Does God Exist A Philosophical Inquiry, Available Worldwide on Amazon mybook.to/doesGodexist The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part I" eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe1
Jesus said, “no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they are born again (from above). John chapter 3. Have you been born again? When were you born again? How do you know you have been born again? We all experience a physical birth (“that which is born of the flesh is flesh”), but the spirit in us is born “dead”, (Ephesians 2) due to the sin of Adam and Eve. To be saved we must experience a spiritual birth (“that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit”). It is a supernatural act of God Himself on a person who has been chosen “from the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1). Every sin ever committed must be paid for. Those who are given the free gift of repentance and faith will spend eternity in Heaven. Those who do not will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20) forever. Either Jesus paid for all you sins on the cross, or you will pay in Hell. That is the gospel as recorded in God’s inerrant, infallible, inspired bible. Believe it and be saved. Reject it and be lost.
@@PhilosophyVibe Thank you so much for your video, again! It really helped me with understanding the stimulus and applying the knowledge in the exam, got full marks on that one! Please keep on doing what you do and thank you once again!
Teleological Argument is based on the Non Sequitur Fallacy , suggesting that complexity and accuracy is a proof of an intelligent designer . , the argument's conclusion is not a necessary consequence . of the facts or statements presented
We only have evidence of creation by design. End of story. Anything else is literally contrary to everything you've ever experienced and sound probabilistic reasoning.
The main problem with the Multiverse theory (amongst others) is that to accept it is to also accept that all possible outcomes will eventually happen. Including a universe that is overseen by a God. It’s just as likely to occur as a universe with no God.
then the thing is everything he says about random is also following the the fundamental laws and this fundamental laws isn't random. So this "everything is random" argument is self defeating every single time
It's also computationally false. The universe is not old enough to generate the AGCT codes in DNA randomly to create multiple people. Not to mention it isn't old enough to type up Hamlet randomly yet, and Hamlet is much less complex. The universe could only have come about through non-random laws. Even the planets follow some order. That's why the big ones are all in round shapes and not in the shapes of cubes or pyramids.
Exactly, saving chance is the best explanation is an absurdity. We don't have the slightest evidence to say that there is an infinite time. This universe clearly had a beginning.
The infinite monkey theorem is utterly and complete nonsense. There's absolutely no way in infinity that a monkey randomly creates narrative, or 5 lines paragraph. Its the same as saying that someone can draw new york city in detail randomly with enough time given. A building, yes. Now detailed things, no.
You seem to think that the theory expresses that the monkeys learn the concept of narrative, but that's not the case. The theory is expressing that the monkeys are randomly pressing keys, and eventually the keys will just so happen to be the works of Shakespeare
Great discussion. I want to point out 3 things. 1st, I think not enough weight was given to the fine tuning argument, because strong and weak nuclear forces and the expansion rate of the universe are only two of the baffling precision-based facts that you have to face when discussing fine-tuning design vs. randomness of nature being the cause of life's existance. 2nd, it was almost seceded as a given that the multiverse - or infinite universe - is valid. That is speculation and takes just as much faith as saying "God did it." As far as we know and can agree on for the most part, the universe had a beginning. So there is a time limit. You don't get to use infinity until theoretical physics or string theory produces more evidence than they have thus far been able to for the multiverse. 3rd, the teleological argument is often used as a sidecar to the cosmological argument. It's very hard to separate the two, because when you look at the contingency of things, everything in nature has a cause, and if you follow the line of contingency all the way back to the starter of the chain reaction of events, you are forced to face the question, "Well, what caused this first thing to become a tightly-packed bundle of everything that is to come?"
I honestly agree with both of you. We show appreciation for our lives by giving credit to a God, believing there is a purpose for our existence. On the other hand, this is one big algorithm, and we happen to be in a stage where humans are capable of great achievements. What if God’s design is an algorithm? I want to take both of your arguments and make them one. Why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe there are some things that happen because of nature and others happen for a reason. Some things happen by chance, somethings don’t. But we will never really know which one is which so what’s the fucking point?
ur playing both sides, I mean God as a spiritual concept is fair enough everyone has the right to believe so. But studying nature and evolution and cross examining it under God and how he said he created the universe, well there isn't consistency,
@@johnny8660 how does the argument against the teleological argument require fewer assumptions? Genuinely interested. And how does it get around the need for God to have a creator? If the universe is so complex, and so needs a designer, wouldn't it stand to reason that a being capable of designing such complexity would be even more complex, and so also need a designer? How does the argument avoid an infinite regress of causes except by arbitrarily saying god does not need a cause - which is a massive assumption, as something without a cause has never been observed, and insisting God needs no cause would constitute special pleading?
@@samhunter1205 in response to if God needs a designer I’ll suggest 2 points: Firstly, You may be interested in Googling the argument of “divine simplicity”. I have not read the entire argument but it was quite interesting if nothing else. Secondly, in my own opinion, The assumption that God himself needs a creator is a larger assumption than the converse. An implication of theism is that God originates outside of our universe. To assume that He must adhere to the causal laws of our universe is in my opinion arbitrary. To Illustrate- after the founding fathers met to establish laws for the United States, was it necessary that what they did a week before was also lawful? Or is it necessary that other countries abide by these laws as well? True- our universe is causal by nature however this is due to the logical laws from the creator. I believe it’s arbitrary to assume that a being outside of our universe abide by the same laws.
@@Dilly9124 thanks, I will look up the divine simplicity argument. I can't say I find the idea of God existing outside our universe & its physical laws, and therefore not needing to follow causality, particularly convincing though. It still sounds a lot like a special pleading argument. What reason do we have to believe that anything exists outside of our universe and the laws of causality? And if you do claim that God exists in such a fashion, what prevents someone else from claiming that there is some naturalistic process that has those same qualities? In other words, even if you argue that it is somehow necessary for something to exist outside of space-time, in order to have created or produced the universe as we know it, how does it necessarily follow that that thing must be a conscious being?
@@samhunter1205 This is exactly the question! Is the extra-universal power that created our universe intelligent? A couple steps back though- The popular argument is that it is necessary for something to exist outside of our universe because our universe has a beginning (unless you believe in a cyclical universe but I don’t see much evidence for that). There was a point in our universe’s history where all matter and energy were in an infinitely small point(singularity). Because of this we cannot attributing our universe’s existence to it’s own natural laws. Therefore we argue that it must be the cause of a “higher power”. You’re right that, at this point we cannot say that the higher power was intelligent or that it was in itself some natural law. To indirectly or directly explain the “higher power” we have theories of intelligent design, evolution, cosmology and the authenticity of the Bible, Torah, Qua-ran etc. It’s usually by studying one of these we develop a worldview and the answer to the first question. I’d advocate strongly for the Bible’s exceptional historicity as the center of my personal arguments. However, theories of “intelligent design” have made some highly compelling cases regarding the origin of life and digital information in the DNA. A short documentary called “information enigma” highlights the case well.
The first question that arises for me is, with our contemporary understanding of the finity of the universe (i.e. that there is at least a beginning-the Big Bang) notwithstanding that the universe is vast, it seems unreasonable that a divine creator, given the attributions of unlimited ability and given the scale in both time and dimensions of the known universe would invest in only ONE planet and only ONE sentient species. Further, given that the divine creator has conferred on the ONE species the capricious capacity to eliminate not just other species (which presumably had a purpose beyond being expendable at our hand) but the entire ‘watch’. If the objective/purpose/telos of Earth was to be ended capriciously by the ONE sentient species in the universe, why would the creator (again considering the vastness of space and time) run only one such experiment. I can’t imagine a God whimsically creating such a complication as earth simply to see if the inhabitants it has created will destroy it. Given the age of the universe, the age of our galaxy, and the age or our planet, the tenancy of Homo sapiens is but a blink in time. The existence of Homo Sapiens is measured in hundreds of thousands of years while existence of earth is measured in tens of MILLIONS of years. So this one creation, if one is to believe divine creation, given the inclination to do so and alacrity with which it has done so, can only have as it’s sole purpose self-annihilation and the destruction of the planet and-presumably-the extinction of sentient life in the universe. Given the above, if creationists still assert the existence of a divine creator and if, indeed, it’s intention was for the one sentient species in the universe to extinguish itself within a few hundred thousand years-there being NO GREATER accomplishment than the capacity to end it’s existence and the time frame to reach this being imperceptibly short on the cosmic scale-they have to concede that the entire investment in man is of no-or immeasurably small-consequence to the creator or it’s intention, and therefore one should not concern themselves with it’s existence.
Soooooo, you don't think the choices of a theoretical being capable of creating an entire universe (the complexity, scope, and scale of which defy your ability to understand) make sense. And that's how you know it doesn't exist. Because, naturally, the choices of such a being would be obviously intuitive for someone like you. Like how you're just working on a unified theory of everything in your spare time.
negentropy is the second law of thermodynamics which means when heat is applied objects fall into order , this is the opposite of entropy ( chaos ) . So the scientific reason for so much order or the perception of design which we see on earth can easily be understood to be a result of this fundamental law. Disorder or chaos will only be seen in a system that lacks heat. I like to point out this is most likely why the amazon rainforest the biggest life filled forest in the world exist on the equator and not in Antarctica and remember temperature is a relative thing based on perspective so even tho Antarctica is cold to us, to the rest of the universe it is still very very very warm which is why life and order can still exist there. And thank you for coming to my ted talk lol sorry for bad grammar
The problem with the athiest model is that it's proven the universe has not been around long enough for the perfect world to randomly happen. The correct model for the universe is that it does have a beginning.
Sort of, the closer you get to the singularity, the less sense a concept of a "beginning" makes sense. Beginning implies linear progression with "befores" and "afters", but if Time and Space are one fabric, then when space began, so did time. That means "before" the Big Bang actually is a misunderstanding, It's not that there wasn't anything before it... rather, by definition there cant be.
The premise of the chance arguments rely on an infinite amount of time. Have we any information backing up the universe to be in existence for an infinite amount of time?
Yes ! Exactly ! There cant be an infinite amount of amount of time because the present would never have been reached ! His arguments are complete nonsense @
I love when skeptics bring up the multiverse theory to debate the telelogical arguments. Dude says "there's no evidence for a designer" and "weve seen someone design a watch, but not a universe" then gives merit to the multiverse, which there is also no evidence of and has never been, nor can be, observed. So he just swapped out one unobservable theory for another.
If the sun is much closer to the sun, the chances of our existence on earth will be out of question. Will that shift in sun's position somehow gave chance for other planets to develope life on them? I wonder.
The problem with the teleological argument is that there are so many other ways in which the universe could be configured that might have allowed for other equally if not more incredible life forms (just not necessarily our own). The insinuation that there is something uniquely special about our particular form of life that couldn't have been brought about any other way than by a God quickly evaporates when you think about it. Imagine you're a normal random person (which most people are), and imagine yourself going back in time 1 year and looking forward from that point over the next year that's about to happen. Now ask yourself, what is the likelihood that those exact series of events (which do in fact end up happening in your life) actually occur over the next year? It's incredibly small. And yes, I'm talking about every detail (the fact you woke up at 7:36 am on Jan 1, 8:03 am on Jan 2, etc). Does that make the fact that that exact series of events happened any more special? Basically, with the teleological argument, you're asymmetrically weighing "the infinite versions of a firey non-life-permitting hell" against a SINGLE "miraculous life-permitting outcome". You're just privileging the exact current configuration of the human lifeform and implying that no other lifeform could have possibly come about that would be miraculous enough to warrant an argument for God.
I don't think the teleological argument only asserts that human life proves the existence of God. Any complex, self-aware life-maybe any existence at all, although intelligence is necessary to appreciate arguments-would have teleological implications (probably some more than others). What's "special" is existence; even more special, ordered existence; even more special, conscious, intelligent existence. I would invert your "going back in time one year" analogy: you seem to be assuming that because we exist this way, therefore we had to exist this way, and there's nothing miraculous about it at all. But that's all from a position post facto; nothing had to be this particular way. The conceit of the anti-teleological view is that every one of the infinite possible configurations of reality will eventually exist, as if that kind of infinite creation itself doesn't point to an omnipotent Being. How could such an all-creating-infinity exist in the first place, supposedly out of nothing and through nothing and into nothing?
The fine tuning of the conditions on the planet is a completely different argument to the fine tuning of the universe. It is easy to imagine life could adapt to many different planetary atmospheres and conditions and we know there are a vast number of planets in the universe. However the argument of fine tuning is really about the fine tuning of the universe to allow for any complex structures whatsoever, a prerequisite for life of any kind. We also have evidence for only one universe. The fine tuning of the universe to allow for stability and complex structures is unfathomly unlikely in a sample size of the one universe we observe.
I would disagree that the planet fine tuning and universe fine tuning are different. Any argument that draws a distinction between the two can only be valid under very strict definitions of "purpose". I would argue that too much is placed on the premise that complexity is the product of purpose. To me, the acceptance that complexity is the product of "purpose" requires proof within itself. The Teleological argument seems to ascribe a "purpose" to any complex item. In doing so, I would argue that there is a disconnect between the purpose that a human might design something and the natural tendency for a complex item to "tune" itself according to the environment it finds itself, but also in accordance to natural laws of physics and chemistry. The origins of these natural laws of physics and chemistry would need to be proven to have come from a supreme being in a manner far more different from that offered by the Teleological Argument - if indeed it can be found. I love the explanation given by the guy on the left - great and detailed explanation!
@@df4250 Actually the distinction is not reliant on any definition of purpose or based on the premise that complexity means purpose. The argument is based on the observed precise values of many fundamental universal variables despite the incredible range of possible values for these variables and the sample size of one universe. This is different from life which has the opportunity to adapt and evolve to whatever conditions here on earth.
@@Allthewayhome781 I introduced "purpose" only as part of a teleological perspective. Personally, introducing "purpose" automatically introduces a metaphysical aspect to the discussion, which I have a tendency to stay away from. I don't see the universe itself, devoid of any supreme Maker, worrying itself about "purpose". To me, "purpose is an anthropomorphic concept. Your use of the term "fine tuning" can also be construed as a reference to the metaphysical, since "someone" normally performs the tuning. Are you arguing that fine tuning the precise "values" of the universal constants such that the complexity (like life itself, let alone the cosmic complexities of the universe) that occurs is the result of a supernatural being because you consider such fine tuning as highly unlikely and therefore must've been brought about by a "God"?
@@df4250 The fine tuning is an observation that requires explanation. Considering we have a sample size of one universe, the level of precision involved in these universal constants certainly implies design. Beyond that observation I would be speculating.
@@Allthewayhome781 Why does it imply design? Is it to funnel the thinking process into an acknowledgement of a Designer? What's your syllogistic premises?
I have a problem with the argument that infinite time + random chance = life as we know it. Even from the evolutionary perspective, the existence of some life-form must precede the more-evolved version of it. But what did the first living organism come from? An infinite combination of non-living things over time? Where did the non-living things come from? Time itself? Then what did time come from? Even in your Shakespeare example, three things must first exist in order to end up with the book: monkeys, typewriters, and time. It all boils down to the fact that "nothing" cannot produce "something." To argue otherwise would require your definition of "nothing" to include time, chance, and/or objects for the time and chance to act upon. But there isn't anything inside of nothing.
Nothing as a starting platform is absolutely illogic. Matter can not be created or destroyed; even before the big bag there was matter in any other form yet to be discovered (dark matter or antimatter maybe) on top of this, matter from the atomic level to molecules do not behave randomly. They are attracted to some and not to others to form something else.
Those are really good points. However, maybe our limited capacities of a finite being makes it impossible for us to understand how something can emerge out of nothing?
This is helping me with a part of Ilia Delio’s book “Christ In Evolution” which seems to require frequent looks into a theological/philosophical dictionary.
I find studying teleological ideas interesting not so much for the argument of god that comes from it but so systems can be created and work with some ease. Great study for becoming a businessman of all things. I keep on thinking that I will leave philosophy when I have a decent explanation for a teleological structure but I'm not so sure that I can give a sufficient account. Can you ever get out?
Thank you so much guys for such a detailed explanation on this topic. This is so informative and I was finding this type of stuff for my exam's preparation. really grateful for this ❤️
Many of Hume's objections to cosmological and teleological argument can be refuted. Objection (1) :"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues) Responses: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (2) :"[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues) Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (3) :"But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain." (Dialogues) Response: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") Objection (4) :"In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts." (Dialogues) Response: "Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go, there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots. But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there being any robots at all? That question has not been answered. In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings. " (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")
Something so find problematic as anything having a Telos is that goals are functions of human consciousness not properties of objects. Yet this argument acts as if goals are present in objects aside from human consciousness.
Fascinating video guys! I'd always known there were problems with the teleological argument, but this really laid many out in a very compelling fashion. I will say though that it feels very, very one-sided. Perhaps the teleological argument really is that broken and its good to highlight its flaws, but I can't help but feel the video's position was too stacked against it? Just a thought!
The argument which states a cruel world implies that natural deaths are cruel if so a person dying from aging would be considered cruel event since its also a natural death. You can't blame nature(the design) or the designer when a city is flooded and many people die ,after you have built a city on the sea shore. Your design also includes cognition and using that you should design your cities away from danger. That's why a bird builds her nest on top of a tree not next to the ocean. And as too animals eating each other for sustenance, how is it cruel if the purpose for that is maintaining balance and sustaining a lasting life of the species. Would life be a reality without death. The duality of concepts is how we are designed a design that's living and heading to perfection. Just like a seed that grows into a tree. The universe is also a seed that's growing into perfection and humans are made self conscious so they could achieve perfection through the knowledge of the designer.
@@ethiopianshotel9367 Except, as they state, the designer is not a human. The designer is, in this context, a perfect being. It does not make mistakes that would lead nature(its creation) to act unjustly or unnecessarily cruel to achieve your supposed perfection(despite the creator completely able to achieve this from the get go). The creator, a perfect being, creates the universe with full intent and knowledge of what is to come. That includes all the terrors, horrors and painful lives rooted in nature's core mechanisms for survival. There is no reason for a creator with the intent of achieving perfection, to make a universe with imperfection, with a goal to head to perfection, when he can achieve it from the start. Of course I can blame the design on the designer. If a designer creates a terrible building that collapses and kills hundreds, I will blame them for their incompetence in its creation. Your examples are cherry-picked, meaning they omit the multitude and infinite amount of times tradegy has struck without any purpose or reason but simply bad luck. What purpose is given((don't build cities near shores when you know they can flood(terrible analogy given that's not how it works)) is more an excuse than reason for chance. You can say the millions of children who died as infants due to lack of medical care serves to improve our systems, or that the reason we die from old age is just because it paves a way for the new. In the end these are simply excuses, given they could have been avoided from the start if there was an intentional design and creator to the mess that is our world.
You are misunderstanding Aquinas fifth way. Aquinas Is not arguing that world is perfectly designed for humans or intelligent life, neither for life in general, but rather is arguing that the order of the world cannot be result of caos or chance for the obvious reason that caos means disorder and trying to explain order with disorder is either contradictory or circular since the very definition of caos presuppose order. Darwinian or any other scientific explanations can't do anything against the teleological argument because they presuppose what need to be explained: the intelligibility of the world.
Many modern philosophers have rejected Hume's critique of religion.For example: "The next argument which we meet in the Dialogues is that the postulated existence of a rational agent who produces the order of the world would itself need explaining. Picturing such an agent as a mind, and a mind as an arrangement of ideas, Hume phrases the objection as follows: "a mental world or Universe of ideas requires a cause as much as does a material world or Universe of objects." Hume himself provides the obvious answer to this-that it is no objection to explaining X by Y that we cannot explain Y. But then he suggests that the Y, in this case the mind, is just as mysterious as the ordered Universe. Men never "thought it satisfactory to explain a particular effect by a particular cause which was no more to be accounted for than the effect itself." On the contrary, scientists have always thought it reasonable to postulate entities merely to explain effects, so long as the postulated entities accounted simply and coherently for the characteristics of the effects. The existence of molecules with their characteristic behavior was "no more to be accounted for" than observable phenomena, but the postulation of their existence gave a neat and simple explanation of a whole host of chemical and physical phenomena, and that was the justification for postulating their existence. " (Richard Swinburne "Argument From Design")
I was under the impression that an infinite amount of time cannot exist because there is a now. If the universe was infinitely old how many moments have their been up until now? If there were infinite moments before now then now represents the end of infinity and that doesn’t make sense. The fact that their is a now means there had to be a beginning. You cannot pass infinity to get to today or add to it to make it bigger... would love to hear your thoughts?
the main point of the one on the left was that the world is a harsh place and a good God wouldn't make this however the one on the right failed to say that it is because of the fall and mans sin
@@w1z4rd9 General Relativity doesn't imply infinite regress whatsoever. In fact modern studies show the universe had a point of begining. Infinite regress and multiple universes are hypothesis not taken very seriously.
Great video, and I would like to add that even though I understand these arguments are arguments from reason and not from biblical authority, it's worthy to add that the bible, which correlates and agrees with these arguments from design, has an answer to the problem of faults being present in the design of the universe. Problems of evil, suffering and such. It goes on to explain in the book of Genesis about the creation of the universe and it's origin which by the way "was good" (or perfectly designed) but then in chapter 3 it describes a great fall which brought disorder into God's perfect design, and so this is why we see such problems intermingled with such complexity.
"it describes a great fall which brought disorder into God's perfect design" - but god, being all-knowing would have known this from the very onset and being all-powerful, would have been able to create a universe without disorder.
@@lewis72 yes true, but maybe God had sufficient moral reasoning for creating this world instead of a world "without disorder." God being morally excellent would most likely do just that.
Whether I want a god to exist has no bearing on whether one actually exists or not. Havinga. god that has all the characteristics of one that doesn't exist would suggest that one doesn't exist.
1:10^10^123 The argument for that the universe came about as it is by chance goes out the window cause of this number showing the probability of the level of entropy existing during singularity.
The watch isn't designed as is. I mean it is slowly realized over centuries maybe millenniums of time keeping tools starting with observation of the shadows. Then the sun dial. A watch is designed in terms of size and style and quality. The idea of time keeping is not invented every time.
Really nice video liked it really well explained arguments and I think I can add something little. No 1. God didn't create a cruel universe the devil does all evil then makes man blame it on God. God's law is perfect love and the devil's will is the opposite. 2. If man really did evolve doesn't it mean that we would have grown immune to diseases and the dangerous effects of alcohol alcohol after thousands of years of exposure to them?
As we evolve to become resistant to certain diseases, the diseases themselves evolve to overcome our resistances, creating this cycle of evolution, at least, that's my understanding of it. Also, regarding the evolution of resistance against alcohol, when looking through the 1000 Genomes Project, 2 researchers had begun to found an enzyme that actually makes it even *more difficult* for humans to drink - meaning rather than evolving a resistance to alcohol, perhaps our body is evolving to be able to punish us further for the consumption of alcohol, due to the negative effects of it. As well as this, evolution is quite a slow process, and so we can't expect everything to happen straight away haha, but I hope this explains it, although, I'll say it again, I may be wrong. :)
@@fury8413 our bodies are mutating to punish us further for the consumption of alcohol 😂. I've never really thought about it that way. I agree with you there 👌
as for the second argument I can refer you to 2 books that I know of that have the answer to that argument. The Ellen G. White's great controversy and partriachs and prophets download the from the links below egwwritings-a.akamaihd.net/pdf/en_GC.pdf And egwwritings-a.akamaihd.net/pdf/en_PP.pdf
Interesting how the first person is making a reasoned argument based off of epistemological and in fact more naturalist ideas than the very person that thinks it is simply random chaos. I mean, just look at all the presuppositions of the second argument. 1) Believes that there are infinite random universes constantly coming in and out of existence when no evidence for such a thing actually exists. Nor can it even be inferred from the state of our constantly expanding universe. 2) Believes that randomness and chaos can actually produce something like Shakespeare when in reality no, the Monkeys would not be able to produce Shakespeare in any given amount of time because they will always hit random keys. Randomness does not ultimately fall into order. You can throw the parts of a watch at each other all you want, infinite amounts of times, it will not magically become a watch if you do it enough. The Universe can't just be chanced upon by a monkey, but even then there's the idea that there was a monkey, to begin with. Where the argument is really "if you left the typewriter alone for enough time it will produce Shakespear's complete works". Overall the second argument is actually more "mystical" then the argument for intelligent design. Because not only does it use information that we don't know/cannot know, it uses information that is actually fabricated and appealing to authority that well, doesn't have any authority over anything.
The absolutely dogmatic assertion that the complete works of Shakespeare WOULD just randomly happen, with absolutely no supporting evidence or examples of anything similar ever observably happening was driving me NUTS! Thanks for this comment!
Just look at how many random events needed to align for you to exist to write that comment. You needed many hundreds of thousands of consecutive successful offspring of your ancestors in order for you to be here. What were the chances of each line of you ancestral parents meeting and having offspring that would lead to you ? Go all the way back to the first instances of life on this planet and the chances of you existing right now are infinitesimally small.
I’m not religious myself but I feel that there are phenomena that we won’t be able to explain scientifically before we cease to exist as a species. I’ve been contemplating this for days and somehow found myself content with the possibility that Mother Nature is just Gods wife and the earth is her she-shed, her passion project. But the two must also play within the rules of science and physics and anything “created” by them are only able to exist because science allows it to. (In other words, no miracles allowed.) It probably sounds silly but for this exercise I’ve been assigned in my philosophy course, I like it.
@@mralfie4078Small scale change adaptions etc yes Going from a single cell to ALL complex life. NO it has not been "proven". Only scientific assumption upon assumption. Over millions of years this and then millions that. No evidence for abiogenesis. Even IF I grant you a single cell replicator. What order of magnitude of positive random mutations would you need. How much time would you need for time? Proto chicken or the proto egg!!!???
Here's a mystery. I don't think God would explain the following, but here goes. In any area with vegetation and soil and loam, how come when you dig a little bit, you always find a few small rocks in any given spot. How come previous generations of decayed vegetation which turned into soul didn't completely bury those particular rocks, and instead they're up near the surface, and sometimes right on the surface of the soil. What kept those rocks from being totally subsumed by organic soil.
I'm seeing and issue from the second counter-argument. The first counter-argument argument is that the watch analogy applies human logic and functioning to a being above a human. Ironically, something similar can be said for the second counter-argument. We're perceiving nature in a human way: it is violent and horrible. But what if it's seen in a super-human way? ETA: How do we know that infinite time + chance = guarantee? Couldn't that also guarantee a creator? Jk, but really: the first counter-argument also says that the creation of a watch is observable, but not the creation of the universe, so how do we truly know that the universe has been intelligently designed if we've never observed such designing? Same thing with the time + chance = guarantee thing, how can we know that that's the case?
Well, the violent, from a God perspective is somewhat expected. The contrary is perfection, How boring the universe and how dull we would be. We would lack any and all depth in our perception. I would look more at the trivial and arbitrary. But Yes, A chaotic operator of the God powers within infinite time could yield a sentient creator. (Could be us eventually? Lol) But It's a logic based argument; infinite monkey theorem- It uses a monkey, but a monkey isn't a true random. So imagine a computer typing completely random keys.., within a few hours you may get a word, a day a few words, a century a few sentences, but within an eternity, all possible combinations will be produced because of the eternity. This doesn't need to be witnessed. We're also completely playing with our imagination here, and chance vs God is a false dichotomy.
It is common knowledge that chance cannot act on nothing. Think of it this way: if an empty glass is on a table with no interference what so ever, what would be the chance of it filling up with coke? However many times you ‘roll the dice’ it will never fill up as the chance has nothing to act on. In the same way, something has no chance of coming from nothing.
It’s non-intuitive to understand that all this complexity is just natural and no intervention of any being is required, it’s much much simpler and easier for humans to believe that some being did it magically, especially when we are indoctrinated to believe from a very early age by our parents, teachers, leaders, elders practically everyone. And if we don’t conform to our parents religions then we can be shunned, disowned and possibly harmed. originally from Karachi Pakistan and Teer Haripur Hazaara, now ex-Muslim Atheist ., ,
When science's only answer is chance, science loses all integrity. Practise what you preach and make science mere chance- no method, no proposition, no goal. Science would become nonsense.
another ignorant religious idiot I swear can you prove god exists and prove his even a maximally great being when him being omnipotent is literally contradictory?
When people talk about reconciling science and religion, that is only an issue with people who have preconceived ideas, but scientists cannot/should-not have preconceived ideas they must believe the evidence. All scientific models must conform to NATURE or REALITY, If there is any tiny evidence for some unnatural forces then they must include that in their paper and account for it. originally from Karachi Pakistan and Teer Haripur Hazaara, now ex-Muslim Atheist ., ,
To use a multiverse as an explanation for our world and the reality we live in requires FAR more faith than a belief in God. There is zero evidence of a multiverse. Zero. We DO know there was a big bang that started this “clock” and this universe. So there were not infinite iterations, just the one we know of. It amazes me how “rational thinkers” will jump at any crazy belief as long as it doesn’t involve God. Speaking if Shakespeare, me thinks thou dost protest too much…
Infinite time, just an absurd statement. If time was Infinite then that will imply that the past is also Infinite, it just continues to stretch back Infinitely therefore you cannot ever get to today nor tomorrow. When you start a race, the only reason you can get to the middle of the track and eventually to the end is because there is a starting point, it's the same with time. If time was Infinite and had no starting point then that means you can never get to the present nor future because the past stretches back Infinitely.
I think one of the largest killers of the teleological argument is that we can, and do, infer design from things that are _not_ complex, and for which we cannot infer a purpose. Were you to find a very straight piece of carved wood broken at both ends in a forest, what you would have is one piece of wood surrounded by more wood, and yet without missing a beat you can tell it was designed. You could _guess_ at a purpose, but there's really no way to suggest you'd be right or even close, and a straight piece of wood is _not_ complex _at all,_ so it can't be those things that are tipping you off to the fact of its design. Instead, you've inferred design because wood does not form that way _in nature,_ and yet by appealing to nature as the point of contrast one is instinctively referring to nature as "not designed". More than this, if nature _is_ designed, then one loses contrast used to decide the carved stick was designed in the first place. In fact this very contrast can even _fool_ us, when nature makes unusual features that are _extremely_ uncommon but _rememble_ structures that we know are human-made, leading us to think they are designed instead of natural until we investigate further.
+Philosophy Vibe Uhh... sure? I mean... it's not like it's _my_ argument. Not sure where I got the basics (of the contrast issue), though likely from Matt Dillahunty of The Atheist Experience show. All I did was adapt it a bit adding in the broken bit of carved wood in a forest.
@@robindude8187 WHat completely dismantles your argument is that there are consistent patterns in nature, nature is not constrained, but determined, there's a difference. A photon being constrained in its behavior, by say, violating its cosmic speed limit when it can is different than saying that by its very nature the photon is immutable in the way it operates, meaning it would be a violation of its nature to violate this immutable logic that is embedded within it. The equations that govern the quantum to the cosmic are, or at least must be assumed to be absolute. This gives rise to the large scale structures of the Cosmos. You'll never see in nature anomalies, that violate this structure. There are galaxies, with a specific shape and angular momentum, stars, always spherical and there are limits to the size of both planets and stars due to thermodynamics. THis means the structures are a priori in nature, not the product of random events since they only could have been that way. You'll never see a square sun or a triangular shaped galaxy. Same goes for planets. This uniformity can only be accounted for the laws of logic, since the laws of logic couldn't have been otherwise as they are symbiotic in their relationship of the causal structure of the Universe, or at least, the immutability and therefore predictability in patterns. This is in fact what the teleological argument really says. Once you get down to the complexity of life, its asinine not to use teleological language to describe life. In fact, there's a whole emerging field of biological information technology. Not to mention the now revolutionary discoveries being made in evolutionary biology which clearly is struggling taking into account the new developments in ecological niches, biochemistry, molecular biology, epignetics and of course developmental biology. Life is like a machine, and new discoveries in the field of th evolution of forms suggest that teleology is built into biological systems. This is of course complementary to the fine tuning of the Universe for life. By design (not saying it was deisgned, just becuse of the laws of nature), there's more carbon, oxygen and hydrogen than other elements, due to the stability of carbon, but also because of how stars operate intrinsically. This is the stuff of life. There's no point in saying life could have been otherwise without engaging in pure philosophical speculation as the arguments for the existence of God. DNA based life form is all there exists as far as we know, and its information based. It has been said that life is a cosmic imperative. I think this is also true. This would make the teleological argumeent infintely more stronger. If you want more informatiion on this, research the topics I mentioned, also look up the extended evolutionary synthesis.
@@lololauren55 *The equations that govern the quantum to the cosmic are, or at least must be assumed to be absolute.* That would be because the equations are _descriptions_ of what happens. It isn't that mathematics controls anything, it's that we can use mathematics to describe the way things behave. The more complex the behavior, the more complex the mathematics needed to describe it. You could say the same thing of words being used to describe something. This does not mean that the word description 'controls' the thing it describes, or in any way dictates what it is, how it operates, and so on. *THis means the structures are a priori in nature, not the product of random events since they only could have been that way.* Not really. It just means that emergent phenomena can occur. A 'random event' is simply one that we are unable to predict in advance, not that it happens with no pattern. Langton's Ant is unpredictable but deterministic. To say the road structure it produces is 'a priori' in the two instructions that make it up seems... silly. *the laws of logic couldn't have been otherwise as they are symbiotic in their relationship of the causal structure of the Universe,* No, they couldn't have been otherwise because they simply couldn't. It would be impossible for something to exist which does not follow the logical absolutes. They can't be proven, they are what we use to prove everything else. *Life is like a machine, and new discoveries in the field of th evolution of forms suggest that teleology is built into biological systems.* Um? Yes? That's been basically true since the idea of evolution was considered. The teleology (description by purpose) is what we mean of a system that it provides an advantage to survival. This does not require an intelligence to control it. The whole point of evolution was a demonstration that 'purpose' could develop without an intelligence to cause it. *This is of course complementary to the fine tuning of the Universe for life.* Save that it really isn't fine tuned for life. It's as much fine tuned for black holes as it is for life. Almost all of the universe is entirely unfit for life. Even the vast majority of our _planet_ is unfit for life. *there's more carbon, oxygen and hydrogen than other elements,* How about helium? Second most common substance in the universe. Not required by life as we know it. *There's no point in saying life could have been otherwise* Which I didn't say. As you say, it _would_ be pure speculation to say it could form another way, just like the idea of fine-tuning is about speculating that things might be different than they are. *DNA based life form is all there exists as far as we know, and its information based.* 'Information' is fairly fuzzily defined. DNA is still chemical, *It has been said that life is a cosmic imperative.* I'm sure it has. We find the precursors to biological chemistry all over the place. Whether it is or isn't has not been tested as of yet. I don't see a reason to accept it is an 'imperative' so much as it is a natural progression of increasing complexity and self-organization that seems to be a part of any interacting system. *also look up the extended evolutionary synthesis.* It's a nifty discussion. Some say it's unnecessary, others say it doesn't go far enough. Like everything else in the frontiers of science, there's a lot of discussion and debate, but not a lot of certainty. Right now it's all conjecture. Maybe the extended synthesis is right, maybe it's not, maybe it doesn't go far enough.
That wasn't the implication of the argument tho ! Theists make the claim that our world is too perfect to be the product of random chance. When we say that our world is far from perfect , The push back here is against the claim that our world is perfect in the first place not the idea that there could be a designer.
@@MiidoKinGs No one in the history of the Earth has ever said this is a perfect world. especially religious people. We're saying that the fine tuning (not perfection) of the universe is only explained by God. *Nothing* cannot produce or design anything.
@@BerishaFatian how can nothing produce god then ? How r u explaining something that's unknown to us with something that's even more unknown ? That's nothing but God of the gaps.
@@MiidoKinGs God wasn't produced, he's eternal (no beginning, no end). The fine tuning is a fact. The problem is atheists claim that nothing and no one designed the universe, which is illogical.
@@BerishaFatian Which atheist say that the world came from nothing and futher more nothing can design a universe ? Bit of a strawman dont u think. Besides, u claiming that god is eternal changes nothing. It's a make believe and wishful thinking which has nothing to do with facts. Ur claims are unfalsifiable and untestable therefore u could claim whatever u want and as long as u provide 0 evidence for ur outragious claims I can safely dismiss them with 0 effort. Funny how u rely on logic to say that the world need to have something that caused it but when u reach ur god u decide to throw logic out the window to preforme a special pleading fallacie and exempt ur god from the same methodology u used against the universe. Same way I could claim that a pink dragon created god who inturn created the universe and as long as I say it's eternal and wasnt caused by anything u will have to just believe me ?
After billion and biliion universe exists,then come out one that is suitable for human life.. Does that proof that our universe is special designed universe by our GOD? if universe like ours, earth like ours can exists by random, why our planet earth are the one and only planet out of bilion of billion or triliion or infinite number of universe that has life on it and can support life?
Dude with the raspy voice is rather fallacious in his own understanding of statistical contemplation. Under that attempt to avoid a fact, you can void any other basis for reasoning. To try to deny the argument the first guy laid telos argument the first character laid out would fundamentally discredit the existence of reason based of conclusion from observations. Under that fallacy I can say that any fact is untrue simply because there’s an infinite amount of time (who created that btw, everything exists for the sake of some good as Aristotle himself says in Nicomachean Ethics and Politics,) you could “prove” any substantial fact incorrect on the basis that chance could’ve dictated everything. IE, cigarettes don’t cause cancer, and they don’t cause cancer because there’s a chance statistically speaking that all of those trials were statistically inept since the world is infinitely complex. I can’t quite remember how to spell his name, Ocamm I think it is, with the famous logical razor. I can look at that statistical p-value of 86328trillion E-19853575, and say that that truth isn’t true because it’s infinite in philosophic contemplation, but that’s absurd. The simplest conclusion is to follow the statistical reasoning, or else reason in the human mind can not itself fundamentally exist. These are just my philosophic observations on the spot, please critique any holes you see in the reasoning. I believe it a rather tight defense as of now though.
That a fallacy to assume human are not created under the imagine of God. Furthermore we only have 1 known universe so we can't make a hypothesis on a mutple universe.
The laws of physics form matter into increasing complex structures over time, that's why there's something and not nothing. Evolution by natrual section forms and adapts life into all the different lifeforms we can obverse, that's why there's life and different lifeforms instead of no lifeforms at all. We are like ice in a hole; it appears the ice was designed to fit into the hole, but in actuality it's natually occurring via the laws of physics and only has the illusion of design.
Arguments against the teleological argument seem very weak to me especially against the fine tuning of the universe and the design aspect of life (the DNA molecule for example). These arguments against seem a bit like "gap of science" arguments (if we could just have a way of proving parallel universes, or if we just had trillions of years, etc.)
Both arguments are pretty strongly worded and put together, although I do have an issue with the argument regarding the universe of chaos, disaster, and evil. I don’t think the embodiment of cruelty and chaos within our universe is contradictory to the existence of God. Yes, nature is cruel and horrific things do happen, even to good people, but it isn’t sustainable to say that these disastrous occurrences are contradictory to Gods omnibenevolence or omnipotence. If you claim that God allowing these things to happen is contradictory to the existence of God, then technically you’re arguing against free will. The forces that hold the universe together are applicable to how humans interact with each other and humans having the conscious will to make choices. Unfortunately, those choices are embodied with the possibility of choosing to do evil things. God cannot make our choices for us, he won’t. So if you say that evil choices from people or disasters existing in the universe furthers the idea that a God does not exist, then you have to accept that it is fundamentally true that free will is not derived from mortal creatures. Because with that logical predication, if you say that God _were_ to exist, then people and creatures would not have the free will to make choices as they please, which would be an all-good world. An all-powerful God can create something so intrinsically designed, though our conscious interpretation of what is good and evil should not be used as a predication to determine the existence of God. Hope this makes sense.
I suppose it doesn’t have to be about arguing against free will, more that God should intervene and stop people from doing things (like how we might incapacitate someone who is about to harm someone else). I don’t think arguing that “allowing people to carry out evil is contradictory to God’s existence” needs to comment on free will.
We know we're star material, everything is. The BBC in England conducted an experiment in the science series "Horizon" some years ago using the microwave background radiation in which two points on it were the corners of a triangle and the Earth the third. If the triangle were Euclidean, the Universe would have bounds. If flat, unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time. Result was indeed a flat triangle. Meaning it did not begin and has no edge. Given that we are made in the stars, a scenario arises with the universe being an organism creating life could be regarded as God perhaps. It's a scenario l grapple with because in the end l think there's no understanding possible. An eminent scientist once said the Universe isn't as strange as we can imagine but it is far stranger.
Thanks for posting both sides of the debate in intelligible and unbiased way. Great explanation with arguments and counter arguments for both sides. I appreciate the respectful way you approached this topic.
Another great video. An additional critique of the teleological argument is that it does not isolate one God, so even if one agrees with the argument it does not specify which God, and that is an issue as well.
I try to avoid this point. Most arguments for the existence dont lead to a specific god. Theists will just argue that first you need to prove there is a god, and then you can start to narrow down the god you believe in after that. So its strawmanning them in a way, they arent claiming you can get to a specific god with this. But if they know there is a god for sure, then they should figure out which one from there. How someone thinks any of the arguements for god actually get to any belief in any god is a different story.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ibNot only is that an argument from analogy, but it's not a concept we observe in nature. Also the analogy is busted. It shows agency and creation. Are the monkeys eternal? Cause there is 0% chance that any number of monkeys can create shakespear in the lifetime of a monkey.
interesting concepts. Thanks for the video, although something I don't really understand. Let's assume monkeys are lucky -> and they manage to write 1 page of any infamous book within 1 milliard of monkeys. A few questions from here: - where are the pages written which are 10/20/50/99% almost accurate? - where are the 10/20/50/99% monkeys who almost built the typing machine? - what about the 10/20/50/99% monkeys who tried to learn writing? - what about the 10/20/50/99% monkeys who tried growing fingers and almost succeeded? to unlimited numbers of tries in milliards and milliards of unsuccessful "attempts" should logically produce a lot more "error" than "success". Why don't we observe that most things around us are largely failures? curious to hear your point . CN
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. No, I don't see it either. I believe the point you had made was that you thought that most things in the universe were failures when it comes to supporting, instead of being hostile, to life, which implied that the universe must not be designed or that the universe answered the threads question on why we don't observe that most things around us are largely failures. My response was that you would have to demonstrate that the hostile places in the universe weren't necessary for the habitable places to exist before you could call the hostile places failures. If those qualities are necessary then they aren't failures even if they are hostile environments.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib first of all can it be proven that 99% of all species that ever existed has become extinct? I want to see the science on that. How did we observe such a thing. Are there really that many fossils to show that what is here now only accounts for 1% of species ever? Even so, through every natural disaster, deadly virus..etc life is still sustained on earth. You didn't account for medicine, the fact that our bodies can heal from broken bones, our capacity to adapt to our environment, the fact that we didn't have to invent oxygen, food or water, the earth has plenty of it and we can't survive without it, the fact the earth grows food and medicine, the capacity to learn so we can create shelter, our capacity to procreate in order to sustain life on earth the fact that we have eyes to see and light so we can see what we're doing..the list goes on and on in favor of life. Why force a terrible narrative. You have to woefully ignore everthing you value about life to come to your conclusion my friend.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib _No, I would not have to demonstrate such. My response was to the specific claims made by the original post._ My comment wasn't meant to imply that you made a claim. When you say 99.9% of the universe isn't fine tuned for life and use that as an argument against fine tuning, you are missing the point, that I was making, that the hostile spaces might be necessary for the habitable places to exist. Whether or not you want to strengthen your position or not is up to you but its a rather weak argument until you, or someone else, can demonstrate that the hostile areas are not necessary for the existence of the habitable areas. A Rocket to the moon is at least 75% combustible liquid and very dangerous for life but it is necessary to protect the lives of the men traveling to the moon because of it. We wouldn't rule out design because of the percentages. I am also curious where this 99% of all species on earth have gone extinct comes from. The comment seems to ignore that no one is arguing that the universe was fine tuned for Utopia.
I have to disagree with idea that wastefullness or even worse human suffering are valid arguments against the existence of form god since the first is made with incomplete knowledge and seconds projects human notions.
@@215vibe2 If the universe never began then it existed for an infinite amount of time, meaning that it's past is infinite. If it has an infinite past then it wouldn't work logicaly because try to count from minus infinity to 0. 0 being the present and -1 represents every year the universe has been around because the universe is infinite it has infinite years in its past. Because this is impossible, logicaly the universe must have a begining. Tell me if I missed anything or if something needs clarification.
Does God Exist A Philosophical Inquiry, Available Worldwide on Amazon
mybook.to/doesGodexist
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part I" eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe1
the universe is only 14 billion years old. Not "infinite" as the skeptic claims. God made everything for a purpose. Read the bible.
Jesus said, “no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they are born again (from above). John chapter 3.
Have you been born again?
When were you born again?
How do you know you have been born again?
We all experience a physical birth (“that which is born of the flesh is flesh”), but the spirit
in us is born “dead”, (Ephesians 2) due to the sin of Adam and Eve. To be saved we must experience a spiritual birth (“that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit”). It is a supernatural act of God Himself on a person who has been chosen “from the foundation of the world”
(Ephesians 1).
Every sin ever committed must be paid for.
Those who are given the free gift of repentance and faith will spend eternity in Heaven.
Those who do not will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20) forever.
Either Jesus paid for all you sins on the cross, or you will pay in Hell.
That is the gospel as recorded in God’s inerrant, infallible, inspired bible.
Believe it and be saved. Reject it and be lost.
amen
@Eric Toro he was nut case cuz he was an athiest?
@@pastorpeteonthestreet3112 no the skeptics don't claim the universe to be infinite they claim it's 13.8 billion years old as science says
Thank you guys! This video really helped me with my philosophy essay, you've explained it in a very nuanced but simple way, awesome work!!
Thank you very much, glad this helped you. Best of luck in the essay.
@@PhilosophyVibe Thank you so much for your video, again! It really helped me with understanding the stimulus and applying the knowledge in the exam, got full marks on that one! Please keep on doing what you do and thank you once again!
Well that's not that difficult wikipedia wrote all of those
Please never stop uploading your videos is so helpful and easy to understand
Thank you!!!
this is litterally carrying my understanding of philosophy class thank you so much
You're welcome, glad we could help.
Why is the coffee maker on the bottom shelf in a cartoon about how well laid out things are?
They make a child make their coffee for them?😅
Teleologically, that must have a purpose.
@@tanyacarbajal3597 Or a midget 🤣
pretty obvious strawman.
Teleological Argument is based on the Non Sequitur Fallacy , suggesting that complexity and accuracy is a proof of an intelligent designer . , the argument's conclusion is not a necessary consequence . of the facts or statements presented
You're wrong
@@swampy1234care to explain?
We only have evidence of creation by design. End of story. Anything else is literally contrary to everything you've ever experienced and sound probabilistic reasoning.
@@swampy1234 What? What is this evidence??
The counter argument is literally baseless in regards to justification. There is no epistemological justification for chaotic Darwinism
The arguments were very well explained. Congratulations!
Thank you 😀
The main problem with the Multiverse theory (amongst others) is that to accept it is to also accept that all possible outcomes will eventually happen. Including a universe that is overseen by a God. It’s just as likely to occur as a universe with no God.
wouldn't that mean that God would be created by chance and time?
Always great vids. Keep it up! Ur one of if not the best philosophical channel on RUclips
+xXCoolCatXx Loved reading this. Thank you!
Yes, absolutely. It's crazy you don't have a hell of a lot more subscribers/views!
then the thing is everything he says about random is also following the the fundamental laws and this fundamental laws isn't random. So this "everything is random" argument is self defeating every single time
It's also computationally false. The universe is not old enough to generate the AGCT codes in DNA randomly to create multiple people. Not to mention it isn't old enough to type up Hamlet randomly yet, and Hamlet is much less complex. The universe could only have come about through non-random laws. Even the planets follow some order. That's why the big ones are all in round shapes and not in the shapes of cubes or pyramids.
Exactly, saving chance is the best explanation is an absurdity. We don't have the slightest evidence to say that there is an infinite time. This universe clearly had a beginning.
thank you fot this video, if only irl philosphy debates were this civil...
A pleasure, thank you for watching!
The infinite monkey theorem is utterly and complete nonsense. There's absolutely no way in infinity that a monkey randomly creates narrative, or 5 lines paragraph. Its the same as saying that someone can draw new york city in detail randomly with enough time given. A building, yes. Now detailed things, no.
The calculations show it would take MUCH longer than 13 billion years. MUCH MUCH longer.
@@theboombody 9 heat deaths of the universe to be percise I think
You seem to think that the theory expresses that the monkeys learn the concept of narrative, but that's not the case. The theory is expressing that the monkeys are randomly pressing keys, and eventually the keys will just so happen to be the works of Shakespeare
Oh my god this just saved so much of my time and actually made me understand so much the first timeeee!
Glad we could help :D
Great discussion. I want to point out 3 things.
1st, I think not enough weight was given to the fine tuning argument, because strong and weak nuclear forces and the expansion rate of the universe are only two of the baffling precision-based facts that you have to face when discussing fine-tuning design vs. randomness of nature being the cause of life's existance.
2nd, it was almost seceded as a given that the multiverse - or infinite universe - is valid. That is speculation and takes just as much faith as saying "God did it." As far as we know and can agree on for the most part, the universe had a beginning. So there is a time limit. You don't get to use infinity until theoretical physics or string theory produces more evidence than they have thus far been able to for the multiverse.
3rd, the teleological argument is often used as a sidecar to the cosmological argument. It's very hard to separate the two, because when you look at the contingency of things, everything in nature has a cause, and if you follow the line of contingency all the way back to the starter of the chain reaction of events, you are forced to face the question, "Well, what caused this first thing to become a tightly-packed bundle of everything that is to come?"
I feel so grateful and lucky after watching this.
THERE MUST BE A RULE GIVER TO SUCH A RULE FOLLOWING UNIVERSE
The rules are so clearly outlined in the Bible my friend!!
For god so loved the world he gave his only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life John 3:16 ❤️ God bless
@The cat guy evolving rules by it self? R u mad?
I see people in the comments saying that the guy objecting is stupid. I think he's rather intelligent.
I honestly agree with both of you. We show appreciation for our lives by giving credit to a God, believing there is a purpose for our existence. On the other hand, this is one big algorithm, and we happen to be in a stage where humans are capable of great achievements. What if God’s design is an algorithm? I want to take both of your arguments and make them one. Why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe there are some things that happen because of nature and others happen for a reason. Some things happen by chance, somethings don’t. But we will never really know which one is which so what’s the fucking point?
we know God is real but there cannot be one it is either God or not God for God created all things
ur playing both sides, I mean God as a spiritual concept is fair enough everyone has the right to believe so. But studying nature and evolution and cross examining it under God and how he said he created the universe, well there isn't consistency,
You may want to look up the Law of Noncontradiction.
Chance is to be understood as : possibility, not just randomness. Because it is possible, it happens given enough time.
This was very helpful in fleshing out the Teleological Argument and it's refutations. Thank you!
You're welcome, glad it was helpful.
Enjoyed listening to both sides, unfortunately the argument for an infinite universe, or multi - universe is quite weak.
it makes far more assumptions then the just saying that God is real and the argument with the least assumptions is the strongest
@@johnny8660 how does the argument against the teleological argument require fewer assumptions? Genuinely interested. And how does it get around the need for God to have a creator? If the universe is so complex, and so needs a designer, wouldn't it stand to reason that a being capable of designing such complexity would be even more complex, and so also need a designer? How does the argument avoid an infinite regress of causes except by arbitrarily saying god does not need a cause - which is a massive assumption, as something without a cause has never been observed, and insisting God needs no cause would constitute special pleading?
@@samhunter1205 in response to if God needs a designer I’ll suggest 2 points:
Firstly, You may be interested in Googling the argument of “divine simplicity”. I have not read the entire argument but it was quite interesting if nothing else.
Secondly, in my own opinion, The assumption that God himself needs a creator is a larger assumption than the converse. An implication of theism is that God originates outside of our universe. To assume that He must adhere to the causal laws of our universe is in my opinion arbitrary. To Illustrate- after the founding fathers met to establish laws for the United States, was it necessary that what they did a week before was also lawful? Or is it necessary that other countries abide by these laws as well?
True- our universe is causal by nature however this is due to the logical laws from the creator. I believe it’s arbitrary to assume that a being outside of our universe abide by the same laws.
@@Dilly9124 thanks, I will look up the divine simplicity argument. I can't say I find the idea of God existing outside our universe & its physical laws, and therefore not needing to follow causality, particularly convincing though. It still sounds a lot like a special pleading argument. What reason do we have to believe that anything exists outside of our universe and the laws of causality? And if you do claim that God exists in such a fashion, what prevents someone else from claiming that there is some naturalistic process that has those same qualities? In other words, even if you argue that it is somehow necessary for something to exist outside of space-time, in order to have created or produced the universe as we know it, how does it necessarily follow that that thing must be a conscious being?
@@samhunter1205 This is exactly the question! Is the extra-universal power that created our universe intelligent? A couple steps back though- The popular argument is that it is necessary for something to exist outside of our universe because our universe has a beginning (unless you believe in a cyclical universe but I don’t see much evidence for that). There was a point in our universe’s history where all matter and energy were in an infinitely small point(singularity). Because of this we cannot attributing our universe’s existence to it’s own natural laws. Therefore we argue that it must be the cause of a “higher power”. You’re right that, at this point we cannot say that the higher power was intelligent or that it was in itself some natural law. To indirectly or directly explain the “higher power” we have theories of intelligent design, evolution, cosmology and the authenticity of the Bible, Torah, Qua-ran etc. It’s usually by studying one of these we develop a worldview and the answer to the first question. I’d advocate strongly for the Bible’s exceptional historicity as the center of my personal arguments. However, theories of “intelligent design” have made some highly compelling cases regarding the origin of life and digital information in the DNA. A short documentary called “information enigma” highlights the case well.
The first question that arises for me is, with our contemporary understanding of the finity of the universe (i.e. that there is at least a beginning-the Big Bang) notwithstanding that the universe is vast, it seems unreasonable that a divine creator, given the attributions of unlimited ability and given the scale in both time and dimensions of the known universe would invest in only ONE planet and only ONE sentient species. Further, given that the divine creator has conferred on the ONE species the capricious capacity to eliminate not just other species (which presumably had a purpose beyond being expendable at our hand) but the entire ‘watch’. If the objective/purpose/telos of Earth was to be ended capriciously by the ONE sentient species in the universe, why would the creator (again considering the vastness of space and time) run only one such experiment. I can’t imagine a God whimsically creating such a complication as earth simply to see if the inhabitants it has created will destroy it.
Given the age of the universe, the age of our galaxy, and the age or our planet, the tenancy of Homo sapiens is but a blink in time. The existence of Homo Sapiens is measured in hundreds of thousands of years while existence of earth is measured in tens of MILLIONS of years. So this one creation, if one is to believe divine creation, given the inclination to do so and alacrity with which it has done so, can only have as it’s sole purpose self-annihilation and the destruction of the planet and-presumably-the extinction of sentient life in the universe.
Given the above, if creationists still assert the existence of a divine creator and if, indeed, it’s intention was for the one sentient species in the universe to extinguish itself within a few hundred thousand years-there being NO GREATER accomplishment than the capacity to end it’s existence and the time frame to reach this being imperceptibly short on the cosmic scale-they have to concede that the entire investment in man is of no-or immeasurably small-consequence to the creator or it’s intention, and therefore one should not concern themselves with it’s existence.
its a metaphor everything is really a metaphor, a concealment and not only a concealment its also revealing at the same time.
Soooooo, you don't think the choices of a theoretical being capable of creating an entire universe (the complexity, scope, and scale of which defy your ability to understand) make sense. And that's how you know it doesn't exist. Because, naturally, the choices of such a being would be obviously intuitive for someone like you. Like how you're just working on a unified theory of everything in your spare time.
This changes everything !
How come nobody told me this before ?
My life will now be completely different.
At last, I know everything I need to know.
negentropy is the second law of thermodynamics which means when heat is applied objects fall into order , this is the opposite of entropy ( chaos ) . So the scientific reason for so much order or the perception of design which we see on earth can easily be understood to be a result of this fundamental law. Disorder or chaos will only be seen in a system that lacks heat. I like to point out this is most likely why the amazon rainforest the biggest life filled forest in the world exist on the equator and not in Antarctica and remember temperature is a relative thing based on perspective so even tho Antarctica is cold to us, to the rest of the universe it is still very very very warm which is why life and order can still exist there. And thank you for coming to my ted talk lol sorry for bad grammar
Wtf are you talking abiut😂
The problem with the athiest model is that it's proven the universe has not been around long enough for the perfect world to randomly happen. The correct model for the universe is that it does have a beginning.
Sort of, the closer you get to the singularity, the less sense a concept of a "beginning" makes sense. Beginning implies linear progression with "befores" and "afters", but if Time and Space are one fabric, then when space began, so did time. That means "before" the Big Bang actually is a misunderstanding, It's not that there wasn't anything before it... rather, by definition there cant be.
Madlads putting the picture of the goal that wasn't. Kudos for all the work on the channel.
A pleasure, thank you so much for watching. Glad you enjoyed 😀
Jeff Durbin : Your ancestors were fish?
Atheist : Yes!
Jeff : Do you eat fish?
Atheist : 😐
The premise of the chance arguments rely on an infinite amount of time. Have we any information backing up the universe to be in existence for an infinite amount of time?
Yes ! Exactly ! There cant be an infinite amount of amount of time because the present would never have been reached ! His arguments are complete nonsense @
I love when skeptics bring up the multiverse theory to debate the telelogical arguments. Dude says "there's no evidence for a designer" and "weve seen someone design a watch, but not a universe" then gives merit to the multiverse, which there is also no evidence of and has never been, nor can be, observed. So he just swapped out one unobservable theory for another.
If the sun is much closer to the sun, the chances of our existence on earth will be out of question. Will that shift in sun's position somehow gave chance for other planets to develope life on them? I wonder.
The problem with the teleological argument is that there are so many other ways in which the universe could be configured that might have allowed for other equally if not more incredible life forms (just not necessarily our own). The insinuation that there is something uniquely special about our particular form of life that couldn't have been brought about any other way than by a God quickly evaporates when you think about it. Imagine you're a normal random person (which most people are), and imagine yourself going back in time 1 year and looking forward from that point over the next year that's about to happen. Now ask yourself, what is the likelihood that those exact series of events (which do in fact end up happening in your life) actually occur over the next year? It's incredibly small. And yes, I'm talking about every detail (the fact you woke up at 7:36 am on Jan 1, 8:03 am on Jan 2, etc). Does that make the fact that that exact series of events happened any more special? Basically, with the teleological argument, you're asymmetrically weighing "the infinite versions of a firey non-life-permitting hell" against a SINGLE "miraculous life-permitting outcome". You're just privileging the exact current configuration of the human lifeform and implying that no other lifeform could have possibly come about that would be miraculous enough to warrant an argument for God.
I don't think the teleological argument only asserts that human life proves the existence of God. Any complex, self-aware life-maybe any existence at all, although intelligence is necessary to appreciate arguments-would have teleological implications (probably some more than others). What's "special" is existence; even more special, ordered existence; even more special, conscious, intelligent existence. I would invert your "going back in time one year" analogy: you seem to be assuming that because we exist this way, therefore we had to exist this way, and there's nothing miraculous about it at all. But that's all from a position post facto; nothing had to be this particular way. The conceit of the anti-teleological view is that every one of the infinite possible configurations of reality will eventually exist, as if that kind of infinite creation itself doesn't point to an omnipotent Being. How could such an all-creating-infinity exist in the first place, supposedly out of nothing and through nothing and into nothing?
Very good points as always!, i have been really enjoy watching your videos! please keep going :)
Thank you watching, glad you’re enjoying our videos 😀
Using Lampard's disallowed goal as the background 1:03 is devious 💀
The fine tuning of the conditions on the planet is a completely different argument to the fine tuning of the universe. It is easy to imagine life could adapt to many different planetary atmospheres and conditions and we know there are a vast number of planets in the universe. However the argument of fine tuning is really about the fine tuning of the universe to allow for any complex structures whatsoever, a prerequisite for life of any kind. We also have evidence for only one universe. The fine tuning of the universe to allow for stability and complex structures is unfathomly unlikely in a sample size of the one universe we observe.
I would disagree that the planet fine tuning and universe fine tuning are different. Any argument that draws a distinction between the two can only be valid under very strict definitions of "purpose". I would argue that too much is placed on the premise that complexity is the product of purpose. To me, the acceptance that complexity is the product of "purpose" requires proof within itself. The Teleological argument seems to ascribe a "purpose" to any complex item. In doing so, I would argue that there is a disconnect between the purpose that a human might design something and the natural tendency for a complex item to "tune" itself according to the environment it finds itself, but also in accordance to natural laws of physics and chemistry. The origins of these natural laws of physics and chemistry would need to be proven to have come from a supreme being in a manner far more different from that offered by the Teleological Argument - if indeed it can be found.
I love the explanation given by the guy on the left - great and detailed explanation!
@@df4250 Actually the distinction is not reliant on any definition of purpose or based on the premise that complexity means purpose. The argument is based on the observed precise values of many fundamental universal variables despite the incredible range of possible values for these variables and the sample size of one universe. This is different from life which has the opportunity to adapt and evolve to whatever conditions here on earth.
@@Allthewayhome781 I introduced "purpose" only as part of a teleological perspective. Personally, introducing "purpose" automatically introduces a metaphysical aspect to the discussion, which I have a tendency to stay away from. I don't see the universe itself, devoid of any supreme Maker, worrying itself about "purpose". To me, "purpose is an anthropomorphic concept. Your use of the term "fine tuning" can also be construed as a reference to the metaphysical, since "someone" normally performs the tuning. Are you arguing that fine tuning the precise "values" of the universal constants such that the complexity (like life itself, let alone the cosmic complexities of the universe) that occurs is the result of a supernatural being because you consider such fine tuning as highly unlikely and therefore must've been brought about by a "God"?
@@df4250 The fine tuning is an observation that requires explanation. Considering we have a sample size of one universe, the level of precision involved in these universal constants certainly implies design. Beyond that observation I would be speculating.
@@Allthewayhome781 Why does it imply design? Is it to funnel the thinking process into an acknowledgement of a Designer? What's your syllogistic premises?
But the universe was not created just by chance. The more laws developed, equates to less chances.
I have a problem with the argument that infinite time + random chance = life as we know it.
Even from the evolutionary perspective, the existence of some life-form must precede the more-evolved version of it. But what did the first living organism come from? An infinite combination of non-living things over time? Where did the non-living things come from? Time itself? Then what did time come from?
Even in your Shakespeare example, three things must first exist in order to end up with the book: monkeys, typewriters, and time. It all boils down to the fact that "nothing" cannot produce "something." To argue otherwise would require your definition of "nothing" to include time, chance, and/or objects for the time and chance to act upon. But there isn't anything inside of nothing.
Nothing as a starting platform is absolutely illogic. Matter can not be created or destroyed; even before the big bag there was matter in any other form yet to be discovered (dark matter or antimatter maybe) on top of this, matter from the atomic level to molecules do not behave randomly. They are attracted to some and not to others to form something else.
Those are really good points. However, maybe our limited capacities of a finite being makes it impossible for us to understand how something can emerge out of nothing?
This is helping me with a part of Ilia Delio’s book “Christ In Evolution” which seems to require frequent looks into a theological/philosophical dictionary.
I find studying teleological ideas interesting not so much for the argument of god that comes from it but so systems can be created and work with some ease. Great study for becoming a businessman of all things. I keep on thinking that I will leave philosophy when I have a decent explanation for a teleological structure but I'm not so sure that I can give a sufficient account. Can you ever get out?
Thank you so much guys for such a detailed explanation on this topic. This is so informative and I was finding this type of stuff for my exam's preparation. really grateful for this ❤️
A pleasure, glad you found it helpful, good luck in the exams.
Are tou muslim ??
Many of Hume's objections to cosmological and teleological argument can be refuted.
Objection (1) :"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a
city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues)
Responses:
"And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with
polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same
natural laws .
If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some
explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing
the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a
new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of
order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate
one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the
simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power
of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as
great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible
for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic
marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the
universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the
different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square
of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in
another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square
law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more
general law."
(Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"If the
physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than
being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only
one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad
reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the
absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced
with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more
than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the
creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than
one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for
preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the
universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and
uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the
product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single
designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been
expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural
individualities.
"
(David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
Objection (2) :"[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an
animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle
of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a
continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest
sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part
or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of
the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles
more a human body than it does the works of human art and
contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one
precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a
stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues)
Response:
"Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical
universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or
other artefact. The claim is unconvincing.
In its manifest workings,
the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds
that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by
the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of
sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical
universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable
machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less
regular and predictable animal or vegetable.
"
(David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
Objection (3) :"But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain." (Dialogues)
Response:
"From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot
reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and
rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong
to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will
happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron,
the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the
surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence,
that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about
such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the
universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have
knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach
conclusions about the origin and development of the human race
(because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind).
The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the
original objection, which is indeed totally misguided."
(Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
Objection (4) :"In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that
which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then
is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer
that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several
distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by
an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of
things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in
a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of
the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the
cause of the parts." (Dialogues)
Response:
"Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go,
there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions
for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old
one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we
have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots.
But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For
example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather
than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there
being any robots at all? That question has not been answered.
In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is
caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have
an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There
might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings.
"
(Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")
Something so find problematic as anything having a Telos is that goals are functions of human consciousness not properties of objects. Yet this argument acts as if goals are present in objects aside from human consciousness.
This is great for my Nat5 RMPS exam revision , cheers lads! Saved my arse got an exam in a couple weeks
So glad this helped. Best of luck in the exams!
@@PhilosophyVibe Thanks very much :)
@@PhilosophyVibe As an update I got an A , it's all down to you guys thanks for the content!
Congratulations! That’s really good, so glad we could have helped. Very well done. 👍😀
Fascinating video guys! I'd always known there were problems with the teleological argument, but this really laid many out in a very compelling fashion. I will say though that it feels very, very one-sided. Perhaps the teleological argument really is that broken and its good to highlight its flaws, but I can't help but feel the video's position was too stacked against it? Just a thought!
The argument which states a cruel world implies that natural deaths are cruel if so a person dying from aging would be considered cruel event since its also a natural death. You can't blame nature(the design) or the designer when a city is flooded and many people die ,after you have built a city on the sea shore. Your design also includes cognition and using that you should design your cities away from danger. That's why a bird builds her nest on top of a tree not next to the ocean. And as too animals eating each other for sustenance, how is it cruel if the purpose for that is maintaining balance and sustaining a lasting life of the species. Would life be a reality without death. The duality of concepts is how we are designed a design that's living and heading to perfection. Just like a seed that grows into a tree. The universe is also a seed that's growing into perfection and humans are made self conscious so they could achieve perfection through the knowledge of the designer.
@@ethiopianshotel9367 Except, as they state, the designer is not a human. The designer is, in this context, a perfect being. It does not make mistakes that would lead nature(its creation) to act unjustly or unnecessarily cruel to achieve your supposed perfection(despite the creator completely able to achieve this from the get go). The creator, a perfect being, creates the universe with full intent and knowledge of what is to come. That includes all the terrors, horrors and painful lives rooted in nature's core mechanisms for survival. There is no reason for a creator with the intent of achieving perfection, to make a universe with imperfection, with a goal to head to perfection, when he can achieve it from the start.
Of course I can blame the design on the designer. If a designer creates a terrible building that collapses and kills hundreds, I will blame them for their incompetence in its creation. Your examples are cherry-picked, meaning they omit the multitude and infinite amount of times tradegy has struck without any purpose or reason but simply bad luck. What purpose is given((don't build cities near shores when you know they can flood(terrible analogy given that's not how it works)) is more an excuse than reason for chance. You can say the millions of children who died as infants due to lack of medical care serves to improve our systems, or that the reason we die from old age is just because it paves a way for the new. In the end these are simply excuses, given they could have been avoided from the start if there was an intentional design and creator to the mess that is our world.
You are misunderstanding Aquinas fifth way. Aquinas Is not arguing that world is perfectly designed for humans or intelligent life, neither for life in general, but rather is arguing that the order of the world cannot be result of caos or chance for the obvious reason that caos means disorder and trying to explain order with disorder is either contradictory or circular since the very definition of caos presuppose order. Darwinian or any other scientific explanations can't do anything against the teleological argument because they presuppose what need to be explained: the intelligibility of the world.
Such a amazing video
It helps me a lot to understand the concept better
Thanks, glad we could help.
Thank you gentlemen.
A pleasure, thank you for watching.
Many modern philosophers have rejected Hume's critique of religion.For example:
"The next argument which we meet in the Dialogues is that the postulated
existence of a rational agent who produces the order of the world would itself need
explaining. Picturing such an agent as a mind, and a mind as an arrangement of
ideas, Hume phrases the objection as follows: "a mental world or Universe of ideas
requires a cause as much as does a material world or Universe of objects."
Hume
himself provides the obvious answer to this-that it is no objection to explaining
X by Y that we cannot explain Y. But then he suggests that the Y, in this case the
mind, is just as mysterious as the ordered Universe. Men never "thought it satisfactory to explain a particular effect by a particular cause which was no more to be
accounted for than the effect itself."
On the contrary, scientists have always
thought it reasonable to postulate entities merely to explain effects, so long as the
postulated entities accounted simply and coherently for the characteristics of the
effects. The existence of molecules with their characteristic behavior was "no more to be accounted for" than observable phenomena, but the postulation of their existence gave a neat and simple explanation of a whole host of chemical and physical
phenomena, and that was the justification for postulating their existence.
"
(Richard Swinburne "Argument From Design")
Intelligent design has been refuted. Only theists trying to inject their god into biology accept it.
Zero evidence for a powerful, timeless, unlimited, unconscious, random, universe generator, generating universes for all eternity.
I was under the impression that an infinite amount of time cannot exist because there is a now. If the universe was infinitely old how many moments have their been up until now? If there were infinite moments before now then now represents the end of infinity and that doesn’t make sense. The fact that their is a now means there had to be a beginning. You cannot pass infinity to get to today or add to it to make it bigger... would love to hear your thoughts?
the main point of the one on the left was that the world is a harsh place and a good God wouldn't make this however the one on the right failed to say that it is because of the fall and mans sin
Thank you! Awesome breakdown and very straight forward 👌 🙂
You're welcome, glad you like the content :)
An infinite amount of time and universes? How does one prove anything from an infinite regress?
Justin Souza Einsteins equations never heard of it ?
@@w1z4rd9 nope have not
@@w1z4rd9 General Relativity doesn't imply infinite regress whatsoever. In fact modern studies show the universe had a point of begining. Infinite regress and multiple universes are hypothesis not taken very seriously.
This is a great video help me lots for my exam thanks you
Happy to help. Good luck in the exam.
Great video, and I would like to add that even though I understand these arguments are arguments from reason and not from biblical authority, it's worthy to add that the bible, which correlates and agrees with these arguments from design, has an answer to the problem of faults being present in the design of the universe. Problems of evil, suffering and such. It goes on to explain in the book of Genesis about the creation of the universe and it's origin which by the way "was good" (or perfectly designed) but then in chapter 3 it describes a great fall which brought disorder into God's perfect design, and so this is why we see such problems intermingled with such complexity.
"it describes a great fall which brought disorder into God's perfect design"
- but god, being all-knowing would have known this from the very onset and being all-powerful, would have been able to create a universe without disorder.
@@lewis72 yes true, but maybe God had sufficient moral reasoning for creating this world instead of a world "without disorder." God being morally excellent would most likely do just that.
@@Godsglory777
Or maybe god doesn't exist.
@@lewis72 or maybe you don't want him to exist.
Whether I want a god to exist has no bearing on whether one actually exists or not.
Havinga. god that has all the characteristics of one that doesn't exist would suggest that one doesn't exist.
1:10^10^123
The argument for that the universe came about as it is by chance goes out the window cause of this number showing the probability of the level of entropy existing during singularity.
Free will is teleology of universe, with human conscious choice playing a role towards free will.
Puddle analogy!
The watch isn't designed as is. I mean it is slowly realized over centuries maybe millenniums of time keeping tools starting with observation of the shadows. Then the sun dial. A watch is designed in terms of size and style and quality. The idea of time keeping is not invented every time.
Really nice video liked it really well explained arguments and I think I can add something little.
No 1. God didn't create a cruel universe the devil does all evil then makes man blame it on God. God's law is perfect love and the devil's will is the opposite.
2. If man really did evolve doesn't it mean that we would have grown immune to diseases and the dangerous effects of alcohol alcohol after thousands of years of exposure to them?
Thank you, glad you liked the video :)
As we evolve to become resistant to certain diseases, the diseases themselves evolve to overcome our resistances, creating this cycle of evolution, at least, that's my understanding of it.
Also, regarding the evolution of resistance against alcohol, when looking through the 1000 Genomes Project, 2 researchers had begun to found an enzyme that actually makes it even *more difficult* for humans to drink - meaning rather than evolving a resistance to alcohol, perhaps our body is evolving to be able to punish us further for the consumption of alcohol, due to the negative effects of it.
As well as this, evolution is quite a slow process, and so we can't expect everything to happen straight away haha, but I hope this explains it, although, I'll say it again, I may be wrong. :)
Also, I'd have to disagree with the first statement; God created the devil and therefore caused the creation of a cruel universe.
@@fury8413 our bodies are mutating to punish us further for the consumption of alcohol 😂. I've never really thought about it that way. I agree with you there 👌
as for the second argument I can refer you to 2 books that I know of that have the answer to that argument. The Ellen G. White's great controversy and partriachs and prophets download the from the links below
egwwritings-a.akamaihd.net/pdf/en_GC.pdf
And
egwwritings-a.akamaihd.net/pdf/en_PP.pdf
Amazing video guys, perfectly balanced and detailed
Much appreciated!
You're welcome, thanks for watching :)
This video is simply brilliant!
Thank you 😀
Interesting how the first person is making a reasoned argument based off of epistemological and in fact more naturalist ideas than the very person that thinks it is simply random chaos. I mean, just look at all the presuppositions of the second argument.
1) Believes that there are infinite random universes constantly coming in and out of existence when no evidence for such a thing actually exists. Nor can it even be inferred from the state of our constantly expanding universe.
2) Believes that randomness and chaos can actually produce something like Shakespeare when in reality no, the Monkeys would not be able to produce Shakespeare in any given amount of time because they will always hit random keys. Randomness does not ultimately fall into order. You can throw the parts of a watch at each other all you want, infinite amounts of times, it will not magically become a watch if you do it enough. The Universe can't just be chanced upon by a monkey, but even then there's the idea that there was a monkey, to begin with. Where the argument is really "if you left the typewriter alone for enough time it will produce Shakespear's complete works".
Overall the second argument is actually more "mystical" then the argument for intelligent design. Because not only does it use information that we don't know/cannot know, it uses information that is actually fabricated and appealing to authority that well, doesn't have any authority over anything.
The absolutely dogmatic assertion that the complete works of Shakespeare WOULD just randomly happen, with absolutely no supporting evidence or examples of anything similar ever observably happening was driving me NUTS! Thanks for this comment!
Just look at how many random events needed to align for you to exist to write that comment.
You needed many hundreds of thousands of consecutive successful offspring of your ancestors in order for you to be here.
What were the chances of each line of you ancestral parents meeting and having offspring that would lead to you ?
Go all the way back to the first instances of life on this planet and the chances of you existing right now are infinitesimally small.
It's quite bold of us to assume nature is unintelligent.
I’m not religious myself but I feel that there are phenomena that we won’t be able to explain scientifically before we cease to exist as a species. I’ve been contemplating this for days and somehow found myself content with the possibility that Mother Nature is just Gods wife and the earth is her she-shed, her passion project. But the two must also play within the rules of science and physics and anything “created” by them are only able to exist because science allows it to. (In other words, no miracles allowed.) It probably sounds silly but for this exercise I’ve been assigned in my philosophy course, I like it.
@@nora__ Science is how humans understand life. There's a whole other reality unfolding outside of our perception.
Why would there be any such thing as time? It’s not a given that there would be anything, so the infinite time argument makes no sense to me
Time isn't infinite and evolution hasn't been "proven".
How has evolution not been proven
@@mralfie4078Small scale change adaptions etc yes Going from a single cell to ALL complex life. NO it has not been "proven". Only scientific assumption upon assumption. Over millions of years this and then millions that. No evidence for abiogenesis. Even IF I grant you a single cell replicator. What order of magnitude of positive random mutations would you need. How much time would you need for time? Proto chicken or the proto egg!!!???
I love your channel. So good
Thank you!!!
Always comes back to the problem of evil….
Here's a mystery. I don't think God would explain the following, but here goes. In any area with vegetation and soil and loam, how come when you dig a little bit, you always find a few small rocks in any given spot. How come previous generations of decayed vegetation which turned into soul didn't completely bury those particular rocks, and instead they're up near the surface, and sometimes right on the surface of the soil. What kept those rocks from being totally subsumed by organic soil.
I'm seeing and issue from the second counter-argument. The first counter-argument argument is that the watch analogy applies human logic and functioning to a being above a human. Ironically, something similar can be said for the second counter-argument. We're perceiving nature in a human way: it is violent and horrible. But what if it's seen in a super-human way?
ETA: How do we know that infinite time + chance = guarantee? Couldn't that also guarantee a creator? Jk, but really: the first counter-argument also says that the creation of a watch is observable, but not the creation of the universe, so how do we truly know that the universe has been intelligently designed if we've never observed such designing? Same thing with the time + chance = guarantee thing, how can we know that that's the case?
Well, the violent, from a God perspective is somewhat expected.
The contrary is perfection, How boring the universe and how dull we would be. We would lack any and all depth in our perception.
I would look more at the trivial and arbitrary.
But Yes, A chaotic operator of the God powers within infinite time could yield a sentient creator. (Could be us eventually? Lol)
But It's a logic based argument; infinite monkey theorem- It uses a monkey, but a monkey isn't a true random.
So imagine a computer typing completely random keys.., within a few hours you may get a word, a day a few words, a century a few sentences, but within an eternity, all possible combinations will be produced because of the eternity.
This doesn't need to be witnessed.
We're also completely playing with our imagination here, and chance vs God is a false dichotomy.
helped me so much with my essay
Glad we could help :)
Has the chance of creating matter from void ever been calculated? I'm genuinely curious of what are the chance of it ever occuring.
Should have been the guy on the right last comment.
Too many unknown variables. My guess is that it is probably inevitable.
It is common knowledge that chance cannot act on nothing. Think of it this way: if an empty glass is on a table with no interference what so ever, what would be the chance of it filling up with coke? However many times you ‘roll the dice’ it will never fill up as the chance has nothing to act on. In the same way, something has no chance of coming from nothing.
I was kinda expecting the anthropic principle explicitly
It’s non-intuitive to understand that all this complexity is just natural and no intervention of any being is required, it’s much much simpler and easier for humans to believe that some being did it magically, especially when we are indoctrinated to believe from a very early age by our parents, teachers, leaders, elders practically everyone. And if we don’t conform to our parents religions then we can be shunned, disowned and possibly harmed. originally from Karachi Pakistan and Teer Haripur Hazaara, now ex-Muslim Atheist ., ,
Rejecting an argument because it uses analogy basically comes down to rejecting all arguments you know...
And chance is not an explanation but the lack of one. Moreover it simply comes down to saying I don't like the alternative?!
Infinite time? multiverse? I guess you believe in Santa Clause as well;-)
When science's only answer is chance, science loses all integrity. Practise what you preach and make science mere chance- no method, no proposition, no goal. Science would become nonsense.
Science works.
It has predictive capabilities that religion can not get anywhere near.
another ignorant religious idiot I swear can you prove god exists and prove his even a maximally great being when him being omnipotent is literally contradictory?
mind blown. thank you for this video
Pleasure, thank you for watching.
Because of the extreme amount of chance for us to live
When people talk about reconciling science and religion, that is only an issue with people who have preconceived ideas, but scientists cannot/should-not have preconceived ideas they must believe the evidence. All scientific models must conform to NATURE or REALITY, If there is any tiny evidence for some unnatural forces then they must include that in their paper and account for it. originally from Karachi Pakistan and Teer Haripur Hazaara, now ex-Muslim Atheist ., ,
To use a multiverse as an explanation for our world and the reality we live in requires FAR more faith than a belief in God. There is zero evidence of a multiverse. Zero. We DO know there was a big bang that started this “clock” and this universe. So there were not infinite iterations, just the one we know of. It amazes me how “rational thinkers” will jump at any crazy belief as long as it doesn’t involve God. Speaking if Shakespeare, me thinks thou dost protest too much…
Infinite time, just an absurd statement. If time was Infinite then that will imply that the past is also Infinite, it just continues to stretch back Infinitely therefore you cannot ever get to today nor tomorrow. When you start a race, the only reason you can get to the middle of the track and eventually to the end is because there is a starting point, it's the same with time. If time was Infinite and had no starting point then that means you can never get to the present nor future because the past stretches back Infinitely.
I think one of the largest killers of the teleological argument is that we can, and do, infer design from things that are _not_ complex, and for which we cannot infer a purpose. Were you to find a very straight piece of carved wood broken at both ends in a forest, what you would have is one piece of wood surrounded by more wood, and yet without missing a beat you can tell it was designed. You could _guess_ at a purpose, but there's really no way to suggest you'd be right or even close, and a straight piece of wood is _not_ complex _at all,_ so it can't be those things that are tipping you off to the fact of its design. Instead, you've inferred design because wood does not form that way _in nature,_ and yet by appealing to nature as the point of contrast one is instinctively referring to nature as "not designed". More than this, if nature _is_ designed, then one loses contrast used to decide the carved stick was designed in the first place. In fact this very contrast can even _fool_ us, when nature makes unusual features that are _extremely_ uncommon but _rememble_ structures that we know are human-made, leading us to think they are designed instead of natural until we investigate further.
+Robin Dude great argument. Can we use this in the follow up video?
+Philosophy Vibe
Uhh... sure? I mean... it's not like it's _my_ argument. Not sure where I got the basics (of the contrast issue), though likely from Matt Dillahunty of The Atheist Experience show. All I did was adapt it a bit adding in the broken bit of carved wood in a forest.
@@robindude8187 WHat completely dismantles your argument is that there are consistent patterns in nature, nature is not constrained, but determined, there's a difference. A photon being constrained in its behavior, by say, violating its cosmic speed limit when it can is different than saying that by its very nature the photon is immutable in the way it operates, meaning it would be a violation of its nature to violate this immutable logic that is embedded within it. The equations that govern the quantum to the cosmic are, or at least must be assumed to be absolute. This gives rise to the large scale structures of the Cosmos. You'll never see in nature anomalies, that violate this structure. There are galaxies, with a specific shape and angular momentum, stars, always spherical and there are limits to the size of both planets and stars due to thermodynamics. THis means the structures are a priori in nature, not the product of random events since they only could have been that way. You'll never see a square sun or a triangular shaped galaxy. Same goes for planets. This uniformity can only be accounted for the laws of logic, since the laws of logic couldn't have been otherwise as they are symbiotic in their relationship of the causal structure of the Universe, or at least, the immutability and therefore predictability in patterns. This is in fact what the teleological argument really says. Once you get down to the complexity of life, its asinine not to use teleological language to describe life. In fact, there's a whole emerging field of biological information technology. Not to mention the now revolutionary discoveries being made in evolutionary biology which clearly is struggling taking into account the new developments in ecological niches, biochemistry, molecular biology, epignetics and of course developmental biology. Life is like a machine, and new discoveries in the field of th evolution of forms suggest that teleology is built into biological systems. This is of course complementary to the fine tuning of the Universe for life. By design (not saying it was deisgned, just becuse of the laws of nature), there's more carbon, oxygen and hydrogen than other elements, due to the stability of carbon, but also because of how stars operate intrinsically. This is the stuff of life. There's no point in saying life could have been otherwise without engaging in pure philosophical speculation as the arguments for the existence of God. DNA based life form is all there exists as far as we know, and its information based. It has been said that life is a cosmic imperative. I think this is also true. This would make the teleological argumeent infintely more stronger. If you want more informatiion on this, research the topics I mentioned, also look up the extended evolutionary synthesis.
@@lololauren55
*The equations that govern the quantum to the cosmic are, or at least must be assumed to be absolute.*
That would be because the equations are _descriptions_ of what happens. It isn't that mathematics controls anything, it's that we can use mathematics to describe the way things behave. The more complex the behavior, the more complex the mathematics needed to describe it. You could say the same thing of words being used to describe something. This does not mean that the word description 'controls' the thing it describes, or in any way dictates what it is, how it operates, and so on.
*THis means the structures are a priori in nature, not the product of random events since they only could have been that way.*
Not really. It just means that emergent phenomena can occur. A 'random event' is simply one that we are unable to predict in advance, not that it happens with no pattern. Langton's Ant is unpredictable but deterministic. To say the road structure it produces is 'a priori' in the two instructions that make it up seems... silly.
*the laws of logic couldn't have been otherwise as they are symbiotic in their relationship of the causal structure of the Universe,*
No, they couldn't have been otherwise because they simply couldn't. It would be impossible for something to exist which does not follow the logical absolutes. They can't be proven, they are what we use to prove everything else.
*Life is like a machine, and new discoveries in the field of th evolution of forms suggest that teleology is built into biological systems.*
Um? Yes? That's been basically true since the idea of evolution was considered. The teleology (description by purpose) is what we mean of a system that it provides an advantage to survival. This does not require an intelligence to control it. The whole point of evolution was a demonstration that 'purpose' could develop without an intelligence to cause it.
*This is of course complementary to the fine tuning of the Universe for life.*
Save that it really isn't fine tuned for life. It's as much fine tuned for black holes as it is for life. Almost all of the universe is entirely unfit for life. Even the vast majority of our _planet_ is unfit for life.
*there's more carbon, oxygen and hydrogen than other elements,*
How about helium? Second most common substance in the universe. Not required by life as we know it.
*There's no point in saying life could have been otherwise*
Which I didn't say. As you say, it _would_ be pure speculation to say it could form another way, just like the idea of fine-tuning is about speculating that things might be different than they are.
*DNA based life form is all there exists as far as we know, and its information based.*
'Information' is fairly fuzzily defined. DNA is still chemical,
*It has been said that life is a cosmic imperative.*
I'm sure it has. We find the precursors to biological chemistry all over the place. Whether it is or isn't has not been tested as of yet. I don't see a reason to accept it is an 'imperative' so much as it is a natural progression of increasing complexity and self-organization that seems to be a part of any interacting system.
*also look up the extended evolutionary synthesis.*
It's a nifty discussion. Some say it's unnecessary, others say it doesn't go far enough. Like everything else in the frontiers of science, there's a lot of discussion and debate, but not a lot of certainty. Right now it's all conjecture. Maybe the extended synthesis is right, maybe it's not, maybe it doesn't go far enough.
Humans make complex things because God makes complex things not the other way around
Just because it's not perfect does not mean it's not designed.
That wasn't the implication of the argument tho ! Theists make the claim that our world is too perfect to be the product of random chance. When we say that our world is far from perfect , The push back here is against the claim that our world is perfect in the first place not the idea that there could be a designer.
@@MiidoKinGs
No one in the history of the Earth has ever said this is a perfect world. especially religious people.
We're saying that the fine tuning (not perfection) of the universe is only explained by God. *Nothing* cannot produce or design anything.
@@BerishaFatian how can nothing produce god then ? How r u explaining something that's unknown to us with something that's even more unknown ? That's nothing but God of the gaps.
@@MiidoKinGs
God wasn't produced, he's eternal (no beginning, no end).
The fine tuning is a fact. The problem is atheists claim that nothing and no one designed the universe, which is illogical.
@@BerishaFatian Which atheist say that the world came from nothing and futher more nothing can design a universe ? Bit of a strawman dont u think. Besides, u claiming that god is eternal changes nothing. It's a make believe and wishful thinking which has nothing to do with facts. Ur claims are unfalsifiable and untestable therefore u could claim whatever u want and as long as u provide 0 evidence for ur outragious claims I can safely dismiss them with 0 effort. Funny how u rely on logic to say that the world need to have something that caused it but when u reach ur god u decide to throw logic out the window to preforme a special pleading fallacie and exempt ur god from the same methodology u used against the universe. Same way I could claim that a pink dragon created god who inturn created the universe and as long as I say it's eternal and wasnt caused by anything u will have to just believe me ?
After billion and biliion universe exists,then come out one that is suitable for human life.. Does that proof that our universe is special designed universe by our GOD? if universe like ours, earth like ours can exists by random, why our planet earth are the one and only planet out of bilion of billion or triliion or infinite number of universe that has life on it and can support life?
Really good video !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude with the raspy voice is rather fallacious in his own understanding of statistical contemplation. Under that attempt to avoid a fact, you can void any other basis for reasoning. To try to deny the argument the first guy laid telos argument the first character laid out would fundamentally discredit the existence of reason based of conclusion from observations. Under that fallacy I can say that any fact is untrue simply because there’s an infinite amount of time (who created that btw, everything exists for the sake of some good as Aristotle himself says in Nicomachean Ethics and Politics,) you could “prove” any substantial fact incorrect on the basis that chance could’ve dictated everything. IE, cigarettes don’t cause cancer, and they don’t cause cancer because there’s a chance statistically speaking that all of those trials were statistically inept since the world is infinitely complex. I can’t quite remember how to spell his name, Ocamm I think it is, with the famous logical razor. I can look at that statistical p-value of 86328trillion E-19853575, and say that that truth isn’t true because it’s infinite in philosophic contemplation, but that’s absurd. The simplest conclusion is to follow the statistical reasoning, or else reason in the human mind can not itself fundamentally exist. These are just my philosophic observations on the spot, please critique any holes you see in the reasoning. I believe it a rather tight defense as of now though.
bare waffle
Totally agree with the purple guy!
0:48 Man do I see order in that solar system model.
That a fallacy to assume human are not created under the imagine of God.
Furthermore we only have 1 known universe so we can't make a hypothesis on a mutple universe.
The guy on the left sounds like he's fuckin' dying lol
The laws of physics form matter into increasing complex structures over time, that's why there's something and not nothing.
Evolution by natrual section forms and adapts life into all the different lifeforms we can obverse, that's why there's life and different lifeforms instead of no lifeforms at all.
We are like ice in a hole; it appears the ice was designed to fit into the hole, but in actuality it's natually occurring via the laws of physics and only has the illusion of design.
Arguments against the teleological argument seem very weak to me especially against the fine tuning of the universe and the design aspect of life (the DNA molecule for example). These arguments against seem a bit like "gap of science" arguments (if we could just have a way of proving parallel universes, or if we just had trillions of years, etc.)
Both arguments are pretty strongly worded and put together, although I do have an issue with the argument regarding the universe of chaos, disaster, and evil. I don’t think the embodiment of cruelty and chaos within our universe is contradictory to the existence of God. Yes, nature is cruel and horrific things do happen, even to good people, but it isn’t sustainable to say that these disastrous occurrences are contradictory to Gods omnibenevolence or omnipotence. If you claim that God allowing these things to happen is contradictory to the existence of God, then technically you’re arguing against free will. The forces that hold the universe together are applicable to how humans interact with each other and humans having the conscious will to make choices. Unfortunately, those choices are embodied with the possibility of choosing to do evil things. God cannot make our choices for us, he won’t. So if you say that evil choices from people or disasters existing in the universe furthers the idea that a God does not exist, then you have to accept that it is fundamentally true that free will is not derived from mortal creatures. Because with that logical predication, if you say that God _were_ to exist, then people and creatures would not have the free will to make choices as they please, which would be an all-good world. An all-powerful God can create something so intrinsically designed, though our conscious interpretation of what is good and evil should not be used as a predication to determine the existence of God. Hope this makes sense.
No it does not.
@@robbysai ... you’re going to have to be a little more specific of what you’re referring to bud. 😂
God allows free will therefore sin will naturally exist.
I suppose it doesn’t have to be about arguing against free will, more that God should intervene and stop people from doing things (like how we might incapacitate someone who is about to harm someone else).
I don’t think arguing that “allowing people to carry out evil is contradictory to God’s existence” needs to comment on free will.
We know we're star material, everything is. The BBC in England conducted an experiment in the science series "Horizon" some years ago using the microwave background radiation in which two points on it were the corners of a triangle and the Earth the third. If the triangle were Euclidean, the Universe would have bounds. If flat, unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time. Result was indeed a flat triangle. Meaning it did not begin and has no edge. Given that we are made in the stars, a scenario arises with the universe being an organism creating life could be regarded as God perhaps. It's a scenario l grapple with because in the end l think there's no understanding possible. An eminent scientist once said the Universe isn't as strange as we can imagine but it is far stranger.
Thanks for posting both sides of the debate in intelligible and unbiased way. Great explanation with arguments and counter arguments for both sides. I appreciate the respectful way you approached this topic.
You're welcome, thanks for watching and glad you enjoyed :)
Another great video. An additional critique of the teleological argument is that it does not isolate one God, so even if one agrees with the argument it does not specify which God, and that is an issue as well.
+Avontay Williams Thank you. And a great point. Will raise this in the follow up video
I try to avoid this point. Most arguments for the existence dont lead to a specific god. Theists will just argue that first you need to prove there is a god, and then you can start to narrow down the god you believe in after that. So its strawmanning them in a way, they arent claiming you can get to a specific god with this. But if they know there is a god for sure, then they should figure out which one from there.
How someone thinks any of the arguements for god actually get to any belief in any god is a different story.
Even if you proved a designer.....all the work is still ahead of theism.
The billions of monkey typing all of Shakespeare's work word for word is the most stupid argument I have ever heard. That will never happen 😂
@@AnonYmous-yj9ibNot only is that an argument from analogy, but it's not a concept we observe in nature. Also the analogy is busted. It shows agency and creation. Are the monkeys eternal? Cause there is 0% chance that any number of monkeys can create shakespear in the lifetime of a monkey.
10:00
as Camus put it, the universe is ABSURD
interesting concepts. Thanks for the video, although something I don't really understand.
Let's assume monkeys are lucky -> and they manage to write 1 page of any infamous book within 1 milliard of monkeys. A few questions from here:
- where are the pages written which are 10/20/50/99% almost accurate?
- where are the 10/20/50/99% monkeys who almost built the typing machine?
- what about the 10/20/50/99% monkeys who tried to learn writing?
- what about the 10/20/50/99% monkeys who tried growing fingers and almost succeeded?
to unlimited numbers of tries in milliards and milliards of unsuccessful "attempts" should logically produce a lot more "error" than "success".
Why don't we observe that most things around us are largely failures?
curious to hear your point .
CN
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib You would have to demonstrate that the hostile places weren't necessary for the habitable places to exist.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib You would have to demonstrate that the hostile places weren't necessary for the habitable places to exist.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. No, I don't see it either. I believe the point you had made was that you thought that most things in the universe were failures when it comes to supporting, instead of being hostile, to life, which implied that the universe must not be designed or that the universe answered the threads question on why we don't observe that most things around us are largely failures.
My response was that you would have to demonstrate that the hostile places in the universe weren't necessary for the habitable places to exist before you could call the hostile places failures. If those qualities are necessary then they aren't failures even if they are hostile environments.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib first of all can it be proven that 99% of all species that ever existed has become extinct? I want to see the science on that. How did we observe such a thing. Are there really that many fossils to show that what is here now only accounts for 1% of species ever?
Even so, through every natural disaster, deadly virus..etc life is still sustained on earth. You didn't account for medicine, the fact that our bodies can heal from broken bones, our capacity to adapt to our environment, the fact that we didn't have to invent oxygen, food or water, the earth has plenty of it and we can't survive without it, the fact the earth grows food and medicine, the capacity to learn so we can create shelter, our capacity to procreate in order to sustain life on earth the fact that we have eyes to see and light so we can see what we're doing..the list goes on and on in favor of life. Why force a terrible narrative. You have to woefully ignore everthing you value about life to come to your conclusion my friend.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib _No, I would not have to demonstrate such. My response was to the specific claims made by the original post._
My comment wasn't meant to imply that you made a claim. When you say 99.9% of the universe isn't fine tuned for life and use that as an argument against fine tuning, you are missing the point, that I was making, that the hostile spaces might be necessary for the habitable places to exist.
Whether or not you want to strengthen your position or not is up to you but its a rather weak argument until you, or someone else, can demonstrate that the hostile areas are not necessary for the existence of the habitable areas.
A Rocket to the moon is at least 75% combustible liquid and very dangerous for life but it is necessary to protect the lives of the men traveling to the moon because of it. We wouldn't rule out design because of the percentages.
I am also curious where this 99% of all species on earth have gone extinct comes from. The comment seems to ignore that no one is arguing that the universe was fine tuned for Utopia.
I have to disagree with idea that wastefullness or even worse human suffering are valid arguments against the existence of form god since the first is made with incomplete knowledge and seconds projects human notions.
is it possible for the universe to exist without a beginning?
Logically no.
@@naddybasharan1935 Well how was physical existence created without any pre existing materials without a conscious decision?
@@215vibe2 If the universe never began then it existed for an infinite amount of time, meaning that it's past is infinite. If it has an infinite past then it wouldn't work logicaly because try to count from minus infinity to 0. 0 being the present and -1 represents every year the universe has been around because the universe is infinite it has infinite years in its past. Because this is impossible, logicaly the universe must have a begining. Tell me if I missed anything or if something needs clarification.
@@naddybasharan1935 I totally agree