Tangent 4 | The Best argument Against God
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- A look from an agnostic perspective at the philosophical considerations for atheism versus theism and the intriguing conclusion.
If wondering why anyone would make such a video, see link for the introduction: • Introduction to what t...
I think the best argument against god is that if you're an adult in this time and age, still believing in magic is a bit silly.
I think that is basically where I get stuck as well, it's difficult to make a positive argument for something that's invisible. But then Graham Oppy actually concludes that it is only a bit silly, in official terms he reckons it is not unreasonable to believe it could be true so there's more to investigate.
@@AScepticalJourney No, no, it really is silly. If you drop all the childhood conditionning, it's no different from witches dragons and santa. After all you wouldn't give much credit to someone who still believed in Zeus or Tchernobog, so why Yaweh ?
@@Cacophaton The difference would just be in whether there is any evidence. As I understand it there isn't any for Zeus or Tchernobog (best god name ever though!) but there might be for the resurrection of Jesus. I'm reading about that now (and largely outside of the bible) so will do a tangent on that at some point but, at this point, that appears to be the unique factor that Christians may actually have some sort of evidence - so a big part of this I think will be whether that evidence actually exists and whether the conclusion is reasonable.
I mean, you can say that the idea of human rights is as silly... equally based on no evidence that "we are equal" or some shit.
But you can see and touch people with or without rights
I much rather have the ‘unsophisticated’ arguments of Dawkins and scientists in general over a philosopher.
I never found any of the philosophical arguments for god convincing at all, they are just mental gymnastics without a shred of evidence. Looks like this philosopher also just found them unconvincing rather than going beyond that.
As to the problem of evil, it is not a problem for every possible god, but it certainly is one for the christian god. God cannot be all good and all powerful and there still is evil, a non-caring god who just watches his creation with disinterest is not contradicted by it.
So the philosopher is correct that it does not rule out the existence of any god, but it certainly runs contrary to the existence of gods with certain characteristics.
@@Blink-cx8eh That's a really interesting part of it I think, as I said in some early videos the idea is to figure out if God exists but also to establish whether, if he does, is he deeply unpleasant. I'm currently at the point where I don't think suffering and evil necessarily mean he would be a terrible 'person' (that seems to come out in the book of Genesis and I had in the summary of that book (episode 12)), but it would still be nice to see some more parts of the bible where this is addressed.
The hiddenness of God is one problem but that is complicated further by cursed hiddenness as I call it, Satan couldn't possibly have the same motivations as God for being hidden so why then is Satan hidden?
@@markcostello5120 Ooh I like that, I don't think I've come across that approach yet. I haven't got to anything in the bible about Satan yet but will definitely ponder on that when he turns up.
@@markcostello5120 if satan showed himself though, wouldn't that prove without a doubt the existence of his enemy God? Seems like that's the last thing he'd want people to know/believe in.
I've honestly had the same idea as you before, but realized the point of a lying is to deviate from the truth. So by hiding, I see it more as Satan not hiding himself, but hiding proof of a greater purpose such as God/heaven from the world.
Something is no right. You characterised Graham Oppy as saying that the problem of evil isn't an argument against God. However, while it's not an argument against any and all possible gods, it is absolutely an argument against the existence of an omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God, and Graham should have known that, so either he mischaracterised the problem of evil, or you did.
@@davidhoffman6980 It's a tricky one in that Oppy does conclude that the problem of evil does favour atheism but then he further concludes that it only favours atheism by default. This is because either atheism or theism (onmibenevolence and all) can actually be reconciled with the problem of evil, just that atheism is a simpler answer. That objection has come up a lot in the comments though so perhaps I shall do a specific tangent on evil and suffering.
@@AScepticalJourney but whether it favors atheism, is compelling, can be reconciled with Christianity, or can even be refuted is irrelevant. It is an argument against a certain type of god. Even if it's a bad argument, it is an argument, and the target of that argument is a certain type of god, thus saying that it isn't on the basis that it's not compelling is a category error.
@@davidhoffman6980 Yes that seems fair, but then I suppose there's fundamentally the problem with the impossibility of proving a negative anyway. So maybe the right conclusion is that there couldn't be a great argument for atheism by definition (because it's trying to prove a negative) and therefore the pressure has to be on Christianity to prove itself rather than on atheism to disprove it.
@@AScepticalJourney that's true, but there's a difference between fundamentally proving a negative and simple making arguments for the negative. Also, I don't agree that you can't prove a negative. While there are some negatives that we can't prove, there are definitely some that we can. For example, I can prove that the Trinity doesn't exist. The Trinity entails that in at least one instance 3=1. This violates the law of non-contradiction. Thus the Trinity doesn't exist. Now for every God that is falsifiably defined, I can prove it doesn't exist. However each time I do so, the theist can simply redefine God outside the scope of my objections and start the process all over again, and we can keep doing it for ever, but we will never run out of possible redefinitions of God and thus I can't say (ahead of time) that any and all definitions of God/s are false, but then in most walks of life, when I or anyone else makes an argument for or against something, we aren't talking about such absurd (in my opinion) universalities.
@@davidhoffman6980 That's a good point. I'm looking forward to doing the trinity but it'll be a while yet as I'm still on the book of Judges. I do already have many 'scepticisms' on the trinity though, not least that, as I understand it, it's not even in the bible and is a human concept.
Correct me if im wrong but, I believe you meant to say the moral argument sidestep was a win for the God believer, not the atheist? As if there is no objective morality (God), then morality simply comes down to a matter of opinion as you said with the holocaust example? I really enjoyed your video! Love hearing genuine debate from creators instead of biased opinions. Keep up the good work!
@@S.k.yMusic Yes very much a win for theists. I meant that Oppy calls the moral argument as a win for atheists because of the stalemate/simplicity conclusion but then my overall conclusion is that the whole book, despite its conclusion, is actually a win for those who believe in God. Atheism as an argument seems to me is essentially left without a (compelling) leg to stand on.
Theists don't have objective morality.
There is no such thing as 'objective' morality.
Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are morally appropriate (ought to occur in a certain dilemma) from those inappropriate (ought not to occur in a certain dilemma).
Like all cognitive assessments, moral assessments always and necessarily involve the subject's own considerations. Therefore, morality is _always and necessarily_ SUBJECTIVE.
Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality. I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral, just as everyone else does.
@@Theo_Skeptomai which is a flawed argument, as that would mean the holocaust and other such genocides would be justified. Your rhetoric means killing if I deem it so is justified and, if the majority deemed it so, murder could be also legal?
@@S.k.yMusic My comment are being removed.
The actual problem is, atheists do not have any reason to “prove” god(s) don’t exist until theists can demonstrate their god(s) exist.
Can you theists demonstrate god(s) exists ?
That is essentially Oppy's position, in the absence of evidence there is no reason to go beyond the simpler explanation of naturalism. So the question it seems is 'just' whether or not there is a reason to favour a more complex answer than "science doesn't know". Not exactly an easy question though unfortunately....
@@AScepticalJourney
“…..a reason to favor a more complex answer….” means what exactly ?
@@Folkstone1957 Graham Oppy's conclusion is that belief in some sort of God is not unreasonable but a God is a more complex answer than to just assume everything is natural and science just doesn't have the answers yet i.e. he is atheist not because it is unreasonable not to be, but simply because, in his opinion, that's the simplest answer to life, the universe and everything.
Can you prove you are an atheist?
@@JoBo301
Are you asking me ?
Yes you were roped in by the title. No it doesn't deliver what it advertised.
@@davidhoffman6980 It definitely wasn't the book I expected but still useful to have a proper atheist philosopher's perspective.
@@AScepticalJourney well I appreciate your graceful response, but I wasn't talking to you about the book. I was talking to the audience about the click bait title of this video. I'm an atheist, and I occasionally watch atheist (and Christian) content. I saw a video that indicated that a philosopher was going to give his best argument against God, and I thought "This should be interesting. I wonder which argument he thinks is best and why? Or if it's entirely new?" However, it was just a summary of a short Graham Oppy book. There was no "best argument against God", at least, there wasn't one clearly articulated and actually argued. It was quite the opposite: the conclusion is that there are no good arguments against God/for atheism.
@@davidhoffman6980 Ah, for that I can only apologise then. It wasn't my intention to click bait (my average video gets about twelve views so trying to 'trick-in' an audience is not on my agenda - albeit I do very much enjoy thoughtful comments like yours on videos), just using the title of the book and didn't occur that it might be taken that way. I did one I called 'the exorcist' and realised that might be click bait so caveated in the thumb nail as I have no wish to click bait anyone. I do appreciate the feedback though, do a CZcams channel and all your friends tell you it's great even where it's not...
@@AScepticalJourney well you took it like a champ. I see you don't have a big audience and you're not an unreasonable guy so I'll just delete that comment in a little while (I'll give you time to read this first). It was a little more hostile than was warranted.
@@davidhoffman6980 No not at all, it was fair and I'm embracing the positive and the fair criticism. Lots to learn in this project and it wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise. Appreciated 👍🏻
An atheist shouldn't claim there is no God only that the God descriptions so far can be debunked. Where as a theist may claim their is a God without providing the adequate evidence..Enjoyed your video.
An adult shouldn't claim there is no Santa Claus only that the Santa descriptions so far can be debunked.
@@davidhoffman6980 Correct. Where as a child believes.
@@markmacdonald3260 Thank you. It's a tough pair of questions certainly, does he exist and, if so, which one is he. I definitely agree that anyone talking in certainties is, well, bold to say the least.
As a Christian, good video man, hope I get to see you explore more books and topics!
Thank you, definitely lots more to explore. The tangents are proving to be a great way to look at the bigger picture whilst simultaneously working through the bible so plenty more of both to come while I try and figure this all out! Making progress though.
Wow. That's so open minded and charitable of you. That's even less self serving than if an atheist commented "good video" on a video by a Christian philosopher who concludes "there are no good Christian arguments." 😂
@@davidhoffman6980 I'm finding that there seem to be two types of Christians. Several have been terribly offended by what I'm doing, finding me arrogant to dare to read the Bible alone and 'cast judgement' on it, and others who appear to trust that searching properly for answers will lead me to the right place.
In defence of @strke5654, my video does say that in no way does this prove God exists, just that I'm unconvinced by any atheist arguments. Oppy concludes that it is not unreasonable to believe in God, just that he doesn't. It still though leaves the much bigger problem for theists to prove they're right, after all those who believe in Santa are not proven right just because I've never seen a flying reindeer.
@@AScepticalJourney Ok that's fair. However he didn't write what he liked about the video, so it's a bad look, even if he may have just been conciliatory. I suppose I should have given him the benefit of the doubt, but I can never pass up the opportunity for a joke.
@@davidhoffman6980 Comedy is a terrible thing to waste for sure 😂
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Definitely a mighty strong argument given none of that can be disputed (and my experience parallels with yours) and certainty seems to put you squarely in the naturalist camp. Where does consciousness sit in the equation for you? I appreciate that just because science doesn't have the answer, that doesn't mean there isn't a scientific answer that we just don't have yet, but Oppy's assertion that we're basically just neuro-chemical 'meat robots' calls into question the whole concept of free will. But then maybe there is no free will and responsibility is an illusion.
@@AScepticalJourney Did I present an argument? If so, what was the stated conclusion of this argument.
@AScepticalJourney What does consciousness (my awareness of the realities surrounding me) have to do with my rational position of atheism? I fail to see any connection. Perhaps you can elaborate.
@@AScepticalJourney Again, what does my free will (agency) have to do with this 'God' being a reality?
Sounds good to me. Appreciate all the deep thoughts you've amassed for sincere consideration. I choose to believe but would argue with God who invented Hide and Seek
I have a better argument against the existence of God.
@@philosophyofvalue8506 I like those, what's the argument?
I take issue with using smart words, I hate that because this just ego you can use accessible vocabulary and explain it just as well and more masses could benefit from it and not be discouraged by fancy pants look at me im so smart wordings. If this is a summary I think you forgot about this best argument cause the one you presented are nothing new really.
@@orvovosk That was definitely a problem, trying to work out in English what he was actually saying was a challenge - hence a relief the book was short! But no, there was no secret mega-argument that he makes, just a series of fairly standard ones that he then declared atheism the winner on because it's largely a stalemate but atheism is the simpler explanation. So I suppose it could summarise as the best argument against God is that it's simpler to assume he doesn't exist. Even Oppy acknowledges though that it isn't a compelling argument.
Right. I met a lot of people focusing on the fine tuning argument trying to approach it from scientifc perspective and almost no one is acknowledging that if god in mondern understanding existed fine tuning would be unecessary. Fine tuning to what? that implies that there have to be laws above god that god needs to fine tune the universe to. Omnipotent means that he breaks the causality law so to every action he can choose both the cause and effect. Nothing he does is wrong including remaing hidden so why does it. he is not tired, doesnt loose focus, controls everything down to a single quantum fluctuation, people project what they associate with a ruler onto god and believe in that. and god would behave the opposite to a ruler, because well you coudnt threaten him with anything.
also he doesnt need a plan or purpose becaue there would be no time or steps to take. But for me the biggest argument that god is not real(and lets make a distinction that creator does not necessairly mean god) god needs to be in full control and indepenent of material forces) is that without humanity god looses all purpose of existance. gravity still works she is doin fine pulling objects having the time of her life but god is has no one to save.
@@orvovosk I like that, there do seem to be a lot of problems around people 'filling in the blanks' around who and what God would be. I've mentioned in previous videos that I don't see why God has to be perfect in every respect. Plus there's surely a problem with reconciling someone being perfectly just and perfectly merciful, those two must contradict to some extent. The idea about people ascribing characteristics to God that don't seem necessarily reasonable is definitely something I will be looking at.
I guess the God needing to be in full control question is about theism versus deism, another one on the list to look at. Interesting idea that a creator does not necessarily mean God though. I suppose many would say by definition that a creator is God but then that has the same issue of people applying characteristics. Very not boring stuff to wrestle with though!
FS!!
annoying