Does God Exist? Justin Schieber vs. Eric Hernandez (CC Exchange 2023)

[@EricHernandez]

Thanks for having me! I enjoyed it!

[@malirk]

Eric. Thank you for doing this event. Do you remember what first convinced you of your religious beliefs? Do you remember what age you became convinced?

[@grnblh5969]

I wish you would have tried go actually prove God instead of just asserting that because he believes in consciousness it makes sense to also throw in God.

[@Tessinentdecken]

God exists in the mind of some People.

[@grnblh5969]

@@Tessinentdecken All Gods do, so do leprechauns and Elvis… what’s your point?

[@toriomain]

@Eric Hernandez are you still a Classical Theist?. U sounded like a Presup in this debate

[@JG-po5cv]

Edit: It looks like the dead space at the beginning was removed.

[@slade8863]

Thanks

[@vee7747]

Thank you

[@Imheretohelpnhavefun]

Did you skip the first speech of each of them, or did they edit the video after you commented?

[@JG-po5cv]

@@Imheretohelpnhavefun it must have been edited.

[@ExploringReality]

Thanks Eric for the shoutout. Good job to everyone involved. So glad to see Justin back in action. Excellent showing for Christian-atheist relations.

[@albertito77]

Christ is King

[@RealAtheology]

We're extremely grateful for the opportunity to have participated in this debate. We're thankful to Capturing Christianity for hosting us and to Eric for being such a civil and excellent dialogue partner. As Justin has said, one of the purposes of debates is to grow awareness of the arguments, counterarguments, and overall complexity of some of these substantive issues. We hope that as a result of this exchange Atheists and Theists will continue to seek out the best scholarship available on these arguments. In hopes of facilitating that here are some good resources to dive into with regard to some of the arguments that Justin made: *Theory Comparison and the Nature of Arguments:* _The Best Argument Against_ God by Graham Oppy _Evil, God, and the Nature of Light_ by Paul Draper _Theism and Explanation_ by Gregory Dawes _Why I'm an Atheist_ by Sebastian Montesinos *Evidential Arguments from Evolution and Animal Suffering:* _Natural Selection and the Problem of Evil_ by Paul Draper _Darwin's Argument from Evil_ by Paul Draper _Unto the Least of These: Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil_ by Beth Seacord *Divine Hiddenness:* _Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason_ by J.L. Schellenberg _Progressive Atheism_ by J.L. Schellenberg _Evil and Nonbelief_ by Theodore Drange For those interested in some of the arguments that Eric made, we'd highly recommend the work of Timothy O'Connor and Richard Swinburne when it comes to issues around Consciousness, especially O'Connor's co-authored paper _The Argument from Consciousness Revisited._ Thanks everyone for tuning in.

[@CCiPencil]

How y’all respond to presuppositional arguments for the Christian worldview? Namely- only the Christian worldview can give an account for logic, uniformity of nature, and the problem of induction, etc. I’ve never heard or encountered an atheistic perspective that explain logic, truth, how we can objectively know true things, etc. Seems to me the atheistic worldview falls flat when delving into the foundations of what is true, and how we can know true things are true.

[@brianlynchehaun1963]

@@CCiPencil If you want to understand the atheistic worldview, you would need to take a couple of philosophy classes. What you are asking for is tens of hours of explanation, simply because there is so much to talk about. There is no good reason to accept any presuppositional arguments for the Christian worldview, they're all baseless, extremely shallow, and without good evidence.

[@CCiPencil]

@@brianlynchehaun1963 so you can’t simply explain your worldview and all you have is baseless attacks on the Christian worldview. As far as evidence, it’s a presuppositional argument, it’s a transcendental argument, there is no material evidence for it. Just like there is no laboratory test or scientific theory to prove logic, the uniformity of nature, science itself, the problem of induction, etc.

[@MyContext]

Your commentary about consciousness was the only point you presented that I found to be rather out there even as I am not a moral realist. So, beyond your experience of consciousness, is there anything else that motivates the idea of consciousness being in some way fundamental? A reference of whatever sort would be fine that reflects your view given the amount of detail that such a response might entail.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

In physics a perspective is known as the block universe or block time. Though this perspective might be wrong for us, it certainly exists for god. This view of god makes the problem of evil absolutely unsolvable. God could comprehend exactly all points of time knowing in detail the suffering for each moment in time….god accepted the whole block as good. In one action of creation, god accepted all suffering in the past, present, and future comprehending all at once. To god, a person suffering from cancer now…is just a real as a person suffering from cancer tomorrow. God accepted both. God didn’t accept a string of causations but a block of every suffering that was known or will ever be known. And god stated this block was good.

[@andrewmoon1917]

Nice, cordial, and intellectually engaging debate and performance from both sides. Good to see this, and Cameron did a nice job moderating. And hah! Thanks for the shout out, Eric!

[@EricHernandez]

@andrew moon I hope it will point more people to your work! Thank you for all you do.

[@gsp3428]

Justin is so much better than the Aronra's and the Matt Dillahunty;s of the world. Justin conducts himself well. He is smart and thoughtful. Good on Cameron for getting some intellectual atheists.

[@jkm9332]

Dillahunty and Aron are just angry and obnoxiously emotional and smug. Justin was such a breath of fresh air.

[@Dhorpatan]

All white males. Bit suspicious don't ya think.

[@craigreedtcr9523]

Totally. Night and day from the debate-me bro style Atheists!

[@elgatofelix8917]

@@jkm9332 yes but the one thing they all have in common is that they're wrong.

[@Oooo000-hx8lk]

Atheists are irrational.

[@Justinsweh]

Thank you Cameron and Capturing Christianity for the opportunity to provide a robust case for and defense of my nontheistic view. Thank you Eric for your willingness to dialogue. Hopefully people were given some interesting food for thought.

[@gsp3428]

You did a good job Justin, bringing atheism to a higher standard of dialogue.

[@josephfenech9037]

Hey Justin. Although I am a Christian, and I do find Eric's arguments to be more compelling, I wanted to let you know how genuinely I appreciated and admired your input in this debate. You have no idea how refreshing it is for me to see an atheist who is willing to engage in discussion with a theist in such a courteous and respectful manner, rather than resorting to toxic attempts at ridiculing their debate opponent. Like Eric, I sincerely pray to see you come to Christianity, even more so given the kind and beautiful person you clearly are, but even should you choose not to, I wanted you to know you have my deepest respect, as I'm sure is the case for all those who watched this debate. Take care!

[@AWalkOnDirt]

@@josephfenech9037 The Christian’s toxicity of atheists has always been a strange one. Christians seem to overlook Christianity’s damning of the out-group and even the foundation message of many of their arguments. Atheists are morally lost, morally baseless, doomed to hell….yet are supposed to only whisper the sweetest words in defense of their basic dignity?

[@RealAtheology]

I appreciate the kind words, Joseph.@@josephfenech9037

[@commandtheraven9324]

A Great debate! We need more CC Exchanges! Can't wait for CCV3!

[@gsp3428]

I would disagree that Suffering is not intrinsically bad, suffering can make us stronger, better people in many situations. We can learn and grow from certain suffering, we can put things into perspective, we can fulfill our moral obligations to others when people suffer.

[@Justinsweh]

It's important to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic value. Suffering is intrinsically bad. However, as you correctly notice, it can at times also be instrumentally good.

[@Kyssifrot]

I would add that it is not the case that this would happen in every possible world. Clearly, it's possible to imagine a world in which human being learn (or grow) without the need of suffering. Hence, it is not necessary that suffering is needed to grow, and it does ask for an explanation to why God chose this way of growing for humans and not another way.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

@@Kyssifrot I agree. The notion between creation of suffering verses trying to hammer a reason in hindsight for suffering isn’t the same argument. Our level of suffering was specifically created with foresight and not one degree of less suffering was tolerable by god. This needs explained.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

In physics a theory on perspective is the block universe. Regardless if it’s true for us a block universe exists for god. This block universe perspective makes the problem of evil absolutely beyond reconcilable.

[@displacegamer1379]

2:18:24 I don't know if Eric is actively trying to misunderstand the points. A person who thinks they're Superman will eventually do something that only Superman can do which will lead to their death. This is the grander point of why that analogy is self-defeating.

[@LtDeadeye]

Not necessarily. There may be a weakness in the example but there could also be false beliefs which carry survival value (theoretically, the belief that God exists could carry some survival value).

[@anotherway6427]

@@LtDeadeye Well it actually does, though in many cases it has held humanity back in revolutionary and progressive ways. Despite this though Religon and belief has been used to keep communities stable and moral beliefs and laws fluent and consistent, despite conflicting views

[@humesspoon3176]

So glad Foucault has shifted to discussing the metaphysics of a deity. Such a great transition!

[@displacegamer1379]

2:02:00 I love that he says disobedience. So think of this, you have a newborn baby and you tell that newborn baby not to cry. And then that newborn baby starts to cry and you kill that baby. Do you think that you're in the right for doing that? The newborn baby disobeys you. Will most people would say no. The reason why they would say no is because the baby has no understanding of what your requesting of them. They don't know what it means to disobey. The same thing applies to Adam and Eve. Remember when God created Adam and Eve he didn't give them the knowledge of what was right and wrong. So when God asked them not to do something them disobeying that request they could not know was wrong. So to punish humanity for an action that they did not even know was wrong is kind of evil on God's part. Especially when he knew that they would do that and he literally set it up for them to be able to do that.

[@anotherway6427]

Also it says that this event was his plan so why is he angry? Especially if he knows what will happen.

[@СергейМакеев-ж2н]

In which debate is saying "you're implicitly assuming my worldview" EVER a good idea?

[@displacegamer1379]

2:06:47 Eric doesn't seem to be able to track a question. Justin is clearly asking for a how, and Eric is trying to give a why. Eric is just failing to understand the point of the question or is intentionally dodging it.

[@bridgetgolubinski]

I’m so sad I missed this! I’m so close to Houston and was free that day :(

[@moonhouse3540]

If it is true that an objective moral standard must exist in order for evil to exist, then I don’t believe in the existence of evil. But Eric presumably does, and so the problem of evil still stands, just as an internal critique.

[@gladysbatten822]

Not quite half way through and I find this debate, the one that captures best my questions since childhood. As an agnostic theist, (post-evangelical) my theism is based more in desire than evidence; desire (potentially being an evolutionary advantage) useful for my own functioning. I find that fundamentalist theists lean towards the denying of animal "suffering" (distiguishing it from "pain") as if the particular sentience/consciousness of humans is a qualitative difference leading to our suffering related to our cupability as creatures who can sin (not innocent). I find that animals fall on a gradient regarding sentience/consciousness/self-consciousness, and this comes from the most recent research with them, and my life-long suspicions while in relationship with them. To see even a horse or dog or cat (who undoubtedly lives much more in the present, and does not seem capable of reflecting on its existence/mortality, etc.) as qualitatively different in experience seems like a forced necessity, that is a theodicy to defend an all-loving God. A straight-forward interaction with many animals produces in me an intuitive interpretation that they are experiencing fun, anticipation, exhilaration, anxiety, security, affection, etc. I am quite sure that neuroscience would/does confirm that similar chemicals and neuro-pathways operate in both humans and non-human animals demonstrating the afformentioned emotional states.

[@gsp3428]

I do agree with Justin on "Hell" it is sometimes difficult to square a loving God with eternal torment. But Eric is right, some people like many of the angels rebelled and rejected God out of volition.

[@Justinsweh]

Rebellion during belief is compatible with a rich, dynamic, multi-faceted relationship. A loving parent does not kick their toddler out of their house if they rebel. If a human parent did this, they would be criminally liable and rightfully so. Certainly, we would not call this parent perfectly loving.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

@@Justinsweh The analogy of the Fatherhood of God is limited. We don’t worship our earthly fathers. God is the Judge of all creation. Our fathers aren’t. God is the Creator _and Sustainer_ of everything not Himself. Our fathers aren’t. God gives eternal life to anyone who asks Him. Our fathers can’t. We grow up and are independent of our fathers. Nothing and no one is independent of God. God is the Supreme Being. Our fathers aren’t. God is morally perfect. Our fathers aren’t.

[@SkilledTadpole]

This belief that angels knew and still rejected God is one of the biggest contributors to the perceived problem of hiddeness. If one can have direct knowledge of God and reject him, then the mental gymnastics it takes to "know" the existence of God is so irrationally unnecessary and cruel, given the consequences of disbelief.

[@gsp3428]

@@Justinsweh If you had a son, who continually kept disobeying your rules and doing whatever he wants and didnt respect you, eventually you would kick him out.

[@Justinsweh]

​@@gsp3428If he was not a minor, perhaps. But, compared to God, we are toddlers. Parents don't kick toddlers out for rebellion. They work within that relationship and sensitively shepherd the child through their increasing maturity and toward a fuller understanding of their true potential. Such is our obligations to the child for bringing them into existence. Kicking a toddler out is illegal and rightfully so.

[@rootberg]

Cool. Both of them did well. I like the fact that Eric brought up an argument for why materialistic determinism is rationally self defeating. When I first was presented that idea (and after some time understood it) maybe 12 or so years ago it was a light bulb moment for me. I have not been convinced by any counter arguments I’ve heard since. Sometimes it is just dismissed and hand waved away, but I think people just have a hard time to wrap their heads around the idea, it is very strange to think about your own rational processes in third person terms.

[@Justinsweh]

Right, so Eric claimed that determinism and rationality were incompatible. I directly addressed that point twice. Once in my rebuttal and again in the Q&A section. Let me know what you think of my response. Thank you.

[@atanas-nikolov]

​@@Justinsweh I wouldn't call a computer rational. It's simply a machine that follows instructions. I wouldn't call a mathematical formula rational in the sense of possessing reasoning abilities. I get the idea that evolution would probably select for some truth recognition, but I don't think it can ever select for truly foundational stuff. It can't. We don't perceive reality as is. It is always interpreted, in a sense. Evolution produces good enough heuristics. But even so, whatever it produces, if everything is deterministically produced, we cannot be rational in any meaningful sense of the word. By the way, great presentation skills. You also have very ASMRy voice. 😅

[@moonhouse3540]

@@atanas-nikolov but isn’t the alternative to determinism just indetermism? How does introducing indeterminism solve the problem you have with determinism?

[@atanas-nikolov]

@@moonhouse3540 My problem is with claiming rationality for something that obviously isn't (if I am determined to hold certain positions, I have not arrived at them rationally). And if I have evolved without regards to truth, but to survival, I have no way of knowing whether my reasoning faculties are even dependable when it comes to fundamental reality. How does indeterminism come into this picture?

[@moonhouse3540]

@@atanas-nikolov the negation of determinism is indeterminism. If you believe that rationality exists but is incompatible with determinism then you must think that it IS compatible with indeterminism. I’m just wondering why you think that.

[@loryugan6574]

@ ~ 2:23:17 , the questioner asks about whether or not reality is subjective since it would depend on god in the same sense as morality would. What would be problematic with saying yes to this question? In other words, if reality is subjective, dependent on god, what would follow from this, and should this cause us to worry about anything?

[@johnbuck4008]

I really liked Sheiber's articulation of the argument from scale (the hostility to most of the universe) as a misproportion of valuable things. If God existed, surely he'd want there to be more good things than neutral things, right? I really enjoyed watching this live and then getting to speak with both speakers later. Thanks so much for setting this up, Cameron & Brittany!

[@Imheretohelpnhavefun]

> If God existed, surely he'd want there to be more good things than neutral things, right? I don't really see how we could make this kind of judgment based on the proportion of the space within the universe that is life permitting... First, it's obvious that this principle is not infinitely applicable. Say, if every square meter on the face of the earth had one human being in it, that would severely limit people's ability to do anything. This is obviously an extreme example, and you can say: "OK, but the existing proportion of life in the whole universe is too small". But even then, let's suppose the universe was one billionth of the size of the observable universe. Surely that would still be enough to allow for human life to thrive on earth, and a higher proportion of the universe would be filled with "good things", your assertion seems to assume that this would be a good thing, but to me it seems in itself like a completely neutral fact about the universe. Besides this, non-living things are not just "neutral" they may be less important, but their beauty, their complexity, and the sheer size of it all is a good thing, and I think we all recognize it. Space understanding and exploration have always amazed humankind, and I believe that's for a good reason. Another point: if there is eternal life, we might populate the whole universe, and it might be the case that the universe will be filled with more good things than neutral things for the greatest part of it's existence.

[@maync1]

This was one of the weirder debates I've ever watched. The audience seemed so knowledgable and satisfied with the answers, (or so casual, or polite?), it made me feel I wasn't quite tuned in, or slow on the pick-up, or something. I just didn't get a lot of it. Eric is a fast talker and throws concepts around as if they were self-explanatory. A great contrast to, say, W.L.Craig, who takes his time bringing something really "across." Justin, on the other hand, went off in all directions and I didn't get the gist of his discussion and answers in Q&A. Is this only me? Is he an atheist in theists clothing? Or were there severe presentation or deeper defects? I think I would have liked Eric's arguments and his not so common angle on them, but he buried them in flood of words and jargon that, to me, sorry, flooded, or diluted the central message. Was this an audience of lay persons, or pastors, philosophers, or something? It didn't seem that way...

[@CCiPencil]

I’m a Christian but so far from listening to his opening statement, I’m agree with you. I think using so much philosophical jargon limits the scope of people that can follow his arguments especially since he throws soo much out. Craig is a master at building a simple foundation with some facts and evidences and weaving that into a tapestry that anyone can easily follow. This is difficult

[@gsp3428]

Justin seems to be arguing against God's moral character rather than whether God exists.

[@melchior2678]

Yes that's the "problem of evil" angle for you

[@Justinsweh]

Right. If the proposed theory is that the creator is morally perfect, an argument against the creator's moral perfection is an argument against the proposed theory.

[@gsp3428]

@@Justinsweh It doesnt argue for atheism then, just for your opinion of who God is.

[@Justinsweh]

@@gsp3428 So, in the context of this debate, theism means traditional tri-omni theism and atheism means the negation. These stipulations are not uncommon for debates of this sort. Though, naturalism is incompatible with any form of theism and that is what I was actually arguing for.

[@displacegamer1379]

41:26 if reality is the ultimate truth, and your ability to adapt to survive to reality is strong then you are building an ability to understand truth. If you have beliefs that are not conforming to reality then your ability to exist in reality becomes weaker which means you survive less. The fact that you're able to adapt and survive over a long period of time indicates that your beliefs are conformance to reality. Reality being that which is true about existence. So to be adaptive and surviving in reality is to have beliefs that are true and to have believes that are true are to have knowledge.

[@rl7012]

Circular reasoning

[@p00tis]

@@rl7012 No?

[@rl7012]

@@p00tis Ok then, the longest living people have been believers. That must mean God is the truth.

[@p00tis]

@@rl7012 That isn't circular though as a reductio? At best that argument is two different unassociated claims.

[@rl7012]

@@p00tis It is circular. He is saying those who survive longest are truth seekers and reality based. He uses the fact they are long lived as the evidence for this. Circular reasoning.

[@Phill3v7]

I have the most reason to adopt the conclusion of a valid argument with true premesis, but I'm not obligated to.

[@Justinsweh]

If you agree an argument is valid and you agree with its premises, you are obligated to accept the conclusion.

[@Phill3v7]

@@Justinsweh it seems that I would then "just accept" the conclusion, or on the basis of the some prior value system e.g. truth seeking and/or consistency then obligations might begin to be the way to characterize the how I aught to respond. That being said, at some point the conclusions for the starting values for some epistemic obligations aren't going to begin without premises that are themselves non argumentatively supported. Just as you can only find truth with logic if you have already found it without it. So either way it isn't clear to me that the obligatory characterization can be fundamentally established via arguments alone.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

I think the atheist really did well especially in the question section. The hell question at 2:40:30 really sealed the debated. Comparing the two responses, the atheist absolutely provided a good and consistent answer staying with the parameter that god is always good. The Christian compounded his messiness. The question before was on problem of evil and he added added the problem of hell. From the perspective of a person on a fence, the atheist provided warmth where the Christian provided the traditional rendering of hell and suffering that likely created the fence sitting of the person in the first place. In most cases, Christians' only engage with the straw-man version of the problem of evil. They don't engage with the problem honestly. This was the case in this debate. Yet even the most popular steal-man version of the problem of evil can be further strengthened if block time is added to god's knowledge. Since god is all knowing he must have a block time perspective of our universe. With block time, the amount of suffering accepted at one creation event is beyond our ability to grasp. To god, the suffering of tomorrow, next year, a billion years in the future is just as real as the suffering today and yesterday. Time in meaningless to god and everything is current to god

[@rl7012]

Not all believers, believe in a niche Christian view of hell.

[@TheUnapologeticApologists]

It’s actually breaking the rules of a debate to bring up a new argument in the closing statement - a real pet peeve of mine. So Justin ought not have brought up the new argument against molinism in his closing. Eric never got a chance to respond. That being said it was a silly argument, so, no harm I guess.

[@Justinsweh]

I disagree. Given that there was no portion of the debate dedicated to a defense of the arguments provided in each of our opening statements, it was entirely fair to dedicate my closing as a defense of my opening. In defense of the opening claim that my arguments were stronger than Eric's, it is entirely appropriate to show why Eric's theodicies are inadequate and why his position on God and foreknowledge is unacceptable. Public debates begin with a few arguments and must branch out from there in many different directions. By the end, there are always far too many arguments to respond to - there were an endless number of Eric's claims that, given time constraints, I could not respond to. I'm sure he thinks the same. It's meant to introduce the public to the complexity of the debate in hopes they will explore those questions left hanging. As for the argument, you may be interested to know that it is unlikely to shrivel under accusations of silliness.

[@TheUnapologeticApologists]

@@Justinsweh defending arguments in a closing, yes, of course I’d agree. What you introduced was not a defense, but a new argument that molinism made libertarian free will impossible. Which is not within the rules of a debate. Even if it was under the guise of of a defense. And I don’t expect you to shrivel. I’m well aware that an accusation of silliness is not a refutation. Nor do I mean it to be mean spirited. I really like you. But in all honesty, it is an opinion of mine, that it is silly for someone with a sophisticated understanding of philosophy to find that argument compelling. It’s almost as bad as thinking foreknowledge is causal.

[@TheUnapologeticApologists]

@@Justinsweh to be fair, I don’t recall Cameron saying you all would stick to strict debate rules. That being said, I do think it more fair for new arguments to be brought in the open dialogue, where the opponent has an opportunity to respond.

[@Justinsweh]

I think that's a fair suggestion and I will take it into consideration in the future. Instead of scripting a closing, I just went through a few prepared remarks for themes that kept coming up until the clock ran out. But yes, decisions made on the fly are good to revisit. Have you read the paper on Molinism I was referencing? It was authored by two very well-respected Christian philosophers. If you're impressed with the sophistication of Frank Turek enough to invite him on your show, surely you can appreciate the link below. philpapers.org/archive/CLIMEO.pdf

[@DavidSmith-wp6wx]

How do predators, parasites and privation arise as a consequence of a single act by a single individual?

[@Masterpaintingnowlearn2draw]

I think it is a good point, where does the obligation to obey God's nature come in? I had this worry also. Here is my answer. If God is real and is eternal and all-knowing, then God knows all possible states of human existence, even the ones that are never actualized. This means that God knows in an objective way what is best for humans. He knows what to command them so as to maximize their chance for goodness. This is why we ought to obey because we ought to want to maximize our goodness.

[@betsalprince]

Not to mention that you're engaging in an is-ought fallacy, any being that possesses absolute foreknowledge of what's objectively best for humanity wouldn't have planted a tree in the middle of a garden along with a talking snake that he knew was going to deceive his first human creation. An omniscient and omnibenevolent deity that actually cared about his children would teach them *HOW* to maximize their chance for goodness instead of issuing commands such as, "don't eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil or you'll die". When there's so much at stake (i.e., the fall of man and the inception of gratuitous suffering), demanding obedience in that manner is utterly irresponsible and petty.

[@kensey007]

Regarding the theist's second argument, I *know* what my thoughts are. I don't really care how hard he argues against that. I know what my own thoughts are with more certainty than I know this debate happened or that this KZbin video exists. Because I can know this one thing whether or not there is God, it utterly defeats this entire line of argument. Regarding morality, as an example, pain is objectively bad absent countervailing factors. This is true based on the nature of pain itself. We know this from our first order experience.

[@matthewstokes1608]

Is this being held in a church?

[@gsp3428]

I loved when Eric talked about the Cosmic Authority problem for Thomas Nagel, it is so true, very very little has anything to do with evidence. People dont want God to exist, its quite obvious, we want to be autonomous beings, we dont want their to be something greater than us which we are obliged to. Humbling ourselves and giving up our desires is difficult.

[@RealAtheology]

I'm not entirely sure that is the case. There have been plenty of Atheists throughout the philosophy of religion such as J.L. Mackie, William Rowe, Paul Draper, J.H. Sobel, Quentin Smith, J.L. Schellenberg who have been very open to Theism, but after a thorough examination of the evidence have found belief in God to be difficult to justify. One could also say the same thing about Theism as well, mainly that a lot of Theists are psychologically married to their belief in God and thus that prevents them from evaluating the evidence for Atheism fairly because they don't want Atheism to be true. I think a more fruitful approach is doing our best to engage the arguments themselves as Justin and Eric did in this debate.

[@gsp3428]

@@RealAtheology I think there is a big difference between realizing it may be true, and then, submitting yourself to God. I agree there are theists who want to believe. Somehow I dont think arguments will just get it done. I agree with Thomas Nagel, most dont want it to be true. If some atheist could tell me what evidence for God would look like, then we could say whether maybe whether it exists or not.

[@displacegamer1379]

1:16:43 So I've noticed that he justifies his claims with other claims that are unjustified. Now that works great in this debate format because his opponent can't stop the conversation and ask for clarification or justification. So on the viewer's mind he seems as if he's making a justification and is correct in that justification but all he's doing is merely making another claim that is also unjustified. And in this way he's almost tricking the viewer into thinking that he is correct in his position. It's as if I say 1 + 1 = 3 and then I make a claim that three is the correct answer but I never actually explain why 1 + 1 would equal 3. I merely just confirm the claim with another claim.

[@rl7012]

Give examples please

[@brianlynchehaun1963]

​@@rl7012 go to 35:02, where Eric claims that morality is dependent on 5 factors. He doesn't justify that at all, nevermind calling all of that God, nevermind demonstrating that that's the Christian God, nevermind demonstrating that that's Eric's particular Protestant Christian God. There's 4 examples in one point. If you pay attention to what Eric says, it's very, very obvious where he doesn't justify his claims (because.... he doesn't justify them).

[@rl7012]

@@brianlynchehaun1963 Yes he does. He prefaces it with reasoning. What is wrong with his 5 factors? Which of them are unjustified? You write a long paragraph describing how unjustified his claims are, but you have not named one yet.

[@brianlynchehaun1963]

@@rl7012 Oh. You don't understand what "justified" means. Ok. So something is 'justified' when they give a reason for it. For example, you could say "Morality needs an objective basis because......" and the thing that comes after the "because" is the justification. Eric does not give a reason for any of the 5 factors. This means that they are "unjustified". I hope you understand now.

[@rl7012]

​@@brianlynchehaun1963 He addressed this question but didn't spell it out in baby language so I will. Morality needs an objective basis because subjective morality is ultimately self-refuting because there's no justification for universal moral truths to which anyone ought to abide. e.g. Either objective morality exists, or Hitler was right.

[@MrGustavier]

34:26 _"In order for the atheist to assume evil exist, he must first assume two things, one, that an objective moral standard exist..."_ That is obviously false. I don't need to assume that an objective standard about the taste of ice cream exists in order to claim that chocolate ice creams are bad. In general, one doesn't need to assume that a value is objective in order to claim that that value exists...

[@gsp3428]

Right and if Hitler likes chocolate ice cream no one is right or wrong.

[@MrGustavier]

@@gsp3428 *-"Right and if Hitler likes chocolate ice cream no one is right or wrong."* I think you misunderstand. If one doesn't need to assume that a value is objective in order to claim that that value exists. That means that there doesn't need to be any _"objective standard"_ for anyone to emit a value judgment on anything or anyone, in particular about Hitler's choice of ice cream... What that means is PRECISELY that anyone can say that Hitler's choice of ice cream is _"right or wrong"_ even in the absence of any _"objective standard"_ ... Get it ?

[@gsp3428]

@@MrGustavier No that makes no sense, someone cant be wrong about liking chocolate ice cream. You can say whatever you want, but Hitler cant be wrong about liking Chocolate ice cream. Everything is mere opinion, he can just easily say you are wrong about whatever you prefer. Your values are your values and Hitlers values are hitlers values. OF course youre entitled to say whatever you want about Hitler, but it doesnt make you right, thats the point. get it.

[@MrGustavier]

@@gsp3428 *-"Someone cant be wrong about liking chocolate ice cream. You can say whatever you want, but Hitler cant be wrong about liking Chocolate ice cream."* I think you are confusing *"right and wrong"* as moral values, and *"right and wrong"* as alethic values (truth values). So, I'll allow myself to reformulate your sentence : "Someone cant be [morally] wrong about liking chocolate ice cream. You can say whatever you want, but Hitler cant be [morally] wrong about liking Chocolate ice cream." You see ? Yes, obviously, if I think there is something morally wrong about liking chocolate ice cream, then Hitler would be morally wrong about liking chocolate ice cream. *-"Everything is mere opinion, he can just easily say you are wrong about whatever you prefer. Your values are your values and Hitlers values are hitlers values."* Correct... You see ! You get it, so it is indeed *"making sense"* . *-"OF course youre entitled to say whatever you want about Hitler, but it doesnt make you right, thats the point"* *"Right"* in what sense ? Morally right ?

[@chrispaige8880]

LOL! Way to demonstrate that you don't know what objective morality means!

[@gsp3428]

How does Justin ground his moral realism. On one hand he is saying we shouldnt listen to God, because God is just another opinion, why should we listen to anyone then.

[@Justinsweh]

That’s my point, if You think morality is objective, that’s a reason to reject meta ethical views that require particular persons. As for the grounding question, I reject the assumption that one needs such grounding. At least some moral axioms are, it seems to me, necessary and primitive.

[@rl7012]

@@Justinsweh You contradict yourself then.

[@Justinsweh]

@@rl7012 Could you elaborate?

[@rl7012]

​@@Justinsweh Could you elaborate on your moral realism?. What is the difference between objective morality and 'necessary and primitive moral axioms'?

[@rl7012]

@@Justinsweh Please just explain the difference. It is unnecessary to put conditions to an answer. What is the difference between objective morality and 'necessary and primitive moral axioms'?

[@AWalkOnDirt]

Ok I watch it all. The theist fell alert when questioned. When he started YEC is on the table then all was lost from my point of view. Any worldview that allows for YEC is worthless. He also missed the mark on the hell question. Basically when asked questions he did not have goods answers ad was exposed when questioned. The hell a question was a shinning example of his trouble answering basic questions.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

Eric, the moment I saw in your opening argument the problem of determinism from within a naturalistic presupposing worldview, I knew you won the debate. There's no solution that I've ever seen that an atheist has to justify accounting for rationality and that worldview precisely because of the atheist of position is self-refuting. I haven't even finished watching the debate yet and I already know that he's not going to be able to answer that point which undercuts every argument he makes.

[@lukebranch9704]

Emerson was the only one that paid 🤣

[@gsp3428]

Eric should have done more real life examples with respect to moral obligation, was hitler obligated to not kill all the jews and the disabled and the gays. Or is someone obligated to help someone who is drowning. When you use real life examples it puts the atheist in a more difficult spot. Justin is saying we have obligations to abstract ideas, I guess things like love, justice and compassion, but why those values instead of values such as cruelty, hatred or selfishness. Why would we be obligated to one set of values over the other.

[@gsp3428]

Wonder if Cameron will ever get WLC to be one of his debaters for his conferences.

[@gsp3428]

Does anyone else think Justin sounds like John Malkovich

[@melchior2678]

Kind of looks like him too but without facial hair lmao

[@rl7012]

He models himself on Michel Foucault, who is not someone anyone should admire. (as Foucault was a prolific paedophile/child abusing nihilist)

[@rl7012]

@@Justinsweh Don't act innocent. Its not just cos you are bald you have actively copied Foucault's look. Do you support the trans agenda then?

[@gsp3428]

@@Justinsweh Your voice sound eerily similar to John Malkovich. Nothing wrong with that.

[@patrickbarnes9874]

Leibnitz's Law of Identity is playing semantics. It might be useful for an academic exchange between professors, but I think it's extremely weak when used in a public debate. It's on the order of that old paradox, you can't walk 10 feet until you walk 5 feet. You can't walk 5 feet until you walk 2.5 feet. You can't walk 2.5 feet until you walk 1.25 feet. etc. Proving you can't walk. It's just a word game. Yes your thoughts aren't identical to your brain. They are, however, produced by your brain. So the law of identity proves nothing.

[@emkfenboi]

Bruh

[@adamredwine774]

Yes, but Eric has now used this argument for a couple of years and figured out the best way to frame it to impress his audience. I would happily bet that he will not ever give it up. His goal is not to find truth; it is to entertain his audience.

[@stevenrivard9246]

You just don't get it. Vocal chords, a mouth, teeth and toungye are all physical things that can be used to produce words. Someone like you would be like... "Hey, sound is just physical too. It's just the force of energy through a physical medium like air!" (Totally missing the point of the intentional conveyance of meaning being a completely different category than something physical) "These words on the paper are really just blotches of ink." You remind me of the old C.S. Lewis book where the bad guy tries to strip the hero of meaning when it comes to food... The hero takes a drink of milk and talks about the deliciousness of it, but the bad guys says something like... "A cow secreats milk, a cow also secreats _______, so what?" Then the hero eats an egg and talks about the fillingness of it, but the bad guy says something like... "a chicken plops out eggs, a chicken also plops out ______, who cares?" Then comes truth riding on a white horse, to defend... "Shame on you for not knowing what God meant for nutrients, and what God meant for waste." I will end it this way... 1. On judgement day, do you really think you will get away with saying that you didn't see design in things that clearly have a function and purpose like eyes, noses, and ears? 2. On judgement day, do you really think you will get away with saying that conscious minds who have so many subjective experiences arose from inanimate matter, rather than a conscious being that so many people throughout history claimed to have a personal relationship with? 3. On judgement day, do you really think you will get away with saying that you thought morality was merely subjective rather than objective?

[@adamredwine774]

@@stevenrivard9246 >You just don't get it. ditto >Someone like you would be like... "Hey, sound is just physical too. It's just the force of energy through a physical medium like air!" Correct >Totally missing the point... Nope. > On judgement day There is no such thing. > do you really think you will get away with saying that you didn't see design in things that clearly have a function and purpose like eyes, noses, and ears? Do you really not understand how your question merely asserts your worldview? Do you not understand that I fundamentally disagree with your worldview? Do you not see how your question literally makes no sense when asked to me? > do you really think you will get away with saying that conscious minds who have so many subjective experiences arose from inanimate matter That is exactly how the universe appears and I've never yet heard anything like a compelling case to the contrary. > do you really think you will get away with saying that you thought morality was merely subjective rather than objective? Morality is a human construct just like beauty or mathematics. The fact that it is a human construct does not mean that it is not objective.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

That's begging the question against dualism/idealism. We don't know that, and to presuppose we do is asserting your conclusion instead of proving it.

[@أحمدإبراهيم-غ4ه9ط]

1:58:48 that's exactly what we call theistic subjectivism.

[@MrGustavier]

36:47 _"Hence, if there is no god, then there is no teleology to life in the natural world by default. Moreover, teleology implies that there is a way things ought to be, which entails notions of proper function and flourishing, to illustrate, consider how the existence of a bad phone presupposes the existence of teleology, first, a bad phone implies that there is a dysfunction, and a deviation from a proper function, meaning there is something my phone ought to do, but it is not, which entails that there is an objective goal and purpose for which my phone is made. But now two further implications follow from the existence of teleology, namely, that there is a design plan for which all of these notions of teleology must be in alignment with, which of course would imply that there must be a designer, and with respect to the phone, this would be something like android or apple. Now let's apply this to the life in the natural world and consider an objection from to the existence of god on the basis of a child born with a fatal disease, a disease by definition is a disorder of structure or function, hence a disease implies dysfunction which would imply a deviation from the existence of a proper function, which would imply that there is an ought to how the body should be acting, which is what gives rise to the proper function, and which would imply an objective goal, an objective purpose to life, which is where the goal stems from, which would imply a final cause, all of which would imply teleology to life in the natural world. But again, if this is the case, then it infers some type of design plan which would infer a designer, and hence something like god."_ So... Why does teleology need to be _"objective"_ ? A _"proper function"_ can just be the inductive generalization that the observer makes. A _"proper function"_ can just be the expression of the observer's goals and desires, and the purpose that HE has for the object in question. In that case, teleology would be something that is imbued by the observer. In this paragraph, Eric makes the same type of claim twice : At 37:19 : _"which entails that there is an objective goal and purpose for which my phone is made."_ This is incorrect, the _"goal and purpose"_ needs not be _"objective"_ , it can very well be subjective. And at 38:09 _"which would imply an objective goal, an objective purpose to life"_ This is incorrect, the _"goal and purpose to life"_ needs not be _"objective"_ , it can very well be subjective.

[@chrispaige8880]

Please unpack this. If life has merely a subjective purpose, then it wouldn't really be a purpose at all; that is, the purpose would be the observer's not the object's as the object can't form or hold subjective opinions, only observers can (even if they're merely observing themselves).

[@MrGustavier]

​@@chrispaige8880 *-"Please unpack this. If life has merely a subjective purpose, then it wouldn't really be a purpose at all; that is, the purpose would be the observer's not the object's as the object can't form or hold subjective opinions, only observers can (even if they're merely observing themselves)."* It seems you understand it pretty well actually, so I don't know what you need me to unpack. But let me try : Yes, it is possible that all the purpose that humans talk about, be it for other human beings, animals, or inanimate objects like the universe, come from their own minds. Remember, when Francis Bacon develops his new investigative method, he critiques Aristotle and propose to throw the final cause and the formal cause in the dustbin of bad ideas. He explains that science can do without these. The "final cause" is what we are talking about, "teleology", the "purpose", the "goal", the "end". A century later the final and formal causes come back into the philosophy of science in particular through Kant, who explains in his critique of pure reason that forms and telos are transcendental categories, which means, they are not "transcendent", they impose themselves on us, not because they are external to us (transcendent), they impose themselves on us because they are necessary categories of our understanding (transcendental). Yes, purpose is in the observer's eyes, and so is form (if we trust Kant). This is why, going through the 19th century, philosophy suddenly redirected its gaze away from the metaphysics of scholasticism, and turned inward, towards the human mind, and philosophers started to talk about anthropology, archeology, psychology, cognitive science, behaviorism, linguistic, logic etc... And all of that culminated in the works of Darwin, who suggested that forms and telos, are to be found in the evolutive history of the observer... Therefore Eric Hernandez, if all of this is correct, is wrong, and has been wrong for centuries. Teleology needs not be objective.

[@LtDeadeye]

@@MrGustavier Subjective purpose wouldn't be a true representation of reality. If reality is that which, when we stop believing it, doesn't go away, subjective purpose can go away when we stop believing it and therefore not real.

[@MrGustavier]

@@LtDeadeye *-" If reality is that which, when we stop believing it, doesn't go away, subjective purpose can go away when we stop believing it and therefore not real."* ... Yes ... If I say that purpose is subjective, what I am saying is that purpose isn't real... These two statements are slightly different but the overall meaning is the same. It is an "anti-realist" position about teleology, about purpose. *-"Subjective purpose wouldn't be a true representation of reality."* If all purpose are subjective. Then there are no purpose in reality. So *"representing reality"* (if "representation" here isn't taken to mean "mental representation")(non-mental representation)(if that even makes sense) would represent something in which purpose would be nowhere to be found...

[@LtDeadeye]

@@MrGustavier Does that (the idea that purpose isn’t real) comport with your direct first person experience in the world? It would follow that morality, which are teleological in nature, would suffer the same fate.

[@displacegamer1379]

1:53:44 So we don't have obligations to let's say the planet. We can do whatever we want including destroying the planet to a point in which it is inhabitable. Because we don't have an obligation to the planet right. What about to plants. Do we have an obligation to let's say water house plants? They're not sentient. And the question becomes why is sentience important? And why did you move the goal post from humans to sentience? This is the issue with moving the goalpost once someone shows an inconsistency or contradiction in your logic. It just brings up more questions that you didn't think about before you move the goal post.

[@elendil354]

Every single argument from the atheist assumes its conclusion or follows the fomula "I dont understand / like X, therfore X is false".

[@displacegamer1379]

1:12:57 consciousness can be explained through physicalism. The physicalist would just explain it through physical means, meaning that consciousness is merely an emergent property of the physical brain. They would come to this conclusion through observation that it seems as if the only things that possess consciousness are things that also possess brains. And then additionally it also seems that if you manipulate the brain you also seemingly manipulate consciousness. Now it could be true that we don't understand how the brain produces consciousness but it does seem that there is a direct link to brains and consciousness. So the physicalist has an explanation of how consciousness arises even if it doesn't know the exact mechanics of that.

[@rl7012]

There is ZERO evidence that consciousness comes from physicalism. Cite your evidence before making baseless assertions as if they were facts.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

Those are two very weak conditions for believing in physicalism. Also, that's not even an explanation. You're just saying the mind must come from the brain. That's no different from me looking at cloud that produces orange juice and saying that the explanation just is that orange juice must come from clouds.

[@yonnerzmuller5304]

Your ''explanation'' explains nothing at all.

[@vjnt1star]

28:24 start

[@MrGustavier]

39:40 _"Knowledge is at minimum, a justified or warranted true belief"_ Does god have knowledge ? How does god _"justifies or warrants"_ his _"beliefs"_ ? Does he need to investigate the world ? Are all god's justifications introspective ? How does Eric define _"truth"_ ? Is it what corresponds to reality ? But what is reality for god ? Isn't all of reality god's creation ? So what is true is what corresponds to what god decided to create ? Is god's knowledge : an introspectively justified belief about what he decided to create ?

[@DarwinsGreatestHits]

"Isn’t it just obvious that true beliefs will facilitate adaptive action? A gazelle who mistakenly believes that lions are friendly, overgrown house cats won’t be long for this world. The same goes for a rock climber who believes that jumping from a two-hundred-foot cliff will result in a pleasant and leisurely trip down with a soft landing. Isn’t it obvious both that true beliefs are much more likely to be adaptive than false beliefs? Isn’t it obvious, more generally, that true beliefs are more likely to be successful than false beliefs?"

[@rl7012]

The fossil record shows that all major animal types came into being abruptly, fully formed, and with no pre-cursors.

[@rl7012]

@@tex959 ‘Most of the animal groups that are represented in the fossil record first appear, “fully formed” and identifiable as to their phylum, in the Cambrian, some 550 million years ago. These include such anatomically complex and distinctive types as trilobites, echinoderms, brachiopods, molluscs, and chordates. … The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla…’ R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow and P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pp. 9-10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001).

[@rl7012]

@@tex959 Circular reasoning. Beliefs alone do not ensure survival or longevity. Animals being scared of other animals, like deer being scared of wolf packs, is instinctual, not about beliefs. 'We should agree that people with higher degrees of knowledge are more likely to outlive those with a high degree of ignorance....' is complete and utter nonsense. It could be easily argued that many of the Jews who the Nazi's killed, had far more knowledge and education and wisdom than the Nazi guards did.

[@MrGustavier]

41:05 _"In other words, if our beliefs and behaviors play any role in this evolutionary process, then natural selection is going to select for beliefs that produce adaptive behavior and grant survival value, consequently this would mean that natural selection wouldn't care whether or not your beliefs are true, but merely that your beliefs help you to adapt and survive."_ Here, Eric presupposes that truth is something different than adaptability. But consider the following : E1 - Truth is simply a language category that designates some value in the alethic domain. E2 - The alethic domain itself is a product of the brain, E3 - Everything produced by the brain inherits the brain's axiological relevance (its adaptability relevance). CE - Therefore truth is "adaptability relevant". In other words nothing that is about truth can fail to be about adaptability at some level of analysis. Of course the theist can reject E2, since it would make truth a subjective matter. However this is a defeater for his argument.

[@chrispaige8880]

Huh? Please unpack this argument - are you actually advocating this position or merely claiming it's a counter argument?

[@MrGustavier]

@@chrispaige8880 I am advocating this position here. Which part do you need unpacked ?

[@MrGustavier]

@@chrispaige8880 Let me see if I can reformulate it in a simpler manner. P1 - Truth is a value P2 - Values are in the brain P3 - The brain is the product of evolution by natural selection P4 - Everything the brain produces is selected, and therefore relevant for its adaptability. C - Therefore truth is adaptability relevant. Is that better ?

[@405servererror]

The problem is, as you said: you make truth a subjective matter. And subjective truth is self defeating. Is the claim that truth is subjective, an objective statement about truth?

[@chrispaige8880]

@@MrGustavier Thanks for the clarification.

[@MrGustavier]

2:23:52 _"All existence is subjective"_ Wouldn't that be panentheism ?

[@melchior2678]

lol NO

[@MrGustavier]

@@melchior2678 Have you listened to the time stamp ?

[@displacegamer1379]

@@MrGustavier While panentheism is more or less a form of German idealism.

[@melchior2678]

@@MrGustavier lol YES

[@أحمدإبراهيم-غ4ه9ط]

What does Justin think of the Islamic solution to Euthyphro dilemma?

[@loryugan6574]

What is the Islamic solution to the euthyphro dilemma, and which version does it address?

[@chad969]

What’s the Islamic solution?

[@displacegamer1379]

2:17:17 Eric gave a good explanation for why you should not believe in the Christian God. Bravo for him. A tri-Omni God is not rational.

[@MrGustavier]

The whole part about "obligation" is painful. Moral discourse doesn't only talk about "obligation". Being "obligated to" is an expression that does indeed talk about relations between individuals, think about the expression "much obliged" or the portuguese word for "thank you" : "obrigado" or french "je suis votre obligé" which would be something like, "I am at your service", or "I am your subordinate". But if I am "obligated towards agent A to do follow moral rule R", then what is R ? Eric keep asking about obligations but in metaethics the word used would be "prescriptions".

[@MrGustavier]

1:59:46 _"If you're ok to use reasons"_ Sure, but he says earlier that _"if god is perfect and it's good to love perfect things then we should..."_ (1:59:32), does that _"reason"_ come from god ?

[@displacegamer1379]

1:57:47 He's digging himself into a big hole there. By saying that morality is necessary. And saying that it is essentially unchanging. And grounded in God which is also an unchanging being. You're saying that morality is an unchanging necessary thing. Seeing that God can only perform moral actions, any actions that God does is moral. And since morals are objective. Meaning they are always the same at all times for everything, if a human does the same thing that God did it is a moral action. So if a human sends beasts to kill children for insulting them then that's a moral action. Because that's what God did.

[@peterxuereb9884]

Does the nature of protestantism make God a liar???

[@chrispaige8880]

Why does God have to be good? What's good (other than a physical process in human minds)? Why does God have to trigger that process? Again, this whole argument is nonsense unless & until you define good/evil. Why is vegetarian option morally superior to meat? You can't assume this stuff; you have to explain the argument.

[@rl7012]

God IS good. That is what good is. We can't always know what is the good or the bad thing in any given situation, but we do know the source of Good. God is Good therefore what God does is good even if we can't see it as good from our current perspective.

[@antiantiantitheist]

@Eric Hernandez is arguing against a straw man in both of his opening statements. Does he not realize that the problem of evil is an internal critique? Atheists do not need to assume the existence of Evil or any other products of the Christian worldview to show that the Christian worldview doesn't work. Arguments about the problem of evil almost always starts with "IF God exists and is perfect and omnipotent...". That doesn't assume that he DOES exist.

[@chrispaige8880]

Naturalism doesn't explain distribution of monotheism - if monotheism is a "useful" idea, why wasn't it equally useful pretty much everywhere? Why would paganism work better in Thailand than monotheism? Again, you're mixing your ideas here - ideas are just physical processes that we stumbled upon by chance & kept because they were useful, so - actually - pretty much every culture should have similar ideas (unless you can explain why monotheism works well for Europeans & Arabs, but poorly for Africans & SE Asians). I mean what are you saying, rice farming requires paganism while cattle herding requires monotheism? Why? How?

[@MrGustavier]

*-"unless you can explain why monotheism works well for Europeans & Arabs, but poorly for Africans & SE Asians"* Interesting question. Ok, let me try an answer : Animism, shamanism and polytheism do indeed work "poorer" than monotheism, which is why *"Africans & SE Asians"* are not the richest nations on earth.

[@Nexus-jg7ev]

For monotheism, read Karen Armstrong's History of God

[@displacegamer1379]

1:13:21 I think that that is a misapplication of the quote. I think a more fairer understanding of that quote is that the universe as an entity does not have design, purpose, or good and evil values. Because the universe is not a subject unto itself. But humans having the ability to think abstractly, do have good and evil value propositions.

[@rl7012]

' I think a more fairer understanding of that quote is that the universe as an entity does not have design, purpose, or good and evil values. ' That is your OPINION only. You make bold assertions as if they were facts. This is very arrogant. Also nobody said the universe is a subject unto itself. You are muddying the water and deliberately gaslighting the comments. You are misdirecting and deliberately miscontruing. One can only assume you are a trans activist in your spare time.

[@displacegamer1379]

@@rl7012 I think that you're misreading what is actually being said in applying malice where no malice's intended. I do agree it was my opinion and this is evidenced by me using the phrasing "I think" . The "I think" part indicates this is a thought that I'm having and not a fact of the matter. The part where I was talking about the universe not being a subject was an extension of the previous statement and I made it as a way of better explaining what I was trying to say. So again it seems to me that you're being in bad faith in how you are interpreting my words or you're just failing to track the thought process that I'm having.

[@rl7012]

@@displacegamer1379 Its not bad faith it is just you have posted dozens of comments, make many straw man points, many baseless assertions, many misrepresentations and now you act the innocent victim? Lol... 'The part where I was talking about the universe not being a subject was an extension of the previous statement and I made it as a way of better explaining what I was trying to say' Its not really an extension, you just crowbar in irrelevant stuff as if it follows naturally when it does not. You are a very good misrepresenter and gaslighter and straw man giver. You have a clear agenda and I notice you do not deny the trans activism.

[@mkl2237]

New huge fan of BOTH of these guys. Great discovery and the dialogue was great. To a non-philosopher, a simple take (as a theist and sliver in Jesus) is that A) Justin did not refute Eric’s arguments B) naturalism hasn’t been proven, let alone based on animal suffering, hostility of the universe, nor hiddenness of God … nor can materialism account for the many other things it must… origin of life, origin of biologic information and coding systems, all that is involved in teleologic aspects of our existence from the microscope to the telescope, nor of morals nor non-material realities of logic, reason, math, art, and the like. The answer that materialism is simpler so it must be true… fails. It isn’t simpler when it require various (and often competing) explanations to account for all components of reality we see. There’s is a constant presumption on the part of Justin and our materialist brothers that they can, indeed, know the mind of God … and they use this an a core framework by which they interpret their world materialistically. They often also presume moral superiority to God. If Justin could combine a few simple authors he would have more than ample rebuttal (and Eric does such summaries masterfully): Hugh Ross for discussion of purpose and the findings of teleology at all levels, as well as in-depth discussion of the laws of nature…… CS Lewis for common sense as a former atheist…. JP Moreland as a great summary for the soul/consciousness… Gary Habermas for discussion of the resurrection… the list could go on but these basics would go far. But really… it isn’t primarily an intellectual issue for most people… it’s personal and emotional and authority blockers (mostly… not exclusively… but mostly) For me the biggest point of Justin that I have ti wrestle with is the hiddenness of God (which Barbara on this site always points out with laser focus)… for me it isn’t that He’s totally hidden, but I do wrestle with the degree of overt demonstration at times. That is, until I realize that in fact there’s abundant evidence for Him on all levels and that He actually has finely tuned the amount He has revealed Himself so that He allows us to come to our own conclusion. He doesn’t force himself or leave us compelled .. we have to do our own homework. It’s as finely tuned as the universe and biological systems are… Anyhow the discussion was great And I loved Justin and will follow both these guys for what they have to say going forward. God bless both of them.

[@Justinsweh]

I explicitly reject materialism and physicalism several times in this debate. However, I am glad you enjoyed it.

[@mkl2237]

@@Justinsweh thx … yeah the nuances of atheists who say they aren’t materialists is still hard for me to grasp, frankly. Maybe I can watch more of your videos to see what all that would entail

[@brianlynchehaun1963]

"A) Justin did not refute Eric’s arguments " You need to rewatch the conversation from 1:48:05. Justin points out that Eric is using "objective" in an entirely bizarre way (to refer to the views of a Subject, ie God). This directly refutes Erics opening argument about Evil being dependent on the existence of God. As several of Eric's arguments depend on the definition of morality (which he claims depends on the existence of God), Justin's pushback here undermines *all of them*.

[@mkl2237]

@@brianlynchehaun1963 Maybe I faded by that point. Ok. Will revisit and see what got said 2 hour videos get long

[@mkl2237]

@@brianlynchehaun1963 nope. Still disagree with you anyhow. Doesn’t succeed

[@sandorrabe5745]

1:20:10 Paul was no atheist.

[@displacegamer1379]

36:50 it's probably not a good idea to bring up causality when talking about God. From the viewpoint of God there is no material cause for creation. So if we're going to talk about causality there's actually no material cause to the way God created. So if we're going to follow the laws of causation God actually didn't create anything.

[@rl7012]

We have to discount your 'reasoning' as you are using consciousness, something immaterial, to use something physical, your brain, to come to an immaterial 'reasoning', when ultimately reason holds no meaning for the materialist as everything is determined anyway. So why are you even bothering trying to argue your irrational points when none of it matters and everything is deterministic to you?

[@displacegamer1379]

​@@rl7012 your presupposing the consciousness is immaterial. I'm a physicalist. I hold it consciousness is physical.

[@displacegamer1379]

​@@rl7012 also your comment didn't have anything to do with my comments. So I don't know why you even said it.

[@displacegamer1379]

1:59:37 Eric likes to just put out these bold claims. He made two claims there. He made a claim that God's perfect and he made a claim that we love perfect things. First I don't know how he came to the claim that we love perfect things or that we would want to love perfect things. And second I don't know how he came to the conclusion that God's perfect seeing that if God was perfect then he would not have created. Really if God was perfect he wouldn't have done anything. He keeps doing this, making these bold claims and doesn't actually back them up with anything. He just states them as if they're given facts.

[@SpicyCurrey]

Perfect false dichotomy right off the bat by Eric. Imagine that both Eric and Justin's views are incoherent and contain contradictions. Eric points out the contradiction in Justin's view, and claims victory because of the dichotomy. Then Justin points out the contradiction in Eric's view, and claims victory because of the dichotomy. The syllogism leads to contradictory (false) claims, because there is no truth in the premises to be preserved. The original dichotomy did not contain any truth for the syllogism to preserve, so it doesn't. The conclusions Eric is trying to make off of this initial dichotomy are poisonous as nobody accepts this dichotomy. Justin is not representative of all atheist worldviews. Eric is not representative of all Christian OR theistic worldviews. Putting a dichotomy here is unjustified.

[@Justinsweh]

Thank you for your comment though I want to make a few clarifications. Recall at the end of my opening, I stated that, given that the evidence I provided for N is stronger than the evidence Eric provided for T and that N is simpler than T, we should accept N over T, all else being equal. That last bit is important. I was not claiming an all things considered victory for N. I was making a very modest claim - I was claiming that, if we artificially limit ourselves to the arguments raised in this debate, we should prefer N over T. As for your other point, you are certainly correct. Eric's particular take on Christianity is not the only way to be a theist and my naturalism is not the only way to be an atheist. That said, we've got to identify theories in order to compare them. If somebody concluded that N was true on the basis of the small number of arguments presented in the debate, they did not do so at my recommendation. That move is far too quick and completely disregards the principle of total evidence.

[@SpicyCurrey]

@@Justinsweh Hi Justin, was not expecting a response from you so I appreciate the engagement. This post was only a criticism of Eric's use of a dichotomy in what I consider to be a dishonest move. He made it seem like he is rational to conclude God exists if he spotted a contradiction in your view because he set up a false dichotomy to implement an either or fallacy. The audience was misled right off the bat to think that if your view was wrong, his HAD to be right. I wasn't trying to represent your claim in any way (especially because I hadn't heard it at that point).

[@Justinsweh]

@@SpicyCurrey I don't recall Eric's wording so I cannot judge whether your criticism is correct. It may well be. I just wanted to point out that I was appropriately careful with how I scripted my opening. Thanks for watching.

[@josephcadieux715]

Let's be clear about the true meaning of the word... the Hebrew word for soul has nothing to do with something that exists inside of a person...if one looks at the scriptures, one will see that a living breathing creature is a soul, a living soul if that creature still had the breath of life...when you read genesis we see that God did NOT put into Adam a soul, but rather that Adam became a LIVING SOUL as a result of God breathing into Adam the breath of life, but before that, Adam was a DEAD SOUL...so we can now read the genesis account this way: and Adam became a living soul, living creature, living man, living person, living animal, living being etc...there is no such thing as a soul inside the human body. Some also will use the word spirit to try and justify another application...but again the word spirit is only applies the word spirit to point to a fallen angel or an angel of God... beside that the word spirit is used to express feelings, thoughts, attitude, etc...but never points to a creature or being inside a human... please do your study diligently and prayerfully looking carefully at the words and it's meanings or else you will fall into deceptions like most who don't really study, and with those that study poorly thinking that they have reached the truth...only God can convict an honest person about truth if that person is humble before God and ready and willing to accept truth, and since God is the revealer of truth, He will reveal truth to only those He sees are willing to accept it...

[@displacegamer1379]

34:19 So the first premise is yet to be proved. It'll have to explain how evil would not exist.

[@LtDeadeye]

Evil is the privation of good (similar to the way darkness is the privation of light). Evil doesn't succeed at being evil in the same way good succeeds at being good.

[@displacegamer1379]

@@LtDeadeye Cool Story. Not seeing how this relates to my comment.

[@LtDeadeye]

@@displacegamer1379 What is evil?

[@displacegamer1379]

@@LtDeadeye I guess it depends on the worldview of the person. For a Christain, evil is anything that don't not conform to the will or desires of God. Now, I am guessing you are asking for my personal definition of the word evil. Evil as a broad concept is merely a state of affairs that I find undesirable.

[@chad969]

@@LtDeadeye If evil is a privation of Good, then to say that action A is more evil than action B would just mean that action B is more good than action A, correct?

[@chrispaige8880]

Why would the death of anything constitute "evil" in naturalism? Huh?

[@melchior2678]

Excellent question. According to so-called "atheists/naturalists" we're all just clumps of cells anyway - death is meaningless.

[@JohnCamacho]

"If souls exist then God exists". No, sorry, it's not conclusive that if there are immaterial life forms, that there is a thinking being that created everything.

[@grnblh5969]

So rather than try to prove God exists, seems like he’s just saying since you believe consciousness exists I don’t get why you can’t take it a step further and just believe God….

[@GabrielCasanova-zy7yo]

Eric is grasping at straws here. Wow he uses anything.

[@displacegamer1379]

1:42:42 The atheist should then respond well why don't you become an islamist? Just because he believes that doesn't automatically mean Christianity. There's plenty of religions that could have that foundation.

[@MrGustavier]

45:32 _"My thoughts can be true or false, but no region of my brain is true or false"_ That seems to beg the question of physicalism.

[@rl7012]

How so?

[@amoswollen3860]

Pointing out an implausible implication of a view doesn’t beg the question against that view.

[@MrGustavier]

@@rl7012 *-"How so?"* It is precisely the position defended by physicalism, that _"regions of the brain can be true or false"_ ...

[@MrGustavier]

@@amoswollen3860 *-"Pointing out an implausible implication of a view doesn’t beg the question against that view."* That is correct, but it is not what Eric is doing. Eric is not saying : "thinking that a region of my brain can be true or false is implausible" What Eric is doing, is making an assertion that directly contradicts physicalism... However, physicalism is precisely what Eric wants to refute in his conclusion... (45:54)

[@rl7012]

@@MrGustavier You didn't answer the question. Repetition of what you wrote earlier which prompted the question is not an answer. So how does it beg the question?

[@MrGustavier]

45:59 _"Free will : being the first mover of one's will or actions"_ I thought that for theists, only god could be a first mover ?

[@MrGustavier]

@@tafazzi-on-discord Theists often say that god is the ground of all things. Is god the ground of free choices ? Are free choices free from god ?

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@MrGustavier I think you’re using the word “ground” in a very unorthodox way.

[@MrGustavier]

@@tafazzi-on-discord Ok, so god created physical things. And among/in these things there is *"movement"/change* . And some (all ?) of this change is due to free choices, or *"actions"* , which are uncaused, but are not "prime movers", because the term "prime mover" only refers to that which doesn't *"act on preexisting things"* . So the physical world is full of uncaused actions, and they are dependent, or "grounded" in god in that these actions rearrange *"preexisting energy and things"* Good so far ?

[@MrGustavier]

@@TheOtherCaleb *-"I think you’re using the word “ground” in a very unorthodox way."* Yeah I think that's possible. But I think my interlocutor responded appropriately.

[@MrGustavier]

@@tafazzi-on-discord *-"only some of the change is due to choices of creatutes."* Ok, and what about the other changes ? *-"And I wouldn't say "uncaused", choices are caused non deterministically by free wills."* Ok. So the prime mover who created physical things from nothing, did it because of a choice ? Creation was caused deterministically by free will ? *-"They are however prime movers of the actions"* Mmmm. Earlier you said *"An action uses preexisting energy and orders it to a movement, the first mover doesn't act on preexisting things"* That seems to mean that a *"first mover"* cannot make *"actions"* ? Do you differentiate *"prime mover"* and *"first mover"* ?

[@displacegamer1379]

1:56:03 I think the conversation would have been more productive if we would have replaced the word obligation with desires. Obligations are really just strong desires. I think the disconnect is happening with that word and so replacing it with desires I think would have progressed the conversation in a more productive way.

[@LtDeadeye]

Obligations aren't desires. Obligations exist between agents. Without agents, prescriptions and commands wouldn't exist. One cannot be obliged by anything non personal.

[@displacegamer1379]

@@LtDeadeye These are some cool claims. I am quite sure there are many who would say there can be "obligations to oneself" and have lots to say on "Self-Other Symmetry". There is also a growing list of people who do not agree with the 'Paradox of Self-Release'.

[@displacegamer1379]

35:46 again he's using the objective word in a non-standard usage. So when he says objective he's not actually saying objective he's saying subjective it's just subject to the nature of God. Or the mind of God. Most philosophers when they hear the word objective they would think stance independence. So this would be a proposition that is independence of a stance. The way he's describing objective morality is not stance independence. Because it's dependent on the stance of God. So he's not actually talking about objective morality, or moreover he's redefining what it means to be objective.

[@chrispaige8880]

So now Justin's arguing, "God didn't create things the way I think he should have created things, so he doesn't exist"? What? Why does God have to make living rocks or other non-biological life forms? Huh? Literally, he's saying God shouldn't have made carnivores - what? Folks, how is this an argument? Honestly, I can't follow his argument at all - none of these premises are anything other than assumptions w/o any reasonable foundation. Might as well argue that God could have made the moon out of cheese, he didn't, therefore he doesn't exist. These arguments only work if you can prove God should have done this stuff, but you can't because the whole concept (death is evil) isn't actually a concept in naturalism (as there's no good or evil as both are ideas & ideas aren't natural things, but we've assumed there are only natural things, so we're tripping over ourselves). I mean let's put his arguments together: evil is a physical process in the human mind; animal suffering triggers that physical process in the human mind; God shouldn't have done anything that triggered that physical process in the human mind; he apparently did; therefore, he doesn't exist. I mean, wow, just silly.

[@rl7012]

His arguments are like those of the trans activists. Non sensical, appear to answer questions but do not, and delivered with authority but are made of fluff. Satanists have the same arguments too.

[@blamtasticful]

So God could not have made a world where carnivores didn't exist? Isn't that what heaven is supposed to be? Either God as a hypothesis provides good predictions of the world that we can compare to the actual world, or God as a hypothesis has no explanatory power and thus, we would have no reason to expect this world on the God hypothesis over the chance hypothesis. Positing that God would likely do x is the only way that cosmological and fine-tuning arguments can even get off the ground to begin with.

[@rl7012]

@@blamtasticful Rubbish. So because you don't believe in God therefore fine-tuning doesn't exist??? 🤣🤣🤣

[@rl7012]

@@blamtasticful 'Positing that God would likely do x is the only way that cosmological and fine-tuning arguments can even get off the ground to begin with.' Seriously that is the worst argument I have ever read. Man can't even accurately predict the weather two weeks ahead. Man can't even predict the stock exchange one day ahead. Yet we know the variables of the stock exchange and most of the variables of weather. But you say that because God didn't invent a vegan world and then come down and make a prediction, then you will dismiss the cosmological argument and the fine tuning argument. That is atheist 'logic' for you. 😂🙂

[@chrispaige8880]

@@blamtasticful Not the argument at all - read it again; you've clearly misunderstood.

[@chrispaige8880]

I don't believe ergo he doesn't exist? First, you're assuming that you're sincere. (I can falsely claim that Idaho doesn't exist, but that doesn't make Idaho disappear.) Second, you're assuming that you're rational. (Crazy or stupid people might ACTUALLY doubt Idaho exists, but that doesn't make Idaho disappear). Third, you're assuming that you're reasonable. (Maybe there is sufficient proof, but you - like the jurors in OJ's murder trial - demand more proof than you should.). Again, Justin's entire argument is God doesn't do what I want him to do, so he doesn't exist. Wow - just really wow! If God gave you undeniable proof of his existence, would you admit he existed? Or would you, like Dawkins, just assume some alien was playing a trick on you? Why should I believe that you're competent or honest enough to make such claims? And if God gave you undeniable proof of his existence, how could you CHOOSE to believe or disbelieve? Free will requires doubt.

[@chrispaige8880]

Wait? You concede that a person might "resist" God & thus be responsible....so how do I know you aren't resisting? I mean you've just conceded my point above - ugh! This is a mess.

[@chrispaige8880]

"Many close friends of mine have lost their faith against their will" - well, if your friends say so, who am I to disagree w/ your friends? Literally, the weirdest appeal to authority fallacy that I've ever heard. I guess this will need to be renamed the appeal to anonymous friends who may or may not exist fallacy. Ugh!

[@chrispaige8880]

Q: Why did you lose your faith? A: I wanted to divorce/come out of the closet/insert any immoral act, but I was NOT resisting God! (How do we know that his friends were non-resistant? He asserts it, that's how). Please - that's an argument?

[@Justinsweh]

@@chrispaige8880 Please revisit the presentation. Of course some may be resistant - the argument takes that into consideration. That's why it speaks specifically of the non-resistant among them.

[@Justinsweh]

@@chrispaige8880 It was an anecdote to fill out the picture. The general point is that there are some people who fail to believe but that the failure is not due to resistance. For example, those who have never heard of the idea or those who want to believe but cannot bring themselves to.

[@chrispaige8880]

Distribution of unbelief is evidence contrary to God? Why? How? Again, you're just claiming God didn't do what you wanted him to do, so he doesn't exist. According to Christians, God appointed Jews to spread the word; they failed. So he appointed Christians, and they're failing. But, for some reason, he had to speak to everybody all at once? Or he had to send different messengers all over the world for reasons?

[@MrGustavier]

*-"you're just claiming God didn't do what you wanted him to do, so he doesn't exist."* A lot of arguments for theism use comparative predictive power of worldviews. A good example of that is the fine tuning argument. What we do is we take a theory, and we try to predict what we should observe based on this theory. Of course by doing that, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make predictions that are not biased by all other beliefs held by the person. However, what you seem to imply here (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that using comparative analysis of predictive power of world views is not a good method to begin with ? If you think that, then a big part of apologetics should be thrown down the drain. All and every teleological arguments for example, as the one used by Eric in this debate.

[@Justinsweh]

This argument builds on the prior argument. Please revisit the presentation for the full outline of the argument.

[@chrispaige8880]

@@Justinsweh Respectfully,. I don't think you're getting the point. The counter-argument to your hypothesis is that all "resistance" is insincere, irrational etc precisely because God's nature is obvious.

[@chrispaige8880]

@@Justinsweh So why is the universe vast but little life? To show God's power, to rebut claims life is accidental.

[@chrispaige8880]

@@Justinsweh Why is there "natural" evil? To show God's power, to show our need for a savior, to demonstrate the consequences of rebellion etc.

[@rl7012]

2.21 The man asking the question about how Justin explains love and justice in his world view and once again Justin completely ignores the essence of the question and rearranges the question to how he wants to answer it. So he does not answer the question, but says 'love and justice are relational properties' and everyone accepts this. But this is no answer. Saying that love and justice are relational properties in no way answers the question of where satanists, oops I mean, atheists like Justin ground their non materialist values in. Love and justice cannot be empirically measured and therefore according to Justin's world view, cannot exist. But he weasels out of all the hard questions, changes the question to suit himself, and then gives a non answer as if it were an answer. Eric should have pushed back on this and other non answers that slippery Justin gave.

[@Justinsweh]

"satanists, oops I mean, atheists like Justin" Keep it classy, RL.

[@chad969]

@@Justinsweh Hey Justin, is it true that according to your worldview, if something can’t be empirically measured then it can’t exist?

[@rl7012]

@@Justinsweh So you don't believe in Satan? Did you know what you profess to believe is exactly the same as what satanists profess to believe? Some of. them even claim Satan doesn't exist and yet they still hail him. What say you on this? Are you a Satanist? Also what do you ground your morality in? What do you ground love and justice in? Everything must be subjective to you which makes everything meaningless.

[@Justinsweh]

@@chad969 Nope. Was there something in the debate that suggested this was true of me? I cannot imagine what you'd be referring to.

[@Justinsweh]

@@rl7012 Insofar as I understand actual Satanists, they don't believe in Satan as a real entity. They see value in aspects of the fictional character of Satan like willingness to challenge authority, bravery etc. As for morality, I think there are necessarily existing moral axioms.

[@displacegamer1379]

1:10:31 The reason why Occam's razor doesn't work in favor of theism is because theism includes the extra step of God. So all things being equal theism has an additional step that naturalism doesn't. This means that Occam's razor would favor naturalism as an explanation over theism.

[@rl7012]

So everything came from nothing or an infinite regress? If not where did it come from o know all atheist?

[@SkilledTadpole]

​@@rl7012 so God came from nothing? If not, where did he come from o know all theist?

[@rl7012]

@@SkilledTadpole Answer my question first please

[@SkilledTadpole]

@@rl7012 "I don't know what state of energy led to the emergence of our universe at the time of the big bang, only that our understanding of the properties of energy and time is incomplete at the densities present during that period." Now please go on to explain how some immeasurable extra-dimensional being outside of spacetime caused those conditions instead and is free of material limitations.

[@rl7012]

@@SkilledTadpole So you assume energy and universals laws existed before the Big Bang? Where did they come from then? How does mindless energy create matter and time and such order?

[@sanjeevgig8918]

Apologists: "Objective Truth and Objective Morality exists! It doesn't change according to someone's whims! Just like God says!" So SLAVERY is perfectly alright then, like the bible says in Leviticus 25:44 ? Same Apologist: "No, no, God changed his mind on that one." LOL

[@anotherway6427]

No he didn’t he just dictated who got better and worse treatment

[@sanjeevgig8918]

@@anotherway6427 TYPICAL. SLAVERY. APOLOGIST. lol

[@dtphenom]

Nice strawman

[@sanjeevgig8918]

@@dtphenom Leviticus 25:44-46 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. == Exodus 21:20-21 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. == Your god didn't want his chosen people to make SLAVES of other chosen people. BUT he allowed his own chosen people to OWN OTHER PEOPLE as slaves and allowed BEATING THEM to NEAR DEATH as slaves and passing them to future generation as SLAVES. YOU are a typical immoral Xtian who thinks this is just "nice strawman" LOL

[@anotherway6427]

@@dtphenom what do you mean strawman he's right. or are you talking to me? I was being sarcastic, personally, I am wondering if God is truly good because he is Morally good or just what he does is good because he is God.

[@chrispaige8880]

Naturalism (as defined by Justin) is self-refuting because thoughts are non-natural OR they are (even in theory) indistinguishable from brain injuries/drugs that cause the same physical reactions. If we adopt the latter, then we can't know anything about anything as literally all of our thoughts/perceptions/memories may simply be brain injuries. Thus, we're kind of forced into thinking there are at least 2 sorts of things - natural things & thoughts, but naturalism only allows for 1 kind of thing. Oops! Again & again we see atheism's basic flaw: its epistemology requires either special pleading OR the conclusion that nothing is or can be known.

[@Justinsweh]

Tell me you didn't watch the debate without telling me you didn't watch the debate.

[@rl7012]

Lower down the comments I asked if Justin was a Satanist since he echoed so many of their views and his reply was: '@R L Insofar as I understand actual Satanists, they don't believe in Satan as a real entity. They see value in aspects of the fictional character of Satan like willingness to challenge authority, bravery etc.' So the man attacking theism is the same man that calls Satan 'brave'.

[@betsalprince]

Him telling you how Satanists view the fictional character of Satan is clearly not the same thing as him affirming Satan's existence and calling it brave. You misrepresent him a lot in the comment section and it's intellectually dishonest.

[@rl7012]

@@betsalprince I didn't say that he affirmed Satan's actual existence. Read what I wrote again.

[@betsalprince]

​@@rl7012 I didn't say that you said Justin affirmed Satan's existence. You said that Justin calls Satan "brave", when he was clearly telling you how Satanists view the fictional character of Satan as "brave". That's the intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about.

[@rl7012]

@@betsalprince He did call Satan brave. I put the whole quote up there and it is you who is being intellectually dishonest. Now go away. Your defence of this guy is ridiculous.

[@iggle6448]

Hors d'oeuvres ?

[@JohnCamacho]

If the God that Eric worships exist, then that God would know how often Eric has been dodging questions in this debate.

[@gsp3428]

Seems like Justin sees God as just another guy, like its his opinion vs God's opinion.

[@Justinsweh]

Not true. If God exists, he is far from 'just another guy'. Also, God wouldn't have a gender, that's silly.

[@rl7012]

@@Justinsweh You refer to God as a person.

[@blamtasticful]

​@@rl7012 And?

[@blamtasticful]

Well GSP, what facts about external reality are informing God's opinion such that he knows what is true about what is right and what is wrong? If it's literally only informed by his internal views on the matter then it is literally just his opinion. It isn’t that he is recognizing that murder is wrong; it is that his internal view is that murder is wrong and that this somehow makes murder wrong. I don't see how it makes sense to say that mere opinion makes something right or wrong. It seems that things are right and wrong regardless of opinion.

[@gsp3428]

@@blamtasticful well what makes something right or wrong then? Are you a moral platonist?

[@XxN8iVeSc0uTxX]

Hints which hints microwave hints which l😂 ya bored me bro wish ya had a better argument I do believe in god but your argument was confusing with all these nuances of scientific words 😂

[@chrispaige8880]

Love the attempt to flip fine tuning argument - very clever, but I have no idea WHY you think God should have made the universe favorable towards life. Again, your whole argument is God didn't do it the way I would have done it, so he can't exist. Like why do your preferences matter? Might as well say "God would have made the Red Sox win the WS last year; they didn't, so he doesn't exist."

[@chrispaige8880]

Dude, you have literally no explanation for why God should have done what you claim he should have done - he's not some profit-maximizer or cost-minimizer; why shouldn't he build the universe so that only a tiny portion permits life? Because he should do what you would have done? Please.

[@melchior2678]

@@chrispaige8880 I really like the analogies you use. Great points! I think the reason that secularists tend to argue this way (it's not only Justin) is due to their egocentricity. They're generally speaking very self-centered.

[@rl7012]

@@melchior2678 Give Chris Paige comments a thumbs up click then, so people can see at a glance how many people agree with his points.

[@melchior2678]

@@rl7012 the amount of people that agree with his points is kind of irrelevant (ad populum fallacy) But if I like a comment I tend to upvote it, even if I don't necessarily agree with every point made in the comment.

[@rl7012]

@@melchior2678 It is not irrelevant. It all counts in the KZbin stats and it helps others assess at a glance if the comment might be worth reading. KZbin sort comments by Best and Most Recent. Your comment back to him praised his points. You praised the analogies he used, but despite that apparently you didn't like his comment so you didn't upvote it. ( Even though you say you will upvote some comments despite them having some points you may not agree with.) Yeah that makes sense. Not.

[@displacegamer1379]

34:41 much like his first premise his first assumption is also faulty and has yet to been proved. Why would you need a objective moral standard rather than a subjective moral standard? To say you would need an objective moral standard is to say that evil is objectively evil. But one could easily make the case that evil is a subjective thing. Whereas I can see one thing as evil but another person would subjectively from their perspective not see that same thing as evil. So what he's going to have to do is build a case for an objective evil states. Meaning there is a set of conditions that make something objectively evil for all people who view that act.

[@loryugan6574]

Well both interlocutors agree there are objective moral values so I’m not sure your points make much sense given that context. Eric is arguing with a fellow moral realist, not a moral anti-realist. However, I think you could be right that one could make the case for subjectivism regarding evil and work from there. Here’s one possible reason to think there are objective moral values. It seems to be the case that there are ways we ought and ought not behave (appealing to moral intuition). For example, we ought to promote the flourishing and well being of other agents. We ought not cause unnecessary harm to other agents. These statements can be either true or false (or indeterminate), and they seem more likely true than false on the moral realist position. Now, why ought we promote the well being and flourishing of other agents (conversely why ought we not cause unnecessary harm to other agents.)? The way both Eric and Justin would answer this is that there is something to our experience of reality that gives us reason(s) to act one way and not another. For Eric, that experience is his experience of the Christian god. For Justin, that experience is his experience of well being, flourishing, and unnecessary harm. For Eric, god gives him the reason(s) to do one thing over another. For Justin, well being, flourishing, and unnecessary harm give him the reason(s) to do one thing over another. It’s all in where you stop the train and get off for both of them. One gets off at the stop designated as “flourishing, well being, and unnecessary harm” while the other gets off at the next stop designated as “fundamental reality (what theists call god).” Does that make sense?

[@displacegamer1379]

@@loryugan6574 this reply is merely a reply to the understanding of the stances of the two people talking in the debate as a relates to their moralism realism. I have no clue who either of these people are or what they're understanding is as it pertains to objective morality. My comments is based purely on the proposition and not on the positions of either of the interlocutors. If I was to take that proposition and value it purely based on the statement of the proposition and not on the subject reading it I would need to have proof that morality is objective. And from most philosophical understandings of the word objective that would be stance independent or mind-independence. Since morality in most uses of the word is a value statement, values are subject. And in that sense objective morality is not a thing. And so I would need the argument for that first premise before I can accept it. Now keep in mind I'm replying to this as a third party viewer of the conversation and not as one of the interlocutors. So my question is not as if I was the atheist in the room but as the viewer of the video. Now it could be the case that both people have an understanding of each other stances and so have formulated their arguments with this understanding built in. I'm just commenting as a third party not coming into it with these understandings or presuppositions.

[@displacegamer1379]

@@loryugan6574 now this is a reply to the second portion of your comments. Given what you said about both of their stances on morality you have just illustrated that morality is not objective even with their views. For the Christian his values are set based on God's values. So they're subject to God. But we can go even further. It's not merely that his values are subject to God but it is that he values the content of God's morality. So he has a subjective value of God's morality that he agrees with. Now for the atheist again it is still subjective. He as the subject values a society that flourishes and has certain attributes. And so since he holds these values he mimics these values in himself and how he interacts with the world. Most people don't understand that society comes after the values. The individual values something and so they build a society around that value. Society is not built and then values are added after the fact it is the other way around. So both people have subjective morals is just that the way that the subject sees the morality is different. This is easily illustrated when we think of the opposites of a flourishing and prosperous society. There could be an individual who's more realities are opposite of this. A person could have value in seeing that there is not a prosperous society and so the morals of that individual would be sit on ensuring that a society does not prosper and so their actions would coincide with that.

[@loryugan6574]

@@displacegamer1379for moral values to be objective they would need to be stance independent. On Eric’s view, his morals *align* with god, and god is the standard of goodness. On Justin’s view, his morals align with what is the good. Another way of putting it would be like saying both Eric and Justin think evolutionary theory is the best explanation for biodiversity. They both *would think evolution has some basis in reality, just like they’d say their views on what is morally right or wrong has some basis in reality.

[@MrGustavier]

47:11 _"Thus, if Justin made a conscious free decision to become an atheist, then consciousness and free will exist"_ One philosopher's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. If free will does not exist, then Justin did not make a _"conscious free decision to become an atheist"_ . (Justin later explains that he is a compatibilist).

[@rl7012]

Justin and yourself are logically inconsistent. To say the universe is deterministic and from blind mindless forces, and to also say that there is free will, is logically inconsistent. You dress it up as compatabilism but the position is incoherent and irrational.

[@melchior2678]

Determinism is derived from Materialism which is self-refuting to begin with.

[@MrGustavier]

@@melchior2678 *-"Determinism is derived from Materialism which is self-refuting to begin with."* Would you explain ?

[@melchior2678]

@@MrGustavier I'll elaborate. On a Materialistic worldview, the Determinist ideology is what would follow. Hence why Materialist ideologies such as Marxism institute a centrally planned (deterministic) economy. Materialism however is self-refuting since Materialism posits that there is nothing beyond matter, which is blatantly contradictory since Materialism is itself a philosophy - and philosophies, having no physical properties whatsoever, are therefore not composed of matter.

[@MrGustavier]

@@melchior2678 *-"Materialism however is self-refuting since Materialism posits that there is nothing beyond matter, which is blatantly contradictory since Materialism is itself a philosophy - and philosophies, having no physical properties whatsoever, are therefore not composed of matter."* Oh I see. Yeah well obviously for the materialist, *"philosophies"* are material... For something to be *"contradictory"* , it has to include IN ITSELF something like P and not P. If something asserts P (like "philosophies are material"), and you don't agree with P, that doesn't make that thing *"contradictory"* . This is the difference between an "internal critique" and an "external critique". An "internal critique" consists in taking what is accepted to be true in a given framework, and trying to find if a proposition and its contrary can be derived from it. An "external critique" consists in taking what is accepted to be true OUTSIDE of a given framework, and giving a judgment of the framework based on it. From an external critique, no *"contradiction"* can be derived. Another way to see this : If person A says : this comment thread is the first under this video. And if person B says : this comment thread is not the first under this video. There is no *"contradiction"* , because it is not the same person accepting both propositions, it is one person saying P, and another one saying not P... That is what is called "a dialogue". So when the materialist says "philosophies are material", and when you say *"philosophies are not composed of matter"* , there is no *"contradiction"* , because there is no single person accepting both propositions, it is simply a disagreement. I hope this is clear.

[@gsp3428]

I think theists should get away from arguing from morality, because you can always dissent from any moral belief system. Things like the contingency argument are much more difficult to squirm out of.

[@Justinsweh]

Many naturalists (myself included) can accept phase one of the contingency argument - the strongest phase of the argument. I reject the second phase of the argument - the phase with the weakest support.

[@Dhorpatan]

@@martyfromnebraska1045 *"Idk dude atheists/people in general will squirm out of anything."* Absolutely. I was just about to tell that dude this. Humans generally dont give a rats behind about facts unless it is to their advantage or they can't escape it.

[@MrGustavier]

@@martyfromnebraska1045 *-"Again, all you can do is show the costs of doing so."* Correct. The problem is, the cost is nowhere to be seen. Naturalism dominates the sciences through and through, and naturalism dominates the humanities through and through (see post modernism; see wokeness, intersectionality etc...) Maybe one cost is what people like J Peterson or Vervaeke are talking about, which they call the "crisis of meaning". However not all people suffer from this crisis... Those who don't can therefore *"bite bullets"* all day long... If you see another *"cost"* , please let me know, because I don't see them.

[@dtphenom]

​@@martyfromnebraska1045 true and real. Have you read "Tactics" by Greg Koukl? He goes in depth into that strategy in the last several chapters of his book

[@dtphenom]

​@@MrGustavier Dominating the sciences doesn't equal being true.

[@displacegamer1379]

48:15 So this guy has made a lot of claims, and a lot of claims that things follow from other things, but all of his explanations aren't conclusional. They don't actually follow from each other there could be other explanations or outcomes that follow from each one of his claims. Outcomes that lead to atheism and God not existing being true. A lot of his arguments presupposes things that don't need to be presupposed or aren't presupposed from the atheist point of view. Thanks like morality being objective. Evil being objective. Souls being necessary. Reason being unobtainable outside of a God. All these things have yet to be proven from what he says it does not directly follow from any of the explanations that he's talked about.

[@rl7012]

@@displacegamer1379 You can't even answer a simple question but have to deflect and muddy the waters. You won't get off the hook that easily with your slithering around. So which one is it? Is their objective morality or did Hilter do nothing wrong? Answer the question please Gamer

[@displacegamer1379]

@@rl7012 it's not that I couldn't answer a simple question it's that the question is loaded. So I needed him to unload the question so that I didn't answer the question in a way that he did not intend it to be answered. You when you don't understand something you ask for clarifying questions.

[@rl7012]

@@displacegamer1379 He didn't ask you from the perspective of Hitler. From the perspective of Lucifer he himself does nothing wrong, from everyone else's perspective he does though. So you think it is ok to mass murder people entirely based on a prejudice and wrong belief if the murderer thinks he is doing nothing wrong? You give licence to every madman and evil doer in the world if that is your position. There are some people who commit evil acts to innocent vulnerable babies and in their own warped minds they are doing nothing wrong. But clearly they are doing a great deal of wrong. Whether they think so or not, objectively they are committing evil acts. Do you disagree?

[@displacegamer1379]

46:46 well it could be the case that the atheist is a hard determinist. And doesn't actually believe that there is free will. So free will is not necessary component to the atheist. It could also be that the atheist is a compatiblist. And in this sense determinism and free will are compatible with each other. It is clear that the Christian doesn't have a solid understanding of compatibleism based off his arguments.

[@rl7012]

Pot kettle....... _ 'It could also be that the atheist is a compatiblist. And in this sense determinism and free will are compatible with each other. It is clear that the Christian doesn't have a solid understanding of compatiblism based off his arguments.'_ So when atheists contradict themselves you call it 'compatibles'??? Lol... 😂😂 It is YOU who has no understanding of the arguments.

[@displacegamer1379]

@@rl7012 no when atheist contradict themselves I do not call it compatibles. I'm not actually sure where you got that understanding from the comment that I made but I am glad I can clear that up for you.

[@rl7012]

@@displacegamer1379 You cleared nothing. Tell me how an atheist can both a determinist and a believer of free will? You atheists contradict yourselves constantly and have a huge lack of self awareness.

[@gsp3428]

Justin, can you tell us what is the best explanation for why there is something, why the universe is governed by abstract mathematical laws, why this strangely orderly world exists, how life came from non life. It seems like these things are impossible to explain on naturalism or atheism. Especially why anything at all exists, that is literally unanswerable for the atheist.

[@gsp3428]

@@tex959 It certainly does tell you that God is the most likely explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, actually God is the only realistic explanation. And since we know life doesnt come from non life, from our inductive experience, that God is the most likely explanation for that also

[@gsp3428]

@@tex959 Its more like coming to a spaceship on Jupiter, and we ask what is the most likely explanation of that spaceship, we wont say, well that spaceship is just there, we will say that there was an intelligence behind it. We can come to the conclusion God exists through abductive reasoning., inductive, and deductive reasoning. I wouldnt say it would be a miracle that all of this came about without an intelligence behind it And if you could give me the best explanation why anything exists at all.

[@therick363]

The universe is governed by laws and rules because it if wasn’t then the universe wouldn’t exist. We don’t have all the answers and explanations about the origin of life. That’s admitted. Saying these things seem impossible to explain via naturalism or atheism….we’ll just become we don’t have all the answers to questions that are very difficult to investigate doesn’t then mean naturalism is bad or flawed. And atheism? Atheism ain’t supposed to explain things like that. I don’t understand why theists think atheism is supposed to explain things. It’s only a position. Just like theism. Theism doesn’t explain things either.

[@therick363]

@@gsp3428 to you god is the most likely explanation-for me it’s not considering we keep finding natural causes, events, effects and phenomena.

[@gsp3428]

@@therick363 God isnt just the most likely explanation. I would say its almost 100% certain. How can their be a natural cause for why there is something rather than nothing. I see no other possible explanation rather than a necessary being exists.

[@steppingrazor9685]

This was pretty rough. Many of Eric's arguments are easily dismissed for a multitude of reasons. A couple of examples.. Saying if evil exists it proves theism true is a linguistic trick. Evil is a word we use for something most offensive to our rationally arrived at senses, not something measured against an objective rule. Morals are arrived at through reason. Do we believe the morals we've decided on are as close to objective as possible? Sure. That doesn't mean that there's a standard outside of human brains. His ideas that using rationality proves theism true is just laughable right out of the gate. The idea that natural selection wouldn't select for creatures that have true beliefs more often than not is again laughable. There's a reason he used stepping off the train tracks to protect a secret identity rather than jumping off of a mountain because someone believes they can fly. Etc etc. I just made it to the discussion portion of this. I hope it gets better.

[@LtDeadeye]

In other words, evil isn't real. Evil is either a delusion or a useful fiction.

[@steppingrazor9685]

@@LtDeadeye I wouldn't say that. I'd just say that someone who doesn't define it as that which goes against the nature of God is using the word in a different way.

[@LtDeadeye]

@@steppingrazor9685 If reality is that which when we stop believing it it doesn’t go away, then subjective morality isn’t reality because it can go away when we stop believing it. Furthermore, if evil is reduced to just ‘things we don’t like or are disgusted by’ then acts such as murder and rape aren’t necessarily wrong.

[@steppingrazor9685]

@@LtDeadeye Once again, this is more of a linguistic confusion. Just because we agree upon something that wouldn't live on without minds to comprehend it doesn't mean it isn't "reality." It might no longer exist in reality if we weren't here but that's something different all together. Are words/languages reality? If all humans died today there would be no one here to speak use words as we know them. Does that mean they weren't part of reality or does it simply mean that they're constructions of minds due to minds existing in reality? Morality is the same. It's real, but not something tangible or objective. To your other point, when a dolphin forces sexual acts upon another dolphin (they're pretty brutal at times about this) is that "wrong?" If not then why is it wrong when a human does it to another human? It's wrong because we have concepts of what we should and shouldn't do based on ideas like not doing things to other people we wouldn't want done to us, social contract theory etc. What's wrong about it is an imposition upon their free will, the trauma and harm it causes etc. There are multiple reasons we can rationally come to the conclusion something is wrong to do. Many of these things will be things we don't like or disgust us for a myriad of reasons. Some less so. But we come to these decisions via reason and rationality, not via supposed rules laid out by a particular god or because something simply disgusts us. I think creamed corn is disgusting. That doesn't make someone eating it "wrong." Some people are disgusted by certain 4 letter words. That doesn't make saying them "wrong." Disgust is a reaction, not a reason.

[@LtDeadeye]

@@steppingrazor9685 Something’s being real and something’s existence are two different concepts. Harry Potter’s story isn’t real (it’s fictitious) but it exists. Our words and languages are contingent upon our minds but there are real and necessary transcendentals such as the laws of logic and mathematics that were discovered (not invented) which show they exist independently of our thoughts and beliefs about them. Surely if we invented them, they could have been invented differently or they could be changed. But the law of non-contradiction (the idea that opposite ideas cannot be both true at the same time and in the same sense), for example, can neither be changed nor wished out of existence. Sure it can be ignored…but not for long! Moral facts fall into this category. You are in rare company in believing, as an atheist (I’m assuming), that we have free will. That’s interesting! Either way, you seem to be presupposing that it is just prima facie wrong to bring harm and trauma but without justification other than ‘because we say so’. The belief that It’s wrong because we say it’s wrong seems to rule out the possibility by fiat that we can be wrong to say something is wrong because we agree that it’s wrong. Which opens the door to the possibility of something being right because we say it’s right, i.e slavery. To be sure, I agree that it’s wrong to cause harm and trauma but I’m not the one bootstrapping morality.

[@MrGustavier]

2:28:54 _"Aristotle who was a theist"_ Uh... What ?

[@Babycakex]

He believed in the Greek pantheon?

[@MrGustavier]

@@Babycakex Wouldn't that make him a polytheist ?

[@Babycakex]

@@MrGustavier that's still a type of theist isn't it?

[@Babycakex]

@@MrGustavier theist a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe

[@MoopersYT]

have u read history my man

[@chrispaige8880]

Huh? If naturalism is true, nobody ever "developed" any "strategy" - it was just random stuff & random stuff that worked was kept while random stuff that didn't work was lost. Using terms like "developed" and "strategy" implies that animals have intentions, which is the very thing that naturalism denies (you think micro-organisms have strategies?).

[@brianlynchehaun1963]

"you think micro-organisms have strategies?" Oof. Micro-organisms aren't "animals". Naturalism does not deny that animals with higher brain functions have intentions. Why do you believe that it denies that?

[@rl7012]

@@brianlynchehaun1963 Didn't animals with higher brain functions come from micro organisms originally according to your Darwinian evolution? So by random chance intentionality just happened to come about at some point between micro organisms and animals? How did that happen then?

[@chrispaige8880]

@@brianlynchehaun1963 Because animals w/ higher brain functions came much later in history! By the time you get anything that might have a strategy you're very late in the game, too late to matter for these purposes. Evolution cannot be result of anyone/anythings strategy, so his use of those terms is deceptive at best & most likely the fallacy of equivocation.

[@brianlynchehaun1963]

@@rl7012 "So by random chance intentionality just happened to come about at some point between micro organisms and animals?" Dan Dennett has an excellent book on this topic. Check out Freedom Evolves.

[@brianlynchehaun1963]

@@chrispaige8880 "By the time you get anything that might have a strategy you're very late in the game, too late to matter for these purposes." Ok, I see where you're coming from. I was confused by 1) your lack of timestamp, and 2) your use of "intention". This isn't about "intention". In biology, "strategy" isn't used in the sense of "the animal plans out its strategy", it's used in an observational sense. So yes, we can talk about the 'strategy' that Covid-19 employs, but it's purely a way to describe how Covid-19 *acts*, it's doesn't mean that Covid-19 sat down and decided how best to attack humanity. I realise that that's confusing (and I agree, given our general usage of the term), but that's how it's used in biology.