Atheist Debates - Argument from Contingency

Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
In the realm of cosmological arguments, arguments from contingency are less typical than first-cause arguments or the Kalam cosmological argument, but it plays to the heart of our curiosity over why there is something instead of nothing.

[@RwandaBob]

Hard to believe I’d be coming back to this video 3 years later not just as a viewer, but watching this for a college class 😂

[@thstroyur]

Not for me - the steady decline in Western educational standards has been apparent ever since "Gender Studies" became a thing...

[@noodlenoggin5854]

@@thstroyur there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Gender Studies, its value depends on the content of the course.

[@thstroyur]

@@noodlenoggin5854 OK; so, by the same token, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Neo-Nazi Studies, because its value depends on the content of the course, right?

[@TheAaronExperience]

@@thstroyur , Depends on the content of the course. If the content of the Nazi study is biased in support of Nazis, then ya, it'd be a problem. As I've worked directly with hermaphrodites as a healthcare provider, I can appreciate gender fluidity. Not only does nature create physically sexually divergent people, it creates spiritually sexually divergent people as well. Sexuality is expressed across a spectrum in both mind and body in some people in all actuality.

[@thstroyur]

@@TheAaronExperience " If the content of the Nazi study is biased in support of Nazis, then ya, it'd be a problem" I didn't say "study", I said "Studies" - as in a discipline. But yeah, I think it'd be safe to assume that the content of the course of "Neo-Nazi Studies" would be biased in support of Nazis - hence my point. BTW, claiming you "appreciate gender fluidity" by no means mean gender fluidity is a real thing, TBW; your second paragraph is just a big fat argument from emotion, and _that_ is where the steady decline in Western educational standards of my OP comes back to bite us in the ass...

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

I am a theist, but I always enjoy listening to your videos. They are usually well thought out and intelligent. Something that is too rare these days. thanks

[@exequielassad5773]

Yes,but he fails.

[@niceshotmano]

@@exequielassad5773 Care to explain how? I disagree.

[@Terry-nr5qn]

@@niceshotmano Because he fails to address most things, just says "I am skeptical of that" and I lack belief in that instead of using counter arguments to address real arguments

[@niceshotmano]

@@Terry-nr5qn You should point out which things haven't been addressed for discussion in the interest of all our learning. This guy is on a weekly (?) show that takes any callers, and has made a career out of these debates. I find him to be pretty thorough.

[@trixn4285]

​@@Terry-nr5qn He points to the bold assertions and fallacies in their arguments. That is rebuttal enough. What else would be "using counter arguments" in your opinion? You are trying to shift the burden of prove. It's on the theist to provide evidence for their claims. To cite Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Merely asserting that a) The universe has a cause and b) That cause must be (a personal) god can simply be dismissed unless any evidence for that has been provided. That is what skepticism is about. You do not believe until the evidence is provided. The default position can't be to believe unless disproven because you would have to believe basically any nonsensical claim. Matt clearly points out all the unfounded assertions and logical fallacies in their arguments and does a fantastic job.

[@jonathanrydberg8982]

I really like that at 6:00 you put the argument in print in this video, as it allowed me to pause, examine the argument on my own before hearing your analysis, and then listen to your explanation. I am able to exercise my reasoning against not only the argument itself, but yours as well. Thanks! -Jon

[@redblueblur6321]

Hey jon are you alive ?

[@Pannhandle876]

@@redblueblur6321what type of question is this bro😭

[@redblueblur6321]

@@Pannhandle876 😂😂😂 i mean 7 years have passed, i just checked on him 🤣

[@rlh1984]

This is one of those arguments (like the ontological argument) that is so technical that it's hard to address when you first come across it, but something about it just feels wrong without knowing exactly what is wrong about it.

[@stein1919]

it sounds technical, but it's basically god of the gaps.

[@zacharyberridge7239]

@@stein1919 aside from personal experience, i don't think I've heard any arguments for the existence of a deity that isn't some form of the argument from ignorance.

[@denverarnold6210]

@@zacharyberridge7239 or at least leads to an argument from ignorance. Because the best evidence I've heard is of things we can't explain, that seem divine. But as Matt points out several times in his time in public speaking, until you can demonstrate the 'why' is God, then you're just assuming.

[@chriswinchell1570]

Bertrand Russell once said something similar

[@SunlightSentinel]

@@denverarnold6210 What premise do you disagree with: 1. There are limited things 2. Limited things can have an explanation 3. The totality of limited things cant be explicable in terms of limited things 4. Therefore the can be an unlimited thing. 5.An unlimited thing would have perfect nature. 6. Something necessary and perfect would need to span all possible worlds (S5) 7. Therefore something perfect exists. This perfect thing would be unlimited. So none quantifiable and lacking nothing which perfectly justifies Theistic believes in assuming this unlimited thing is God. All the traits of this unlimited thing lead to God.

[@winstonbarquez9538]

How can we say that the cosmos is necessary? The cosmos is contingent. It had a beginning as the standard cosmological model stated precisely because it is contingent. The necessary being will not cease to exist precisely because it is necessary.

[@KonradZielinski]

You just mixed up universe and cosmos. At least the way these words where used in this video.

[@gnosticagnostic9326]

It's like Konrad is the only one who listened to the video

[@OrangeDiamond33]

One of modern times most intelligent and well spoken men. Bravo Matt

[@steveyuhas9278]

+Come Let us Reason Since you appear to be just posting and running I figure I'll do the same too! You are wrong... Matt is a human being not a parrot. Check mate. Wow this is fun!

[@OrangeDiamond33]

***** Maybe one day I can be as smart as you and rub elbows with the elite of the world as you do. Probably not though see you got it all figured out and I'm fucking stupid.

[@kjustkses]

It doesn’t take much to impress you it seems. Read some books.

[@milkshakeplease4696]

I am Matt Dillahunty and YOU ARE JUST MAKING A CLAIM. I am super skeptical and believe nothing because everything is a claim. Hahaha, I am such a stable genius.

[@sovietbot6708]

@@milkshakeplease4696 this is an example of a straw man. Matt never once said he doesn't believe in anything. Atheism is not the belief nothing exists. It's the lack of belief in a god. You may be 100% God is real, but he's not. It's not up to him to prove there's no god because he's not claiming there's no god. You, on the other hand, claim there is a god, so it's up to you to prove it.

[@roybaines3181]

Saying I don't know is too uncomfortable for some.

[@Surefire99]

It's especially hard when you've been told your whole life that you do know. So you have to unlearn that and then also say "I don't know."

[@jimwallington437]

“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman

[@tomreeves8370]

Here is a much more honest approach than Craig's... 1) The universe exists. 2) The universe has some explanation for its existence. 3) We do not currently know (nor may we ever know) the explanation for the universe's existence. God is indeed one possibility. However, a universe creating god (or gods) is only one unproven hypothesis. Another explanation is that perhaps absolute nothing, (an absence of matter, energy, space, or time) cannot exist. "Nothing" actually existing is an oxymoron: Without time, when and for how long would Nothing have existed? Without space, where could Nothing have existed? In other words, _Something_ may have always existed as a brute fact, and that something need not be "supernatural" or even intelligent in nature. There are cosmological models in which universes come into existence via quantum fluctuations from empty space, or from a random imbalance of information bits, etc. Every scientist that proposes these models knows them for what they are - untested hypotheses. But they _are_ explanatory. It's too bad theists won't approach their hypothesis in the same manner, rather than making ridiculous, bold assertions of unprovable, untestable "fact."

[@TheZooCrew]

If they did, they wouldn't be theists.

[@GabrielTLGTaveira]

If it is a possibility what should we do? Does this possibility has such a low probability? Is this measurement impossible? What would convert an atheist? Nothing? GOD is bounded by the SCIENTIFIC methodology? F. Nietzche said he is dead, is that a true moral sentence? If so, why there are so many religions? Is all that just that opium? Is all that just about those other neces.? Is all that the mere moral that somebody told about? It seems to be more than that.

[@timfoster5043]

@Tom Reeves - If you start from true 'nothing' (not Laurence Krauss' version of "nothign") and then ask "where did the space-time continuum itself come from [and the laws that govern all matter therein] come from?", I think the questions you're asking tend to dissipate. This includes "where did the multiverse come from?" and "where did the quantum vacuum come from?" It would appear that these things are contingent on Something, and we would naturally ask "what is that something?" Since that causal agent gave rise to matter, space, time, and intelligence It seems reasonable to me that the causal agent must then be (necessarily) non-material, not subject to space and time ..and also intelligent.

[@PhrontDoor]

I would amend it slightly to "god is, indeed, on possibility for a very narrow subset of definitions or characteristics for god -- because certain god-definitions are self-refuting or impossible, making god 'not a possibility'.

[@6272355463637]

I would understand Craig's "argument" as a definition of "God", not as an argument for its existence. Trouble is, from what I know about him, it doesn't seem to be the definition he otherwise uses.

[@sovietbot6708]

I'm an apatheist. I believe whether God exists or not is irrelevant. If God does or doesn't exist, nothing changes. Reality would be the same either way. If God does exist, it doesn't care if we believe in it, or it would demonstrate its existence. God wouldn't need your faith. Only a liar trying to sell you something would need your faith. Since there's no good evidence a god exists, God is either indifferent or non-existent. Either way, it doesn't matter.

[@FoamySlobbers]

I plan on stopping any discussion, that asserts anything. until there is a reason given for the assertion, Or definitions to explain what is meant. thanks Matt.

[@SapienSafari]

+Come Let us Reason Only in your head. 😊

[@HardKore5250]

+Come Let us Reason Where doing what which one?

[@staninjapan07]

Amen! Oh, sorry, bad phrase. I mean... Yes! Good idea.

[@mikegillespie2670]

+Mark12:30 Assertion without evidence is fallacious. Faith is the most dishonest position anyone can hold on any subject, please explain to me anything else you have faith in with any amount of confidence without evidence supporting that faith. I can't think of a single thing. I feel bad for people with faith, I just wish they could understand why.

[@lewisner]

That is called the "Argument From STFU".

[@masonkane5884]

Step 1 - Make up a multi-step logical proof Step 2 - Make sure one of the steps includes "God is real" Step 3 - End with "Therefore God is real" Seems legit.

[@alanismorrissette4742]

But that's not what Thomad Aquinas did - his whole argument is that it is impossible to demonstrate that there is no cause for energy moving through time and space - yes, he applies the cause "to be proof as what we call as God" but he even admits that if you take out his presupisition of god you are still left with a cause, what was this cause? You cannot get something from nothing. These are basic scientific rules of law - You cannit have energy move without it having been once moved , and what moved it? Matt tottally ignores this and even states and encourages you to be ignorant the time being.

[@josephcioe4697]

@@alanismorrissette4742 no man. You're absolutely correct up until you say what was this cause. That's the whole point of all this. The atheists admits they don't know the theists pretend they do

[@amtlpaul]

@@alanismorrissette4742 Saying you don't know, and have no way of knowing, the answer to a question is not to ignore it.

[@jpapan1]

@@alanismorrissette4742 so its either there is a cause or there isnt a cause. It could very well be that there isnt a cause and it just is...as much as any god can just be without there needing to be a causer of that god. If there is a cause, now, which cause is it? And why should I accept whatever explanation when the explanation cant possibly be verifiable or testable ...it will just be an argument. As Matt has said in other debates...its yes, no, or i dont know. The theist wins if its yes. The other "player" wins if it's no or i dont know. Whoever doesn't have the burden of proof has 2 ways of being right...the one with burden of proof only has 1 way.

[@roqsteady5290]

@@alanismorrissette4742 The problem is that the word "god", depending on definition, implies all sorts of baggage that has nothing to do with answering the question. If you carve all that off (as Spinoza does in Ethics) you are left with very little and if you want to call that god you are just equivocating on what "god" is usually taken to mean.

[@MilwaukeeAtheists]

Matt, I fucking love you. Every time I watch you. I learn something new. I learn a new way of looking at apologetics and philosophy, Thank you for this

[@MilwaukeeAtheists]

he presented points ive never heard before. So yeah, learned something new

[@Robert.Deeeee]

+Come Let us Reason You're right, atheist have been saying the same thing for years, that's why Christianity is dying on its arse. the Bible has been debunked scientifically and historically I'm afraid, that's why Christian have to re-interpret it's readings to fit modern knowledge. Or, you can do what the creationists do and lie about current scientific understanding. lol

[@dmartin1650]

+Come Let us Reason Hello Mr Pot, let me introduce you to mister kettle. The regurgitation of the same claims and arguments, for centuries or millenia, and with no evidence except perhaps the testimony of adherents 'personal experiences', is the trademark of every major religion today and throughout history. Progress in human history has only ever come from recognising the difference between the wheat and the chaff in our knowledge, weeding out the chaff, and planting more wheat. Religions are just lazy cultivators of knowledge, they don't do enough weeding.

[@HardKore5250]

+Come Let us Reason You scared of hell?

[@duke428]

+Come Let us Reason Aside from the amazing irony in your comment David addressed what you just said is Matt read the bible but I did too. Then leapt to his interpretation of christianity isn't consistent with mine and mine is right because I say so. Which means that he doesn't know it. It's kind of a microcosm of the god argument from the religious side. This is the way I see it and that means it's true. It's really an arrogant way to look at things.

[@TopoTopaco]

Matt it would be nice if you disprove or explain why the properties of inmaterial, powerful , timless.. etc are not necessary for the cause of the universe. Or at least if the cosmos could have those propoerties

[@rogerdenrog]

Better would be, as Matt says towards the end of the video "why not acknowledge that we do not currently have an explanation " In other words why make one up? (my view)

[@TopoTopaco]

@@rogerdenrog I mean i don't know if you are familiar with the arguments posed by theists to justify the properties of the cause of the universe, but they are quite convincing to me (i'm pretty ignorant on phylosophy, so that's why i would love to hear rebuttals to those).

[@stevo7220]

@@TopoTopaco Here i might try to argue . All of the justifications fail either by God of the gaps , appeal to ignorance , Special pleading or False dichotomy . There are no theistic arguments for the beggining of the universe that does not have a logical flaw . Therefore not valid . Its their claim that the Universe can only be created by a being that is based on properties of immaterial , powerfull , timeless , etc. the burden of proof is not them hence . And the problem with infinite regress about the possibility of eternal multiverse cannot be falsified , because mathematically it is valid , their whole mental gymnastics are based on logic and science that is invalid , but if you use infinite eternal multiverse as a cause somehow it is impossible . If their mind ( of which there's no evidence can exist as a immaterial not bound by matter ) or agent exists in nothing ( timeless, immaterial , uncaused , spaceless ,timeless therefore its nothing . So far our evidence is impossible that minds only with pure intent can cause material change of state , but their claim is that their agent's or God's mind can , even tho there's no evidence that a mind can change any state without being bound and immersed in it . They have no backings for that too . There's alot of arguments in nature of how an abstract functional concept can have the same timeless , spaceless ,imaterial , causeless etc. effect without being an agent . Example is the abstract " Clockwork rule of random events " that was ones posed , there is a clock of a rule that once it reaches in some state it causes random events to happen ( such as multiverses and a sudden expansion of one ) by single chance . This scenario doesn't need an agent just an abstract rule to continuosly keep on creating random events of which a material universe might pop . This even after accepting the premise that our Universe had a beggining instead of just " There was a something eternal of which was expanding and then some random unwanted event caused it to start expanding violently 100x as more . There alot more better scenarios till you get to the agent but somehow they jump straight to it .

[@criskity]

"If the universe has a reason for its existence, the reason must be god." What genius thunk that one up? (eyeroll)

[@Questron71]

Especially as it neither proves that god MUST be the reason only asserts it (and we already have the assertion that it exists without any contingency necessary... and it also assumes that there is necessarily a reason for the universe to exist. Good lock proving that.

[@apologistinvestor7718]

That's a bit of a straw-man mate.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

+Come Let us Reason ...well, off the top of my head, first, I get plenty of humor in putting over self important douche bags (you for example) in their place. second, had nothing better to do while taking a shit, third, humans and humanity are something I want to evolve beyond bronze age backwood inbred dipshit mythology and actually find their place (and evolve beyond that place to near god-like) in this universe and we won't do it while sucking on the mythological dick(s) of ancient god(s) formed in primitive minds and acting like unlearned spastic instinctual hairless apes begging in a large open-form Skinner box for anecdotal scraps from the tables of fictional beings not demonstrated by the material physical universe. lastly, the universe exists because the universe exists and it gives evidence that only it exists and nothing else. if a god is not of or from or within the universe then the universe gives no correlation to a deity, especially not our universe which has no need for a cause and can self replicate or have easily created itself. see Susskind et al for a lesson in some physics.

[@HardKore5250]

+Come Let us Reason It's important to know whether a god exists or not and that god would have an effect on science. A natural god or instead a advanced being that is not a god.

[@criskity]

1. It is possible to think of at least one non-god-based reason for the existence of the universe. 2. The premise presupposes the existence of what the line of reasoning is trying to prove.

[@dinohall2595]

This is a great explanation in easy-to-understand terms of the Argument from Contingency. Glad to get a bit more educated today!

[@marcoantonio7469]

1) The Universe exists 2) God did it 3) ??? 4) Profit

[@thstroyur]

1.5) Atheist YTer strawman

[@sovietbot6708]

I'm an atheist, but that's a major straw man.

[@applicableapple3991]

It's a joke guys

[@yasfi5196]

I think Matt has misunderstood about concept of contingency.. This argument doesn't relies on causes and effects like he said in this video. Contingent simply mean 1. dependence on other thing to exist, 2. unnecessary to exist. For example, the existence of my house DEPENDENCE on the existence of bricks. However, even if the brick does exist, my house DOESN'T NECESSARILY have to be exist. It can be built into your house, someone else house, or even other infrastructure. Therefore my house should be a contingent thing.

[@diogeneslamp8004]

In what way then can we say that the universe is contingent on something for its existence?

[@waves_under_stars]

He explained at the beginning that there are 2 types of "contingency" we can talk about: causal contingency, and sustaining contingency. You mean the second one

[@rayw3332]

"Here we are." Now get back to work.

[@gaagsl]

Thanks Matt, I just saw your presentation and I have to say is the best explanation of this argument that I ever came across. English is not my first language and I have read many articles and books in spanish (which is my native language) about this topic. Yours is still more clear or clearer than the ones I read in spanish. I can see why theist would be terrified of you.👏 👏

[@AlekTrev006]

Matt, I'm curious - since you mentioned Kalam, it made me think of WLC (naturally)... and his continued refusal to debate you (I assume this is still true ?). I think you'd do so well, given your mastery of all these various arguments, and your logical mind - quick thinking, etc. However, as you've noted, he's big on refusing to debate people who don't have Doctorates (in something). What I was wondering was, did he make a unique exception for his debate with Christopher Hitchens, some years ago, at Biola Univ ? was that a random 1-time thing, given Hitch's vocal presence, back then ? It seems he should afford you a similiar "exemption", no ? :-) Hope you get a chance, at some point, or - if not with Craig himself, maybe one of his apprentices, who will no doubt take up Kalam in his stead, whenever he retires / passes, etc - in the future ! Take care, and thanks for your work.

[@trevorlunn8442]

I think I understand... The concept of god is necessarily contingent upon and sustained by human imagination.

[@BigRalphSmith]

I'd say the concept of god is necessarily contingent upon and sustained by human ignorance.

[@flawedobserver4057]

+BigRalphSmith I'd agree

[@jayouzts725]

Prove it.

[@xenontouchstone]

And do you believe in a god?

[@jasonroelle5261]

+Come Let us Reason Not believing the claim is true, is not the same as believing a claim is false. If theism is believing a god, or god's exist, and using any of the common meaning of the prefix "a", atheism is not believing a god, or god's exist. Again not believing a god, or god's exist, is not the same as believing no god, or god's exist.

[@kjustkses]

Any fair Thomist would listen to Mr. Dillahunty and just shake their head.

[@UngoogleableMan]

And any 10th grade science student would listen to a Thomist and just shake their head.

[@kjustkses]

Luminiferous Ethan Why?

[@UngoogleableMan]

@@kjustkses because ancient philosophical thought experiments have nothing to do with how reality actually works.

[@kjustkses]

Luminiferous Ethan Firstly, I have no idea what you mean or where you get that idea. Secondly a Thomist is not necessarily an ancient philosopher. There are several Thomists today.

[@atkkeqnfr]

Please explain the Thomist argument.

[@MewPkmn]

I enjoyed the video. Well thought-out and articulate. I’m a Thomistic theist myself, and I couldn’t help but notice that he kept referring to God as “a being.” Thomas Aquinas doesn’t understand God as “a being,” but rather “being itself” (ipsum esse). Hence, I was actually quite pleased at the end when he stated that he thought that “being, existence itself” is the uncaused cause. I think he and Aquinas may have that in common after all. Of course, this video and Aquinas disagree (a lot) on the properties of this Uncaused Cause... but those properties are beyond the scope of the 5 Ways.

[@guilerso7796]

The only point of contigency that i still dont get its how something that always have existed would NEED to have a cause But i disagree completely of the atheists that belittle Aquinas, this dude was genius

[@diogeneslamp8004]

What does “being itself” mean to a materialist like myself?

[@mateoparra4562]

Genuine question: In regards to the causal versus sustaining contingency, don’t the contingent products have to be brought about by a necessary cause? In other words, in Matt’s example, how can the necessary cause of a causally contingent universe cease to exist? Wouldn’t the cause need to be infinite as well?

[@criticalthinker786]

It would. If it did cease to exist it would be dependant on time and space for the act of ending to take place. Therefore the necessary must be infinite.

[@criticalthinker786]

The real question is should the contingent be infinite. The current propositions are theories and not conclusive or absolute.

[@josephcioe4697]

Matt thank you so much for this video! I was a deist until now!

[@j.gairns]

It took one question (Do you really believe in God?) and one second to respond (Uhh, nope) Never looked back.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

It took one half hour video to convince you out of your deism?

[@siim605]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan Deism is a pretty weak position to be in, yeah. I was a deist for like only like a week or two when I was 14/15ish.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

@@siim605 Well I dont know if that's necessarily true. It sounds like he has been a deist for a while. So it surprises me that a half hour video convinced him otherwise

[@sovietbot6708]

This video doesn't disprove God, and it never even attempts to. I don't know how this video could make you an atheist.

[@watchmakerfs]

How can someone dislike a video like this? It's pure educational, come on...

[@atheistickhan7216]

Watchmaker Fs The Atheist labelled ...and the defense mechanism of religion is involved.

[@Rayalot72]

Watchmaker Fs Some of the objections aren't very good. He doesn't engage with gap problems. A necessary fact cannot cease to be true. There are objections to the PSR, yet he doesn't touch on them. He seems to confuse "being" with "agent." If something exists, that is a being by definition.

[@thickerconstrictor9037]

Because theists will dislike it just because it's Matt

[@roqsteady5290]

@@Rayalot72 What definition? You appear to be confusing a being, which generally means an intelligent entity, with the state of being, which is an entirely different usage.

[@Rayalot72]

@@roqsteady5290 The ontological definition. Being does not refer to intelligence or agency at all in cosmological arguments.

[@Surroundx]

17:35 you misunderstand Dr. Craig's definition of 'universe'. By it he means all of space, time and matter. Hence if the universe has an explanation, it cannot be "contingent on the multiverse" since they are synonyms, and it clearly cannot "somewhere else in the cosmos" as you suggest since there is no "somewhere else".

[@TheZooCrew]

Too bad Craig doesn't ever get that explicit. He relies on vagaries and obfuscation so he can commit equivocation fallacies down the road. Craig, nor anyone else, has any data on "all space, time and matter." So why is he making statement on it?

[@Ploskkky]

WL Craig is such a babbler. I used to be impressed by him, even though I did not agree, but when I got older I discovered the total emptiness of everything that comes out of his mouth. I can't even listen to him anymore without becoming nauseous, because of all the stupidity he puts into his sentences. I have a hard time believing Craig himself believes a single word of the bs he is talking.

[@adrianortizurzua7884]

I found myself arguing from this fallacy multiple times before... Admittedly, it's embarrassing but thank you Matt for helping me (indirectly) see it clearly. (:

[@adrianortizurzua7884]

Not for the existence of a god, but for other trivial things.

[@alanismorrissette4742]

He didn't prove the arguments wrong though - He only demonstrated their strengths, but made an argument based on cause, which he even admitted could be a god. All he did was take out the presupisition of the cause being a god but he's still left with what causes these arguments. Which he totally ignores. He also lies by ommision by leaving out the fact Thomas Aquinas even admitted this himself, that he doesn't know what the cause is but it's impossible to demonstrate there is no cause. Something cannot come from nothing , energy cannot move without having once been moved through time and space - that's Aquinas entire argument. - it's sad how dishonest Matt is sometimes. 33:41 - he's literally telling you to be ignorant.

[@trixn4285]

​@@alanismorrissette4742 Wow you really don't even know what you are talking about. "energy cannot move without having once been moved through time and space - that's Aquinas entire argument". Can you please point me to the source of Aquinas saying that? That is totally backwards and not what Aquinas said. "he's literally telling you to be ignorant." He is literally telling us the be honest by saying that we don't know the cause of the universe or if it even has one. Funny how you flip that on its hat. "He didn't prove the arguments wrong though". Arguments aren't right or wrong, premises are right or wrong. Arguments are valid or invalid. And an argument is only valid if the conclusion always follows from its premises being true. It doesn't require the premises to actually be true and therefore doesn't make the conclusion true. "He also lies by ommision by leaving out the fact Thomas Aquinas even admitted this himself, that he doesn't know what the cause is but it's impossible to demonstrate there is no cause." How is it relevant what Thomas Aquinas admitted at any point for the validity of the argument or the truth of the premises? You really seem to be very confused. Also Matt basically says exactly that.

[@AndyCampbellMusic]

@@alanismorrissette4742 Why do religionists keep presenting this pointless argument? If "nothing" cannot come from "nothing" then neither can a "god". What you are arguing is, Something came or made from "nothing", created everything else out of the SAME "nothing" then returned itself to a state of undetectable "nothingness"? If you claim "magic" as in, this proposed "god" somehow exists outside space and time? Where does it exist? You are arguing it exists within the "nothingness"? If something is there, then it is not nothingness? This is an impossibility, like a square circle it CANNOT be. You have just proven the impossibility of your "gods" existence? We have NO evidence of "nothing"? Perhaps something ALWAYS existed. There is no need for this SOMETHING to be sentient or aware. The argument disproves itself.

[@BigHeretic]

@@alanismorrissette4742 I love your music but you're talking total rubbish, see *trixn* above.

[@OuttaMyMind911]

When I've had this argument used (from a Christian), at the end I will agree and confirm with "praise Allah, we now know his truth" and I'll immediately get a "no, no, no, it doesn't show that a Muslim god exists!" Well then, there equally no way it shows that your version exists then either. It's usually dropped after that since the only reason they want to use it is to prove "their" god. If it can't, it quickly loses any value.

[@kadnan6111]

Table Salt they never prove a specific deity it’s funny they all make the same arguments 😂

[@denvermason8476]

I like the fact that Matt stays away from saying cause by using the word contingency. This explains a lot of why uncertainty has more to do with the thinking. LOL

[@ccrgvdevotedministry7954]

Totally disagree with you, but I really liked your video and I thought you did a great job presenting your thoughts and I enjoyed it. Good job and thanks.

[@jamescaputo9356]

Beautifully done!

[@source963]

👨🏼‍💼.. So I ask you again.. How was the universe created? 👽 You are not capable of comprehending or accepting the truths of existence.. 👨🏼‍💼Answer the question! 👽The universe was not created. 👨🏼‍💼Really? .. But you can't create something out of nothing.. 👽 That is correct. 👨🏼‍💼 So there it is .. Only a creator can make something from nothing. 👽 That is incorrect. 👨🏼‍💼 Wait.. You just contradicted yourself 👽 Nothing, by definition, does not exist. 👨🏼‍💼 So? 👽 Since nothing cannot exist... What is left is existence. Existence is infinite. It has no end. No beginning. And therefore no creator. 👨🏼‍💼 Wait. But you said there's an origin to the universe. 👽 Yes 👨🏼‍💼There it is. I caught you in a lie. 👽 This universe is not existence. It is an infinitely small part of existence. 👨🏼‍💼 Right.. So.. Now you are talking nonsense Again, how was the universe created so miraculously? 👽 This universe is a spontaneous event... And inevitable within the eternity of existence. Every event, can, will, and has happened. Including this universe. There are infinite number of universes. Virtually all cannot harbor so-called life. This universe is, by chance, stable. 👨🏼‍💼 So.. Life "just happened", right? 👽 In this universe, yes. Life, as you call it, is an inevitable consequence... Of this universe's physical properties. 👨🏼‍💼 So are you telling me we're just random? 👽 Yes. This universe is indifferent to so called life. 👨🏼‍💼 How so? 👽 Life on this and every world can be destroyed... At any time by a multitude of random events. 👨🏼‍💼 Such as.. 👽 What you would term.. Supernova, solar flare, asteroid impact. 👨🏼‍💼 So the universe doesn't care if live or die? 👽 Correct. 👨🏼‍💼 I don't believe that for a second. We're more than just random. 👽 As I said, you are not capable of accepting... The truths of existence. 👨🏼‍💼 So, if we're just "random"... Then there's no meaning to the universe.. 👽That is correct. 👨🏼‍💼 So if there's no meaning in the universe... Then what's the point of living. 👽 There is meaning. 👨🏼‍💼 You just contradicted yourself again.. 👽 Meaning lives in the mind. 👨🏼‍💼 No, no, no. You can't live a full life.. You can't live a life at all if you think that meaning is somehow made up. 👽 Your species conjures meaning.. But operates under the false belief that meaning is a mystical plan. It is not. 👨🏼‍💼 So, what is meaning? 👽 Meaning is what you make it.

[@KonradZielinski]

At the 3rd green point you would not have gotten that response but rather a "we don't know that". it seems that at the quanum level something can come from nothing and does so all the time.

[@winstonbarquez9538]

The nature of material reality, which is contingent and transient, gives us a reasonable basis for believing in the necessary being, which is essential and eternal, from which material reality initially came.

[@noahtipton7302]

Show me evidence of such a being.

[@jemase7931]

2 problems. First, people are trying to slip 2 meanings in for "reason." They start out talking about physical cause and then try to slip in an implied purpose without demonstrating that any purpose exists. Second, neither I nor anyone else has ever seen any caused thing which did not have a natural cause. So why should anyone assume that anything had a supernatural cause just because he cannot identify the natural cause?

[@knyghtryder3599]

How about the argument from Chartle (me) 1) if a god created the universe, he must have created what he liked 2) things that we see in abundance in the universe he must like more , or at least more of , than things he created less of 3) therefore we can assume God loves lifeless rocks , expanses of darkness and loves large clouds of swirling gas , his favorite lifeforms are clearly euglena and bacteria

[@TotoroGogoro]

"Why is there something instead of nothing" is a really stupid question. Nothing can't "be." It's not an option.

[@substantivalism6787]

TibiCogitate The question is not implying a reification of the concept of philosophical nothingness into a state of affiars. What it is implying is that there must be a reason for why anything that is existent, exists at all. Why A when it could be not A. If not A is a possibility then there may or must be a substantial reason underling the fact that A has be actualized.

[@bdf2718]

There is something rather than nothing, because if there were nothing rather than something then we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

[@substantivalism6787]

bdf2718 We exist, true. But it is the case that despite such an awareness we still lack a substantial explanation for this particular state of affairs.

[@bdf2718]

+Justin Orosz As Matt, and many others point out, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. "I don't know" is a better answer than "I know God did it because reasons." "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better answer than "I know God did it because this book which is full of factual errors told me God did it." It would be nice to have an answer. Which is why people are working on it.

[@substantivalism6787]

bdf2718 I'm an atheist, are you implying I'm a theist?

[@zzm9134]

I got the following closing statement from a Muslim banging on about his version of the Teleological argument. 'The reason why this argument is potent is because it strips everything back to core ideas which make sense of our idea of God' I translated that as, 'We 'know' that our God is True which means that the God proven by the Teleological argument is our God.' He thought it was 'inappropriate' when i raised my Space Pixie God against his for some reason(?).

[@wMerlinw]

Thanks for the explanation. I don't have a firm background in philosophy, so I don't always understand the lingo being used.

[@NicosMind]

*for the existence of A god. Not the existence of god. When you say it like that people naturally assume youre talking about their god like there is only one choice and you have already dismissed all others apart from theirs

[@SansDeity]

Good. I like to expose their biased assumptions...that said, these arguments tend to apply to the/a god of classical theism (or similar) and are viewed as arguments for "the one god" (even if its characteristics differ from argument to argument and person to person). If that assumption bears out, it's trivial to show that it applies to gods other than theirs (as I think I pointed out in this and several other videos). :)

[@SansDeity]

+Come Let us Reason exactly how does this discredit me?

[@TheMarsCydonia]

I think you may have little awereness of how you come accross. I would recommend that, in the future, you take a couple of minutes and ask of yourself "What is my objective in commenting? Will my comment achieve this objective?" before you comment.

[@clairebun]

As usual, if you want to convince anybody that your god is real, you have to bring evidence. If you want to convince anybody that Matt Dillahunty is a fraud for encouraging religious skepticism, you need to prove that he is wrong for being a skeptic. Unfortunately, you have yet to impress anybody here.

[@ungertron]

+NicosMind There is a real supreme reality that did big bang the universe into existence, evolve humans from apes, does maintain and rule the universe from start to finish. That existence called God was discovered & documented with extraordinary peer reviewed studies by the secular natural sciences. The 100% all natural God is composed of laws of nature & forces of physics.

[@copernicus99]

Thank you for this fantastic presentation! A model of calm, sound reasoning, rational skepticism, and intellectual humility.

[@bdf2718]

The universe was created by Captain Marvel. This is proven by the Shazam Cosmological Argument.

[@alanismorrissette4742]

Lazy thinker. This is why I'm not an atheist

[@alanismorrissette4742]

@Hector Defendi yawn - internet athiest are such boring people, lol

[@alanismorrissette4742]

@Hector Defendi Who like Jay Dyer? He would destroy someone like Matt Dilahunty in a debate.

[@alanismorrissette4742]

@Hector Defendi Matt is dishonest about morality and the teleological argument; he has to be for his world view to make sense.

[@jimwallington437]

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss published in 2012.

[@PadraigG8]

I'd also dispute Matt's invoking of the Composition Fallacy 'cuz basically EVERY composition is contingent on its componant parts. My body is contingent on the various organs and individual cells that make it up. A wall is contingent on the bricks and mortar that make it up, ect. Why is the Cosmos an exception?

[@beowulfstrength]

"Accident" presumes intent, no? In order for something to be an accident, then it must be the case that someone intended not to do that thing (or at least did not intend to do the thing). If that's the case, then it's a bit silly to say that atheists think we're here by accident. That's quite the opposite of what we think.

[@SansDeity]

accident doesn't presume intent, it's used synonymously with an absence of intent.

[@Knightfall8]

I didn't realize I was making this mistake in arguments before, so I appreciate the clarification (I too thought accident presumed an intent that didn't happen)

[@beowulfstrength]

The word has two definitions. The first and most commonly used of which is an intent not to do something and it happens anyway (unexpectedly and unintentionally). Car accident, accident at a factory, accidental fall, etc. Edit: Hm, I'm actually not so sure now. I'll give it more thought. Your definition is one I never hear (though it is one) in colloquial speech. Non-intent. This is why I deny that anything happened "by accident" though that is not technically the case. I'll have to clarify if it comes up in the future.

[@RustyWalker]

A car accident is when you drive into something that you *didn't* intend to. Expressing your thought this way round shows Matt's explanation is correct.

[@Zait2009]

Your intent was to make A happen, but B happened instead. B happened WITHOUT intent.

[@DeconvertedMan]

M.D. got the issue spot on- the "arguments" that use this rely upon equivocation and also Sagan approves of the last bits :D

[@bobloblaw7667]

Why do people hate to say that they don't know?

[@kevinlitton1399]

Argument from contingency: defining god into existence.

[@jimbeam101]

Mohamud Ahmed the contingency argument defines god into existence, that's why it's garbage. Analytic arguments don't support the premises with evidence.

[@jimbeam101]

Mohamud Ahmed whatever evidence supports the premises. What ya got? Oh, all opinions are subjective dude🤦

[@jimbeam101]

Mohamud Ahmed demonstrate premise 1 & 2. The burden of proof is on you sport. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Get to it. How do you know that the universe has a beginning?

[@nathanielmohr9622]

@Mohamud Ahmed I don't think that's right; things are never really "made into existence." When you think about making things, what you're really doing is combining stuff that already exists in a useful way. Your premise relies on initially there being nothing, and the universe having "come into existence," that is: the existence of nothing is the default of the universe. Afaik, this view has no scientific basis as we don't really know how to observe* "before" the big bang. *I extend the definition of observing something to also include the observation of its effects, and sound mathematical predictions based on a current leading scientific model

[@MrCarlosdiago]

@Mohamud Ahmed to me you are simply moving the post. We don't know if the universe has a beginning. Science and not religion has shown how it seems that our local presentation of the universe seems to have started at some point, but we don't know or currently have a way to investigate what happened before that. By saying that the universe must have a beginning but God doesn't have a beginning seems like the post is being arbitrarily moved and granting God properties that we refuse to give the universe. We all seem to agree that the universe exists but we don't agree in the existence of God so it seems to me that we have to grant more properties that are not in any way verifiable to God than what we would have to give to the universe.

[@scienceexplains302]

Can anyone demonstrate that a god is even possible?

[@scienceexplains302]

@Les Brown At least a supernatural entity. It wouldn't have to be supreme. But I'm talking about a god, not the idea of a god.

[@scienceexplains302]

@Les Brown There have been many beliefs about gods... gods of rain, thunder, etc. All of them are supernatural beings. Maybe I should have asked whether anyone can demonstrate that any supernatural being is possible. I am not postulating a god. I am asking about evidence that any god, or now, any supernatural being, is possible.

[@scienceexplains302]

@Les Brown I am asking for evidence that any supernatural being is possible. N o t h i n g e l s e. Please stop going off on tangents. (Some people think there are gods related to atmospheric conditions. That would be one example of a conceivable god.) I do not believe there are any gods. I am asking for evidence that any supernatural being is even *possible*. It is not enough to say that we don't know it is impossible. I agree, but that doesn't show that it is possible.

[@scienceexplains302]

@Les Brown I am not clear where you said there is not evidence that a supernatural being is possible. But this was the best hour of my life.

[@scienceexplains302]

Les Brown Based on your answers, This topic seems too abstract for you to understand, but I will give an analogy. If I ask, “Can you give evidence that it is possible for a human to live on Venus?,” you don’t have to talk about a specific person, not even whether it is male or female, adult or infant. Yes, that information might help in some environments (it wouldn’t on Venus), but it is not necessary to discuss the evidence

[@MLTHRON7542]

I believe in the argument for god, by the argument from contingency. However, it does not follow that god is Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, or Vishnu. To understand god then we need to study the universe, that which we know to exist, not assertions of faith.

[@spaceghost8995]

Idiot.

[@spaceghost8995]

Why are calling the universe a god? Why not call bacteria and viruses god? They are the ones actually deciding our fate.

[@MLTHRON7542]

@@spaceghost8995 Everything is determined by the universe, where the building blocks of life (bacteria and if you will viruses) are provided by the universe. Just call god all the things we don't understand, and not "we can't explain this so god did it" . When the unified field theory is complete (for example) then part of god will disappear, when our knowledge is complete (if ever) then god will disappear. This god does not give us our moral ground, only the stars that give us our carbon base.

[@AbrarManzoor]

13:26 Necessary existence doesnt cease because it is independent for its existence but you are changing the meaning of necessary existence here.

[@trentotts]

By not engaging with the arguments for the second premise, you've effectively taken what could have been a debunking and made it into an introduction to the argument.

[@trentotts]

And... what?

[@trentotts]

@deadend well, it's pretty clear that it's not meant to be an introduction. Maybe it's not meant to be a thorough debunking, but it's definitely meant to be at least a undermining. All I'm saying is I'm disappointed that it's less of a debunking and more of an introduction. Like, if he has answers to the stage two arguments, I'd like to hear them.

[@wiskadjak]

If the universe has an explanation for its existence it must be the mice.

[@BigHeretic]

*wiskadjak* What, Frankie and Benji ? Makes more sense than "god" - we at least know that mice exist and so can cause something. They could even be trans-dimensional beings, why not.

[@BigHeretic]

@Mohamud Ahmed Because mice are small and unassuming, maybe? hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Mice

[@joqiii3]

Matt is a national treasure.

[@TestTest-hl3em]

Hi Matt, It is not possible to explain "the existence of Existence" (using your words). This is because existence is an irreducible concept. And for any thought or conjecture to be articulated, existence must first be assumed

[@ldmitruk]

It seems the argument from contingency is contingent on flawed logic.

[@TheZooCrew]

I hate this argument. At its core, it's just special pleading along with an assumption that infinite regress is not a possibility.

[@amasalevi109]

You'll have to prove that infinite regress is porssible

[@TheZooCrew]

M A.M Nope. The argument uses this (IMO nonexistent) property called "contingency" to draw arbitrary relationships between things with arbitrary boundaries, then "reasons" that since an infinite regress is impossible, there must be "something" noncontingent that gets the god label for whatever stupid reason. It's a stop-gap. It's a panacea. Possibility needs to be demonstrated, but so does impossibility.

[@TheMarsCydonia]

If infinite regress cannot be proven possible, thus the default should be that it is impossible?

[@TheZooCrew]

TheMarsCydonia No. The default is that it is not possible. This is different from holding the position that X is impossible. It's the same distinction between not guilty and innocent.

[@TheMarsCydonia]

TheZooCrew Please define

[@Mathhead2000]

I'm not sure I agree that "everything that exists had a reason". I feel that some abstract axiomatic concepts like the number one in math would "exist", but clearly don't have a "reason" in the "necessary" or "contingent" sense.

[@KaiHenningsen]

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because if there were nothing, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.

[@curtisyue182]

Thanks, but no thanks, Matt; I'd rather not think of my parent's "method of procreation".

[@UngoogleableMan]

Why? Are you still 12 that the idea your parents having sex still makes you blush? Its literally how all life works. Thats what procreation is.

[@AvenKallan]

The degree of separation between the unexplainable and ourselves provide comfort. Living in a Universe whose cause we don't understand is more frightening to people than saying the universe is explainable by the existence of an external god whose existence is unexplainable.

[@ThePeaceableKingdom]

Isn't there a category missing? (1) things that have to exist, must exist, couldn't not exist: check! (2) things that don't have to exist, that only exist _because_ of something: check! (3) things that don't have to exist, but also don't exist because of something else, they just are, they happen to be, that's just the way it is : (crickets...) In other words, also missing is a demonstration that all things must fall into the first 2 categories, that they must have an explanation of their existence in the necessity of their own nature, or in an external cause. That is, that their cause must be either internal or external. You've eliminated the possibility of uncaused things - eliminated random events from the universe; and, BTW, along the way required that god has to be the way he is. He doesn't have a choice, and no thing can ever change him.... I'm not even saying the argument is wrong. But it's dreadfully incomplete, ignores known facts about the universe like probability, assumes it's conclusions,... and, yeah, well, it's probably wrong.

[@ton6348]

In the beginning, there was a god.Then god exploded ...

[@igboman2860]

If after the explosion everything came to be then God is! You can argue that God is not conscious that is up to you but to deny that a first cause does not exist is illogical

[@nickronca1562]

@@igboman2860 This is you: 29:40 to 29:49

[@AdamKlownzinger]

Essentially it comes down to people being afraid to admit that they don’t know something and especially afraid that they don’t know something that seems to be the ultimate question of their and everything’s entire existence. So because of admitting that they don’t know something that is ultimately the biggest possible question is scary or because they can’t think of other possibilities (like Matt mentioning the cosmos beyond the universe) they assume or at least hope that this big scary gap in our knowledge is where God can and must be placed And of course this is all even assuming that the universe is contingent on anything at all. That has not and never will be proven. “It exists because it exists” will always be a possibility. I can’t assert it to be true but that’s not the point, if you can’t assert it to be false then the entire contingency argument cannot really be accepted.

[@uasiddiq]

It doesn't seem like he understands the Kalam argument. 27:05 - that is incorrect. First, they won't mention "God" and there is an explanation they give which probably cannot be adequately taught in a 35 min video without unraveling current biases, assumptions, misconceptions, etc. I was hoping this video would be more....

[@biostemm]

The picture quality seemed much better in this video, (though you need a shave, Matt ;-) ). Are you using a new camera?

[@kennethgee2004]

Time 7:43 We can stop all arguments right here. Something that is eternal could not by itse very definition has a cause or be contingent. There is no point going any further, as everything else will be based off this faulty idea. We can also say that the two contingencies discussed are not classified because the argument is for both. Also anything that is sustaining contingency is also a causal contingency.

[@RiNickolous]

Hi Mr. Dillahunty, I thoroughly enjoyed this video, but as a Catholic and Thomist I'd like to remark about something you said. I would appreciate a response, if you'd be so kind. You did something quite remarkable between 30:50-31:13, where you said that something we can know with a large degree of certainty is that Existence exists necessarily. I haven't seen any of your other videos, so please don't take offense in me asking this, but are you aware that you (possibly accidentally) described the Catholic Church's (more-or-less) official stance on *what* God *is*? In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas incorporated the (mostly) pre-Christian Greek ideas about what he would call "God" into his most well known work, the Summa Theologica. Philosophers such as Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus deduced from the natural world that there must be some universal principle which essentially amounts to existence itself. Heraclitus called it the Logos, Plato called it The Good, Aristotle called it the Prime Mover, Plotinus called it The One, and St. Thomas calls it God, or sometimes "ipsum esse subsistens" (subsistent existence itself). Where I think you fall off St. Thomas' path is in your understanding of what "existence itself" means. If I understand correctly (and do mistake me if I'm wrong), you take "existence" to mean the totality of things which exist in the cosmos. St. Thomas' understanding of "existence" is rather that it is simple. Absolutely simple in fact, I'm talking about the doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity. Anything which is composed cannot be necessary, because it is contingent (in the sustaining manner you described) on its component parts. Therefore that which is necessary (existence itself) is composed of no parts. It isn't even strictly correct to say that it exists, because to exist is to have existence, but Existence itself does not *have* existence, but rather *is* existence. It simply *is*. St. Thomas makes arguments for the commonly known divine attributes of God being appropriate to ipsum esse subsistens in the Summa Theologica (specifically Prima Pars, Questions 3-13). I'm not sure if you've changed your view over the past 3.5 years regarding whether we can know existence to exist necessarily, but assuming that you still accept that, after reading the arguments outlined in the mentioned section of the Summa Theologica, what prevents you from becoming a classical theist (not a Christian, mind you, but someone who believes in God in the way the aforementioned philosophers did, without any mention of the Christ)? The relevant sections of the Summa Theologica can be found here: www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm I appreciate you reading this if you do, and eagerly await your answer. All the best.

[@MostlyBuicks]

I take exception to "Cosmos" vs "Universe" I have NEVER thought the definition of Universe is all we know. I have always thought it was the same definition as you present for Cosmos. For me the Universe is EVERYTHING known or not. But I guess it is good to have two words different words to make that distinction.

[@Elrog3]

Agreed. Matt says in the video that perhaps it would be better to say universe to mean everything (because of the prefix uni) and come up with a new word for referring to only the locally known entities. But then despite that he follows suit with the physicists who describe it the other way around. If it makes more sense a certain way, everyone should use it that way and make physicists adjust instead of having everyone else adjust just because some physicist is philosophically incompetent.

[@Barbreck1]

'Universe' is all we can see or detect. i.e. that which is confirmed by observation. The Cosmos is more expansive and encapsulates all that may exist beyond the limits of our detection (i.e. outside the observable universe). That is not to say that the Universe has a physical boundary but rather, a boundary of limitation to our technology. In other words, what we can see of the Cosmos is only that which our technologies will permit us. Everything within that limit is "The Universe". Build a better observation technology = expand the universe = see deeper into the Cosmos. The upshot is that the Unverse is "expanding" with every new technology we produce!

[@Elrog3]

I understand how physicists define the word. I just disagree with the way they define it.

[@Barbreck1]

@@Elrog3 Unfortunately for you, their definition is valid and your disagreement is moot.

[@Elrog3]

How is your definition more valid?

[@daniellassander]

To expand on this, we can look at the realm of mathematics. If one plus one is two, and 124 + 124 is 248 we can expand this into infinity we just add a zero to to the end when we have run out of numbers. This would be a self contained infinity as well, because we have 1 we must have the notion of infinity, theists must also prove that this is not the case for the universe.

[@Fraterchaoraterchaos]

I would have two major issues with this argument, one occurs within the argument, and the other is in the entire basis of the argument. I would challenge the claim that "if the universe is contingent, it must be contingent on something non-contingent"... why? The universe could exist contingent on something else contingent that is contingent on something else, which may be contingent or non-contingent itself. You can claim that it requires something non-contingent to avoid an infinite regress, but that only says that somewhere back in the regress something must be non-contingent, not necessarily the one directly before the universe. But more importantly, what's the justification for claiming that everything must either be contingent or necessary? Can we prove that all things which exist are either contingent or necessary, or is that in itself just a bald assertion? Maybe some things just exist. They are not necessary, nor contingent. At least at the quantum level, this appears to be true, regardless of how uncomfortable that tends to be. Much of what occurs at the quantum level (as far as i understand it) makes no "logical sense" in our "macro existence"... but these things are still "true". So, we can have things that are both non-contingent AND non-necessary at the quantum level, so it seems a leap to say that at every other level, everything must be one or the other.

[@musaaziri3568]

First of all some definitions: - Being: something that exists, state of existence. - Dependent/contingent being: something which existence depends on something else, otside of itself. for example: my phone is dependent on the existence of the specific company, if that specific company would not exist, then my phone would not exist. - Dependent being exists - A world with ONLY dependent beings cannoto exist ( by world I mean the totality of existence ) - Therefore the simple fact that there is existence( because we exist) implies that our world is not composed of only dependent beings. Sow there must be an in-dependent/necessary being which is the foundation of all the dependent beings, which accounts for why there is something rather than nothing.

[@Fraterchaoraterchaos]

@@musaaziri3568 prove the statement that: "- A world with ONLY dependent beings cannoto exist"

[@musaaziri3568]

@@Fraterchaoraterchaos dependent being: something wihich existence depends on something else, outside of itself. we can say that the dependent being has it's existence on another.( another being outside of itself ) Let we suppose a world with only dependent beings. - in this world every being has it's existence on another. - sow no being has it's existence on it's own ( in principle, in a non-derivative way ) - therefore there is no existence at all, because there is no source from wich to derive it.( the existence ) it is like asking : Is there water in a world with ONLY empty bottles? in this world there is no water because there is no source from which to derive the water in the first place. the empty bottle in this example is an analogy to the dependent being, and the water is an analogy to existence. If you disagree I will be glad to know your reasons.

[@Fraterchaoraterchaos]

@@musaaziri3568 I didn't ask you for a definition of "dependent"... I know what the word means. I asked you to prove that "a world with ONLY dependent beings cannot exist" you totally failed to provide a single piece of evidence, you just made some silly philosophical arguments. You may not be aware of this yet, but I will tell you a secret, you cannot argue god into existence. Provide EMPIRICAL PROOF of your statement. Otherwise, stop bothering me.

[@musaaziri3568]

@@Fraterchaoraterchaos look, I give to you a rational argument for why a world with only dependent beings canno exist. If you think that it is invalid, than bring on your rational objections. If you don't have any rational objection, than you cannot simply deny it because you don't understand it or because you don't like it.

[@igboman2860]

Okay fair enough . Nothing became something and then the universe happened

[@Ploskkky]

That is the creationist argument as it is very often used by christians: An invisible magical daddy friend magicked everything into existence from nothing. Atheists stay away from such childish nonsense.

[@igboman2860]

@@Ploskkky I said fair enough.

[@l.a.covers8400]

@@igboman2860 I'd like to know how you've reached that conclusion

[@Baku69895]

Good video Matt! Thank you.

[@yakojjy]

I don't know what is more refreshing; this fine cheese and ginger ale, or a brand new Matt Dillahunty video.

[@DeconvertedMan]

Fine Ginger cheese with ale brushed lightly on Matt's head to lick off. O_o;

[@Avicaris]

Only one person should have that fetish, and she's already married to him. =P

[@Leviathan123456]

this made me laugh!

[@TheZooCrew]

The troll is lecturing others on how to live. Cute.

[@j.rutgermadison6692]

" Write a book." I have. What's your point?

[@dasbigglesworth4473]

Everytime I finish watching a Matt Video I ride my horse flat out in to the sunset.

[@roqsteady5290]

You don't fly off in your Sopwith Camel then?

[@LOSTONITALL]

Step 1 - Remind people that I live in Hawaii with a badass cliffside home and I do not have to work. Step 2 - Remind my fellow atheists and agnostics that winning an argument with people is as easy as referring to Step number 1. THAT is how I win with ANY fuckin argument. 'Cause at the end of the day, the only thing I give a shit about is knowing my wife and I are going to bed in a badass home in Hawaii we have owned for years. I am not braggin' but if you're just living life to argue, you're LAGGIN', Brah!

[@tomjackson7755]

Then you woke up and had to go flip burgers.

[@LOSTONITALL]

@@tomjackson7755 Nope, as t you wish you could awaken from. Hilarious.....you must think NOBODY can live in Hawaii! LOL If you had half a fuckin stone in your head, you'd have checked out my account, gone to my website and found out I live in Hawaii. Jesus....people are fuckin creepy when they troll.

[@jamesveerdog2723]

OCDlove You may have won the emotional argument but not the intellectual one

[@homophilosofikus8215]

Does anyone else see two polar bears in the wood over Matt`s shoulder?

[@supercriticality]

Much like how universe expands paradoxically into multiverse, atom (meaning indivisible) continues to be used. In fact the multiverse is a result of trying to interpret the quantum, altering our view of the macrocosm. The grand unification in progress.

[@dandaintac388]

"WHY does existence, exist"--one thing we need to understand is that our language is loaded. It carries more than the ordinary intended meaning--it has a history of implications behind it. "Why"--just a plain ordinary word--but when it comes to the objective reality of the universe, "why" is meaningless. It is a word that IMPLIES meaning, purpose, intent. "Why" is therefore not an appropriate word to use when discussing the objective properties of the universe. "HOW" might be better. How does the universe exist, rather than "why".

[@happyguy650]

having seen the comment section and going through the theist comments ive realized that both parties are playing on a completely different level. Obviously both conform to different standards of evidence when it comes to god matters. Its a no-win situation. to the point that Ill believe what i want and you believe what you want irrespective of what reality is.

[@zeinbergess3605]

I have heard this argument numerous of times in debates, but never in this way.

[@bearlemley]

Awesome Job Matt. Thank you.

[@user-xz2rv4wq7g]

I'm an atheist, but I'm intrested in philosophy and natural theology. A big problem with cosmological arguments is that they argue for some special metaphysical thing and then try to deduce the properties of god from this thing. For example you can argue for an uncaused cause, but it's very hard to go from this to god. This is where most apologetic arguments fail.

[@colinwilkie1980]

A couple o wee, nitpicking suggestions: the way you used the word 'reason' can play into the assumptions people make about agency and purpose in nature, even though that's not how you're using it. I think 'explanation' might be a better word in conversations with believers. For the same reason, I would avoid the word 'why', unless you are talking about something with a conscious motive.

[@BardicLiving]

Yes! Thanks for making this point; it was bugging me too.

[@MostlyBuicks]

Oh I see, the definition of reason is explanation. It defines the explanation for the result THANK YOU. I agree everything has an explanation whether we can fathom it or not. But I would still say the Universe or even the Cosmos has no purpose. A purpose implies intelligence to implement that purpose.

[@BigHeretic]

*humbuckerpickups* I'm not sure purpose implies intelligence in the same way that 'explanation' doesn't, not when it's defined as reason. You could define purpose as that which happens as a result, so the purpose of water is to make things wet... I don't like it but it seems to me that it's the case.

[@marcsoucie4010]

I don't think it is counter-intuitive to imagine an eternal thing being contingent on another eternal thing. To follow Matt's example of the sun an it's light, one could imagine a sun which has existed eternally. The light flowing from the sun would eternally be contingent ("sustenance contingency") on that sun. Of course we have no example of eternal contingencies (that I can think of...) but I don't think it is contradictory.

[@jamesveerdog2723]

I disagree. Analogy doesn’t work because physical objects can’t last eternally, modal fallacy.

[@ErnestLebedev]

At 11:16 there is a catch: "How did God appear in this chain of thought"? But there actually is no catch. It may be interpreted (and I claim - it is implied) to conclude that if there is a reason for the Universe to exist, then we're going to call this reason "God" and there you have it. No mystery, just a sophistic definition. If we've established that there is a reason for the Universe to exist then I, say, define "God" to be this exact reason. Doesn't tell us anything about this "God", but allows interlocutors to save some time if we accept the premise

[@humbertojimmy]

Theists have it harder than just that. Contingency depends not only on "agents", but also on "mechanisms", and *both* have to be clearly validated within the scope of reality and logic. In this case, not only do they have to show *how* do they get God as the "agent" to which the Universe is contigent upon, but they must also propose a mechanism (of agency) and get it validated... Which, to me, seems like an impossible task. Let's see: If the question is "how did Mike get from point A to point B", a possible answer is: "in a car". The car would be the "agent" making that trip possible (the trip being *contingent* upon the existence of the car). But is that enough to validate the answer? What about mechanisms? If we know, for example, that point A is New York and point B is Berlin, then the car would need to fly or cross the ocean, and we know for a fact that cars *can't operate like that* which logically rules out the answer. The same way, theists are not only proposing a god as the contingency agent for the Universe's origin (without any justification or evidence that suggests it) but they also propose a mechanism which we never observed to exist, which is "magic" or "speaking things into existence". When we say that John is the *creator* of his house, we mean he built it from the ground up, placing brick over brick, using his own (physical) energy in the process, and not simply "he wished his house to exist and... voilá". There's no reason to believe that any other entity in the Universe is exempt from that! Theists have to prove that "creation out of wishing it" is possible, before they insert their god, and that's a quasi-impossible mission because that'll be proving we *can't* trust the rules of the physical world, such as the "rule of identity"; and the moment the natural world can't be trusted and will alone can warp it, well, then everything we're discussing loses meaning, cause nothing can be trully tested.

[@Andres64B]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of a single thing that exists, that we have universally accepted as existing. In other words, everything that we agree exists we have come to that knowledge through verifiable evidence through our senses. Has there ever been anything that we universally agree as existing that hasn't had actual evidence, as opposed to arguments? And why does there have to be an explanation for existence? If there weren't existence we wouldn't have this conversation. Existence is necessary.

[@st_augustinus]

Matt, I strongly recommend you studying the objections to the Kalam argument from V. Stanger and Carneades. org. See, for example, an objection to WLC by V. Stenger on the misinterpretation of BGV theorem. " The more recent theological claim that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin have proved that the universe had to have a beginning is also in error. Again, this theorem was derived from general relativity and so is inapplicable to the issue of origins. Furthermore, it is disputed by other authors. I asked Vilenkin personally if his theorem required a beginning. His e-mail reply: “No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.” This is exactly what a number of existing models for the uncreated origin of our universe do."

[@munstrumridcully]

Nothingness may well be physically impossible. It may well be that something exists because, physically if not logically, must exist. Rather than being intrinsically unstable, which IMO reifies nothing, I think it is more parsimonious that nothingness is physically impossible. Even the absence of anything is something, its the absence of anything. To me, nothingness is only a concept and existence being eternal.

[@MrJoker42369]

Totally nailed it at 21:00, where there is a disconnect between the universe possibly being contingent and therefore God exists.

[@omaritoblack]

Mr Matt, I don't think that you understand the terms in the argument clearly. The property of that which is contingent can change based on the elements (or environment) that maintain it , which is the case of all matter that we observe, where the necessary existence can not be subject to change. People are getting phds in this argument to get a deeper understanding of it, with all due respect, the way you are representing the argument is like you trying to explain a squared tringle.

[@SansDeity]

Prove that someone is getting a PHD in this argument. Because that's the most bullshit exaggeration I've ever heard. You get degrees in SUBJECTS like philosophy, not in a single argument.

[@omaritoblack]

Yes, you are right, it would be correct to say phd in philosophy, which would include that argument. I'd love to see you debate Jake the Muslim metaphysician or Muhammad Hijab on this topic.

[@omaritoblack]

@Angels_From_Africa kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3OwcoB_e9xspJY He did not debunk it my friend. He simply doesn't understand it, and I obviously see that it went over you head. It isn't their argument btw, it is Avecinia's argument (إبن سينا). I sent you a link with a professor of philosophy explaining it, so you might have a better understanding of the argument. Peace

[@omaritoblack]

@Angels_From_Africa It obviously flew over both of your heads. I clearly stated one of the mistakes he made in my first comment and that also went over your head and he just ignored it. Also, you assuming and stating that you've obviously made more research than me in this argument, projects the level of incoherence and emotional/egoic way of using logic . I'll hopefully make the time to go into the details of all the mistakes that he made in this video ( with time stamps) soon. Peace

[@robheusd]

Obviously, when one reflects on the concept of "universe" as an objective thing (similar like a star, a galaxy, or anything like that) it already follows that it must have a beginning/cause. But that is completely wrong. Everything that exists (exists contingently) exists within the universe, but the universe itself is not some of these contingent 'things' (the universe does not contain itself). But a term as 'universe' has all too often been used in different contexts as having the meaning of a contingent thing, that it might be better to invent a new term or reuse an old term for the original meaning of universe. Like for example the term 'world'. Its meaning is simply that everything that exists, exists as part of the world. Now, does the world have a cause outside of itself? It by definion can not have an external cause for it's existence. So, there must be something internal to the world that makes the world existing. That 'thing' is usually denoted as a substance, which has the property that it does not have an outside cause, so it is not contingent but necessary. Historically we have two different alltogether different and opposing visions on what that substance is, namely either matter (materialism) or mind (idealism). The substance either exists eternally in the case of (matter is thought of as eternal) or timeless/a-temporal in the case of mind.

[@PhsychoSomatic]

Premise 1: God exists Premise 2: Trust me bro Theist arguments boil down to this assertion

[@criticalthinker786]

Funny, but untrue.

[@PGBurgess]

A question on necessary existence: There is a version of this that states that: if things can be infinite (in time or space), or without a time dimension... "something that can possibly happen, will necessarily happen". Which implies that even neccessary existence don't even require a direct necessary, logical cause. And thus: even things that exist as a necessary result of this... can still be contigent on an external cause?

[@capefear56]

First premise is already questionable. The fact that something exists outside of time does not necessarily mean that all possible events will necessarily occur. Please justify that conclusion. And furthermore, the conclusion you draw from this statement is invalid. How do you go from "anything that can happen with a timeless thing, will necessarily happen" to "and therefore necessary objects do not need a necessary cause."? If the object is by definition, necessary, then it must exist for a reason, even if the reason is "some property of this object makes its existence necessary". Then you go on to state a conclusion that necessary causes can create contingent objects, which is a concept that is valid even absent the assumption that timeless objects produce necessary causes, so long as a necessary cause can exist.

[@PGBurgess]

capefear56 "the fact that something exists outside of time does not necessarily mean that all possible events will necessarily occur" Well perhaps the 'no time-demension' is indeed a bit of a stretch here. But if you have an infinite timeline (towards the future fe), if something can happen, at some point it will. Or if you have an infinite amount of universes, something that can happen in those universes, will happen. Howe-ever unlikely an event; if it is possible; it will happen if the opportunities for it to happen reach infinity. "If the object is by definition, necessary, then it must exist for a reason, even if the reason is "some property of this object makes its existence necessary". " I was trying to point out a subtle difference: the necessity of something that would come into existence (see above), would not really be due to a property the thing has. But to the act of creating the circumstances. Perhaps and example: if you flip a coin there is a very unlikely chance it will end up on its edge. If you flip it (approaching) an infinite times; at some point it will happen.. necessarily. But there is nothing about the coin itself that makes it necessary to stand on it's edge. The existence of the 'coin-on-edge' is contigent, on an external cause. "Then you go on to state a conclusion that necessary causes can create contingent objects" Indeed, but in the video there are two options persented: either something is contingent upon an external cause. Or something is necessary to exist for in internal cause. I felt there was a lack in the video to this idea that, though this universe may be contigent upon something external.. it's possible that it is still necessary for it to exist.

[@capefear56]

P.G. Burgess Jesus, you're slow. First of all, you assume the validity of multiverse theory immediately to do away with the problem of mutually exclusive timelines. Secondly, even with the idea of an infinite number of timelines, and an infinite number of 'coin flips', what is your objection to the idea that, however improbable, you could just eternally flip heads? Is there anything preventing this phenomenon from occurring? Secondly, you don't seem to understand what "necessary" means in philosophy. You said "the necessity of something that would come into existence (see above), would not really be due to a property the thing has. But to the act of creating the circumstances." If a timeless object is creating the circumstances by which an another object exists, then the object is now contingent, even if the circumstances, or "cause" is a necessary result of another object's existence. It does not exist for its own properties, but because of the properties of another object causing its existence. Necessary does not refer to this idea that "it must exist, no matter what" but rather "the internal properties of the object necessitate its existence". You're confused by the term "necessary".

[@PGBurgess]

capefear56 " what is your objection to the idea that, however improbable, you could just eternally flip heads? Is there anything preventing this phenomenon from occurring?" Yes, the fact that you can always flip the coin once more... The limit of an event not occuring approaches 0 at infintiy. "Necessary does not refer to this idea that "it must exist, no matter what" but rather "the internal properties of the object necessitate its existence". If those statements are different, can you give an example of one that only is supported by one of them? Is there something that necessitates it's own existence but does not need to exist? Anyway, i don't think i disagree with you that much. My point was that in the video the idea is addresses "contigent vs necessary things". But not what you refer to as "a necessary cause" or a "cause that is a necessary result of another object's existence". Something you seem to agree is a valid idea.. Perhaps i missed that in the video.. i am a bit slow apperently ;-).. can you point to where that was adressed?

[@capefear56]

P.G. Burgess Apologies for snapping earlier. It's a character flaw that I have been trying to improve upon. I don't think you're slow, just a little confused on this issue. I do not have to demonstrate, via examples, the existence of an object that possesses internal properties that allows it to exist absent external causes, necessary or otherwise. Matt himself said that creating an example of this phenomenon was really difficult. Again, necessary in this instance only refers to the object possessing INTERNAL properties that necessarily allow it to exist. It's merely a definition for a hypothetical object. Whether or not an example of this object exists does not influence the fact that something like an external cause, even if necessary, does not make the resulting object necessary. Think of it this way : if the timeless object creating necessary causes was to, as a result of some other influence, perhaps timeless itself, be destroyed or modified in such a way that it is no longer timeless, then whatever object that was created via the necessary causes could no longer exist on its own. This is because the cause of its existence is not internalized. Modification of this cause-dependent object will not invalidate its existence, because its existence is contingent upon an external factor (the other timeless object).

[@FullMoongrn]

I have listened to the whole video and the fact that a lot of people who react are impressed by hid 'arguments, it shows how poor are atheists intellectually when it comes to philosophy about the existence of God. If you are impressed by what he is saying, then you haven't been reading anything about this subject.

[@lewis72]

Must be true if you say so.

[@diogeneslamp8004]

Happy to examine your issues with it.

[@kvnboudreaux]

Matt Dillahunty do you have a video on the Moral Argument? also, do you ever address the serious problems that naturalism raises in regards to free will and rationality.

[@tractors55]

What if the Universe was created not by God but by a team of scientists at a lab like Cern as an experiment. One theoretical physicist on Nova said that given several billion dollars they could create a universe. The problem would be that as soon as it was created it evaporate into a separate dimension.

[@tractors55]

On the seventh day God left the lab and went down the road for some beer an wings