Пікірлер
@JohnSmith-bq6nf
@JohnSmith-bq6nf 16 күн бұрын
Doesn't existential inertia counter Rob's argument?
@odinallfarther6038
@odinallfarther6038 26 күн бұрын
An uncaused being ? what does he mean by being ? A god ? His god ?
@WorldCrucified
@WorldCrucified 20 күн бұрын
No
@JohnSmith-bq6nf
@JohnSmith-bq6nf 16 күн бұрын
necessary being in his case yes god
@odinallfarther6038
@odinallfarther6038 16 күн бұрын
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf no such thing as a necessary being !
@JohnSmith-bq6nf
@JohnSmith-bq6nf 16 күн бұрын
@@odinallfarther6038 then what was initial state of reality?
@odinallfarther6038
@odinallfarther6038 16 күн бұрын
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf if Eisenstein was right in energy cannot be created of destroyed , then the answer would be energy in some state or anther .
@odinallfarther6038
@odinallfarther6038 26 күн бұрын
👋🏼 nice to see you about Alex .
@odinallfarther6038
@odinallfarther6038 26 күн бұрын
Does the universe have a course ? I don't know ! If it does I'm pretty sure that cause is not a magic or verbal spell by a none physical entirety beyond time and space .
@au8363
@au8363 27 күн бұрын
this was a beatdown. Rob is a beast, a truly first rate Philosopher.
@PercyTinglish
@PercyTinglish 26 күн бұрын
You're easily impressed 😂
@oftenincorrect
@oftenincorrect 29 күн бұрын
Fixed the audio as best I could: drive.google.com/file/d/1G9vS3cPJbk9cY6nVtonuUE9sJEXJx_RM/view?usp=drive_link
@akoben
@akoben 29 күн бұрын
You can always get them with the Izreel question.
@FlencerMcflensington
@FlencerMcflensington Ай бұрын
Koons was a very good professor. Much thanks! I will say that if I see Malpass, I watch, like, comment and share :)
@sapereaude6935
@sapereaude6935 Ай бұрын
Just wanted to say, at least at the time I'm watching this, I can hear Malpass perfectly well enough to understand him and enjoy the discussion. It's unfortunate that there are audio issues, but you seem to have fixed them enough. Thank you very much for hosting this great debate between two leading thinkers!
@hiker-uy1bi
@hiker-uy1bi Ай бұрын
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. What reason is there to assume that the universe we see is anything more than transformed energy that has always existed?
@JohnSmith-bq6nf
@JohnSmith-bq6nf 14 күн бұрын
Where does the total energy of the universe come from buddy?
@Jett-k9e
@Jett-k9e Ай бұрын
Good lord that was hard to watch. Both speakers litter their sentences with "um" and "like." Demetriou is a particularly bad offender. His classes must be torture.
@MaryLee-r2v
@MaryLee-r2v Ай бұрын
Hernandez Donna Hernandez Susan Garcia Larry
@jacobbeckmarketing
@jacobbeckmarketing Ай бұрын
Who's the philosopher who questions him a bunch?
@PiousParable
@PiousParable Ай бұрын
Alex' sound is awful
@joshvh8348
@joshvh8348 Ай бұрын
I'm a simple man, I see Rob Koons, I click.
@jmike2039
@jmike2039 Ай бұрын
But are you divinely simple
@educationalporpoises9592
@educationalporpoises9592 21 күн бұрын
@@jmike2039 No, he's not.
@deanodebo
@deanodebo Ай бұрын
Dang that mic is bad. Too bad. Can’t hear malpass Oh well maybe next time
@JohnSmith-bq6nf
@JohnSmith-bq6nf Ай бұрын
Turn on subs
@tulpas93
@tulpas93 23 күн бұрын
Ask for your money back! 😂
@pascalbercker7487
@pascalbercker7487 Ай бұрын
As I understand the argument we can simply say that there NEVER was a time when the universe did not exist - it has ALWAYS existed - in which case the question about HOW it got started simply does not arise. One might object to the notion that the universe has ALWAYS existed, but that's a separate question.
@JohnSmith-bq6nf
@JohnSmith-bq6nf 29 күн бұрын
First off, I believe that Koons would just say universe is temporal and you need atemporal agent to explain time. So you deny big bang theory? Don’t most physicists lean toward the view that the universe is finite? Why should we believe the universe always existed? Wouldn’t we want to avoid brute facts?
@PercyTinglish
@PercyTinglish 26 күн бұрын
​@@JohnSmith-bq6nfthat misses the point entirely. Say the big Bang is true, does it say there was time before the big Bang? No. Therefore the universe has existed for all of time, which means it has always existed. It began to exist, and it has always existed.
@odinallfarther6038
@odinallfarther6038 26 күн бұрын
Problem is no one agrees on what time is , I argue time is a measurement of a phenomenon of the assumed big bang , in the past it was the day length ,stars movement ,seasons etc . Today we measure atomic decay . Conclusion Before time there was energy in some state or anther . Which leads to a whole new line of questions .
@PercyTinglish
@PercyTinglish 26 күн бұрын
@@odinallfarther6038 you're confusing what time is with how to measure time, they aren't the same.
@odinallfarther6038
@odinallfarther6038 26 күн бұрын
@@PercyTinglish I just said that time is a measurement the question or debate is what are we measuring ,I suggest we are measuring the expansion indirectly today time is measured by atomic decay . Time is a measurement as is length weight etc .
@pascalbercker7487
@pascalbercker7487 Ай бұрын
Give my regards to Prof. Wes Morriston - I was a grad student in one of his classes on Hume and philosophy of Religion. I meant to complete my PH.D. at CU Boulder - but life had other plans - and now find myself in France for very complicated reasons. He was by far one of my favorite profs. at CU Boulder (where also I had the time of my life during the 7 years I was there. Leaving Boulder Colorado was the worst decision I ever made in my life.). Do fix that microphone!
@dadsonworldwide3238
@dadsonworldwide3238 Ай бұрын
What is an apha and omega & where are you placing it? Results are in yet right off the bat referencing sources that inadvertently didn't know what we know re introduces circle arguements that's already been dealt with & cant help but be limited in knowledge we now have. St Augustin time & place application was Graced by God but he can't know how he in fact is wrong about unveiling hidden axioms of complexity. he specifically is opposed to such prophetic predictions it falls under messianic apocalyptic in his day.esoteric taxonomical defense is an opposite view. Father's loins idealistic forces of faith physical lawisms works echoes in successful human behavior in addition and subtraction/curses & blessings plagerized correlated prescribed back upon the world around us mothers womb =e=mc Eco systems feedback loop of many order of magnitude scaled epochs smaller to larger. But it was , 3 different approaches. After the fact emerging energetic actors was reduced & taken off the table, but most of the world threw away that memo! Went on about the normal practices. Threw temper tantrums argued even war & civil war over the results. In many ways the urge for a grand unified theory is driven by those motivations . One says magical matter the other was more anylitical physical mystification but 1500s we come to learn both wasn't the mosaic after all. paganism greeko assyrian babyl does get into 2nd temple Judaism & of course lends to both servitude & the reformation after all over this very eltrodynamical measure. You can witness in france Olympics that which is now removed from most Christianity today. Greatest devide ever held by it ! English gives us the alphabetical exodus married to indo European language you just mine as well forget all else. We know el =elementary its greeko assyrian babyl umbrella term stochastic approach platonic macro micro English is by passing out of context unicorns 🦄 that Homer cant help but Adopt & adapt so you mine as well cut 800bc - 1500s ad out don't bother referencing it . I say this as a Christian with all the affinities that come with that. Then we have more Jobe from uzartu mosaic triality of self free will that apparently gives us our math mapping formalism all be it flipped now after it's longitude and latitude unlocked the 3 keys to the cosmos for us. specifically defending against that taxonomical order. One where spirit of God is hovering over the waters of cosmos nature building breathe of life giving. Littery st paul indicating infinite space of nothing in between is the spirit of this power greater than before e =mc. This later has been the one who said idealistic forces faith and physical lawisms works or curses & blessings, addition and subtraction including energy, mass are all secondary effects from that frame of reference space between infinite sum. It is nothing more than a personification of powers greater than ourselves that for human logic struggles to accept ground zero is an object of renormalizablty, tells us to reorientate, and claims to he an object 1 body line of motion & frame of reference subjective as it is. Were in a reductionism to come to know this creater through his creation it doesn't have to be more complicated or driven into nilhisms. Alpha and omega has no beginning & no end. By default x nothingness Is something with even more emerging energetic actors out of it by all accounts of measure
@dadsonworldwide3238
@dadsonworldwide3238 Ай бұрын
This maps out as , Textualism methodology Christian objectivism ultimate precision instrument ✝️ xyzt tunes all atoms and adams lattus structure and body. #3 key achor all longitude latitude upon including English & pragmatic common sense Christian objectivism phylosphy. Triangulated ,congruent line of measure absorbing complexity along the way in a very triune,way because we run into direct/inderect /complex entropy & it flip flops back nothingness complex inderect then direct order everywhere we measure. 3 lines of measure = blessing & a curse. Get miss aligned by adding or subtracting 1 body line of motion it fails, deforms ,hulucinates ,statistical anylitical stochastic failure arise. Father's spirit is infinite space between ultimate F.O.R. tells us oreintation Find its measure to be very difficult based upon their They're There overlapping mergers.an X factor if you will .key to the cosmos #1 #2 Key was excersized long before richard finneman measured holy spirit entangled prayer logic 🙏 Of course Issac newton useing the underground movement math mapping formalism Descartes copied and properlized in Cartesian coordinate. Coordinate that I might add protected future generations from needing excersizisms of all isms yet let me-assure you has been hi-Jack-obianed inadvertently effortlessly overcoming horizon paradoxes without even knowing it re installing the same problems that plagued civilization pre 1500s. In many ways modern world understanding Lagrangian soul agency primordial self God's informed consent driver of free will inertia that dictates our frame of reference to evolve how we see fit is very dependent upon categorically splitting the universe . A single put back together literally puts people back into enslavement and servitude by default of how we are such an echo or ecosystem feedback loop thermodynamical system to our models.
@chasetherushpodcast2534
@chasetherushpodcast2534 Ай бұрын
Can't you run this thru an AI noise fixer of some sort? I wanna watch it but can't get past malplass audio
@TheRepugnantConclusion
@TheRepugnantConclusion Ай бұрын
@@chasetherushpodcast2534 I’ll see. I’d have to reupload it again
@chasetherushpodcast2534
@chasetherushpodcast2534 Ай бұрын
@@TheRepugnantConclusion please please please.
@chasetherushpodcast2534
@chasetherushpodcast2534 Ай бұрын
@@TheRepugnantConclusion I think maybe you will get more views if you do.
@TheRepugnantConclusion
@TheRepugnantConclusion Ай бұрын
@@chasetherushpodcast2534 my editor thinks that running it through more edits may make it seem unnatural
@TheRepugnantConclusion
@TheRepugnantConclusion Ай бұрын
@@chasetherushpodcast2534 it might get a bit robotic
@TheRealisticNihilist
@TheRealisticNihilist Ай бұрын
This is unwatchable because of how bad Malpass' mic is.
@TheRepugnantConclusion
@TheRepugnantConclusion Ай бұрын
Apologies for that one :/
@barry.anderberg
@barry.anderberg Ай бұрын
It's not THAT bad
@momentum9489
@momentum9489 Ай бұрын
Oh. It's this creature again. You ever make that argument?
@smax1500
@smax1500 Ай бұрын
The sound is problematic
@JohnSmith-bq6nf
@JohnSmith-bq6nf Ай бұрын
Turn on subtitles
@whatsinaname691
@whatsinaname691 Ай бұрын
Appreciate the reupload. I was having trouble getting through the first one. Hopefully this one has fixed all of the hijinks
@guyelgat5893
@guyelgat5893 2 ай бұрын
Fantastic discussion!
@TheRepugnantConclusion
@TheRepugnantConclusion Ай бұрын
Thank you!
@jonahmix3232
@jonahmix3232 3 ай бұрын
Wow, this was a really great debate. I hope it gets more attention in the future. I really enjoyed watching it. Thank you so much for hosting it!
@TheRepugnantConclusion
@TheRepugnantConclusion Ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@ScienceFoundation
@ScienceFoundation 3 ай бұрын
No, it's not sound. The Kalam is special pleading. If the universe began to exist then so too did the principles therein, and can't logically be applied. You don't get exempt the principle you need to make your argument, just because.
@MichaelStephenson51
@MichaelStephenson51 3 ай бұрын
You "say" you are convinced there is "something" else. You also say that the Kalam is not enough to convince you. So, what does convince you? What's the point of presenting something that does convince you. Like every other theist you make a lot of claims without providing evidence for them. The time to believe something is AFTER you have good evidence for it. Bring the evidence. You are wishy washy as all crap! I can't believe you are a Dr. of anything.
@HarryNicNicholas
@HarryNicNicholas 3 ай бұрын
why do these channels exist? vanity?
@AdF-eh1tt
@AdF-eh1tt 2 ай бұрын
That may be the answer to why does your comment exist?
@HarryNicNicholas
@HarryNicNicholas 3 ай бұрын
just a quick reminder that the first amendment conflicts with the first commandment "thou shalt worship whoever you want" and that the declaration of human rights gives ME more rights than god. and a history lesson cos the USA is a secular nation, not many people seem to know that, and the founding fathers were at best deists and certainly not christian. hitchens became a naturalised american purely because of the constitution. the UK is officially christian, the US is officially secular. is it annoying that the satanic temple has the SAME RIGHTS as the church?
@factandsuspicionpodcast2727
@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 Ай бұрын
I'm an atheist, but this myth that the founders were Deists needs to die. Most were in fact practicing Christians of some sort. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are the two most commonly cited examples of founding Deists, but while neither was a Christian, they wouldn't have qualified as Deists either. Both believed in a god who was active in the world and could respond to prayers, notions which directly contradict Deist claims. As far as Christianity among the founders goes, just off the top of my head, John Jay, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry were Protestants, while Charles and Daniel Carroll were Catholic. There are also founders who considered themselves Christians and generally lived Christian lifestyles but denied some essential doctrine of the faith. George Washington and John Adams for example denied the divinity of Jesus. But even these two were baptized and regularly attended Christian churches. In conclusion, while there was more diversity of belief among the founders than some would care to acknowledge, the fact remains that the majority were Christians well within orthodoxy.
@Shehatescash
@Shehatescash 29 күн бұрын
In the eyes of god, the satanist AND the believers are EQUAL
@HarryNicNicholas
@HarryNicNicholas 3 ай бұрын
radioactive decay happens at random intervals and has no cause, quantum events don't need causes. learn basic science. quantum fields do the job nicely.
@HughJaxident67
@HughJaxident67 3 ай бұрын
When you begin with the claim that you're not a theist and you're not an atheist, you lose all credibility as the position is necessarily binary, you have to be one of the other. It's the same as claiming you are married, but you're not married.
@MichaelStephenson51
@MichaelStephenson51 3 ай бұрын
Well said. No wonder he is not respected by either side.
@giftedtheos
@giftedtheos 3 ай бұрын
That is utterly false. One can be an agnostic as noted in the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy
@MichaelStephenson51
@MichaelStephenson51 3 ай бұрын
@@giftedtheos I just consider an agnostic a weak atheist. Either there is a god or there is not a god. Either I am convinced there is a god or I am not convinced. If you think it is not possible to know one way or the other then what is the point? If you can't know the answer then there is not much point talking about it. However, does not change the fact that it is either true or not true regardless of if we can ever discover the truth.
@giftedtheos
@giftedtheos 3 ай бұрын
@@MichaelStephenson51 Weak atheism is not agnosticism. You guys really have to stop getting your understanding of atheism from KZbin and from academic sources. Start with "Atheism and Agnosticism" by Graham Oppy. Weak atheism is incompatible with agnosticism. Agnosticism is a suspension of judgement on the P - God exists and P - God doesn't exist while weak atheism judges that P ~ God exists is true even in a weak sense
@HughJaxident67
@HughJaxident67 3 ай бұрын
@@giftedtheos What the hell are you talking about? Agnosticism and Gnosticism relates to KNOWLEDGE, theism and atheism relate to BELIEF. My OP remains accurate as the guy in the video claimed he is neither a theist nor an atheist which is just nonsense as you necessarily have to adopt one of the positions. As I noted, it is a binary position and address the proposition: 'A God exists'. If you believe this proposition you are a theist, if you disbelieve this proposition you are an atheist - THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. So when the guy in the video claims he is neither, he loses all credibility as he's revealed he does not understand the terms he's addressing. It's your post here that is utterly irrelevant as it's not even addressing the point I was making.
@HughJaxident67
@HughJaxident67 3 ай бұрын
"Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument Sound?" This is easy, no.
@MattWhite-vh6xh
@MattWhite-vh6xh 3 ай бұрын
Everything that begins to exist has a natural cause The universe began to exist (questionable; especially as the latest data from the JWST is casting serious doubts on the Big Bang being the beginning of everything) Therefore the universe has a natural cause. All that anyone disputing this has to do is provide an example of something beginning to exist (completely ex nihilo, not reshaped, like a wooden chair or a clay pot) that doesn't have a natural cause.
@landsgevaer
@landsgevaer 3 ай бұрын
When a muon decays into an electron (plus neutrinos), what causes the electron to exist? Not merely the muon because that already existed without decaying a bit before the electron arose. The muon is required here, but not a sufficient cause. The electron also wasn't already part of the muon. What causes the decay? As far as physics knows: nothing. Moreover, applying the idea of "beginning to exist" to the entity without which time itself has no meaning seems a bit ludicrous to me. (Like what is north of the northpole?) Kalam's premises are "everyday common sense" that applies well to everyday events, but not necessarily extrapolates to the most extreme scales of nature.
@FeliciaByNature
@FeliciaByNature 3 ай бұрын
Er ... boy you want to talk about red flags? "I'm not a theist, but here's my book subtitled a rational journey from disbelief to the existence of god" in addition to the published papers where you literally argue that theism is more rationally sound than atheism. But, no, you're not a theist? Come on dude. Then you try to present yourself as some middle ground between theism and atheism? You're full of shit. Theists believe in a god, atheists do not. What, exactly is the middle ground here? That you maybe, possibly think a god might exist? Or you maybe think possibly a god doesn't exist? In both cases you still fall into the category of theist. Stop trying to position yourself in the middle of something that doesn't have a middle ground in order to try and bolster your claims to one side or another. You are being intentionally deceitful when you do this. After going through your published works, you publish exclusively in theological papers. You are, by far, a theist. You just try to lie to pretend to be more credible than you actually are. Glad to see CUNY is still producing students of high moral fiber.
@landsgevaer
@landsgevaer 3 ай бұрын
0:18 "I'm not a theist and I'm not an atheist". Either you accept the proposition "there is at least one god", or you don't. There logically is no other position. Maybe he doesn't even know what his own position is? Not sure what he wants to argue, but this already is a massive fail in the first minute. I don't accept any of the premises of the classical Kalam. Not that everything that comes into existence needs a cause, nor that the universe came into existence. Sorry.
@Nirbe3
@Nirbe3 3 ай бұрын
There are two kinds of atheism. The agnostic atheist - Is "unconvinced of the existence of a God," and the gnostic atheist- actively asserts that "there is not God." When Alvaro says "I'm not a theist and I'm not an atheist," he is likely referring to gnostic atheism, which is the classical atheist, the one that is actually saying something with their position. When someone says "There is at least one God," You can say "Yes this is true," you can say "No this is not true," and you can say "Maybe, but I'm not sure."
@landsgevaer
@landsgevaer 3 ай бұрын
@@Nirbe3 A "maybe" means that you do not believe in a god, therefore atheist afaik. He could say he isn't a positive atheist, or he is a weak atheist, that would have been a clearer statement. Anyway, semantics perhaps. It must at least mean that the Kalam isn't a convincing argument for god.
@HarryNicNicholas
@HarryNicNicholas 3 ай бұрын
@@Nirbe3 personally i don't define atheist that way, i've always been atheist, there are gods, agnostic is just a cop out. the point being you have to agree (or disagree and walk away) agree terms before you do anything. if this guy is pretending to be not one or the other he's a twerp.
@giftedtheos
@giftedtheos 3 ай бұрын
False. One can suspend judgement on such propositions and be agnostic: _"an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false. Not surprisingly, then, the term “agnosticism” is often defined, both in and outside of philosophy, not as a principle or any other sort of proposition but instead as the psychological state of being an agnostic"_ Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Atheism and Agnosticism
@landsgevaer
@landsgevaer 3 ай бұрын
@@giftedtheos If you suspend judgment, then you do not accept the proposition. That does not mean you accept the opposite, sure, and you can change your mind later, fine, but that is another matter. Either you accept the proposition that there is a god, or, if you do not accept it, then, well, then you do not accept it. It really is a dichotomy. (A)gnosticism is about a claim to have knowledge. You could be an agnostic atheist (don't accept the proposition, but does not claim knowledge for sure), or an agnostic theist (accepts the proposition, but does not claim knowledge for sure). Same for gnostic theism and gnostic atheism. (I am here using the nomenclature used by most atheists; for example, Dillahunty & colleagues.)
@MajestyofReason
@MajestyofReason 4 ай бұрын
Boiler up!
@Nexus-jg7ev
@Nexus-jg7ev 4 ай бұрын
Hi, Joe! Have you read Michael Smith's The Moral Problem? Do you plan to make a video about it in future? It seems to be the crux of the whole realism/anti-realism debate.
@factandsuspicionpodcast2727
@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 Ай бұрын
Love your content, Joe. Easily the best philosophy channel on KZbin.
@artemiasalina1860
@artemiasalina1860 4 ай бұрын
Why is Huemer being cut off during the Q&A?
@artemiasalina1860
@artemiasalina1860 4 ай бұрын
Dan says that taking the anarchist view is not persuasive, but since when is persuasiveness equivalent to truth? Galileo's arguments about the sun and the earth were not persuasive to the church, but that doesn't mean that he was wrong, it just means that the church didn't want to be contradicted and have their narrative disrupted. Philosophy is about finding the truth no matter whether people like the truth or find it easy to digest or not.
@purikurix
@purikurix 4 ай бұрын
You see open borders in the EU & Europe. Germany is experiencing very high immigration of slavic, romanian, hungarian and italian people and is doing pretty fine with it. With a population of about 80 Mio it absorbed in 2 years 1.16 Mio ukrainians.
@blagger1975
@blagger1975 4 ай бұрын
Is this a joke? Mass migration especially from third world countries into germany has been a desaster, .
@PeterPeter-qc7ky
@PeterPeter-qc7ky Ай бұрын
We do dont fine 😂 im German and i dont know what your talking about
@purikurix
@purikurix Ай бұрын
@@PeterPeter-qc7ky One could say it would fare better had it allowed free >=IQ120 migration (and more female immigration). Unfortunately they let IQ>120 students from third countries struggle with residency permissions.
@purikurix
@purikurix Ай бұрын
@@PeterPeter-qc7ky It could fare even better with free IQ=>120 immigration in addition to relaxed immigration for women.
@purikurix
@purikurix Ай бұрын
@@PeterPeter-qc7ky All my replies get deleted. One can not talk in favour of open borders for IQ>=120 people and women on this platform.
@Clisians
@Clisians 5 ай бұрын
In my humble opinion Adam Driver lost the debate here. Just saying.
@ComradeYinkai
@ComradeYinkai 2 ай бұрын
Lol, Adam Driver after doing some crack ROFL!
@gamerunner28
@gamerunner28 5 ай бұрын
I think Dan makes a few errors. One is that he doesn't have an overarching political theory, which is fine, but it should make the strength to which he holds his position weaker. If you're unwilling to stake out principles to be challenged on their implications, then you have less reason to believe that any of your views are correct. Two is the assumption of libertarian anarchism. We want to know what the account is for the state having the amount of authority required to have the right to harmfully coerce Marvin. This does not entail that all authority is unjustified. Three is that he rejects the economic research that shows immigrants are a (large) positive benefit, saying that the research was done on much more limited migration. A paper Caplan commonly sites is Clemens 2011, but immigrants as a percent of the population hasn't gone up THAT much since even 2000. Also, he presents no research of his own, which ought to be crucial. Finally, he says that a country is more analogous to a family than a club or marketplace. Why would anyone treat 300 million people whom they've never met as a family? Absurd. And even if we were a family, that still wouldn't justify harmfully coercing Marvin without some account of authority, as using harmful coercion on a non-family member to prevent competition of a job is prima facie unjustified.