Great vid! I see myself constantly recommending it to folks just starting their PoR journey. It just covers all the usual common perspectives and confusions in v succint way I've never seen elsewhere. Thx for making it happen
@graham.. is there a general consensus among experts that analytic philosophy has not been solved/ can’t be solved and is there any strong opposition to this claim ?
@joe, when you say at premise 1: God either has reasons or he does not have reasons. Could you clarify if you think god is bound by a classical sense of logic in this argument. How has it been ruled out that god isn’t or couldn’t implement paraconsistent logic. Accordingly people could reject premise one using this route ?
Are there any theists that assert that? Do they do it consistently? My concern is the likely scenario of using classical logic when it is convenient and switching to a paraconsistent framework when that is convenient without any real reason or guiding principle.
Most theist assert that this is the case, when discussing the omnitrades. The typical example is the question if God could create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it. To avoid this problem theist often times redefine omnipotent as able to do anything that is not a contradiction. It seems to follow to me that theist establish the fact that God is bound to classical logic. For this to work you obviously have to ask the person if they see it this way. But for me that seems to be enough to argue in this way.
I think for a lot of atheists, and the new atheists in particular, their main concern isn't the existence of God per se, it's overturning religious myths and supserstitions that get in the way of a rational, scientifically grounded understanding of the world. That's why we can see a kinship between atheists, deists, and even ancient atomists. It also explains why so much online atheism content has been focused on young earth creationism.
I think this is right! I just spoke to a statistician about probability for just the very reason you raise - grounding 'miraculous' events through the scientific method is so important.
Is that a plaster I see on Prof. Oppy's right temple.? I hope he wasn't hit by a cricket ball and is about to turn into a theist. I was once a pretty angry and arrogant atheist. Prof. Oppy has been instrumental in turning me into a more respectful and more reasonable non-believer. As he himself says, there's no gotcha argument either way, just an accumulation of circumstantial evidence.
The world of apologetics is 300 years behind secular moral philosophy. Joe is right to advise modern theists against conflating atheism with moral antirealism
I recently spoke with Erik Wielenberg on Godless Normative Realism - it’s one that I struggle to get my head around (having been born and raised with a Christian framework), It is almost like I'm inoculated against comprehending it - hence my desire to learn more and share that journey 🍻
@@SamuelDevis89 yes, Erik’s philosophy is a prime example of what modern apologists are ignorant of. His debate with Craig is in book form, ‘A debate on God and Morality’, and is commented on by Wes Morriston and Michael Huemer in later chapters. It’s a beautiful illustration on how the strength of an argument can outperform oration; though Weilenberg’s performance was equally convincing, his moral system shone through as being obviously more parsimonious than Craig’s. It had all the benefits of theistic morality (which were later undermined by Huemer), but with one less hefty ontological commitment: God (Craig admits in the debate that positing God is an enormously hefty commitment). Plus, arguments for Platonism are just so intuitive; the reality of numbers and logical laws etc are so real to us in everyday life.. they are discovered, and discoverable again; if you burnt the works of Christianity, it would not be rediscovered. Realism about abstracta threatens God’s aseity and sovereignty, I agree with Craig and Joe. So theists must take on the multitude of arguments for platonic realism. Their God is already confined by the laws of logic… accepting the reality of abstracta would just further redound Him to explanatory impotence. Indeed, the history of philosophy, which then branched into the sciences, has steadily relegated God to the corners of the universe.
Using "gods" doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe there are gods either. But I'm a theist. It comes across as an effort to avoid the question. The question is: do you believe in God? not: do you believe in gods? No one's interested in the second question.
Well, that's just because of your Christian bias. That's one of the awful things about Christianity, the absolute genocide of pther people's culture is certainly unparalleled.
Atheist here. Maybe the author of those words was having a bad day with a local atheist and so he lashed out, in a nasty manner. Can you explain why atheists are necessarily fools?
@@rolandwatts3218 What has been created points to a creator. The destructive fruits of a godless worldview as seen by the scars left upon human history by both Nazis and Communists. The mental health crises brought to modern civilization by the muddied confused mess that is post-modernist thinking infused with critical theory. And one could go on.
Maybe the author of those words was having a bad day with a local atheist and so he lashed out, in a nasty manner. Can you explain why atheists are necessarily fools?
Beautiful discussion.
Great vid! I see myself constantly recommending it to folks just starting their PoR journey. It just covers all the usual common perspectives and confusions in v succint way I've never seen elsewhere. Thx for making it happen
Delighted to hear that - thanks for watching and I hope you enjoy future content as well 🍻🎉
@27:11 ahahaha
What an ASMR opening!
Ha 🫠
@graham.. is there a general consensus among experts that analytic philosophy has not been solved/ can’t be solved and is there any strong opposition to this claim ?
1:22:11
@joe, when you say at premise 1: God either has reasons or he does not have reasons. Could you clarify if you think god is bound by a classical sense of logic in this argument. How has it been ruled out that god isn’t or couldn’t implement paraconsistent logic. Accordingly people could reject premise one using this route ?
Are there any theists that assert that? Do they do it consistently? My concern is the likely scenario of using classical logic when it is convenient and switching to a paraconsistent framework when that is convenient without any real reason or guiding principle.
Most theist assert that this is the case, when discussing the omnitrades. The typical example is the question if God could create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it. To avoid this problem theist often times redefine omnipotent as able to do anything that is not a contradiction. It seems to follow to me that theist establish the fact that God is bound to classical logic. For this to work you obviously have to ask the person if they see it this way. But for me that seems to be enough to argue in this way.
I think for a lot of atheists, and the new atheists in particular, their main concern isn't the existence of God per se, it's overturning religious myths and supserstitions that get in the way of a rational, scientifically grounded understanding of the world. That's why we can see a kinship between atheists, deists, and even ancient atomists. It also explains why so much online atheism content has been focused on young earth creationism.
I think this is right! I just spoke to a statistician about probability for just the very reason you raise - grounding 'miraculous' events through the scientific method is so important.
I like graham’s “atheism and agnosticism” more than “atheism: the basics”
I've not actually read that one, though it looks like a quick read at 70 pages - I'll pick it up :)
@@SamuelDevis89 I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
Is that a plaster I see on Prof. Oppy's right temple.? I hope he wasn't hit by a cricket ball and is about to turn into a theist.
I was once a pretty angry and arrogant atheist. Prof. Oppy has been instrumental in turning me into a more respectful and more reasonable non-believer. As he himself says, there's no gotcha argument either way, just an accumulation of circumstantial evidence.
The world of apologetics is 300 years behind secular moral philosophy. Joe is right to advise modern theists against conflating atheism with moral antirealism
I recently spoke with Erik Wielenberg on Godless Normative Realism - it’s one that I struggle to get my head around (having been born and raised with a Christian framework), It is almost like I'm inoculated against comprehending it - hence my desire to learn more and share that journey 🍻
@@SamuelDevis89 yes, Erik’s philosophy is a prime example of what modern apologists are ignorant of.
His debate with Craig is in book form, ‘A debate on God and Morality’, and is commented on by Wes Morriston and Michael Huemer in later chapters. It’s a beautiful illustration on how the strength of an argument can outperform oration; though Weilenberg’s performance was equally convincing, his moral system shone through as being obviously more parsimonious than Craig’s.
It had all the benefits of theistic morality (which were later undermined by Huemer), but with one less hefty ontological commitment: God (Craig admits in the debate that positing God is an enormously hefty commitment).
Plus, arguments for Platonism are just so intuitive; the reality of numbers and logical laws etc are so real to us in everyday life.. they are discovered, and discoverable again; if you burnt the works of Christianity, it would not be rediscovered.
Realism about abstracta threatens God’s aseity and sovereignty, I agree with Craig and Joe. So theists must take on the multitude of arguments for platonic realism. Their God is already confined by the laws of logic… accepting the reality of abstracta would just further redound Him to explanatory impotence.
Indeed, the history of philosophy, which then branched into the sciences, has steadily relegated God to the corners of the universe.
Some great points in here - thanks for sharing!
Using "gods" doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe there are gods either. But I'm a theist. It comes across as an effort to avoid the question. The question is: do you believe in God? not: do you believe in gods? No one's interested in the second question.
Well, that's just because of your Christian bias.
That's one of the awful things about Christianity, the absolute genocide of pther people's culture is certainly unparalleled.
Which god? How do you justify monotheism?
Ignoring polytheism doesn't magically make it go away.
@@shassett79 but that's a different question, it's regarding proofs.
@@calebsmith7179are you saying you're a polytheist? Or did it go away?
The Christian, Darth Dawkins, obliterated Graham Oppy on discord a few years ago
Darth was destroyed by Oppy.
Lol no
Foolishness. The fool says in His heart there is no God.
Atheist here. Maybe the author of those words was having a bad day with a local atheist and so he lashed out, in a nasty manner. Can you explain why atheists are necessarily fools?
@@rolandwatts3218 What has been created points to a creator. The destructive fruits of a godless worldview as seen by the scars left upon human history by both Nazis and Communists. The mental health crises brought to modern civilization by the muddied confused mess that is post-modernist thinking infused with critical theory. And one could go on.
What evidence do you have for your claim?
Maybe the author of those words was having a bad day with a local atheist and so he lashed out, in a nasty manner. Can you explain why atheists are necessarily fools?
The fool who wants to attack people who don't believe the bible quotes the bible to say they are foolish.