Alexander Pruss Presents a POWERFUL Argument for God (Stanford Lecture)

[@TradingDuck-ICT]

Come on Cameron, i just wanted to go to sleep, now I gotta listen to this.

[@icxcnika9399]

Yeah its 1:33 am here

[@VACatholic]

At least put on some pants first!

[@KingDavidWood]

@@noahmason4664 No man but Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ. That would be a false prophet

[@japexican007]

Noe Doyle “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭13:21-22‬ ‭KJV‬‬ 1. There is only one Christ and he won’t touch back down to earth until after the 7 year tribulation is complete which has to occur after the rapture of the church which is very soon

[@jt2097]

@@japexican007 some people believe that the rapture will be before tribulation. Some people believe the rapture will be 3 1/2 years into tribulation. Some people believe that the rapture will be at the end of tribulation, at the 7th trumpet. There are 2 dangers in believing the rapture will be before or during tribulation. It might be comforting to think that you won't have to go through tribulation but consider the dangers of this belief. 1. If tribulation starts and you have not been raptured you may think you have been rejected, missed out and that may embitter you and cause you to lose faith. 2. Believing that there will be a rapture and then another 7 years to make your decision to accept Christ may make people delay making the commitment. They may think they will wait to see the rapture then they will know Christianity is true and then they will commit. BUT if their thinking is wrong and the Left Behind books are wrong and the rapture is at the end of tribulation then there is no second chance. The door will be shut and they will be destroyed by the brightness of our Lord's return. I think it is safer to believe that we will be protected through tribulation as the Israelites were through the plagues by the blood of our saviour, prepare to persevere to the end and trust Jesus even to our death. Please tell me what you think.

[@Justadudeman22]

I'd like to see him debate graham oppy. But man .... the intellect in the william craig argument is certainly a study in itself !

[@matthewluisantero5051]

Rob Koons, a proponent of the same argument, already had a convo with Graham Oppy. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

[@ferdaws9262]

To be fair it’s Al Ghazali’s argument, Craig just masterfully revived it.

[@mdbahrozbaburali]

@@ferdaws9262 I remember him actually saying that it's Al-Ghazali's.

[@frankvandermerwe1487]

"he intellect in the william craig argument is certainly a study in itself !" - You're joking right? Because WLC is a moron. And that was in his "prime" - now, he's just washed up, and has slowly faded deeper into intellectual dishonesty.

[@amadubah8931]

Omg thanks so much Cameron! I had watched a video a few weeks ago where William Lane Craig said that Pruss was scary smart. I’ve been looking for content with Pruss on it exposing the existence of God and here it is! Thanks so much!!!

[@missybrown9539]

My cousin is married to him and she’s just as smart…their kids are scary smart 😂

[@introvertedchristian5219]

I was talking to J.P. Moreland one time, and he said Bill Craig is scary smart. That must mean Alex Pruss is Scary Smart Squared or something.

[@stardustypsyche8468]

It's scary that you are impressed by this tired old first cause argument

[@MaverickChristian]

Some notable points: 15:17 to 17:49. Smullyan's rod. 18:25 to 26:52 Infinite lottery paradox. 26:53 to 27:44 rational expectation of ordered shuffled deck 31:15 Grim Reaper paradox 52:29 to 56:11 Arguments for Principle of Sufficient Reason

[@zsoltnagy5654]

How about an "infinite lottery" with an infinite deck, which has been infinitely shuffled, but where afterwards the deck is not "well shuffled", where the probability to pick a card with any number is equally likely as to pick a card with a different number: P(picking card with number n)=P(picking card with number m) for any n,m∈ℕ, such that n≠m (or n=m). Maybe the problem here is your expectation of (ℕ,F,equal distribution) being a proper probability space, where you make false expectations based upon and given such a false probability distribution _"(ℕ,F,equal distribution)",_ which isn't a proper probabilty space, where you could make such proper expectations? On the other hand (ℕ,F, P(n)=(1-q)·q^n for any n∈ℕ (including 0) and for any q∈(0,1)) - a not "well" but certainly infinitely shuffled infinite deck - is a proper probability space, since P(Ω) = P(ℕ) = ∑(n∈ℕ)[P(n)] = ∑(n∈ℕ)[(1-q)·q^n] = 1 for any q∈(0,1), where proper expectations can be made based upon that: Expected number on the first picked card μ = E[n] = ∑(n∈ℕ)[n·P(n)] = ∑(n∈ℕ)[n·(1-q)·q^n] = (1-q)q·∑(n∈ℕ)[n·q^(n-1)] = (1-q)q·∂(∑(n∈ℕ)[t^n])/∂t|t=q = (1-q)q·∂(1/(1-t))/∂t|t=q = (1-q)q·1/(1-q)² = q/(1-q) ∈(0,∞) for any q∈(0,1) with the standrad deviation σ = (E[n²]-E[n]²)^0.5 = (∑(n∈ℕ)[n²·P(n)]-q²/(1-q)²)^0.5 = (∑(n∈ℕ)[n²·(1-q)·q^n)]-q²/(1-q)²)^0.5 = ((1-q)q·∑(n∈ℕ)[n²·q^(n-1)]-q²/(1-q)²)^0.5 = ((1-q)q·∂(∑(n∈ℕ)[n·t^n])/∂t|t=q-q²/(1-q)²)^0.5 = ((1-q)q·∂(t·∂(∑(n∈ℕ)[z^n])/∂z|z=t)/∂t|t=q-q²/(1-q)²)^0.5 = ((1-q)q·∂(t·∂(1/(1-z))/∂z|z=t)/∂t|t=q-q²/(1-q)²)^0.5 = ((1-q)q·∂(t/(1-t)²)/∂t|t=q-q²/(1-q)²)^0.5 = ((1-q)q·(1+q)/(1-q)³-q²/(1-q)²)^0.5 = (q(1+q)/(1-q)²-q²/(1-q)²)^0.5 = q^0.5/(1-q) ∈(0,∞) for any q∈(0,1). So by picking a card with a number N ≥ ⌈μ⌉=⌈q/(1-q)⌉ one should be quite confident in havinng a better/greater number then the other person given this probability space (ℕ,F, P(n)=(1-q)·q^n for any n∈ℕ (including 0) and for any q∈(0,1)) and even more so with a card with a number N ≥ ⌈μ+σ⌉=⌈(q^0.5+q)/(1-q)⌉ for a specific and known q∈(0,1). Alternitively, the empirical distribution function F is given with F(n) = ∑(k∈[0,n])[P(k)] = ∑(k∈[0,n])[(1-q)·q^k] = (1-q)·∑(k∈[0,n])[q^k]=(1-q)·(1-q^(n+1))/(1-q) = 1-q^(n+1) ∈(1-q,1) for any n∈ℕ and for any q∈(0,1). So from F(n*)= 1-q^(n*+1) = 0.5 we derive the median to be n* = log(0.5)/log(q)-1 for any q∈[0.5,1). For any q∈(0,0.5) the median n* is 0. So at least for any q∈[0.5,1) by picking a card with a number N* ≥ ⌈n*⌉=⌈log(0.5)/log(q)-1⌉ one should be quite confident in having a better/greater number then the other person given this probability space (ℕ,F, P(n)=(1-q)·q^n for any n∈ℕ (including 0) and for any q∈(0,1)). Notice, that μ+σ > μ > n* for any q∈(0,1) and distance d1=|μ+σ-μ|=σ→∞ and distance d2=|μ-n*|→∞ as q→1. Also notice, that the variable q can be replaced by μ with μ=q/(1-q) ⇔ *q=μ/(1+μ)* or by σ with σ=q^0.5/(1-q) ⇒ *q=1+1/(2σ²)-(1+4σ²)^0.5/(2σ²).* In my opinion the most natural choice would be to replace q by μ with *q=μ/(1+μ)* here. So (ℕ,F, P(n)=(1-q)·q^n for any n∈ℕ (including 0) and for any q∈(0,1)) → (ℕ,F, P(n)=(μ/(1+μ))^n/(1+μ) for any n∈ℕ (including 0) and for any μ∈(0,∞)), σ=q^0.5/(1-q) → σ=(μ+μ²)^0.5 F(n)=1-q^(n+1) → F(n)=1-(μ/(1+μ))^(n+1) and n*=log(0.5)/log(q)-1 → n*=log(0.5)/log(μ/(1+μ))-1 for any μ∈[1,∞) Further notice, that for the limit μ→∞, we get the false and improper probability space _(ℕ,F, P'(n)=0 for any n∈ℕ (including 0))="(ℕ,F,equal distribution)"._ since here P'(Ω) = P'(ℕ) = ∑(n∈ℕ)[P'(n)] = ∑(n∈ℕ)[0] = 0 ≠ 1, which is mentioned here by Pruss in this video *particularly.* ⇒ Here *particularly* the expected number on the first picked card μ = ∞ OR μ = ∑(n∈ℕ)[n·P'(n)] = ∑(n∈ℕ)[n·0] =0. ⇒ Here *particularly* the standard deviation σ = ∞ OR σ = (E[n²]-E[n]²)^0.5 = (∑(n∈ℕ)[n²·P'(n)]-0²)^0.5 = (∑(n∈ℕ)[n²·0]-0²)^0.5 = 0. ⇒ Here *particularly* is no proper empirical distribution function F' as P'(n)=0 for any n∈ℕ and any empirical distribution function F is supposedly or is supposed to be going from 0 to 1 monotonically. But here this cannot be the case, because of P'(n)=0 for any n∈ℕ. So there is no median n* here *particularly* OR it's ∞. Really - no further significant expectations can be made based upon such an IMPROPER probability space AND this is not due to an "infinite causation", but because of this mathematical space being not a proper probability space, where proper expectations can be made properly based upon that. Or no further significant expectations can be made based upon such an IMPROPER probability space, because the made expectations themselves haven't been properly made. So why bother with _"Causal Finitism",_ when the infinite causation isn't a problem, but the falsely (and very loosely) made expectations based upon an improper probability space are the problem here?!? Also I simply have no idea, how Pruss is possessing a PHD in mathematics. How can that be the case?!?

[@jack_skeean]

I am a simple man. I see Dr. Pruss, I click.

[@princessrainbow4448]

Awww...that's so nice 👍

[@FStan-co8vv]

@@TheWorldTeacher Pruss literally has degrees in mathematics, physics and philosophy. You? I honestly doubt you even finished high school yet, judging by how lame and childish you are. Come back here when you got an actual argument against Pruss and you're not just a 16 yo ignoramus who pretends to be an intellectual on the internet. I doubt you would have the guts to debate him, although he probably doesn't waste his time with specimens like you.

[@williammcenaney1331]

Dr. Pruss and I have been friends for years, so I know he's brilliant.

[@barry.anderberg]

There are a number of Pruss's lectures on the Thomistic Institute podcast.

[@jackwilmoresongs]

In terms of taking these classical arguments and communicating them in crystal clear logic, J P Moreland is my favorite.

[@savebyj]

Great arguments. When I was an atheist, causation is what caused me to become a deist. I love how he deconstructs the 'things can exist or happen for no reason.' I will most definitely be using that one.

[@giladpachter4546]

Follow my posts here. You'll soon see that part of the picture that you're missing.

[@matteuslucas4223]

@@giladpachter4546 I'm sure if you had a knockdown argument you'd just post it

[@giladpachter4546]

@@matteuslucas4223 753 comments is not all that much. Expand and search my name. I already covered everything you could come up with on this subject . . . and a lot more. Just not interested in regurgitating.

[@savebyj]

@Language and Programming Channel Symantecs. Something caused the effect to happen. Per science.

[@matteuslucas4223]

@@giladpachter4546 still no argument

[@beautybearswitness]

More of Dr. Pruss PLEASE!

[@Mentat1231]

I love the paradoxes about an infinite series. It really seems to me that the statement "an actually infinite series (which is defined and distinguished from finite series by its inability to ever elapse) has elapsed" is a straightforward contradiction. The paradoxes serve to help us grasp the absurdity of trying to claim that that self-contradictory (ergo, meaningless) string of words has somehow described a real state of affairs.

[@mattsmith1440]

Is there any contradiction in the idea of a thing not beginning to exist?

[@Mentat1231]

@@mattsmith1440 I don't see one. As long as one doesn't mean that an actually infinite series of events/moments/etc have elapsed. So, for example, some philosophers would say that numbers or other abstract objects exist totally timelessly, and so they have no beginning but also don't have an infinite past series.

[@Mentat1231]

@Trinmigular shrobatorli Calculus just requires the concept of a *potential* infinite (a limit always approached but never actually reached).

[@Mentat1231]

​@Trinmigular shrobatorli There are two points that should clarify things: 1) The limit concept is specifically defined so that it can never be reached; and indeed the function would be totally undefined if you did reach it (just consider the limit as x approaches zero for any basic derivative: if Δx actually *equaled* zero, then the function would yield "0/0", which is obviously undefined). Likewise, actual infinities are not used in calculus, we merely get closer and closer to limits that we know cannot actually be reached (and that wouldn't have values if we did reach them). 2) There _are_ branches of mathematics that deal with actual infinities (particularly Set Theory), but that doesn't mean that it is coherent to speak of such things being instantiated in the real world. Just like how it makes no sense for there to be a distance in the real world that is the square root of -1, and yet complex analysis is an extremely fruitful and important part of mathematics and physics today (it's indispensable to quantum mechanics, for example).

[@Mentat1231]

@Trinmigular shrobatorli Let me first say that I had no intention of being smug or of lecturing. I sincerely apologize for coming across that way. And I mean no disrespect at all when I point out that 1/inf does not equal 0 (it's undefined, actually), and that I already addressed that rate of change, if we could actually get a value at the limit point, would be 0/0 every time, which is meaningless. So, we work with rate of change by treating the limit as something impossible to actually reach, and just give the value the function is getting closer and closer to. To your points about science: Nothing I said indicated instrumentalism or any kind of skepticism about the objectivity of scientific claims. However, it is quite easy for a scientist to accidentally transgress the bounds of sense while pursuing a question of truth. So, if in the pursuit of truth about the age or size of the Universe, a scientist posits an actual infinity, how does that show that such a thing is coherent? There is nothing mathematically forbidding a married bachelor, but such a thing is clearly incoherent. This is not common sense or intuition; it follows from the very meanings of the terms. So, even if scientists utter certain strings of words, and even if something can be worked with in pure mathematics, it could still easily be the case that the phenomenon in question is not only impossible but meaningless in the real world. And, as David Hilbert (one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century) sought to show with his Hotel analogy, the idea of instantiating an actual infinite in the world is one such case. Again, with genuine respect, and with no desire to condescend, I have to object to this habit that people have of throwing up quantum mechanics as an example that says logic, conceptual clarity, or even common sense need to somehow go out the window. This is just plain mistaken. There are interpretations of the mathematical formalism of QM that are as deterministic and straightforward as Newtonian mechanics. And, even if there weren't such options, it wouldn't follow that options which make no sense are what we ought to go with. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation(s) literally makes no sense. So, even if we had no alternatives in play, we should reject the Copenhagen interpretation. Likewise, if it makes no sense to speak of an actual infinite being instantiated in real objects in the world, then we should reject any such proposal as quickly as we'd reject the proposal that the Prime Minister is a prime number.

[@vbilgutay1]

(thus avoiding an infinite past) which spun off our universe . One needs to keep in mind that science tells us that time is not fundamental but rather an emergent property. Furthermore, science tells us that our universe began some 13.8 billion years ago and that in the far future time in our universe will cease to exist….. yes, at some distant point in the future our universe will become timeless.

[@giladpachter4546]

Explain it to me like I was 6 years old (08:05). - If there's an infinite regress, then why is there a need for a first cause ? - Moreover, how *can* there be a first cause to an *infinite* regress ? It's like asking "what's at the bottom of a bottomless pit?".

[@calebp6114]

Theists, such as myself, argue that an infinite regress is impossible. We can tell this through causal finitism (see Cameron's Kalam opening statement) and through the mathematical absurdities that arise from actual infinites existing. If we can't have an infinite regress, it means that there would have to be a beginning to the sequence, otherwise known as a first cause. So there isn't a first cause to an infinite regress, we infer a first cause because an infinite regress is problematic. I hope that helps :)

[@JL0007]

@@calebp6114 there are no mathematical absurdities with an infinite regress. Mathematicians use infinities all the time. You do know it's not an actual number, right? It's a concept. There's nothing wrong with an infinite regress outside of this universe.

[@JL0007]

He's saying there can't be an infinite regress, but that would mean god isn't eternal. It's not a very well thought out argument. I don't think he understands the concept of infinities.

[@calebp6114]

@@JL0007 There's the point, John. There may be number wrong with an infinite regress 'outside of the universe'. Modern Set Theory can describe it well. However, that does not mean that actual infinities can occur in reality. The ability of mathematics to describe something (its conceivability) does not equate with its plausibility if existing in reality.

[@giladpachter4546]

@J.W. H. That doesn't explain tipping the first Domino piece, because for the sake of argument you accept that we're talking about an infinitely long Domino, so there is no First Domino Piece.

[@souravmohapatra2501]

I think there might be a problem with the Grim Reaper's paradox, first it's not a paradox. A paradox only occurs if it violates the axioms whic you have taken to form your theory.Second, we must keep in mind that the paradox talks about the convergent infinity not the divergent one(which is the infinity of the infinite past). Convergent infinites implies a first cause even if there are infinite events and also it implies an end and that's what that infinity means, the word convergent means converge to something finite and that finite has a starting point and end point. And if you disagree then divide the time interval using real numbers and see if you can even cross that interval

[@JulioCaesarTM]

Dr. Alexander Pruss is way too smart for a normal human. Not just from this video.

[@sqlblindman]

Not at all from this video. He makes several mistakes, and demonstrates an embarrassingly poor understanding of infinity for a mathematician. I can only conclude that his mind is clouded by his religious beliefs.

[@sqlblindman]

@Lightning raden Lightning raden Infinity is not a number, but is a quality of a set. There are many different types of infinities, and each of them has different qualities. Proving the impossibility of one infinity (in the Grim Reaper paradox this is an infinite set of events in a finite time) does not prove the impossibility of an universe infinite in the past (an infinite series of events in an infinite amount of time). Also, Thompson's Lamp is off at the end of the hour.

[@sqlblindman]

@Lightning raden Lightning raden It if was off at the beginning, then it is off at the end. And vice versa. Are you familiar with how binary numbers work?

[@TBOTSS]

@@sqlblindman All numbers are sets you silly sod.

[@sqlblindman]

@@TBOTSS Did I say they weren't, silly fool? Not too bright, are you?

[@TheAnalyticChristian]

This was an excellent lecture! Thank you for posting!

[@japexican007]

Making a cake from scratch and how abiogenesis helped me see I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist Ingredients 1. 2 1/4 cups all-purpose flour (plus more for coating pans) 2. 1 1/3 cups sugar (white granulated) 3. 1 tablespoon baking powder. 4. 1/2 teaspoon salt. 5. 1/2 cup (1 stick) unsalted butter (softened and divided into 2-tablespoon pieces, plus more for coating pans) 6. 1 teaspoon vanilla extract. 7. 1 cup 2 percent milk. 8. 2 large eggs. Make the flour - Acquire a grinder - Grow some grain berries (make sure they get watered properly, make sure they get enough sunlight during the day, and make sure to harvest them at the right time and not after they’ve gone bad) - Once the grain berries are harvested make sure to grind the berries, don’t grind the berries for too little or too long as they will affect the coarseness of the flour, make sure to sift through the flour after grinding to remove the big bits that do not pass through the grinder) - Flour is complete Make the Sugar - insert steps here Make the baking powder - insert steps here Make the salt - insert steps here Etc. - once all ingredients have been acquired proper steps are needed to make the cake, 1. Let all ingredients come to room temperature 2. Heat oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit 3. Butter and flour two 2inch 9 pans 4. Combine flour,sugar, baking powder in a bowl and mix until all ingredients are combined 5. With the mixer on the lowest speed, add the butter one chunk at a time, and blend until the mixture forms a grainy consistency, between 30 seconds and 1 minute. Scrape down the bowl and paddle with a rubber spatula 6. Add vanilla and, with the mixer on low, slowly pour in the milk. Stop and scrape, and mix for another minute. 7. Add the first egg, and mix on medium-low until incorporated; add the second egg and do the same. Mix until fluffy, about 30 seconds, then scrape down the bowl. 8. Pour the batter into the prepared pans and give each one a couple of solid taps on the countertop to release any air bubbles. Transfer pans to the oven. 9. Bake for 30 to 35 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into the center comes out clean or with a crumb or two attached. (You can start testing at 30 minutes because it's better to check too soon than to over bake.) The tops will be golden brown, the edges will pull away from the sides of the pan, and the cakes will spring back when you touch them. 10. Cool the cakes on a wire rack for 10 minutes, then loosen the edges by running a knife along the sides of the pan; turn the cakes out onto the racks and cool for at least 1 hour before frosting. 11. Frost cake and enjoy With an intelligent mind behind making a cake from scratch we can easily see how intelligence can make a cake, for non-intelligence to accomplish this however it takes much more faith. Problems for non-intelligence 1. constant redesigns, if you mess up a step you have to go back to square 1, how does non-intelligence know to start over and begin making flour again after it’s messed up making the sugar? 2. Specific Order, non-life would have to build the cake in the correct sequence otherwise it would have to keep going back to step 1, meaning you cannot pour the frosting before making the flour, etc. 3. different ingredients reacting together do not know how,why, or when to stop for instance when mixing ingredients you can’t mix too little or too much, mix too little and the result is unusable, mix too much and it all turns to mush, non-intelligence would have to know when to mix something, what to mix, how long to mix it 4. Time doesn’t help, let’s say non-life was able to form flour and was still trying to form sugar, if enough time passes the flour itself will be unusable after a certain period of time, meaning all these ingredients would have to form around the same time and mix at the right time, in the proper order, at the proper temperature, and be removed at the proper temperature and cooled at the proper temperature for everything to align perfectly otherwise if something was off then it would destroy the whole process and step 1 would have to commence again but how does non-life know how to go back and start doing step 1 again? It doesn’t. 5. Right amounts, non-life would have to precisely calculate right amounts of each ingredient meaning you can’t have too much flour while mixing and you can’t have too little, you can’t have too much sugar or too little, you can’t have too much salt or too little, etc. this would destroy the cake and step 1 would have to begin again 6. Parameters of temperature, for each step of baking a cake the temperature would have to be set at the correct setting for the ingredients, not to mention it would have to know when to remove the ingredients from said temperature to not have the mixture turn to mush 7. Too much bad ingredients, if one ingredient is bad and is mixed with other ingredients the whole cake goes bad, nature would have to throw the whole thing away per se and start from scratch but nature wouldn’t know where to begin because nature doesn’t have a mind nor a blueprint of what it’s making even if you get the all the ingredients made you still have yet another problem, ingredients don't mix together by themselves, how does nature know to mix ingredients let alone completed ingredients at the right step in the process? And lastly I would argue even if we found the naturalistic process on how life formed this doesn’t disprove a supernatural being forming life because science doesn’t tell us anything about the supernature

[@theoskeptomai2535]

This analogy seems utterly ridiculous. Making a cake from a recipe is a human endeavor. Of course such a human activity will manifest intelligence, design, rationality, assessment, correction. The natural world shows none of these qualities.

[@Moctop]

Does it make more sense to assume that everything that hasn't been disproven exists? Or assume that it doesn't exist until it's proven?

[@timhorton2486]

japexican007 You’ve essentially ended by saying that you will hold onto supernatural beliefs no matter what scientific evidence contradicts them.

[@aidan-ator7844]

@@theoskeptomai2535 the natural world shows rules and instructions. It isn't too bad of an analogy.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@aidan-ator7844 Rules and instructions?? Something tells me more mythology is coming my way!

[@RandomYTubeuser]

1:01:48 "What can we tell from the universe? Well, it looks harmonious, beautiful, full of life" I could grant you the first two but it definitely doesn't look full of life.

[@RandomYTubeuser]

@joashscottofficial Do you know what percentage of the universe has any life at all?

[@alwayslearningtech]

You said we wouldn't have heard any of this before but it's just the same old arguments

[@studioofgreatness9598]

So sort of, it updates the previous version of the arguments with newer material.

[@giladpachter4546]

@@studioofgreatness9598 This is meaningless. The modified arguments are no less flawed than their predecessors. You can't argue God into existence. God still doesn't exist and nothing will change that.

[@studioofgreatness9598]

@@giladpachter4546 okay how is he arguing for into existence?

[@giladpachter4546]

@@studioofgreatness9598 All arguments for God's existence are emotion-driven attempts to argue God into existence. They've all been refuted again and again. They're all internally logically flawed and don't prove anything.

[@studioofgreatness9598]

@@giladpachter4546 Okay no, first arguments for God is an argument that whatever is necessary has an intellect,power, and this power is grand so we would normally call this God.

[@frrankdesilva6504]

Following Rene Descartes meditation Category 1: Minds I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist. Category 2: Matter I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categorise as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists. Category 3: Space My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist. Category 4: Time My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist. From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another. Now to the question of the origin of these categories Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another? Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time. From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localised change to space and time. So then could space and time be the origin of everything else? Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories. Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events? Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event. There can be no space , time or matter without events. In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next. From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories Category 1 : Minds Category 2 : Events Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical. Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind? If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind. Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind. This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger) So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds. These other minds may have also been created by The Mind.

[@randomvideoblogs8012]

This is an intellectual tour de force.

[@timhorton2486]

It really isn’t. I can’t find a single original thing being said in there, and at some point he is literally just making the argument from design. If anything, I would find this saddening because of how it shows the persistence and lack of success of Christian arguments; that is, I would if I were a Christian.

[@timhorton2486]

*The World Teacher - Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda* That was a lovely load of useless information. You’re not going to appeal to me by using vague gestures at something “beyond” and “within”. I’m too many years past that.

[@timhorton2486]

*The World Teacher - Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda* And yet I do want to learn the truth. That’s why I’m arguing. Maybe someone will say something new and substantial, but I’m guessing it won’t be you. I could just as easily say you don’t want to learn the truth about the vacuousness of your spirituality, but I’m not as arrogant as you apparently are.

[@timhorton2486]

*The World Teacher - Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda* Hahahahahahahaha you are a pleasantly combative clown.

[@bennyredpilled5455]

@@TheWorldTeacher Go cook tandoori chicken, spiritual teacher my ass

[@jonathanthompson4734]

In the future, or even for the description, please give an outline for the video so we know what philosophical argument we're being offered. Imagine you're writing a murder novel, tell us who did it - tell us the conclusion or summary.

[@ts8960]

can u give me a quick / vague direction of what his argument is ?

[@Mentat1231]

I think it makes perfect sense from a content creator's perspective to not always give things away in the title or tag. For example, in this case, lots of people might think they already know an argument well enough and not listen to Pruss' excellent presentation.

[@Mentat1231]

@@ts8960 Quickly and vaguely, it is an argument for a necessary first cause. But that's like saying that The Matrix, quickly and vaguely, is a movie about living in a computer simulation. Such synopses are no substitute for the experience, and they may even give unfair impressions. Better to just listen to the lecture, no?

[@gilbert4004]

How do we get to a personal being from all this? That’s the one thing I don’t really understand...

[@gilbert4004]

@Jon "What else could it be" isn't a solid argument. I also never attempted to "naturalize" this being. Stop trying to paint a false dichotomy between it being either a mind or something natural. Now, I realize that from our experience, a mind is the only seemingly non-physical things that has causal power. But even assuming that minds are non-physical, I don't see how an all powerful, necessary mind is the best candidate for the fundamental existence just because this first cause has to be personal. No mind we have ever observed is either necessary or omnipotent. We pick something that seems personal to us (a mind) and add those other two qualities to it (necessity and omnipotence) rather arbitrarily. Why can't we say that the laws of mathematics are at the foundation of the universe, since they are necessary, and just say it is a law that happens to be all-powerful and also has causal abilities? Seems that there's not much difference between saying that and saying that it's a mind...who also happens to be necessary and omnipotent. Furthermore, it's not clear to me that personhood is a requirement of the first cause at all. I understand why people say that it must be personal, since it would seem that the universe would have always existed if the first cause possessed the necessary conditions to create it all along (meaning the first cause had to be able to decide at a certain moment that the universe would come to be). However, I don't see how we can be so confident about this given that we have zero concept of an atemporal reality. How can we even say that the conditions were "always" there when "always" doesn't even apply to such existence? The first cause must be supernatural, ok. Beyond that (and perhaps the claim about omnipotence due to simplicity) I struggle to see how we can make any claims about it. I am not a philosopher by any means, so I realize these could be bad arguments. Anyone: please let me know if I'm wrong!

[@savebyj]

Abductive reasoning. The only thing we've ever witnessed to create information in design is intelligence. Any intelligence we've encountered is personable.

[@gilbert4004]

@@savebyj What about things in nature? I know you'd probably say that the order of nature is evidence for an intelligent creator mind, but doesn't that presuppose the conclusion that design must come from intelligence? Without this prior assumption it's not so clear that intelligence is required to produce order. Also, different animals possess different levels of intelligence. Would you say that a pigeon learning how to press a button for food is "personable"?

[@gilbert4004]

@@keithtorres5743 So this is what I don't understand. You say that if he was a free being, "he could choose it at any time," but that's the thing. There is no time outside of the universe. We have no concept of atemporality. We can't use phrases like "always" or "x amount of years" when talking about a reality without time, which is exactly the kind of reality this first cause knows. I'd say something like "before he created the universe God would've existed outside of time" but even that would be inaccurate because there was no "before" or (past tense) "would have" when the universe didn't exist. Even in that sentence I couldn't avoid using "was" and "when". I just can't help it, but that's the point. How can I make claims about the implications of an atemporal reality when I cannot even grasp atemporality?

[@gilbert4004]

Keith Torres thanks for engaging in this conversation with me! However I don’t think I made myself very clear. I agree that the past cannot be infinite, that’s not my contention. Let me try to understand what you are saying first before I respond. Correct me if I’m wrong, but does your line of thinking go something like this?...there is a necessary entity at the foundation of reality. This entity possesses all of the conditions necessary and sufficient to create the universe. If this is true, then the universe should also be necessary. If the entity is eternal, and if this entity possesses all of the conditions required to create a universe, then the universe would also be eternal. The only way we can say that the universe is not eternal, in this case, is to say that this being must have CHOSEN not to create the universe until time t=0, i.e., the point at which the all of time and space came into being. Otherwise we would have no explanation for the universe suddenly coming into being. But the only things that are capable of choosing are minds, and he only things with minds are persons. Therefore this necessary entity is a person. Is that consistent with what you believe?

[@MrAndyStenz]

I'm only just finishing the bit about the Hans Solo infinite lottery (not a phrase I thought I'd be typing when I started watching this video) but I wanted to stop and point out some issues (or maybe my misunderstandings) I see with that paradox. His point seems to be that no matter what number we pull from the deck (73,940 or 324,554,874,687) we would FEEL like we wanted to trade cards because there's an infinite number of cards with higher numbers the other person could have drawn. But I think it's missing a few things: 1) There isn't an infinite number because as soon as we've started the game we've stopped the POTENTIALLY infinite deck from becoming infinite. He's stated there was a starting point (card #1) but we don't know if we're starting this lottery game at a point when Hans has been adding and shuffling for 100 days or 100k days. But regardless, we are at a set point in time where the number of cards (N) isn't actually infinite. Regardless of that... 2) We could just play this with any deck of cards, but let's choose a big number of potential cards 100k. When I draw a card, my chance of drawing any specific card is 1 in 100k in this deck (or 1 in infinity in his description). BEFORE I EVEN LOOK AT THE CARD, the odds of the other card drawn being any specific number is the same (minus 1, but not important here). Sure, when I look at my card (especially if it SEEMS low to me - say I have the number 5632 in the game of 100k cards) but my FEELING about the card is pretty much pointless and shows the problem of how we understand probability. Dr. Pruss said that no matter what card we would draw we would WANT to change it (again, because in his case he's saying there's infinitely more cards that are higher). But I disagree and I don't think I'd WANT to change my card. Again, when the two cards were drawn the they had the same probability to be ANY number on that line and looking at the card and FEELING anything about it before we just flip it over and reveal the winner is pointless. ESPECIALLY when we are given another deal which means we could actually lose MORE money. Anyway - seems like the point (and it doesn't seem like he was trying to make this but maybe he was and I missed it?) was that we need to throw away our FEELINGS when we are dealing with infinite number problems, and honestly even numbers which are REALLY big. I think it's one of the main reasons many people can't even fathom (theology aside) how the process of evolution can account for the diversity of life we see because we don't FEEL like hundreds of millions of years could provide the time needed. But it does, regardless of how we FEEL about it.

[@pabloe5941]

It's ok to me to subscribe if i'm a Catholic?

[@joshuaphilip7601]

No it's illegal

[@joshuaphilip7601]

I'm kidding btw!! Definitely subscribe, cam is super open minded :)

[@scotthutson8683]

We welcome our Catholic brothers!

[@jack_skeean]

Fellow Catholic here! Cam does really high quality work.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

just tone down the popery and it'll be fine lol ;)

[@vbilgutay1]

Dr. (thus avoiding an infinite past) which spun off our universe . One needs to keep in mind that science tells us that time is not fundamental but rather an emergent property. Furthermore, science tells us that our universe began some 13.8 billion years ago and that in the far future time in our universe will cease to exist….. yes, at some distant point in the future our universe will become timeless.

[@dannyrobashkin]

Dr. Pruss Proves God's existence by asserting God must exist. Genius! I'm glad that took an hour. Also cool story about how Aristotle discovered gravity.

[@TalentMthiyane]

Its truly proven beyond a doubt now

[@TalentMthiyane]

@Ruben Olivasjust as Alaxander claimed... The universe therefore God

[@TalentMthiyane]

@Ruben Olivas it's different when applied to God he's sort of hiding so it makes sence that we can't have more tangible evidence

[@TalentMthiyane]

@Ruben Olivas lol no zues is on mount olimpus

[@TalentMthiyane]

@Ruben Olivas lol Zeus is not disembodied so we should be able to see him unlike God

[@iznij3284]

Some atheist might argue what about water cycle then A causes B causes C causes A. They then latch onto this idea of self-causation and say that since first cause is not uncaused hence not necessary, can I get your thoughts on this.

[@texsajohny5363]

I think the primary cause of water cycle is the sun. It's hard for cycles in nature to perform without the energy from an external source like the sun. So if the 1st cause of water cycle is the sun that gives energy to water molecules to rise , but u never see any energy going back to the sun in the end. It's a constantly fed cycle. So how can this be an example?

[@giladpachter4546]

Let's elaborate for clarification: Matter and energy are manifestations of elementary particles. When you remove both matter and energy (essentially creating a vacuum), random quantum fluctuations occur and cause elementary particles to appear. That's the fact part without getting into the "why" part. This alone suggests that elementary particles are eventually inevitable. How this relates to the initial inflation (AKA The Big Bang) - that remains to be figured out.

[@iznij3284]

@@texsajohny5363 Thank you for the response, I was having a conversation about Kalam, with a person: (1) There is a cause. (2) There is no circle of causes. (3) There is no infinite regress of causes. (4) If (1)-(3), there is an uncaused cause. (5) So, there is an uncaused cause. (6) If there is an uncaused cause, God exists. (7) So, God exists. And his contention to Pruss's argument was premise 2, if there is self-causation then there is no infinite causal regress. then 5 and 6 does not follow. therefore the first-cause is contingent due to premise 7. And my reply was: your preposition is illogical again. Define self-causation by rational means philosophically and prove how it works, since it is causation how does that work, you need to be before the cause to cause, not necessarily in time but in some other possible way. Nothing can cause itself. This is empirically and logically true, so how does your self-causation prove this wrong? Further 5 and 6 are independent of 2 as they are linked to 1 and 3, because circular causation is absurd, and it does not even effect 5, 6 and 7. He is asserting that First cause can self-cause and hence cannot be uncaused but contingent and hence not necessary. Which I find absurd, but since I am not in philosophy but in natural sciences, I am unable to articulate it well to put forth my proposition. Edit: by the way his repose to self-causation is = " x causes itself to exist."....which is ontological and not logical. I could agree if its logical self-causation, but he asserts ontological self-causation which is absurd even philosophically.

[@Masterpaintingnowlearn2draw]

This guy might be very intelligent, but I am not able to tell that from this video. This is rather simple stuff.

[@rjonesx]

Yeah, reading his book on this matter is a completely different beast altogether. It is an exceptional analysis and, importantly, he uses set theory to show that there is in fact a logical contradiction entailed by infinite causal chains, thus verifying causal finitude. books.google.com/books/about/Infinity_Causation_and_Paradox.html?id=_Y5lDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

[@ooooooppppp11]

Explaining complicated things in a simple manner is a mark of a very smart individual

[@christiang4497]

Get him on the show PLEASE

[@mickeyesoum3278]

For a second I thought this was an interview with the man, but then I remembered that we will NEVER, EVER get an interview with him. Great content anyway

[@DavidJohn-ig4sy]

Why not?

[@f0rtitude]

Why not?

[@forknattrust6303]

Why not?

[@MyBenaya]

Why not?

[@calebp6114]

Why not?

[@tobydeaux]

I don’t see how Zorn’s Lemma gets rid of the objection about needing infinite explanations for an infinite chain of causation.

[@irlc1254]

I found this great explanation by CHALK in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGm1p2WGfd10rbM. I think this probably answers your concern. Directly quoting: 1) The ordinals form a collection called a 'proper class'. Intuitively, this means that there are too many of them to fit them into a set. This is an odd idea but a familiar one when looking at mathematical objects defined by certain properties. For example, the collection of Groups and the collection of Dynamical Systems both form proper classes. To say that there are the same of them as there are ordinals can be thought of as an equivalence between the chain in the Hasse diagram and the ordinals when thought of in a categorical sense. 2) The (0,1) example fails to fit the scenario of the lemma, and thus does not contradict the arguement given here. That is, for the lemma to apply, every chain in our partially ordered set P has an upper bound in P. However, (0,1) does not have an upper bound in (0,1). To be a bit more direct about the situation of the proof: What is assumed: partial ordering on P and all chains have upper bounds in P, but no maximal element (the last thing being what is assumed in hopes of contradiction) What is initially deduced: (starting from the lack of a maximal element) In the Hasse Diagram there must be a chain that does not end, that is we can follow this chain to make larger and larger elements. Hopefully this helps!

[@aidanpetersen7060]

His blog is amazing too

[@sudluee]

It would interesting if you could have Pruss and Huemer on to discuss their competing views on infinity and causation.

[@justinsankar1164]

I dont think he does debates

[@matthieulavagna]

The Guy is a beast !!

[@WaveFunctionCollapsed]

William lane craig said He wanted to see Alexander Pruss Vs Graham Oppy

[@RadicOmega]

Cameron come on buddy I gotta be up for church tomorrow, don’t hit me with this

[@souravmohapatra2501]

There is no paradox in the card game, it's how probability works, to say that something we don't understand is paradoxical in nature is wrong

[@federicoaguilar7610]

"What if I tell you this person is not only brilliant but also an amazing communicator?" Nothing. The evidence is what matters, not the person who presents it. You seem to fall a lot for the argument from authority, and that's not cool. Like in your kalam video where you support its validity saying that it has existed for centuries and philosophers throughout history have used it. I mean, come on, it doesn't take much thinking power to know that that isn't evidence for the validity of an argument. Even if an authority is right, and their evidence is spot on, the fact that they are smart and amazing mustn't give more power to their argument.

[@johnkneeshaw8008]

It's pretty damning, isn't it? This guy is really that smart, and this is the best he can do.

[@kccgurl]

And yet you believe what you believe because men you thought were smart have told you a lot that God doesn't exist and scientists dont believe in god blah blah. It's the same thing. Also, that was an introduction dude. He in no way said this is true because Dr. Pruss is smart, he was setting the thing up for us to listen to the full explanation. These are all just off hand comments he's making that you're taking way too seriously.

[@federicoaguilar7610]

@@kccgurl I don't believe what I believe because someone told me to. Also, if I was talking about something and someone commented on my speech, I would be glad that thwy were paying attention to me. Taking me seriously is a compliment.

[@Watch470]

@@federicoaguilar7610 cameron didnt say that because he think pruss is good communicator then he is right or you must believe what pruss said. I mean its horrible that you can make that kind of conclusion. Being good communicator means he can deliver what is his thought or opinion, its linguistic and communication skill.

[@Josdamale]

0:53 The contrast between Faith and Reason has me pondering how this arises, as it makes no sense in a Greek Patristic environment. In Greek the root words for Reason and Faith are Logos (Λόγος) and Pistis (Πίστις), which also mean Word, Ordered words (such as a catalogue or a study) and Belief (the action of believing). I think the Western problem arises in part from the Latin words Fides (Faith) and Credo (I believe), two different words that translate the same Greek concept of Πίστις. In Greek, the words would be Πίστις and Πιστεύω (for belief and I believe), and there is an adjective Πιστός which means Faithful - note carefully, though, this is someone that one can believe in and trust, not one who necessarily believes and trusts unwaveringly. Or put another way, someone who is trustworthy. If we are πιστός to someone, it means that other person can believe, trust and rely upon us to act trustworthily. This is a little different from Faithful, which may imply that one has unwavering faith. The meanings are closely related. It is perhaps in these slightly different words that Western thought begins to take meanings in different directions from the Greek. As a Greek Christian, I understand that πίστις (belief, trust, faith) is a noun that is the name given to the action or work of πιστεύω (to believe, to trust, to have faith), and likewise that πιστεύω is the action or work of πίστις, and if I am πιστός (faithful, trustworthy) that means I can be counted upon and can be trusted and believed in to act trustworthily in terms of the trust placed in me. When St Paul contrast Faith and Works this cannot be taken to mean that Faith is not a Work, but that a Work that appears to be of Faith is not of Faith if the motive for it is not governed by Faith. One can, therefore, do Works that are not of Faith despite appearances, and Works that are of Faith, which itself is a Work of God. The essential part is to begin with Faith, or better yet, with Love from which Faith arises, and then act in accordance with that Love. Taken falsely, this is interpreted by Gnostic-Dualistic sects to mean that no Work but Faith alone is to be done, which is an absurdity given that one must be Faithful in one's life and live in accordance with that Faith. For example, Christ says, if you live me, you will obey my commandments. One should note the many times the Lord rebukes his disciples for being of little faith. Indeed, if one truly had Faith, one would truly love God with all one's being and one's neighbour as oneself, in which case, one would not sin. Sin and disobedience to God is evidence of lack of faith and love in God.

[@hensonsf2701]

“Sin and disobedience to God is evidence of lack of faith and love in God.” -> I don’t see how this is just a word game tautology. These are also just assumptions that the specific system set up in the bible is correct.

[@Josdamale]

@@hensonsf2701 A=B, B=C, => A=C is one form of deduced logic, which neither proves A or C is true or false, but connects A with C. Here is another simple deduction: Sin is disobedience to God's will, One who loves God will not disobey God's will, Therefore, one who loves God will not sin. This is not intended to prove God to someone who does not believe in God, but rather for the person who does believe in God, it is meant to show that one cannot claim to love God with all one's being if one knowingly sins. At that time that one knowingly sins, one is doubting God and lacking in faith. Personally, I have never heard an argument from an atheist that was not a strawman argument.

[@hensonsf2701]

Josdamale Personally I have never heard an argument from a theist that demonstrated any god claims, supernatural claims, or anything in that realm that they seemingly cannot define well enough. I guess that is why I am an atheist. Also - which god do you believe in? Any specific version?

[@Josdamale]

@@hensonsf2701 Before moving forward, I hope you understand the previous argument and what its intention was. How do you prove intelligence without comparing it with an arbitrary standard of performance? When considering intelligence, I regard the knowledge and awareness of one's ignorance as a marker. Imagine for a moment a mind infinitely beyond your own that could imagine and know without the passage of time infinite ideas and possibilities of everything that such a mind or any infinite numbers of minds could possibly imagine or know. Such a mind and such knowledge would be infinite. Imagine now what one bit of knowledge would be compared to that infinite knowledge of that infinite mind. Essentially, it would be nothing or infinitesimal knowledge. Finite knowledge would be nothing in the context of such inifinte knowledge. Imagine how that infinite mind knows all things and nothing simultaneously and without the passage of time. Something (even my own ignorance) tells me that such an infinite mind cannot exist within the constructs of my limited mind, yet my limited mind can perceive that which would be infinitely beyond its own knowledge. Ignorance and knowledge come together in the relative finite as the image of the union of absolute infinite knowledge and absolute infinite ignorance. Taking an analogy from mathematics, how would I deduce the existence of Zero and Infinity using mathematics? That would be an absurd task as maths is based upon axioms (rules) that are assumed to be true, then other proofs are reached using those assumed axioms. One cannot use maths to prove the very things maths needs to prove things. We assume Zero and Infinity and sets of infinite numbers in order to use them in our proofs, without being able to fully experience them, because our mind can contemplate things beyond the limitations of our mind that give meaning to the finite numbers in our minds. The Absolute gives meaning to the relative, and the Infinite to the finite. Turning now to how we understand God, without assuming a strawman definition for the purposes of justifying our sinfulness. Can God be less than Truth, or less than Love, in so far as I understand Truth and Love? That wouldn't be God, would it, if we made God less than Truth and Love? So, let us say, using analogies once again, that: God >= Truth, and God >= Love. God is Truth and Love, but infinitely much more than I can comprehend Truth and Love. Now, let us say some bright spark who unaware of his ignorance, or perhaps not so bright, demanded that we use the axioms of logic and math (that the human mind invents) to prove that Truth is true or that Love is true. How can one use the very axioms of the human mind, which depend upon and require absolute Truth, in order to prove whether Truth is true? By our very usage of Truth we affirm our belief in Truth, and the same with Love. You need to know the transcendent God in order to create a strawman argument of God and then slanderously apply that argument to the transcendent God. Without the knowledge of God we cannot even discuss God. Now, as we assumed must be true, since we did not want to make a strawman of God and assume he is less than Truth or Love, God is greater and equal to our mental concepts of Truth and Love. God gives meaning to the concepts of Truth and Love, and to everything that we are, from Zero to Infinity, and beyond. Without God, there is no meaning to anything. That is who God is. There is no Reason, no Truth, no Love, no Goodness, no Beauty, and no Life, without God. As for what deity I believe in, I have no doubt that I believe in the same deity that you believe in. There are many proofs of God, such as the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the beginning of life, and so forth, but none of them is as convincing to me as I am to myself and you are to yourself. I believe humans are gods. I am a god and so are you. I believe that the true God is True Love - the simplest unit of Love is three distinct persons in one indivisible nature. Humans are the image of God, who gives meaning to our existence. The meaning of Love is that God the Word became a man in order to make humans like God, who is Love. Without love and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, one will not come to know God, who is love, who sent Jesus Christ. Though I die like an animal, I am a god, because God is and has given me life, and through Jesus Christ, the Word of God, I have become a son of God. As Jesus Christ rose from the dead, so I have the same hope. As the ancient Greeks said it: Γνώθι σαυτόν.

[@hensonsf2701]

Josdamale A lot os sophistry here. What evidence do you have this god exists and that this Jesus rose from the dead?

[@giladpachter4546]

*Pruss's POWERFUL Argument - not so powerful !!* *The infinite rod:* He's trying to reflect upon reality with something that can never exist in reality - a single monolithic object of infinite size. Even the most radical mathematical fields of study never touch upon discrete objects (physical or abstract) of infinite size. The definition of parallel lines is that they go to infinity without the distance between them ever changing, not that they meet in the infinity. Using truly unrealistic scenarios and twisting definitions and meanings can lead to all sorts of paradoxes and nonsense. This does not reflect on reality in any way. *The infinite deck of cards:* The shuffled deck fallacy. He's trying to sell us a story that the deck is truly shuffled, and that the way to do that is by "decrementally" counting backwards in time, while we all know that it's impossible to cover all the items of an infinite set. So I stress again: reality is not a single monolithic object that falls under the same restriction. If it can stretch forward up to infinity, there's no reason why it couldn't not have a beginning. *The speeding lamp example:* The lamp example is flawed, because nature forces upon us to have indivisible distance and time units: Planck distance and Plank time. *The Grim Reaper paradox:* An infinite amount of Grim Reapers wake up at what any mortal would recognize as 10AM, see that Fred is alive, and being immaterial and don't get in each other's way, they all swing simultaneously and kill Fred.

[@giladpachter4546]

@@keithtorres5743 Maybe I got the interval wrong (I remember 10AM - 11AM). Point made is that an observer would've noticed that this had already happened by the time 1 second had passes after the beginning of the interval, regardless of when it actually happened (which is practically one Planck time unit from the beginning of the interval, if I'd invoke Planck time - which I can do without compromising my intellectual honesty).

[@giladpachter4546]

@@keithtorres5743 I think that when one invokes an infinite amount of grim reapers, the question "which grim reaper killed Fred" is not a coherent question. Within the boundaries of that story, the brute fact is that Fred is dead at 09:00:01. That's all that we can be sure of (given that the reapers don't get in each other's way).

[@giladpachter4546]

@@keithtorres5743 Again . . . he's killed by an infinite amount of reapers, which being immaterial don't get in each other's way. They do so simultaneously. Which reaper is actually credited for killing Fred - I don't give a rat's ass. It's a hypothetical question in an impossible story. That doesn't mean that the scenario of killing Fred is impossible *within the realm of the story.*

[@giladpachter4546]

@@keithtorres5743 There's a say (and a political strategy) that if you repeat a lie enough times, eventually people will believe it to be true. Unfortunately for you, that tactic doesn't work on me. To give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a halfwit, I'm left with the conclusion that you're deliberately misinterpreting.

[@ccmnxc]

The rod: So...we all agree that that a single monolithic object of infinite size like the rod leads to problems. You know, like paradoxes as described by Pruss. And sure, parallel lines do go on without ever meeting. The point is that the rod which is parallel to the ground has, in this scenario, nothing supporting its being above the ground. So to say this doesn't reflect on reality is in a real sense entirely trivial, precisely because Pruss is arguing that *this cannot, even in principle, happen in reality.* Infinite deck of cards: He doesn't actually stipulating counting back infinitely. Let's state it another way: the same number of cards is shuffled as the distance that day is away from the final day. No counting back here, so no problem. Thompson's Lamp: There is still live debate about whether space and time are continuous or discrete, but we can set that aside. Why can't Pruss simply stipulate that that space and time are continuous in the example? Unless you want to argue that such a position is completely metaphysically impossible. But if it is possible, then Thompson's Lamp still goes through as an effective thought experiment. Sure, the Planck scale may, in reality, render Thompson's Lamp impossible, but then we can simply hold that there is an overdetermination on the impossibility of Thompson's Lamp: both the Planck scale and the paradoxes each render it impossible. No issues there. Grim Reapers: "At what any mortal would recognize as 10 AM" is nice, but you simply aren't talking about Pruss's scenario anymore and have thus not refuted him. He stipulates infinitely increasing divisions in the time approaching 10 AM, and unless, again, you want to argue that the Planck scale (or whatever) is metaphysically necessary, there is nothing wrong with him stipulating such a thing in the scenario.

[@jonathanthompson4734]

Very hard to understand without the visuals he seems to be drawing(?). Pls bring him on to explain this

[@internetenjoyer1044]

i just got to the rod bit, it was pretty hard to visualise at first, but it clicked. suppose you have a 100cm rod and you balance it on the end of a table, only putting the first centermeter or so on the table and other 99cms is not on the table. It'll obviously fall. But suppose that rod were infinitely long, stretching out into infinite face in a given direction, with the first centermeter still on the table and the rest of it still with no support. It's so long that it can't move even a tiny bit down before dome part of it down the line hits the ground. To see this, think of the rod being a kilometer long and you tilt it downwards by one milometer; the end of the rod would move closer to the ground than the end of the 100cm rod would if you titled that down by a milometer. but if an infinitely long rod were tilted by any amount whatsoever, call any given amount Y, then there's some finite length of rod, call it X, at which X hits the ground. But for any length of X, there's still infinitely more rod beyond X. So, if the rod hits the ground at X given Y amount of tilt, then the rod hits the ground at length X + 1 (where 1 is the minimal possible incremental increase in length past X), X+2...for an infinite series of increments. But then, no matter what length X the rod is that it hits the ground given an amount of tilt Y, there's always an infinite amount of incremental increases in length where the rod already hit the ground. But this means, there is no length X where the rod hits the ground due to being tilted when it shouldn't have already hit the ground infinitely many incrementals along the rod before that. No matter how slightly you tilt the rod, there is no place on the rod that is the place it first hits the ground, becuase it must have hit the ground infinitely many times before that. So the rod cannot be tilted and somehow must hover over the ground

[@zac3392]

Daniel Prendergast Excellent thanks!

[@kelleykennedy872]

This guy spends most of the lecture explaining how infinite things can’t exist, only to assert that therefore an infinite god exists.

[@godshardtruth7488]

🤣🤣🤣 many shall try but won't understand for lack of FAITH!!! (IJCN) AMEN!!! Many Blessings to you and your families!!! 🙇🙇🙇

[@sqlblindman]

Faith is the lack of understanding.

[@godshardtruth7488]

@@sqlblindman kzbin.info/www/bejne/n2asmGygj6ukiZI

[@sqlblindman]

@@godshardtruth7488 I don't follow blind links, and I don't debate with youtube videos. If you cannot present your own argument, you have no argument. Dismissed.

[@godshardtruth7488]

@@sqlblindman God bless you to Brother!!! Peace be with you

[@sqlblindman]

@@godshardtruth7488 I hope someday you find a worldview you can defend.

[@flatulentdragon]

Tells us we're going to get something new and interesting in the intro. What we actually get is another rehash of the tired, old Cosmological Argument. Very disappointing.

[@gjjk84]

I’m enjoying this so far. But I have a question about the infinite deck of cards illustration. I guess it is assumed that it starts at one and goes on forever upward. But then how is that really infinite? Because there is a beginning. If it starts at one, then there is a zero, right? This is the only way the Han Solo paradox works, because of it is truly infinite, then there will be an equally infinite number of smaller cards as there are larger cards.

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

Justin Key All the positive whole numbers are an infinite set. All whole numbers (negatives and zero included) are also an infinite set, but different. So an infinite set might have a smallest member. An infinite set might even have both a smallest and a largest member. An example would be all fractions greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to one. In his example he uses a deck numbered with positive whole numbers. =)

[@jamesalexander7540]

It seems to me that he is an enjoyable professor whom should have many more students.

[@branchleader73]

Doesn't this just make God a turtle?

[@dellmckinley6156]

Yes, 2 years later and im watching this late

[@codyehmke1218]

Yesss

[@Oskar1000]

Great talk, I don't see how the shuffling of the deck of cards is key to the paradox. (Which is how Pruss seems to connect it with his causal finitism theisis). Is the idea that we can just somehow have a sorted deck of cards and then we have to shuffle it? Why can't we just somehow have a shuffled deck of cars and refrain from sorting it? That would take no time. Also the paradox works even without a deck. Just imagine God simply creates a deck with only two cards that have two random natural numbers. You get one card and have to guess if the other card is higher or lower. Isn't this the very same paradox. No shuffling or infinite causal history involved, just God having the required knowledge of randomly picking two numbers and writing them down on cards. Surely most theist are already committed to God being able to do that.

[@JL0007]

Why do we need mental gymnastics like this when a simple appearance would suffice? If he wanted us to know he was there, he would visit Earth like he supposedly did a few times before. Then you could save your breath with these circular arguments that don't prove anything.

[@LogosTheos]

Too bad this doesn't refute the argument for God's existence in the video.

[@zachdavenport8509]

I think "God has His reasons" is a valid response to this objection.

[@onestepaway3232]

Who needs to crawl down a sewer hole to see what is down there? God is self evident.

[@japexican007]

“If he wanted us to know he was there, he would visit earth like he supposedly did a few times before” 1. So you want him to do what he already did? 2. Even when he already did it there were people that still didn’t believe 3. God does not care that you “believe” he exists or not, even demons believe in his existence and they’re not saved, even Muslims and Jews believe God exists, who cares?

[@giladpachter4546]

@@japexican007 "2. Even when he already did it there were people that still didn’t believe" E P I C -- F A I L ! ! !

[@nithinswaroop8170]

I hope you can have Dr. Alexander Pruss on your show sometime..

[@johnkneeshaw8008]

Hey, wait, I was tricked. These are the same flawed arguments that presented all the other times. (I wasn't really tricked. I just wanted a laugh.)

[@jack_skeean]

Well, since you can obviously out-reason Dr. Pruss, care to give a better counterargument?

[@johnkneeshaw8008]

@@jack_skeean Sure. In which argument do you want me to point out flaws?

[@johnboehmer6683]

Wow, arrogance so epic that to claim to be tricked in order to mock and insult the video, you have to walk it back, because nobody can be left thinking YOU got tricked, right? Now let me guess, you just wanted a laugh, because no one else has the intellect or capacity to make you laugh, right?

[@nerdforlife6544]

Really good but I don’t think you’ve added this one to your Alex Pruss playlist

[@kevinmessiah872]

Nothing new here. Same old same old. Cosmological arguments rehashed. :( never mind, I expected nothing else.

[@japexican007]

Kevin Messiah so?

[@LogosTheos]

Too bad you couldn't refute his specific argument.

[@axel0780]

If we came from zero (0),even if you add or add,multiply,subtract or divide it with itself, how did 1 happen?

[@shurik3nz346]

1-1=0 1+1-1-1+1-1=0 and so on.

[@teamatfort444]

0 + (1+ -1) = 0

[@M4th3www]

Is Dr. Pruss Catholic? (honest question)

[@alwayslearningtech]

The entire argument can be rebuked by multiple times such as retrocausation, quantum randomisation, etc.

[@markslomp8607]

No evidence of retrocausation. And if you ask pruss the question ab quantum randomization (I did) than he’d give u an answer

[@alwayslearningtech]

@@markslomp8607 what was the answer?

[@markslomp8607]

Matthew Kennedy ok. So by quantum randomization u mean for example certain things having certain probabilities. And those probabilities coming true right? Then the argument is “there is no explanation behind the what was chosen out of the probability. Therefore PSR is false”

[@alwayslearningtech]

@@markslomp8607 wow! So the universe from nothing is fully within reason from his view... Yet he still believes in God? I wonder why...

[@markslomp8607]

Matthew Kennedy no. It’s not within reason. Because nothing existing is contingent. And “nothing” has no causal power. I was simply asking why u meant by quantum randomization. Just to make sure we r on the right page

[@jotaone]

I need somebody to explain to me as a 5-years-old the first example about the infinite rod and the infinite flat earth because I could not understand it, I got lost with the illustration given by Dr. Pruss. The next three examples given by him and the epilogue of the lecture I understood perfectly, but not that one. Keep in mind that English is not my first language.

[@ccmnxc]

I'll see what I can do: Start again with the initial illustration. You have a metal rod with one end resting on a table and the rest floating out in the open air. If it is three feet long, the edge on the table will not be enough to hold up the remaining part of the rod, causing the rod to tilt into the ground at some angle other than 90 degrees. Now, imagine the rod is infinitely long and the earth underneath it is likewise infinitely long. Otherwise, everything else is the same. If the rod tilts down toward the ground any amount whatsoever, the further along the rod you go, the closer it will get to the ground. Think of it as the really long hypotenuse of a triangle. Yet, if you get closer to the ground the further you go, there will definitely be some point at which the rod meets the ground which is a finite distance away from the table. This obviously cannot happen if the rod is infinitely long. And so the rod must "float" in midair, never angling toward the ground, and yet having nothing to support any part of the rod except an inch or two at the beginning. This is, as Pruss would say, a strange conclusion, and yet it is the only option if the infinitely long rod and earth were actual.

[@jotaone]

@@ccmnxc THAAAAAANK YOU! GOT IT!!!

[@blikker8]

I'm confused about the card game, can someone help? Why couldn't there be an infinite amount of smaller numbers as well as bigger numbers?

[@markbirmingham6011]

I'm not 100% on this but I think the assumption that the numbers begin with 1 and "go to" infinity, in increments of 1. Positive whole numbers, no decimals, or else you'd have an infinite number of chances even between 1 & 2. Hey might have glossed over these assumption. But I think the logic holds if you assume this.

[@vaskaventi6840]

Basically, you can draw a card with any whole number between 0 and infinity. No matter what card you or the other person draw, you both will most likely loose, because the distance from 0 to your/their number is nothing compared to the distance between your/their number and infinity. That is my understanding. There couldn't be an infinite amount of smaller numbers because they start at zero and there are no fractions.

[@brunorhagalcus6132]

It appears as part of the Kalam argument. How can you get to any specific effect in an infinite causal cycle? Or, how does an eternal causal cycle have an end. Someone made an analogy of this using dominoes. You have an infinite line of dominoes falling in your direction. How can it be infinite if it has an end right at your feet and a direction of the causal cycle? This leads to the assumption an eternal physical structure is impossible and the necessity of an already infinite, unchanging and all-powerful uncaused cause. This is axiomatic just like the mathematics that sheds some light on the inconsistencies of this assumption. Infinity philosophically, is mostly ungraspable and mathematics has issues w/ it too; however, super sets, replacements, etc reveal much about higher infinities. If we can already have higher infinite super sets, why would the supernatural be required for infinity? It doesn't exactly answer what "n" or omega etc are, but it doesn't reveal they need to be a god. Is infinity possible in the physical world? At this time, infinities aren’t needed in physics, but a hypothesis exists that Bannach Tarski may be a mathematical abstract of the potential for infinities or “something apparently from nothing” in quantum mechanics... Here’s the simpler, indirect, refutation. If God is all-powerful, then he must be able to create an eternal physical structure. Since an eternal physical structure must be possible through a god, it immediately diminishes the need for that god in the first place and refutes Kalam’s supernatural necessity.

[@mickeyesoum3278]

@@brunorhagalcus6132 almost no theist believes God can create the metaphysically impossible; impossibilities do not feature in omnipotence. If an eternal universe is impossible, God cannot make it.

[@brunorhagalcus6132]

@@mickeyesoum3278 Great! You've just conceded omnipotence is impossible. If he is bound by impossibilities, then something supersedes his power and he can't be all-powerful. If something is all-powerful, it's ALL-powerful, not powerful-to-a-point.

[@dejavus_revenge746]

Question: are there any pagan doctrine that describes the universe by also calling it “The Earth?”

[@accabb2487]

How would self causation work with the second law of thermodynamics? Imagine pushing a 1 ton block up a hill till both you and the block are at the top. Now imagine the same scenario only self caused. One would be pulled up a hill by a 1 ton block that is exerting more energy on the person pushing it, than the person pushing it is exerting on the block.. The idea of self causation is contrary to everything we know about energy which is observable in the thing that was caused (universe).

[@johnboehmer6683]

That's the thing though, a supernatural being isn't beholden to natural law, and so this is why God as the first cause is most plausible.

[@Keesha_Hardy]

@@johnboehmer6683 Exactly. The laws of nature, thermodynamics included, MUST have a law giver, *_and_* that law giver *cannot* be bound by the very laws they created. They MUST exist outside of nature itself too.

[@sqlblindman]

@@johnboehmer6683 Yes, it is easy to just invent an imaginary being as the solution to any problem presented. But that is not science. And that is not philosophy.

[@sqlblindman]

@@Keesha_Hardy The laws of physics are descriptive, not proscriptive. Thus, no law giver is required. Find a different argument, because that one is dead in the water.

[@sqlblindman]

How does self causation violate the laws of thermodynamics? Give us your best shot.

[@muhammadbinjamil9998]

By looking at creation, we can track back to the Creator. I think this whole lecture needs a good summary in written form. Anyone's up for it?

[@JulioCaesarTM]

Where is the video? Is the Rod parallel or perpendicular to the ground

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

Julio CaesarTM parallell! Two parallell infinite lines does not intersect. Infinite perpendicular lines would intersect. It’s stipulated in the example that rigid bodies are not allowed to intersect.

[@39knights]

I find thee is a difference between the Simplicity of God, His Eternal Nature - and the idea of Infinity. I would like to hear a talk (if even by Pruss) about the difference between something which is Eternal and something which is Infinite.

[@jotaone]

Pretty good and it seems to me that I will have to listen to this lecture again to grasp more details (and turn on the captions). Greetings from Argentina.

[@justdidit3933]

The jump he makes at 11:20 is by no means obvious. In Graham Oppy's 'Arguing About Gods', on page 100 he has this to say concerning the jump from self-causation to circular causation: "It seems to me to be relatively uncontroversial to suppose that nothing can be a direct or unmediated cause of itself. However, it is far more controversial to suppose that there cannot be a - perhaps very large - circle of causes, each of which is an efficient cause for the next. The large literature on the possibility of time travel and the possibility of circular time attest to the controversial status of the claim that nothing can be a indirect or mediated cause of itself (and/or the claim that there cannot be circles of causes). Perhaps we can argue from the absence of evidence of time travel to the conclusion that there are no circles of causes or things that are indirect or mediated causes of themselves. However, at the very least, it should be recognized that the [claims that things do not cause themselves and that there are no circles of causes] are in need of substantial further support." Perhaps one could write off the interest in time travel as nothing more than wishful thinking, but this is sure to expose some sort of implicit bias. Myself being a theist, I find the proposition "there are no circles of causes" to be more plausibly true than its negation, but would I say the same as an agnostic or atheist? I should hardly think so.

[@esauponce9759]

Hey, that’s a nice quote from Graham Oppy. But I think it’s obvious (in a logical or metaphysical sense) that circular causation can’t exist. Time travel movies which show this type of circular causation (in time travel scenarios this is more noticeable) are, I think, a good visual tool to start thinking about the metaphysics of it. One movie which definitely shows brilliantly the idea of circular causation is the movie “Predestination”. I recommend it.

[@justdidit3933]

@@esauponce9759 So in which sense is it obviously impossible, logically or metaphysically? There is no explicit contradiction in a circle of causes so I don't see how you could argue that the idea is logically impossible/incoherent. Sure, something can't cause itself, but that is not what is happening in circular causation, at least not directly. So I don't see how it could be "obviously logically impossible". And regarding metaphysical impossibility, all we know is that weird things might happen. But everything about reality is weird. And funny paradox is not a proof that something is metaphysically impossible. On the contrary, there has been recently revived discussion about the metaphysical possibility of even paradox-free time travel ( www.sciencealert.com/a-physicist-has-come-up-with-the-maths-to-make-time-travel-plausible ). I have seen Predesetination which is a great example of the grandfather paradox at work. But again, just because it's a weird concept, that does nothing to demonstrate that it in fact could never happen. Gravity is weird, black holes are weird, dark matter is weird - and yet they are clearly metaphysically possible.

[@esauponce9759]

@@justdidit3933 Yes, of course, I agree: if we are trying to argue (philosophically) about the nature of this things (like circular causation), its coherence and possibility, we shouldn’t dismiss them just by saying “it’s weird”. As you already know (I suppose), philosophy is not about “pure speculations” and “common sense stuff”, but actually about the study of the fundamental nature of everything, using principles of reason. So, we can try to get to the jugular of the matter to analyze it. In the case of circular causation (I’m referring to it in general), an example using precisely the movie Predestination can help, I think. The movie (and many other movies too) illustrates the Bootstrap paradox. So, we can make some inferences about the nature of the scenario (which is a clear causal loop, or circle) and note that it’s metaphysically impossible and, actually, also, logically impossible. For Jane/John to exist in the first place, she had to exist _first_ , _before_ she even existed _at all_ . The movie shows a long connection of cause and effect, but ultimately, it’s clear that it’s a circle of causes. It’s impossible that a thing could cause itself to exist (I think, through the light of reason, we can see this clearly). A circle of causes implies that something causes itself to exist. Therefore, a circle of causes is impossible. Thanks for the link you shared. It’s interesting that the article focuses on sharing ways in which time travel could happen _without_ the paradoxes commonly involved with it. That’s good, I think, because it shows that we all see that reality can’t be a (logically) contradictory reality; so, if time travel is possible, it should be in a way that doesn’t violate logical truths and necessary metaphysical truths. I agree with what the article mentioned indeed.

[@garerro]

Circularity of Causes, reminds me of the Netflix show Dark

[@esauponce9759]

Indeed. The movie “Predestination” too.

[@BeachBumZero]

Spoiler Alert!!!

[@frrankdesilva6504]

Infinity In the universe as we know it the following is true. 1. Infinite time is time without end and as such can never be reached. 2. Infinite distance can never be reached. Speed has a maximum which is the speed of light as such an infinite distance cannot be reached for the following reason. Consider sending out a beam of light. The light will never reach infinity as it would need infinite time. An infinite time can never pass as its time without end. 3. Nothing can be infinitely old. Consider making some object. Any time in the future it will always have a finite age as infinite time can never pass. Applying this to the past means that everything that exist is not infinity old or did not always exist. 4. The truth of 3 has been demonstrated by the big bang which was the event that gave birth to the universe. 5. The cause of the event that gave rise to the universe, if it had a property of infinity the same as the infinity in this universe then it in turn would be of a finite age and would need a creating event. 6. Thus anything with a property of infinity the same as the infinity of this universe could not be the ultimate cause of this universe or any universe like it. 7. Thus the ultimate cause of everything that exist has an infinity that is different or nothing like the infinity of this universe.

[@alfred9916]

Ahhh, unfortunately I had already listened to this audio on the Thomistic Institute podcast... hope you can have Pruss on the show sometime!

[@rogerkreil3314]

This is one great big argument from ignorance. There are many things that we don’t know. But just because we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang doesn’t mean that God did it. Just because he cannot comprehend infinity doesn’t mean that infinity doesn’t exist. Natural processes don’t need theists to understand them in order to work.

[@tristanmaxwell8403]

How do u know?

[@MarkJohnson-yn2ol]

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy:3:7

[@kito-]

The man's a modern day Leibniz

[@giladpachter4546]

*C a m e r o n* . . . I really hope you're following the exchange here. A lot of interesting stuff is going on.

[@michaelnelson3652]

Wow, that card paradox was crazy. But even without it or similar paradoxes, the point remains that even an actual infinite would require an explanation and a cause (via the POC and PSR). Hence, "a paintbrush has no causal power to move on its own even if it had an infinitely long handle."

[@darknomore2573]

This needs to be in a book... 2nd premise is epic..🔥...

[@rjonesx]

It is. books.google.com/books/about/Infinity_Causation_and_Paradox.html?id=_Y5lDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

[@thomasm9983]

Pruss is really impressive. Would be amazing if you got him to your interesting show, @Cameroon. God blesd

[@lendrestapas2505]

About the Han Solo paradox: what about this is paradoxical? Doesn’t a paradox contain a contradiction p and not p?

[@internetenjoyer1044]

it's more a paradox of rational behaviour, where the most rational decision doesn't lead to optimal results. There's "levels" of paradox though, some more problematic than others

[@goldenalt3166]

@@internetenjoyer1044 It's clearly bad reasoning.

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

Also in composite scenarios, if any detail other than the infinity is problematic you might reject that detail, or actually you can sometimes just reject the composite but not the parts. It is fine to use this kind of weird scenarios to guide intuition though. And it may be good to be a bit cautious about infinities. The “paradoxes” don’t imply by them selves that infinity as a concept(or one of multiple concepts with the same name) is contradictory. Though infinities might be incoherent anyway. Or they may be fine. Who knows?

[@mickeyesoum3278]

No, not all paradoxes involve explicit contradictions. The Grim Reaper leads to a contradiction. But many paradoxes are not contradictory - the issue is just that they are, well, paradoxical, so we take it that they are very unlikely to be true. We wanna minimize problems and if a theory leads to paradoxes, that at least counts against a theory.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@mickeyesoum3278 if you can't determine where the problem lies, it implies either your assumptions or your logic is flawed.

[@Josdamale]

Well done on procuring such talks. I think this is better than debates between yourself and other Christians, although discussions with other Christians on Christian topics, would also be a good idea, provided you not align with a particular view. But that's your choice.

[@piano9433]

The problem is that there is a huge gap between the God of aristotle and Yahweh.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

No there isn't at all. Proving this is why St Aquinas is considered the greatest philosopher in history l.

[@magnifico0000]

I hope you can get him on for a interview.

[@toddgerch1660]

It was interesting if only to hear Pruss, whom I had never heard before. But there was nothing new in this presentation.

[@sqlblindman]

By the way, at 11:00 Thompson's lamp is off. Losing respect for this guy by the minute....

[@irlc1254]

He did say that he wasn't totally convinced that Thompson's lamp is a paradox though.

[@theosib]

I'm powerfully disappointed. Pruss said, "There is no backwards chain of causes." That's where the argument fails. This is a rehash of the Kalam first-cause claim. We only think that everything must have a cause because that's what we observe. But we also observe that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed. If you're going to accept Pruss's argument, then you also have to assume that all matter/energy is eternal. If you want to be consistent, anyhow. I need to stop listening to these discussions, because they're really doing a number on my faith.

[@Moctop]

So faith is more important than truth, got it.

[@theosib]

Moctop On the contrary, I’m informing these people that their disregard for the truth is what is damaging to my faith and that of many others.

[@timhorton2486]

theosib Yeah this is not a new argument in any way as far as I can tell. But the fact that so many Christians find this convincing would definitely be damaging to my faith too, if I had any of the sort being espoused here.

[@sqlblindman]

Matter and Energy can both be created and destroyed. The laws of thermodynamics require only that the total amount of matter/energy in a closed system remain constant. Matter can be created with an equal amount of anti-matter. Energy can be created with an equal amount of opposite energy. Matter and Energy can be created and destroyed in converting one to the other.

[@danielulisesalberdi7319]

He is not talking about physical causation.

[@jerichosharman470]

SERIOUSLY?!?!?! I listened to the whole thing and it was just an argument that the universe had a start. after all of that he then hopped skipped and jumped to concluding an argument from ignorance and posited a supernatural being. POWERFUL argument my butt!!!

[@No_BS_policy]

Grow up man. Pruss presentation wasn't in any sense an argument from ignorance. The logical form of an argument from ignorance can be stated as follows: P1. A exists. P2. I don't know why A exists. C: Therefore, A is caused by something to exist. You seemed to have charged Pruss of essentially committing P2 so I have to ask you why did you think Pruss committed P2?

[@jerichosharman470]

@@No_BS_policy yes …….. his argument from ignorance. This entire video was one long arguement from ignorance. Agreed. We don’t know therefore god. That’s the summary of this video.

[@neildunford241]

So is this meant to prove the existence of a deity, or the existence of the Xtian god, thereby disproving all the others? And if its the Xtian god, does it prove which of the various things attributed to god, by xtians, are true, false, partly true, not even mentioned?

[@MrDzoni955]

These kinds of arguments are meant to prove theism, not a specific religion. But you know, proving theism would disprove most religions. You'd still be left with Abrahamic religions, neo-platonism and some aspects of Hinduism, but most religions don't actually fit under theism.

[@neildunford241]

@@MrDzoni955 So there's still a heck of a lot to essentially, go "wrong"? I don't think his view is as great as it was hyped to be. Dismissing potentials, just because he wanted too, doesn't strike me as true, "reasoning" - but hey... ...he's clearly got his fans.

[@JustinHerchel]

@@neildunford241 it's not that hard man. Once you have established God, you can add some further arguments and possibly establish a right way to conceive of this God/a religion.

[@neildunford241]

@@JustinHerchel For example? Got anything you can share? Neither Xtians, nor Muslims - all agree, on all possible points, with regards to their god & the related claims about their god.

[@JustinHerchel]

@@neildunford241 for example, Islam comprises of two basic statements: (1) There is one God, (2) Muhammad (s) was a prophet of God. Once you have established the existence of God (who is a personal Being with a will), there are many strong arguments for 2 that have convinced me personally to become a Muslim. Do you want some, here or on Twitter?

[@Poggy]

I see a lot of people appealing to his credentials. No offense, but his credentials are irrelevant. You can have 20 doctorates in physics and still be monumentally wrong on some question. It doesn't make you infallible. I think he's monumentally wrong on the god question. He's not presenting anything new or novel, so why do you post this as though it's a powerful argument? It's not, and it wasn't powerful 500 years ago, or whatever. Okay, sure, he gave it a new coat of paint. But the same fallacies that were present in the original argument are present in his argument. As someone who's studied physics, calculus, and read and watched everything Brian Greene, and others, this idea that there can't be an infinite chain of causes in the past doesn't get you to a god. At best you get to a first cause, but in B Theory of time there is not a linear chain of time, so there isn't a "first" cause, in the way that we think of time. There is a singularity but what happened "before" that is a nonsensical concept and may in fact be tied back to the other end of the universe. We simply don't know. Another major point of contention is that nothing in our universe is "being caused" in the way he's describing. We don't know why there is something rather than nothing, but positing a god for this is a god of the gaps. What happens after you have something is that something interacts with something, and giving that discrete labels like "I was caused by my parents" is a matter of practicality, not reality. Matter changed form, I didn't "come into existence" or anything remotely close to that. I don't think there could ever have been "nothing". I'm okay with the notion that something has always existed in some form. So, I do deny (like he said at around 10:25) that there is such a thing as causation in the way he's describing. So, already we have a major issue and we aren't even 6 minutes into the video. Next, he asserts that the next premise, the first cause is god, is plausible. Sorry, but no it's not. I don't agree there necessarily is a first cause. But even if I did, his characteristics on what that cause must be are nothing but philosophical hand-waving. It's bare assertions. Lastly, there is no demonstration that can be offered to show how a god solves this problem of a potential infinity of "causes" OR the problem of what caused the first cause (if we agree on that). It is simply asserted to be the case that god is necessarily causeless. God isn't the only option, and positing a god that is causeless and non-contingent, you end up with special pleading. God is exempt from the "everything must have a cause". I mean, he literally says "god is a necessary being", which means that his entire argument is circular. He presupposes god is a necessary being, so the argument that is trying to prove there is a god is fallacious there, too. If god isn't based on space and time, I have no reason think it's possible for this god to even exist at all, because as far as I can tell, existence is spatial and temporal, and we have no examples of things that can exist absent space and time. Positing a god that exists non-contingent on space and time is a god that is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. This argument is not powerful, at all. It's extremely weak and dubious, at best. It's only powerful to people who already agree that a god exists.

[@matteuslucas4223]

You presuppose naturalism to be true.

[@giladpachter4546]

"Positing a god that exists non-contingent on space and time is a god that is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist." Q.F.T !!

[@Poggy]

@@matteuslucas4223 No, I don't. I see no evidence that there is anything other than the natural world. I haven't presupposed philosophical naturalism. I'm a methodological naturalist, and this has no bearing on the fallacies in Pruss' arguments. Thanks for the deflection.

[@Poggy]

@@giladpachter4546 So you're saying god exists in a quantum state? So does he both exist and not exist at the same time?

[@Poggy]

@Gabe Norman Such as? It's one thing to say there's something wrong in my comment. It's a whole other thing to actually demonstrate what I said that is incorrect. Please, feel free to share with the class.

[@Acts-1915]

The audio was so bad I couldn't watch it all.

[@onethdasanayake3689]

For some reason all of the h-atheists always pick on Cameron for almost everything, LOL, maybe because he can provide strong arguments to burn them

[@CCCT4]

Kalems cosmological arguement! Very wise arguement and still unrefuted

[@sqlblindman]

Refuted long ago. Refuted every time an desperate apologist invokes it for his or her gullible audience.

[@alemartinezrojas5285]

Indeed, nothing or anything can't cause itself.

[@claudiozanella256]

The almighty God is normally supposed to BOTH A) being able to make decisions and B) to know the future. Here you should make a distinction between "optional futures" - God could maybe interact and modify them - and "THE ONE FUTURE", because ONLY ONE DETERMINED future will eventually come true. (The one that will become our ONLY ONE PAST). Well, God is supposed to be able to get the best performance: to know that ONE future. But then God MUST JUST LET IT UNFOLD EXACTLY like it is, He is NOT ALLOWED to change anything in it, because God makes no errors in his knowledge of the future! God cannot decide ANYTHING more: ALL God's decisions are already included in that future. What above means that EITHER God is free to decide, but this implies He does NOT know the ONE future, OR He knows the ONE future, but this prevents Him from making ANY further decision. Even worse than that, GOD WOULD BE OBLIGED to HIMSELF slavishly follow that one determined future. This all means the two abilities A) and B) are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE ("either", "or", but never "BOTH" at the same time). Since obviously God was able to make his decisions and we are also confident that He knows the future, the path followed must be from A) to B). When that transition occurred ? Certainly not during the man's history, of course that must have happened BEFORE the birth of the universe. However, God only arrived at step B) BUT WITHOUT ENTERING that step, we saw earlier that God is absolutely NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING PART to that future: He would be obliged to "SLAVISHLY" follow it. The God's actions in that one future (for example words) will AUTOMATICALLY come true instead. In other words that one future will become true WITHOUT GOD. NOBODY will be there to take the God's actions: that NOBODY is the SPIRIT OF GOD. God was thus FREE from any other duty. But where has the almighty God gone ? Of course He is now the Son of God. The almighty God dropped his then USELESS power to become like a normal man: Jesus. Thus, the almighty God is only IN THE PAST, "no one ever saw God" ""The world has not known you". Only Jesus really exists now, God is only a spirit.

[@f0rtitude]

What nationality is he? I’m picking up an accent?

[@coolmuso6108]

I think his ethnicity is Polish.

[@mickeyesoum3278]

Polish-Canadian

[@petersayers4843]

very enjoyable and informative :)

[@geoffreyl_]

Move the mic... one more time.

[@alo1528]

😂😂

[@joshwalker1955]

So why is an infinite being a better explanation than an infinite universe (or set of universes)? An infinite being also presents paradoxes, and it seems intellectually dishonest to dismiss this by saying that an infinite being is simply necessary.

[@gaseredtune5284]

good stuff

[@patrickbarnes9874]

With the buildup intro to this I was expecting something innovative and exciting but it turned out to just be taking the elegant kalam cosmological argument and stuffing a bunch of extra steps along with a long winded zeno's paradox into it. Kind of disappointing. In the end there was absolutely nothing new here. Additionally, he said that 2+2 has to equal 4 but we know now in the age of the enlightened cult of the woke, that 2+2 does not equal 4 because mathematics is a tool of white supremacy which denies other ways of knowing. Socially enlightened people know that math problems only have correct answers in racist societies.

[@Josdamale]

There is a chasmic difference between reasoning about God and following reason, and proving God by means of reason. The concept of prove is related to that of tempt or test. Attempting to prove God is a sin. Reasoning about God is not necessarily a sin. However, reason cannot take one all the way to believing in God although it paves the way. The motivation for reason and the companion of reason must be love, otherwise one will not come to trust in God. This is why faith has been erected as the means to heaven. This does not mean faith on its own, but faith that arises from love which motivates and takes reason as far as it can go, and then enters itself into the Kingdom of Heaven. Reason requires clear rules of logic and symbols which have fixed values or values determinable from the rules. The mathematics of context free languages should be prescribed for budding Protestant theologians to curtail their enthusiasm that words, reason and logic will be sufficient to arrive at truth. This type of mathematics (even that which is context free let alone subject to context) cannot of itself grasp the essence of God or come to know God in his energies apart from love.

[@mickeyesoum3278]

Please keep your Eastern fideism in check dude, we're Western rationalists over here. Once or twice is alright, but you're doing this all the time

[@Josdamale]

@@mickeyesoum3278 Thank you for taking the time to read it. I appreciate being heard.