Fallacies in Arguing for God? | Episode 1610 | Closer To Truth
When believers argue that God exists, what mistakes do they make? What are their errors in logic as well as in fact? Whoever wants to believe in God must not use arguments that do not work. Featuring interviews with Francis S. Collins, Francisco J. Ayala, Richard Swinburne, J.L. Schellenberg, and Michael Shermer.
Season 16, Episode 10 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Theology #Fallacies
If there existed a logically valid and compelling argument for God we'd already have that argument in hand. Not only this, but if the argument was actually logically sound all theists, logicians, mathematicians, and even scientists should not only recognize the validity of the argument, but they would all be on the same page with that argument. Clearly no such argument exists.
There is only one irrefutable argument i know of, material universe can produce conscious living creatures, and there's no need for that in any existing physics or philosophical thought. Like people said in the video, material reality can very well function on it's own. But is this true, are there no physical reasons for life? Not really, living organisms can reverse flow of entropy, maybe this is how universe evolved so it can survive material annihilation. If all planets would be full of life and could space travel, living force could have a huge impact on fate of the material because we don't let matter fall apart. Molecular compounds should last much longer than elements alone would.
My issue has always been people saying things to convince other people. I have stated this simply, but it is as simple as that. If a god wanted us to know it would speak for itself.
Hey Mystic Dreamer... I agree with your statement but I wonder if a "logically valid" argument for God existed and people recognized it's validity, would we still be reading the "same page" in the same book? We'd all be on the same page but in what book? The same page could appear in a theist's book and an atheist's book! So... maybe such an argument for God does exist... but someone, sensing the illogical acceptance of that " same page ," decided to simply tear out that page and tossed it into the wind.
@Language and Programming Channel It wants me to believe you and not it?
@Language and Programming Channel You are not trying to convince me. But that is part of your religious teachings, to go into the world and spread the word, is it not? Or do you have a different interpretation?
Very interesting, logical, and worthwhile video. A must see video for everyone.
The late physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman once said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool". I think this applies not just in science but in all aspects of life, especially religion and today, politics.
Is he your God?
After 22min Michael Shermer shows up to explain it all.
Ha! Or purports to.
You should view the part with Ayala to. He is great.
@@Ploskkky Yes......."knowledge is something good by almost any measure" a statement like that only comes from an enlightened individual!
Loving your series so far!
" Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self" Bhagavid-gita 10:32
shut the hell up.
Sugar-coated wishful translation of a thousands of years old book.
Which, when you think about it long enough means ...exactly nothing. A beautiful sounding string of words though.
@@gokarty It means psychology to me. You could say God is the supreme psychologist because he knows whats good for us even when we don't.
Another god of the gaps because we don't YET know how a living brain generates a soul.
Thanks for your hard work. 🙏🏾 This is gold!
excellent summary of many of the issues. a wonderful place for believers to begin their journey; closer to truth
Perfect being must have Perfect presence . All powerful must have power to show his presence . If HE can not show / prove HIS existence then how can be powerful ? How come we can not see God who was , is and will always be present in all times but can not be seen. What kind of God needs assumptions and philosophical explanations and HE can not be seen and heard and remains in hiding .
In the 1930s going into the 1950s Wilhelm Schmidt did a massive study worldwide and found that the further back he went he did not find polytheism. He found a universal monotheism that as time went by got covered up in a lot of cultures with magick and spirit-ism until many cultures became polytheistic, but not all. The one unifying perception of the monotheistic God was that Man somehow failed and God became hidden from us. Mankind is obviously a fallen race with the number one sin of blaming someone or something for our own failures. Many blame God, but you're a sinful person and expect God to show Himself to you without any sorrow for how you've mistreated others or disbelieve in your Creator? If you truly wish to seek God first humble yourself and ask His forgiveness in Christ Who came and Died for You and raised from the dead so you can know He is Who He claimed to be. If you truly want to know God seek Him.
I call it faith....and there is nothing wrong with simply having faith! If you're looking for scientific evidence of God, it is my personal opinion that it will never be found within that discipline. Let's just leave it at faith and move on.
I used to be a believer and now I'm not. I used to believe God made all this to watch us all take some 70 year entrance examination. But two hundred million years of dinosaurs biting chunks out of each other in a Pangean swamp? All those lifeless worlds needlessly scattered throughout the infinite void of space? What kind of omniscient being would be entertained by those eternities of meaninglessness, enough to create them on purpose?
Hey Socks... why do you think "all those lifeless worlds needlessly scattered throughout the infinite void of space" are a meaningless form of entertainment? I'm curious how you view such?
@Taintpuss McGooch Nope... I'm not baiting an argument. I don't like to argue or debate. Basically I just think to myself and question things.
@WheelieBinMonster I think your statements make a lot of sense.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👌👏👏👏👏👏👏 images.app.goo.gl/u2neEtWesbLZcjFC6
@WheelieBinMonster Yet when your god DID get bored of 200,000,000 years of dinosaurs, he threw an asteroid at the Earth identical to thousands of others, then created the garden of Eden? No. Next we had 63,000,000 years of random birds, mammals and insects and bacteria eating and pooping with no awareness beyond instinct. Then when an ape learned to walk upright and talk, another two million years of suffering carved us into a tribe escaping slavery, where the Bible picks up the story.
The argument against design, that we could design the human body more perfectly, is fallacious because we can't. We do not know how to make a human, so we are in no position to judge the method.
We do not even know how to make simplest of cells from non-life.
Fantastic video series. So glad I found this channel
Incredible thought provoking discussions!!
Hey Susan,,, I agree with you. Robert Kuhn's journey and search seem to help me look inward and think more about life and the cosmos. I hope however that someday his search ( and mine )come to an end.
First we need a clear definition of GOD. Only then can we begin to prove or disprove their existence.
@Michael Molarsky: You're correct . . . if you mean by "definition" a series of instructions by which one can have the experience of God. You "prove" the existence of an apple by providing the instructions necessary to experience one: go to the grocery store (in certain countries), find the produce section, look for round, red objects, etc. Similarly, that's the same way you experience God. Follow one of the prescribed methods: prayer, meditation, drugs, etc . . .
That which has eternally existed and has no cause.
@Language and Programming Channel so has your god retired by now ?
Yes, I'm a life long atheist but an recent experience with 5meoDMT has left me with no other word than God to explain the experience
@@jacobjorgenson9285 Cha-ching. Ring up another customer for DMT . . .
Great work Robert and Team!
A fantastic, very interesting video. Thanks.
The argument from Devine hiddeness is the strongest refutation of a loving god I've ever seen.
Divine Hiddeness is the doctrine that a righteous God cannot live amongst evil. The human race is evil, just look at history. No animal commits genocide and much more could be said, but everyone blames their failings on others or don't admit them at all. When you realize the truth about yourself and truly wish to change and know God He will reveal Himself to you. Jesus said, If you've seen Me you have seen the Father. God is only available to those who seek Him, but He's there.
@@js8270 Nonsense, God didn't create evil directly, He only allowed it through free choice for a higher purpose that we finite creatures cannot discern, but keep on your evil path and God will explain to you one day why you should have said no to it. It may be too late to turn from it then. The Universe is God's Universe and His Will is the Law. You have a conscious and know right from wrong as far as it goes with how you were raised.
Dear Lawrence, I would love to hear you sit down and talk across a table with Matt Dillahunty.
That would be an extremely interesting conversation but I think Matt likes more of an antithetical opponent. Lawrence freely admits to not knowing the answers.
@Ψ Personally I think Matt holds up just fine. He's better at cutting through the word salad and woo that tend to impress those who think big words and expensive degrees make your points more valid. IMO
suzette9999 or Lawrence Krauss
suzette9999 he would have to conclude he gives these people free reign n have no justification for doing so !
Thank you for this!
Great episode, kudos!
“God” has taken on so many meanings over the years, whatever can’t be explained otherwise, is attributed to “god”. Discussion should begin with an agreement about what “god” is. And of course, what something is, depends on when you ask, so in context with something else. A statement or story. “God created the universe” or “god allows suffering”, “god parted the waters”. And rationally, you have to acknowledge, these could be three different entities or causes entirely. Another of the first steps in defining god is to distinguish god from spirituality. Sometimes when people ask “does god exist”, they are asking if there is a spiritual realm.
mars belongs to life in an infinite universe it make sense to catch solar wind pull cables from pole to pole slightly offset for the dynamo effect rockets are eternal
That would depend on if the person who believes in god is almighty and all powerful like the Big 3 faiths. They claim their god is the overall power of everything and even if it wasn't directly god that caused x thing to happen by definition that type of god would be indirectly responsible for _everything_ good and bad because he was the one who set it up and knew what would happen before it did. If you want to claim god is not all powerful and does not know the future then you may have a point, but saying that might cause some issues with people who do believe god is that powerful which as far as I know is most believers.
@@InMaTeofDeath when you identefy as a human being - an almighty god is a lesser entity to humanity. if you identefy as an almighty god; most gods belongs to life where monoteism comes from mathematics as in how many (for mathematics to exist you need to ask how many) - rockets are eternal / mars belongs to life in an infinite universe it makes sense to catch solar wind - pull cables from pole to pole slightly offset for the dynamo effect
InMaTeofDeat what I’m saying is, “god, the creator of all”, the “god” we pray to, and the “god” that “parted the waters”, could theoretically be three different things. It may be that an “angel” answers our prayers. It might have been aliens that parted the waters, it might have happened naturally, it might never have happened, etc. “God” may be the highest power, but there are probably many other besides god, more capable than us, that might appear to be gods. After all, it’s about fallacies in the argument for god.
I disagree. It is futile for any two people to agree what God is or means. We know how the Abrahamic religions see it. Jefferson called God the "Author of the universe". Einstein, agreeing with Spinoza, said that God was the universe itself. To me, it's presumptuous to declare you know God's nature. I can't say much about God beyond a few things. He doesn't involve himself much- or at all - with the small dilemmas of humans riding on this tiny rock. He may like a good laugh. That's about all I can see.
It is interesting how many of the interviewees consider legitimate the arguments that other interviewees define as fallacy.
@Language and Programming Channel And logic dictates two opposite assumptions cannot both be true. God is or he is not. Case closed.
@Language and Programming Channel I don't agree. Infinite regressess are a scientific absurdity and therefore all things, both material and non material must necessarily come from one source. Both scripture and top scientists that were or are not theists unilaterally agree that time space and matter had a beginning from a single source at sometime in the past. Some of those scientists were/are, Hawking, Bord, Guth, Vilenkin to name a few. Logic dictates that all things both material and non material origionate from one source in the past. I just gave you sufficient evidence to support that claim. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Because, logic dictates two premises that oppose one another cannot both be true.
@@1974jrod I do not disagree with your statement but, what is non material?
@@falconquest2068 Information, consciousness, and energy.
@@1974jrod Uhhhh, I can accept information & consciousness (whatever that is) but you may run into an argument from physicists with regard to energy. Any discussion involving the universe, it's creation or otherwise, necessarily leads to physics. Since we have yet to understand physics in it's totality, does that not by it's very nature allow the hypothesis of a creator to enter into the discussion? In other words, isn't our lack of fully understanding physics synonymous with our inability to understand if their is a "god"? Again, not disagreeing, just pondering ideas.
*_“… Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner
I advise u to read the whole article. Out of context quotation isn't working again. People can simply check for themselves.
I'm personally aware of this because I myself had been a guinea pig of this type of research myself. What makes me special, or any human being special, is that we can be aware of our own predicament and choose the most reasonable choice.
Believers say that God is "this" and "that", and use supposedly tremendous philosophical agruments, ect., but THEN: the Bible! So, forget all the philosophical arguments they use. In the end: the Bible. It's so annoying. We argue with them, like if they are inteligent people and then... the Bible... We must never forget: these guys believe the Bible. End of story.
What about those who believe in the Pentateuch or Talmud. The Qur'an? The Buddha? Or one of a thousand other 'disciplines'? Do you hold the same contempt for them as well?
@@frankielemonjello Of course! Most of those you mentioned are Bible based, are Abrahamic religions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions The main point of my argument was this: they try to use high philosophical statements, like if they really use them to believe what they believe. Yet, they believe stupid basic things like miracles, virgin births, resurection, angels, demons, divine interventions, etc.
@@clorofilaazul So you are the arbiter of the experience of others?
@@frankielemonjello What a stupid question.
@@clorofilaazul It's stupid to think you're the arbiter of another's experience too. But yet, here you are.
I look forward to the big nothing, the same nothing ions before I was incarnated, after all, If I don't exist after I die then I won't know that I don't exist - sounds good to me.
_ This 'I' that exists, is it: -"I" as a concept or thought form? -or- "I" as the body or mind? -or- "I" that is a feeling of BEING that transcends all concepts of the physical universe? _ The fullest understanding of this "I" may bring to light this conundrum of beliefs or non-befief in a "God".
@@wladicus1 - I am
@@mattfarmer4621 -but never the personal "I' which is a mental illusion.
@Daniel Paulson _ Initially, the observation is a mental process. The personal "I" has made an effort to observe that which is not itself - or so it thinks. That is key - the personal "I" is thought thinking. It is like the thief pretending to be a cop and hoping to catch the thief. But the cop IS the thief. It is the same mind at work. It is still mind at work. Mind is simply a word we use to describe the activity of thought. There is no mind as an entity by itself. _ If one continues to attend to the observation with no reaction ( which would be judgement, assumptions, etc.- which is still thought) then the sense of personal "I" begins to fade and perception starts to manifest from the base of the REAL I, not the intellectual "I". (This REAL I is akin to the intellectual understanding of the "I AM THAT I AM" of Moses - but this is still only a thought and can fool the intellect which is merely conditioned thought). _ Seeing the world, life, etc... from the Source (the REAL I or Self) is what many have called enlightenment. But the Self is always enlightened and the personal character (you, me, people as psychological characters) can never be enlightened, for they do not exist as reality, but as conceptual manifestations of thought/intellect. These concepts, conditioned thinking, veils the Reality of Self which is always present everywhere, but completely impersonal. _ The Self, transcends all thought, therefore thought cannot comprehend it. _ Thought can only make pitiful analogies which may point in a direction of discovering what veils true perception, sometimes. It depends on whether there is freedom from conditioning as the identity of a person. _ As long as experience is in terms of personal characters like John and Mary, etc., driven by conditioned thinking/belief or intellect, then the truth of what actually is, the true sense of BEING will not be apparent in one's experience of life.
Amazing insights.
One of the things I most love about this series, is how I feel like I'm involved in the interviews a lot. As if I'm there also discussing these topics. Because as the experts and interviewees are talking, the response or question or thought I'm thinking, Robert usually brings it up and asks it.
I never heard anything other than fallacies, lies, distortions, and pure and utter nonsense as evidence for the existence of god(s). That is why I have been a non believer for more than 35 years now.
Had a question, true or false? If something exists now then something has always existed since forever into the past because something cannot come from non-existence or nothing.
@@MountainFisher No, you do not get it. There are debilitating fundamental problems with your syllogism. This is exactly what I mean. Theists always seem to repeat the same fallacious reasoning over and over. It makes me feel sick and depressed. Do you guys not realize that this nonsense has been debunked and addressed over and over again? Do not expect me to enlighten you in a youtube thread, because that simply is not doable. Please study, educate yourself., because this is really embarrassing.
@@Ploskkky So something can come from Nothing?
Thats poor logic
@@L6e200011 How so? I have never heard a cogent refutation of the axiom "If something exists now then something has always existed." To claim that particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum still doesn't prove something from nothing. Space IS something, waves move through it and gravity warps it. We do not know why quantum particles just appear and disappear, but there is a reason and we don't know why. Just like we do not know what space is, or energy is. There is a lot of things we can describe what they do, but we still don't know what they are.
I always find it pity that one of the main reasons a person wants God to exist (as the presenter said at the begining), is to provide meaning to his/her life. That not only implies that their life is currently meaningless, but also that they are incapable of finding it and need someone else to do the job. Furthermore, what such meaning would be? Eternal servitude?
People do things with meaning and purpose while existing is nothing we did or do. People seeing meaning and purpose outside of brains/minds is a projection of our selves.
your name means "man of God"
LOVE, experience of multiplicity.thats the meaning of all this, simple yet these overthinking apes are going far,but at end they'll meet god waiting for them
A statistical impossibility is defined as *_“a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument."_* (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists _‘must’_ believe in and promote because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology / worldview. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
a person finding meaning is really a dense statement that needs to be unpacked a bit, so let me try to explain what is my view of this we call those things good which we desire so it's kind of phenomenological it's the thing towards which one has an inclination by virtue of the fact that his nature is suited to it, we call that thing perfect which lacks nothing proper to its nature and then final causality it's the type of thing which accounts ultimately for the movement of a nature towards its full realization what we're talking about when we talk about God and meaning is ultimate desirability, the world of things is imperfect, unstable, it doesnt hold permanence, i'ts basically fading while God is the fullness of being, so, therefore, the supreme, infinite Being is also the Supreme Good from which all creatures derive their being and goodness. and if we follow the thread imo highest state of freedom is an inability to sin why because what real freedom is is the ability to flourish as the thing you arey the creature you arey the nature you possess unhindered by ignorance, unhindered by history perhaps of traumasy unhindered by physical or spiritual or mental conditionsy and so freedom is something we achieve only in union with God. when we distance ourself from him we don't increase ourself, we diminish ourselfs we begin to shrink and shrivel, it is not us who tend to "humanize" God by seeing Him as a Person, vice verse - it is God who created us in His image and only through communion with Him we can became ourselves! so Christianity is God joining his ontologickal nature with our nature in order to transform it in his image, being born of a woman so we can be born of God, Potter joining with the clay.
But Robert. Even if you believe, you will bellieve because you saw. Blessed are those who did not see, yet have they believed.
Believed what?seeing ad perceiving ad experiencing are different.u have to prove belief or it's just wichcraft
I want to finally resolve this argument once and for all. There is no god but if you want to believe there is one then go ahead and believe. Its all about belief. How your brain perceives the world and the experiences you have of it. Your mind will convince itself through whatever thought processes you choose to use, you'll get to your decision. I'll say that again, your decision. To me, I see it as purely a human concept, I can't stress that enough. It's up to you!
Robert out here dressed like he has an interview at noon, but he’s hittin the disco after
😂😂
Yeah, 70’s night!
@@DL-rl9bd them were the days! 😄
Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest if Kuhn first explored fallacies of atheism? That way he could start with examining his own beliefs.
You are right, we should start by examining our own beliefs. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of a belief so there isn't an argument that could be fallacious.
@@myothersoul1953 Thanks for your response. Here is my reply. The claim that atheism is not a belief but simply the absence of a belief in god is a delusion. Wittgenstein exposed the sleight of hand in such thinking in this way: “All that philosophy can do is to destroy idols. And that means not creating a new one - for instance as in “absence of an idol”. It follows then that you believe in the absence of an idol. (By the way, just in passing, in a poll of professional philosophers carried out in the US in 1999, Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations was voted the most important work of the 20c.) If atheism is just absence of a belief in a god, why is the atheist philosopher John Gray (2018) able to describe these seven types of atheism in his recent book of the same title: 1.the so-called ‘new atheism’ - ‘which contains little that is novel or interesting’; 2. atheism as ‘secular humanism’ - ‘a hollowed-out version of the Christian belief in salvation in history’; 3. ‘atheism as a kind of religion from science’ - ‘a category that includes evolutionary humanism, Mesmerism, dialectical materialism, and contemporary transhumanism’; 4. ‘atheism as manifested in modern political religions, from Jacobinism through communism and Nazism to contemporary evangelical liberalism’; 5. atheism - of ‘God-haters’(anti-theists); 6. atheism - ‘which rejects the idea of a creator-god without having any piety towards “humanity”’; 7. atheism - as ‘mystical… negative theologies, all of which in different ways point to a God that transcends any human conception’?
@@lesliecunliffe4450 John Gray is able to describe 7 types of atheism because he clearly delineated what he means by atheism in each case. In the absence of a specifically defined meaning it's best to go with the commonly understood meaning of the word, that is the dictionary definition: lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. If you don't like that we can break down the word into parts. The prefix "a" meaning without and the root "theism" meaning a belief in the existence of a god. Put them together and what do you get, without a belief in god. John Gray and you can use whatever personal definitions of words you want. But when I use the word "atheism" I mean the common and accepted meaning of the word.
@@myothersoul1953 I note that you haven’t dealt with the main thrust of my argument, which is embodied in the quote from Wittgenstein. I’ll press on a little further. One of Wittgenstein’s many other insights was to understand ‘language as use’ as normative, as in forms of life and practices, rather than through looking up dictionary definitions. In Wittgenstein’s words: ‘it is practice that gives words their sense.’ That's what Gray does. He describes how the word atheism is used in relationship to forms of life, ideologies, toxic regimes, etc. Therefore, there is nothing ‘personal’ in these descriptions. When the Chinese communist party murder and persecute religious believers and others in their own country, they do it in the name of their ‘atheist’ state. That is a good example of meaning as use. To repeat: “All that philosophy can do is to destroy idols. And that means not creating a new one - for instance as in “absence of an idol”. You, like all atheists, believe in the absence of an idol. The fact that you don’t understand this is a delusion.
@@lesliecunliffe4450 Wittgenstein wrote two primary works: "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and "Philosophical Investigations". They approached language and meaning in contradictory ways. So whatever quote you can find of Wittgenstein this is a probably another quote saying the nearly opposite. That's the problem with appeals to authority, they are total unconvincing unless backed by data and reason. I am glad there are philosophers of language. That discipline keeps keeps philosophers employed and practicing philosophy. A pool of well trained philosophers is good to have in case we ever need them. However, I don't find the philosophy of language all that useful or interesting. It always seems to end in a muddle of not saying much. And whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent, at least that's what I heard. That seems right so I'll take that advice and thereof I remain silent on the philosophy of language.
Once,we go beyond,science& maths,is at standstill&knowledgeless,only the life side is working at full force,where the virtues are directly tapped into.Our attitudes,come back to normal,when we are in the consciousness of the physical.
Wonderful personality ❤
One fallacy is in your introduction: God does not necessarily give meaning to life.
It is a fallacy to claim that, when an argument is made, and you consider God to be the best explanation, it is a god of the gaps argument. Many experiences and knowledge in science, moral philosophy and natural theology point toward a Superior intelligence. Many of those experiences and knowledge find a reasonable argument in a Superior Intelligent Cause.
@Language and Programming Channel but they work to fill the gaps in knowledge, religion doesnt change to further itself.
10:22 Thank-you for describing the Demiurge:P
Oh please!
Francis (first guy) - first theist that I've heard that did not sound like a complete babbling fool. Thank you Francis for having a proper conversation and pointing out some the terrible fallacy arguments we're all tired of hearing
All the theists in this video were refreshingly logical. ...makes you wonder how the *do* actually justify their belief.
@@LastBastian Maybe it's not simply what they believe, but what they know🕎🕎🕎🕛🕛🕛🌎🌎🌎⚓⚓⚓🌊🌊🌊🔱🔱🔱😇😇😇
The explanations for some of the supposed fallacies in this video are really just opinions. In fact, there is a rich ongoing academic philosophical discourse on these matters. Is it possible that mr. Kuhn may be suffering from confirmation bias himself? Just wondering…
@Language and Programming Channel Well I do believe in objective truth (whether we know it or not). nevertheless, I acknowledge your coherence.
@zempath You are right. Now, it remains to be seen whose arguments are fallacious and whose are legitimate.
Language and Programming Channel subjective truth changes, but the earth always did go around the sun, even when they thought otherwise. Right?
@Language and Programming Channel What does "Pyrrhonian" mean? Being agnostic on positions is a rational approach but I don't know if it is actually the most rational. If truth changes, then we will always have to claim to be agnostic. But can there be any absolute truths? If we say that there are no absolute truths, then isn't even that very statement false and a contradiction? I'm trying to understand the logic.
@@videos_iwonderwhy I like your statements.
The true nature of the universe is far more profound than any of us knows. God is a childish response to the quest of understanding ourselves in the universe.
Believe if you wish, but it doesn't mean you're right.
Another Kuhn, Thomas S. Kunh in 1962 examined the historical development of science. He came to a conclusion that science works within a limited framework known as paradigm. Within this paradigm there are are certain assumptions that are taken for granted that are rarely questioned unless there is crisis where too many anomalies do not fit the whole paradigm. Whatever the arguments over the existence of God is undertaken within science, in favour or against it will not hold water because the paradigm of science is too narrow to question God.
"always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7.
Fush... I hope we do come to a knowledge of the truth when we take our last breath. I know that might seem like a "cop-out" to some people. But it's still something to hope for. Of course it's not any kind of apology, but is HOPE a bad thing?
The Bible is a copout. What else do you have?
This only happens when studying religion.
@Language and Programming ChannelSo you are going to hell the, since you fo not worship Allah.
@@wiskadjak I stopped studying religion a long time ago ( sneezing from all the dust on my books). Hey... this only happens when you STOP studying religion!
“I’d like to be a theist; I _want_ God to exist: Life can have meaning, death not be final…” There are a couple of questionable assumptions here: that life can have meaning only if God is a reality, and that if God exists death would not be final. The first assumption is puzzling for someone as intelligent and educated as Kuhn to make. While admittedly in the minority overall, there are still plenty of atheists around, and most of them likely find no less meaning in life than the average theists. I wonder if Kuhn is using the word “meaning” here to represent a telos, or cosmic purpose. Similarly, the second assumption might be based on a conflation of generic theism and Christian theology, since it’s the latter which includes the notion of eternal souls, while the former by no means does. Then, too, there’s the not insignificant point that if death _were_ final, it wouldn’t prove to be a problem since there wouldn’t be an experiencer there to register the fact. Death as annihilation isn’t an experience to be endured. Nor does belief in eventual annihilation render life meaningless in the interim (to bring it back around to the first assumption above).
Love this show!
The nature of material reality, which is transient and contingent, gives us a reasonable basis for believing in the necessary being, which is essential and eternal, as the probable and plausible cause and explanation for the existence of material reality in the beginning.
*_“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”_* --- Albert Einstein
He never said that
You wish he was that dumb.....What he did say was "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends…. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
Only a minute in, and I already have problems. Which god does does this guy want to exist? Why does he think that his life has no purpose without a god? Why does he think if a god exists, then it follows that an afterlife necessarily exists? There are many god beliefs all over the world, that do not have afterlife beliefs. Jews, for just one example. OK, back to watching...
Let me also add, that he says, "he wants to believe". This is not a rational method to even begin to approach the subject. I only "want" to believe that which is true, and the best method to discern that which is true, is to base ones beliefs on: demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic. Going into any question with the attitude that one wants it to be true, is already adding a bit of confirmation bias.
@Language and Programming Channel I'm not sure I care if there is inherent meaning or not. I provide my own meaning to my life. I have no problem justifying the meaning I have for my life. It's interesting to me, that the vast majority of people would (rightly) protest against any power that would: choose their career for them, choose their spouse, choose their hobbies, where they can work, what they could eat, etc, etc, But have no problem believing it is alright for some authority to choose the meaning in their life. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism, whether it is a leader of a country or a gods.
The only way to truly know is for God to reveal Himself. Few are chosen and would not be believed by others.
Even then it is hard to believe.
If mankind's existence is necessary, does it necessarily have to be "this kind of existence?"
And how can ANY educated medical scientist possibly conclude there's a god?! Insane. Complete conflict of fact with fiction.
How so?
Einstein pointedly published a letter/statement clarifying that he never said he believed in god. Hawking did similar.
@@13thAMG Do you have that link? It would be interesting to read.
Because science Quantum Mechanics in particular is showing God is real.
Watch at 2:50 for Quantum Mechanics proof of Gods possibility . kzhead.info/sun/dpGOqNB9iJxnZq8/bejne.html
Fantastic episode! Listen to Robert, theists. You have a "higher obligation to beware of fallacies". Here's why. 24:28
There is a very broad definition of "God" possible that is capable of equating it to almost anything other than materialism. That would be to say that there is a "deepest power" in reality/existence which is in SOME sense indistinguishable from the deepest root nature of consciousness or livng being-ness. Sub-divisions of "God" could then proceed from there...whether it is to be considered an "entity" and so forth. I would suggest that there are very few "fallacies" indeed in this deployment of the God term, with the one caveat that it may not be narrow enough for some people's tastes. But then the narrower ones do become more susceptible to fallacies.
The most honest expression would be at the possibility of his existence that would be it
Kuhn's mission may last his whole life because there is no end in sight. I call this a Career
No one ever got their religion by logical deduction, and no one will ever lose it that way either.
It's strange hearing Francis Collins say that beauty in the world is not a reason to believe in God when a frozen waterfall was enough to convince him.
God is a label for an explaination of natural phenomena that are not understood. A label for reality. Just focus on reality. It's easy. Everything makes sense. All your answers are there. It's not easy to unveil them, but that's just the way it is.
god is another word for we don’t know
Dillahunty came to my mind whn I read this.
The birth canal and jaw argument does not take into consideration the believers idea of sin which claims that humans have decreased in size since the introduction of sin.
During his conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and Dr. Rowan Williams, Dr. Richard Dawkins admitted, *_“I can't be sure God does not exist."_* --- Quoted in The Telegraph, in 2012-02-24 (Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world's foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution. He has also been described as the “World’s Most Famous Atheist.” However, over the years, Dawkins is now described as Agnostic.)
Belief is part of our programme and is there for a reason
Pedophilia is a part of some people's programming....is that there for a reason to?
@@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646 yes, you said it P is for some people, but belief is in all. Whether its triggered or not.
@@cooking_innovations my point is you act like things are meant to be. That's not exactly thinking. Everything exists for a reason, might as well say it exists because it exists. Anything else is childish. We have never answered an ultimate question and well probably never will.
@@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646 ment to be doesn't make any sense to what I said. are you just assuming my intentions?? I only said one statement which doesn't give much. One statement doesn't give much
@@cooking_innovations my apologies.
Morals come from well being. We don't need a god to work out what is right and wrong based on well being.
Ever live in Communist China? Experience their idea of well being like selling political prisoners organs from profit even though it kills the prisoner?
One day we understand everything then there's no God or gaps
There will always be a gap in human knowledge, so god will be playing hop scotch on those area.
The only fallacy is not believing in god. God is all around us. God is everywhere.
Great video. However, the zoot suit is even better.
The first idea that "the argument of design is fallacious" is very interesting. Having studied Darwinian evolution personally I don't see how Darwinian evolution explains the complex nature of being.
What believers die they don't worry about someone saying Gotcha! If there is no life after death, then there is no one to mock you for getting it wrong. Ask yourself who will mock you if you get it wrong. Is it father, uncle, teacher or yourself. Forgive that mocker and you will spiritually connect with the same Holy Spirit that believers know internally. There is no Gotcha at the end of life.
If you need reason in order to believe in God, and you believe that this is the only way that you will be able to believe in God, prove that me. Proove that is true and that there is no other justifiable way to believe in God, and I will adopt it. You see I take leaps of faith all the time. Nearly every day. And I would wager nearly everybody else does the same damn thing. But when it comes to believing in God‘s existence, suddenly absolute evidence and reasoning is the only way.
God existing can never be more simple than God not existing. This is because any reality that exists without God, the framework exists for God to create that reality as he is all powerful. Necessarily making the reality with God at least as complex any reality without God.
_ What actually is this thing we call belief, if not some particular form of thinking? _ And if we look deeply enough into understanding what thinking is all about then many mysteries will be revealed.
Hey Walt... I have often wondered the same about the word "belief." I wonder how Jesus the Christ viewed and defined "belief?"
@@johnbrzykcy3076 - We really don't know and it is not important to what we need to understand now as we live life every moment. _ Anything handed down to us in written/printed form like ancient letters, scriptures, or any version of the bible is highly suspect. _ Scholars have determined that the earliest writings about Jesus were made from 30 to 70 years after Jesus' death, and most likely not by any eye witnesses. So this is already second-hand knowledge or hearsay evidence (someone heard something then wrote down their interpretation of what they heard). _ Also, Jesus taught in the Aramaic language, his native tongue. _ The earliest writings were in Aramaic but have long since disappeared. _ From their research scholars determine that there has been a chain of translation to the present day, a chain of interpretation and modification according to evolving church thought about Jesus etc. _ What we have as the sayings of Jesus in the New Testament today were translated in the following chain: Aramaic-to-Greek-to-Latin-back to Greek-to-English and other languages. And considerable interpretation along the way is unavoidable as you may gather from your own experience of simple everyday events or news story telling etc.
It's relieving just to accept that a higher power is a each way bet in the origin stakes It makes no sense to worry about the bet we are all coerced to take the odds and live and die with the outcome It is not self delusion to believe in higher powers than man's consciousness It is easy to believe and further to accept we cannot know
How does your first interviewee KNOW that God is true. How can a man of science see God's hand in something. Its quite incredible.
@@BigSausageTits Sounds like a case of frontal lobe epilepsy or a minor stroke.
People create religions with gods that created the universe, with gods that know everything, with gods that are in complete control of everything, BUT, the same gods can not even print money, SO, they demand to have your money or you will burn until eternity. I say holy H. Crapola.
You could never prove nor disprove the existence of God so if you want to believe just believe. Not by faith but by choice.
Francis Collins is the guy who got poked by the Dr and was surprised, seeing blood proclaimed, "Huh, what do you know! Dead men do bleed."
Without faith you cannot reason. Where do the laws of logic come from.
Jim Scott You are clueless. You cannot account for your reasoning you go on faith.
There's no faith without any risk, clever man don't take risks, he follows his gut feelings, insight intuitions certainly aren't dreamers...
Our ability to reason isn't evidence of a God...No God has to exist for us to do what we call reasoning.
It occurs to me that all the "why" questions ("why do we exists, why is there a universe, etc) are not legitimate. They are classic "begs the question" ploys.
I think the more people you ask , the more you will end up disappointed. I ask the same questions but perhaps there are things we'll never have the answers to.
Great discussion, whether there is a god or not, really doesn’t matter from my perspective, what matters is how we live and take care of this planet and it’s biosphere that supports life and respect others as we would want to be respected, God whether he exist or not has nothing to do with religions, religions are institutions created by humans to justify our treatment and what we do to those outside their groups,
Stop and help a child who has fallen back to her feet; prepare a bandage for her knee. You will find yourself Closer to Truth.
Michael Shermer likes to say “design in nature” and “evolution is the designer”. Yeh, as soon as one says we’re designed, the theist is gonna seize on that and say that therefore there’s a designer. I think “design” is potentially misleading, so I try to avoid using it. These days I say “evolved” and/or “adapted”.
Still ❤️ Your series keep on trucking 🤔👌👀
I must admit I was expecting the usual guff here, but was pleasantly surprised by the freshness of your approach. Your interviewees had only a few moments to present their complex arguments and they did pretty well (apart from the guy with the bumper book of evolutionary arguments). Good luck in your quest!
The idea of God is terrifying. We can work through science and reson to make our lives better, but to appease some higher being in the hope that it will do us any good is such a disturbing notion, that I am quite content that there is no evidence of such a being.
4:50 'God had to step in....' They are saying God wasn't smart enough to set up the universe so as to get what he wanted without further messing around.
What if the imperfect designs we see in this dimension are perfect in other dimensions/timelines? What if this is the only reality where nature designs are imperfect? Is perfection only a mental construct by the human mind?
Prove that those other dimensions exist, as well as the designs you assert exist. Then we'll consider whether it is a mental construct or not.
@@MsMsmak I asked those questions precisely because I don't have the answers, I am not here imposing ideas, but provoking thoughts and contemplating possibilities
@S Gloobal I'm interested in your argument, please explain
@S Gloobal Go ahead. Prove intelligent design.
@@Szchandler Thank you for clarifying that. What matters to me is evidence that we can detect. Since we cannot detect evidence of another dimension, it makes no logical sense to create a scenario that might exist in one. We might as well be asking how many angels can fit on the pointy end of a pin. :-)
All of them.
Peter Atkins would be a perfect movie villain.
The choice of reference is crucial. Science, and so scientists, has limitations and so it does not able to response absolutely. Do is philosophy and theology. Listen to what God told you about 'Himself' because no creature is able to be the God.
You are really a true searcher of God. But what i feel inplace of mind if we use heart in searching God will be possible to realise that supreme power. Heart is better way to feel his presence.
The heart is an organ that pumps blood.
@@michaelgranka7904 By heart means feelings a short of love. Mind cant calculate love but heart do.
What's the hurry, soon or very soon every body will face the answer.
Infinite regress is reason enough for me to allow for believing in something outside existence, call it god.
How does that work? Normally that's an atheist argument.
@@pjaworek6793 That's the point. The atheist argument of infinite regress is so unacceptable that it drives people towards God.
The best argument for God is no argument at all, take away the argument and you take away ones ability to argue.
and if one has to argue for god, then they have given up their faith, for faith requires no argument, which is why it is called faith. and if they have no faith, why have god
@@misterroberts4240 Exactly.
This is brilliant. I think Swinburne's criticism of the moral argument is not persuasive, mainly because he offers no reason to think that the existence of objective moral values is a necessary truth in a purely contingent world.
Maybe that strong desire to have a God out of fear is in itself a self propelling fallacy
Darwinists also use the false dilemma fallacy when they ask, 'do you have a better theory?' No I don't, but that doesn't mean your theory is right. Thomas Nagel in Mind and Cosmos fought back with the charge, 'evolution of the gaps': i.e. instead of invoking God for the unknowns invoke Darwin. As Nagel argues, there may be other possibilities, especially when the first possibility appears absurdly improbable.
These programs end in the same place they started, just like Kuhn, at this stage of his life he has not come to any conclusions about the subject, or at least he says so, which I seriously doubt.