Nick Bostrum - Arguments for Agnosticism?
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 10. 2020
- Agnostics do not know whether or not God exists. Theists surmise they're reprobates. Atheists suppose they're cowards. Are there different kinds of agnostics? Can agnosticism deepen appreciation for God-what it would take to believe in God and what it would mean if indeed there were a God? A robust, energetic agnosticism is a credit to God if there is one.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on agnosticism: bit.ly/36l1Mpa
Nick Bostrom is a Swedish philosopher at St. Cross College, University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk and the anthropic principle. He holds a PhD from the London School of Economics (2000).
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Oh how wonderful it would be if everyone was committed to seeking the truth.
We don't have the full capacity to grasp the absolute truth or reality, our receptors limited only what is need to be known in order to survive, but universe more than meets the eye...
What do you mean by truth? What you want to be true or what actually is true?
@@andrebrown8969 what actually is true not what we feel is true.
@@andrebrown8969 it could have been nothing no universes no galaxies no worlds no humans, but there's is something existed why, we don't know, don't wish to explain referring to a mysterious stranger, we will never get to bottom of it that is absolute truth..
@@sasquatch1554 People say that all the time, but they always seek evidence for things they hope to be true, even when there is no evidence of such things.
It's like saying, 'I don't know if there is a unicorn living on the far side of the moon, but I'm committed to finding out the truth'...
Being smart is no guarantee of being right
It's not even a guarantee of not being stupid. Some of the dumbest ideas required a very smart person to conger up.
The smartest, most informed people on earth are still ignorant of 99% of the available knowledge so, yeah, of course. Being smart its more of a function of filtering and gaining confidence in your fundamentals imo and still you can be wrong, but at least you're light years ahead on your way on the right path towards truth related to generally ignorant people.
This was a great discussion with great ideas and concepts mentioned!
Owner of the best article I've read on simulation theory.
I really like this topic and how it was discussed. By far one of my favorite videos yet. True open mindedness.
Yes it's good to be open minded but not *so* open minded your brains fall out! I would assume you're probably not open to any claim that there are mermaids somewhere under the sea but you can't prove there are none down there can you? Ditto god claims so why be particularly open to those either when there's no good reason to believe any of them either? Someone can say 'But there might be' but not say why there might be beyond saying 'Because there just might' but that could just as easily be said about mermaids existing somewhere under the sea too couldn't it?
"If I have seen further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of idiots."
- Isaac Newton
I love how he encourages logical discussion by baiting in an honest way....just need to work on a list of questions that retrain the neural pathways carved in stone
It's all just an excuse to travel.
"I'm curious about the origins of the universe. So I traveled to a beautiful sun soaked resort on a Greek island to attend the Conference Of Smart People" etc
That was very good ...
You can only sensibly assign probabilities if you know the size of the deck (number of possibilities) and the probability that a particular card (particular event) will be dealt (happen). Trying to assign probabilities to unknowns, such as the genesis of everything is pointless given that we have no idea of what possibilities there are and even if we did we would have no idea of their probability.
That's not true. You can still use statistical analysis to gain insight into those sort of questions. For example, what are the odds that we are the only sentient creatures who can even ask these questions? It's much less likely that we exist in some sort of theological universe.
@@ktx49 OK then, what are the odds that we are the only such sentient beings? Show workings, which will need to include reliable and replicable empirical values for all the unknown terms in the Drake equation or you are just guessing. And tell me exactly how you intend to do a statistical analysis with only one known data point.
What does the host mean when he says "ontological"? He uses that word a lot (not specifically in this video, but i figured I would ask the question in the most recent video comments.)
"Ontological" refers to the nature of something's existence or "being".
So many unknowns, and then to ask somebody to 'pick a side', is like trying to jump across an infinite chasm of possibilities that you think (believe) somehow all fits together in a contained way, ergo your conclusion follows and is verified from all previous assumptions.
Hmmm... _Is_ there an invisible all powerful being who became human in order to commit suicide by cop because a woman made out of the rib of a dude made out of clay ate an apple without permission at the behest of a talking snake with legs?
Or _isn't_ there?
It's _such_ a quandary!
How to decide?!
So many smart people have believed it! And it couldn't _possibly_ have been just because they're afraid of death! It's because it's _totally_ plausible!
@@b.g.5869 Agnostic still wins. I admire the effort though, I do.
@@gmshadowtraders Agnostic about whether or not there's some ultimate intelligence? Sure.
Agnostic about gods said to have written books for humans?
Fuck no.
@@b.g.5869 Hmm. You're picking and choosing what to believe, I'm afraid it's just not as simple. I wish it was bro, I really wish it was. Google something called consistency. Many scientists are also theologians, that's another layer which I really doubt you are even ready for. Do I think there are stupid religious people? Sure. Do I think there are stupid atheists who behave as bad, but hide under the guise of logic and scientific method, pretending to know it all? Of course. One things for certain. There are those of us, the few, who operate on a higher plane of understanding. Pecking order, and the laws of physics and nature bro. I don't make up these rules. Take whatever issues you are dealing with elsewhere.
@@gmshadowtraders Listen child, I have forgotten more theology than you will ever know.
This isn't my first time at the rodeo.
If you look at my other post on this subthread, you'll see that I have no problem with agnosticism broadly speaking (i.e. with respect to the question of whether or not there might exist _something_ that could reasonably and necessarily be considered "god").
But so far as the various and sundry anthropomorphic gods of organized religion are concerned, aka the gods claimed to have written books for humans (essentially the god of the Abrahamic religions), it is no more reasonable to be agnostic about their existence than it would be to be agnostic about the existence of Thor or Zeus. They're demonstrably false.
I like to think there might've been a thinking being involved in the creation of what is. But not that it controls what takes place in it.
Perhaps a super-race of ultra intelligent aliens that have been evolving for 5 billion years did an experiment. BOOM!! big bang.. we will never know but it is a theory as good as any.🙂
@@Turkentorque No, it's objectively worse than most because it's cosmic buck passing. Where did these creator aliens come from?
Congratulations. You've outdumbed religion.
@@b.g.5869they came from outer space🙂
@@Turkentorque Their origins would then have to be explained; how they came into existence. Otherwise you're engaging in cosmic buck passing.
But since there's no evidence for this anyway, it falls into a category of suggestions technically known as "fucking stupid".
Would help metaphysical / philosophical discussion to have clearly defined terms and well developed concepts for better conversation.
JR, good evening.
Would not!
bJoey, yes it would
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Would not.
I think we should think about both levels.
If you plan your life like if you only have one, then you have just decided if you are an atheist or a theist.
Nobody lives in doubt.
It's just that you ignore the beliefs on which your actions are based.
Mas aí está outro problema, não sabemos se temos somente esta vida ou outra também. A morte é um mistério para nós.
The thing asking, is the thing answering. Crazy...
Nick Bostrum is one smart dude! IMO a philosophical agnostic tries to understand all coherent perspectives and thus to embrace the meta-perspective. In the case of theism/atheism it’s determined by whether you start from the assumption that ‘mind’ or ‘matter’ is the ontological foundation of reality. To pretend we can know that is merely to take sides on a presumption.
Being agnostic is the only SENSIBLE position. If you are not, then it may make you feel better but there is no actual justification. So I dont like to hear there are a lot of smart people on both sides. How could this possibly be.
Because there is a difference between belief and truth, and different people will have (or adopt from time to time) very different thresholds for what constitutes "justification" of a belief. There are very few totally and indisputably justified truths; possibly the Cartesian "cogito ergo sum" being the only one.
There is plenty of justification to believe in a higher power when you know things beyond the veil.
You know what element you're missing in the equation ? The Biblical prophecy is the element that is missing, something that other religions can't claim to possess. Not only did the Jews survive more than two thousand years of threats of annihilation and persecution but the fate of this group of people has been disclosed in prophecies thousands of years ago. Many of which have been fulfilled, others are being fulfilled currently and a few have yet to be fulfilled.
Case in point:
1ST---More than thousands of years ago, God said that the Jewish people will be scattered in all four corners of the world - check!
2nd---They will return to their homeland , to be specific- to a desolate land - check!
[ Mark Twain, during his visit to Israel 150 years ago described the holy land as a desolate land that even cactus could hardly grow ] Israel has been one of the top exporters of agricultural products in the world..heck it even the Netherlands, the number 1 exporter of flowers worldwide even import flowers from Israel.
3rd----They will make the land prosperous- check! considering the fact that israel was such a small country, mostly dessert, had no oil nor gas during the first 5 decades of existence..[it was etablished in 1948 btw} and always in constant threats of annihilation as they were surrounded by enemy countries.
4th---Think about this...God made a promise that He will preserve them as a separate people until the end of days despite thousands of years of being scattered in all parts of the globe - check!
I have been in Israel and you will see Jews from Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East, etc..People who came to Israel from all countries of the world and yet their identity remained intact...that is nothing short of a miracle..a fulfillment of prophecy made thousands of years ago.
and that's just a few of the reasons why it is wise to seek God with all your heart to prove His existence....all you have to do is ask Him..come to Him in humility and He will reveal Himself to you.
@@gwallemala Rubbish. God haloed me in 95. I've met higher beings of light / angels. I've had an OBE and been cured by God himself after prayer. Mortals know nothing!
Not really. Unless you want to say one should be agnostic about literally most things.
Nick Bostrom would make a great judge
He would make a great cheeseburger if given the opportunity.
@@b.g.5869 Bostrom Burgers? All served with a side of doomsday fries?
We are allowed to have the truth as it appears right now. Just keep in mind that the truth can change given new evidence that we or I haven't seen yet.
You know what element you're missing in the equation ? The Biblical prophecy is the element that is missing, something that other religions can't claim to possess. Not only did the Jews survive more than two thousand years of threats of annihilation and persecution but the fate of this group of people has been disclosed in prophecies thousands of years ago. Many of which have been fulfilled, others are being fulfilled currently and a few have yet to be fulfilled.
Case in point:
1ST---More than thousands of years ago, God said that the Jewish people will be scattered in all four corners of the world - check!
2nd---They will return to their homeland , to be specific- to a desolate land - check!
[ Mark Twain, during his visit to Israel 150 years ago described the holy land as a desolate land that even cactus could hardly grow ] Israel has been one of the top exporters of agricultural products in the world..heck it even the Netherlands, the number 1 exporter of flowers worldwide even import flowers from Israel.
3rd----They will make the land prosperous- check! considering the fact that israel was such a small country, mostly dessert, had no oil nor gas during the first 5 decades of existence..[it was etablished in 1948 btw} and always in constant threats of annihilation as they were surrounded by enemy countries.
4th---Think about this...God made a promise that He will preserve them as a separate people until the end of days despite thousands of years of being scattered in all parts of the globe - check!
I have been in Israel and you will see Jews from Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East, etc..People who came to Israel from all countries of the world and yet their identity remained intact...that is nothing short of a miracle..a fulfillment of prophecy made thousands of years ago.
and that's just a few of the reasons why it is wise to seek God with all your heart to prove His existence....all you have to do is ask Him..come to Him in humility and He will reveal Himself to you.
A Truth seeker will reflect on himself, what he knows, how he thinks about what he knows, questioning even his very psyche.
As if you're ironing out a shirt, ridding the wrinkles -- this shirt is what you are wearing; what you represent.
Truth is spiritual, it's part of growing; letting go so moving forward, giving & recieving -- contain what is useful, discard what is not; holding onto beliefs or constructs of past thinking will only hold you back.
To have double standards is lack of understanding. To have bias is lack of wisdom. To have knowledge not knowing how to apply it is lack of experience.
Listening to agnostics is nice because there seems to be less ego and bias; more willingness and openess.
Correspondence is a law that if you cannot bring yourself to realization of you will never make it to a higher conscious.
Or stay fixated on the direction you think is right.
If you cannot make correlations between science, religion, philosopy you have work to do.
where is this from?
@@tomphson94 Spirit
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
And the one thing alone that we can know.
Nick Bostrum joins Robert Lawrence Kuhn in the quest for truth. Amazingly subtle and deep discussion between these two beautiful minds 👍👌
Sophisticated statistical analysis from a wide sample group should give a probability resulting in bias one way or another. Proof of evidence like a law case would give probabilities
The model of nature must be free of contradiction. Each contemporary theory has contradiction. The "Ring traps theory" May be Close to solution.
This question is outside our ability to comprehend. There is no reason to argue these points. We can't ever know the answer.
... one could say the same thing about all of the assertions you made in this comment.
You know what element you're missing in the equation ? The Biblical prophecy is the element that is missing, something that other religions can't claim to possess. Not only did the Jews survive more than two thousand years of threats of annihilation and persecution but the fate of this group of people has been disclosed in prophecies thousands of years ago. Many of which have been fulfilled, others are being fulfilled currently and a few have yet to be fulfilled.
Case in point:
1ST---More than thousands of years ago, God said that the Jewish people will be scattered in all four corners of the world - check!
2nd---They will return to their homeland , to be specific- to a desolate land - check!
[ Mark Twain, during his visit to Israel 150 years ago described the holy land as a desolate land that even cactus could hardly grow ] Israel has been one of the top exporters of agricultural products in the world..heck it even the Netherlands, the number 1 exporter of flowers worldwide even import flowers from Israel.
3rd----They will make the land prosperous- check! considering the fact that israel was such a small country, mostly dessert, had no oil nor gas during the first 5 decades of existence..[it was etablished in 1948 btw} and always in constant threats of annihilation as they were surrounded by enemy countries.
4th---Think about this...God made a promise that He will preserve them as a separate people until the end of days despite thousands of years of being scattered in all parts of the globe - check!
I have been in Israel and you will see Jews from Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East, etc..People who came to Israel from all countries of the world and yet their identity remained intact...that is nothing short of a miracle..a fulfillment of prophecy made thousands of years ago.
and that's just a few of the reasons why it is wise to seek God with all your heart to prove His existence....all you have to do is ask Him..come to Him in humility and He will reveal Himself to you.
Only PhD fashion consultants are qualified to comment on the emperor's new clothes.
The concept of an ultimate creator doesn't even make sense. Maybe back 300 or 400 years ago, but we know so much about the universe now, some mystical all powerful being just makes me laugh, it's ludicrous.
What about it that concept “doesn’t make sense”?
Please be very specific.
@@joshheter1517 If you're that dense, I doubt that I could make sense to you. A mystical being that no one has ever seen (that can be proven) that creates everything and for some reason wants us to pray to it or it will send us to eternal hell, but profess to be all about love...and lives outside our reality...yea, totally believable, go for it.
@@jlsc4125
You’re shifting the goal posts (again). Originally, I asked about the concept of an ultimate creator “not making sense”, but this latest comment of yours is about a much more specific version of God (as described specially by fairly conservative Christian denominations).
You have a real problem staying on topic.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:29 🤔 *Nick Bostrom discusses the ultimate questions of reality, specifically theistic and atheistic perspectives.*
02:36 📊 *When assessing beliefs like theistic or atheistic views, it's essential to consider expert opinions and avoid prematurely picking sides.*
06:03 🤔 *Evaluating beliefs involves not only studying specific arguments but also considering biases and dynamics that influence beliefs.*
10:30 🌐 *Many debates, including those related to religion and politics, often serve social functions beyond finding objective truth.*
11:31 🧐 *It's crucial to apply critical scrutiny to one's own beliefs and biases before attempting to prove the other side wrong in debates.*
Made with HARPA AI
I think it's a mistake to think that there are only two possible theories, Agnosticism and Theism. When people don't know, then you can have an infinite number of theories, rather than just two.
Because Agnosticism and Theism are extremist positions on the opposite sides of a continuous spectrum of theories. So, you can have an endless number of theories in between these two extremes. You can have a limited god that creates life through technological means. Or you can have a bunch of gods that create simulations of universes and worlds like our own.
Aristotle believed in the idea of the Golden Mean. He said that extremist positions are usually wrong, and being in the middle is usually right. Perhaps this is the best way to think about the Theism/Agnosticism dispute. The most plausible position is the one in between these two extremes. Because even now we can imagine ourselves creating life with out present knowledge and technology. This kind of godhood is entirely possible and even likely.
Agnosticism and Theism are not opposite, and neither are Agnosticism and Atheism. The opposite of theism (affirming there is a god/God) is atheism (affirming there is no god/God); if you want you can then differentiate the theistic/atheistic position by the attributes of the specific god that is asserted/denied, but there is still an agnostic stance for each of those.
@@dlevi67 You can create your spectrum of theories in any way you want. Because it's a creation of the mind, rather than something that exists outside of it.
In terms of logic, you can take any two positions that people disagree about and say that there is a continuous spectrum of points in between them. That's why it's possible to compromise by finding a middle ground.
When people don't know, and they are theorizing about this and that, then imagination is the limit. Which is no limit at all. You can have an infinite number of theories and possibilities. And when you realize that there is an infinite number of possible theories, then you also realize that it's ludicrous to choose arbitrarily only one of them and say that this is the one you believe.
When there is an infinite number of possibilities, then you are very unlikely to pick the truth by chance. The only way you can find out the truth is through investigation and evidence.
@@mikedziuba8617 Yes, fine. The fact remains that Agnosticism and Theism are not opposites. Theism and Atheism are.
@@dlevi67 Any two positions can be the opposites of a spectrum, if you decide to limit your spectrum to these two positions. So, there are no facts in what you decide to do. There are only chosen assumptions and positions.
Facts describe something that exists outside of your mind. They don't depend on what you decide. Because they have an independent reality of their own.
@@mikedziuba8617 Precisely because facts have an independent reality of their own (e.g. "word meanings"), you can't pick and mix as you'd like to do.
What are the odds some other human actually has knowledge of the gods? What is more likely? A human actually has knowledge of the gods or some human has no real knowledge of any gods but claims they do?
I would argue it's pointless to approach a metaphysical question using an epistemological methodology. You may not know if it will rain three days from now but that doesn't imply that the question is unknowable. No amount of probabilistic or statistical analysis will get you any closer to knowing what is unknowable. When it comes to something that is essentially unknowable, agnosticism is the only rational choice.
Ah, but then you have made the choice of defining God as essentially unknowable. Is it? Plenty of people arguing either side... (and I say this as an agnostic myself).
There are experts that we can ask about the probabilities of rain three days from now, and there is a track record for the reliability of their predictions that we can consult. I do no see such experts when it comes to the question of the existence of God, or god(s).
There is nothing wrong to say that i dont know.
It's better to say 'l'd never know because it's beyond my Ken....
For me, there is enough of lack of evidence to prove the non- existence of God.
@@ingenuity168 I'd have to disagree with you. Pretty much the entire concept of God is unfalsifiable, as far as I am aware. You cannot really disprove the existence of such diety. As we advance further and further, the chances of such a being existing get lower and lower, but there would still be theists who would use the "God of the gaps" perspective.
You could even go as far as not caring. It makes navel gazers like Robert all the more entertaining. He really wants that penny to fall heads up, doesn't he?
Asking Nick Bostrum about God is like asking an accountant about The Mona Lisa.
I like to use Nick's language to set the record straight, "the very notion of instructions presupposes an agent", I know, it's like drawing a fat charcoal line across the painting...
And who is Davinci this era
hm.. very interesting reply Tariq.. let me come back to you on that one.. or you were asking ShinyMike?
Dennis K I would like to hear your answer too
It's easy to say that during Da Vinci's life, he was the dominant figure in the artistic world; for society in general, it's just easy to pick a specific individual and say, "well, there was that guy, and so, and he was very important..." we simplify. Most of us do. It's a way to remember, to create a narrative. I don't think that narrative, based on specific individuals and skills, will be meaningful in heaven, since everyone becomes one with one another and will know everything about all that ever has been, this kind of simple "individual based narrative" can only exist on Earth, but it becomes pointless in heaven, as it should. Was that good enough of an answer, Tariq?
I'm thinking there would be about a .000001% chance that an Abrahamic style God exists. (That's what Kuhn proposes to be looking for) However, you would have to also acknowledge that this version of God created a world that lives off of itself, (Sealed terrarium) has a natural life span, and then set things to run on autopilot as he completely disappeared beyond Orion. And what was that dinosaur thing all about?
"And what was that dinosaur thing all about?" So that in the future, we could create cool toys and movies!!! 😅😅😅
@@AllThingsElementor "Life finds a way", eh?
@@dlevi67 Life? No, no, no! That was obviously "God's" doing. He planned it all out so that we would have cool things in the future. He's simply that good! :
@@AllThingsElementor People are still taking this kind of thing seriously... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genesis_Flood
@@AllThingsElementor It's a shame he left behind the tectonic plate activity, which causes earth quakes which results in tsunamis and kills as many as 250,000 crying and heartbroken, panicked stricken, dying alone children, women and men in a single afternoon. All the while ignoring their prayers to save them.
And that's just one recent event.
Is that for cool toys and movies too?
We are never going to know the answers to the questions about life universe and everything because they are unknowable. To know is to realise what you don't know and then to realise what you cannot know.
Leonard susskind gets close to what I mean at 16.00.
We are clever enough to know there can't be a way to get behind all the curtains.
the very notion of instructions presupposes an agent
phenomenological fallacy: don't reify ways of speaking.
I'm agnostic about claims there are mermaids somewhere under the sea as well as claims that there's some god but _so what?_ The only pertinent question is if there's any good reason to believe god claims & that's easy to answer: *No* because there aren't any!
Then you are no longer agnostic.
@@dlevi67 No agnosticism addresses what you say you don't *know* whereas atheism addresses what you don't *believe* therefore you can be _both._
@@paulbrocklehurst7253 Yes, but you say "There aren't any gods" as opposed to "I don't believe there are any gods", hence you are purporting to know that there aren't any gods, which would make you a positive, gnostic atheist as opposed to an agnostic atheist.
@@b.g.5869 *Yes, but you say "There aren't any gods" as opposed to "I don't believe there are any gods", hence you are purporting to know that there aren't any gods,*
> I didn't say 'There aren't any gods' I simply pointed out that there aren't any good reasons to believe claims that there are just as there aren't any good reasons to believe claims that there are mermaids somewhere under the sea.
*which would make you a positive, gnostic atheist as opposed to an agnostic atheist.*
> Gnosticism & agnosticism address what we do or don't _know_ whereas theism & atheism address what we do or don't _believe._ Technically you are correct that I can't say I _know_ that there's no god or gods but that's a trivial point because technically I also can't say I _know_ there aren't any mermaids anywhere under the sea either however I _can_ say there's no good reason to believe either claim because we'd all know about it if there was one.
@@paulbrocklehurst7253 If you're talking about claims that's fine.
As far as mermaids are concerned, I think it would be foolish to be agnostic about their existence. We can be certain that they don't exist for many reasons. We can be equally certain that most conceptions of god don't exist either.
I reject naive, perfunctory agnosticism which essentially begrudgingly concedes "Oh alright, I can't be 100% certain no god exists" etc. I think we _can_ be certain that most proposed gods don't exist. Certainly none of the gods said to have written books for humans exist.
I'm only agnostic about god in the broad sense that I allow for the possibility that it is possible that there may be something that is both reasonable and most importantly, must necessarily be considered "god".
This is important because there are some fairly reasonable formulations of pantheism, but there are no formulations of pantheism where one is _compelled_ to consider the universe 'god'; it's really just a somewhat poetic, 'spiritual' way of marveling at existence etc.
Bostrom*
Actually it's Boström
That which cannot be attained in totality also is not abandoned completely.
Lacks pith.
Juan this is so great comment. In the sence that you know your ground, no bull...
Hit anymore, your perception and sens 's are very right. I mean you feel's more people, you trust your self, I mean again you trust your self,feeling , and also perception. You abel not to be fullish anymore about your faith right. Tell me if am right about this, Please. I ask because I whant be sûre it's as all of us. What I expérience's right now is people feel's all the same about this. Sûre some will not Abel. Sorry I have another question, I dont remember and when I speek to you it's not poste for me to have your texte on the front of me. You use a great words 2 Time, it's not in my mind this words that you use. It seem a very knowlageble this words can you Tell me about please. Sincères salutations philippe Martin 😎✨
You should go with the one that has 51% or greater that means the odds are in your favor you wouldn’t go with the one that’s 49% that would mean the odds were against you if the odds in Las Vegas or 49% for the house to win Then there would be no Las Vegas
There is no argument for anything. A) We exists long before rationality, - and despite rationality, Nietzsche would say. Long before, religion was there, as Totemism, which was so powerful that banned people died, from psychological suffering. That is to say B), Religion helped us to acquire a strong social dimension and to live in coherent and structured groups, which hold together and could fight against intraspecific-competition. That's the only reason there is religion, it's a set of social thoughts enabling an effective small group life.
Yawn.
Shallow, lazy, hipster analysis.
You said "Nietzsche"! I'm _sooooo_ impressed!
Religion exists essentially for three reasons.
1. We're hardwired to attribute agency to the inanimate. This had survival value in our remote past but also makes us knock on wood and believe in invisible all powerful beings we can appeal to.
2. Inability to accept that death is the end of our experience.
3. Indoctrination.
Now you can go back to your PBR.
@@b.g.5869 pbr ? Avoiding to see the social dimensions of things is an error... Imho. And Nietzsche, i like is idea of the character of humanity, acquired through evolution.. i'm the only one who understand Nietzsche ok.
@@laurenth7187 PBR is Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, the preferred beer of hipsters. Beard, flannel jacket, boots, an unread but conspicuous copy of The Portable Nietzsche, and a never-been-listened-to-for-conspicuous-display-only Miles Davis LP complete the look.
There is a social dimension to it but to think that that's it's main driving force is a really shallow take on it.
It's not as bad as the old "It's all about controlling people!"
It's primarily a response to fear of death, specifically the finality of death. In addition to this we are predisposed to believe in unseen agents via natural selection, but even this has a deep connection to fear of oblivion.
It's all about death, the mother of all BS.
@@b.g.5869 I have to agree with that... I can't explain everything, i know i should, but even Freud didn't. He was about Totemism vs Oedipus complex, etc. So yes death ... Le roi est mort, vive le roi ! I mean, power is also central.
@@b.g.5869 And how do you number 2 is correct? Are you arbiter of all things? I'm not saying there is a heaven or hell. But, I will also not say I know what happens just because you go off the word of others. And don't tell you don't because everyone who argues there's nothing uses an argument made by a scientist who can't even consciousness fully.
Good god, in the sense that It cares about human suffering, is not consistent with being absolute. Absolute god, that is eternal, all knowing and omnipotent, is not consistent with being good. I know, that the absolute exists, because it's a logical paradox to say that it does not. You can call it god if you want, but it must be totally indifferent to what happens in the universe. By the way, if our world is simulation created by some advanced race, and if we find out about that, I think most religious people would accept these beings as gods. I wouldn't. Yet, there is absolute, which is everything that exists in any and every reality.
No one of any note has taken the *logical* problem of evil seriously for decades.
www.amazon.com/God-Freedom-Evil-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0802817319
Try to keep up.
Being agnostic to pain and pleasure leads us to higher state of Joy. It cures us from our minds inability to focus deep into ourself. Knowing our true self is knowing God.
agnostic if no fine tuning a new creator when after millions of years may be fine tuning or in middle perhaps old testament seen from heaven like now similar that it changes
@ 02:45 Raining or sunny? Supernatural or Material? There's a life to live regardless. I do think navel gazers like Robert are quite entertaining though.
If there ever was a time that there was nothing, then there would always be nothing, because nothing can't do something. God is proved because the universe didn't pop into existence from none existence, if you come across a ball in the woods you know it had a designer, nothing can come from nothing
If someone says Unicorns exist, then Atheistic analogue of that would be Aunicornist. That is - there is no evidence of existence of unicorns. That is all. Aunicornist position is not that Unicorns don't exist, because that will draw the burden of proof of that negative assertion.
Many (myself included) would say that what you are describing is "agnostic atheism". There are at least two different atheistic positions (just like there are different "theistic" positions).
@@dlevi67 There is much confusion abut the terms "atheist" and "agnostic". In my experience, most "modern" self proclaimed atheists use the definitions in www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
When in doubt what a user of the terms actually means, it is probably best to ask...
@@YAWTon You'll notice the existence of the word "belief" in that definition. Which is why atheism is not agnosticism (and why a certain type of atheism - or theism - is not contradictory with agnosticism).
@@dlevi67 Yes, that is my own view too: atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge. But I see that there are people, mostly theists, in my experience, that use the terms differently. Often they do not see the difference between "I do not believe A" and "I believe that not-A".
@@dlevi67 I like to use the term - theorotical agnostic and de facto atheist. Rationally one should (must?) take a position that anything not proven one way or the other, it is unknown if it is true or false. That is agnosticism. However, considering lack for any proof/objective/non-subjective/verifiable evidence about theistic entities called god(s), one may reasonably take a de facto position that there is no evidence of existence of such entities. That is (weak) atheism. A positive assertion that such entities do not exist is a strong atheism position which puts the onus of proof on the person making that assertion. The same burden of definition and then proof of existence of god(s) falls on the theists.
Is that what he REALLY thinks? That dies not sound scientific at all. He is avoiding the question.
Consider a man in a courtroom accused of committing some crime. A judge will not make his or her decision based solely on the fact that whoever formally investigated the crime is a very smart and respectable person. The judge will require verifiable evidence. Same applies to any situation that requires serious judgment. That is, the decision for or against the existence of something requires a verifiable proof. An agnostic is a person who basically admits that we do not have a verifiable proof of the existence of God described by various religions. Can we find the proof in the future? Potentially yes. But then people refuse to accept that the proof will not be here in their lifetime, and so does begin their quest to find the "smartest" person, who will assure them of the existence of God.
I would say that - however much I agree with your conclusions - the analogy is severely flawed.
@@dlevi67 Even if you might feel uncomfortable with the usage of words like "courtroom" and "crime," the analogy is valid: A person (a judge in the example) must not make his or her intelligent decision about the truthfulness of a statement based solely on the fact that whoever makes the statement is a very smart and respectable person. Making a decision to admit the existence of something requires a verifiable proof.
@@ik1408 It's nothing to do with me being comfortable or not. It's everything to do with the fact that your notion of "legal process" is fairly new and by no means universal.
@@dlevi67 A court hearing is a process with its objective to establish the truthfulness of something. Seeking truth with the support of evidence - it is universal.
@@ik1408 No, it is not universal. If anything, for the majority of human history it has been the contrary: the word of some was worth more than the word of others. And that was true _especially_ in the case of legal processes.
A court hearing is not necessarily concerned with truth, but with the law, incidentally, and the two things can be quite distinct.
Finally, the idea that truth has to be supported with objective evidence is also relatively recent - Aristotle did not need it, in writing his treatises about Physics, and many people even today don't abide by that principle.
Agnosticism doesn't get you anywhere on the contrary it evinces you're not cut out to muse over potentials outcomes or possibilities
I'd argue the exact opposite of your conclusion. Whether that gets you "somewhere" is a different matter, but then the same can be said of theism or atheism.
@@dlevi67 what l gather from the term 'an Agnostic is so much engrossed day to day affairs or he's committed simple things like wealth or ambition to successfully of his her career he can't afford to deflect from his goal in this world his precious time lies somewhere else so he's not gonna rack his brain where he's excluded himself do I make myself clear, but l consider myself sceptic all because I don't want to disrespect other people's vision..
@@suatustel746 No, I'm afraid you are not making yourself clear at all. Where is the evidence that agnostics are "so much engrossed day to day affairs or he's committed simple things like wealth or ambition to successfully of his her career he can't afford to deflect from his goal"?
@@suatustel746 What? My English parser just crashed. I cannot see any meaning in your sequence of words...
@@YAWTon Oh, come on. Surely all you want is a different dressing, but there is nothing wrong with the salad? ;-)
I don’t know why this isn’t straightforwardly self-defeating:
“If a claim is a matter of widespread disagreement amongst smart people (or experts), then one should withhold judgment about the truth (or falsity) of that claim”.
That very claim is a matter of widespread disagreement amongst smart people / experts (e.g. epistemologists, logicians, etc.).
So you should withhold judgment about the truth or falsity of that claim. Sill holds up.
It is more unfalsifiable than self-defeating.
On the contrary, it is self-reinforcing. It suggests one should withhold judgement about all such claims INCLUDING itself.
@@TheFrygar
“Self-defeating” does not necessarily mean “cannot be true”. There are other ways in which a claim can be self-defeating.
“No one knows anything (at all).” Could be true, but it is self-defeating in that it cannot be known.
“It is always morally wrong to make an assertion of truth.” could be true, and it could be known, but it is self-defeating in that (even if it is true) it cannot he asserted in a morally justified way.
“If a claim is a matter of widespread disagreement... then you should withhold judgment about it.” could be true, but it is self-defeating because (by its own standards) you should never believe it - you should withhold judgment about it.
@@shawntodar4701
“Self-defeating” does not necessarily mean “cannot be true”. There are other ways in which a claim can be self-defeating.
“No one knows anything (at all).” Could be true, but it is self-defeating in that it cannot be known.
“It is always morally wrong to make an assertion of truth.” could be true, and it could be known, but it is self-defeating in that (even if it is true) it cannot he asserted in a morally justified way.
“If a claim is a matter of widespread disagreement... then you should withhold judgment about it.” could be true, but it is self-defeating because (by its own standards) you should never believe it - you should withhold judgment about it.
... and of course if you should withhold judgment about the claim “If something is a matter of widespread disagreement; then you should withhold judgment about it...”
Then you are *not* committed to withholding judgment about (for instance) the God question, because (remember) you are agnostic the claim “If something is a matter of widespread disagreement, then you should withhold judgment.”
A lot of people don't know about Islam, I see that you want to believe in a God. Start with Nouman Ali Khan Videos about the Quran. Islam is a divine religion, it's unfortunate how the media has portrayed it. You can never find the answer in man because even man was created from a single source. Also with Allah, you have to approach him with humility to find him, if you approach him with arrogance you will be more doubtful. When reading about Islam approach it with the mind of wanting to find the truth about ALL RELIGIONS.
I find it quite interesting (and that seems to be the case for ALL religions) that there is always a strict set of rules to be followed in order to truly find and/or understand the specific deity. That's such a human construct. I would've thought making contact with your divine creator (if such an entity exists) would be a purely natural, organic process.
@@johannuys7914 Totally but if you wanted to know more about someone would you approach them arrogantly or with sincerity? Same applies here, they arent rules but more ettiquette
@@johannuys7914 at the most fundamental level, there are always laws and rules that absolutely force elementary particles to do certain things. nothing can break out of laws of physics
total submission to certain laws and rules is the truth of the world
and Islam means total submission, to God's laws and rules that are revealed through the messengers of God
life is simple, you're either in total submission to God or you're not
@@aiya5777 According to Islam. Another one of thousands of religions. No disrespect intended. Just emphasizing my point.
@@johannuys7914 According to Islam,
God created his creations in darkness, Sunan al-Tirmidhī 2642. Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
and in the Quran, every single one of *the word dark* is always described in the plural form by God, he really likes it in plural
the Quran itself was sent to us in dark time (at night)
and also don't forget about the black box in the desert (ka'bah)
God is so open in trying to tell us that he's the dark lord, at first glance you might find it unnerving but not even the entire universe can deny it, indeed we have too much dark stuff and dark energy around us
not to mention, dark spots like black holes are scattered in every nook and cranny of the universe
I was just joking, people, don't mind me, there is no such things as proof... everything is fine. You die, and that's it. Good times.
Agnosticism is the most logical philosophy of thought and belief.
I totally agree with you, being agnostic gives me the chance to analyze different opinions from a safe distance without being trapped in a circle where one idea rules and there's no room for anything else.
I see agnosticism as a very natural and humble approach to human knowledge - it allows one to remain puzzled and curious by things that are puzzling and curious. Humans have a tendency to want black and white answers. It is better to admit one's ignorance.
@Al Garnier Although I'm agnostic I can definitely understand why most people need a higher being in their life, some kind of savior to turn to when going through rough times. God is a safety net for those who believe in him, the need for this safety net is so strong that it defies any kind of logic.
@Al Garnier atheism is illogical.atheism is shutting the door to all logic.
Agnosticism is a system that could be based completely on knowledge and zero on belief and assumption.
-I can't avoid seeing the problem of god not as a question of "knowledge", but as a contradiction. It seems that we need a causation for things (the Universe, life, Man) but not so for the cause itself of everything, as in god; God doesn't need a cause because "god-is-god", it is a divine entity that we grasp through faith, which is a "bridge" that different believers use to reach different conclusions about the nature and history of God (Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, Crishna and 1999 more deities). And by definition god is good and just, but "he" doesn't rescue children been raped (as an example of victims that are not endowed with free-will). Since god is omniscient, he knew that when creating humans with free-will he was also creating future rapists, torturers, enslavers, and therefore creating future rape victims, tortured people, slaves without free-will. Believers claim that "God is not the cause of human suffering, but we ourselves create the suffering"; that's is obviously true for the person causing the suffering, but the sufferer didn't choose to suffer. I have the free-will to rape your child, but your child didn't choose to be a victim. Raped children do not choose to be raped. Where is the wisdom, the goodnes of God? The victim will go to Heaven and the aggressor will be cast to Hell; what´s the meaning of this? Where is the wisdom? If we need suffering to contrast with joy, then there is an existenial condition to which god has no control of, which is a contradiction since nothing is impossible to god. Do the non-sufferers need the suffering of others, so the lucky ones can know the "good"?
It is difficult to see the emergence of brains, consciousness, love, flowers, stars and the world out of a Big-Bang as a happy "accident", as it is impossible to believe in a contradictory Cause. Not only the concept of god is a contradiction, but the many beliefs OF god are a contradiction ("My God is the real one, yours is not"). If Humanity is seeing as "one singular wholleness", as a single brain, then such humanity suffers from multiple personalities. Maybe there is "something" that has intentionality, but like a poet said once, "My tongue shall not soil it." The limitations of our mind is part of the knowledge about ourselves. Whatever puts us here, whatever that is, is able to create a Universe with little humans dwelling in it; something is moving the spermatozoid towards the ovum to create a zygote and from it, to create a person reading this; but what is pulling the strings, we should say with humbleness that maybe we don't know, yet.
We do not need a child to be raped for the lucky ones to know the “good” (I’m sure you didn’t draw this strange conclusion when you wrote it, since after all, you seem to be pendulating between God as truth or not). There is no time to stare into the abyss. We need a “spiritual awakening” to change society for the better. God has a lot of answering to do. It is probably not easy for God either. Alan Watts illustrates it well, when he first shows the yin yang symbol with the black and white shape and then shows a new circle, completely white… there is nothing left. And it is of course, very strange when you listen to people who have experienced non-duality. There is no real self, everything is one. So, the child rapist is the child being raped. (I suppose this is my conclusion.) We need to move away from this madness. The quicker the better. If you want there to be something positive about God when dealing with this subject, then, know that God seems to have endowed every human being with the knowledge to distinguish between good and evil. In other words, there is no such thing as an evil person, only acts of evil. Man is infinitely inventive both in the act of building and destroying. We decide the fate of mankind and how long we want to punish ourselves and God. Hm... as for God not needing a cause, who says God did not have a beginning? In fact, God having a beginning vs. The Universe as a magical seed that just sprung to life, well, here the winner is clearly God... in my opinion, but I'm biased. But who knows what really happened before the "Big Bang". Take care.
@@123argonaut --- If there is "no real self because everything is one...", why it may be I don't want to take the place of the sodomized kid; I wonder.
@@123argonaut Word soup. If god knows our pain, I guess at some point he was sodomized.
Let me make life easy for You Mr. Closer to truth....there are no answers to ur questions...Your questions regarding the existance of God and what is Consciounce...are thousands of years old....the people then could not know...so how do you exoecr to know??? If we knew then there will be no life....do u get the point?
No, I don't get the point, and neither does anybody else. There are plenty of old questions that have been answered satisfactorily over time.
Right or Left
No In-between
The well worn path
Or The road unseen
Go Weigh it Out ??
Being agnostic is like introducing yourself by saying "I'm vertebrate."
Nice to meet you too🤦♀️
Hello, chordate colleague! ;-)
we're still here after thousands of years of lies
Why one has to mince words, beat about bush and restrict expression of truthfulness. It is a burden on you the one who cannot carry.
There is a significant flaw in the manner in which the host framed the problem of god. His definition seems totally arbitrary and that cheapens the discussion. Who says god has to be benevolent or all knowing, etc? Consider a similar question about aliens. Do aliens exist? Well what is an alien? An alien is an advanced and superior creature whose intelligence triples ours. An alien is able to survive breathing various gaseous mixtures. Now, does that alien exist? Is that not a meaningless proposition to discuss? The description of that alien is entirely arbitrary and contrived. So is the definition of god as proposed by the host. It would have been more appropriate to simply describe "god" as the originator of the universe.
@@mylord9340
All other agnostics and the guest have similar problem. Problem of mishandling the quest and the burden of proof make them miserable. The burden of proof is on the gust. The tunnel vision has a reason and it is the selective and limited reading / knowledge that results into just guesswork.
I wonder how he was breathing under the burden of queries, poor guy. His eyes and thoughts both were wandering in empty space.
@@SaeedHassan8n I think both the host and the guest are agnostics about the question of the existence of s god.
@@mylord9340
You are right, he steered the show.
11:41 seconds I will never get back.
I’m interested in knowing why did you personally reach that conclusion...why were you dissatisfied/disappointed?
@@readynowforever3676 As a judgment-free statement, it is totally factually true - unless we have access to a time machine.
@@dlevi67 A “time machine” could allow you to relive it, but how could it help you get it “back” ? And still, my question is, on the premise, of was it lost (?) and why (?).
@@readynowforever3676 Kuhn's first question about the big question was answered with a question. That kind of answer is like a kid saying, why? I think both you and Kuhn are versed enough in the subject to not resort to dissecting every jot and tittle. Secondly, we do have time machines. all communication is a time machine. It just has to be accessed, opinions and conclusions will follow. But, you can't get to the truth thru a time machine, because everyone has a different past and will answer the truth question differently. Thirdly, I watched a PBS/BBC program years ago hosted by a guy named James Burke called Connections. Basically, he took two ideas that seemed to have no connection, then showed how time, interests and happenstance created the world we have today. These are my first thoughts and with time I could bore you to death. It could have been your cadence, your awkward pauses, your god talk. Oh, and i wasn't necessarily dissatisfied. Probably closer to day dreaming.
I find it interesting that agnostics will get asked how they can believe GOD isn’t real for which I respond there is no definitive proof GOD is real. We aren’t meant to know in this human experience lol simple as that.
MATH is God/ Math has Always been here and will Always be here.
Math can do all things. Everything on Earth is Mathematically Structured - Everything !!
DNA provides information
Information comes from Intelligence
WHAT ? is a vacuum god ? or radiation ? DNA, short for deoxyribonucleic acid, is the molecule that contains the genetic code of organisms. This includes animals, plants, protists, archaea and bacteria. DNA is in each cell in the organism and tells cells what proteins to make. How do you demonstrate information comes from intelligence. Is a carbon atom information because it is always the same
@@gowdsake7103
DNA is a language. It is written with four letters. The filament of DNA is information, a message written in a code of chemicals, one chemical for each letter. Just like written English, the Genetic Code is a linear language, written in a straight line....
@@gowdsake7103
And yes, the Genetic Code is Identical in ALL living things, of course the sequence will differ but the Genetic Code is Identical.
If we are in a simulation, Is there a God in the simulation? And does this God knows that he is in a simulation?
Qur'an is the book of God he has given lots of evidences there read it and decide it yourself. There is no compilation to agree.
I made a little music video featuring Nick Bostrom. Enjoy! :) czcams.com/video/ob-w5QS9KEM/video.html
Nick is so good looking.
Really? I suppose your chemical neurological composition, renders that conclusion.
I was agnostic until i decided to become atheist. I figured i'd check and see how unreasonable and be done with it. Now i'm gnostic; go figure. ... Seriously.
the very notion of instructions presupposes an agent
phenomenological fallacy: don't reify ways of speaking.
the very notion of instructions presupposes an agent
phenomenological fallacy: don't reify ways of speaking.
the very notion of instructions presupposes an agent
phenomenological fallacy: don't reify ways of speaking.
the very notion of instructions presupposes an agent
phenomenological fallacy: don't reify ways of speaking.
the very notion of instructions presupposes an agent
phenomenological fallacy: don't reify ways of speaking.
the very notion of instructions presupposes an agent
phenomenological fallacy: don't reify ways of speaking.
the very notion of instructions presupposes an agent
phenomenological fallacy: don't reify ways of speaking.
@@stevenhoyt "Don't reify ways of speaking", well... what should we do then, draw lines in the sand? I thought agent was a fairly acceptable word choice. But I guess it's what we associate with the words, in the given context.
@@123argonaut ... surely you don't want to imply that the only way to warrant the idea of deity is through a logical mistake!
it suffices to say that beliefs are caused and supervene on how the world appears to us and what sort of creature we are.
belief in god in that case would be basic.
if you want to strengthen at least the right to the intuition of god, then i think heidegger makes the best argument that existence is absurd no matter how you look at it, and when you in particular consider it, something like 'god' makes the most sense of it all; admitting it might not for anyone else.
you don't need to have bad thinking to motivate arguments for difficult subjects.
@@stevenhoyt "existence is absurd no matter how you look at it, and when you in particular consider it, something like 'god' makes the most sense of it all; admitting it might not for anyone else." I've come across Heidegger's argument before, but of course, as you note yourself, it's far from proof. In fact, in some ways you could say it works in the opposite direction, since, well, stating that existence is absurd, and then finishing by stating, "something like 'god' makes the most sense", well, then you, effectively liken the idea of there being a creator to something that's "just as absurd as existence itself"... not a great way to win over sceptics.
"surely you don't want to imply that the only way to warrant the idea of deity is through a logical mistake!" No, I would not imply that, and never have. Design as opposed to a "randomly occured event", covers a lot of territory, that noted, the "agent sentence" above, is succinct and to the point. Why you would call it a logical mistake is beyond me...
@@123argonaut ... as i began with, you're reifying terms in the form of the phenomenological fallacy.
and yes, it does work both ways.
the point is that if we were placed in two identical universes that only differed in that one had a god and the other didn't, we would be left without any means to tell which sort of universe we were in.
so, if whatever argument for or against the existence of deity mattered in some genuine sense, it would be able to navigate this hypothetical.
i can only conceive of a few good ways to navigate things, but none are impressive in any case.
anyway, in both universes, there would appear to be "information" (which is an observer-relative rather than ontologically objective term) and "design" (same) and so on, neither of which would belie any fact of the matter about the existence of deity.
when a believer and a skeptic realize they are abducing something about experience rather than facts of the matter, then yes, i expect both to be very convinced of something, namely, that their disposition may be both warranted and unjustified.