The main problem with this argument is that it focuses on mostly irrelevant issues. It doesn't matter much whether or not there needs to be an un-moved mover - an ultimate source for reality - because that mover could be unintelligent/non-sentient, and when we're thinking about whether or not God exists, typically, it's going to be pretty important to most of us that the God is intelligent and sentient. Most people using this as an argument for God's existence are going to need to add a second argument onto it for why the prime mover would be more likely to be intelligent/sentient than non-sentient. Many people don't do that though. They skip right past that vital aspect, just assuming the prime-mover will be intelligent/sentient, and that's why I think this argument should, whenever possible, carry a warning label. The argument attempts to goad the reader into assuming that the prime mover would be intelligent/sentient without explaining why. I think this argument should therefore always have a big, red warning label that says, "misleading propaganda" every time some kind of secondary argument is not included within it for why the "prime mover" would be best described as intelligent and sentient...or else it should have another kind of warning label in equally big red letters that says "THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ARGUMENT FOR AN INTELLIGENT GOD! IT ARGUES FOR A PRIME MOVER - A PREDECESSOR OF ALL THINGS...NOT WHETHER OR NOT THAT PRIME MOVER IS INTELLIGENT OR SENTIENT. On a final note, I will now address the actual Cosmological argument. I do not agree that movement can't go on for infinity. I think there are three possible explanations for the existence of reality. Option #1. is that reality has always existed and here is an infinite string of reasons. Option #2 is that reality popped into existence for no reason spontaneously. Option #3 is that the answer is beyond our comprehension in some other way. Note that none of the options I listed is "unmoved mover." "Unmoved mover" would fall under one of the other three options. If it has always existed, it would fall under option #1. If it came about spontaneously from nothing, it would fall under option #2. If its source is sufficiently confusing it would fall under option #3. To me it looks like option #1 - the option of reality having always existed in some form, with there being an infinite string of reasons for everything is the most likely option. While that seems very odd...I'd argue that everything popping into existence spontaneously would seem like a more direct form of impossible, and I don't consider option #3 - the option of the answer being beyond our comprehension as much of an answer. Given that an "unmoved mover" could either be an eternal reality or a reality that spontaneously popped into existence means that there is no reason to use the term "unmoved mover" and it's better off replaced completely with my proposed options.
i think the best argument for the existence of God is the fine-tuning argument. Based on science, it says there is observable evidence for one universe, and observable evidence for the Physical Constants of Nature. The universe looks to be fine-tuned for Life. A Creator!
“We do not know how something works, so therefore it must be God of the supernaturally occult.” Perhaps, but realistically *until we have RULED OUT all other natural explanations or possibilities,* there is little philosophical reason to recourse to the supernatural nor justification for imposing that belief on others. Simply saying that God did something does not explain HOW or WHY he did it, that pronouncement just replaces an explanation with a vague and fallacious excuse, *because once you understand how something works and why it works the way it does, a God always vanishes.*
Mainstream science looks to answer all there is by natural means, any evidence outside of this paradigm is ignored and belittled. Assume God is the creator, how would this ever be proved by mainstream science when it is dogmatic in its belief that explanations must be by natural processes? Science has proven there was a beginning to the universe but insists its cause must be by natural means, even though there are no laws in place to set the universe in motion. There has to be an uncaused cause or its a regressive what caused that, caused that, etc. Laws require a lawmaker, DNA cannot come into existence without proteins and you cannot make proteins without DNA. There are too many paradoxical problems with the theory that natural processes created the universe and life. We know from our daily observations that the source of complexity and information is always an intelligent agent. To accept natural processes are responsible for our entire creation means ignoring this absolute fact and subscribing to the notion that dumb mindless matter creates laws, information, and the most bizarre, the human brain. How does matter without a mind and therefore incapable of abstract concepts like numbers, emotions, metaphors, abstract actions, and morality, design a brain that can comprehended the abstracts that the matter building the brain does not.
You point out the obvious flaws with the 3 approaches. We can't explain something so it's god. The Buddha correctly asked why would anyone care if there were a god. These questions tend not to edification. If science can explain the world all the way back to this "unmoved mover" or "uncaused cause" - and it does - then who cares if the "unmoved mover" or "uncaused cause" so loved the world . . . ? It's our job to prevent suffering. We can do it. God hasn't and, it appears, cannot.
A "Self Determining Causal Loop". Great videos on your channel. I've subscribed.
one of the best cosmological arguments, the contingency argument
please make a video about it
Brilliant explanation.
The universe must begin in a moment of space and time. This requires a choice by someone outside of time and space.
I believe that moving argument from Aristotle
The main problem with this argument is that it focuses on mostly irrelevant issues. It doesn't matter much whether or not there needs to be an un-moved mover - an ultimate source for reality - because that mover could be unintelligent/non-sentient, and when we're thinking about whether or not God exists, typically, it's going to be pretty important to most of us that the God is intelligent and sentient.
Most people using this as an argument for God's existence are going to need to add a second argument onto it for why the prime mover would be more likely to be intelligent/sentient than non-sentient. Many people don't do that though. They skip right past that vital aspect, just assuming the prime-mover will be intelligent/sentient, and that's why I think this argument should, whenever possible, carry a warning label. The argument attempts to goad the reader into assuming that the prime mover would be intelligent/sentient without explaining why. I think this argument should therefore always have a big, red warning label that says, "misleading propaganda" every time some kind of secondary argument is not included within it for why the "prime mover" would be best described as intelligent and sentient...or else it should have another kind of warning label in equally big red letters that says "THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ARGUMENT FOR AN INTELLIGENT GOD! IT ARGUES FOR A PRIME MOVER - A PREDECESSOR OF ALL THINGS...NOT WHETHER OR NOT THAT PRIME MOVER IS INTELLIGENT OR SENTIENT.
On a final note, I will now address the actual Cosmological argument. I do not agree that movement can't go on for infinity. I think there are three possible explanations for the existence of reality. Option #1. is that reality has always existed and here is an infinite string of reasons. Option #2 is that reality popped into existence for no reason spontaneously. Option #3 is that the answer is beyond our comprehension in some other way. Note that none of the options I listed is "unmoved mover." "Unmoved mover" would fall under one of the other three options. If it has always existed, it would fall under option #1. If it came about spontaneously from nothing, it would fall under option #2. If its source is sufficiently confusing it would fall under option #3. To me it looks like option #1 - the option of reality having always existed in some form, with there being an infinite string of reasons for everything is the most likely option. While that seems very odd...I'd argue that everything popping into existence spontaneously would seem like a more direct form of impossible, and I don't consider option #3 - the option of the answer being beyond our comprehension as much of an answer.
Given that an "unmoved mover" could either be an eternal reality or a reality that spontaneously popped into existence means that there is no reason to use the term "unmoved mover" and it's better off replaced completely with my proposed options.
i think the best argument for the existence of God is the fine-tuning argument. Based on science, it says there is observable evidence for one universe, and observable evidence for the Physical Constants of Nature. The universe looks to be fine-tuned for Life. A Creator!
Also look up "the teleological argument" (I have a video on this!)
We’re you in Chicago when you recorded this? The background looks like the Palmer House.
That's the location, yes
“We do not know how something works, so therefore it must be God of the supernaturally occult.” Perhaps, but realistically *until we have RULED OUT all other natural explanations or possibilities,* there is little philosophical reason to recourse to the supernatural nor justification for imposing that belief on others. Simply saying that God did something does not explain HOW or WHY he did it, that pronouncement just replaces an explanation with a vague and fallacious excuse, *because once you understand how something works and why it works the way it does, a God always vanishes.*
Mainstream science looks to answer all there is by natural means, any evidence outside of this paradigm is ignored and belittled. Assume God is the creator, how would this ever be proved by mainstream science when it is dogmatic in its belief that explanations must be by natural processes? Science has proven there was a beginning to the universe but insists its cause must be by natural means, even though there are no laws in place to set the universe in motion. There has to be an uncaused cause or its a regressive what caused that, caused that, etc. Laws require a lawmaker, DNA cannot come into existence without proteins and you cannot make proteins without DNA. There are too many paradoxical problems with the theory that natural processes created the universe and life. We know from our daily observations that the source of complexity and information is always an intelligent agent. To accept natural processes are responsible for our entire creation means ignoring this absolute fact and subscribing to the notion that dumb mindless matter creates laws, information, and the most bizarre, the human brain. How does matter without a mind and therefore incapable of abstract concepts like numbers, emotions, metaphors, abstract actions, and morality, design a brain that can comprehended the abstracts that the matter building the brain does not.
So there's God in me?
Dr. Can you please explain world view
Your worldview is the way you see the world (the way the external world appears to you in your internal world)
You point out the obvious flaws with the 3 approaches. We can't explain something so it's god.
The Buddha correctly asked why would anyone care if there were a god. These questions tend not to edification. If science can explain the world all the way back to this "unmoved mover" or "uncaused cause" - and it does - then who cares if the "unmoved mover" or "uncaused cause" so loved the world . . . ? It's our job to prevent suffering. We can do it. God hasn't and, it appears, cannot.
Sömeöne has tö cause mötiön, I dönt think this pöint is as pöpular as it shöuld be! Cööl videö!
yawn......