an infinite regress, and an open circle, which seem to not be coherent with the existence of contingent entities. I believe that's the essential problem this argument shows. The argument attempts to find a source for contingency itself. Since contingency is possible, there has to be something non-contingent to avoid an impossible infinite regress of contingent entities. If there is no source or nothing non-contingent, there would be no existence, because everything is dependent on something. Since contingent things do exist, there must be a non-contingent entity to break the infinite regress and break the paradox.
I love how Alex O'Connor runs rings around his interlocutors.
"Idea of Self Causation is absurd". Not absurd for god though.
Theist philosophers usually say that God is not self caused. A cause includes two things. The one that causes, and the one that is effected. When we say that something has necessary existence, we mean that its nature is such that it must exist and couldn't bit exist.
@@Klee99zeno And that something could well be the universe - or as some call it - the existence. It stands to reason that a necessary property of the existence, is in fact - existence. No need for god - problem solved.
@Rollo I think we know too little about the origins of existence - whether it has an origin at all - or whether something has always existed in one form or another under laws we currently do not understand. Some people like to fill in that gap of understanding with god. I'm just content to say - I dont know.
@Rollo Just to add - we dont know the universe was caused. Scientists have not concluded that the universe was caused. They have merely explained how they think it expanded after the big bang. But even if I accepted the kalam cosmological argument - the conclusion would simply be the universe has a cause. You are assuming that cause is god, it may be something else. or the point from which it came may have always existed.
@Rollo As far as I understand - we cannot applies our models to the moment of the big bang - or what came before it - because they break down. So talking in terms of time, space etc is meaningless. So is "nothing" - it seems when physicists talk about nothing they mean something different from what lay people mean. Cause and effect is something we observe after the big bang - so again talking about a cause outside of space and time is nonsensical. The vast majority of people who really understand all this - Hawking and other scientists - are atheists. They know more than me or you - and yet still dont see room for a god. Maybe you should take your arguments to a phycisist because I am not a scientist and dont really feel qualified to properly evaluate your argument. You might have something that Hawking and all the other cosmologists missed.
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, as the probable and plausible cause and explanation for the existence of material reality in the beginning.
You sneak in your conclusion when you define material reality as "contingent" and "transient".
@@sapago4166 yeah I noticed that
And like was stated, the universe is a brute fact.
Prove that's true in the first premise. That without a god we can't have foundation. I have heard this argument but never once a justification for it.
The difference between why the universe can't be eternal if God is eternal? Easy. The world has rules, God doesn't.
One thing I hate about some moderates like this one and like Cameron does on his channel is they tend to both debate the atheist. Its like dude let the theist make their case don’t help them make their points, your job as a moderator is to just keep people on time, and make sure they are not talking over each other. You are not there to debate as well.
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
Do you guys understand what Alex says, he talks so word salad that it's ambiguous what he tries to say? Alex doesn't speak frankly. Cameron does.
1:04 - Because there is no such thing as nothing.
The argument from contingency doesn't provide an explanation that can be tested empirically. It is possible that either the logic is incorrect or it is made on a false assumption, as we have no way of subsequently confirming the result by experiment.
Even assumptions that seem self apparent can be completely wrong. For example, for almost all of human history it would have been obvious to say that objects are solid but we now know they are almost entirely empty space thanks to our understanding of the nature of the atom. The contingency argument could be made on a similarly faulty assumption. For a complex argument like this, we have no way to say whether the conclusion is more or less likely than there being a mistake in the argument. For 1000s of years we had philosophical arguments but we made almost no progress in explaining the natural world without a scientific methodology.
It's also a mistake to consider the contingency argument as evidence of any particular religion. It's possible the argument is true, and there is a necessary being that created the universe, but the being has not revealed themself to the world and so is not the God of any of the world's religions. They may not have sent any prophets, they may not listen to prayers and they may not care about sins.
Disbelief is not a refutation. All intelligent people are skeptics, but "skepticism" as a community functions by relying on a lack of knowledge of the subject; the less you know the more shamelessly you can make ignorant challenges then decline to accept the explanations. The inherent conflict of interest for skeptics and atheist position is that the more a person learns the less skeptical they can be by definition since they have more knowledge of the subject. Atheist/skeptics fail to grasp the difference between disbelieving an argument, and refuting it; they cannot differentiate the subjective from the objective, and will arrogantly state things like "the burden of proof is on you" as if that were a refutation of the argument when it is merely a statement about their own attitude about the evidence.
Cosmic Skeptic is confusing metaphysical necessity with determinism. Just because a necessary cause causes X, it does not follow that X will exist or happen necessarily. This would be a classic example of a modal logic fallacy.
The fallacy can be summarized as follows:
1. Necessarily, if a necessary cause causes the universe, the universe will exist
2. A necessary cause causes the universe
3. Necessarily, the universe exists
(3) does not logically follow. All that would follow is that the universe exists - not that it exists necessarily. (3) would only be true if (2) is necessarily true (i.e. Necessarily, a necessary cause causes the universe). But as Cameron points out, if the necessary cause is a free agent and has free will, then there is a possible world were the necessary cause does not cause the universe and so the universe would not exist in at least one of those worlds. The universe is therefore contingent.
4 years late, but your point has me thinking about the nature of god (you dont declare god the necessary entity, but it got me thinking)...
If there exists at least 1, lets call it 'state of things' where the universe exists, and another (or several) state(s) in which it doesn't, there then exists multipe gods, one in which the universe as we know it was created, then more based on n number of universes uncreated/created of different nature.
This then begs multiple questions, one being a challenge of there being '1 god' as stated by multiple religions. Perhaps this should be restated by religious books/theorists as "1 god per potential universe"?
It also begs the question of a necessary being making a decision that can split the universe in the first place... what about the free willed necessary being caused them to choose to create, or conversely, caused them to choose not to? This decision they hypothetically make could be interpreted as contigent on... something, whether a whim, a desire, etc etc.
Has me thinking about a human's choice to eat. We decide to eat, generally, out of hunger, or rather more specifically, to avoid a state of suffering, of potential death even.
To decide against these things, to decide not to eat when feeling hunger, would go against rationality in a stark rejection of common sense and safety.
I wonder, and expect no answers (especially since you did not declare god as the necessary entity, tho you did lay out a hypothetical in which the necessaey being referred to has free will and the potential to make a decision) what factors would lead god towards choosing to of choosing not to create a universe. Does a given god have urges, or biological drives? Perhaps it is a calculation based on the greater good of 'things', that one state is either 'better' or 'worse' and therefore the decision made.
Although this latter would be odd if, given cameron's stance of the necessary being being perfect, the god was "perfect." In the case of a perfect being being the cause of the universe, that would mean this being would make the 'correct' decision to either create or not every time, as of course they would; they're perfect. But then, if there is one 'better' answer than the other, and the necessary chooser is perfect, and it follows that the perfect choose chooses perfectly, and the universe is the choice, then they always choose to create. Then the universe once again becomes necessary.
Anyway, interesting thought tunnel, thank you for gettinv my gears turning.
1. Determinism does not imply necessity. Something is determined if it is entailed by its cause. Contingent objects depend on their causes. Necessary beings have no cause (they must exist out of their own necessity). Thus, determinism actually plays nicely with the contingency argument.
2. We have a strong argument for contingent objects from temporal becoming. Alex O'Connor failed to exist for billions of years before coming into existence. Thus, he is not a necessary being. The only way around this argument is to either espouse mereological nihilism (nothing comes into existence) or claim that all non necessary things are brute facts. Neither of these are attractive positions for myriad reasons, not the least of which that it leaves the world valueless and unintelligible respectively.
3. The composition fallacy doesn't apply to the LCA, or at least modern formulations. The BCCF (big conjunctive contingent fact) doesn't ask us for an explanation of a composite entity composed of contingent facts, rather it asks us what is the explanation of the concatenated set of contingent facts in a single sentence. Thus, just as adding a second contingent fact to the sentence doesn't remove the demand for an explanation, neither does a third, fourth, millionth, or last. To do so would be to commit the taxicab fallacy.
Both determinism and contingency imply a necessity. A deterministic universe would have causes for what you observe that in themselves would have more predetermined causes until you eventually reach a point when there can be no more predetermined causes. All of the predetermined causes being necessary. You would need a necessity to be the beginning which all predetermined events rest on. It can easily be said that the singularity of the universe is a necessity. You can easily say the singularity of the universe had always been just like one could claim god had always been. There is no difference other than the object which is necessary.
I assume by your statement "we have a strong argument for contingent objects coming from temporal becoming" is based on the big bang if I'm not mistaken. If that is the case then I disagree that such an argument is strong. As I said the big bang can be interpreted as a predetermined event. That event being the beginning of all predetermined events. The necessary singularity changing form into something else but still in itself necessary.
Your argument that Alex is contingent is agian not something I would agree with. My opinion will continue to differ from yours because you always base yours on contingency whereas mine will always be based on determinism. Alex is part of a greater set of predetermined events all necessary, stemming from a necessary singularity.
I was thinking the same. The fact that if this causal process was determined or not is therefore irrelevant and does not mean, "determined therefore necessary". That is conflating different terms. In this sense something caused and with a beginning whether in a determined process/result or not cannot be "necessary" because necessary infers eternal without a beginning or cause. The caused things with a beginning in comparison to "necessary things" are always contingent of the cause and in their beginning regardless of if it's the result of a determined process or not.
The same well known arguments dressed up in word salad lol
Zandaff The Mede it’s not hard to understand, & is no different to the Lane Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument at its roots. They are old ideas and we’ve learnt a lot since Aristotle...
It starts with the wrong premise. As we now know we are emergent beings in an universe built from emergence - it’s inception, stars, snowflakes, living things all emerged from a process or from something else. Contingent beings are the result of emergent properties as observed in the observable universe. So to suggest a necessary being beyond it, is a massive leap. It could be a necessary process or event for eg.
The Universe could’ve emerged from another process, like a black hole, as theoretical physics describes. An infinity of universes with no beginning or end like a Mandelbrot Set, or the multi-verse as string theory describes...
@@maxtormanen9351 Yep.
@@Kratos40595 that’s a whole lot of speculation and mental gymnastics you’re doing. There are countless theories where we could have emerged from but they are all far less plausible than an intelligent designer. Christians has a frame of reference called the Bible, which are historical documents spanning of thousands of manuscripts. So why aren’t they taken seriously compared to historical figures like Julius Caesar, which barely have much written about them yet no one second guesses their existence. So your argument collapses upon itself. You have to live on man made theories that have no frame of reference or just simply settle for “we don’t know” where as christians and other theists have a more rational explanation to who we are and where we came from.
@@DeezNuts-gl6nx no speculation, we can observe stars forming, and have observed accretion disks, much like the one that formed the Earth. Everything we have observed is emergent, so by what rationale could we suggest the universe wasn’t emergent?
We don’t even know if “nothing” is possible. If it’s not, the formation of the universe wouldn’t require an agent.
Meanwhile the Bible isn’t an historical document, it’s a theological one. Many characters like Moses for example, didn’t exist, it’s a collection of parables and poetry etc.
There’s other older documents you don’t regard like the Vedas. Maybe that’s the one true religion?
By what system can you know whether the Vedas or the Bible is the true book?
Or maybe none of them are true, and are just the musings of Bronze Age man before the age of reason arose, and gained knowledge from evidence...
@@DeezNuts-gl6nx _"So why aren’t [biblical manuscripts] taken seriously compared to historical figures like Julius Caesar, which barely have much written about them yet no one second guesses their existence."_
The bible makes numerous claims that defy our observations of the natural universe: resurrection of the dead, materialization of food, angels, virgin birth, talking bushes, people turning to salt, talking serpents, humans made from ribs, water turned to wine, a man walking on liquid water, healing the blind, etc, etc, etc.
How can you accuse anyone of doing mental gymnastics and keep a straight face?
I wonder whether some atheists ignore their possible hypocrisy. On the one hand, they insist that theism is absurd, describe God as a fictional character, say Christians delude themselves with superstition, and seem sure there's no God. Then they caricature theism because they misinterpret it. When a theist argues deductively that God exists, the atheists warn him to humble himself to admit that no one knows whether theism is true.
So what explains the atheistic certainty we seem to hear from the humble(?) critics? Do they believe that certainty they say no one has? Are they disparaging theism because they can't refute some theistic argument or other? If they demand epistemic humility from theists, maybe the atheists should be humble enough to try to understand the theism they attack.
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
Alex said the gumball needs a necessary hand. He knows there is a God. It's necessary.
16:00 Justin says some of us question why we have 'stuff', or take for granted the fact that stuff exists. What the hell does that mean? Can he imagine a universe without stuff? That's a bit of drawing the Target around the arrow. The reason we exist is because there is stuff, we don't get to imagine there being no stuff.
But why is there stuff?
@@matijas7994 If you knew the answer to that, you would be more informed than everyone else.
@@JohnVC well i know the answer: it is a creator.
If we look at the big bang and what existed before it, according to modern science, it did not "create space" infinite vacuum allready existed so the big bang happened inside what we would call "the universe" because in reality it is, its just that now mater and antimater and so on exists so the big bang event cannot be exeptional and does not fall to the composition fallacy, reason applies to it so there still must be a reason for it.
@@matijas7994 🤦♂️
@@JohnVC 🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳?
My favorite flavor of RUclipsr is the 18 yearold atheist who uses his logic and life learned wisdom to explain the universe. /s
My favorite is the twenty something theist who can't explain the cosmological/contingent argument without reading his notes
😑
@@debbietampasheher3682 That's all you got? 🤣👌
+Ian Sarantos
Because attacking the man and not his arguments is going to be very convincing and likely not fallacious at all ;)
As much as I find such debates and discussions intellectually stimulating; part of me wonders why this all powerful being doesn't just put all this discussion to rest by showing itself in a way that will universally accepted as proof it actually does exist and talks to us as the human race. MADNESS PEOPLE, MADNESS.
The heavens and the earth declare the glory of God (psalms 19:1) so we are without excuse (Roman’s 1:20)
that's a topic called divine hiddenness
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
You underestimate just how incredulous people can be. Look at "Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic" where David Wood talks about how far someone will go to deny what they don't want to believe despite the evidence presented. Then understand that what you think might be convincing might still result in people being in denial. For example, if God spoke as a voice in the sky, newscasters would probably insist that it was a loud PA system from an aircraft or something.
God is the uncaused cause, Agulion. No argument for classical theism says that everything has a cause.
Whatever made space, matter and time can not be made of space matter and time. Isn’t this logical?
That means...?
No such thing as a necessary being so long as its non-existence is conceivable. Either an eternal god or eternal universe can be conceived to not exist.
By that logic, there is no such thing as a non existent being as long as its existence is conceivable (really, possible). But this is mere word play, resolving nothing
Hunt Richardson the conceivability of a non-existent being shows that it’s a contingent being, but not a necessary being.
OIC. You refer to the necessity of a being vs. the contingency of a being based on the possibility (conceivability) that it does not exist. Isn't anything that exists (or not) in fact or fancy contingent on its conceivability? If so then what if anything is necessary?
Hunt Richardson yes, i would say any existent or non-existent being is contingent if it’s conceivable.
Hunt Richardson with respect to God or the Universe, I would deny they are necessary beings because I can conceive their non-existence.
do Christians ask themselves why God created anything in the first place? if he is all knowing, he would have known about sin, suffering, knowing his creation would turn against him? or is he all knowing but not all loving? was he lonely? was he needy, and just needes to create beings (angels, humans.. ) just for the sake of worshipping him? what was the point?
I'm not sure how determinism undermines the argument. Determinism relies on cause and effect. Effects are contingent.
Determinism (scientific) states that every event throughout the entire 14 billion years of the universe and for the next 10^100 years was set into motion before the big bang ever happened. This particle goes here, this atom goes there, and an unending chain of cause and effect began that reached all the way forward in time, all the way through the inevitable formation of our galaxy, then our solar system, our star, our planet, the oceans and the mountains, the primordial soup, religion, civilization, through history, through our family tree, through our birth, right up into the very quantum states of the atoms in our neurons and to all the future decisions and deaths and thunderstorms and sunsets and supernovae and black hole formations for the rest of time until the very last particle evaporates out of existence. In other words, there are no contingents, there are only necessaries. And the time that life is able to even so much as exist in that universe is only 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the entire time span of the universe (that little fact is unrelated, just wanted to throw it in).
Tell me how that doesn't undermine the idea of contingents?
Daniel Cartwright determinism does nothing to undermine the argument, because determinism is a stance about causal relations between existing entities. All entities could be contingent with determinism being true, and this obviously does not explain why all such entities exist instead of some other contingent totality of deterministic entities. It is disappointing that Alex conflates determinism with necessitarianism.
@@deluxeassortment would determinism mean that every thing is necessary and nothing is contingent? The God argument would only fail if nothing is necessary, I think.
@@crystalfrancis6326 Yes, if hard determinism is the correct interpretation, everything would be necessary. However, we cannot reconcile special relativity with quantum mechanics without letting go of determinism. Scientists in QM have moved on to probabilism. The more complex a system is, the more deterministic _it appears._ The closer a system gets to a single state, the less deterministic it appears. For instance, virtual particles in a vacuum have no cause. One objection to this was that we just didn't know the cause, but we have ruled out hidden variable theories. Also, when a proton decays and gives off radiation, it does so at a completely random time, with no apparent cause. The overall rate is constant, but the individual events are unpredictable, giving rise to probabilistic statistics. The same goes for a photon traveling through a slit, we have no idea what direction individual photons will travel, but over many measurements, a probabilistic pattern emerges. It is completely possible, over many, many, many, iterations for a photon to travel in the opposite direction of a slit without reflection off the surrounding material. The odds are just extremely low. Given the number of photons in a beam and the amount of time we perform the experiment, the low probability is still enough to have it occur in an observable time frame. A fourth example of the probabilistic nature of simple systems is quantum tunneling. A photon can travel through an opaque, thick obstacle with an extremely low probability, getting lower as the material gets thicker. But it does happen.
Given enough time, and a large enough quantity of black holes, one of then is bound to suddenly expand with no cause. Given the complexity of black holes, even the most massive ones, it may not happen for 10^100 years, but it can happen.
@@crystalfrancis6326 Also, I'd like to ask, if hard determinism means that everything is predetermined, how do you reconcile that with God? That would leave us with only the _illusion_ of free will. Which, I guess doesn't rule out a creator, but it surely rules out a god who wants its followers to obey
Sadly I feel this debate was kind of a waste of time.
The atheist/theist divide is largely a difference of belief, which cannot be reconciled through debate.
All I see here is an unnecessary complication and intellectualisation of something far more simple and fundamental.
My thoughts as well, mental masturbation that leads nowhere.
Yeah, I somewhat agree, people just see from different angles and like you said both angles are beliefs, it’s still interesting to watch though.
Except the atheist was not making a claim that a supernatural skydaddy exists :/
Atheism is a lack of belief
@@debbietampasheher3682
Atheism is to conclude that there is no God. Lack of belief would be agnostic
What you sarcastically call "supernatural sky daddy" is what theist is calling the uncause cause. Also Givin the nature of intelligent, the uncause cause would have to be inteligente, because intelligent are only produced from intelligence.
When Alex says(I dont know and either do you) is a rather Bold and arrogant statement,I think a more modest statement would of been (I don't know).
Yes, it is a rather bold claim, and in debates like these, when every single word is scrutinised by the opposing side, it's rather unnecessary to say the least.
That being said, I think he's saying it like that to make a point, and to emphasise the absurdity in claiming one does in fact have the answer.
A slightly less presumptuous way of phrasing it could have (of) been: "I don't know, and I don't see any feasible way you could possibly know either."
@@ob4161 Just because they've done it doesn't mean it's not absurd.
Doesn't mean it is absurd to propose an answer either, but it's probably preferable if the answer is justifiable.
I don't know what you mean by 'deepest question' though, that's a highly subjective matter.
Love your work and maybe I'm getting old, but this conversation to me felt like a 6th form debate moderated by Head of Year.
*You're getting old.*
Alex says that determinism makes any human's existence necessary, which is basically saying that the universe is sovereign. This seems to be as much a statement of faith as saying that God is sovereign. Maybe Alex's god is the universe...
My own 2 pennyworth to Justin's final question. Like Alex, I don't know, but I rather think that the answer is going to be something beyond our current intuitions. To illustrate the point, a quote from JBS Haldane..."My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose".
Further, arguments like the Kalam appeal to our common sense intuitions and logic, but the universe doesn't always behave according to said expectations, relativity giving some very good examples that are counter intuitive yet proven to be true. This idea doesn't prove anything, but I think it opens the door a crack to the possibility that the universe being natural might not be so illogical after all.
The heavens and the earth declare the glory of God (psalms 19:1) so we are without excuse (Roman’s 1:20)
I love Alex and enjoy listening to him debate - formidable, albeit humorless. Smile more Alex.
Phew, fascinating but really ... Just read the Bible and make your mind up if the so-called perfect word of god is true. If it doesn't convince you, then move on. If it really is the perfect word, then why do we need all of this philosophical mumbo-jumbo? Great jousting between Alex and Cameron, but I found Mr Bertuzzi going in circles sometimes. The fact we need apologetics says it all ... not a prefect book at all
Let's shelve those questions till later - since I have no answer to them. (Cameron)
Looks like Ian Curtis is debating....
Alex interprets all of this as a determinist would, but we shouldnt just assume determinist stance.
I'm only 30 mins in so far, but it seems to me like Alex is confusing determinism with predestination. The concepts are not the same. Some sort of physical or biological determinism may dictate all the actions and (illusions of) thoughts in an individual being, but it doesn't magically coordinate the life stories of separate beings. So, for example, if Alex's father had been hit by a bus before Alex was conceived, Alex would not exist. That means Alex is contingent. If Alex thinks that it would have been impossible for his father to have been hit by a bus before he was conceived, then he's not advocating physical or biological determinism, he's advocating for some form of theistic predestination and grand plan, which could only come from some kind of transcendent intelligence ... in which case Alex has given up the game.
Could there be God ?
Wow so many constructive comments here, I'm impressed brothers and sisters! Let's keep this momentum going and continue to provide reasons for the faith that we have in Jesus Christ! :)
*Well? Where's your reason?*
@@asix9178 Right!? lol Cameron definitely didn't provide any
If God is not self caused..... who caused him?
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
Contingent=relying on the thing before it in order to exist
sophistry bores me to death
Beautiful ending by Alex!
Alex is great 👍🏼
@@marishasveganworld2240 he is great! Too bad he’s wrong
I can accept the idea of there being a necessary state of affairs - thus existence of some form. However, I can not accept the idea of a "God" as a candidate explanation due to the idea being false within the context of what we currently know. The idea of a non-contingent intelligent agent is an incoherent idea given the observation that intelligence is developmental as well as all known instances of an agent. A rewrite of the idea shows the incoherence clearly.
God = Non-Contingent Intelligent Agent
Esoteric discussion which can only lead to gobbledygook.
Aguijon, since I can't the other replies I posted today, let's end this conversation, Thanks.
Moderator l: “ I suppose…, “I imagine….”, “…uh…”., …am I getting that…Just move it along JB.
OK I lets say I accept all the premises and conclusion. How do you know your god is the christian god of the bible?
Stuart The main thing people go for is the historicity of the Resurrection and fulfilled prophecy that’s within the Bible.
Watch Zacharias’s take on the historicity of the Resurrection. Obviously it’s not something that can be totally substantiated, but some interesting arguments are posed.
@@MyNameIsJ3ffrey I am familiar with the arguments. If I was writing a book and wanted to encourage people to believe in my religion I would construct something along the lines of the gospels. These are not objective impartial accounts and we have no way of verifying that any of it is true - even the crucifixion of Jesus as such is not an established historical fact - even if some non Christian historians agree that it is - it is disputed in the academic world. Even if we accept it as fact - reports that Jesus was seen after he was dead need to be seen in the context of evangelist writers who were trying to convert people and persuade them that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Nothing can be confirmed and so ultimately I don't accept that any of it is true. If I was already a believing Christian I might be persuaded to accept these arguments - but since I have nothing invested in the religion I just look at the evidence - or lack of it.
@@MyNameIsJ3ffrey I note that Zacharias only appears on apologetic conferences - he does not engage in debates with serious skeptical historians. He is preaching to the converted all the time and his audience is virtually 100% Christian.
Stuart
There are quite a few historical accounts that mention Jesus’s tomb was indeed empty. Conversely, writers at the time like Pliny the Younger postulated that his disciples stole his body. No whether his body was stolen or not is a different story. If you suspend the supernatural, what is most likely is that his body was stolen. From a human psychology and history standpoint, all of his disciples, minus John of Tarsus, died pretty awful deaths for the sake of spreading a message that hinged on Jesus being this exceptional figure who was raised from the dead. It really doesn’t make sense to martyr yourself for a cause that you know is a lie. Maybe 1 or 2 would delude themselves, but nearly all of them? That raises some questions naturally when it comes to motivation.
Stuart That perhaps is true, but that doesn’t speak to the strength of the arguments that he is posing. He is known for doing pretty extensive Q&As at the end of his lectures. I do concede, I would suspect that the majority of the audience is Christian at these sort of things.
His 5 stage nonsense well poisoned argument is just arguing against infinite regress.
What a waste of time....this and all gawds are INVISIBLE and UNDETECTABLE....the exact some qualities as NON_EXISTENT
Logic is also invisible and undetectable, yet logic exists, maths exists.
No, "logic" doesn't exist...it is a concept not an object. It is a description of the relationships between things that do exist. Same for math...the number 7 doesn't exist..it is a concept used to describe relationships between objects that do exist
@@robertwhite1810 So "you" dont exist. Cool story bro...
Robert White Your argument doesn’t exist. Guess we don’t have to refute it then. 😎
"Why is this not filled with blue balls?" -Cameron Bertuzzi 2018
Btw, blue balls are true.
If things are contingent then someone, some intelligence had to decide to make things the way they are. Thus, consciousness. If He is perfect He is everywhere, space, He is all-knowing, time, and almighty, power over all matter.
Aundray Dawson but this does not draw a line to the Christian god. This is the issue. There may have been a great creator, but the faith required for identifying that god as specific to one religion is a big leap
@@6stringLeighton the attributes of almighty, omniscient and omnipresent is given to the God Jesus served.
Who is?
If things are contingent that does not mean a who/intelligent being is responsible. There could be some things that have existed infinitely, that does not imply conscious beings. Presently we do not know; to say differently is lying.
Thankfully God, like your own existence or thoughts, needs no justification. We can rest assure on that.
Justification for my existence: my parent’s and my genes
@@BY-rx5bl That begs the question of your own existence and its a fallacy.
30:00 cams argument gets exposed and he just says let's shelf that for later
Why all observable things aren’t contingent? What example do you have for observable but non - contingent thing?
*Do you have any evidence of a non-observable, non-contingent thing?*
asix, sure, non-contingent and non-observable thing is God. There are manny evidences that lead to God, which I haven’t asked for.
My question is: do you have example of observable but non- contingent thing?
"sure, non-contingent and non-observable thing is God."
*That's called a claim, numb nuts.*
"There are manny evidences that lead to God"
*That's just another claim.*
"which I haven’t asked for."
*I am.*
"do you have example of observable but non- contingent thing?"
*Since we're just claiming things without evidencing they actually exist, sure I can, pixies are non-observable & non-contingent.*
*Opps! You asked for OBSERVABLE. Nope, I don't. Nor do you have any evidence of the 'god' you claim exists.*
asix, manny thanks for your time & efforts! You actually did contribute to the argument from contingency.
Love how Cameron starts off with the first premise in stage 2 and assertions there is a god when he has never even proven god exists. Just because there is a necessary part of reality does not mean there is a god. Says who?
Cameron who cares what Graham Oppey accepts or rejects, he is not the end all, be all for atheist Just because he accepts something does not mean all atheist have to. That is such a terrible point to bring up because you don’t have a good defense for Alex not accepting this premise.
Love how Alex correctly pointed out how Cameron’s gumball machine analogy was just like his reasoning for god. Theist just basically said well god exists just because he does and even though everything else needs a creator, god does not. Just shows how theist uses special pleading then make up special rules for god to try and get out of it.
Cameron could not really even get out of stage 1; his whole argument falls apart at that stage. There was really no point in even going to stage 2.
And what the moderate Justin inserted in the middle of the debate was just awful. OH well at some point something will be necessary that we won’t have to explain, IE GOD, because he knows they can’t prove god exits, so to get out of this they go this route. And I must say again like in my other comment this debate was basically 2 on 1, which is just ridiculous.
I also love how Cameron keeps saying it’s absurd, to have self-causation and saying it’s not an explanation at all, yet that is exactly what he is doing with his god.
Then Cameron once again goes into special pleading saying well I wouldn’t look at god being self caused….blah blah blah. Seriously, how can he say this with a straight face and think anyone would really buy this? And he keeps brining up the circle reasoning to Alex’s point yet Cameron’s how god reasoning is circular. He keeps saying self-causation is absurd so if he thinks that then god is absurd.
Cameron’s premises fall apart at every point.
About Cameron’s point why can’t god fail to exist, that answer is easy. There is no evidence god even exists. So it’s easy to see how god fails to exists and guess what the universe is still here. Sure that is not proof that god does not exist but its not proof god exists either. Also all those other arguments he mentioned are not evidence for god either.
Cameron failed at every turn in this debate.
If the necessary state is perfect (and perfect things exist necessarily), then contingent things may exist by way of their potential perfection and are only contingent in so far as they come short of a necessary state of perfection.
"If the necessary state is perfect"
*WTF? What 'necessary state' are you even talking about? Also how do you determine a 'perfect state'?*
"(and perfect things exist necessarily)"
*Prove it. I know of no thing in existence that is perfect.*
asix I’m following along from statements that was made in the video. Did you watch it?
*Yes, of course I did. Can you not clarify what 'state' YOU are talking about? Can you not prove your claim that 'perfect things exist necessarily'? 'Following along' doesn't excuse you from backing up your statements.*
asix I actually don’t think you did listen to the podcast. The Necessary state was what contrasted a contingent state. But thanks for sharing.
"The Necessary state was what contrasted a contingent state"
*I didn't ask what a supposed 'necessary state' was being contrasted against!! What part of my question are you not grasping? AGAIN, what 'necessary state' are you referring to?*
*I'll take your lack of evidencing that 'perfect things exist necessarily', as your concession that you can't.*
Love a big dose of special pleading: all necessary things would be self caused, and self caused is absurd caused. Except for when god is a necessary being because “I just don’t think of god in that way” lol
I don't know how you've heard it, but I have heard that a necessary being would be uncaused, nor self-caused. I don't think God caused himself; I agree with you that would be absurd. He had no cause or beginning.
@@MasterSongStudiosReal it’s still special pleading - to suggest everything else just fit the paradigm except for a god and with no explanation why or how.
At least with cosmological eternal models we have a base to make informed inferences. For instance, Hawking’s latest model depicts a universe with a geometric spacial boundary but a timeless dimension, suggest it had no absolute begging. And time catalyzes or emerges out of this boundary. Of course we don’t know if this is true, we’re still trying to come up with methods to test and experiment with these models (and there might be some progress there) but the physics is ultimately sound. I don’t see the point in evoking some supernatural entity to solve the problem. We have no evidence to suggest such a thing even exists. And to further rely on special pleading to make the case, makes it seem even weaker.
It’s kind of baked into his response, “I don’t think of god in that way” - are we able to verify any of the traits he applies to for? Is there anything empirical to reference? What is the correct way to think about a god?
@@sumo1203 first off, I don't invoke God to solve a problem. I believe in God mostly from my own experience in his presence, but when I go around trying to convince people, I usually use arguments outside of my personal life. I'm not well rounded on the argument from contingency, but I consider myself pretty well read on theodicies, the kalaam cosmological argument, the fine tuning argument, the new testament accounts, and the moral argument. These are what I draw my arguments from. I will admit, these aren't what convinced me initially, but they do reinforce my faith. I also admit that what you said goes way over my head, as u haven't been studying philosophy very long. If you want, we can talk about any of the things I listed to show proof for God, but I really don't even understand what the people in the video are talking about. Sorry again and thank you for your patience.
@@MasterSongStudiosReal I know you didn’t invoked god, I was talking about the argument.
@@MasterSongStudiosReal and sure happy discuss. I’ve studied physics and cosmology way longer. I think philosophy alone is a bit pointless in arguments for god as the premises still need to be demonstrated.
I’m not sure which version of the kalam you favor but the I believe the premise that “the universe had a beginning” is unfounded.
Cosmological argument wrapped in a new word... Contingency. Ugh Y can't theists come up with new ideas
What are you talking about? That's not an argument. Either its true or not.
This is what happens when ignorance coupled with baseless confidence.. Debbie educate yourself ...those r two different arguments...omg
Cameron seems like a smart guy. I've watched several of his videos and I like the guy. He's put a lot of thought into these concepts. Which is why it's both confusing and frustrating to see him commit such obvious non sequitur and special pleading fallacies. It's inconceivable that he doesn't recognize that. Just a guy trying so, so hard to convince himself that Christianity is true that he's willing to turn a blind eye to the glaring fallacies of his arguments.
Please point out precisely where he committed these fallacies.
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
Yawn.... Big words, intellectual sounding sentences, verbose arguments etc etc. I'm sorry but I think the average person Christian or atheist, wants just usual words and readily understood ideas/evidence when listening to debates. Maybe I'm wrong and sesquepedalianism is the new normal and I'm just old. Apols for spelling mistakes but I'm British too and so had to get at least one big word in lol
This debate isn't for the average person, it's for the ones trying to look as deeply and as objectively as possible into the debate so as to possibly walk away with a better understanding of logic and logical fallacies of both science and religion. This is for those self aware people that don't want to be told want to believe, but want a model for formation of their own ideas and so that they can truly call their position on the matter their own.
If you want talking points and buzzwords, you can find those on any X atheist vs Y preacher video. This was meant to dig deeper and leave out all hyperbole, sensationalism and ad hominem attacks so that we could have a real discussion free of judgment and assumption.
The amazing thing with theology God and the Bible (this is not an argument but rather a comment) is that we always find a reasonable answer that will ultimately justify the existence of God. So many times I feel the Creator, Being, God has led us to the edge of the table (the universe) and now we stuck and know not what to do in answering first our existence, secondly whether there are other tables (besides Heaven), what we are and how did we come about, how did it all start besides what is written as a great signpost...
However welcoming science into the debate I will consider evidence.
To answer the beginning theologically
In the beginning not half way through or somewhat towards the end but in the beginning (almost assuming the beginning is in God and so is the end) God created the heavens and the earth.
To answer the beginning scientifically
We are surrounded by the table and the atmosphere around it (In this room there is darkness surrounding us and we have no basis for locating ourselves, so it seems) So we look at what is tangible what can be seen.. All that exists is represented by the table and if you will we are exploring it and walking on it it's just that it's obviously challenging to consider climbing down or reaching the edge let alone jumping off it.
To explain the beginning philosophically
Then we get to today's argument where we consider various startling facts. Firstly there is no self causation or is there but to a particular point... - how did the universe come into being if everything we've considered is or can be self - caused. Where did we get the canvas (universe) from to write and mind you paint as such as we do. (At this point I'm wondering of the rate at which the universe is expanding, are we perhaps reaching the end of ourselves as proofs come everyday that we'll self destruct pretty soon then whereto back to the beginning) I don't know where this argument fits in that everything with a beginning must have an end or is it energy cannot be created nor destroyed it just exists) Therefore where we come from cannot be created nor destroyed it just exists. And maybe looking at scientific evidence of this law will further strengthen it.
Anywho God bless
The being we come from cannot be created nor destroyed it just exists. Reasonable for me we just need to identify that the universe had a beginning it didn't just exist and certainly it did as it's age is not uncountable.
"is that we always find a reasonable answer that will ultimately justify the existence of God."
*No, you think you have a reasonable answer, but they all ultimately fail to justify belief that 'gods' exist.*
"The being we come from cannot be created nor destroyed it just exists"
*Sounds just like energy/matter! LMAO!*
"Reasonable for me we just need to identify that the universe had a beginning it didn't just exist and certainly it did as it's age is not uncountable."
*Do you understand that our LOCAL universe is not necessarily considered all that exists? Feel free to show evidence that EVERYTHING had a beginning.*
*All you are doing is defining your unevidenced invisible magician into existence. That's not convincing in the slightest.*
GOD almighty bless you too. Do you know that the Tb is a false pastor? He only work for money, he is one of the riches pastor, a tree is knowing by the fruit , a bad tree dosen't give good fruit
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
Cameron didn't explain why self-causation is absurd. So I'll try to do that. A cause needs to be before its effect and no object can be before itself. For a thing to make itself begin to exist, the cause needs to be exactly the same thing as the effect. That means that for something to make itself begin to exist, that thing must both exist and not exist at the same time, Since that requirement implies a self-contradiction, self-causation is logically impossible.
The problem is that you don't know if the universe didn't always exist.
Not to mention that even if it had a cause, the cause could be anything but a god.
Your argument is pointless
@@Aguijon1982 I don't care whether the universe began to exist. Even if it always has existed, it still needs someone or something to sustain it. The question isn't whether the universe began to exist. Instead, I need to know why there's anything at all. We can't appeal to a natural cause when natural causes can't make themselves begin to exist because that ability would presuppose that they already do exist.
You might agree with some philosophers who believe that the universe's existence is a brute fact. But once you know that a brute fact can't have any explanation even in principle, you know that there are no brute facts. If the universe existed brute-factually, no one could discover that it did, since the ability to discover it would presuppose an explanation.
Again, a brute fact is unable to have any explanation. So if you insist that the universe exists uncaused, then I need you to explain how to tell the difference between an uncaused natural event and a natural event with a cause science will always be unable to find.
Maybe you'll suggest the universe has existential inertia. If you did suggest it, I'd ask what gave it existential inertia. But then I'd be asking what caused the existential inertia to exist when existential inertia explains a thing's supposedly uncaused existence. A scientific explanation is a causal explanation. And some causes and their effects need to exist together because the effects always depend on their causes even to keep them around. A refrigerator magnet keeps sticking to the refrigerator door because the cause of the sticking keeps holding the magnet there. Things keep existing because God sustains them. Nothing causes him, since his existence and his causal power are built into him. So he doesn't borrow them from another source.
Since science presupposes that there's a natural world, if you use science to try to explain why there's anything natural, your argument will be circular. Maybe you'll tell me that since we have science, we don't need God. But science presupposes that there's something instead of nothing. And the ultimate question is, "Why is there anything at all?"
@@williammcenaney1331
It doesn't need anyone to sustain it.
That is absurd.
If god doesn't need a creator, then neither does the universe.
I don't care about your special pleading fallacy.
@@Aguijon1982 I'm not special you're begging arguing in a circle by assuming that the universe doesn't need a cause when we're discussing whether it needs one. We'll waste our time if I keep saying the universe needs a cause, and you always reply, "No, it doesn't"." Science can't explain what makes natural causality possible because science presupposes there are natural causes. It takes them for granted. You say I'm committing the fallacy of special pleading. So please tell me how there could be a past infinite regress of causes. If there were a past-infinite regress of them, there would be no effects now.
Don't appeal to Zeno's paradox that supposedly proves that motion is impossible. Zeno's argument presupposes that there's change because you need to be able to go from premise to premise to understand his argument. Zeno ignored the difference between possible change and actual change. If he remembered that difference, he would have needed to ask what made change possible at least in principle.
@@williammcenaney1331
It is a special pleading. Oh the universe needs "someone" or "something" behind it, but god, no no.
How convenient. And how fallacious and crap. Sorry.
I'm not assuming anything, wtf? I said even if the universe had a cause, It could be anything but a fkn god.
Intelligence begets intelligence..... order to disorder .... Seems to me there is something about our consciousness that is not material .... I believe in a creator.
Why is there something rather than nothing? The arguments from contingency or determinism are arguments conducted one there is existence as opposed to nothing. Is Alex arguing for absolutes or a choice of one or more? To every thought, you can construct an opposite and because you can do so, does that mean you can trust it?
The universe isn't simple, it has more than one element. External realities aren't dependent on our input. Alex seems to think something needs to be proven to him, since when is this the case?
min 21. At what point does Alex grand his parents freewill to have him, or not? To me he seems to conclude it happens because it happened. Why?
It is the same as implying god created the universe only without implying god. It is entirely possible that the universe is both necessary and the cause of it's own transformation. There need be no cause outside of itself. A series of predetermined events would occur which would lead to another predetermined event that would be Alex's parents meeting and conceiving him. That is not too different from implying God in the sense that god would be necessary just like the singularity would be or is. They both leave the question of why has either the universe or god always existed. I prefer the universe always existing because it does not imply something that I do not knlw for certain exists. However it is possible. It is also possible that niether god nor the universe has always existed and there is a multiverse that if we could observe would answer the question about our origin. That multiverse could be so fundamentally different that asking the question where did it come from or how long has it been around wouldn't make sense. All very mysterious and interesting in my opinion.
@@cosmossci4883
OK, yes that was interesting, but the universe have a beginning. Everything that have a beginning have a cause. Even if you add multy universe or anything ultimately there have to be an uncause cause. That is the thing that have no beginning. Eternal without end or beginning. That's what we Christians call God.
Isaiah 57:15 ESV - For thus says the One who is high and lifted up,
*who inhabits eternity* , whose name is Holy:
Even time begin to exist, it was caused. What caused time is outside of time. God is not limited by time. That's why his name is ( I AM).
@@dannycv82 it is not certain whether or not the universe must have a cause outside of itself. It is not necessarily needed. The *known* universe had a beginning, but that was simply a transformation of the universe. There is no evidence that the universe was created from _nothing_ or by a creator. All that is known is if you "rewind" time to the beginning, everything in the universe came from a single source. This is the singularity. That singularity is unlike the universe we see today. So while the beginning of the universe is often implied when talking about the big bang it is not necessary that the universe have a beginning or cause outside of itself for its expansion. When talking about the entirety of existence (as far as we know) things can be strange and complex. Even attempting to understand quantum mechanics is difficult based off the fact that the phenomena we observe is so strange. Unlike anything you observe on the human scale. While I don't agree with the belief, I dont really mind if people believe in a creator. So long as they do not reject scientific evidence to do so. If scientific evidence is rejected without another scientific model that has better predictive capabilities, then it is only hindering progress.
@@cosmossci4883
I understand what you saying. But the scientific evidence points that the universe started from nothing. The calculations describes nothing. What is nothing? (Absent of something). It had a beginning. It was set in motion. Givin it's current well organized state, one can see its intelligent desigh. Am suggesting there is no evidence for evolution in its creation, its not random, it is organize. We never have order from chaos. Intelligent only comes from intelligence.
But, think about this. Everything that have a beginning have a cause, ultimately you need an uncause cause. Inteligente desigh only comes from intelligente.
@@dannycv82 there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the universe came from _nothing_ but rather that it came from a singularity. Rather than _nothing_ it was everything within a infinitesimally small point. Although observations seem to show that the energies of the universe cancel eachother out, it is not truly nothing. That _nothing_ would actually be something. Gravity as negative energy and matter as positive energy both cancel eachother out so it is said that the universe can come from _nothing_ but that is really a way of saying neutral energy. The universe came from something whether it was a quantum fluctuation or something unknown I don't know. You can invoke a god and believe that that god would have created the universe but you have no evidence to suggest this.
Not sure why Cameron used this alternate form of the contingency argument that is far less powerful than the original. They spent the entire program arguing about whether anything is contingent when the original argument makes the more modest claim that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or by an external cause). This seems like common sense. The second premise then states, “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.” To deny this premise, would be to deny the first premise as it is the contra positive of that statement, i.e., God is not the explanation of the universe, therefore, the universe exists inexplicably. Then, to escape this contradiction, the atheist will say that the universe exists out of the necessity of its own nature. At this point, the atheist has a heavy burden to show a single example of why it’s reasonable to believe the universe is necessary. At this point, the argument has gotten off the ground and the burden of proof is on the atheist.
Our ability to know the truth is contingent on our freewill. Determinism is self refuting. If it were true, we would never know it.
30:30 ding ding ding ding BINGO it's called special pleading people... 36:36 - And he does it again here...
the answer I dont know and maybe we can never know seems more honest than playing word games to get back to some creator god ...even if you could get to a prime source ...how does that lead you to a christian or islamic god
Alex O'Connor 19 years young, really. Six years ago Alex, you were 13. Even Christ's ministry didn't start until He was 30. Bright you may be, and bold, but please when you want to be taken as credible...................
*Sorry, but your Ad Hominem argument is as fallacious as it gets.*
So you 'feel' that a 19 year old can speak with authority & conviction when he hasn't even been graduated from university? You feel he can make a compelling, persuasive case for anything? I have three younger brothers and three grown up sons; that at least puts me on the male side of the debate in terms of how 19 year old males feel at that age. With a name like O'Connor, he is also like myself from Irish stock. An Irish 19 year old who thinks he knows it all. My my. Pray tell, what say thee?
*So you 'feel' an Ad hominem argument is not fallacious? Arguments speak for themselves. The age, education, experience or whatever else you'd like to throw on the pile, is irrelevant to whether the arguments have merit. You apparently have no rebuttal to anything he stated, so you attack his character instead.*
"An Irish 19 year old who thinks he knows it all."
*I don't think that's true in the slightest. He comes across as a very humble person willing to learn. You, on the other hand, come across as what you claim him to be. Can you say 'projection'? LOL*
Indeed 'arguments speak for themselves'. Debate on the other-hand requires nuance, credibility which comes with maturity, and careful awareness of the subject matter, otherwise known as humility. We are after all talking about antiquity to the present age, a tall ask even for the brightest minds. Is this the best the atheist movement want to 'project'? I am not so sure Aquinas, Jerome, Bonventure, de Avila, de Siena, Augustine, Origen, Philo would possess such ego as to attempt to persuade they knew much about anything at 19. Ne Timeas.
"credibility which comes with maturity,"
*Ahahahaaaa!!!! Credibility comes with having a good argument. Something you apparently don't have so, you resort to an Ad hominem argument. Also, the fact that you are trying desperately and ineffectively to discredit Alex, demonstrates you lack maturity so, according to you, you have very little credibility.*
"and careful awareness of the subject matter, otherwise known as humility."
*WTF?! That's not at all what is known as humility. Either way, Alex shows great awareness of the subject matter &humility, you do not. You've shown nothing, but arrogance and condescension.*
"a tall ask even for the brightest minds."
*Just from this short discussion, it's obvious Alex is a far brighter mind than you.*
"Is this the best the atheist movement want to 'project'?"
*Is your constant Ad hominem and projection the best you've got? You haven't even touched on a single point that you think Alex was wrong about. Your argument is fallacious and your projection obvious. Congrats!!*
Nothing much has changed in the last 100 years then. Define a perfect entity and say existence is a necessary component of perfection. We did this at school. It was a crap argument then and its a crap argument now.
John 3:16
Conspiracy theoryI (apologetics) is a journey and not a destination.
The search for evidence to support the belief you already hold is called confirmation bias, if scientists do it, they fail to learn anything new.
If this method always fails as a pathway to truth, why would it work for theism?
It's not necessary that confirmation bias *always* fails as a pathway to truth. It may limit the amount of 'truths' one is exposed to though
@@SelcraigClimbs Not all wild guesses or assumptions fail , but they are not pathways to truth.
@@imagoportraits562 they are not reliable but it does not mean they *always fail*. I agree with your point, I disagree with your specific wording in your original post.
@@SelcraigClimbs A broken watch is correct twice a day, but it's useless unless you have a reliable watch to tell you when its correct.
@@imagoportraits562 absolutely agreed. However you did not mention reliability in your original post. If you were to say a broken watch is *always* wrong then that would be false.
I just find it funny that THESE sort of discussions are even needed when all god needs to do is beam his existence into our minds and appear before us all. It's literally that simple, haha yet we're sitting here listening to philosophy on all these apologetics channels. Kinda sad...
Define a "being"....There goes your timeless, spaceless, immaterial, eternal, personal make believe "gawd"
If you read the story, it tells that God is all those things you mentioned.
Are you drunk?
Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....
This guy Alex is not looking for answers. He just wants to argue. There is no point to discussing these things with such an individual. It seems to me that he is someone who questions everything except his own questions. The bottom of that hole is pride. He is not a genuine seeker after truth. Cameron admitted at the outset that nothing can proven absolutely. Yet Alex spent the entire time trying to force Cameron to do the impossible. He uses skepticism to wiggle out of dealing with an argument.
This Alex is just another typical atheist who likes to argue for the sake of arguing. And ironically these atheists have a god complex personality. They like to pick a nick name like 'science', reason', 'logic', 'thinker' to indicate that their thinking is always right and yous is not.
He's questioning, yes. Why is that bad lol it's not pride to question why Cameron does not need a cause for God but needs one for everything else
Adam Chan: I’ve seen a couple of your characterizations of “the typical atheist,” I wonder if you could give your definition of “atheist,” please? I could use some clarification there.
@@adamc1694 Ah yes, because you aren't allowed to want answers without being a typical atheist. Get over it. I can so easily reverse your statement and call you a typical theist who resorts to ad hominem's when they don't have a valid criticism.
Your behaviour mirrors that of a condescending theist who dislikes being questioned and has to find a way to demean their opposition instead of actually pondering over their argument. We only get places if we debate, and to dismiss views as illogical or accuse people of having a God complex will only hinder that. Alex has readily invited criticism of his ideas, that's how it should be.
This world is struggling because it's filled with people from both ends accusing others of things they aren't doing and they refuse to acknowledge that disagreement is a good thing, instead of seeing disagreement and questioning as a personal attack. I can't call Cameron a dishonest theist because I disagree or I felt he wasn't being as concise as Alex, I'll make valid criticisms of his argument instead. That's how we get anywhere and to silence opposition by refusing to actually consider their views will only stop progression
@@seans5289 “the typical atheist,” = a person who doesn't want to believe; if God exists he can't have things his own way... so God is a nuisance.....
,An Atheist has no “INVISIBLE FORCE”to rely on! 😂 !
Mentioning William lane Craig makes my skin crawl...he's nothing but a snake oil salesman to the credulous and gullible
Argument from outrage. Try again, or is slander all you have?
God is not a being. God is a energy force which is all knowing all things and all knowledge. All the great people in history were connected to this force when they experienced cosmic love they were able to create incredible things. I cant explain that feeling one gets when to connected to God, one has to experience it. Tesla experienced it. The great composites contacted it. It is why certain music raises our conscious and in doing so helps is to connect to the frequency. People who are connected at the same time, experience each other. And other people that our tuned in show up in each others life. My opinion and belief which I have experienced many times
erdingtown *If God is "energy" then:*
1. How it created multiple complex and separated yet united products?
2. What kind of "energy" it is?
3. So we have multiple "gods"? since we have " multiple" source of energy?
*Is this what you are saying?*
Maigen Snow "if you can say that material doesn’t need a beginning"
*Energy is not material.*
"I can then say intelligence then can also “come from nothing”"
*You can say whatever you want. Too bad you can't support your ridiculous claim. Nor does your assertion even follow from material not needing a beginning. (To be clear, I'm not arguing that matter did not 'begin'. I'm just pointing out that your assertion does not follow.)*
"at that point we’ve got God"
*No, at that point you have an unevidenced claim.*
+MS *First, I'll go even slower since it's readily apparent that you still haven't grasped it. Second, you don't need questions answered to present an argument. Third, how many times do I have to state that I don't believe 'nothing' has ever existed to require everything to have 'come from'?*
+ Maigen "I believe that something that always was there eternally is God,"
*I don't care about what you believe, I care about what you can evidence. Do you or do you not have actual evidence that invisible magicians exist?*
"because as far as we know from scientific study"
*Where's the rest of your statement? There should be a comma after 'study' and then the rest of your statement explaining the 'because'. To be clear, science does not support your ridiculous claim in the slightest.*
"I see no reason to believe that only matter is eternal"
*I didn't state that I believe MATTER is eternal.*
"I believe everything is including intelligence and consciousness"
*Do you have any evidence that either intelligence or consciousness can exist absent a material brain?*
"Unless you can demonstrate that consciousness somehow sprouted from a lifeless rock or helium molecule I’m going with the obvious answer"
*Ahahahahaaaaa!!!! Yeah, wouldn't want to admit you don't know!!! That's called an argument from ignorance. You don't know what causes intelligence and consciousness, therefore, you'll fill in your ignorance with imaginary invisible magicians. The obvious answer is A BRAIN.*
"we exist in the mind and body of God"
*Got any evidence to support that ridiculous claim? Got any evidence intelligence or consciousness can exist without a functioning, material brain? Cricket, cricket, cricket.....Didn't think so.*
*Come back when you've got same actual evidence and not just fallacious arguments.*
Your terms are fucked up- God is not energy.
I determine determinism illogically irrational..
*I determine non-determinism illogically irrational.*
I determined that ;)
*It was determined you'd determine that.*
What do you determine i say after your next comment?
*I determined you'd say that.*
So Cameron says that if something exists just because exists that's a circular Argument 🤔...... Cough..... God...... Cough!
@jimbob4484
The point being, God did not begin to exist and the science points to everything having a beginning. Which means space/time had a beginning. God is defined as having no beginnng or end. He is outside of space/time. Therefor without God, it is circular.
@@brando3342 and how do you know that God didn't begin to exist?
@jimbob4484
How do I know? Well, that isn't how he's described and I wouldn't worship him if he was created... because that wouldn't be God. God is outside of creation, necessarily.
@@brando3342 so you believe God was uncaused because that is how God is described? How do you know what was described is true? Consider that different religions also describe different concepts of God/Gods. How do you determine which one is correct?
Still not sure how you don't see the contradiction in Cameron saying that something causing itself wouldn't make any sense but he is happy to accept an uncaused creator 🤔
@jimbob4484
I'm saying that the science we discovered through Edwin Hubble and then the Hubble telescope matches perfectly with the scripture that was written thousands of years before we used science to show it. If the science is correct and what we know is space/time had a beginning, then God CANNOT have a cause, because anything outside of space/time necessarily cannot be inside space/time. Anything outside of time, does not have a beginning or an end. It is not a contradiction because the science shows space/time had a beginning and God is described as outside of space/time, which matches the science. Not sure if I can make that any clearer.
The question is pure nonsense. "Nothing" can't "be". There can only be nothing IN "something". Nothing is absence from something.
The other nonsense is the present tense "is there". We would need to stop time to answer that. We would need to BE God.
God dont EXIST (ex - out). God IS. We exist (come into being).
*So, your 'god' doesn't exist, got it.*
*That's got to be the dumbest argument for the existence of a 'god' I've ever heard.*
"That's got to be the dumbest argument for the existence of a 'god' I've ever heard." - Asix
Wrong. It's an argument AGAINST the existence of God. You clearly dont understand the difference between "existence" and "beign". You are reducing God to a "thing".
You are not alone. All christians do.
"It's an argument AGAINST the existence of God."
*Yeah, I know. It's supposed to be an argument that your invisible magician 'IS', as if 'IS' doesn't equate with exist. It's a ridiculous argument no matter which way you look at it.*
"You clearly dont understand the difference between "existence" and "beign""
*Oh, I certainly do. You clearly don't know what existence means.*
*Got any evidence that your invisible magician 'IS'? Cricket, cricket, cricket....too funny.*
The question isn't nonsense; it's just poorly worded. The question is whether there is some aspect of reality that *has* to exist-- whether there's some aspect that could not fail to exist. If so, could we give that aspect a physical description in terms of either contemporary physics or perhaps an extension of physics down the road? Or perhaps there's a mindless mega-verse (in which our universe appears) that is necessary. Or maybe theism really is the answer. I don't know. But the question isn't nonsense at all.
Btw, I understand that you were trying to approach this with a Feser/Aquinas style of argumentation. At least it seems like it? If so, cool. The arguments there are very fun, regardless of whether they succeed or fail.
"as if 'IS' doesn't equate with exist." Exactly. They are two different words. We dont need two words to say the same thing.
You dont know the difference between "IS" and "EXIST". The difference is obvious. The difference is "EX". It means "OUT" of something. The word "IS" means simply to BE . It does not need an external factor. It IS. You need a Universe to exist.
You dont understand because it is simple. You are looking for something complex. GOD IS. The Univers EXIST. It came OUT of God.
500th
666th...
Mr. C what unfortunate luck
Mr. C What fortunate luck
Bullshit I’m 496th
43rd
God is simpler than Zues?!
God, like your own existence or thoughts, needs no justification. Therefore you know God exists without any justification for it, in the same way you know you exist without having to justify it.
@@taowaycamino4891 What you said is relevant to my comment because..
@@benjaminschooley3108 Ok, if you are going to say or assume that everything needs justification then your own existence or thoughts are not the exception to the rule. You must then justify your own existence or thoughts if you are going to need justification for everything. Otherwise you are special pleading your case, and that is not only hypocritical but a fallacy.
If you say all this is non sense then I would agree that denying God is also nonsense since God is in the same unjustified and undeniable category as your own existence or the existence of your own thoughts.
And if you say you don't need justification for your own existence or thoughts, but you do for God, then you are admitting God's existence in the process, since God's existence is also a basic undeniable and unjustifiable belief you have as part of the category of basic unjustified and undeniable beliefs we all have. The fact that you deny belief in God and don't deny the other unjustifiable beliefs you also have, including the unjustifiable belief of your own existence or thoughts, only speaks to the psychological suppression and special pleading fallacy you are making, and doesn't say anything about God's non existence.
Even if you were to deny God's existence for lack of justification, it would still be true that God's existence is undeniably real and unjustified, just as your own existence or thoughts would still be unjustified and undeniably real if you were to deny them.
Similarly, even if you cannot justify your own existence or thoughts, they would still be undeniably real, as well as unjustified. Same with God's existence and your belief about God. Your belief in God would still be unjustified but as real and unjustified as the belief of your own existence or thoughts.
@@taowaycamino4891 that's not an answer to my question (and I haven't made a case for anything)
@@benjaminschooley3108 Sure, and you don't assume you exist or have thoughts either. That's also a type of indirect argumentation.
Ok, so you have not made any kind of "direct" argument. Fine, then have a good day.