Thanks! We are glad that you enjoyed this video. We welcome you to check back on our RUclips channel or website regularly, as we often upload new videos. Meanwhile, be sure to subscribe to our RUclips channel and "like" our Facebook page (which is on our channel)!
Ahh so this argument/ video says just as effectively; therefore Thor, or therefore Zeus, or therefore Russell's teapot, or therefore god, or therefore I believe X is true?! Thus it ACTUALLY is arguing for 'a' god, not god and unfortunately it actually says nothing!
"Ahh so this argument/ video says just as effectively; therefore Thor, or therefore Zeus, or therefore Russell's teapot, or therefore god, or therefore I believe X is true?! Thus it ACTUALLY is arguing for 'a' god, not god and unfortunately it actually says nothing!" You gave a strawman fallacy. The video explained that a valid deduction argument is if all the premises are true then the conclusion(s) necessarily is true. For example, the Cosmological Argument is a logical deduction argument that states Premise 1: Law of Causality states anything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: Big Bang theory states the universe has a beginning. Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 4: Universe is space, time, and matter. Premise 5: Effect can't affect/limit cause before effect existed. Premise 6: Cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Premise 7: Cause is abstract like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 8: Universe has a plethora of precise universal laws that their possibility of existing at the same time is well over 1 chance in 10^50. Premise 9: Like the Cosmological Constant existence being 1 chance in 10^120, any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is reasonable to say it's like having a zero probability. Premise 10: The cause more reasonably must be intelligent enough rather than not intelligent enough to create all precise universal laws to exist at the same time. Premise 11: Cause is therefore omniscient. Premise 12: For a cause to create universal laws, then the cause must be powerful enough to create the universe for universal laws to exist in. Premise: 13 Cause must be omnipotent. Premise 14: Only two types of causal explanation of why causality occurs: scientific explanation and personal explanation. Premise 15: Scientific causal explanation only explains the natural world known as the universe. Premise 16: The universe didn't exist before its beginning. Premise 17: Scientific causal explanation didn’t exist before the universe existed. Premise 18: Only causal explanation that existed before the universe existed is a personal explanation. Premise 19: Causal explanation for why the cause created the universe is a personal causal explanation. Premise 20: Cause must be personal to have a personal causal explanation. Premise 21: Cause has personhood. Premise 22: Cause is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 23: Only candidates for these characteristics are abstract objects like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 24: Numbers are not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 25: Numbers don't fit the description of the cause. Premise 26: Logic is not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 27: Logic doesn't fit the description of the cause. Premise 28: God is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 29: God does fit the description of the cause. Conclusion: God is the cause of the contingent universe.
WWriterGurl07 he was defining what a deductive argument is. That is one where, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But not all arguments are deductive arguments obviously. It is possible for an argument to contain true premises as well as a false or invalid conclusion.
ahh but how do we know that all human beings are mortal all the time? what if sometimes they are immortal? and so how do we not know that Socrates was sometimes an immortal? so the argument isn't logical. Though it does still seem true.
You’re trying to make an argument but I think you missed the point. You need evidence for your premise. There is no evidence of a person being immortal at a given time.
Problem: The Cosmological/Ontological/design-Arguments are only making a Case for a deistik god and have all been debunkt several times. As long as we dont have Argumetns/Proof for a specific God (Yahweh/Alah etc.) it is irrelevant if a god exist because even if he does we couldnt know what he wants us to do or if he even cares.
Deductive reasoning is, to some degree, always subjective. Saying I can never prove God exists can be refuted by "the laws of nature exist, they are proven, and the only known concept that could create such laws is God, so he must exist." so couldn't the same case be made, truthfully, about both positions?
I don't think that's a valid refutation for the following reason: if God created the laws of nature, who created God? And if God was not created and was eternal instead, then why is it not also possible that the same is true for the laws of nature? Maybe they were never created but are eternal (and thus do not require a God). And deductive reasoning is not that subjective. The assumptions you accept might be subjective (i.e. your "starting point" for your reasoning). But deductive reasoning is about what you can safely conclude from given premises and that is not always subjective. Like in the first example (married person looking at an unmarried person): It is absolutely not subjective what you can deduce from the information. The sentence that an married person is looking at an unmarried person is definitely true in this example (and not just "subjectively true").
zoopdiwop scientifically, what I'm saying, is that both the for god argument and the for nature argument can't be deduced unless subjectivity is thrown in to sway the reasoning. That's exactly what I was trying to communicate :)
If God exists then "I cannot prove the existence of God" might be false. In principle, a God that exists could be observed which would prove His existence. We can only know the statement is true if we already know God doesn't exist. However, the statement "I cannot prove the NON-existence of God" must always be true. If God exists then any proof of His non-existence will be invalid, and if He doesn't exist then no amount of failure to find Him will ever amount to proof of this. That is why the burden of proof falls to those who claim the existence of something e.g. God, Bigfoot, specific conspiracies, etc. If they're right they have a shot at proving it and if they're wrong they waste only their own time in a vain search.
If a god actually exists, then mankind has accidentally guessed it without knowing it.. because the reasoning we have right now is so bad that a logical mind would easily dismiss it as fool hearty. Honesty brings one to the standing that things are not existing until there is reasons to believe they are.. faith is a bad reason. Agnostic is the most honest position when you don’t know something... and if an agnostic is honest with the god question they would be atheist, because belief without knowing isn’t an honest position. Theists that say they believe on faith must not understand their position, they are literally saying “I do not know but i believe anyway” With that foundation you can justify believing anything you could ever desire as being true.. which to me is dishonesty.
If "Thor" = "the cause of lightning" then Thor exists. If you deny the existence of "Thor," then you will happily walk around a golf course during a thunderstorm wearing a German field marshal helmet, because you have disproved the existence of lightning.
"Basically… after watching this theological sophistry … Lightning exists so therefore Thor exists!!" You gave a strawman fallacy. The video explained that a valid deduction argument is if all the premises are true then the conclusion(s) necessarily is true. For example, the cosmological argument is a logical deduction argument that states Premise 1: Law of Causality states anything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: Big Bang theory states the universe has a beginning. Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 4: Universe is space, time, and matter. Premise 5: Effect can't affect/limit cause before effect existed. Premise 6: Cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Premise 7: Cause is abstract like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 8: Universe has a plethora of precise universal laws that their possibility of existing at the same time is well over 1 chance in 10^50. Premise 9: Like the Cosmological Constant existence being 1 chance in 10^120, any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is reasonable to say it's like having a zero probability. Premise 10: The cause more reasonably must be intelligent enough rather than not intelligent enough to create all precise universal laws to exist at the same time. Premise 11: Cause is therefore omniscient. Premise 12: For a cause to create universal laws, then the cause must be powerful enough to create the universe for universal laws to exist in. Premise: 13 Cause must be omnipotent. Premise 14: Only two types of causal explanation of why causality occurs: scientific explanation and personal explanation. Premise 15: Scientific causal explanation only explains the natural world known as the universe. Premise 16: The universe didn't exist before its beginning. Premise 17: Scientific causal explanation didn’t exist before the universe existed. Premise 18: The only causal explanation that existed before the universe existed is a personal explanation. Premise 19: Causal explanation for why the cause created the universe is a personal causal explanation. Premise 20: Cause must be personal to have a personal causal explanation. Premise 21: Cause has personhood. Premise 22: Cause is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 23: Only candidates for these characteristics are abstract objects like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 24: Numbers are not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 25: Numbers don't fit the description of the cause. Premise 26: Logic is not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 27: Logic doesn't fit the description of the cause. Premise 28: God is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 29: God does fit the description of the cause. Conclusion: God is the cause of the contingent universe.
You do know that logic is part of mathematics right? Also what is evicende if not a premise everyone can agree on, from witch you could start your chain of deduction.
From what I understand logic is bigger than only being a part of mathematics. Tries in the opposite direction, making math a sub-field of logic, has failed from what I understand (most famously Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica). But feel free to enlighten me! As shown in the video we, humanity in general that is, use evidence in a broader meaning than pure deductive reasoning. Like a trial where we put pieces together and reach a probable conclusion rather than a certain. Sure you can claim the only things that counts as evidence is premises everyone agrees with/we can't doubt and the deductions from those, but then you have to throw all of science (including physics) out and settle with math and logic as the only fields we have any form of evidence (and even that might be doubtful depending on how hard you press your claim of a "premise everyone can agree on").
Hey there, I hope that you and all of your loved ones are well, if not we will be praying for them. It would mean the world for you to give me 5 minutes of your time by reading this. I would love to tell you about Jesus and what he truly did. This is what Jesus said, ““For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge and condemn the world [that is, to initiate the final judgment of the world], but that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes and has decided to trust in Him [as personal Savior and Lord] is not judged [for this one, there is no judgment, no rejection, no condemnation]; but the one who does not believe [and has decided to reject Him as personal Savior and Lord] is judged already [that one has been convicted and sentenced], because he has not believed and trusted in the name of the [One and] only begotten Son of God [the One who is truly unique, the only One of His kind, the One who alone can save him]." John 3:16-18 AMP
Jesus is the Son of God. Before He came into the world, He and God were in perfect union. When God good made humans everything was perfect until we sinned against Him. Here is a problem: God is good, just, all-loving and perfect. And because He is a Just, Good and all knowing Judge, He can not forgive us. Since He is a Good and Just Judge He has to punish us for our sins, which He will do in Hell. But out of His Love for us, He sent Jesus, who willingly choose to come into the world out of His Love for us. He came into the World and lived a perfect life… but was crucified according to the will of God, so that God can forgive you and me of our sins He died so that you can be forgiven. Rejoice, and shout for Joy! Because three days later He rose again from death, and now as we speak He is enthroned with all power and authority. He lives so that you can live. There is real Freedom, Peace, Hope, and Joy which can only be found in Jesus. Repent (turn away from your sins) and turn to Christ who will definitely forgive all of your sins and He will make you a completely new person. Thank you for getting this far, it truely means everything thing to me that you know this truth. I love you, and I pray that you and all your loved ones may come to know Christ, so that all you can be in the coming earth with Jesus forever.
This is a revealing video. This video helps explain what Philosophy departments want from their students, and how they wish to see students develop critical thinking skills. With Argument and evidence, I'm guessing the evidence is collected, then Arguments are constructed from the evidence to come up with compelling reasons to believe Philosophical claims. If this is true, this is definitely very much a Scientific paradigm that Philosophy students and proffs are engaging in. I feel a bit dreaded though, because I don't operate this way when I think Philosophically, yet I come up with strong insights. Does this PROFESSOR believe that students who can't think like this are nonphilosophical?
Hey, he noticed that philosophers confuse empirical and deductive reasoning. They do this a LOT. That's so they can argue endlessly without even intending to resolve anything. Good go'in Greg Ganssle !
A lot of questions, some important and some less important, can't be definitively solved or we haven't yet found the tools to solve them. Some of those questions we really need to discuss (ethical questions is the obvious example), for some questions discussions today might lead to better tools in the future to solve these problems (philosophy of language might be such an area, cognitive sciences has borrowed a lot from philosophy of mind in recent years also and remember science grew out of natural philosophy) and some questions we might simply want to discuss because a lot of people is thinking about it (what death is and the meaning for our life, what we mean when we make moral statements). Simply put, I think it is very hard to solve a lot of these problems and it isn't really down to philosophers confusing, intentionally or unintentionally, empirical and deductive reasoning. But if you have some concrete examples of philosophers confusing empirical and deductive reasoning I would really appreciate if you would share them with me!
It's been a while and I can't respond to your request right away. Philosophers disagree about almost everything though so there's bound to be lots of examples. In the meantime I hope that you might allow me to respond to some of your remarks. *cognitive sciences has borrowed a lot from philosophy of mind in recent years* It has also ignored a lot. There has been so much written in philosophy about mental notions that some of it almost has to be somewhat of a starting point as an empirical approach gets started. Philosophy as concept analysis seems OK but can only go so far without discovering actual empirical relationships to build new concepts around. *and some questions we might simply want to discuss because a lot of people is thinking about it (what death is and the meaning for our life, what we mean when we make moral statements).* There are some technical issues about what constitutes death - are the frozen people in cryogenics 'dead'? But this is just a matter of terminology and will probably be settled in courts of law. (There are a number of similar situations but I doubt that this was what you had in mind.) If you meant 'life after death' souls etc then there is so little evidence for it that it makes no sense to even bring it up. I take your phrase "meaning for our life" to be close to what I've heard referred to as "the meaning of life". I feel sorry for people who don't feel that their lives have any, or enough, meaning but it's really a psychological issue not philosophical. The word "life" has a meaning , maybe not specific enough but again I don't think that people who are concerned about "the meaning of life" want the meaning of "life". They seem to want some emotional connection that they lack but instead ask an artificially abstract question that has no answer because in that form it has no literal meaning. *what we mean when we make moral statements* Often it means that the person is willing to take some action to control somebody else's behavior. It might mean that they will feel bad if they themselves do something against their 'moral code'. Such prescriptions generally stem from culture and how the person was raised although clearly we have some genetic basis for our capacity to have such emotions. Psychology, sociology and genetics are the proper fields of inquiry to understand moral statements. Philosophers of ethics could help people understand the logical intricacies of who to push onto the train tracks to save the most number of lives ( I'm referring to some standard examples) or at least get people to realize the connections between moral feelings and the consequences of their choices. Clearly though we evolved with a moral capacity, no doubt as part of evolving into a social species because of it's survival value, and the content of moral positions is a product of heredity and environment. Way too much of philosophy argues about different was of describing exactly the same sets of experiences and so is outside of empirical/experiential evaluation - no experimental tests can settle the arguments even in principle. A complete waste of time.
Yeah, I saw it was a while ago you wrote it, so I greatly appreciate you taking the time to answer! *** Philosopher's certainly disagree about a lot of things, but from this doesn't follow that they confuse empirical and deductive reasoning. From what you did write I thought you had some concrete examples at hand and it did peak my interest, but don't feel any need to go out of your way to find any. *** I think we agree on the cognitive sciences. Philosopher's has managed, and still manage I would argue, to get somewhere with the question of mind and consciousness, from which empirical could start. Of course a lot of theories are wrong, but many of them help because we can learn from the mistakes of those theories. *** I do agree that we probably don't have any life after death. And just to make it clear, I'm not religious at all. The two questions where connected in that statement, so for example if it would make a difference on our view on life if we where immortal. Meaning of life in this way does of course involve psychology to some extent, but is not simply psychology. Meaning of life can be taken in a destiny kind of way, but also like a need for us to formulate our life's meaning to ourself. There the question of death is interesting in some aspects since gives a limit to which kind of projects we can formulate for ourselves. It is, for example, impossible for us to have any way to fulfill the project of Bowerick Wowbagger in “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” who is going to insult everyone in the universe. And in any case, people want to discuss these questions which for most people have more relevance than whether the Higgs Boson exist or not (I love the Higgs though! :) ) and therefore I do think a deeper discussion, which philosopher's can provide in the best of worlds, on these topics is interesting to a lot of people. *** Of course the society and culture we grow up in have effect on our moral compass and there psychology, sociology and some parts of genetics have much to investigate and give answers to. But I think it first if should be recognized that this does not give us the answer to what we should actually do, since the old problem that we can't make any statements on what we ought the do from is-statements (kind of). You also have quite determined ideas on why people make moral statements which I do not agree with. But questions still remains like is moral utterances statements propositions (that can be true or false) or are they some other form of utterance? Maybe you would propose a vote here, but that is then supposing our language is totally transparent and that we understand all, or at least a lot of, parts of language in a direct way (which I don't think people usually do). *** And do you see this discussion as a complete waste of time also? I certainly hope not, but I do have a hard time seeing which kind of experimental test would be able to settle the argument (even in principle). :) *** RUclips is really not the place to have this long discussions on though. But as I said I really did appreciate your answer!
*Meaning of life can be taken in a destiny kind of way, but also like a need for us to formulate our life's meaning to ourself.* A person's life has meaning if they are emotionally involved in their activities. If a person isn't persuing some longer term goals then they wonder about the meaning of life. It's emotional doldrums. *There the question of death is interesting in some aspects since gives a limit to which kind of projects we can formulate for ourselves. It is, for example, impossible for us to have any way to fulfill the project of Bowerick Wowbagger in “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” who is going to insult everyone in the universe.* Goals that can't be fulfilled wold be very frustrating. Knowing that one's efforts cannot succeed is a great way to lose emotional commitment. *And in any case, people want to discuss these questions which for most people have more relevance than whether the Higgs Boson exist or not (I love the Higgs though! :) )* People find all sorts of nonsense "relevant". Some of it quite harmful and useless. What "people want" is a very weak argument for anything. *and therefore I do think a deeper discussion, which philosopher's can provide in the best of worlds, on these topics is interesting to a lot of people.* Following such questions too abstractly leads to disillusionment and despair, look at the existentialists! The philosophy ought to be find out what you want to do then start doing it. Try lots of things some shallow some in depth. Experiment on yourself, it's fun.
Had written a reply but it got lost. Shorter one here. Yes, people for the most part need to be attached to a long term project of some sort. I would though argue philosophy can be able to help people find the projects which has value for them. For some people projects that can't be fulfilled might actually have a value, you know, it's not the goal that is important, it is the journey there etc. Relevancy and what people want don't have to be the same thing. In some cases I do think it is quite a good argument. But it does sound like you have another suggestion on what kind of basis we should provide resources for science. I would be happy to hear about it! The existentialist wasn't very despairing or disillusioned I think. What are you reason to think that? I think our discussion is winding down. I do believe our positions are closer than what might appear from this discussion. But I would like to point out my big objections to your position. 1. You are claiming that everything that can't be solved by empirical/experimental evaluation is a complete waste of time. But as stated that claim in itself can't be empirically or experimentally tested which makes the claim self-defeating (or at least a waste of time). 2. Science is built upon a set of "axioms" or assumptions which is just take for granted in many ways. From what I understand we ain't any closer to solving the cause-effect/induction problem than we were in Hume's time. Those can't be tested either. Now I do believe science has to take some things for granted and just go from there, but I do think it would be a loss if no work was done to try to make those foundations a bit stronger. And here the philosopher's come again.
..... Law student.... But your whole detective part is wrong... Beyond ANY reasonable doubt.. This means that it has eliminated any legitimate doubts to the contrary. There are no plausible counter-claims... It is true without any doubt. You can't just convict someone because you can make the pieces fit
I can easily prove that god exists: I define god as being whatever I am; I think, therefore I must in some sense exist; because I defined god as being whatever I am no matter what my true form entails, and since I exist, it follows that god according to my operational definition does in fact exist. Now, you could argue that when people are generally talking about god they aren't referring to me, but here's my question: what are they referring to? The creator of all existence? Certainly if the people are talking about zeus then they are not talking about a being who created all things in existence. Are people talking about a being with omnipotence? And if so what is omnipotence? Is omnipotence the ability to do literally anything? Because if so omnipotence is self-contradictory (read: can god create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?). The word god isn't like the word triangle which has an accepted meaning among the majority of people who use the word or concept. You could say it generally refers to a being of, if not omnipotence then significant power (such as zeus) who usually has immortality (so definitely not baldur) and in a few cases created the world or existence or whatever... but the trouble with disproving god, as I see it, is that nobody can seem to settle on which god is being disproven. I could disprove the existence of zeus by traveling to the top of mount olympus but when I returned and said, "I checked, and god doesn't exist, I looked all over the peaks of mount olympus and he was nowhere to be found," it would be insisted that I was being silly and that god does not live on mount olympus at all but in the sky, or another world, or another dimension, or outside of physical reality. Is it specifically the god of abraham and isaac that I would be attempting to prove or disprove the existence of? Because if so I would like to know specifically what claims are made about this god. Did he create the world in 6 days or was that just poetic license? Did he flood the entire world or was that just a bed time story? What is supposed to be true about this god in order that it may be examined and dissected?
Given that it is possible that God exists: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds. If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds. If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists. Therefore, God exists.
Ah, the clever usage of philosophical words and arguments… ta da… god! Forgive me for being such a hopeless reductionist but where the fuck is this god, or any god for that matter. “Oh, but you just don’t understand the nuance of the argument!” Congratulations to the host for producing an irrefutable argument. Now if you could only get this god character to show up.
Do it ! so far no one has. All you have done is try and prove ontological arguments your problem is you cannot provide a true premise ! A MASSIVE problem for philosophy and also for religion is the same because you THINK god COULD exist then god DOES exist that is fallacious
"Do it ! so far no one has. All you have done is try and prove ontological arguments your problem is you cannot provide a true premise ! A MASSIVE problem for philosophy and also for religion is the same because you THINK god COULD exist then god DOES exist that is fallacious" You gave a strawman fallacy. The video explained that a valid deduction argument is if all the premises are true then the conclusion(s) necessarily is true. For example, the Cosmological Argument is a logical deduction argument that states Premise 1: Law of Causality states anything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: Big Bang theory states the universe has a beginning. Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 4: Universe is space, time, and matter. Premise 5: Effect can't affect/limit cause before effect existed. Premise 6: Cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Premise 7: Cause is abstract like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 8: Universe has a plethora of precise universal laws that their possibility of existing at the same time is well over 1 chance in 10^50. Premise 9: Like the Cosmological Constant existence being 1 chance in 10^120, any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is reasonable to say it's like having a zero probability. Premise 10: The cause more reasonably must be intelligent enough rather than not intelligent enough to create all precise universal laws to exist at the same time. Premise 11: Cause is therefore omniscient. Premise 12: For a cause to create universal laws, then the cause must be powerful enough to create the universe for universal laws to exist in. Premise: 13 Cause must be omnipotent. Premise 14: Only two types of causal explanation of why causality occurs: scientific explanation and personal explanation. Premise 15: Scientific causal explanation only explains the natural world known as the universe. Premise 16: The universe didn't exist before its beginning. Premise 17: Scientific causal explanation didn’t exist before the universe existed. Premise 18: Only causal explanation that existed before the universe existed is a personal explanation. Premise 19: Causal explanation for why the cause created the universe is a personal causal explanation. Premise 20: Cause must be personal to have a personal causal explanation. Premise 21: Cause has personhood. Premise 22: Cause is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 23: Only candidates for these characteristics are abstract objects like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 24: Numbers are not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 25: Numbers don't fit the description of the cause. Premise 26: Logic is not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 27: Logic doesn't fit the description of the cause. Premise 28: God is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 29: God does fit the description of the cause. Conclusion: God is the cause of the contingent universe.
to the makers of this video....: I've been lost for months on whether or not all the EXTREMELY open minded and out of the box philosophical theories i was having had any basis or was the early stages of schizophrenia... anyways. now I'm sure... And your right. This IS a cumulative case. And im pretty sure that I've found that three eyed pirate alien. the kind of three eyed pirate that journeys to every island, connecting them, And leaving behind their treasures. listen... take me seriously or not. but makers of this video, I've sincerely developed these theories through personal and social trial and arrived to the SAME conclusions as are in your videos, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ANY BACKGROUND CONTENT OR CONTEXT OF THE CONCEPTS... You say that rarely does ONE explain and account for all others. but a rarity, still happens.... all I'm asking for, is advice on what to do and where to go from here....... eye'll do anything..
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Rationality [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lInyN-WD9u4/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Rationality [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Will to Believe [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uzmLXIuAspQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: New Responses to Skepticism [HD]](/img/1.gif)
Thanks! We are glad that you enjoyed this video. We welcome you to check back on our RUclips channel or website regularly, as we often upload new videos.
Meanwhile, be sure to subscribe to our RUclips channel and "like" our Facebook page (which is on our channel)!
Wireless, I think i have a philosophical argument that God exists, want to read it?
Amazing topic, thank you very much
Ahh so this argument/ video says just as effectively; therefore Thor, or therefore Zeus, or therefore Russell's teapot, or therefore god, or therefore I believe X is true?! Thus it ACTUALLY is arguing for 'a' god, not god and unfortunately it actually says nothing!
"Ahh so this argument/ video says just as effectively; therefore Thor, or therefore Zeus, or therefore Russell's teapot, or therefore god, or therefore I believe X is true?! Thus it ACTUALLY is arguing for 'a' god, not god and unfortunately it actually says nothing!" You gave a strawman fallacy. The video explained that a valid deduction argument is if all the premises are true then the conclusion(s) necessarily is true. For example, the Cosmological Argument is a logical deduction argument that states Premise 1: Law of Causality states anything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: Big Bang theory states the universe has a beginning. Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 4: Universe is space, time, and matter. Premise 5: Effect can't affect/limit cause before effect existed. Premise 6: Cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Premise 7: Cause is abstract like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 8: Universe has a plethora of precise universal laws that their possibility of existing at the same time is well over 1 chance in 10^50. Premise 9: Like the Cosmological Constant existence being 1 chance in 10^120, any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is reasonable to say it's like having a zero probability. Premise 10: The cause more reasonably must be intelligent enough rather than not intelligent enough to create all precise universal laws to exist at the same time. Premise 11: Cause is therefore omniscient. Premise 12: For a cause to create universal laws, then the cause must be powerful enough to create the universe for universal laws to exist in. Premise: 13 Cause must be omnipotent. Premise 14: Only two types of causal explanation of why causality occurs: scientific explanation and personal explanation. Premise 15: Scientific causal explanation only explains the natural world known as the universe. Premise 16: The universe didn't exist before its beginning. Premise 17: Scientific causal explanation didn’t exist before the universe existed. Premise 18: Only causal explanation that existed before the universe existed is a personal explanation. Premise 19: Causal explanation for why the cause created the universe is a personal causal explanation. Premise 20: Cause must be personal to have a personal causal explanation. Premise 21: Cause has personhood. Premise 22: Cause is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 23: Only candidates for these characteristics are abstract objects like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 24: Numbers are not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 25: Numbers don't fit the description of the cause. Premise 26: Logic is not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 27: Logic doesn't fit the description of the cause. Premise 28: God is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 29: God does fit the description of the cause. Conclusion: God is the cause of the contingent universe.
If the premise is true the conclusion is true
Thats not true
@@drexelrep then what is true? I wrote what was in the video
WWriterGurl07 he was defining what a deductive argument is. That is one where, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true.
But not all arguments are deductive arguments obviously. It is possible for an argument to contain true premises as well as a false or invalid conclusion.
@@drexelrep thanks for that!
ahh but how do we know that all human beings are mortal all the time? what if sometimes they are immortal? and so how do we not know that Socrates was sometimes an immortal? so the argument isn't logical. Though it does still seem true.
You’re trying to make an argument but I think you missed the point. You need evidence for your premise. There is no evidence of a person being immortal at a given time.
Problem: The Cosmological/Ontological/design-Arguments are only making a Case for a deistik god and have all been debunkt several times.
As long as we dont have Argumetns/Proof for a specific God (Yahweh/Alah etc.) it is irrelevant if a god exist because even if he does we couldnt know what he wants us to do or if he even cares.
The nature of said God should be outlined in/by claim.
Deductive reasoning is, to some degree, always subjective. Saying I can never prove God exists can be refuted by "the laws of nature exist, they are proven, and the only known concept that could create such laws is God, so he must exist." so couldn't the same case be made, truthfully, about both positions?
I don't think that's a valid refutation for the following reason:
if God created the laws of nature, who created God? And if God was not created and was eternal instead, then why is it not also possible that the same is true for the laws of nature? Maybe they were never created but are eternal (and thus do not require a God).
And deductive reasoning is not that subjective. The assumptions you accept might be subjective (i.e. your "starting point" for your reasoning). But deductive reasoning is about what you can safely conclude from given premises and that is not always subjective. Like in the first example (married person looking at an unmarried person): It is absolutely not subjective what you can deduce from the information. The sentence that an married person is looking at an unmarried person is definitely true in this example (and not just "subjectively true").
zoopdiwop scientifically, what I'm saying, is that both the for god argument and the for nature argument can't be deduced unless subjectivity is thrown in to sway the reasoning. That's exactly what I was trying to communicate :)
+Kris Driver Ah, I see. Misunderstanding on my part. And yeah, I agree.
zoopdiwop lol all good, I think you articulated it better so I thank you.
Subjective reasoning doesn’t equate to logical reasoning... an idiot can subjectively deduce anything he wants but it doesn’t make it a truth.
So the original premise, that you cannot PROVE the existence of God is proven. So how have I advanced in knowledge from watching this?
Just the fact you've had no likes for 9 years made me give you a like.
If God exists then "I cannot prove the existence of God" might be false. In principle, a God that exists could be observed which would prove His existence. We can only know the statement is true if we already know God doesn't exist. However, the statement "I cannot prove the NON-existence of God" must always be true. If God exists then any proof of His non-existence will be invalid, and if He doesn't exist then no amount of failure to find Him will ever amount to proof of this. That is why the burden of proof falls to those who claim the existence of something e.g. God, Bigfoot, specific conspiracies, etc. If they're right they have a shot at proving it and if they're wrong they waste only their own time in a vain search.
If a god actually exists, then mankind has accidentally guessed it without knowing it.. because the reasoning we have right now is so bad that a logical mind would easily dismiss it as fool hearty. Honesty brings one to the standing that things are not existing until there is reasons to believe they are.. faith is a bad reason. Agnostic is the most honest position when you don’t know something... and if an agnostic is honest with the god question they would be atheist, because belief without knowing isn’t an honest position.
Theists that say they believe on faith must not understand their position, they are literally saying “I do not know but i believe anyway” With that foundation you can justify believing anything you could ever desire as being true.. which to me is dishonesty.
Basically… after watching this theological sophistry …
Lightning exists so therefore Thor exists!!
If "Thor" = "the cause of lightning" then Thor exists. If you deny the existence of "Thor," then you will happily walk around a golf course during a thunderstorm wearing a German field marshal helmet, because you have disproved the existence of lightning.
@@ellistomago3369 Yes, that’s the same logic i hear over and over from these theists out there..... its mind numbing dumb.
"Basically… after watching this theological sophistry … Lightning exists so therefore Thor exists!!" You gave a strawman fallacy. The video explained that a valid deduction argument is if all the premises are true then the conclusion(s) necessarily is true. For example, the cosmological argument is a logical deduction argument that states Premise 1: Law of Causality states anything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: Big Bang theory states the universe has a beginning. Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 4: Universe is space, time, and matter. Premise 5: Effect can't affect/limit cause before effect existed. Premise 6: Cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Premise 7: Cause is abstract like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 8: Universe has a plethora of precise universal laws that their possibility of existing at the same time is well over 1 chance in 10^50. Premise 9: Like the Cosmological Constant existence being 1 chance in 10^120, any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is reasonable to say it's like having a zero probability. Premise 10: The cause more reasonably must be intelligent enough rather than not intelligent enough to create all precise universal laws to exist at the same time. Premise 11: Cause is therefore omniscient. Premise 12: For a cause to create universal laws, then the cause must be powerful enough to create the universe for universal laws to exist in. Premise: 13 Cause must be omnipotent. Premise 14: Only two types of causal explanation of why causality occurs: scientific explanation and personal explanation. Premise 15: Scientific causal explanation only explains the natural world known as the universe. Premise 16: The universe didn't exist before its beginning. Premise 17: Scientific causal explanation didn’t exist before the universe existed. Premise 18: The only causal explanation that existed before the universe existed is a personal explanation. Premise 19: Causal explanation for why the cause created the universe is a personal causal explanation. Premise 20: Cause must be personal to have a personal causal explanation. Premise 21: Cause has personhood. Premise 22: Cause is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 23: Only candidates for these characteristics are abstract objects like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 24: Numbers are not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 25: Numbers don't fit the description of the cause. Premise 26: Logic is not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 27: Logic doesn't fit the description of the cause. Premise 28: God is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 29: God does fit the description of the cause. Conclusion: God is the cause of the contingent universe.
You do know that logic is part of mathematics right?
Also what is evicende if not a premise everyone can agree on, from witch you could start your chain of deduction.
From what I understand logic is bigger than only being a part of mathematics. Tries in the opposite direction, making math a sub-field of logic, has failed from what I understand (most famously Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica). But feel free to enlighten me!
As shown in the video we, humanity in general that is, use evidence in a broader meaning than pure deductive reasoning. Like a trial where we put pieces together and reach a probable conclusion rather than a certain. Sure you can claim the only things that counts as evidence is premises everyone agrees with/we can't doubt and the deductions from those, but then you have to throw all of science (including physics) out and settle with math and logic as the only fields we have any form of evidence (and even that might be doubtful depending on how hard you press your claim of a "premise everyone can agree on").
We need rationality to detect and correct or prevent consequences of irrationality.
Hey there, I hope that you and all of your loved ones are well, if not we will be praying for them. It would mean the world for you to give me 5 minutes of your time by reading this.
I would love to tell you about Jesus and what he truly did. This is what Jesus said,
““For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge and condemn the world [that is, to initiate the final judgment of the world], but that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes and has decided to trust in Him [as personal Savior and Lord] is not judged [for this one, there is no judgment, no rejection, no condemnation]; but the one who does not believe [and has decided to reject Him as personal Savior and Lord] is judged already [that one has been convicted and sentenced], because he has not believed and trusted in the name of the [One and] only begotten Son of God [the One who is truly unique, the only One of His kind, the One who alone can save him]."
John 3:16-18 AMP
Jesus is the Son of God. Before He came into the world, He and God were in perfect union.
When God good made humans everything was perfect until we sinned against Him.
Here is a problem: God is good, just, all-loving and perfect. And because He is a Just, Good and all knowing Judge, He can not forgive us. Since He is a Good and Just Judge He has to punish us for our sins, which He will do in Hell.
But out of His Love for us, He sent Jesus, who willingly choose to come into the world out of His Love for us.
He came into the World and lived a perfect life… but was crucified according to the will of God, so that God can forgive you and me of our sins
He died so that you can be forgiven.
Rejoice, and shout for Joy!
Because three days later He rose again from death, and now as we speak He is enthroned with all power and authority.
He lives so that you can live.
There is real Freedom, Peace, Hope, and Joy which can only be found in Jesus.
Repent (turn away from your sins) and turn to Christ who will definitely forgive all of your sins and He will make you a completely new person.
Thank you for getting this far, it truely means everything thing to me that you know this truth.
I love you, and I pray that you and all your loved ones may come to know Christ, so that all you can be in the coming earth with Jesus forever.
@@koketsobaholo7 Bruhh
This is a revealing video. This video helps explain what Philosophy departments want from their students, and how they wish to see students develop critical thinking skills.
With Argument and evidence, I'm guessing the evidence is collected, then Arguments are constructed from the evidence to come up with compelling reasons to believe Philosophical claims.
If this is true, this is definitely very much a Scientific paradigm that Philosophy students and proffs are engaging in.
I feel a bit dreaded though, because I don't operate this way when I think Philosophically, yet I come up with strong insights. Does this PROFESSOR believe that students who can't think like this are nonphilosophical?
Hey, he noticed that philosophers confuse empirical and deductive reasoning. They do this a LOT. That's so they can argue endlessly without even intending to resolve anything.
Good go'in Greg Ganssle !
A lot of questions, some important and some less important, can't be definitively solved or we haven't yet found the tools to solve them. Some of those questions we really need to discuss (ethical questions is the obvious example), for some questions discussions today might lead to better tools in the future to solve these problems (philosophy of language might be such an area, cognitive sciences has borrowed a lot from philosophy of mind in recent years also and remember science grew out of natural philosophy) and some questions we might simply want to discuss because a lot of people is thinking about it (what death is and the meaning for our life, what we mean when we make moral statements).
Simply put, I think it is very hard to solve a lot of these problems and it isn't really down to philosophers confusing, intentionally or unintentionally, empirical and deductive reasoning. But if you have some concrete examples of philosophers confusing empirical and deductive reasoning I would really appreciate if you would share them with me!
It's been a while and I can't respond to your request right away. Philosophers disagree about almost everything though so there's bound to be lots of examples. In the meantime I hope that you might allow me to respond to some of your remarks.
*cognitive sciences has borrowed a lot from philosophy of mind in recent years*
It has also ignored a lot. There has been so much written in philosophy about mental notions that some of it almost has to be somewhat of a starting point as an empirical approach gets started. Philosophy as concept analysis seems OK but can only go so far without discovering actual empirical relationships to build new concepts around.
*and some questions we might simply want to discuss because a lot of
people is thinking about it (what death is and the meaning for our life,
what we mean when we make moral statements).*
There are some technical issues about what constitutes death - are the frozen people in cryogenics 'dead'? But this is just a matter of terminology and will probably be settled in courts of law. (There are a number of similar situations but I doubt that this was what you had in mind.) If you meant 'life after death' souls etc then there is so little evidence for it that it makes no sense to even bring it up.
I take your phrase "meaning for our life" to be close to what I've heard referred to as "the meaning of life". I feel sorry for people who don't feel that their lives have any, or enough, meaning but it's really a psychological issue not philosophical. The word "life" has a meaning , maybe not specific enough but again I don't think that people who are concerned about "the meaning of life" want the meaning of "life". They seem to want some emotional connection that they lack but instead ask an artificially abstract question that has no answer because in that form it has no literal meaning.
*what we mean when we make moral statements*
Often it means that the person is willing to take some action to control somebody else's behavior. It might mean that they will feel bad if they themselves do something against their 'moral code'. Such prescriptions generally stem from culture and how the person was raised although clearly we have some genetic basis for our capacity to have such emotions. Psychology, sociology and genetics are the proper fields of inquiry to understand moral statements. Philosophers of ethics could help people understand the logical intricacies of who to push onto the train tracks to save the most number of lives ( I'm referring to some standard examples) or at least get people to realize the connections between moral feelings and the consequences of their choices. Clearly though we evolved with a moral capacity, no doubt as part of evolving into a social species because of it's survival value, and the content of moral positions is a product of heredity and environment.
Way too much of philosophy argues about different was of describing exactly the same sets of experiences and so is outside of empirical/experiential evaluation - no experimental tests can settle the arguments even in principle. A complete waste of time.
Yeah, I saw it was a while ago you wrote it, so I greatly appreciate you taking the time to answer! ***
Philosopher's certainly disagree about a lot of things, but from this doesn't follow that they confuse empirical and deductive reasoning. From what you did write I thought you had some concrete examples at hand and it did peak my interest, but don't feel any need to go out of your way to find any. ***
I think we agree on the cognitive sciences. Philosopher's has managed, and still manage I would argue, to get somewhere with the question of mind and consciousness, from which empirical could start. Of course a lot of theories are wrong, but many of them help because we can learn from the mistakes of those theories. ***
I do agree that we probably don't have any life after death. And just to make it clear, I'm not religious at all. The two questions where connected in that statement, so for example if it would make a difference on our view on life if we where immortal. Meaning of life in this way does of course involve psychology to some extent, but is not simply psychology. Meaning of life can be taken in a destiny kind of way, but also like a need for us to formulate our life's meaning to ourself. There the question of death is interesting in some aspects since gives a limit to which kind of projects we can formulate for ourselves. It is, for example, impossible for us to have any way to fulfill the project of Bowerick Wowbagger in “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” who is going to insult everyone in the universe. And in any case, people want to discuss these questions which for most people have more relevance than whether the Higgs Boson exist or not (I love the Higgs though! :) ) and therefore I do think a deeper discussion, which philosopher's can provide in the best of worlds, on these topics is interesting to a lot of people. ***
Of course the society and culture we grow up in have effect on our moral compass and there psychology, sociology and some parts of genetics have much to investigate and give answers to. But I think it first if should be recognized that this does not give us the answer to what we should actually do, since the old problem that we can't make any statements on what we ought the do from is-statements (kind of). You also have quite determined ideas on why people make moral statements which I do not agree with. But questions still remains like is moral utterances statements propositions (that can be true or false) or are they some other form of utterance? Maybe you would propose a vote here, but that is then supposing our language is totally transparent and that we understand all, or at least a lot of, parts of language in a direct way (which I don't think people usually do). ***
And do you see this discussion as a complete waste of time also? I certainly hope not, but I do have a hard time seeing which kind of experimental test would be able to settle the argument (even in principle). :) ***
RUclips is really not the place to have this long discussions on though. But as I said I really did appreciate your answer!
*Meaning of life can be taken in a destiny kind of way, but also like a need for us to formulate our life's meaning to ourself.*
A person's life has meaning if they are emotionally involved in their activities. If a person isn't persuing some longer term goals then they wonder about the meaning of life. It's emotional doldrums.
*There the question of death is interesting in some aspects since gives a limit to which kind of projects we can formulate for ourselves. It is, for example, impossible for us to have any way to fulfill the project of Bowerick Wowbagger in “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” who is going to insult everyone in the universe.*
Goals that can't be fulfilled wold be very frustrating. Knowing that one's efforts cannot succeed is a great way to lose emotional commitment.
*And in any case, people want to discuss these questions which for most people have more relevance than whether the Higgs Boson exist or not (I love the Higgs though! :) )*
People find all sorts of nonsense "relevant". Some of it quite harmful and useless. What "people want" is a very weak argument for anything.
*and therefore I do think a deeper discussion, which philosopher's can provide in the best of worlds, on these topics is interesting to a lot of people.*
Following such questions too abstractly leads to disillusionment and despair, look at the existentialists! The philosophy ought to be find out what you want to do then start doing it. Try lots of things some shallow some in depth. Experiment on yourself, it's fun.
Had written a reply but it got lost. Shorter one here.
Yes, people for the most part need to be attached to a long term project of some sort. I would though argue philosophy can be able to help people find the projects which has value for them. For some people projects that can't be fulfilled might actually have a value, you know, it's not the goal that is important, it is the journey there etc.
Relevancy and what people want don't have to be the same thing. In some cases I do think it is quite a good argument. But it does sound like you have another suggestion on what kind of basis we should provide resources for science. I would be happy to hear about it!
The existentialist wasn't very despairing or disillusioned I think. What are you reason to think that?
I think our discussion is winding down. I do believe our positions are closer than what might appear from this discussion. But I would like to point out my big objections to your position.
1. You are claiming that everything that can't be solved by empirical/experimental evaluation is a complete waste of time. But as stated that claim in itself can't be empirically or experimentally tested which makes the claim self-defeating (or at least a waste of time).
2. Science is built upon a set of "axioms" or assumptions which is just take for granted in many ways. From what I understand we ain't any closer to solving the cause-effect/induction problem than we were in Hume's time. Those can't be tested either. Now I do believe science has to take some things for granted and just go from there, but I do think it would be a loss if no work was done to try to make those foundations a bit stronger. And here the philosopher's come again.
..... Law student....
But your whole detective part is wrong... Beyond ANY reasonable doubt..
This means that it has eliminated any legitimate doubts to the contrary. There are no plausible counter-claims... It is true without any doubt.
You can't just convict someone because you can make the pieces fit
I hope you have changed your mind after further studying in law
@@italosantacruzrocha799 thats not an opinion, its the law rofl
funny but I haven't heard one piece of evidence for God. a tree? That's your evidence funny but I always thought a tree was evidence for a tree.
I can easily prove that god exists: I define god as being whatever I am; I think, therefore I must in some sense exist; because I defined god as being whatever I am no matter what my true form entails, and since I exist, it follows that god according to my operational definition does in fact exist.
Now, you could argue that when people are generally talking about god they aren't referring to me, but here's my question: what are they referring to? The creator of all existence? Certainly if the people are talking about zeus then they are not talking about a being who created all things in existence. Are people talking about a being with omnipotence? And if so what is omnipotence? Is omnipotence the ability to do literally anything? Because if so omnipotence is self-contradictory (read: can god create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?).
The word god isn't like the word triangle which has an accepted meaning among the majority of people who use the word or concept. You could say it generally refers to a being of, if not omnipotence then significant power (such as zeus) who usually has immortality (so definitely not baldur) and in a few cases created the world or existence or whatever... but the trouble with disproving god, as I see it, is that nobody can seem to settle on which god is being disproven. I could disprove the existence of zeus by traveling to the top of mount olympus but when I returned and said, "I checked, and god doesn't exist, I looked all over the peaks of mount olympus and he was nowhere to be found," it would be insisted that I was being silly and that god does not live on mount olympus at all but in the sky, or another world, or another dimension, or outside of physical reality.
Is it specifically the god of abraham and isaac that I would be attempting to prove or disprove the existence of? Because if so I would like to know specifically what claims are made about this god. Did he create the world in 6 days or was that just poetic license? Did he flood the entire world or was that just a bed time story? What is supposed to be true about this god in order that it may be examined and dissected?
Given that it is possible that God exists: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds. If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds. If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists. Therefore, God exists.
Ah, the clever usage of philosophical words and arguments… ta da… god! Forgive me for being such a hopeless reductionist but where the fuck is this god, or any god for that matter. “Oh, but you just don’t understand the nuance of the argument!” Congratulations to the host for producing an irrefutable argument. Now if you could only get this god character to show up.
Do it ! so far no one has. All you have done is try and prove ontological arguments your problem is you cannot provide a true premise ! A MASSIVE problem for philosophy and also for religion is the same because you THINK god COULD exist then god DOES exist that is fallacious
I think "something exists as opposed to nothing" is a true premise
"Do it ! so far no one has. All you have done is try and prove ontological arguments your problem is you cannot provide a true premise ! A MASSIVE problem for philosophy and also for religion is the same because you THINK god COULD exist then god DOES exist that is fallacious" You gave a strawman fallacy. The video explained that a valid deduction argument is if all the premises are true then the conclusion(s) necessarily is true. For example, the Cosmological Argument is a logical deduction argument that states Premise 1: Law of Causality states anything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: Big Bang theory states the universe has a beginning. Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 4: Universe is space, time, and matter. Premise 5: Effect can't affect/limit cause before effect existed. Premise 6: Cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Premise 7: Cause is abstract like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 8: Universe has a plethora of precise universal laws that their possibility of existing at the same time is well over 1 chance in 10^50. Premise 9: Like the Cosmological Constant existence being 1 chance in 10^120, any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is reasonable to say it's like having a zero probability. Premise 10: The cause more reasonably must be intelligent enough rather than not intelligent enough to create all precise universal laws to exist at the same time. Premise 11: Cause is therefore omniscient. Premise 12: For a cause to create universal laws, then the cause must be powerful enough to create the universe for universal laws to exist in. Premise: 13 Cause must be omnipotent. Premise 14: Only two types of causal explanation of why causality occurs: scientific explanation and personal explanation. Premise 15: Scientific causal explanation only explains the natural world known as the universe. Premise 16: The universe didn't exist before its beginning. Premise 17: Scientific causal explanation didn’t exist before the universe existed. Premise 18: Only causal explanation that existed before the universe existed is a personal explanation. Premise 19: Causal explanation for why the cause created the universe is a personal causal explanation. Premise 20: Cause must be personal to have a personal causal explanation. Premise 21: Cause has personhood. Premise 22: Cause is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 23: Only candidates for these characteristics are abstract objects like numbers, logic, and God. Premise 24: Numbers are not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 25: Numbers don't fit the description of the cause. Premise 26: Logic is not omniscient, omnipotent, or personal. Premise 27: Logic doesn't fit the description of the cause. Premise 28: God is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and personal. Premise 29: God does fit the description of the cause. Conclusion: God is the cause of the contingent universe.
😊
Evidence is never proof, that's silly.
to the makers of this video....: I've been lost for months on whether or not all the EXTREMELY open minded and out of the box philosophical theories i was having had any basis or was the early stages of schizophrenia... anyways. now I'm sure... And your right. This IS a cumulative case. And im pretty sure that I've found that three eyed pirate alien.
the kind of three eyed pirate that journeys to every island, connecting them, And leaving behind their treasures.
listen... take me seriously or not. but makers of this video, I've sincerely developed these theories through personal and social trial and arrived to the SAME conclusions as are in your videos, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ANY BACKGROUND CONTENT OR CONTEXT OF THE CONCEPTS... You say that rarely does ONE explain and account for all others. but a rarity, still happens....
all I'm asking for, is advice on what to do and where to go from here....... eye'll do anything..