Breaking Down a New, Exciting Argument for God

[@confidentfaith0]

Adding Rasmussen to this stream was a nice touch Cameron. This stream made me so happy.

[@mistermkultra3114]

Would be great a weekly podcast called : Josh Squared

[@Angel_theLastAirbender]

So i'm here at work listening to this video, and hearing Dr. Sijuwade speak, I can't stop picturing Thor of the MCU. Lol

[@moderncaleb3923]

Haha, same here. Every time I look away from the screen I hear Thor’s voice.

[@DryApologist]

It seems like Dr. Rasmussen was trying to generalize the argument to make it compatible with more views and perspectives, which I think is good to make the argument flexible. But, I also think there is intrigue in Dr. Sijuwade's argument being so specific in its metaphysical components, also enabling it to arrive at a more defined conclusion in what the foundation must consist of (though it of course should still be further explored if God should be described as a trope etc.).

[@JP-rf8rr]

They're just joshing around.

[@adriang.fuentes7649]

Please bring back Dr. Sijuwade to talk about his other papers!

[@boguslav9502]

Sounds interestingly similar to my property reductionism argument. Fascinating how IT seems certain ideas seems to come about simultaneously to many people.

[@michaelsandeman3521]

Can you give a skeletonised version of your property reductionism argument, please.

[@cosmicnomad8575]

I guess the conversation takes certain routes sometimes

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Imagine, Dr. Josh Rasmussen, Dr. Josh Sijuwade and Dr. Joshua Swamidass. 🧠 = 💥

[@FrankGrauStudio]

How is this different than Van Til's Transcendental argument?

[@MrGustavier]

36:28 "that to me is basically THE divide between theists and atheists, it's like, where do you draw the line, where's the most appropriate place to draw the line" Yes, very well synthesized, and of course, many atheist wouldn't draw a line at all, that is coherentism or infinitism. Why would there ever be a place, a "line" where we would stop asking "why" ? In terms of epistemic considerations, there is no requirement for any "stopping point", for any "line" that needs to be drawn.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

Reductio ad absurdum

[@barry.anderberg]

Simple. If the answer to the why is entailed in the place or line, then you stop asking why. For example, why does a triangle have three sides? Because it's the nature of a triangle to have three sides. There's no further why. Likewise, if God exists, then He exists by the necessity of his own nature which is existence itself. Asking why God is like asking why a three sided triangle.

[@MrGustavier]

@@barry.anderberg *-"Simple. If the answer to the why is entailed in the place or line, then you stop asking why. For example, why does a triangle have three sides? Because it's the nature of a triangle to have three sides. There's no further why."* Yes, and this falls under the critique of foundationalism in philosophy. The example you gave is a great example, because the justification for why triangles have three sides that you gave is completely arbitrary. In the critique of foundationalism, defining something a certain way, brute facts, brute contingencies or sensory experiences are all rejected as proper epistemic justifications. I recommend reading chapter 5 of the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's entry on skepticism titled "Pyrrhonian skepticism".

[@AD-en5dq]

The idea of aspects start to sound like sidestepping suggesting they are virtual or not real distinctions because ADS is true but from the lens of Essence and Energies which is what it sounds like this is describing you have a personal God in essence who through his energies communicates or allows for participation in these goods or tropes... unless I have missed the point or am somehow mashing things together erroneously this is what it sounds like to me especially at 1:29:20

[@georgeforeman7431]

This is basically the same as the argument from Contingency, isn't it? Specifically Aquinas' version? It's rephrased in terms of analytical metaphysics, but it's ultimately saying that God is required/nessicary to ground contingent things. I'll have to listen to the end, but I'm having trouble seeing the difference rn

[@spencelo]

I’m 40 minutes in - is it ever explained why quarks or the entire structure needs an explanation?

[@CapturingChristianity]

Yes.

[@dubbelkastrull]

1:38:50 bookmark

[@MrGustavier]

27:12 "we can call grounding a metaphysical [synchronic] causation" 28:28 "the same way that we treat causation, we can also treat grounding as well" All right, since causation can be treated as an infinite chain, so can grounding... Meaning there is no "absolute fundamental".

[@marcgleeson9487]

Causation cannot be treated as an infinite chain. An infinite causation chain is proven to be philosophically and evidentially untenable. For this reason, most physicists do not hold to infinitely self-perpetuating universe models.

[@MrGustavier]

@@marcgleeson9487 That is incorrect. There are cosmological models that are finite and some that are infinite in physics, neither option has been ruled out, there is nothing *"untenable"* about infinite causation. As for the proportion of physicists, I would be interested to see your sources.

[@marcgleeson9487]

@@MrGustavier The fact that there are or aren't infinite models is besides the point. The fact that no infinite model has been adopted as mainstream is the important fact. I stand by their evidential and philosophical untenability. Applying infinitude to something physical has the philosophical problem of failing to isolate any beginning point as more plausible over another, and why what we call the present should ever be arrived at. It fails evidentially because it does not accord with all the evidence pointing to a definite beginning of space time.

[@MrGustavier]

@@marcgleeson9487 *-"The fact that there are or aren't infinite models is besides the point. The fact that no infinite model has been adopted as mainstream is the important fact."* Which is the point that I asked you to source. *-"Applying infinitude to something physical has the philosophical problem of failing to isolate any beginning point as more plausible over another"* If something is past infinite, then it doesn't have a *"beginning point"* ... *-"and why what we call the present should ever be arrived at."* By the elapsing of an infinite amount of time... These are all questions that have been answered centuries ago. I recommend the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's entry on infinity for an overview of the type of medieval questions that you are asking and their answers. *-"It fails evidentially because it does not accord with all the evidence pointing to a definite beginning of space time."* As said previously, there are cosmological models that are infinite, they are not ruled out and are *"mainstream"* .

[@barry.anderberg]

@@MrGustavier Who cares what physics says? Philosophical arguments against infinite causal chains provide extremely strong reasons to discard any physics theory that posits infinite causality.

[@MrGustavier]

regarding his development of "module-tropes" around 1:15:00 Isn't that just the newest version of realism ? If you're not a realist, then the "hotness" of the stove that he mentions, is not real, It would be nothing else than an abstract category that is projected by human minds onto the world (conceptualism). In that sense, wouldn't any sort of nominalist reject the real existence of module tropes ?

[@MrGustavier]

Isn't all his development of the "fundamentality" around 17:00 predicated on foundationalism ? In a circular construction (coherentism) or an infinitist construction there is no "absolute fundamental", there is nothing that is "ungrounded" because everything is either grounded by the preceding level infinitely, or by the previous step in the circle. He kind of confirms this at 17:20 "the phenomena that I believe that needs an explanation" We are in the realm of epistemic PSR here. And he already seems to assert that some things don't need an explanation (the absolute fundamentals) which would be a rejection of PSR, therefore a rejection of circular and infinitist positions ? And again at 35:50 "our explanatory stopping point shouldn't be..." There he presupposes that there be an "explanatory stopping point", which is precisely what is rejected by coherentism and infinitism.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

I keep seeing your comments. Something I take issue with is the idea that there isn't an explanatory stopping point. If there is no explanatory stopping point, then things are only known in their own contexts. This would mean that the fundamental problem of how things can be known isn't ever addressed. Rather, one view is presumed and justified a priori. This means that any challenge to the view can be deferred until more is known. It can never be assailed successfully and that, in it of itself, is disqualifying in my opinion.

[@MrGustavier]

@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf *-"If there is no explanatory stopping point, then things are only known in their own contexts."* That doesn't seem right. Coherentism or infinitism isn't necessarily contextualist. One can formulate one's coherentist view in Invariantism, can one not ? *-"This would mean that the fundamental problem of how things can be known isn't ever addressed."* No one has properly addressed that question as far as I know, which is why epistemologists are still wrecking their brains to answer skepticism (so far in vain)... *-"Rather, one view is presumed and justified a priori."* You are describing foundationalism or positism here right ? *-"This means that any challenge to the view can be deferred until more is known. It can never be assailed successfully and that, in it of itself, is disqualifying in my opinion."* I'm not sure I understand. Each of Agrippa's modes (or tropes) is disqualified, none of these modes can be *"successfully assailed"* , which is why skepticism has never been overcome. I recommend chapter 5 of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on skepticism titled "Pyrrhonian Skepticism". Especially 5.1 on foundationalism and 5.4 on positism.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

@@MrGustavier I hope to get back to you someday. I'm very busy these days and going through and learning the words that you use is a time commitment :(

[@MrGustavier]

​@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf If you assert a proposition, I can ask you to justify that proposition. Agrippa summed up the different types of justifications into 5 categories (5 modes, or 5 tropes) that are usually further summed up into three : Either you give me another proposition to justify the previous one, infinitely. A1 justifies A2 justifies A3 justifies A4... That's infinitism. Or you give me another proposition to justify the previous one, that was already previously used. A1 justifies A2 justifies A3 justifies A1 ... That's coherentism. Or you give me no proposition to justify the previous one, that's your "epistemic stopping point". That's foundationalism or positism. What Agrippa argued, is that none of these are epistemically satisfactory. And subscribed to Pyrrhonian époché : happiness is to be found in the acceptation of the suspension of judgment : skepticism. Infinitism arguably never justifies anything. Coherentism is circular. And foundationalism is arbitrary and ultimately unjustified. As far as I know, skepticism has never found any proper answer, so the *" the fundamental problem of how things can be known"* is an on-going discussion in philosophy. That is, in a nutshell, the summary of the last chapter of the SEP entry on Pyrrhonian skepticism.

[@MrGustavier]

@@workt42 *-"Foundationilism is what derives inevitably from the very nature of necessary things and truths"* Begging the question ? In coherentism and infinitism there are no *"necessary things"* . And which theory of truth do you appeal to here ? *-"For instance, for instance, why is a triangle three sided.. well, because of it's very essence, it's very essence is three-sidedness."* What do you mean by *"essence"* here ? Are you presupposing a realist position ? Or do you mean "essence" like "concepts" (a conceptualist position) ? "A triangle is three sided" is an analytical proposition. The predicate "is three sided" only gives an information that is already present in the definition of the object (a triangle has three sides by definition). It is therefore not a synthetic proposition. *-"Infact, I think a rejection of foundationilism entails logical inconsistency.. more on that later."* Which logic ? *-"But going further on this, it's apparent that the very explanation of necessary things are those necessary things themselves..* *More importantly, it's the very distinction between the necessary vs the contingent- self explanation vs external explanation-A rejection of foundationilism entails a modal collapse if you think about it hard enough"* There isn't any necessity to subscribe to the *"necessary vs contingent"* categories. These categories are not used by coherentists and infinitists (obviously). Furthermore, how do foundationalists and positists solve their own problem of modal collapse ? (necessary things have necessary entailments = all is necessary ?) *-"Furthermore, a denial of foundationilism logically entails that there are no necessary existents in reality .., which is a claim I reject, nothingness is logically impossible."* I don't understand this one. Rejecting foundationalism does indeed entail rejecting that there are necessary things, but saying that there are no necessary things doesn't mean that *"nothingness"* is affirmed... Again, it seems that would be begging the question against coherentism and infinitism. These position precisely claim that things can exist absent of the necessary/contingent distinction. *-"Foundationilism logically follows from reality"* Falling for the Kantian transcendental illusion ? *-"C1. There are no necessary things and there are necessary things."* This looks like an ontological argument. P5 defines something, and C1 affirms its existence. You DEFINED something into existence (ontological argument). Which falls under the Kantian critique.

[@kenhilker2507]

Tjump should be invited to these to see how new arguments hold up to scrutiny from someone with a different set of biases and presuppositions.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Of all people, TJump?

[@kenhilker2507]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf I don't think it's bad, but he's redefined "morality" pretty far from the theists view of the term.

[@pumpkinpummeler4310]

1:17:21 I guess I'm a trope now lmao

[@dvrrxu]

This channel is nice but I'm too dumb to understand these kind of arguments🚶🏾‍♂️

[@pazuzil]

So an omnipotent being loves humans and desires a relationship with them, but he evades all our attempts to verify his existence so that the only way we can convince ourselves he even exists is through theses types of sophisticated mind-bending philosophical arguments. Thank goodness for apologists!

[@itachigrain4651]

Nah, these arguments exist to show atheists and skeptics that Christians are philosophically sophisticated too since most atheists think we are not. The average Christian does not need these but if they come across these arguments, it should give them confidence that some of their brothers and sisters are smart and not all Christians are unsophisticated.

[@pazuzil]

@@itachigrain4651 but without these philosophical arguments how can the average Christian be sure that god exists?

[@itachigrain4651]

@@pazuzil Since this is philosophical in nature it falls under classical apologetics, there is also evidential apologetics. Also, what is called "Sensus Divinitatis" or sense of divine which is according to Christians innate in humans. Also for the Christian specifically, the revealed word of their God and internal witness of their Holy Spirit should be sufficient to ground their beliefs. Finally, fideist who have blind faith. A lot of atheists are philosophically unsophisticated too in all honesty. And you can reverse the question too for the average atheist. Like how does the average atheist know that no divine being exist without good arguments? If you get me.

[@pazuzil]

@@itachigrain4651 I wouldn't say we have a sense of the divine. Rather I think humans have an inclination to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not involve one. We see the same behavior in animals too. Many biologists believe we evolved this instinct as a survival strategy. But if it was a sense of the divine like you say, its so vague that its not very useful since it leads most people in India to become Hindus, most people in Pakistan to become Muslims, primitive tribes to become animists etc etc. Why didn't god go all the way and reveal himself to all to be the Christian god like he did to many characters in the Bible?

[@a5dr3]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6KwoZmijbSEpLM God is essential and foundational for every aspect of life. Man constantly suppresses the plain truth of his existence which is immediately apparent and necessary in all experience.

[@Steven-ki9sk]

I feel sorry for skeptics who can’t understand these types of philosophical arguments for gods existence. Without them they can’t be sure god exists and so they are condemned to eternal damnation

[@itachigrain4651]

Nah, these arguments exist to show atheists and skeptics that Christians are philosophically sophisticated too since most atheists think we are not. The average Christian does not need these but if they come across these arguments, it should bring them confidence that some of their brothers and sisters are smart and not all Christians are unsophisticated.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

sounds very Aquinian. I wonder if Dr Josh has interacted with the Scholastics on this

[@samueldani459]

Aron Ra vs Josh sijuwade kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3-qqapqjtmAqdE

[@wellyouthoughtwrong3429]

Dont have the time to watch this rn could anyone write down the argument in premise/conclusion form?

[@BigHeretic]

"a New, Exciting Argument for god" Really? Is this an admission that the old ones don't work? Why do you need a new one?

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

No, just new things are exciting. Plus for those who think the old ones have been "completely debunked" this may catch their eye

[@BigHeretic]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan What is this new argument for god? I fell asleep...

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

@@BigHeretic Well I would encourage you watch it again lol

[@BigHeretic]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan ...and leave me with the notion that you don't know? ... that you watched the video intentively and are unable to articulate this new and exciting argument? Or did you fall asleep too?

[@BigHeretic]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan It's no wonder that you can't tell me what this new argument is because it's an enormous word salad of the old contingency argument. I suspect that you just trusted the title and didn't even try to understand the explanation. That's Religion for you.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

Grounding does not exist. There are elemental entities and events. Events are what we recognize as structures. The levels of the structure are conventions that circumscribe it (for all practical purposes) but do not exist ontologically. Like water and waves. It is not rational to assume that the wave results from multiple layers (for example, fermions and bosons, atoms, water molecules, water, waves, sea, ocean) and that each of the supposed layers has a metaphysical relationship with each of the possible levels of understanding of the "wave" event. All these supposed levels only appear when making different conceptual models of the same phenomenon. The phenomenon is a unique and complete event that only results from the interaction of fermions and bosons. Strange discussion of two very intelligent people.

[@jaykrizzle]

The question is, why does our reality consistently display these emergent characteristics, instead of, for example, mostly non emergent properties (e.g., a mass of things interacting naturally that behave like a single component thing). It is easy to imagine a universe where the fundamental particles and natural laws are different and the standard expected interactions between entities does not bubble up to a new layer described by entirely new math. This is a question the entire (secular) field of metaphysics is dealing with, not just the individual on the video.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@jaykrizzle I do not share your interpretation. Reality does not show emergent properties specifically. We distinguish reality at a certain level. We distinguish the waves. We do not distinguish between molecules and atoms individually. We distinguish reality according to our type of sensory system. We call emergent property of reality at a certain level of its structure. It is not true that a cluster of atoms behaves like a single thing. It behaves as atoms behave. Our sensory system and our survival make it necessary for us to interpret reality as made up of objects. It is impossible to say that reality could behave differently or follow different rules. One can imagine and fantasize about those possibilities, but each instance of reality results from its antecedents. For you to write a "t" instead of a "d", all the antecedent factors of that event would have to have been different.

[@jaykrizzle]

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd "it is impossible to say that reality could behave differently" - it's not impossible at all to say that, for example with different fundamental properties (speed of light, strength of nuclear force, etc); reality would be very very different, and we might have little to no emergence/grounding. So I find this argument linked closely to the fine-tuning argument. - you don't find consciousness to be an emergent property, grounded on individual neurons? Certainly there is a qualitative difference between feeling happy and an individual neuron reacting to serotonin. Emergent properties are a well established field of study beyond apologetics. With that said, this metaphysicL argument is based (grounded?) on the field of metaphysics having explanatory value as a discipline. If you think that metaphysics as a whole is not much value add, then, well, this argument won't work for you. The speaker is assuming that the audience is accepting of well established metaphysical constructs.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@jaykrizzle The speed of light in a vacuum depends on the properties of a field. There is no reason to suppose that this field could have different properties than it shows in reality. None. Neither in experience nor in science. I cannot seriously consider consciousness to be an emergent property until it is determined with certainty that it is consciousness. This word has many meanings and encompasses various concepts of a different nature. No. Consciousness is not an emergent property grounded in brain activity. Consciousness (whatever it is) is one of the "aspects" of brain activity. Emergent properties are conventions. It is the way of referring to a phenomenon whose full nature we do not know. Sadness or happiness are emotional states. That is, chemical activity between molecules. "Sadness" is the way in which we refer to that phenomenon, according to our ability to distinguish it. The problem is that metaphysics is a speculative exercise (with some serious intention) of the part of reality that it is not possible for us to study scientifically. They are thought experiments and would never serve to prove the existence of anything. They are just hypotheses that test those ideas that seem less unlikely. Metaphysical speculations cannot escape logic or grossly contradict reality.

[@jaykrizzle]

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Couple final point, not going to address the whole comment -we absolutely can postulate the speed of light (and similar fundamentals) being different in different realities, that's exactly what theoretical physicists do in big bang computer models. The speed of light is merely the speed of causality, and other universes could definitely have another causality speed limit, or Planck constant, etc. -Your criticism of metaphysics/philosophy is shared by many, all Joshua is doing is using the existing disciplines of the field to argue for theism. But if you find the whole field is bunk (that's OK, many do) then you are wasting your time with these debates that assume an acceptance of the field and its concepts like grounding as a prerequisite.

[@NoChance18]

This just sounds like presup with extra steps.

[@markcederberg1]

Whats wrong with that, the question is, is it valid or not...

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Yeah and the extra steps make it nothing like presup

[@whatsinaname691]

Only insofar as the moral argument or Leftow’s argument from powers or even Rasmussen’s cosmological arguments are… So not?

[@confidentfaith0]

What? 🤦‍♂️ how so?

[@NoChance18]

@@confidentfaith0 Because he's not demonstrating properties or the necessity of certain properties as an explanation of reality. Dr. Sijuwade is ultimately arguing that God must be the "ground" for reality, without demonstrating why: that's presup. He's simply assuming God is required, and then trying to define his way out of having to demonstrate necessary properties. You can't have "zero" properties because "exists" is a property and if God doesn't have that property than God literally doesn't exist. But if the *only* property we assume is "exists", then that simply isn't what any person would actually consider to be God. Dr. Sijuwade seems to understand this, but tries to get around it by arguing that all the properties of God are somehow included in "exists". The problem being, even if I found his argument convincing, it only gets me to an even playing field with secular foundations for the universe, since they also only assume "existence" as the only necessary property. Thus, this isn't an argument *for* God, it's at best a reason not to discount the possibility, which most atheists aren't doing anyways.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

Xians: Every generic argument for creator / first mover / god ... means JESUS. LOL

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Oh you got us, time to hang it up.... darn. Seriously though, an examples of people doing this?

[@sanjeevgig8918]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan EVERY Xtian apologist who says "The Kalaam Cosmological Argument" starts talking about Yahweh/Jesus after a minute. LOL

[@derechoplano]

Do you have something intelligent to say or are you only trolling?

[@sanjeevgig8918]

@@derechoplano Do you believe "The Kalaam Cosmological Argument" proves the Christian god ?? IF yes, do you really believe MUSLIM philosophers were proving Christianity ??!! HA HA HA HA HA

[@whatsinaname691]

@@sanjeevgig8918 You do realize that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God right? Your childish insults aren’t fit for the intellectual discussion at hand. If you aren’t mature enough to have a civil discussion, then go back to Reddit. Otherwise, provide an actual argument for why Stage 2 Cosmological arguments fail