Peter van Inwagen - Arguing God from Pure Existence?

That there is 'something' and not 'nothing', and that science cannot explain why, is truly fascinating. Does this mean that there is a God? Some argue that if a 'Perfect Being' could exist, a Perfect Being must exist, because a Perfect Being is necessary. There must be something wrong with this.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on arguments for God: bit.ly/2EJNrH6
Peter van Inwagen is an American analytic philosopher and the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@tomashull9805]

I really like Peter... Each time I hear or read his last name, it reminds of a dilemma I have: Should I buy a van or a wagon? That is the question... :-)

[@schumachersbatman5094]

If you buy the latter, and look inside, you might have the good luck to discover a van-in-wagon. And then you must truly accept an interventionist God!

[@heavymeddle28]

Buy a Volkswagen 😁

[@tomashull9805]

@@schumachersbatman5094 Good one! :-)

[@tomashull9805]

@@heavymeddle28 Does Volkswagen make a van?

[@heavymeddle28]

@@tomashull9805 that's unfortunately something I don't know 🙃

[@rickhattersley2801]

What did he just say? Holy crap. I'm confused.

[@chrisc1257]

They muddy the water to make it seem deep. F.N.

[@chrisc1257]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIfOoJWIicd6bqM

[@praveensankar123]

Exactly, I was also perplexed by his explanation...

[@MiladTabasy]

Best argument.

[@TheDhammaHub]

Well, we can observe that every "state" of the universe has a previous state which it is based on - resulting in something like a cause-and-effect-universe. However that does not mean that there has to be a "first" state that some creator initiated. In Buddhist literature it is stated that "this world is without discernible beginning". But again, Buddhism functions without creator gods!

[@xspotbox4400]

Heavens = Intelligent eternal light Nirvana = dumb eternal light. Both kinds of divine have only one same denominator, both are BS.

[@stromboli183]

Can we observe this for _every_ state, also in the past? Can we rule out the possibility that there was perhaps a first state or ‘initial state’, a first moment where t=0 for which there exists no prior moment or preceding state?

[@TheDhammaHub]

@@stromboli183 We can only speculate about those things since we have no empirical knowledge about things that lie that far in the past. Saying there is no first state is just as much unknown as "there is a first state".

[@freesatellite3204]

Well, that was a philosophical talk..

[@jesseadamson1077]

Did anyone else hear that at 9:04, tripped me out for a second while trying to fall asleep to this

[@BritishBeachcomber]

If God does not exist then he cannot exist. If God does exist then he must exist.

[@GeorgiosMichalopoulos]

Yep

[@derektomko1015]

All triangles have angles that sum to 180 degrees not just right triangles

[@ferdinandkraft857]

I also noticed that. And he didn't even mention non-euclidean geometry...

[@RuneRelic]

Spherical triangles range from 180 to 270 degrees though ? They can even have three right angles ?!?!

[@qqqmyes4509]

I think he meant “the right kind of triangles”, ie Euclidean geometry. I’m sure he’s aware of non-Euclidean geometry. No reason to comment about this minor point

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@qqqmyes4509 I don't think he would make past high school geometry considering the logic skills he shows in this video.

[@zafthedon]

why not start with the Universe or I am possible therefore there is a necessary being selected a possible world. I believe thats how ashari/ibn sina rendition would be.

[@chrisbennett6260]

Brilliant

[@philippossnortis2035]

Many triggered people 😏

[@imaginskeez605]

Dave seems triggered

[@vincestar4840]

Any triangle.

[@richardrumana5025]

If god is Possible, then God is Necessary. Emphasis on the "IF"!

[@owencampbell4947]

God exists for believers, the Creator exists for knowers. Then for the creation there's no name, but the created call it universe. Knowers know, without a plan there is no building and therefore no creation. The chain of actions that emerges everywhere is the result of a plan that started somewhere. We have a dark side of the brain and we have a lighted side of the brain. Those who's thoughts are at the dark side, cannot see all the greatness under the light.

[@shaky7344]

Just another claim with no evidence. "dark side of the brain"? Hope someone examines your brain soon to understand where your delusions are coming from.

[@owencampbell4947]

@@shaky7344 you got to shake all the crusted cover off your brain to get it flexible. Once you discover the light that shines through, you'll never want to be back in the dark. Need more evidence than yourself? oh I forgot, nothing is real for the hard thinkers. I prefer to have a drink in a glas than to just think I'm having a drink in a glas...LoL..

[@_a.z]

Cut the crap and get back to cosmology! Our particular origins won't be ascertained with obscurantist word play!

[@derektomko1015]

Ontological arguements just sound like a bunch of bs to me.... who’s with me???

[@tomashull9805]

Others

[@ferdinandkraft857]

I also vote for BS.

[@luckyluckydog123]

I think that, when it was first presented almost 1000 years ago, it kind of made some sense. It is possible that St Anselm had a mathematicians' or a logician's mind and had in some way sensed that lines of reasoning of the "what is the set of all sets"-type lead to contradictions (Russell's paradox and similar), and imagined you can get something profound out of this.

[@gotterdammerung6088]

@@luckyluckydog123 I agree. The argument was definitely strong within Anselm's lifetime. Anselm was not an idiot.

[@1974jrod]

How is it bs, specifically?

[@bazstrutt8247]

“When I first heard the ontological argument I thought it was a joke”..... News for you, it still is 😂

[@_a.z]

Yep!

[@Kumurajiva]

By that gap thingy, one can say my first two slices of pizza were wasted because the third slice made me full. 🤣😂

[@credterfe]

What constitutes "greatness", and what constitutes "perfectness" ?

[@williamburts5495]

Argument is just people voicing contrasting perceptions.

[@noecontreras7068]

I’m guessing a lot of you people (atheist ) are far smarter than Kuhn and more rational I mean he says he thought it was a joke and now takes it seriously upon READING UP

[@stromboli183]

The greatest thing that exists does indeed exist. If you wish to call that ‘God’ then go ahead. Then God does indeed exist, according to that definition of God. But 1. this is not what religious people mean at all when they use the word ‘God’. and 2. by absolutely NO means does this imply any other ‘divine’ properties that religious people typically assign to God, such as being the creator of the universe. Actually, using this definition of God (the greatest thing that exists) probably boils down to God being the universe. Did the universe create the universe? Do we go to the universe after we die?

[@ferdinandkraft857]

There are many possibilities other than what you state. For instance: 1. There might be an infinite succession of greater things such that none of them is the greatest; 2. There might be things that are not comparable, in the sense that neither is "greater" than the other; 3. "Greatness" might not be transitive, in the sense that there are things A, B and C such that A is greater than B, B is greater than C, but A is not greater than C.

[@stromboli183]

Ferdinand Kraft I fully agree. As for 1. the infinite succession would itself be the greatest thing then. Or if there is an infinite succession of increasingly greater infinite successions, then the meta-succession would be the greatest thing, etcetera. Regarding 2. and 3. these fine examples show how the notion of ‘greatest’ is ill-defined. Thus, the ontological God is ill-defined.

[@RuneRelic]

Which came first ...thought or form ? What is the most primitive expression of form ? What is the most primitive expession of thought ? Why should you have total conviction about the evolution/origin of form, yet have zero conviction about the evolution/origin of thought ? Considering our physical form, is nothing but a tool that senses the outside world or amplifies and focuses the manipulation of external form through thought/desire via our bodies. What is the purpose of the physical form, without the desire with which to give it an impulse and the urge to do anything. What is the purpose of thinking, if not to ascertain the best way to achieve an objective through empirical knowledge, or the most likely way to achieve an objective through trial and error? If you say we are merely autonomous responses to warmth, air, drink, food, security, progeny..... then why the need to ponder the universe ? Why be given the choice to do ...or not to do, for better or for worse ? Finding the source of being is finding the primal Demiurge. All is see in science is a phobia about finding the history and origin of thought, rather than sudying our innate 'urge'. If you have a phobia about determining the origin of thought, how will you ever find the source of thought ? Especially when many dont even consider that animals have consciousness. I put it down to an innate surpemacist prejudice within the mind. An anti god rebelliousness akin to a child rebelling against parents.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

What if there is no purpose?

[@RuneRelic]

@@ferdinandkraft857 If you have no purpose, why are you replying to this post ? They call that an oxymoron. I mean you could be just another NPC, executing a script in a virtualised realm, within which I am trapped. But I prefer to give your existance or purpose the benefit of the doubt ;)

[@KonradZielinski]

Thought evolved right alongside form seeing as thought is entierly dependent on form. The mind being a product of the physical brain. however evolution has nothing to do with purpose. Only things that where designed have purpose, and life was not designed.

[@RuneRelic]

@@KonradZielinski So, before phase transitions from plasma to gas to liquid to solid. Thought evolved right alongside form still right ? You acknowledge that from can be temporary rather than permanent ? Besides if thought is dependant upon form, what makes you think form isnt equally dependant upon thought ? Especially considering all form is essentially nothing but a synchronous three dimensional energy pattern. Electricity, chemistry etc would not be possible without that fact.

[@RuneRelic]

@@KonradZielinski ...and if life was not designed, why are you replicating highly specific engineering procedures, in highly controlled environments, using very specific chemistry, in a lab, to allow you to perform genetic engineering successfully ?

[@simpleguy38]

If I were told that god exists, then the only concept of god that I would agree with is the "scientific pantheism"

[@BootesVoidPointer]

Spinoza's god is my favorite god.

[@BootesVoidPointer]

Spinoza's god is my favorite god.

[@jonathanaragones6888]

The Great Grand Creator does prove his existence every single motion happens in the Time itself. The language has ignored by most humans. The beautiful sound of its word has disregarded. The art of wisdom has not found. Everyone who says that there is no single evidence has proved their ignorance for a conclusion that life they have is nothing but a thing without a purpose but to oppose the Natural Light as Darkness of a shadow they only see. Open your eye and don't believe but understand. Listen to the sound and feel than not to know where. Once you can write the word down, then ask who told you this word? Is that yourself or someone that influenced you. If the spirit exists, does the mortal too. If you can describe the things that are not mortal from the word you describe, it does not exist in your mortal space but it does exist in your spiritual space. Do not think your thoughts are just a chemical thought but a language that has a word to transfer via spiritual space that you share with other mortals who has spiritual space too. And those who stop asking they never found a single thing. The more you know, then more you need to understand. And this can explain how time works in space. More space, more time to consume. If you stop asking you will not understand. Then ask how long do I need to understand them all? He will say "just a Time" if you don't have a Time, then you will not understand. The time you know is not the Time He knows. Find it and you will understand them all. The key is in His name to unlock your understanding. There will never an answer without a question. To have the right answer, you must ask the right question. Knowledge can not be defined by knowing, but Understanding is. And once you understood, gain the art of Wisdom by its application.

[@StanTheObserver-lo8rx]

2020,stop with the god and how many angels can stand on the end of a pin or who made god?...its all just reality around us. And no doubt things are different far beyond our local horizon just as real and just as godless. One more. It doesn't care about you.

[@rodg3133]

God fake

[@dylanharnettmarshall9700]

If God exists, God is good. Existence is good. Therefore God exists. Circular reasoning much?? What a terribly silly argument. That kind of thing makes me hate philosophy. I mean really. It's such shameless sophistry.

[@psuedonym8344]

hello sir, there seems to be many unjustified claims 🤔 in ur rebuttals which makes it seem u dont understand the argument at all. so its self refuting

[@dylanharnettmarshall9700]

@@psuedonym8344 To be self refuting, I would have to contradict myself or state something that is false. Just because someone makes unjustified claims does not mean they are wrong. Many claims go partly, mostly, or completely unjustified because they are attributed to common sense or assumed to be true for the sake of argument. You haven't identified which claims you want justification for. Are you disputing that the ontological argument uses circular reasoning? Scrolling through the comments on this video for one minute, I have already found a few people explaining (in ways different than how I explained it) why it is a circular argument. If you can't understand that saying "God is good" or "God is supreme" assumes the existence of God without evidence as a starting point for the rest of the argument, then you need to try explaining to yourself how something could be anything if it didn't exist. The WORD "God" is defined as a supreme being. That doesn't mean the ENTITY that is known by the word "God" is defined by its supremacy. The entity or being God may or may not exist, therefore one cannot say whether God the being is good or bad. For a thing to be good or bad, it must exist. You could say "God is possibly good and possibly bad," but that doesn't get you anywhere proving the existence of God.

[@dylanharnettmarshall9700]

@@psuedonym8344 Or are you just blindly believing the lie that God is "something that which no greater can be conceived." Check any dictionary for "God." That's not the definition. The word "God" means the greatest thing that exists (the supreme being). It does not mean the greatest thing that can be conceived to exist. All the argument does is prove that people conceive of a God, and also that people conceive of horrible arguments.

[@dylanharnettmarshall9700]

@@psuedonym8344 you have clearly not read what I have already said about this. You say that I grant that God is good. That is completely false. I said that God may not exist, therefore there is no way to determine that God is good.

[@uremove]

Great explication of the Ontological Argument. 👍 I just want to add that God as “the ground/source of ALL Being” (in concepts like the Greek ‘Apeiron’) is necessarily greater (and more perfect) than God as an individual being like Yahweh or Zeus. That such a common ground or source of all existence, itself exists, must be a possibility, as “being” (aka you and me) clearly exists. Therefore, from the modal argument, God so defined as the “Ground of all being” MUST exist.

[@jordanwhisson5407]

Utter dribble

[@joshheter1517]

... dribble? Like in basketball? Or, did you mean “drivel”?

[@Reienroute]

He uses the words "perfect" and "better" without ever justifying their specific usage or relevance. In philosophy we call that "a big no-no".

[@LameBushido]

He's reciting someone else's argument...an argument that has great importance in the history of Philosophy.

[@Sculman7]

​@@LameBushido Still a pretty bad argument though

[@darkknightsds]

Imagine thinking you know more than Peter van Inwagen LOL

[@lucianmaximus4741]

Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽

[@dalethomasdewitt]

A vocabulary cop-out to an explaining herd of human minds. A some-non-thing outside comprehension. An exercise of patience in wait to death. An job for professional atheists. A control mechanism. I'm losing track. A topic that is not practical for deduction.

[@devekhande9204]

Binod.

[@BritishBeachcomber]

Arguments for God always go around in circles. This guy really excels at it.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@rubiks6 the universe is not a circle, and even if it was you would still be wrong.

[@MiladTabasy]

No, the essence of arguments is stronger than circle, they are a unity between ontology an epistemology.

[@jeffxanders3990]

The Source of our being is in us to begin with. If we can conceive of it, it exists cuz all is in us as well as outside of us and It is infinite. You have no argument and neither does the atheist 😊

[@shaky7344]

How do you know about the source of our being? Nothing we can conceive has to actually exist. That is simply a wrong conclusion, because then the tooth fairy and mermaids would also exist.

[@jeffxanders3990]

@@shaky7344 Thank you for challenging me with such good logic. It's not reasonable to assume we're separate from all this because we didn't come into this world. We came out of it. All knowledge concerning things beyond our experience or ability to prove is logical assumption. "God" is said to be everywhere. Is this an assumption? If the Source of us is separate from us, what can we really assume about anything, except we were grown in a test tube and nothing is relavant? If, on the other hand, All is in us it's very reasonable to assume that It is living and working in and through us, not just to create, but to multiply Itself and Its experience. Philosophical thought is necessary to understanding. So if we are perpetually creating our world, we need a certain level of self control or risk harm to ourselves like a baby might poke itself in the eye, for example. If your world includes tooth fairies and mermaids, well, that's your world. Each of us is creating our own you know 😊

[@shaky7344]

@@jeffxanders3990 Something that we do not know but claim is not a logical assumption, just an assumption. This is especially true of gods whose existence has never been proven, not by a single one. We do not know what led to our existence or the origin of life. There is no point in naming a source for life if you do not know it.

[@jeffxanders3990]

@@shaky7344 True, It cannot be known. It's all entirely up to us to work out for ourselves. Are you an atheist then? No judgement on this or anything else.

[@shaky7344]

@@jeffxanders3990 I don't like the term atheist. I'm a homo sapiens, a human being. I don't believe that there is a reasonable argument for the existence of any god. Most people would define me than as an atheist. Fair enough. Every human is born as a nonbeliever, only through parents or others people become believers of whatever.

[@Kumurajiva]

Well well well, we have found gold planets. Ridiculous mind fucking game. Just a game, then religion is not just a game , that’s the problem. It has consequences , fallacy has consequences .

[@greyeyed123]

"Obviously it's greater to exist in reality than it is simply to exist in the mind." Which god is greater? The one who can create everything and save us from our sins while existing, or the one who can create everything and save us from our sins while not existing? "Obviously" it is the one who can do these things while not existing. (As Hitchens said, ANYONE can play these games.)

[@dougg1075]

We don’t have a damn clue what we’re talking about .

[@imaginskeez605]

You might not

[@krkrishnan2683]

God is an energy which can be called consciousness, every atom has consciousnesses.

[@tomashull9805]

How do you know that? I'm not going to ask you to prove it though...

[@johnschort7634]

All particles of matter smaller than an atom seem, according to scientists, to act as if they are particles and also to act as if they are waves of energy. I my belief is that consciousness is energy. That means that all particles smaller than atoms are essentially made up of conciousness, therefore since the atoms are made up of these particles, every atom contains consciousness. Note: consciousness does not necessarily imply SELF-CONCIOUSNESS.

[@tomashull9805]

@@johnschort7634 Particles don't really exist... they are just excitation of fields... which means you don't really exist either... unless quantum fields get "aroused... " scientifically speaking...

[@johnschort7634]

@@Graewulfe How can you say from a scientific point of view that consciousness is a property when scientists admit they don't know what consciousness is? Where is your authority? If you are using belief as an authority, that implies religion. Which religion? There are religions that believe consciousness to be energy, as the comment that started by a member of a religion that does.

[@johnschort7634]

@@Graewulfe you are right that energy would be detectable, but what about dark energy? Scientists are now saying only about 5% to 10% o the universe is detectable matter and energy, but to make cosmological equations work out, they have to postulate dark matter and dark energy , with dark energy comprising 70% of the total and dark matter 20% to 25% and the rest being detectable matter and energy. The reason dark energy and matter are called that is because they are undetectable with any instruments we have now. What if dark energy is conciousness? That would make it energy that is presently unddtectable. Note that I did not say it would always be that way. There is of course another sensible answer to the question of dark energy and dark matter. Cosmologists say that the observable Universe is 13point something billion light years in diameter, or maybe it is we can only see 13 point something light years away. Perhaps instead of that being the limits of the Universe, it is only the limits of the visible Universe, and the dark energy and matter are just beyond our range of perception. That would make 90% to 95% of the Universe beyond our range of perception, which makes sense to me, but not to cosmologists, who claim dark stuff has to be within the range of our perception to keep the galaxies from flying apart and making the Universe one big starry field with no individual clump called galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

[@paulspence7600]

I listened very carefully and even took notes. This guy's arguments are pathetic. I'm a scientist and can see through his twisted use of words that create a fantasy story. No data for a god and that's the bottom line.

[@aiya5777]

actually by simply debating, "the probability of god is existing or not existing" theists are already losing the debate without em realizing it because by doing so, the laws of probability is now essentially above god in the hypothetical reality generated by the laws of probability although this hypothetical reality may or may not exist in an actual sense the probability of god not existing is already existing hypothetically by default, you know? so in principle, the laws of probability prevail over god

[@aiya5777]

for the record, I still firmly believe in God

[@paulspence7600]

@@aiya5777 Sad

[@uthman2281]

​@@paulspence7600 This is your opinion

[@uthman2281]

​@@aiya5777 If you believe there is Truth you have to believe God exist.

[@makomichael]

I'd participate except I always get sarcastic responses

[@stromboli183]

Michael Reynolds is this your way of sneakily participating implicitly?

[@shaky7344]

What God is he talking about? Zeus, Ra, Ganesha, Odin, Allah, Yahweh, Apollo ... ??? If you substitute anything else for God, then, according to his definition, everything should exist, including the tooth fairy or mermaids. None of this makes any sense. #Religiots are always fooling themselves. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that our ancestors took gods as explanations for everything unknown and, over time, gave them further powers and meaning. They developed beliefs into religions and that is why there are so many different ones. Gods were made by humans, not the other way around. That is logical and plausible. It always was and always will be until we humans become extinct.

[@tomashull9805]

It doesn't matter what Do in this context... Just think of supreme being... or first cause...

[@shaky7344]

Tomas Hull What if there is no first cause?

[@JohnDoe-bt4ps]

@@shaky7344 Then there is no reaction and nothing exists.

[@JohnDoe-bt4ps]

@@shaky7344 Do you see dominoes knocked over in a pattern and say there was no initial action put forth to cause the reaction? Before there can be a reaction something has to put forth an action.

[@JohnDoe-bt4ps]

@@shaky7344 In order for our universe to be cyclic and eternal it would have to collapse back into itself over and over and over and expand over and over and over. I do not see this as logically valid. Possible yeah anything is possible, but is it reasonable? Let's assume this universe has always been and that quantum foam always exists therefore the laws of physics exist. Regardless the material had to come from somewhere at one point. That is first cause. First action. You can go back as far as you want but it brings nothing to the table. Somewhere at some point this stuff came to exist. To say it has always existed has no reasoning behind it except to counter a theists position.

[@tomashull9805]

Universe out of nothing is my favorite scientific fairy-tail... When pressed for scientific explanation how nothing created something, one will usually get 1 of the 3 options: 1. Even nothing is something - Lawrence Krauss 2. Maybe there are unlimited number of universes, so ours came from one of them... Pushing the answer into infinite regress... 3. Maybe the universe didn't have a beginning and therefore there was always something... All 3 are equally scientific fairy-tales without a shred of evidence... ;-)

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

The only one, unfortunately, that may be the truest, even if the oddddest strangest most absurd, is that the whole existing multivers or universe is (may be) eternal.... Let's hope there's something transcendent, or it's really sad... Not just for us who'll have to die, but especially for who suffers the whole life for at the end JUST SIMPLY dying..... C'mon... Very sad thing

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

And moreover, even the existence of a certain Supreme Being is very "strange" and "fairy tale" 😕

[@waerlogauk]

The answer 'we don't know' is also available, just not one theists can acknowledge.

[@tomashull9805]

@@kuroryudairyu4567 Let's put it this way: The first cause... Does it still seem strange and fairy-tail like?

[@jamessmith989]

Check out the three-dimensional image left on the shroud of Turin by an event horizon. (Isabel Piczek partical physicist) shroud of Turin website.

[@blbphn]

One of the main upshots of this argument is that it shows that the atheist's burden is to show that the very concept of a supreme, necessarily existing being entails a logical contradiction (and thus that the existence of such a being is a logical impossibility). But if there is no logical contradiction entailed by the concept of a necessarily existing supreme being, then such a being must necessarily exist (as an inescapable logical entailment).

[@qqqmyes4509]

Suppose I claim that this universe necessarily exists. Can you show that there is a logical contradiction entailed by this?

[@fffantasticboom]

The ending is flawlessly said: what we take from the contemporary Plantinga version is that either God exists or he cannot possibly exist (a being who exists necessarily cannot possibly be a thing). God is not MERELY POSSIBLE; he is either impossible or he exists. It’s more of an insight into the concept/nature of God than, I think, an argument that is compelling on pain of irrationality (though there may be such arguments, now or in the future).

[@woofie8647]

The true "reality" is beyond language and mind. Language solves nothing, and to try to prove the existence or non-existence of God using language is futile. To believe the universe came to be from absolute nothingness is just as incomprehensible as believing there is a God who created it. Take your pick. I believe it is almost certainly intelligently designed, but by who or what we may never know.

[@jeffamos9854]

Arguing cats from pure existence? Good luck arguing with a cat

[@eugenenegri]

I find it highly Suspicious that they mention the originators St. Anselm and Rene Descartes (founder of coordinates), yet do not mention the work done by Gotfried Leibniz (founder of calculus) and more recently by Kurt Godel (greatest logician of all time). This show in my opinion, even though the host expresses that he "would like for God to be real," presents information in a misleading way, that is completely Biased towards Atheism.

[@onzkicg]

Oh thank you cured my insomnia, 2am now I can sleep well, tnx for bringing my brain to some roller coaster ride 😂

[@waerlogauk]

So the Modal argument shows God either must exist or is impossible, appropriately extreme but not helpful.

[@xspotbox4400]

If you understand a concept of God, than God already exist, you are asking about something you already know is real, just can't explain what it is or is it even real and not just a hallucination. Stop asking about world and your own mental state, it's not important, we are just a walking bricks.

[@claudiozanella256]

The almighty God simply CANNOT exist here now. Why? Because He would be expected to A) know the future AND B) be able to make decisions. But having both abilities A) and B) at the same time is impossible. In fact in front of us there can be a number of "possible futures", but ONLY ONE of them will EVENTUALLY come true and become our ONLY ONE PAST. Well, God is meant to know THAT ONE FUTURE. But this means that God must simply LET IT UNFOLD EXACTLY like it is. God is thus NOT ALLOWED to make any decision, because a decision is a free selection among a number of different possibilities. On the contrary that ONE future is well DETERMINED AND KNOWN to God. NO CHANGES ARE ALLOWED because this would mean that God made mistakes in his PREDICTION of that one future, but God makes NO mistakes. Thus, if God knows the future He CANNOT MAKE ANY DECISION.

[@irhamsyah8991]

God potentiality is actuality itself

[@dougg1075]

He had a physicist on this channel that’s said we are basically beings of light. Jesus said the same thing

[@ferdinandkraft857]

Not true. Most of our mass is due to baryons (protons and neutrons) which in turn have their masses from the energy of confined quarks and gluons. There is no light in the equation.

[@paulspence7600]

Both wrong

[@hibald]

Why must something that exists in reality be greater than something that exists only in mind? After all, we very well know that some people that never existed in reality, had much bigger influence on the world than many of us that really do exist in reality? Sherlock Holmes is just one example. Many would argue that Jesus is the biggest one of these.

[@gualmicol6845]

In theory, or just to say, one should either believe in(the possibility of good) communication or give up talking , listening, reading. How do I ever get to know what people really say? Anyway the reader of this comment could agree that some simple questions may be "actually read as they are (were) written". One such question: "does the future exist"? Maybe we should focus more on the meaning of the word life and in-sist less on the meaning of the word exist (ex-sist). Edit: In line with what was argued here, things exist as they manifest in space and time, even fictional or virtual contexts of space and time. Unicorns exist in art and literature and even fantasies and dreams are "not nothing". By the way, I never heard of non-existing signs, never heard of non-existing dreams. At any rate this was very well discussed here and it was very interesting to listen to it, really stimulating of deep thought.

[@Kumurajiva]

Then comes the gap god, whatever science or philosophy doesn’t explain, call it god. Then as the more science knows, the more questions rise, then that just proves the gap god gets bigger and bigger, mad argument again.

[@Kumurajiva]

The u add the word potential. If god exists why does god need logical argument, all this, we don’t have to deduce earth exists, or the moon exists. Then of course the pope is god, otherwise what’s god? Right?

[@alemartinezrojas5285]

I think the argument has some strength. God's existence cannot be separated from his being. God is justice, power, goodness, will, and existence. He does not have those properties, He is all of them. God cannot be thought of as having no perfections. In order for God to be all those qualities (properties in the human experience), he must Exist. By definition, the God of Christianity, being Perfect, must BE. If He IS not, therefore, no perfection can be said to be his. The atheist cant, therefore, claim, that the Perfect God of Christianity does not exist, since he would be saying that the perfect God lacks one perfection: to be (existing). For God to be God, he must be all perfections, and he cannot express any other perfection unless He has, the perfection of existence.

[@tomjackson7755]

Sorry a perfect god eliminates the god of christianity. The bible if full of that god's failures.

[@stromboli183]

Ale Martinez Rojas You can define all you want, it’s still just a concept in your mind, a fantasy. I can think of a perfect pink unicorn. So I’m not just fantasizing about any generic random pink unicorn, no no, I’m fantasizing about a _perfect_ one. In other words I’m fantasizing about a pink unicorn that exists and can fly (because that’s what perfection entails, amongst other things). Does that mean the flying pink unicorn I’m fantasizing about actually exists in reality?

[@MiladTabasy]

​​@@stromboli183 It is not just a concept. In God as the highest reality, ontology and epistemology are united: see my video for why I think that is the case: "Reality model, metaphysics part 4 (philosophy of abstraction...)". You cannot think of a perfect and infinite unicorn. In order for that to be perfect it should exit from the state of unicorn into matter, from matter into energy, from energy into space, from space into time and finally from time to being. Whwn it entered being, then it can be perfect. A unicorn is an example of being not the being itself. When sth more real (being) is juxtaposed with sth less real (unicorn) it is not threatened by it.

[@TheAmanla]

In "consciousness" which is not mind :) Thanks. Mind can move and travel consciousness. Levels and the layers in consciousness :) Try 45 in all, w/ each one of us.

[@springinfialta106]

Interesting discussion. A long time ago I came across a book which made the same final point that Inwagen did, i.e. either God must exist or must not exist. Basically, agnosticism was a no go position. I didn't understand it at the time, but I guess the book was based around modal arguments.

[@paulspence7600]

No data for god so provisionally it doesn't exist.

[@Kumurajiva]

Then I would say god exists because of human logic, not because of empirical evidence. Then soon enough this human logic is from god, the, those who buy into this logic must have revealed knowledge since none of it is empirical , insane, mad.

[@psuedonym8344]

god would exist, even as u showed, u dont understand logic

[@shazanali692]

We are just information that exists on a type of plane like the information on a DVD, the information can never know or comprehend the non information like structure of outside the dvd, and I study physics i have looked deep into time and how it works, gravity, the quantum world and too my understanding it leads that way, all roads lead that way, lets see what happens

[@theotormon]

Perfection is a judgment, not an objective fact. I could just as easily conclude that non-existence is necessary to perfection.

[@Jim6593]

No.

[@theotormon]

@@Jim6593 "How perfect a being that exerts an influence upon man's heart without having to even bother to exist!" might be one plausible description of God.

[@Adrian-yf1zg]

Completely misunderstood the definitions here. Also what Perfection entails

[@andrewskratt9552]

im hi and have no idea what this guy is talking about. i find it interesting though

[@stromboli183]

I’m hello, it’s nice to meat you sir 😀

[@SandipChitale]

I have noticed these guys always refer to dead people's opinion/argument from past who lived in the world in which there was much less knowledge about the world they lived in. I think i will take the word of a modern day intelligent and knowledgeable person over anyone equivalent from the past. and more and more so when these people are from older and older past. what is Peter's own opinion/argument? It seems they can always pass the buck to dead people when objections to the arguments are raised and are found to be valid. "It is more perfect to exist than to not exist", why does that inferred automatically? to me it does not even makes sense. And perfection is always about something which needs to be specified. perfect does not have to only have any good connotation. something can be perfectly round - neutral. someone can be perfectly stupid and so on - bad.

[@keramatebrahimi943]

Argument of god will get you no where.

[@stromboli183]

Keramat Ebrahimi actually it got you and me now here.

[@Ploskkky]

I always argue smurfs from pure existence. Works even better. If a smurf being could smurf, a smurf being must smurf, because a smurf being is smurf. Theism is a festival of fallacies.

[@tomashull9805]

Smurfs exist in your science? nice... lol

[@tomashull9805]

@D L Luke You can't prove what you taste is what I will taste just like with colors...

[@Ploskkky]

@@tomashull9805 If smurfs don't exist, then why do they wear little white caps? Hah, you can't explain that. Tide comes in, tide goes out.

[@tomashull9805]

@@Ploskkky Bye!

[@Ploskkky]

@@rubiks6 The big smurf will judge you.

[@kallianpublico7517]

What exists can only be shown by the senses. Logic can never be used to "show" what exists.

[@tieferforschen]

Did you get this from your senses or logic?

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@tieferforschen Does logic tell you the sun has risen?

[@tieferforschen]

My senses alone cannot give me the answer.

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@tieferforschen so you believe in black holes and entanglement? Because you've certainly never seen them. Do you also believe in numbers?

[@MiladTabasy]

Totally disagree.

[@KonradZielinski]

Greater is a value judgement, it is entierly subjective. Perfection is also entierly subjective.

[@KonradZielinski]

@@rubiks6 Bowling 12 stikes in a row is a perfect game only if you agree on the rules of Bowling. But the rules themselves are arbitrary. For someone who detests bowling a perfect game might be not go the bowling alley at all.

[@dazedmaestro1223]

So by your logic an omnipotent being has no more completeness in being than a rock? No reasonable person would claim that.

[@KonradZielinski]

@@dazedmaestro1223 I have no idea what completness of being is supposed to mean.

[@dazedmaestro1223]

@@KonradZielinski, sure...

[@denischarette7972]

If there is no God, there is no hope, or survival after death. One reason I tend to believe in God is the fact that so many beings (not only human) have lost their lives when they should never have lost them when they did.

[@grahaminglis4242]

@denis Charente The fact that so many human beings have lost their lives when they should never have lost them when they did is the actual reason why people like me don’t believe in an imaginary all loving father figure others call GOD. I think your logic is illogical.

[@shaky7344]

But that's the way it is. There is no higher meaning for anything. Sure, there is cause and effect, but there is no sense of anything.

[@denischarette7972]

@@grahaminglis4242 It is permitted, but to more than compensate, all these souls are reincarnated in a better body being born afterwards , and live a better and fuller life than the one they would have lived, had it not been cut short. The way reincarnation works is probably beyond our comprehension. None of this would happen if God didn`t exist. Don`t you want to give these people a chance?

[@grahaminglis4242]

denis charette You are correct when you write that the way resurrection works is inconceivable and because it is so churches can invent or speculate whatever they like to sell wonderful ideas about better afterlife to gullible followers through the medium of one fictitious word “hope”. Take away hope and the whole fiction of resurrection and reincarnation evaporates. It is inconceivable to believe that the death of young children due to horrible disease like cancer or the current coronavirus deaths are part of God’s amazing plan. If so then it’s not a belief that I want to follow.

[@sony5244]

Words are empty.

[@blbphn]

How so?

[@jamessmith989]

Check out the three-dimensional image left on the shroud of Turin by an event horizon. (Isabel Piczek partical physicist). Shroud of Turin website.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@jamessmith989 "partical" idiot.

[@jamessmith989]

@@ferdinandkraft857 Lol.🙂

[@toni4729]

Spoken and written by man. NOT GOD.

[@johnschort7634]

How about the existence of God based on personal experience? I, myself have either experienced God answering my prayers in a very profound way, or I have very strong powers of the mind when the conditions are right. Either way, the true atheists wouldn't accept it, as it is a matter of God was ACTUALLY helping me, or, having prayed, believing my prayers would be answered, I was thrown into an altered state of consciousness which caused me to do the right things and say things I normally would not do or say to protect myself just by using my voice and to provide for myself the same way when I ended up 2800 miles from home with no money in my pocket, wanting desperately to get back home on a trip that took four days hitch-hiking. Never went hungry and always got safe rides all the way back to my home city, where all I had to do was pay for a city bus ride home out of the money people had freely given me along the way..

[@grahaminglis4242]

@John Schort Who actually gave you the money to get home, God or kind people who may or may not have believed in God at all?

[@sasukeCS7]

@@grahaminglis4242 Kindness=God. So both.

[@grahaminglis4242]

@@sasukeCS7 I am reminded of the Good Samaritan story in the Bible which wasn’t necessarily an act of kindness given by a believer in God, so I don’t agree that kindness=god automatically, but I accept that you may think that it does.

[@sasukeCS7]

@@grahaminglis4242 well, it’s not so much about that person “believing in God”, because there are a lot of people who believe in God who are evil, and just like you said there are many atheists who are truly kind. What I meant is that God’s essence, among other things, is Kindness. If humans are made in His image and likeness it follows that we can always exercise kindness, irrespective of that person having a conscious “belief” in the One who made him in the first place and is the reason why there even is a concept/act of the will known as “kindness” at all.

[@grahaminglis4242]

@@sasukeCS7 I don’t want to get into arguing back and forth, so that’s all I intend to write about, thanks.

[@kyaxara7321]

I am sure that somebody else asked also, wich God is he talking about??????????????????

[@nigh7swimming]

There is no good reason to just assume God has to be the greatest perfect being in all ways. God may be a thing and yet a greater being can be logically imagined even if it does not exist, there is no contradiction here. All this ontological argument does is define something arbitrary and trying to prove existence from the definition. Definitions and being possible do not bring things into existence.

[@Bill..N]

An interesting interview.. Peter epitomizes what we imagine philosophers to be.. His ingenious use of semantics, misdirection, and good old fashion double talk, put him near the top of his class..Bravo .

[@bazstrutt8247]

😂😆😂

[@Bill..N]

@Stefano Portoghesi Absolutely right friend...Did my sarcasm escape you?

[@tomashull9805]

The best argument for God's existence is feelings, such love. AI people get very excited about the possibility of creating computers that are conscious/self aware. All they need to match the number of operations human brain performs: 100 billion neurons each with 1000 synapses operating at about 100 Hz... whatever... they claim... But when AI people are asked whether their conscious/self-aware computers will be able to feel feelings, such as love, they become stunned for some reason... ;-)

[@tomashull9805]

@wild Times you can try to prove it...

[@xspotbox4400]

Love is not a basic instinct, it's a composite of many emotional states, induced by central nervous system, stimulated by sensory perception.

[@tomashull9805]

@@xspotbox4400 Who said love is an instinct? You are clearly confused...

[@tomashull9805]

@wild Times Does your computer feel aroused too? If you can make it, a Nobel Prize is waiting for you... ;-)

[@tomashull9805]

@zempath And? No enlargements?

[@mac2phin]

Can God make a boulder so heavy that He could not lift?

[@achyuthcn2555]

God will turn into boulder. Simple.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

I can think of a possible world where 5 heads on a human is a necessity for the possible world to exist. Therefore the possible world and 5 headed humans exist. Therefore they exist in all possible Worlds... Doesn't add up does it?! Replace 5 headed humans with God/Gods.

[@amirkhalid5449]

"Some argue that if a 'Perfect Being' could exist, a Perfect Being must exist, because a Perfect Being is necessary. There must be something wrong with this." This is a circular argument: It begins by assuming that the thing to be proved is true: that there is a perfect being at all.

[@dylanharnettmarshall9700]

Thank you

[@jerome_david]

This is the obvious critique, and it's addressed in the clip. The progress that is made with this line of argumentation -- that is, by considering possible existence -- is in demonstrating that god, defined as a perfect being, is unique in that there's no room for a middle-ground position. If god exists, he couldn't have possibly not existed, and if god does not exist he couldn't have possibly existed. Of course, no progress at all is made in terms of showing that god actually exists or not; just that as a concept, god's existence is unique. To elucidate, consider the following: pink elephants don't exist, but it's not logically impossible that they *could* exist in some possible world. The same line of reasoning does not follow when considering god's existence. If it's possible that god exists, he necessarily exists in all possible worlds; if it's not possible, he couldn't have existed in any possible world.

[@dylanharnettmarshall9700]

@@jerome_david you're being extremely vague. What do you mean by another "world?" If you're implying a universe which we know nothing about, then what you say is false. Existence of a perfect being in the known universe (this world) does not prove the existence of a perfect being in an unknown universe by any stretch of the imagination. (The definition of God used in the argument is also extremely vague. What is a perfect being?) This was not addressed in the video, but jumped over rather conveniently. Inwagen says that the modal argument, which makes the exact same error as the ontological one, contains no logical flaws. The language of the modal argument is simple trickery. Child's play, sophistry. Disingenuous garbage. And you're wrong about how the ontological argument is used. Anselm, Descartes, and the bloody rest of them. The ontogical argument is indeed invoked as a proof for God, and it neglects to answer the invocation, just like God 👍

[@jerome_david]

​@@dylanharnettmarshall9700 Here, world = possible way that the universe might have been configured, not a world = planet earth interpretation. See the following for more info: plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#:~:text=The%20Many%2DWorlds%20Interpretation%20(MWI,and%20thus%20from%20all%20physics. I will say that having a background in formal logic is extremely useful here to avoid confusion, but not totally necessary. Also, try not to get too ideologically worked up -- there really isn't any philosophical confusion here and is a totally agnostic analysis. The argument presented in the clip does not rest on god's actual existence -- "possibility" is the watchword. Anselm et al. might have invoked it to demonstrate god's existence but that's not the point: there is no logical substance to the claim, try as they might to defend it. The substance, as mentioned, is in clarity surrounding god's possible, not actual, existence. I would also say that the logic of the argument is explained more clearly in the video clip than I will probably be able to. However, here's the basic premise: if we define god as the 'greatest possible being', then if it's possible for him to exist in one out of an infinite number of possible worlds, then he must exist in all of them. The reasoning being, a god that exists in all possible worlds is a greater being than one that only exists in in a single world. However, if existing in even one out of an infinite number of worlds is impossible, god couldn't have possibly existed. Simple, isn't it? You can define god in other ways too, but if we define him as the greatest possible being, you're forced into these two extremes that I laid out in my previous comment.

[@dylanharnettmarshall9700]

@@jerome_david A person's own feelings that a great or perfect being would exist in all possible worlds is completely arbitrary and insubstantial. Do not presume that in a totally other world, perfection requires existence, or that your idea of "perfection" and "existence" hold up within the physical laws of that world. An argument that "if it is possible that God exists, then that possibility would also include existence in other worlds" is 1. wrong and 2. useless (no one can disprove God's existence, so the only correct claim in the argument is obvious and banal.) More importantly, you misrepresent the ontological argument and undervalue its pervasive perniciousness. This thought experiment does not start with the premise "if it is possible that God exists," as you state, but actually "if God exists." Proponents of the ontological argument are the ones who are ideologically bent. They have put much effort into disguising their circular reasoning with misleading language and equivocation of terms. The intentions may be good, but it only obfuscates the search for truth. Inwagen in this video states his belief that the argument holds credibility in conversation and has no logical flaws. He and others are doing nothing good for anyone by saying this. The argument is only logical masturbation that weakens the human intellect.

[@PavelSTL]

Cannot believe the ontological argument is still even discussed. Dear Peter, you're being absolutely wrong in saying your version doesn't have any logical fallacies. It absolutely does. It's called "begging the question", look it up please. This is the flaw of ALL versions of the ontological argument. You *assume* the conclusion in your premise by defining God such that he necessarily exists. The possibility premise is just a smoke screen to say Ah I didn't say he exists, he's just a possibility, but anything is possible, therefore he necessarily exists. This is so dull.

[@rationalecatholica3104]

Wow. To say "look it up please" to a person with a doctorate is the definition of arrogant. The argument is valid. You can just replace God with "maximally great being" and you're just describing properties at this point. There's still a way out here, that is to deny the metaphysical possibility of the existence of God.

[@1p6t1gms]

The modal argument of becoming closer to a perfect being presented (without describing what a perfect being would be or at least what is needed to obtain perfection? (Besides kneeling) Also, whether or not an existence would be possible with a perfect being from a material being who never achieves this before their death. Meaning, how many of us could exist in the same conditions of nature and of a lower evolved life form and communicate with them on their premises of thought process while holding your own evolving consciousness that dies before reaching an ideal to another higher perfection? (Does a perfection stop evolving or is it just perfection that begins and ends) All while the other lower consciousness life forms are never are able to reach the personal consciousness of the human being, as well as the variedness among human beings vast differences of consciousness. If it is a reality I personally would be in trouble as there are many of my fellow human consciousnesses that I could not spend an eternity together with at this level of awareness, no matter how good they perceive themselves to be or are reinforced from others, without excluding myself. God would need an awfully immense amount of love to compensate for the lack of perfection, which I would assume should require more kneeling than is currently happening, now and after death, assuming you have knees.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

Consider the most perfect unicorn in the universe. By being perfect, it must not be non-existent, otherwise it would not be perfect. Therefore, the most perfect unicorn must exist.

[@jamessmith989]

@Stefano Portoghesi a hot steaming dog pile.

[@jamessmith989]

@Stefano Portoghesi Lol.🙂

[@michielbouman8028]

That's the well-known parody objection made by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers in the 11th century, his example was that of a perfect island. The problem is that a unicorn is not a conceptual truth. Qualities that make a unicorn perfect are not the sort of qualities that admit of conceptually maximal qualities, such as maximal greatness. What would make a unicorn perfect? Would it be its whiteness, its strength? Etc. The concept 'unicorn' doesn't have an intrinsic maximum. But I get the intuitive force of the objection

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@michielbouman8028 Why isn't the unicorn (or the island) a conceptual truth?

[@michielbouman8028]

​@@ferdinandkraft857 With conceptual truth I mean that the concept is true in itself, by necessity. A perfect island is a concept which must be further explained, it is subjective; do you want it to have bars and parties or be totally abandoned? The concept of maximal greatness is true in its definition, it can't be debated. It is just that, maximal greatness. Another concept which can be used in this sense is perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge requires knowing all and only true propositions; it is conceptually impossible to know more than this, so there's an intrinsic maximum. This is a great site which explains it well and also gives some other objections: iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

[@peterpackiam]

Hahaha, Is he some kind of Comedian, Sorry, Cheers.

[@limonina1000]

All these "proofs" for the existence of God are so lame. Has anyone ever become a believer thanks to them? I don't think so. People believe in god either because they were born into a religious family and so indoctrined to it from the day they were born or had a moment of absolute certainty, some kind of deep personal revelation - an experience immanently different from these kind of "proofs".

[@bazstrutt8247]

Hanna Elias 100% agree... These arguments wouldn’t convince anyone to start believing, but work to keep those who already believe believing

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@bazstrutt8247 believing and - most importantly - making regular donations.

[@BigBunnyLove]

You can’t argue god.

[@stromboli183]

Eric Garza I can most certainly argue whether we can argue god or not.

[@BigBunnyLove]

Stromboli have at it

[@stromboli183]

Eric Garza all right then, so I say I certainly can argue god. I say the whole notion of a god, including the idea that it’s not just a fantasy made up by people, is just a fantasy made up by people. See, I just did argue god! 👍

[@BigBunnyLove]

Stromboli you can’t hurry love...you’ll just have to wait...kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXibi42ugZ1lkNE

[@hzoonka4203]

Can any of this be demonstrated in reality;he is oviously not talking about the god in the bible!

[@dongee6351]

Shouldn't it be easier? Disqualified by complication. Great lengths required to justify God should not be the case.

[@beaniegamer9163]

The ultimate secret should never be exposed or known...or the game will end and have no meaning. One can only speculate and enjoy the journey....nothing more no matter where how you search or ask.

[@nazhasan428]

I think its ok to accept the existence of god but in different form, other than described by religions.

[@jamessmith989]

Christianity is the only faith based on the absolute and the probability of one. Prophesies (foretold) years in advance and fulfilled to the letter.

[@xspotbox4400]

Yes, this is why we're force to became asocial, nobody cares about others anyway and God is just a joke. Good job Jesus!

[@jamessmith989]

@@xspotbox4400 👽

[@jamessmith989]

@@Graewulfe statistical probability mathematics.

[@jamessmith989]

@@Graewulfe 44 Messianic prophesies fulfilled to the letter. You should read it for yourself. Let Jesus Christ be Truth and every man a liar.

[@jamessmith989]

@@Graewulfe 👽 don't let the bastards grind you down. They lied about them too...

[@Spark-lm7ly]

TWO MAD MEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT MADNESS IS !

[@tomashull9805]

Philosophy is generally madness... some people make good living thanks to it though... Others have too much time on their hands, so they like talking about nothing in particular... lol

[@xspotbox4400]

I'm a philosopher, can you believe it? Let's roll!

[@tomashull9805]

@@xspotbox4400 So am I? philosopher of science... ;-) Still wanna roll?

[@Spark-lm7ly]

@@xspotbox4400 Prove it ...

[@toni4729]

Well if you think they're mad, why are you listening?

[@California1973-o1d]

What complete BS.

[@xspotbox4400]

Can you imagine something greater than infinite multiverses and beyond Planck length? If those exist, who can say something even more weird can't be materially manifested, since reality is most definitely much more strange than you brain can imagine.

[@toni4729]

If God were supremely perfect, he'd have made everything in the universe perfect. This he clearly didn't do.

[@toni4729]

@@rubiks6 Now you're saying you know it all. Naughty. He's killed off the human race a couple of times already so obviousely he's decided he made mistakes so, he can't be perfect, can he?

[@toni4729]

@@rubiks6 So you believe one family started this disgusting mess you call the human race. Perhaps you should watch what happens to people who marry close relatives. If we were all born from one family 🤢😡 we'd be a mangled mess. Lood what happens " Marrying first cousins"

[@toni4729]

@@rubiks6 You didn't watch that program did you? Adam and Eve had three sons, One of them killed the other. Call them perfect? There's something wrong with your idea of perfection. Also they had to have inbred with their mother.

[@psuedonym8344]

can u prove that scientifically?

[@toni4729]

@@rubiks6 Not again. Never again.