Seriously, all I hear from these "answers" is a bunch of people defining "god" in such a way that it fulfills their presuppositions. That's a bad cognitive bias that renders any argument like that illogical. "God must be perfect." What? That's just your presumption, because, if your god is unknowable, then you cannot know that it is perfect. You're just making stuff up to satisfy the argument so that the conclusion is that which you've already decided it will be.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
So, how do you answer the “iPod” analogy? Also, I agree that the perfection one is the one I would try to criticize first if I felt like I needed to make it look the way you describe. Let’s try the iPod one because it’s repeated multiple times.
@surfacetension
4 ай бұрын
@@BraxtonHunter A variation on the long debunked blind watchmaker fallacy? Really? Einstein's General Relativity tells us that time is part of the fabric of our universe. Time is needed for causality, since all effects come after a cause. You can't have something come after another thing if time doesn't exist. Consequently, if the universe doesn't exist, then we cannot say that cause/effect existed without the universe. Thus, the first premise of Kalam fails. As for complexity...who's to say what is complex? Maybe our universe is incredibly simple compared to other universes. We, of course, have no way of knowing. Is an iPod complex? Again, compared to iPods in other universes, we have no idea. We can only go by what we actually know -- not what we imagine in order to satisfy what we wish to be true.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
@@surfacetension This has nothing to do with the Paley's watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with design arguments. Now we're talking about contingency and necessity. So, knowing that, what's your response to the "ipod analogy." I'm totally cool with it if you would prefer to address it later after processing what I'm saying and looking into these concepts.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
@@richardlaiche8303 okay. Hey, do you have a good response to the iPod analogy?
@matswessling6600
4 ай бұрын
@@BraxtonHunteryou seriously think the ipad analogy is good for anything? existence inst a thing you borrow. its not an object. Existence is not even a property. "existence" is just a way to say that something isnt just a figment of imagination. Saying that A exist just imolies that the universe behaves in a way that conforms with our idea of A.
@Stinky97000
4 ай бұрын
I define the laws of nature as immaterial, absolute, necessary, existing independent of time and space. [Elegance] goes directly to the question of how the laws of nature are constructed. Nobody knows the answer to that. Nobody! It's a perfectly legitimate hypothesis, in my view, to say that some extremely elegant creator made those laws. But I think if you go down that road, you must have the courage to ask the next question, which is: Where did that creator come from? And where did his, her, or its elegance come from? And if you say it was always there, then why not say that the laws of nature were always there and save a step? -Carl Sagan
@simonsays6481
4 ай бұрын
Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, but who painted Da Vinci 🤔
@scottsponaas
4 ай бұрын
🤣
@Suavemente_Enjoyer
4 ай бұрын
“A bigger, more powerful da Vinci!”
@Dizerner
4 ай бұрын
I think a better question here is what makes existence contingent. Then if God does not fit that the question dissolves.
@somersetcace1
4 ай бұрын
No, they don't like questions they can't answer. "What caused God," is something they feel comfortable with. `Why God rather than no God,` is another better question you won't hear a coherent answer to.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
@somersetcace1 here’s a straightforward answer: I don’t know, but I don’t need to know why fidget spinners became popular or began, but I can still identify one, talk about it, interact with it and so forth. Do you really have to know why every object in the universe exists before recognizing it. This sounds really strange. So, yeah. I don’t know. But I also don’t know what my 3rd cousin had for dinner last Thursday. When you figure out how that’s relevant, you’ll have your answer.
@generichuman_
4 ай бұрын
Contingency is based around our ability to imagine something being a different way, but if the universe is deterministic, then it may be the case that everything is the only way it could have been. So it may be the case that nothing is contingent. We simply have no way of knowing, and being able to imagine something being a different way doesn't mean this is reflected in reality. For example, I can imagine an infinitude of different ways God could be, including a version that caused one child to suffer slightly less from bone cancer, but apologists would be quick to point out the limitations of my human mind in this imagining exercise. Furthermore, where would this contingency come from if you have a necessary unchanging God? In order for something to even have the possibility of being different, this difference would have to be represented in the origin of this thing, so God would have to have been different in some way to create something in state A rather than state B.
@Krehfish534
4 ай бұрын
@@somersetcace1that you won't hear a coherent answer to? Hmm let's think about that. Why God rather than no God? Let's start with an agreed proposition: there is something rather than nothing. Why something rather than nothing? Nothing in the universe is self-creating or uncreated, and only self-creating or uncreated things can exist without a self-creating or uncreated thing. Given that self-creation is itself incoherent, whatever created everything is uncreated. Thus, an uncreated thing is necessary for created things to exist. It will take more steps to say that such a thing is a conscious being, but it's far from incoherent. W hy is there a God rather than no God? Because there is something rather than nothing. There is nothing about this that is incoherent, even if you object to it. A leads to B leads to C, therefore A leads to C. A is true, thus C is true.
@somersetcace1
4 ай бұрын
@@Krehfish534 All you've done is push the goal posts. There's nothing coherent there. Either things can exist without being `created` or they can't. Arbitrarily deciding that nothing can just exist, except for a god concept, is not a reasonable answer at all. It's starting with an answer and looking for something to apply it to.
@generichuman_
4 ай бұрын
Here' the thing, you don't get to just define things to avoid questions. Calling God unmakeable is an English string of words you can say, but it doesn't make it a true statement, anymore than me defining myself as always right in an internet argument.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
No it’s not. It’s a description of philosophical necessity as opposed to contingency.
@FVIAX
4 ай бұрын
What created 1+1=2
@johnalexir7634
4 ай бұрын
This sounds a bit like an ad for Ipods
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
~14 years too late.
@johnalexir7634
4 ай бұрын
@@BraxtonHunter Lol true
@workinprogress9613
4 ай бұрын
So energy can neither be made nor destroyed.
@airguitarsalesman
4 ай бұрын
All this seems to be is just defining God into existence. I don't see how this correlates to evidence at all.
@ryana1787
4 ай бұрын
This completely misses the point of the question. The atheist doesn’t think anything created god - the atheist doesn’t believe god exists. The reason for the question is to point out that the theist insists on causes but then special pleads for god. You’re just defining something into existence. All I have to do is posit this - the universe is uncreated and has no beginning. I define the universe that way, so you can’t say it has a beginning or a cause.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
The problem is that that hypothesis fails because of the impossibility of past infinite time. The cause of time must be non-temporal. Non-temporal things don’t have beginnings or endings. You also would need to answer the “iPod” analogy as it relates to contingency vs necessity.
@ryana1787
4 ай бұрын
@@BraxtonHunter that’s easy - time is not caused. And I define time as uncaused, so it’s a category error to argue otherwise. The universe is the first iPod. P.s. you know you’re viewing an old video when the example they are using is iPods. Some cosmologists believe time could be eternal. We just don’t know - certainly don’t know enough to pronounce with certainty that it is ‘impossible’.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
@@ryana1787 what is your response to the seeming impossibility of a past infinite timeline (for instance, how do you respond to Hilbert’s Hotel type examples)?
@ryana1787
4 ай бұрын
@@BraxtonHunter Hilbert Hotel does not say infinity is impossible. It points out that there are counter-intuitive properties of infinite sets, and that there are different types of infinities. What makes you think that past infinite time is 100% impossible?
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
@@ryana1787 in my last post I specified “seemingly.” Although, I do think you can get an actual contradiction out of it with reaper paradoxes. Nevertheless, the seemingly impossible past infinite time is such because if these absurdities. They HIGHLY evidence that past infinites are impossible. So, again, without making the goal post some sort of Cartesian certainty that you can’t even have about your own existence, what is your response?
@JadDragon
4 ай бұрын
Some great minds there with some great answers. Thanks for putting this together. Jesus lives ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
Thanks so much! I’m always encouraged by your comments!
@surfacetension
4 ай бұрын
People with certain types of synesthesia CAN actually "smell the color red." Also, Kalam fails because causality requires time, time is fundamental to our universe; no universe, no time; no time, no causality; no causality, no reason to say the universe had a cause.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
You speak with such certainty. The act of creation is the first moment of time. Further, it might be helpful to look into “State-event causation.” Lastly, yes. That time is necessary for causation is why neither determinism, nor random events can explain. A libertarianly free, omniscience is the only EVEN conceivable explanation.
@surfacetension
4 ай бұрын
@@BraxtonHunter We can imagine everything and anything, but in the end we don't know. And if we don't know, then there's no reason to presume it's the answer we wish it to be. That's why I say there's no reason to presume causation exists outside of our universe, rather than saying causation doesn't exist outside of our universe. In the end, the ONLY answer to "where did the universe come from" is "I.do.not.know." Make-believe all you wish (all religion is, after all, is adult make-believe), but don't present your conclusions as though they are based on anything other than what you want to make believe.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
@@surfacetension So no real response to the causal articulation I expressed. gotcha.
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
@@richardlaiche8303 well I can’t do much with the second part, because there’s nothing there. As for an eternal universe, how do you handle the absurdities that result from past infinite time (Like Hilbert’s Hotel)?
@matswessling6600
4 ай бұрын
@@BraxtonHunterwhat absurdities of a past infinte time? seems you misunderstood meaning of hilberts hotel.
@ukkisragee9983
4 ай бұрын
These things are about finding the mistake, y'know? With this one the mistake is assuming cause and effect is a universal law but claiming it doesn't apply to god through semantics and making assumptions without backing it up.
@zbdbz
4 ай бұрын
do i detect a whiff of question-begging
@WaveFunctionCollapsed
4 ай бұрын
i will rather ask why god exist thats a hard question im a believer btw
@renierramirez9534
4 ай бұрын
God Is the necessary being everything else is contingent
@WaveFunctionCollapsed
4 ай бұрын
@@renierramirez9534 i know i believe in him im askin just in curiosity thats why god exist what if he not exist
@Suavemente_Enjoyer
4 ай бұрын
Thank you for the video, sir! This is great!❤
@thevulture5750
4 ай бұрын
Is thr atheist ok with believing in an eternal all powerful universe? Is it "anything but God"?
@philochristos
4 ай бұрын
Shouldn't the response be: "Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence"?
@daddada2984
4 ай бұрын
To God be the glory.
@dane947
4 ай бұрын
It's obvious to anyone not being myopic, who created God. You have to let yourself see the forest for the trees.
@matswessling6600
4 ай бұрын
yes. man created god.
@thevulture5750
4 ай бұрын
Have you seen how the KJV Bible is mathematically encoded?
@andrewwright9960
4 ай бұрын
The god of the bible was made by man.
@adamstewart9052
4 ай бұрын
InspiringPhilosophy also once made a video on this in which he thinks it's the worst objection to theism.
@adamstewart9052
4 ай бұрын
"Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?"
@Finckelstein
4 ай бұрын
@@adamstewart9052 Of course he thinks that. He has no real answer to the question, that's why he has to attack the question itself. Same as with the problem of evil. The fact theists think they can just say "God is eternal, but everything else had to be created" is the ultimate admission that your belief is completely arbitrary. If there were olympics for special pleading, this one would be a winner.
@adamstewart9052
4 ай бұрын
@@Finckelstein No but God is not meant to be something that came into existence and this isn't an excuse made up by theists to deal with the question since it's already something that's believed about God. God is meant to be an eternal being so by definition he had no beginning to his existence or will ever have an end. It's not special pleading because the first mover would be uncaused by definition and defined differently from a contingent existence.
@Finckelstein
4 ай бұрын
@@adamstewart9052 "No but the Universe is not meant to be something that came into existence and this isn't an excuse made up by materialists to deal with the question since it's already something that's believed about the Universe. The universe's energy is meant to be eternal so by definition it had no beginning to its existence or will ever have an end." It is 100% special pleading. You can use the same argument for absolutely everything. But theists insist that we have to use a different standard for their god from the one they use for everything else, which is a textbook example of special pleading. You can define your god into existence all you want, it won't change the fact that you have absolutely no way to demonstrate anything about it. Not even with syllogisms.
@adamstewart9052
4 ай бұрын
@@Finckelstein That would be the case if the universe was eternal but it's strongly suggested to have had a beginning so it's like arguing what end does a planet have? You wouldn't say it's special pleading if it's already something that would or wouldn't be a characteristic or attribute of that object or entity since it would eliminate that possibility. God was before everything that contingently came into existence so as a logical consequence he would need to be eternal and timeless.
@bitofwizdomb7266
4 ай бұрын
Some higher god fashioned yaweh out of clay
@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus
4 ай бұрын
That's mormonism
@bitofwizdomb7266
4 ай бұрын
@@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus yea but the higher god above the higher god who made yaweh out of clay made the first higher god out of mud
@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus
4 ай бұрын
@bitofwizdomb7266 that's a lie
@bitofwizdomb7266
4 ай бұрын
@@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus and the higher god that made the higher god out of mud was made by dirt by an even higher god
@DaysofElijah317
4 ай бұрын
For God to be God he must be uncaused- otherwise we are not talking about God
@therick363
3 ай бұрын
What about other things that are uncaused?
@DaysofElijah317
3 ай бұрын
@@therick363 name something that is uncaused But if it consists of space, time, or matter it had a beginning
@therick363
3 ай бұрын
@@DaysofElijah317 we don’t know if space had a beginning-we don’t even know what space is Energy could be eternal=uncaused
@DaysofElijah317
3 ай бұрын
@@therick363 that is not true you can of space being eternal but we know that the universe had a beginning and space is contained within the universe. We actually know what space is Nothingness between the Heavenly bodies Entropy is a law of nature energy is being lost the galaxy is cooling down science literally isn’t on your side.
@AlexanderLindenmuth
4 ай бұрын
Nobody ever asks who made God it’s always who created God. I don’t understand how you messed up this ally oop so freaking bad
@BraxtonHunter
4 ай бұрын
Can you give me the substantial difference that would delineate?
@Evidence1
4 ай бұрын
This is how stupid persons answer the unanswerable. Christian always claims that everything must have a creator but when it comes to God that rule is set aside.
@philochristos
4 ай бұрын
What Christian claims that everything must have a creator? None of the people Braxton cited in this video make that claim. Neither does Braxton.
@mrcolmiyo
4 ай бұрын
No Christian ever claimed that everything has a creator. The premise of kalam is that everything _which begins to exist_ has a cause. The universe began to exist, so therefore it must have a cause. There is no discarded rule or special pleading with the divine, since God _by definition_ did not begin to exist, therefore not necessitating a cause. Furthermore, an uncaused cause is logically necessary to avoid infinite regress.
@FVIAX
4 ай бұрын
Everything that starts science says universe started
@renierramirez9534
4 ай бұрын
Do you know what is an infinite regression?
@Evidence1
4 ай бұрын
@@philochristos Never heard the phrase "a painting must have a painter"? I hear is all the time from Christians and others.
@alphaalvey5029
4 ай бұрын
Humans made god
@renierramirez9534
4 ай бұрын
Yes, man made false gods. They are talking about God who made men.
@alphaalvey5029
4 ай бұрын
@@renierramirez9534 none, humans made all the gods . Unless someone has some evidence to prove otherwise
@Finckelstein
4 ай бұрын
@@renierramirez9534 Every single god ever was made up by us. That's why they typically all share the dispositions of the people who made them up. And that's also why the abrahamitic god is such a POS. He was made up by a bunch of hateful savages.
@20july1944
4 ай бұрын
I'm looking for BRIAN BALLARD! CALLING BRIAN BALLARD!
@Stinky97000
4 ай бұрын
😂
@20july1944
4 ай бұрын
@@Stinky97000 I am trying to move a chat from FB which is even WORSE than YT.
@ryoheiota1
4 ай бұрын
Man
@ubersheizer5398
4 ай бұрын
If you did not believe you had the Holy Spirit in you, would any of this really matter? For many of us who do not believe in the HS and It is not present, I look on my sleeping child and feel so much joy. I don't worry about him going to Christian Heaven or Hell. Nor Islamic Heaven or Hell. We have this world and that is it. I work every day to make that day the best for my loved ones. I am not working for a next life. For all indications for me say there is none. So anyway, has your compatriot accepted Old Earth and No Flood yet? I know you were considering it a few months ago.
@StageWatcher
4 ай бұрын
Whether or not you worry about something has no bearing on whether it is real. Many people borrow and borrow to make the best of today and don't bother to worry about what happens when the credit runs out. The faster and more extravagantly they please themselves in the now, the greater their suffering when the bills come due.
@ubersheizer5398
4 ай бұрын
@@StageWatcher "Whether or not you worry about something has no bearing on whether it is real." .... Agreed "Many people borrow and borrow to make the best of today and don't bother to worry about what happens when the credit runs out." ... Ok. Who cashes in that credit? "The faster and more extravagantly they please themselves in the now, the greater their suffering when the bills come due." I assume you are referring to the Christian Hell. What about the Muslim Hell? You gotta step back and look at your worldview from a distance if you really want the truth.
@StageWatcher
4 ай бұрын
@@ubersheizer5398 "You gotta step back and look at your worldview from a distance if you really want the truth." I find this to be a commonality with a large number of atheists. You assume that all Christians are only Christian because we haven't investigated anything else.
@StageWatcher
4 ай бұрын
@@ubersheizer5398 Why are so many atheists so arrogant to assume Christians are only Christians because we haven't investigated anything else?
@StageWatcher
4 ай бұрын
@@ubersheizer5398 "You gotta step back and look at your worldview from a distance if you really want the truth." Why do you assume I haven't? Have you stepped back to view the atheist worldview from a distance? Have you deeply investigated the nature of immaterial consciousness, experience, and morality? Or the fundamental nature of life? Or why the universe has laws? Have you investigated the claims of the various religions, testing their historicity? When secular philosophers tell you something is true, do you question them to the same standards that you question Christians?
Пікірлер: 163