The Hidden Problem with Religious Arguments

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

LINKS AND CORRECTIONS Head to squarespace.com/unsolicitedadvice to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code unsolicitedadvice Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7

[@lunarmoon4596]

thank you

[@leocilliers4346]

It is more likely that Occam's Razor is a heuristic, true most of the time but not all of the time. If Occam's Razor is true most of the time but not all the time, then situations that are unlikely to exist, exist. If situations that are unlikely to exist, exist then they are worth considering. Atheism is therefore dogmatic. Agnostic points of view are more honest.

[@lunarmoon4596]

it oddly feels like I've watched this before cause I recognise David & your word spoken before its spoken I wonder why that alone is fascinating yet again

[@CMA418]

It does look “unprofessional and rubbish”. But, luckily, you don’t. 🫠😂🙏🙂

[@CautiosulyOptimistic1440]

I tend to see the pattern of definitions and actions. Or another example as physical properties and behaviors displayed by physical properties. An easier visual is dots and lines. Through actions you can connect the dots, or physical properties.

[@idan654321]

"imagine that you were not you but instead a beetle" probably didnt think we would notice you are trying to pull a kafka on us

[@Stinkabutt42069]

What’s a Kafka?

[@Nighthawkinlight]

The way I figure it, if there exists a God powerful enough to create the universe while existing outside of that creation, we have literally 0 chance of discovering anything about that God unless he wants to be known. An atheistic universe and a universe created by a disinterested God are equivalent in every way that could matter to us. Hume's arguments stand in the case of a disinterested God. The only universe in which the existence of a God matters is one where God wants to be known, and only in that latter case is there a possibility to learn anything about him. If we're not in such a universe every question is pointless. If we are in such a universe, maybe we can learn something of God but only by whatever means God decides to provide. Maybe that could be the natural sciences, maybe that could be direct revelation, introspection, or some combination thereof. Maybe God could come down as one of us.

[@Nighhhts]

God did make Himself known to mankind; His name is Jesus Christ… There goes the idea of a “disinterested God”… right out the window.

[@loganleatherman7647]

@Nighhhts Cool assertion bro. Now where is your actual proof/evidence to back up this blatant assertion? The Bible doesn’t count because the Bible is just has a bunch of claims that still need evidence to support.

[@CaptainTex34]

​@@Nighhhts source : a book said so....yeah dude that's not proof

[@cyberWarrior7519]

Cool, but God definitely wouldn’t reveal himself in his real form because that should be something creation can’t handle, also he wouldn’t come as a human because that is humiliation and downgrading of God

[@cyberWarrior7519]

@@loganleatherman7647 the bible we have now isn’t even the one that existed 1500 years ago, so yes not only they can’t show us the divinity of the bible, they can’t even make sure that they have the original one

[@carloblues]

Thank you for all the videos you are putting out. I find them helpful and well presented.

[@borat1]

Just wanted to say, I want to one day learn to make arguments and speak as eloquently as you do. I love your videos and every single one has been informative and explained things in a way I could intuitively understand. Be proud of these videos!

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you! That is very kind of you and I am glad they have been helpful

[@andre4300]

Maybe a course is a good idea. I think many of us would pay for something like this, for this professionalism and quality.

[@eIicit]

I second this completely. You were given a natural gift that you managed to build and refine into a truly rare and powerful skill. I love seeing when people manage that; I consider that to be very near Maslow’s concept of self-actualization. Bravo sir, very well done.

[@abelincoln.2064]

It's the same old religious rhetoric based on fake science. A religion is a ... function ... designed by a Natural intelligence based entirely on "belief" in someone or something responsible for Life, Universe & exixtence. Theists believe in someone (the gods) because everything in the Universe has clear purpose, rules & design (information). Atheists believe in something (nature) because the deliberately ignore everything has clear purpose, rules & design (information). Science ... is a Function ... designed by a Natural Intelligence to explain natural phenomena (functions) relying on fixed laws of nature (functions) to test a hypothesis and to make predictions. A hypothesis ... must be able to be tested .... and is based on observations ( eg machine analogies). We have religions that believe in the gods ... because Man has always observed ... everything is like a "machine" or function with clear purpose, rules & design. It was only in the 1800's ... with the rise of Atheism in Europe ....that more & more people ignored the obvious that everything is a Funciton/machine and believe the that latest Atheist bs about Nature & natural processes can make & enforce rules & laws, sent moral & ethical standards, has freewill to think & do good or evil, and makes, operates improves Functions for a reason, Science (function) only supports ... Universal Functions.

[@danielokoh6672]

Look at his Hands....Must be AI

[@Johnny_Isometric]

“But anyway, back to God” may be my new favorite segue.

[@nur-xo2yv]

Honestly, I’m non- English speaker, and many words are not familiar, but i m also interested in philosophy. And your voice and pronunciation are just amazing. Don't break away

[@cosmic-ocean]

Thanks brother for making these kinda video I m watching this during my breaks . I really enjoyed it .

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you for watching them! I really appreciate it

[@alchemicalalek7535]

I watch this as a Christian and I am very intrigued! Your essays are very well put together and inspiring, and I like how you approach Medieval Scholasticism and Natural Theology! Very few agnostics or skeptics will go to these people directly, so it is refreshing to see!

[@tomsweder7459]

There are a number of atheists, I among them, who studied those foundations when we were believers.

[@AJayZy]

@@tomsweder7459I agree. That seems to be the natural route when exploring theology

[@wet-read]

Not medieval scholasticism or natural theology, but I do dabble in philosophy.

[@archieese9176]

As an undercover ex Muslim atheist lol, i really enjoy your videos. These are not only informative, they activate my brain to 'think'. Thanks!

[@Essa-mx7db]

Same

[@DustinKillyact]

I'm atheist because my father was Muslim my mother was Christian BBOOMM best way to make a atheist 😂😂😂

[@libihiti]

I'm in the same boat as you in a way. May I ask what led you to this point?

[@DustinKillyact]

@@libihiti look at all governments around the world just turning human beings into slaves it became obvious to me god was invented by man as a scapegoat

[@blossom357]

I can get on with the standard apologetic of "God is beyond human understanding" if it were to apply to EVERYONE. But, unless I'm misunderstanding, this is only ever used against nonbelievers. Otherwise, there's this implied notion that "I, the Christian, do understand this entity that is beyond human comprehension." Bullshit. Be consistent.

[@vishtem33]

even if they were to be consistent, there's still the fact that it's not clear what is being claimed. I don't really see how 'X exists and is beyond human understanding' is genuinely distinguishable from 'magic is real because I said so' (or one of the many other supernatural claims that people make). If the thing posited is beyond human comprehension, isn't there literally nothing you can coherently say about it past the base claim that it exists?

[@Dhrrhee3e11a76]

One of the clearest and most consistent points of abrahamic theology, not just Christianity but also in Islam and judaism, is that God is incomprehensible.

[@blossom357]

@@vishtem33 I agree, yeah. It's basically how in the video he said, taken to its extreme, you'll just reach an athestic kind of position.

[@ezekielfinuma3663]

People have no issue accepting that their mind cant comprehend 4d and they believe in it. Even believing in other universes that would work differently somehow. No problems believing that as atheists science lovers. Even the fundamental quantum physics. Where something can be up and down at the same time. They believe all that. But when it comes to God then yea the being that is argued to create all this, same person says they should be able to understand that. Okay buddy

[@sanhakim1335]

My understanding of this argument is that you can't use reason on a god, but since god can speak to humans through prophets/holy books, you can understand god if you read their holy books/listen to their prophets.

[@LeanFuture]

That’s something that’s driven me insane since I was a little kid. How can people be sure of something they have no way of knowing? I never could understand.

[@Jake-mv7yo]

They have to be. Life is stressful for most people and they can't handle it without superstition.

[@becauseyes6234]

Because there is evidence, in all honesty who in history or today would die by crucifixion for something they KNEW was false, absolutely no one, your telling me that 466+ people who all witnessed christ in different ways and paid for it would do it for a lie they the KNEW was a lie, I think not.

[@lindaburkowski9565]

Write a book sharing your profound insight. Seriously, have you copyrighted this thought?

[@becauseyes6234]

@lindaburkowski9565 you cannot "copywrite" a defense of faith as much as you can copywrite the term "plead not guilty" Italian simply a defense, one that I haven't heard a good argument against either mind you

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

Some people just don't have faith. I don't think you'll ever understand without it.

[@anastasiaconstantine68]

new video just when i was rewatching the old ones!!! let's goooooo

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha! I hope you like it!

[@theCombatbadger]

I would like to say thank you, thank you for getting me into philosophy and classic literature. Love your vids. Please don't stop creating 😊

[@PhilosoJitsu]

Wow. I can't believe the level of meaningful education I can derive from just watching a short video these days. The question of knowledge is so needed in a lingering age where objective certainty and absolute knowledge are commonly, philosophically valued. Ty so much.

[@yosoq]

You're the only KZbinr I can watch without constantly skipping certain video parts, being uninterested. Keep it up!

[@AJayZy]

The general rule of thumb is that if you skip once, you should probably stop watching the video but if you are “constantly skipping” I do’t know lol

[@catelynh1020]

The watchmaker argument is silly. We're starting with something, not because it's complex, but because it is obviously manmade. We know watches are manmade. We also know cave paintings are manmade, not because they're complex, but because our ancestors really liked leaving a mark with handprints and then later drawings. The drawings became complex later, but they did not start out that way. Instead of it being walking along a beech and finding a watch (where we assume the complexity of the sand's shape and coloring and all that is obviously not "made" as opposed to the watch we have a clear understanding is made through past experience, it would be more akin to walking along the beach and seeing a rock formation that looks kind of like an elephant...then assuming said rock is actually a petrified elephant instead of something that could naturally come about through weathering of stone. Then the people who say it's an actual elephant point to the fact that from a certain angle of viewing, Elephant Rock can only be seen as a once living creature since there would be no way for a rock to look like something else (stand-in for religion), while everyone else is able to see the whole formation and say it only looks like an elephant from the one angle and if you squint

[@theboombody]

Nature is far too complex to be made by random chance. Heck, the play Hamlet alone is too complex to be made by random chance. At least in a 13 billion year old universe. If the universe were 10^200,000 seconds old instead of just 10^18 seconds old then Hamlet wouldn't be too complex for it. Pretty much all of the scientific community accepts there is natural law and order. They just mostly reject that the order has thought behind it.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@theboombodyI didn’t catch the part of the OP that appealed to nature being purely chance, I’d expect they take the position you described scientists to take. There is order to how matter behaves, there are patterns. It’s not all random, but the non-random aspects aren’t design aspects (as far as we’ve discovered). e.g. Evolution has a few core aspects, one is random mutation, another is non-random selection pressures. Every atheist recognises non-random things exist in nature, so are you maybe making a very uncharitable assumption here? :) :)

[@theboombody]

@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I STILL see people to this day that thinks random chance made it all happen, but that's not correct, and it's been calculated to be incorrect. I try to point that out clearly. There are definitely laws. Does that mean there's a lawmaker? We'll probably never know. I believe so, but that's a belief. But there is no question that there are laws.

[@catelynh1020]

@@theboombody It was random chance that the laws of nature are as they are, or at least so far as we have a way of knowing. Pretty much everything after that is the likelihood of something happening. For example, if you are on earth and drop a handful of salt 6 different times, the exact pattern of the salt may differ, but the fact that it went down instesd of up because of gravity, or some stuck to your hand because it bonded with the moisture on your palm, is not random. That we're on the exact planet we are with the society we have is in part chance, but life itself is not random. Often what i see for this type of argument is something like "look at this current version of something complicated; there's no way that could just suddenly pop into being". But we're not talking about modern humans, or watches, or paintings, or cars. We're talking about a single celled organism that's as debatably alive as a virus slowly changing over unimaginable timescales to become more complex. If we want to use the watch, then how complex is it really when we look at something like a sundial instead of a watch. Only it isn't the sundial you're thinking of. It's just a stick in the ground used to tell time. Think how complex that is; the sun has to exist and shine on the planet, the planet needs to move at a constant rotation and tilt, and the object needed to not be transparent so it could cast a shadow. While some people may look at that and think it's divinely created, the more accurate response is to understand it's just the laws of the universe (physics being something that can't just change on a whim, like holding the sun in the sky for a long time to makd days longer, or creating enough extra water to cover the planet for a flood and then removing it, or having a flat earth)

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@theboombody what are you describing when you say it’s been calculated that’s not correct? Fine tuning arguments regarding the fundamental constants?

[@Philusteen]

On my second listen-thru. Thanks, brother - this is an excellent flyover of many of the things I've been dancing with for a long time. ☕🖖

[@966aAad]

One of the things I dislike about religious arguments I see irl is it goes between "there is a god and he is the typical all loving Abrahamic god we know of" and "there is no god" Maybe this comes from the dread we would feel if there is a god but it is indifferent or even hateful to us so we ignore that possibility

[@ElusiveEel]

The former is socially useful, the latter is the evident antithesis.

[@Jcs57]

What I dislike about religion is the presumptions made that are based off the writings of ancient superstitious people that didn’t have access to telescopes or microscopes. If we threw out all religious texts and started from scratch would we still arrive at eating shrimp and lobster is bad and chopping off the tip of a penis is good?

[@SMT-ks8yp]

Abrahamic religions are the most concerning due to their excluding nature. While other religions have easier time tolerating alternative worldview, abrahamic zealots proclaim that not supporting them is outright evil. From this also follows the cultural dominance which leaves no other opponents for western atheists. And while most of their arguments can be applied to any god, it's the abrahamic one which they argue against most often. Same for the religious side, whose main opponents are now atheists instead of pagans, muslims/jews/christians or heretics.

[@TheMrAwesomeNinja]

I think you put together some of the most coherent and digestible content for complex philosophical topics on all of KZbin, thanks for doing that! Makes my work day a lot more enjoyable, and I always appreciate content that challenges me to critically think.

[@Ijustmakefunnyvideos]

I don't normally write anything in the comments on anyone's channel since I find it being a significant waste of time. However, I'd like to express how grateful I am to have stumbled upon your channel. Your videos challenge my own perception of reality and makes me genuinely question myself on a very deep level. I truly love philosophy, although it very often can drive me insane and I find myself being physically ill and falling into despair. In any case, I love your videos. Keep up the good work!

[@chemquests]

I frequently write comments although I too expect it’s a waste of time. I’d be surprised if anyone believed it was the best use of their time

[@DawnObulu]

You are awfully eloquent!! Arguably the most articulate person I’ve heard on KZbin. You have a new subscriber 🩷

[@milenaB23]

Thanks to your videos i rediscovered my passion for philosophy. Keep with the good work!

[@anthonystubbs960]

I'm shocked to discover I had not subscribed until today! I love the topics you cover and how you present them. Keep up the excellent work!

[@serpentinious7745]

I love that "square from 2 triangles" example. I'm totally going to start using that

[@OrdnanceLab]

Always happy to see a new videos pop up in my recommendations list.

[@Ana_MF]

Though I don't completely dismiss spiritual phenomena all religions seem more sophisticated versions of cargo cult to me. I like Hume. He was brave and humble enough to speak openly about our limits as humans. Be that reasonable during his times must have been quite a challenge. Thanks for the video.

[@allahmuhammad225]

Please consider placing advertisements either at the beginning or the end of your video, rather than interrupting the main content with irrelevant ads. This approach helps maintain focus on the topic and provides a better viewing experience. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[@andreab380]

My main doubt about this whole line of reasoning is essentially Kantian: although we do not know (X), we know our cognitive limitations. The beetle encountering a book would never know there is something he does not understand there. It has no concept even of human words and symbols representing those words, and it probably does not have access to many of the emotions and cultural constructs those words and symbols refer to. We seem to at least have the capacity to strive towards larger knowledge and even larger epistemic frameworks than are immediately accessible to us.

[@AmaraMomoh-fe5uw]

I really appreciate your lectures.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@lug358]

You are so well spoken that it is kind of hypnotic to listen to you talking. And english isnt even my first language 😂

[@Leylahfernandez1989]

Dialogues is easily my favourite philosophical text. Took me years to settle down and understand what the three men were saying. And that only added to my fascination.

[@graphixkillzzz]

when people ask me what i mean by "evidence," i tell them "remove the preconceived idea you had before you looked at the evidence. now, without having that idea, arrive to that idea by only observing the evidence. if you can arrive to a concept through the evidence, then the evidence supports that's concept. now remove the concept of gods from your mind. what can we observe to arrive back to that concept? what can we observe that tells us the definition of a god, that gives us a reason to conceive of a god?"

[@danielgould4096]

I am

[@aguywithalotofopinions412]

As a Christian, this is incredibly well made and I love your videos

[@ecta9604]

I gotta say that, when defending a really detailed worldview like Christianity, the whole “it’s a mystery we can’t understand because God is an infinite being” schtick feels like a cop-out. If you do something like ask whether Satan rebelling was part of God’s plan and if so couldn’t God have done something else, or if you ask how it’s possible that God regretted creating humanity prior to the Flood despite God being an eternal being who can’t be surprised, the Christian response is often something like “we can’t know that, and also you shouldn’t really be asking it because by doing so you’re presuming you know better than God”. Human reasoning is almost certainly going to hit some walls it can’t get beyond sooner or later, I absolutely agree. But pointing at those sorts things as examples of that sort of wall seems a lot more like an attempt to avoid looking at a weak point in the Christian worldview that points in the direction of a less-than-divine origin for the religion than it seems like a genuine grappling with the limits of human reason.

[@drooskie9525]

There comes a point where a framework is so incredibly powerful and explanatory that some peripheral details that "don't fit" can be boxed and put to the side. Not to say to it isn't to be ignored, but it can be recognized without destroying the entire framework. We do this all the time, even in scientific contexts. Besides, there's already answers for the questions you've raised anyway.

[@TheForklifter]

The thing is, a God, such as the one described in Abrahamic religions, would be something inherently beyond our understanding. The greater motives of such a God is a mystery to us unless he decides to disclose it. Trying to understand a God like that would be like understanding the universe to a secular type. I'm not trying to convince you to believe in a God or any particular religion. Just want to point a few things out.

[@RedRabbitEntertainment]

​@@TheForklifterI don't think that's necessarily true, Christianity for example is pretty clear about God's motives on a lot of things.

[@RedRabbitEntertainment]

​@@TheForklifterBut too be fair that's an issue relevant to any religion that claims the existence of a specific personal God. The God is no longer completely unknowable, it's given personhood, like emotions and whatnot.

[@NotAGoodUsername360]

No one seems to have a problem with the existence of black holes despite the fact that singularities themselves are also infinite and incomprehensible. Yet that doesn't seem to affect their ability to exist.

[@Moodymuse60]

Religion is such a complex topic to discuss and you always show respect and have a very clear and logical delivery of philosophy , about atheists and religious people. I enjoy your work in this channel very much. Well done ❤

[@CovidIslandDiscs]

Another very good video although as a professional scientist, who also loves philosophy and embraces the Christian faith, surely in your many conversations, you have had enough interactions with scientists to realise how ignorant many of them are of the philosophy that underpins the scientific method, including its epistemological limits that means it cannot serve as an arbiter of all truth but has a valid and invalid scope of operation. While your critique of theist certainty is well-made, I would counter that authentic Christianity never encourages certainty but its constant refrain is the word the “faith” (choosing to put our trust in things which we cannot know for certain). I think the mistake many Christians make is to conflate faith with epistemological certainty but the two are definitely not the same. So I describe myself as a Christian- agnostic in that I hope the message contained in the Christian Bible is the truth (again that word needs defining and certainly doesn't have to mean what many fundamentalist atheists or Christians think it does), based on the many apologetic defences that at least allow one to realise it is utterly reasonable, given our human limitations, to believe that the biblical text is a special revelation from the maker of our reality that sits nicely alongside our human experience.

[@simonditomasso9868]

You don’t need 100% certainty to hold beliefs, but I’d argue you need to establish that it’s even possible to be true

[@CovidIslandDiscs]

@@simonditomasso9868 yes but that is no more difficult than believing our reality exists independently of ourselves is time-finte and self-actualised from nothing.

[@simonditomasso9868]

@@CovidIslandDiscs well it’s not exactly the same since I don’t think anyone thinks that the universe self actualized from nothing. I’d say I don’t know how the universe came to be. But saying I don’t know is different than saying “it’s maybe a god that did it” without establishing the possibility of god(s) existing

[@CovidIslandDiscs]

@@simonditomasso9868 Lawrence Krauss in his universe from nothing presupposes some form of quantum uncertainty fluctuations that drive the creation of energy necessary for our universe to exist. Yet strictly from a philosophical point of view he has changed the ontological meaning of "nothing" because nothing should not have potentiality. Ultimately, we cannot escape the idea that there must be components of our reality that are truly eternal and this applies whether you lean towards atheism or theism. The only philosophical question is whether personhood is assigned to an emergent or eternal category. Given that I cannot even explain why my personhood is located inside my body, a body that shares the exact same molecular machinery as yours; and why I live in the 21st century instead of my personal consciousness existing 2,000 years ago in a person living in the middle East, demonstrates to me the profound limitations of my human condition. For sure, I can believe Alan Turing and define self-aware consciousness on purely operational grounds so that entities that pass the Turing test are self-aware and conscious. Yet while it is sensible to assume that you share with me self-aware personhood, it does not follow that advance AI language models are also conscious persons even if they are getting closer and closer to passing the Turing test. It is more likely they are just conscious-mimicking but again I can neither prove nor disprove such a conjecture once they truly pass the Turing test. For me there seems to be no way to get from unconscious matter to human personhood. Even the noble prize winning scientist Roger Penrose has spent many pages of ink arguing that human consciousness cannot be algorithmically-based but he thinks must involve quantum mechanics at its deepest level. When all is said and done, you put all personhood in the time-finite category whereas I put one personhood (called God) in the eternal category and it is that person who is the first cause for the reality in which our own emergent personhood briefly observes in our time-finite lives. They are equal faith positions.

[@CovidIslandDiscs]

@@simonditomasso9868 grrh I really hate KZbin somtimes. Wrote a detailed response to your last comment but it didn't upload (this happens all too frequently) and I forgot to save it so would have to rewrite it from scratch which can't bring myself to do. Briefly, there is a lot one can say about personhood and the mystery of conscious self-awareness but when all is said and done, the debate between theism and atheism is whether you put "personhood" in an emergent or eternal category.

[@pecheew]

Ur videos have really gotten me into philosophy , your videos are so good!

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! That is very kind!

[@ricardoortega1139]

The idea that ontology could be based on epistemology hadnt crossed my mind, its truly interesting

[@macdougdoug]

Maybe I should go and listen to that again, but wasn't Hume's point more about the ontologies that we are capable of imagining? As in : we cannot imagine an ontology that we don't understand or know about (for which we have no epistemic certainty)

[@wet-read]

Based on, or informed by?

[@stanleyszelagowski7599]

“If god didn’t exist we would have to create him.” I think Voltaire’s quote is prescient and wisely agnostic.

[@Finckelstein]

It's neither of those. Voltaire was highlighting the perceived utility of faith as a conformity mechanism. He was a deist who thought that if there was no sword of damocles swinging above everyone they'd become monsters. As it turns out, that's entirely wrong, though. On average religious people commit more crimes than atheists.

[@123duelist]

​@@FinckelsteinWhat is your source for this knowledge?

[@Finckelstein]

@@123duelist What exactly? Voltaire's deism? That's easily verifiable by reading his own works. The part about atheists being less criminal? That's harder to come by because most countries don't publish that kind of data. But the last time it was properly looked at in the US, atheists made 0.1% of the prison population, while making up 4% to 15% (determined how the question was framed in the respective survey). Not a single religious group came even close. And let's not ignore country comparisons. No one would rather live in the deeply religious US (any state) over vastly atheistic countries like Germany, the UK or Japan when only looking at the crime rates.

[@NotAGoodUsername360]

​@@Finckelstein"As it turns out, he's entirely wrong, though" ...Have you looked around the world, lately? It's been true since the Reign of Terror in France and every communist uprising since.

[@ElusiveEel]

@@123duelist The statistics on prison populations are easy to find.

[@khavarthompson6200]

As a Believer, these are the most enjoyable videos that I have watched. Thank you for the video

[@med_ayhem_benabda]

Same I love hearing other beliefs guys

[@josipbozic7917]

Imho one of the best episodes of this channel! Wonderful work.

[@JohnBorstlap]

Brilliant..... But the question bubbles-up: why could a logical, ordered universe not be deeply mysterious and numinous (in the sense of: including metaphysical properties) in the same time? The very existence of logic in the human mind is in itself a great mystery and on top of that, we discover the mystery that our logic is reflected in the universe, or the other way around. When we approach the question of the existence of (a) God, who is to say that it could only be answered rationally, logically, philosophically or theologically? What if the universe is, without our knowing it, one large work of art, with logical properties but which conveys a 'message' on another level than our rational consciousness? And this would go much farther than agnosticism - it would be a matter of experience. So, our rationality and logic still remains those of the beetle.

[@jayDClo]

I like the concept of a god that is all loving and experiences everything with everyone. Like all the pain, all the fear, all the struggle; a higher entity experiences these things with me and with all of us. This entity cannot influence things, but the thing that makes the entity “higher” or “godly” is its capacity for infinite love and transcendent empathy for all things. Gives me some comfort believing this.

[@wet-read]

Why? In the end, we are talking about something that isn't us feeling stuff we can't.

[@Blush06]

What a great man u are ! Appreciated ❤

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! I hope you like the video!

[@bimothecowboy]

Glad I found this channel my favorite thing is to read the books he talks about and come back an watch again after

[@Lighn]

What do you think about the idea that humans are just biological robots? we have a response system and memory, which result in experience and a weird kind of creative imagination for what could be. These things dont sound far from AI. I also think that it perfectly combines with the idea of "We act how we act because of prior happenings. Action = Reaction". I'm not sure if I'm missing something because i had this idea on my own, so i wanted to ask if you do and what you think about it.

[@comq01]

kinda, we are not pre-programed unless you consider the soul the "software"

[@med_ayhem_benabda]

​@@comq01yeah but any decision you made is affected so much by your biological need and state and your genetic so you are not free Cuz you're in almost in prison of your body that affect your Will and even thinking

[@CaptainTex34]

​@@comq01there's no proof a soul exist in the first place

[@cyberWarrior7519]

@@CaptainTex34 consciousness is the soul by definition

[@cyberWarrior7519]

@@CaptainTex34 also if you want to go by the “evidence” BS Then remember that there is no universal evidence that child 🍇 is wrong, so you either eat the whole pie or leave it buddy

[@bizikimiz6003]

Thanks, I have realized in the last 30 years I have totally forgotten everything I have learned from the Dialogues, now I have to read it again a few times.

[@cloudymushrooms2153]

love your vids man

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@TreXsJournal-Coming-Soon]

The biggest whole in suggesting that evidence is needed to make a plausible inference, is that there is honestly, truly, no definition for the word "proof" in the way beholders like yourself use the word. For example, no one has ever witnessed their objects being stolen when they were not present. You might say, I know they stole my laptop because people have been known to steal. However, you have no reason to believe that someone taking your things was trying to "steal" it. There is no logical reason to believe that the person who may have moved your object did it for any other reason than them being concerned. We also don't know if there are methods that we have not seen, that could have moved the laptop. It quit literally could be under laws of physics we haven't discovered that hide the object from our senses. For that matter, all things are possible, and therefore, all things are plausible. Yet, somehow, we still make successful inferences, even without having all the tools to "reasonably" do so.

[@putent9623]

Interesting

[@efhi]

Based on our empirical model we model/"imagine" that it was stolen and take action accordingly (call the manager/cops), if it's wrong we lose nothing, if it's correct we might get it back. We don't have to be certain to make good calls. Also if I just checked on the cameras I could be even more sure it was stolen, or maybe I saw someone with a baklava pick it up and run. I could be pretty sure that they're stealing it.

[@Steeze111]

I wonder if we would have gone extinct without religion , or if we would be like 5000 years ahead with our technology

[@cassie2055]

as someone sho's just getting into philosophy, i absolutely adore your channel. keep up the good work !

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Majesty of Reason is another brilliant channel like this :)

[@hap1678]

I am Catholic doing research into the Humieb/Kantian objections, this video is helpful. Thanks!

[@refayatul]

Also research that kants thought were of racial hierarchy

[@Tenrar]

Bro, I just wanted to ask this, How to talk like you? Your hand gestures, way of speaking, vocabulary, all of that is so good and just instantly leads me to believing in what you say, even if it directly opposes my own Ideals, your way of speaking makes me reconsider my own thoughts and opinions.

[@bananacat9139]

Some of the characteristics you mentioned remind me of Rhetoric, which usually refers to 'the art of persuassion'.

[@calebhall4722]

no views in 36 seconds bro fell off

[@markelcreek56]

Lol, dude 🤣

[@elijahwise4588]

No you

[@AdaptiveApeHybrid]

I genuinely love this meme

[@madmax7539]

No b"tches in a 1000 years bro fell off.

[@BGDMusic]

true

[@pierreboutemy706]

Just discovered this channel. Love your work !

[@SOX-9]

I've changed my view on atheism after realizing that many people struggle with basic subjects like physics or economics, yet they demand absolute understanding of God before they take it seriously. It seems unreasonable to expect such a high level of certainty in one area when they can't fully grasp others.

[@Jcs57]

Without another human to implant the concept of god its desires and attributes into to your world view how would you on your own arrive at this world view? What in this existence would lead you to the conclusion that there exists a being that wants you to chop the tip of your penis off and not eat shrimp? What in this existence would lead you to conclude that your forefather was made from mud and his mate was a clone of himself? What would lead you to conclude without the Bible which is a compilation of other books that were voted on for inclusion that higher power exists and it requires blood sacrifice to forgive you for existing. What in the in the geographical and historical record would lead you to conclude that cosplaying vampirism and cannibalism and praying to a zombie nailed to a couple of sticks was a necessary ritual to escape death? What would point you to a being that exists as himself as someone else and as something else. What evidence would you need to arrive at these conclusions? On the other hand you could study the universe and always arrive exactly where everyone would if given the tools we have today. Gods are a human construct used to explain what we could not previously explain. God is an assumption introduced by assertion and demonstrated through circular reasoning.

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

I was raised atheist but became increasingly skeptical of it later in life. All you have to do is turn these familiar arguments (which can be stated in a fraction of the words) on your own beliefs. But there's the trouble, how do you question a belief you don't even recognize as such?

[@werk1449]

You should seriously consider making a podcast

[@BlueSquareInWhiteCircle]

17:09 Philo's argument presupposes that a hypothetical multitudal possibility space holds precedence over singular actualization and their weighting in relation to each other based on the dynamics of experience based judgment in everyday life. He extrapolates everyday reasoning into the possibility space of possible imagined realities which is a sensible leap from how we use common sense but a leap of logic non the less.

[@Emmanuval-fl6gg]

Love your videos man

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

I'm so glad you began with "The Limits of Analogy" because one of the most recent remarks I made on religion is that every time I see a trinity analogy, I check for heresy. It's usually partialism or modalism. There aren't that many Aryans in the open these days.

[@putent9623]

Can you give me an example of this.

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

@@putent9623 people not understanding how there can be 3 persons of the Trinity, yet only one God, so someone compares it to the brain. You have multiple jokes which are not eachother, yet they are all you. That is Partialism.

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

@@putent9623 or someone comparing the trinity with the sun. There's the star, heat and light, but that's arianism, because the heat and light are creations of the star not co-equal to it. Or someone being a husband, father and mechanic, that's modalism.

[@danielclark-hughes692]

Mourn for me, brothers and sisters. I have finished the entire back catalogue...

[@bimothecowboy]

Now you must become the catalog

[@KT-dj4iy]

Cool you mention Feser. I haven’t seen him mentioned by many outside his blog fans or professional academics working in his space. I don’t agree with everything he says, but from reading some of his stuff I think I’ve learned three things: A) Most everyday atheists don’t really understand the kind of classical theism as discussed by Feser (and Aquinas before him) B) Neither do most everyday theists! and C) If classical theism is wrong, it’s not _trivially_ wrong (and so it would behoove anyone who thinks it _is_ to reconsider).

[@applesfantastic3484]

I think Hume has horrible takes. He makes a lot of unqualified statements and ends saying that they MUST signify other things and just keeps repeating that process ad nauseum, like how all you see is a lie because your eyes only “interpret” reality. Like… no… the mechanical nature of math and biology produced the “reality” you saw… not your “subjective perspective”… it’s like trying to build a blueprint on cardboard paper with crayons. We’re talking about objective reality here. You can’t just say nothing is objective and then pat yourself on the back

[@jeffreykazanjian2399]

His take on miracles is also fallacious. He basically begs the question, saying miracles can’t happen because miracles can’t happen.

[@harrysarso]

I think these are two questions, yes everything you see is ant interpretation of your mind thus subjectieve, and yes there is an objective world(probably). At least that's what i think

[@katiteluvrs]

NICEEEEE I have debate rounds tomorrow, was going through your channel!! always a fav

[@Kimani_White]

_"Religion's greatest mistake..."_ ...Is being based on appeals to authority.

[@bonbon__candy__1]

Appeal to authority is fine if the authority one is appealing to is an actual valid authority.

[@Kimani_White]

@@bonbon__candy__1 Appealing to authority is fallacious for the simple reason that no status confers infallibility or makes one immune to dishonesty. Moreover, not only is it insufficient to demonstrate the truth of a claim, it's a tacit admission that you yourself are incompetent to even argue or judge the validity of arguments on a matter, effectively disqualifying yourself from debating it.

[@marcoscherrutti1451]

I love your videos on theology, there's something that's just so entertaining about them for me XD Another great one, as per usual!

[@Neoth40k]

11:58 wait... Are you a MASTER at something?! Jesus I thought you was just a young charismatic philosophy enjoyer

[@CautiosulyOptimistic1440]

Another idea is that the fine tuning of the universe balances itself out, such if one property is skewed then the rest adjust to the change. But this would imply that the universe has a preferred balance point for matter to exist.

[@peopleofearth6250]

The problem with religious arguments is that they're seldom ever convincing to people who aren't already religious.

[@ArlindoBuriti]

Because that is on you, nobody is going to convince you that GOD exist, is faith. now atheist want to convince people that GOD don't exist in turn turning atheism into a religion it self.

[@ryanjones4150]

@@ArlindoBuriti Atheism isn't a religion. It's a rejection of the idea that there is a God. Because there isn't one. It's completely obvious if you look at things objectively. All these discussions about the complexity of life implying there is a god ultimately are moot, because they are coming at things from the wrong angle. You have to start with the book of lies you call the Bible. All the major stories in it are complete BS. Also, isn't it so weird that the god you think is the god of everything has a reference manual where everything in it takes place in a very small portion of the world ? It would be so much more convincing if there were stories from different parts of the world that told the same story. But they don't - all religions in the world are completely different, because they evolved from local mythologies. "Belief is the death of intelligence". - Robert Anton Wilson

[@peopleofearth6250]

@@ArlindoBuriti Religious people trying to disrespect atheism by calling it a religion will never not be funny to me. 😂

[@wokemorty727]

@@peopleofearth6250I mean it basically is. This whole false dichotomy between “religion and science” is in the shadow of the christian west, and the reactionary emphasis on human reason that defined the “enlightenment.”. There is no atheist in the west that doesn’t hinge their beliefs on some enlightenment thinker. Atheists as a whole are more generally more skeptical than traditionally “religious” people as a whole, true…especially christians. But there are skeptical people who find the arguments put forth by other religion more elegant than atheist arguments. And there are atheists who have clearly intellectually stagnated, become dogmatic, and even deify human reason in a way that borders on magical thinking. David Hume’s “problem of induction” isn’t just a criticism of religious arguments, it’s a criticism of the limits of all human reason.

[@IllarionYolgin]

​​@@peopleofearth6250 I don't think it is far from the truth(calling atheism a religion of sorts). But I like to frame this as idealism vs materialism. Not as theist/atheist. You can't answer this question without some kind of belief. Most atheists(at least that people mean when they call someone atheist) are in fact materialists. So this is how atheism is in a sense a form of religion. It depends on your definition of religion of course but if you mostly define religion as belief system or something depending on a belief that has no scientific proof then you can see why some people say that atheism is a religion.

[@Hexagon-co9qd]

I don`t want to sound pedantic but I think it is important to mention this: - at around 22:00 when you started listing different competeng claims: "One side argues that euthanasia is moral and the other argues that it`s not" one side says y = x and the other side says y =- x. Which means that both sides have a burden of proof but then you say: "One side believes Jesus rose from the dead and the other disagrees" which would be equivalent to A: y = x B: y = 0 in which case the burden of proof lies with A rather both A and B having a burden of proof. - I should clarify that when I say y=0 I am reffering to a neutral state. There are 3 states which I have represented with 1,-1 and 0: 1 being X,Y exist, -1 being X,Y don`t exist and 0 being neither. - so I was curious to know if you were just being short and actually meant to say one side says Jesus rose from the dead and the other says Jesus didn`t rise from the dead?

[@drummersagainstitk]

Great job. Thanks for your work. Try and set something up with Gavin Ortland of Truth Unites. It'd be a great exchange.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thanks! I am glad you are enjoying the videos

[@IdoSha]

Brilliant work. Keep it up lad!

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@ALavin-en1kr]

The problem of evil is often brought up as an argument against God -- how could a just and benign God create a world in which there is evil. If there is unity there is no opposition; no good or bad forces clashing with each other. But if there is unity there is just one and there is no universe; no world; no creation. In creation to have anything manifest and in opposition is necessary to have non-unity or more than one. The idea of two goods is unity not duality. To have creation is to have a drama we need a hero and a villain. Try doing a drama with two heros it is not too much of a drama. Although what we experience is real to us it is just a projection, a show for our benefit so we can evolve and transcend it one day. Meanwhile we are assured that our souls, our spark of light, is beyond the drama and not affected by it and will always exist. So that is heartening. If Satan had not rebelled there would be unity and maybe a level of semi-conscious acquiescence with the deity. It may be better if we know and are fully conscious and it is likely the Fall and our earthly journey or journeys (reincarnation) will bring us to full conscious awareness. After all Christ said: Ye are gods. And maybe we are.

[@number1darren]

Really enjoying this channel, subscribed after your collab with Alex O'connor. Great stuff!

[@SMT-ks8yp]

When considering the plausibility of intelligent design, or anything, really, it is important to check why you believe that is explanation is plausible. We seem to treat things as people even when there is evidence that they're not. For example, when we're frustrated by our phone not working or a door not opening we can ask the items, hit them, yell at them, expecting that this will somehow help. This line of thinking is simply our default, but it has been compromised a lot and should be followed with great caution.

[@rieskorin2027]

Atheism does not state “ there is no god”. Some atheists state that view but atheism itself only states “I don’t believe the evidence you have presented that a god or gods exist”. Word to your mother.

[@cyberWarrior7519]

That isn’t atheism, that is agnosticism Atheism is rejecting God completely, and believing that there is not even a fraction of a chance that he exists without you yourself proving it lol

[@cyberWarrior7519]

Also there is no such a thing as “does god exists” Whenever i reflect about it the question gets stupider There shouldn’t be anyone to ask that question if he didn’t exist, also if God didn’t exist does nothingness exist? Which makes “god not existing” even hypothetically impossible

[@therandomheretek5403]

Fair enough, but how is that distinct from agnosticism, ie no evidence to convince me to make a judgement call, then? The term seems most useful only if you consider "hard" atheism.

[@rieskorin2027]

@@cyberWarrior7519 Can you spell "PRESUPPOSITION"?

[@rieskorin2027]

@@therandomheretek5403 It is totally possible to go from "i don't believe the evidence" to either Agnostic or all gods proposed in human history are false.

[@eIicit]

This will require a second listen to truly explore. Thank you for your videos, they are packed with value from start to finish.

[@DrManHattan3n20]

No one: Dinesh D'Souza: " Isn't interesting that he has a British accent AND he's an Athiest?!?!?!?!?!?!"

[@larrycarter3765]

Athiest ?!?!?!?!?!?!

[@MufaroMangoda]

Keep spitting that knowledge

[@leonhayes188]

Religion: the most effective, cheapest method of crowd control ever created by humanity.

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

USSR, North Korea, Communist China- would disagree with you.

[@palkia38]

I actually just finished reading An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, great timing!

[@youniskhel7529]

Are you religious? Like do you believe in God? Btw, have you done research on Islam?

[@De_Selby]

He's atheist.

[@CaptainTex34]

I think he has said in other videos he is not a believer

[@StephenMoreira]

Excited for the counter points to Hume's, I've basically came to his same overall conclusion a long time ago.

[@BlazyBob1]

I love this! Thank you for making this video. I’ve been reflecting on and writing about these very topics a lot in the last year or so, so all of this resonates deeply with me. I knew some very broad ideas from Hume, but now I feel the urge to check his work more deeply since he already put a lot of thought into much of what I’ve been grappling with. Now I’m very intrigued by which would be those critiques of his points that you mentioned at the end! It’d be awesome if you made a follow-up video diving deeper into those! 😁 Absolutely love this channel, keep it up mate ❤

[@harel3662]

I heard about you fron Alex Oconnor's podcast. Now glad about it!

[@casanovafiems1508]

Hey man, I really enjoy your content, personally as a follower of Christ I haven’t seen a lot of smart Christian’s or atheists and agnostics and I’m really glad to know that your content brings knowledge where you really just bring up the philosophy about such things, it brings me joy.

[@putent9623]

Watch debates then. What the hell. I can't blame you I guess, I was in the same boat at one point but watch debates and focus on what is actually coming out of their mouth. Focus on their points. In terms of debating, likely because I'm a christian, christians make the best points. Look at andrew wilson for example. He is very thorough, even if he has a fowl mouth, his arguments are always strong and I haven't seen him lost a debate yet (maybe if I go back far enough but between his debates from 2yrs ago and now he has lost a single one and is a orthodox christian). Watch Sam shoumoun (bad spelling I know), Jay dyer, I think this guy kylier or something. Just watch debates, you can find smart people from all sorts of backgrounds. To say you don't know a single one is a clear sign of ignorance (no offence).

[@SharedPhilosophy]

You made this video at the perfect time! I was just getting into learning more about Hume's philosophy. Love the content, keep it up! 💙

[@Aphorismenoi]

What's the name of the painting at 6:52 ?

[@viser1243]

God the Father, Cima da Conegliano,  1510-1517

[@Aphorismenoi]

@@viser1243 I appreciate you fam 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@markdpricemusic1574]

Excellent overview of Hume, many thanks for this. Much appreciated.

[@crypticnomad]

I think this is an important subject, and some of these points can be applied beyond the religion debate, possibly extending to academia and science in general. The practical utility of skepticism and epistemic humility can be summed up in a quote from James Kidd: "Colleagues can let us down, shared epistemic practices can be abused, and institutions can be corrupted. The virtue of epistemic humility therefore builds in, at the ground level, an acute sense of the fact that epistemic confidence is conditional, complex, contingent, and therefore fragile." Dogmatism exists in both religious circles and in modern academia/science. To be clear, not every religious person, academic, or scientist is dogmatic, but dogmatic thinking certainly exists within these broader groups. A statement becomes dogmatic not because it is true or false, but because it is presented as being incontrovertibly true. Nothing is incontrovertibly true, except dogma itself. As an example, I’ve often debated people on the topic of axiomatic thinking, which underpins much of modern science. Some assert that "Axioms need no proof, which is why they are called axioms," often adopting an objectivist or direct realist stance. The issue is not the existence of axioms but how rigidly they are adhered to without consideration of their context or limitations. To illustrate this point, consider how long it took before the Western world developed and accepted as valid a system of logic that rejected the law of the excluded middle. In contrast, the Eastern world had logical systems, such as those in Buddhist logic, that rejected the law of the excluded middle long before the West did. By "objectivist stance," I specifically refer to the belief that there exists some sort of bird’s-eye view from which we can externally observe reality, and therefore, there is only one true account of that reality. This perspective assumes that discrete entities in the world have certain structures that interrelate in specific ways and that our concepts and mathematical frameworks perfectly map onto these objects and their interrelations. For instance, logic and mathematics, which occur in the human mind, are thought to either be actual instantiations of these real entities in the world or to correspond perfectly to them. This assumption generally extends to our categories and concepts as well. The issue with this stance is that it isn't scientific and instead more closely resembles a religious argument than what I would call a scientific argument. The issue for me rests on the fact that we are ultimately relying on symbols. This means we cannot express these concepts to each other or even verify them without the use of some sort of symbolic system. Furthermore, we cannot test if these symbols actually reflect real objects in the world without the use of yet more symbols. Basically, assuming that these symbols actually correspond to something objective is a sort of religious argument, or at least very similar. I argue that a hardline objectivist/direct realist view has as many problems as most religious views. To be clear, I’m not saying science is useless or anything, but rather that some people take it to a dogmatic extreme similar to how devoutly religious individuals might. Personally, I’m deeply skeptical of formal systems of knowledge, even though I still use them daily. To me, scientific absolutism has many points in common with religions in general, especially when it comes to dogmatic thinking.

[@crypticnomad]

Interestingly, I could apply a mystic's arguments-Agrippa's critiques of scholasticism-equally well to formal symbolic systems of knowledge: 1. The Mode of Disagreement: Agrippa argued that for any proposition, there is always a counter-proposition that can be equally well defended. This leads to an endless chain of disputes, where no definitive truth can be established. 2. The Mode of Infinite Regress: This mode points out that any attempt to justify a claim leads to an infinite regress of justifications, where each justification requires further justification, and so on. 3. The Mode of Relativity: This mode asserts that all perceptions and judgments are relative to the observer’s perspective, meaning that any claim is only true in relation to a specific context or set of assumptions. 4. The Mode of Hypothesis: This mode criticizes the tendency to assume foundational premises without proof, often because these premises are taken as self-evident or axiomatic. 5. The Mode of Circularity (Petitio Principii): Agrippa argued that arguments often rely on circular reasoning, where the conclusion is presupposed in the premises, leading to a form of reasoning that assumes what it sets out to prove. Not all of these directly apply to every modern scientific concept, but they do apply to what I call "symbolic realism," "symbolic objectivism," and "symbolic absolutism," which all essentially claim that the symbols we use in our symbolic systems somehow relate to that objective bird's-eye view I mentioned previously. They seem to assume that these symbols represent some truth independent of context. To be clear, I'm not claiming that "truth independent of context doesn't exist," because that would be a paradox, but rather that the idea is incoherent, especially in the case of symbolic systems. To be true is to be true in context. To be known is to be known in context. My overall argument centers on critiquing the assumption that symbolic systems (such as mathematics and logic) offer a "bird’s-eye view" or objective representation of reality. I argue that this perspective, often implicit in "symbolic realism," "symbolic objectivism," and "symbolic absolutism," is philosophically flawed and untenable, meaning it cannot be defended against objection. By applying Agrippa’s Five Modes of skepticism, I challenge the validity of claims that formal symbolic systems can capture objective truths without considering the context in which these symbols operate. If the system of symbols is sufficiently expressive to encompass basic arithmetic, then Gödel's theorems and possibly Tarski's undefinability theorem apply as well. The key point is that these symbolic systems, rather than providing an objective viewpoint, are always contingent on context and cannot escape the limitations imposed by their symbolic nature.

[@lemurlaemu]

@@crypticnomad there is a way of breaking the spell of mistaking local/subjective and intersubjective/ for universal/objective/: a walk on the wild side, an encounter with the Other, exposing yourself to a world built differently than one's native - so strange yet obviously fully functional. a trip, a journey, a pilgrimage, even persistent tourism, as Bauman calls it. learning the game/reality of the other by means of discerning foreign language idioms! for less adventurous brits it could be ditching bloody sunday roast when it's 30 degrees outside. surely, psychedelic drugs are more efficient :D

[@lemurlaemu]

skeptic bootcamp for dummies

[@crypticnomad]

​@@lemurlaemu In modern scientific research, there is a state called "persistent non-symbolic experience" that is well researched. Various spiritual traditions have given it different names, but ironically enough, when we take an empiricism/objectivism-based view of this mental state using modern tools, there are some striking similarities between people reported to be in various stages, sometimes called "enlightenment." In the specific research I mentioned, they discuss different levels, although they are careful to clarify that this does not imply a hierarchy, as in a staircase, but rather that different sorts of experiences tend to cluster around these "levels." One common experience is the total or near-total loss of the "narrative self," as well as significant reported differences in the subjective feeling of time, sometimes a loss of it almost entirely.

[@lemurlaemu]

@@crypticnomad Lacanian Real, which goes by many other names too.

[@anthonylicata8582]

I love your videos. They are very deep and thought provoking 💭 that voice is really the icing on the cake, positively spellbinding 🤩

[@eklektikTubb]

Agnosticism is kinda sneaky, because it can move from humble "i dont know that" to extremely prideful "i know that nobody can possibly know that". I strongly prefer the humble part, although it is not very useful.

[@PhrontDoor]

I see the watchmaker argument failing along this line : If you find a watch in a cave, then clearly the cave WITH the watch is more complicated than the cave by itself. But because it might have complicated things within it does not even slightly imply that the cave needed a designer. If any single component can be said to be of a mechanistically (materialistically) known process, then we'd have to find a point at which there is a component which cannot be so ascribed.

[@renocicchi7346]

20:51 I identify as an atheist, and most other people I know that identify as an atheist usually don’t claim “there is no god”, but rather, we are not theists, which most of the time means we are just not convinced that a god exists. Not being convinced of something and claiming that something does not exist have a subtle but important difference.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

The only reason I would tend to talk about atheists as more than simply "not being convinced that God exists" is that if we define atheism as a lack of belief in God then we make all inanimate objects atheists. So I tend to instead think of it as a belief that God does not exist. So B(not-God) rather than not-B(God) if that makes sense

[@renocicchi7346]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I see, but is there truly a problem with saying that intimate objects fall into the catagory of “atheist”. If we want, we could easily just add the caviot that it’s under the catagory of mental/ belief position. So “a person that is not convinced of the existence of god/ someone that is not a theist”. Do you have a word for someone that is not convinced of a god but does not claim there is no god, and would rocks, trees and chimpanzees not still fit into that definition?

[@gregsanich5183]

Precisely! In the same way​ I'm not even sure I'd call myself a theist nessessarily, bc there's no way to know for certain, do ultamitely this whole topic is entirely speculative, no matter what you believe. But as an objective and rational skeptic, I'm inclined to find the creator hypothesis to be the more compelling possibility simply bc agency & design is currently the only possibility we know of, have ever observed, or can demonstrate empiricaly to indeed be possible. We have countless examples of things we know for certain to be a result of agency and design. There are no examples of anything, that we know for certain wasn't. Until there is some empirical or demonstrable evidence that an alternative to agency and design is even a possibility, as an objective and rational skeptic, I'm obligated to withhold belief that there is. " the time to believe in something is when it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be true. " Matt Dilahunty

[@renocicchi7346]

@@gregsanich5183 I’m curious, do you believe hurricanes are designed from an agent being?

[@putent9623]

So agnostic 😂

[@sci_sciu6919]

If God is omnipotent and infinitely good, evil should not exist, but it does. Then it is justified by free will, but He is omnipotent, so He could create a paradoxical reality where we are all good and free. To justify this, religious people would say that without suffering, we wouldn't learn important things about existence. But again, I repeat, He is omnipotent and wouldn't make us suffer to teach us things. Then religious people would say: " What do you know about what God thinks?" But every religion has artefacts, books, and testimonies that claim to know God's thoughts (for example, the 10 commandments). So, either God doesn't exist, or He is not omnipotent, or He is not infinitely good - all possibilities that contradict Christian religion.

[@sandygehrmann6309]

If you agree with Hume and Philo about agnosticism, why do you proclaim yourself an atheist? Could you make a video on this?

[@theGuideMarkII]

I did enjoy your video, it's well made, and you have a very clear way of communicating. Interesting to learn more about Hume this way. I am confident however that we definitely can know for sure God does not exist, at least the God Christians believe in. There are a number of arguments that combined make his existence not even improbable but impossible. I'm 100% confident he does not exist.

[@yourtypicalramenbowl]

So when are you reading all the comments to your recent question in the community tab? :) Also you are the first person who helped me get into this fascinating subject of philosophy deeper. AND THANK YOU SOOOO MUCH FOR THAT!!