Check out the whole Agnostic to Catholic Walkthrough playlist: kzitem.info/door/PLUhQUc8kSuBd66dNv4myCjLdXO7ZTFtYx
@richardcowart3227
Ай бұрын
“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me” is a line from Psalm 51:10 - hey great video really enjoyed it well done also
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
Thank you :) next one will be about the Trinity
@martinalcala4823
Ай бұрын
You make me fall in love with God again! Thank you so much, very well explained!
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
@@martinalcala4823 I'm glad you enjoyed it :)
@JohnCamacho
Ай бұрын
God is a philosophically constructed hypothetical being, created with the purpose of answering life's profound mysteries. However, the God creators weren't aware they would be also creating a new unsolvable mystery. One that begs the question.
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
@@JohnCamacho Have you got an objection to any specific point I made or are you commenting just to confirm your bias?
@qzvl
Ай бұрын
Funny how you mention philosophy… it completely destroys other religions (including atheism/agnosticism) and renders their worldview incoherent. You could also do the simple history check if you’d like. Pretty easy to eliminate other theistic/non-theistic worldviews this way. Go watch Jay dyer’s video on the transcendental argument for god (TAG).
@failedspark6643
Ай бұрын
Several things: "Logic suggest that there must be a first cause to everything." That is correct, however you are using a slight over-simplification of logic to allow for a conclusion outside of its scope. Logic cannot produce a thing indeterminate of its functioning because it is internally defined and constructed. In other words, logic can't on its cause its origin prior to its existence by definition and therefore can't be used to support a claim prior to the existence of its very functioning. (This doesn't mean you're wrong with arguing for an indeterminate/free-will only that the implication that logic can suggest such a thing is not accurate.)(Which I think you'd agree with considering how you described free-will) What existed prior to space, time and matter is not automaticly an absence of existence at large or even these facets of reality as a whole and therefore not nescessarily mean or equate to the or a beginning of everything; It is just the point where we as temporal, material and spacial creatures will no longer be able to even concieve in our mind of any form of existence not confined by our fundamental limitations. Any conclusion besides we'd never know how existence may have functioned prior to a material, temporal and spacial reality is a conclusion you cannot prove by mere virtue of existing in a reality which does have those things. "Can my good and evil be different from yours? Lets assume that it's subjective to start with and see if we run into any logical contradictions." Comparing a hypothetical subjective opinion in regards to morality to a hypothetical objective fact/truth in regards to morality is in itself already logically falicious. Your cake example, even though you say is assuming subjectivity, would only follow to your conclusion had you assumed some objective truth(greatest good); I can subjectively like eating an entire cake every single day and subjectively dislike diabetes and weight gain simultainously and remain consistant both moral(/belief but maybe not action though even that is debatable) and subjectively; even had I subjectively believed eating cake was the greatest good I would do so in part because I do not believe its consequences are the greatest evil, funnier still, I could even believe cake was both the greatest good and its consequences the greatest evil and nonetheless my subjective opinions would be just as valid precisely because they are subjective. In other words I could subjectively believe anything and any other contradicting thing so long as my subjective opinion is that they don't contradict or even more amazingly if I don't care that eitther I or they do. "A self propigating action is good and a self defeating action is evil by definition." I highly, highly doubt you actually judge any action by this rather broad definition, as this the definition objective morality counters and does not seem in line with the Catholic interpetation of objective morality with the original sin and all. Also, if you believe everything must have a cause how does God not qualify under everything as to also have required a cause? And if God does not need a cause why would existence itself be any different by nescessity?
@renocicchi7346
Ай бұрын
Hello! Atheists here! I have several questions I guess I’ll do two at a time starting with the very first point, and the second pertaining to the very last point, then tunnel into the middle First, how can time be created, when creating something requires time to already exist prior? If there was a point where god existed, but his creation did not exist, then he exists in a point before time exists, as he is choosing to not create. Then he needs to change from a state of deciding to not create, to a state of deciding to create, then change to a state of actually creating. This is sequential as there is a change of state before time is even created, therefore god is temporal, and cannot exist outside of time. God either had to create everything the moment he began existing, or god and the universe existed together simultaneously for eternity, or god does not exist. For the last point, you equate evil with destruction, but I do not believe destruction is the most evil thing. If everything is destroyed, then it will go back to zero, no suffering, not good, just neutral, while the most evil thing is to create an infinite amount of conscious being who experience the maximum amount of suffering for an infinite amount of time. In fact, destroying those lives would be a good thing, so good can actually come out of destruction if the thing being destroyed is bringing about evil. Your equation for good and evil failed and did not balance out because you only had the goal of ultimate good, so anything that doesn’t continue the feedback loop is bad, but a proper equation would include a goal of ultimate bad, and good would harm that feedback loop. So my question to you is: how do you know god is not pure evil, and he isn’t secretly deceiving you with his intelligence being neigh infinitely greater then yours, and either send you to a place of infinite suffering, or to go with him to be his slave and worship him and his evil shenanigans for all eternity. And the reason there is goodness and hope is to take it away to make the suffering and evil even more potent and painful for his creations?
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
Hi, good questions! First of all, let me address time. Time is a problem for everyone to be honest, not just for theists. How did the big bang come into existence if time came with it? Even if the big bang wasn't the first cause, something must be since there can't be an infintie regress of causes. This is actually a problem for the previous video I made regarding the first cause. Time is change, if there is no change then there is no time. Since there was nothing before the first cause, because well... it's first, there was no change and hence no time. I don't think it's necessary to know how creation happened to know that it did and that there was no time before just like I don't need to know the precise mechanism for evolution (which is still ongoing research) to know that evolution occurs. I do have an answer if you are interested, but it's not a problem for God. To refute the creation of time, you would have to first refute the first cause itself. Regarding the problem of evil, are you a moral relativist or a moral realist?
@JohnCamacho
Ай бұрын
@@SeekersTavern... the big bang didn't "come into existence". The big bang theory starts with a singularity with infinite density that starts expanding. It doesn't say the singularity came into existence. Also, we don't know what happened before the singularity, so something could have happened e.g. crunch down the cosmos into one tiny point.
@shassett79
Ай бұрын
@@JohnCamacho This is exactly right. All Big Bang cosmology indicates is that the _observable universe_ used to be much denser/hotter and has since expanded/cooled. Not only do we not actually know that the universe expanded from a true singularity, we don't know that singularities are possible and we have no reason to conclude that such a hypothetical singularity was preceded by a state of pure nonexistence.
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
@@shassett79 I'm not talking about the big bang. There could be something before it, who knows? I'm talking about the first cause as derived from logic. Also, I've never said there was nonexistence before the first cause? That's wrong in two ways, nonexistence is not something that can exist and there is no "before" to the first cause, both by definition. I've never made any of these claims. Please be careful when assuming my position, I'm likely not like the theists you have encountered so far. So, I would appreciate it if you could not assume my position beyond what I actually said.
@shassett79
Ай бұрын
@@SeekersTavern... You seemed to be talking about the Big Bang, but I was just agreeing with JohnCamacho, so take it up with him.
@paulinka1271
Ай бұрын
I have! God sees God in every angle and IT result in creatiom. The Perfect image od God is Jesus and He is a God. And when God sees Jesus he loved him in a Perfect way so the Love is The Holy Spirit. IT is the live beetwen God and Perfect image od God - Jesus. Our wiek and we are not God, but we reflect some image and parts od God
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
Excellent! Thank you for your contribution! Yes, God can only see and want himself. Since God must be perfect, so is his intellect and will, so when he sees and wants himself, those images are God result in the 2nd and 3rd persons of God. When God abstracts his own image that is the orign of creation and how we came to be, man made in the image of God :)
@paulinka1271
Ай бұрын
@@SeekersTavern... Men and womens, they are a whole.
@CatOnACell
Ай бұрын
Does it still exist? It is also an imortant question for athiests. Whatever causes the disparity between existance and non-existance to form may very well only exist before disparities and in no other state.
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
@@CatOnACell Good question! The first cause is unlike anything else, it's simple, perfect and indivisible. Creation doesn't depend on the first cause temporally, there is no such thing as time before time. The first cause is therefore eternal, or rather atemporal, a concept such as change doesn't apply to the first cause so it can't cease to exist. We exist in time from our perspective, with a past and a future. From the first cause perspective, all of time is present.
@dylantucker5559
Ай бұрын
How can a non-spatial, non-temporal, immaterial being interact (i.e. create) a material, spatial, and temporal universe? For something to interact with matter, it must also contain spatial, temporal, or matterial qualities. You take advantage of the libertarian definition of free will, which is fine, but it ignores other more popular definitions of free will, such as compatibilism. Using the libertarian definition of free will also makes your argument more vulnerable to hard determinist arguments. Morality is a complex subject, and skimmed over in this video. All I can say is that there are many alternatives to subjective and objective morality, such as maluable forms of ethics such as pragmatic ethical frameworks or virtue ethics. All objective ethical theories suffer from the same problem of requiring a first assumption. IF we say that eating cake is a good thing, then Why is it assumed that my ability to continue eating cakes is a good thing? Maybe I am a massochist, or an extinctionist? I cannot continue to not exist, and yet IF I assume that not existing is inhererantly good then I will not be able to continue that task. There is an inherant "IF" statement being used here that must be accepted before we can make objective inferances. Accepting objective maximums (see utilitarianism or divine command theory) require a baseless assumption. You also assume that evil is derived from good, when there is no reason it cant be the opposite or neither. Why can't evil exist apart from good, but good can exist apart from evil?
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
Can you give a reason why something needs to be material in order to interact with matter?
@The_Alchemist_007
Ай бұрын
@@SeekersTavern... Matter, by definition, needs space and time; it's something that needs space. How can something that exists nowhere (spaceless) interact with something that exists somewhere (in space) because interaction itself should happen somewhere?
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
@@The_Alchemist_007 Yes, matter does need space and time to exist itself, but why must it only interact with other things within space and time? You have stated that, but you didn't give any reason. I don't even know how to comment on that since there is no argument to comment on. The creator of a story doesn't need to be a part of it to create it, in fact he can't be. It makes no logical sense as the story would have to pre-exist itself in order to create itself.
@dylantucker5559
Ай бұрын
@@SeekersTavern... Rene Descartes reasoned that the mind was immaterial and interacts with the body (a material object). The most famous objection to mind-body dualism was made by princess elizabeth, she stated that immaterial cannot interact with the material as interaction requires spatial and temporal properties. For more detail I suggest this video kzitem.info/news/bejne/zIB_wK6jjqKXoKA When interaction occurs, we want to ask "how" and "when" that interaction occured. Interaction occurs when two or more objects come into contact with one another, but a non-spatial object has nothing to come in contact with. If something is non-temporal, then we cannot ask "when" it occured because "when" implies time. The only things that are non-spatial and non-temporal are things that dont exist.
@The_Alchemist_007
Ай бұрын
@@SeekersTavern... Because interaction itself is an event in space and time.
@davethesid8960
7 күн бұрын
Is the tree chart available somewhere?
@SeekersTavern...
7 күн бұрын
@@davethesid8960 I was thinking of making it available somehow, not at the moment but I've got it. I used SimpleMind to make it. I'm planning to expand it so I would either need to make regular updates or embed it somehow on a website. No idea how to do that yet. I would like to do it once I finish the agnostic to Catholic series. 1 video in editing, 1 awaiting recording and 3 more to script.
@shassett79
Ай бұрын
If logic suggests there must be a first cause to everything, why do theists immediately intuit an uncaused creator? How logical can that position be if the people advocating it also reject it?
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
@@shassett79 Did you watch the video? The entire video answers your question, literally from start to finish. Where is the jump? I've talked about this step by step, explaining 7 individual characteristics and the reasons for them. I specifically avoided jumping to God. In the previous video I've made I explained how we can get to the first cause and why we can't jump to the conclusion that it's God so that I could make another video, this one, explaining the steps necessary to prove it's God. The steps I walked through are whether the first cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, personal, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. If all these are true then yes, the first cause must be God.
@shassett79
Ай бұрын
@@SeekersTavern... Was your god caused? If not, we can safely reject the notion that everything requires a cause, right?
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
@@shassett79 You haven't watched the video, have you?
@shassett79
Ай бұрын
@@SeekersTavern... Yeah, I watched the video. Please reference a time index where you addressed my question. By my lights, you: - claim that logic implies that everything needs a cause - presume that "most agnostics" are comfortable with the idea of spaceless, timeless, immaterial creator - assert that it's "immediately obvious" that space, time, matter and energy "were created" ...and I can go on but, setting aside that these points are all dubious, you've seemingly jumped right over even entertaining the idea that your god required a cause?
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
@@shassett79 Okay, I understand you better now. Let me address these points one by one. 1) This video starts with the assumption that there is a first cause. This is the second video in the series. I go over why there must be a first cause in the first one, this one is focused on the nature of the first cause. I don't claim that everything needs a cause, it's not a part of my argument. I'm not using the Kalam cosmological argument and it doesn't claim that either. 2) Eh... the word creator has the baggage of sounding personal. I meant that most agnostics wouldn't have a problem with a spaceless, timeless and immaterial first cause, for example if it was some non-personal event. Those three properties don't really raise any alarms in my experience, it's the personal property that does. Even Richard Dawkins said that he could perhaps be persuaded of a first cause just not one that is personal. 3) Well, it is obvious. A first cause has no before and no change, since time is change it's just impossible for it to be in time. Space by itself is just a potential that is meaningless without something in it. The first cause can't be in space because then it would be limited and a first cause can't have any limitation as mentioned in my previous video. Matter can't create anything, there is a reason why we have the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The first cause just can't logically be material. I skipped over those because they are quite frankly not that interesting.
@JohnCamacho
Ай бұрын
We don't know anything about God. Different religions around the world are fed different representations of God. We don't know which one is true, if any. In fact a God could exist but not be represented by any known religion. Also the God that exists could be very different from what you were taught - it might be indifferent, imperfect, no omni qualities
@SeekersTavern...
Ай бұрын
@@JohnCamacho Of course we do, did you even watch the video? It really seems like you just came to rant. There is another atheist here in the comments and he respectfully referred to two points I made and laid out his doubts. You on the other hand have not engaged with anything I said. Why are you even here?
@paulinka1271
Ай бұрын
But the video is about the first cause not about the religion and which God is the real one. You didn't watch the video, i assume.
Пікірлер: 65