*Justin, This is in relation to your 'dice' analogy video. Do you understand that the odds of ANY combination of values the physical constants could be, is EXACTLY the same?*

The reason why and how there is something rather than nothing is because the cause of everything we call everything including all time, space and matter was necessary rather than contingent, therefore this cause has always existed. If the cause of time, all space and all mater (our known Universe) has a beginning none of these could have logically created themselves by and from nothing. To claim every came from nothing and by nothing would be a magical claim, not a science or sound philosophical claim.

Also, if one is to claim that things that have a cause are "necessary" because determinism is true and thus nothing caused is really "contingent"; this claim kind of eliminates the relationship meaning of the terms contingent as "caused" and it's opposite term "necessary" as eternal without a cause. Contingent in it's simple meaning means "has a cause and a beginning". The fact that if this causal process was determined or not is therefore irrelevant and does not mean, "determined therefore necessary". That is conflating different terms. In this sense something caused and with a beginning whether in a determined process/result or not cannot be "necessary" because necessary infers eternal without a beginning or cause. The caused things with a beginning in comparison to "necessary things" are always contingent of the cause and in their beginning regardless of if it's the result of a determined process or not.

True, and it is the only correct answer to the question.

DonswatchingtheTube They were OBVIOUSLY just going to discuss ideas, not pretend to have the answer *facepalm*

The reason why and how there is something rather than nothing is because the cause of everything we call everything including all time, space and matter was necessary rather than contingent, therefore this cause has always existed. If the cause of time, all space and all mater (our known Universe) has a beginning none of these could have logically created themselves by and from nothing. To claim every came from nothing and by nothing would be a magical claim, not a science or sound philosophical claim.

The reason why and how there is something rather than nothing is because the cause of everything we call everything including all time, space and matter was necessary rather than contingent, therefore this cause has always existed. If the cause of time, all space and all mater (our known Universe) has a beginning none of these could have logically created themselves by and from nothing. To claim every came from nothing and by nothing would be a magical claim, not a science or sound philosophical claim.

@@WgWilliams The problem is when you claim to have a personal relationship with this First Cause and that it whispers sweet nothings in your ear.

completely agree

I'm not. He didn't give any strong evidence showing things aren't contigent.

Of course it has. Every planet has its own gravitational force. If you’re talking about space, there is no gravity and if you’re talking about outside the universe then we don’t know for sure but all we do know is within our solar system, gravity definitely is a thing

Gravity doesn't work. It's just the bending of spacetime caused by massive objects

Search for Truth, thank you, and those polite as you too. GOD bless!!

Well if we extend this to god you are suggesting there could be an infinite regress and meaning un ending cycle who created god and who created who created god and who created who created who created god? and we could go on forever meaning there won't be a creation in the first place and being here as humans we know there must be an un caused cause which we simply call it god how do we know that that's another story but that's a fact that can't be denied, And I would like to give an example on infinite regress in case you didn't get it, If we imagine an infinte row of people and the very first guy in this row asks the next one to lend him a dollar and whom he asks ask the one after him and so on if this goes on forever that dude can't get the dollar. hope you understand it's called the infinite regress fallacy you could look it up on the web. Good luck :D

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

If you want someone who knows more about Contingency, (which there aren't many), check out Michael Jones of "Inspiring Philosophy" or Joshua Rasmussen of "Worldview Design."

Reject PSR and the argument fails. Deny the possibility of necessary beings and the argument fails. Deny causality and the argument fails. It is only convincing to people who already believe in god.

@@Oners82 you dont know the argument went. All those objections have been responded to. If you simply "deny" these things then you have to deal with absurd consequences which even the atheist would not want to accept. Not as simple as youre making it out to be.

@@Oners82 how do you deny the possibility of necessary beings and how does the argument fail because of that? genuinely asking...

@@crystalfrancis6326 Most philosophers (in the analytic tradition at least) that I have studied deny the possibility of necessary beings because they don't seem to make any sense. I have even heard theistic philosophers such as Swinburne agree with this. The only things we tend to treat as necessary are abstract concepts such as analytic statements and certain logical/mathematical statements, not things that exist in the world. The reason is quite simple - in order for a being to be necessary it would have to entail a contradiction that the being did not exist, but every attempt to demonstrate that a being not existing leads to contradiction fails. For example if you are familiar with possible world semantics we can imagine a possible world where nothing at all exists, and there would seem to be no contradiction involved in this. And if there is a possible world where nothing exists then it necessarily follows that all things that do exist are in fact contingent because they only exist in some possible worlds. And why does the contingency argument fail because of this? Because the argument goes that everything in the world (including the world itself) is contingent, and all contingent things require explanation. However if everything that exists is contingent then this leads to an infinite regression of explanation, so there must be a necessary being that grounds explanation for all contingent beings. However if necessary beings do not exist then the conclusion of the argument is ipso facto false.

@Tropical Garden Agreed. Blah blah blah, both guys only made one point each in an hours worth of discussing.

@@brando3342 More on Alex part. He is talking so many points and stray to so many paths to explain just one subject.

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

Believing in the opposite also requires a “leap of faith” so I suppose it’s pick your poison. I choose to put my faith in a God rather than a lack thereof.

If you're looking for proof, you're not going to find it. Arguments like these seek to establish it's more likely than not that something like God exists

*You're getting old.*

What did he say that’s been “debunked”?

@@justchilling704 Pretty much everything which comes out of his mouth in these clips. Tell me something you think hasn't been and I'll reply...

@@silknfeathers Okay nvm I thought you actually had something in mind you just disagree with him.

@@justchilling704 No, I don't "just disagree with him". I have listened to a number of his video presentations and he almost invariably talks crap;. His assertions (at least those arguing for the existence of a god) are consistently incorrect. Again, if you have anything specific you feel is not incorrect, please let me know...

Well, that would be an infinite regress, and an open circle, which seem to not be coherent with the existence of contingent entities. I believe that's the essential problem this argument shows. The argument attempts to find a source for contingency itself. Since contingency is possible, there has to be something non-contingent to avoid an impossible infinite regress of contingent entities. If there is no source or nothing non-contingent, there would be no existence, because everything is dependent on something. Since contingent things do exist, there must be a non-contingent entity to break the infinite regress and break the paradox.

You sneak in your conclusion when you define material reality as "contingent" and "transient".

@@sapago4166 yeah I noticed that

And like was stated, the universe is a brute fact.

Prove that's true in the first premise. That without a god we can't have foundation. I have heard this argument but never once a justification for it.

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

4 years late, but your point has me thinking about the nature of god (you dont declare god the necessary entity, but it got me thinking)... If there exists at least 1, lets call it 'state of things' where the universe exists, and another (or several) state(s) in which it doesn't, there then exists multipe gods, one in which the universe as we know it was created, then more based on n number of universes uncreated/created of different nature. This then begs multiple questions, one being a challenge of there being '1 god' as stated by multiple religions. Perhaps this should be restated by religious books/theorists as "1 god per potential universe"? It also begs the question of a necessary being making a decision that can split the universe in the first place... what about the free willed necessary being caused them to choose to create, or conversely, caused them to choose not to? This decision they hypothetically make could be interpreted as contigent on... something, whether a whim, a desire, etc etc. Has me thinking about a human's choice to eat. We decide to eat, generally, out of hunger, or rather more specifically, to avoid a state of suffering, of potential death even. To decide against these things, to decide not to eat when feeling hunger, would go against rationality in a stark rejection of common sense and safety. I wonder, and expect no answers (especially since you did not declare god as the necessary entity, tho you did lay out a hypothetical in which the necessaey being referred to has free will and the potential to make a decision) what factors would lead god towards choosing to of choosing not to create a universe. Does a given god have urges, or biological drives? Perhaps it is a calculation based on the greater good of 'things', that one state is either 'better' or 'worse' and therefore the decision made. Although this latter would be odd if, given cameron's stance of the necessary being being perfect, the god was "perfect." In the case of a perfect being being the cause of the universe, that would mean this being would make the 'correct' decision to either create or not every time, as of course they would; they're perfect. But then, if there is one 'better' answer than the other, and the necessary chooser is perfect, and it follows that the perfect choose chooses perfectly, and the universe is the choice, then they always choose to create. Then the universe once again becomes necessary. Anyway, interesting thought tunnel, thank you for gettinv my gears turning.

The heavens and the earth declare the glory of God (psalms 19:1) so we are without excuse (Roman’s 1:20)

that's a topic called divine hiddenness

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

You underestimate just how incredulous people can be. Look at "Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic" where David Wood talks about how far someone will go to deny what they don't want to believe despite the evidence presented. Then understand that what you think might be convincing might still result in people being in denial. For example, if God spoke as a voice in the sky, newscasters would probably insist that it was a loud PA system from an aircraft or something.

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

I think you should, and I also think you'll have a very hard time backing up that statistic

Many of us did just that. I deconstructed my faith until I spent a season as an agnostic and then reconstructed a faith through reason and rationale, among other things.

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

Yes, it is a rather bold claim, and in debates like these, when every single word is scrutinised by the opposing side, it's rather unnecessary to say the least. That being said, I think he's saying it like that to make a point, and to emphasise the absurdity in claiming one does in fact have the answer. A slightly less presumptuous way of phrasing it could have (of) been: "I don't know, and I don't see any feasible way you could possibly know either."

@@ob4161 Just because they've done it doesn't mean it's not absurd. Doesn't mean it is absurd to propose an answer either, but it's probably preferable if the answer is justifiable. I don't know what you mean by 'deepest question' though, that's a highly subjective matter.

Determinism (scientific) states that every event throughout the entire 14 billion years of the universe and for the next 10^100 years was set into motion before the big bang ever happened. This particle goes here, this atom goes there, and an unending chain of cause and effect began that reached all the way forward in time, all the way through the inevitable formation of our galaxy, then our solar system, our star, our planet, the oceans and the mountains, the primordial soup, religion, civilization, through history, through our family tree, through our birth, right up into the very quantum states of the atoms in our neurons and to all the future decisions and deaths and thunderstorms and sunsets and supernovae and black hole formations for the rest of time until the very last particle evaporates out of existence. In other words, there are no contingents, there are only necessaries. And the time that life is able to even so much as exist in that universe is only 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the entire time span of the universe (that little fact is unrelated, just wanted to throw it in). Tell me how that doesn't undermine the idea of contingents?

Daniel Cartwright determinism does nothing to undermine the argument, because determinism is a stance about causal relations between existing entities. All entities could be contingent with determinism being true, and this obviously does not explain why all such entities exist instead of some other contingent totality of deterministic entities. It is disappointing that Alex conflates determinism with necessitarianism.

@@deluxeassortment would determinism mean that every thing is necessary and nothing is contingent? The God argument would only fail if nothing is necessary, I think.

@@crystalfrancis6326 Yes, if hard determinism is the correct interpretation, everything would be necessary. However, we cannot reconcile special relativity with quantum mechanics without letting go of determinism. Scientists in QM have moved on to probabilism. The more complex a system is, the more deterministic _it appears._ The closer a system gets to a single state, the less deterministic it appears. For instance, virtual particles in a vacuum have no cause. One objection to this was that we just didn't know the cause, but we have ruled out hidden variable theories. Also, when a proton decays and gives off radiation, it does so at a completely random time, with no apparent cause. The overall rate is constant, but the individual events are unpredictable, giving rise to probabilistic statistics. The same goes for a photon traveling through a slit, we have no idea what direction individual photons will travel, but over many measurements, a probabilistic pattern emerges. It is completely possible, over many, many, many, iterations for a photon to travel in the opposite direction of a slit without reflection off the surrounding material. The odds are just extremely low. Given the number of photons in a beam and the amount of time we perform the experiment, the low probability is still enough to have it occur in an observable time frame. A fourth example of the probabilistic nature of simple systems is quantum tunneling. A photon can travel through an opaque, thick obstacle with an extremely low probability, getting lower as the material gets thicker. But it does happen. Given enough time, and a large enough quantity of black holes, one of then is bound to suddenly expand with no cause. Given the complexity of black holes, even the most massive ones, it may not happen for 10^100 years, but it can happen.

@@crystalfrancis6326 Also, I'd like to ask, if hard determinism means that everything is predetermined, how do you reconcile that with God? That would leave us with only the _illusion_ of free will. Which, I guess doesn't rule out a creator, but it surely rules out a god who wants its followers to obey

Stuart The main thing people go for is the historicity of the Resurrection and fulfilled prophecy that’s within the Bible. Watch Zacharias’s take on the historicity of the Resurrection. Obviously it’s not something that can be totally substantiated, but some interesting arguments are posed.

@@MyNameIsJ3ffrey I am familiar with the arguments. If I was writing a book and wanted to encourage people to believe in my religion I would construct something along the lines of the gospels. These are not objective impartial accounts and we have no way of verifying that any of it is true - even the crucifixion of Jesus as such is not an established historical fact - even if some non Christian historians agree that it is - it is disputed in the academic world. Even if we accept it as fact - reports that Jesus was seen after he was dead need to be seen in the context of evangelist writers who were trying to convert people and persuade them that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Nothing can be confirmed and so ultimately I don't accept that any of it is true. If I was already a believing Christian I might be persuaded to accept these arguments - but since I have nothing invested in the religion I just look at the evidence - or lack of it.

@@MyNameIsJ3ffrey I note that Zacharias only appears on apologetic conferences - he does not engage in debates with serious skeptical historians. He is preaching to the converted all the time and his audience is virtually 100% Christian.

Stuart There are quite a few historical accounts that mention Jesus’s tomb was indeed empty. Conversely, writers at the time like Pliny the Younger postulated that his disciples stole his body. No whether his body was stolen or not is a different story. If you suspend the supernatural, what is most likely is that his body was stolen. From a human psychology and history standpoint, all of his disciples, minus John of Tarsus, died pretty awful deaths for the sake of spreading a message that hinged on Jesus being this exceptional figure who was raised from the dead. It really doesn’t make sense to martyr yourself for a cause that you know is a lie. Maybe 1 or 2 would delude themselves, but nearly all of them? That raises some questions naturally when it comes to motivation.

Stuart That perhaps is true, but that doesn’t speak to the strength of the arguments that he is posing. He is known for doing pretty extensive Q&As at the end of his lectures. I do concede, I would suspect that the majority of the audience is Christian at these sort of things.

"If the necessary state is perfect" *WTF? What 'necessary state' are you even talking about? Also how do you determine a 'perfect state'?* "(and perfect things exist necessarily)" *Prove it. I know of no thing in existence that is perfect.*

asix I’m following along from statements that was made in the video. Did you watch it?

*Yes, of course I did. Can you not clarify what 'state' YOU are talking about? Can you not prove your claim that 'perfect things exist necessarily'? 'Following along' doesn't excuse you from backing up your statements.*

asix I actually don’t think you did listen to the podcast. The Necessary state was what contrasted a contingent state. But thanks for sharing.

"The Necessary state was what contrasted a contingent state" *I didn't ask what a supposed 'necessary state' was being contrasted against!! What part of my question are you not grasping? AGAIN, what 'necessary state' are you referring to?* *I'll take your lack of evidencing that 'perfect things exist necessarily', as your concession that you can't.*

Theist philosophers usually say that God is not self caused. A cause includes two things. The one that causes, and the one that is effected. When we say that something has necessary existence, we mean that its nature is such that it must exist and couldn't bit exist.

@@Klee99zeno And that something could well be the universe - or as some call it - the existence. It stands to reason that a necessary property of the existence, is in fact - existence. No need for god - problem solved.

@Rollo I think we know too little about the origins of existence - whether it has an origin at all - or whether something has always existed in one form or another under laws we currently do not understand. Some people like to fill in that gap of understanding with god. I'm just content to say - I dont know.

@Rollo Just to add - we dont know the universe was caused. Scientists have not concluded that the universe was caused. They have merely explained how they think it expanded after the big bang. But even if I accepted the kalam cosmological argument - the conclusion would simply be the universe has a cause. You are assuming that cause is god, it may be something else. or the point from which it came may have always existed.

@Rollo As far as I understand - we cannot applies our models to the moment of the big bang - or what came before it - because they break down. So talking in terms of time, space etc is meaningless. So is "nothing" - it seems when physicists talk about nothing they mean something different from what lay people mean. Cause and effect is something we observe after the big bang - so again talking about a cause outside of space and time is nonsensical. The vast majority of people who really understand all this - Hawking and other scientists - are atheists. They know more than me or you - and yet still dont see room for a god. Maybe you should take your arguments to a phycisist because I am not a scientist and dont really feel qualified to properly evaluate your argument. You might have something that Hawking and all the other cosmologists missed.

By that logic, there is no such thing as a non existent being as long as its existence is conceivable (really, possible). But this is mere word play, resolving nothing

Hunt Richardson the conceivability of a non-existent being shows that it’s a contingent being, but not a necessary being.

OIC. You refer to the necessity of a being vs. the contingency of a being based on the possibility (conceivability) that it does not exist. Isn't anything that exists (or not) in fact or fancy contingent on its conceivability? If so then what if anything is necessary?

Hunt Richardson yes, i would say any existent or non-existent being is contingent if it’s conceivable.

Hunt Richardson with respect to God or the Universe, I would deny they are necessary beings because I can conceive their non-existence.

*Do you have any evidence of a non-observable, non-contingent thing?*

asix, sure, non-contingent and non-observable thing is God. There are manny evidences that lead to God, which I haven’t asked for. My question is: do you have example of observable but non- contingent thing?

"sure, non-contingent and non-observable thing is God." *That's called a claim, numb nuts.* "There are manny evidences that lead to God" *That's just another claim.* "which I haven’t asked for." *I am.* "do you have example of observable but non- contingent thing?" *Since we're just claiming things without evidencing they actually exist, sure I can, pixies are non-observable & non-contingent.*

*Opps! You asked for OBSERVABLE. Nope, I don't. Nor do you have any evidence of the 'god' you claim exists.*

asix, manny thanks for your time & efforts! You actually did contribute to the argument from contingency.

Aundray Dawson but this does not draw a line to the Christian god. This is the issue. There may have been a great creator, but the faith required for identifying that god as specific to one religion is a big leap

@@TheMegaPixel7 the attributes of almighty, omniscient and omnipresent is given to the God Jesus served.

Who is?

If things are contingent that does not mean a who/intelligent being is responsible. There could be some things that have existed infinitely, that does not imply conscious beings. Presently we do not know; to say differently is lying.

My favorite is the twenty something theist who can't explain the cosmological/contingent argument without reading his notes 😑

@@debbietampasheher3682 That's all you got? 🤣👌

+Ian Sarantos Because attacking the man and not his arguments is going to be very convincing and likely not fallacious at all ;)

My thoughts as well, mental masturbation that leads nowhere.

Yeah, I somewhat agree, people just see from different angles and like you said both angles are beliefs, it’s still interesting to watch though.

Except the atheist was not making a claim that a supernatural skydaddy exists :/

Atheism is a lack of belief

@@debbietampasheher3682 Atheism is to conclude that there is no God. Lack of belief would be agnostic What you sarcastically call "supernatural sky daddy" is what theist is calling the uncause cause. Also Givin the nature of intelligent, the uncause cause would have to be inteligente, because intelligent are only produced from intelligence.

Both determinism and contingency imply a necessity. A deterministic universe would have causes for what you observe that in themselves would have more predetermined causes until you eventually reach a point when there can be no more predetermined causes. All of the predetermined causes being necessary. You would need a necessity to be the beginning which all predetermined events rest on. It can easily be said that the singularity of the universe is a necessity. You can easily say the singularity of the universe had always been just like one could claim god had always been. There is no difference other than the object which is necessary. I assume by your statement "we have a strong argument for contingent objects coming from temporal becoming" is based on the big bang if I'm not mistaken. If that is the case then I disagree that such an argument is strong. As I said the big bang can be interpreted as a predetermined event. That event being the beginning of all predetermined events. The necessary singularity changing form into something else but still in itself necessary. Your argument that Alex is contingent is agian not something I would agree with. My opinion will continue to differ from yours because you always base yours on contingency whereas mine will always be based on determinism. Alex is part of a greater set of predetermined events all necessary, stemming from a necessary singularity.

I was thinking the same. The fact that if this causal process was determined or not is therefore irrelevant and does not mean, "determined therefore necessary". That is conflating different terms. In this sense something caused and with a beginning whether in a determined process/result or not cannot be "necessary" because necessary infers eternal without a beginning or cause. The caused things with a beginning in comparison to "necessary things" are always contingent of the cause and in their beginning regardless of if it's the result of a determined process or not.

*Well? Where's your reason?*

@@asix9178 Right!? lol Cameron definitely didn't provide any

I'm only 30 mins in so far, but it seems to me like Alex is confusing determinism with predestination. The concepts are not the same. Some sort of physical or biological determinism may dictate all the actions and (illusions of) thoughts in an individual being, but it doesn't magically coordinate the life stories of separate beings. So, for example, if Alex's father had been hit by a bus before Alex was conceived, Alex would not exist. That means Alex is contingent. If Alex thinks that it would have been impossible for his father to have been hit by a bus before he was conceived, then he's not advocating physical or biological determinism, he's advocating for some form of theistic predestination and grand plan, which could only come from some kind of transcendent intelligence ... in which case Alex has given up the game.

Zandaff The Mede it’s not hard to understand, & is no different to the Lane Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument at its roots. They are old ideas and we’ve learnt a lot since Aristotle... It starts with the wrong premise. As we now know we are emergent beings in an universe built from emergence - it’s inception, stars, snowflakes, living things all emerged from a process or from something else. Contingent beings are the result of emergent properties as observed in the observable universe. So to suggest a necessary being beyond it, is a massive leap. It could be a necessary process or event for eg. The Universe could’ve emerged from another process, like a black hole, as theoretical physics describes. An infinity of universes with no beginning or end like a Mandelbrot Set, or the multi-verse as string theory describes...

@@maxtormanen9351 Yep.

@@Kratos40595 that’s a whole lot of speculation and mental gymnastics you’re doing. There are countless theories where we could have emerged from but they are all far less plausible than an intelligent designer. Christians has a frame of reference called the Bible, which are historical documents spanning of thousands of manuscripts. So why aren’t they taken seriously compared to historical figures like Julius Caesar, which barely have much written about them yet no one second guesses their existence. So your argument collapses upon itself. You have to live on man made theories that have no frame of reference or just simply settle for “we don’t know” where as christians and other theists have a more rational explanation to who we are and where we came from.

@@DeezNuts-gl6nx no speculation, we can observe stars forming, and have observed accretion disks, much like the one that formed the Earth. Everything we have observed is emergent, so by what rationale could we suggest the universe wasn’t emergent? We don’t even know if “nothing” is possible. If it’s not, the formation of the universe wouldn’t require an agent. Meanwhile the Bible isn’t an historical document, it’s a theological one. Many characters like Moses for example, didn’t exist, it’s a collection of parables and poetry etc. There’s other older documents you don’t regard like the Vedas. Maybe that’s the one true religion? By what system can you know whether the Vedas or the Bible is the true book? Or maybe none of them are true, and are just the musings of Bronze Age man before the age of reason arose, and gained knowledge from evidence...

@@DeezNuts-gl6nx _"So why aren’t [biblical manuscripts] taken seriously compared to historical figures like Julius Caesar, which barely have much written about them yet no one second guesses their existence."_ The bible makes numerous claims that defy our observations of the natural universe: resurrection of the dead, materialization of food, angels, virgin birth, talking bushes, people turning to salt, talking serpents, humans made from ribs, water turned to wine, a man walking on liquid water, healing the blind, etc, etc, etc. How can you accuse anyone of doing mental gymnastics and keep a straight face?

Alex is great 👍🏼

@@marishasveganworld2240 he is great! Too bad he’s wrong

The problem is that you don't know if the universe didn't always exist. Not to mention that even if it had a cause, the cause could be anything but a god. Your argument is pointless

@@Aguijon1982 I don't care whether the universe began to exist. Even if it always has existed, it still needs someone or something to sustain it. The question isn't whether the universe began to exist. Instead, I need to know why there's anything at all. We can't appeal to a natural cause when natural causes can't make themselves begin to exist because that ability would presuppose that they already do exist. You might agree with some philosophers who believe that the universe's existence is a brute fact. But once you know that a brute fact can't have any explanation even in principle, you know that there are no brute facts. If the universe existed brute-factually, no one could discover that it did, since the ability to discover it would presuppose an explanation. Again, a brute fact is unable to have any explanation. So if you insist that the universe exists uncaused, then I need you to explain how to tell the difference between an uncaused natural event and a natural event with a cause science will always be unable to find. Maybe you'll suggest the universe has existential inertia. If you did suggest it, I'd ask what gave it existential inertia. But then I'd be asking what caused the existential inertia to exist when existential inertia explains a thing's supposedly uncaused existence. A scientific explanation is a causal explanation. And some causes and their effects need to exist together because the effects always depend on their causes even to keep them around. A refrigerator magnet keeps sticking to the refrigerator door because the cause of the sticking keeps holding the magnet there. Things keep existing because God sustains them. Nothing causes him, since his existence and his causal power are built into him. So he doesn't borrow them from another source. Since science presupposes that there's a natural world, if you use science to try to explain why there's anything natural, your argument will be circular. Maybe you'll tell me that since we have science, we don't need God. But science presupposes that there's something instead of nothing. And the ultimate question is, "Why is there anything at all?"

@@williammcenaney1331 It doesn't need anyone to sustain it. That is absurd. If god doesn't need a creator, then neither does the universe. I don't care about your special pleading fallacy.

@@Aguijon1982 I'm not special you're begging arguing in a circle by assuming that the universe doesn't need a cause when we're discussing whether it needs one. We'll waste our time if I keep saying the universe needs a cause, and you always reply, "No, it doesn't"." Science can't explain what makes natural causality possible because science presupposes there are natural causes. It takes them for granted. You say I'm committing the fallacy of special pleading. So please tell me how there could be a past infinite regress of causes. If there were a past-infinite regress of them, there would be no effects now. Don't appeal to Zeno's paradox that supposedly proves that motion is impossible. Zeno's argument presupposes that there's change because you need to be able to go from premise to premise to understand his argument. Zeno ignored the difference between possible change and actual change. If he remembered that difference, he would have needed to ask what made change possible at least in principle.

@@williammcenaney1331 It is a special pleading. Oh the universe needs "someone" or "something" behind it, but god, no no. How convenient. And how fallacious and crap. Sorry. I'm not assuming anything, wtf? I said even if the universe had a cause, It could be anything but a fkn god.

It is the same as implying god created the universe only without implying god. It is entirely possible that the universe is both necessary and the cause of it's own transformation. There need be no cause outside of itself. A series of predetermined events would occur which would lead to another predetermined event that would be Alex's parents meeting and conceiving him. That is not too different from implying God in the sense that god would be necessary just like the singularity would be or is. They both leave the question of why has either the universe or god always existed. I prefer the universe always existing because it does not imply something that I do not knlw for certain exists. However it is possible. It is also possible that niether god nor the universe has always existed and there is a multiverse that if we could observe would answer the question about our origin. That multiverse could be so fundamentally different that asking the question where did it come from or how long has it been around wouldn't make sense. All very mysterious and interesting in my opinion.

@@cosmossci4883 OK, yes that was interesting, but the universe have a beginning. Everything that have a beginning have a cause. Even if you add multy universe or anything ultimately there have to be an uncause cause. That is the thing that have no beginning. Eternal without end or beginning. That's what we Christians call God. Isaiah 57:15 ESV - For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, *who inhabits eternity* , whose name is Holy: Even time begin to exist, it was caused. What caused time is outside of time. God is not limited by time. That's why his name is ( I AM).

@@dannycv82 it is not certain whether or not the universe must have a cause outside of itself. It is not necessarily needed. The *known* universe had a beginning, but that was simply a transformation of the universe. There is no evidence that the universe was created from _nothing_ or by a creator. All that is known is if you "rewind" time to the beginning, everything in the universe came from a single source. This is the singularity. That singularity is unlike the universe we see today. So while the beginning of the universe is often implied when talking about the big bang it is not necessary that the universe have a beginning or cause outside of itself for its expansion. When talking about the entirety of existence (as far as we know) things can be strange and complex. Even attempting to understand quantum mechanics is difficult based off the fact that the phenomena we observe is so strange. Unlike anything you observe on the human scale. While I don't agree with the belief, I dont really mind if people believe in a creator. So long as they do not reject scientific evidence to do so. If scientific evidence is rejected without another scientific model that has better predictive capabilities, then it is only hindering progress.

@@cosmossci4883 I understand what you saying. But the scientific evidence points that the universe started from nothing. The calculations describes nothing. What is nothing? (Absent of something). It had a beginning. It was set in motion. Givin it's current well organized state, one can see its intelligent desigh. Am suggesting there is no evidence for evolution in its creation, its not random, it is organize. We never have order from chaos. Intelligent only comes from intelligence. But, think about this. Everything that have a beginning have a cause, ultimately you need an uncause cause. Inteligente desigh only comes from intelligente.

@@dannycv82 there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the universe came from _nothing_ but rather that it came from a singularity. Rather than _nothing_ it was everything within a infinitesimally small point. Although observations seem to show that the energies of the universe cancel eachother out, it is not truly nothing. That _nothing_ would actually be something. Gravity as negative energy and matter as positive energy both cancel eachother out so it is said that the universe can come from _nothing_ but that is really a way of saying neutral energy. The universe came from something whether it was a quantum fluctuation or something unknown I don't know. You can invoke a god and believe that that god would have created the universe but you have no evidence to suggest this.

"is that we always find a reasonable answer that will ultimately justify the existence of God." *No, you think you have a reasonable answer, but they all ultimately fail to justify belief that 'gods' exist.* "The being we come from cannot be created nor destroyed it just exists" *Sounds just like energy/matter! LMAO!* "Reasonable for me we just need to identify that the universe had a beginning it didn't just exist and certainly it did as it's age is not uncountable." *Do you understand that our LOCAL universe is not necessarily considered all that exists? Feel free to show evidence that EVERYTHING had a beginning.* *All you are doing is defining your unevidenced invisible magician into existence. That's not convincing in the slightest.*

GOD almighty bless you too. Do you know that the Tb is a false pastor? He only work for money, he is one of the riches pastor, a tree is knowing by the fruit , a bad tree dosen't give good fruit

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

This debate isn't for the average person, it's for the ones trying to look as deeply and as objectively as possible into the debate so as to possibly walk away with a better understanding of logic and logical fallacies of both science and religion. This is for those self aware people that don't want to be told want to believe, but want a model for formation of their own ideas and so that they can truly call their position on the matter their own. If you want talking points and buzzwords, you can find those on any X atheist vs Y preacher video. This was meant to dig deeper and leave out all hyperbole, sensationalism and ad hominem attacks so that we could have a real discussion free of judgment and assumption.

Insightful comment...a lot of people get on him for not separating ontology with epistemology so your frustration is not alone.

you wrote a lot without saying anything, you could have used that space to prove god. what a pity!

Sebastian Apolo I cannot prove anything except that I exist. Beyond that the next thing that has a rigorous proof is mathematics. Beyond that it is all evidence based (all branches of science included), not proof. Not even the cosmic skeptic has proof of anything beyond himself existing, or he is no skeptic. Now then, there is plenty of evidence that god exists. Did you honestly want it? I can safely say that those who think there is no reason to believe have not honestly looked. Are you truly interested?

mackdmara nah I doubt you would provide something new, I mean not even the best theists apologist have ever provided something logical is always the same fallacies over and over again

Sebastian Apolo I see, you are infallible no matter what I had. At least your honest about your beliefs. That said, why say I could have taken that time to prove god? You make no sense. Does not want to argue, claims I should have bothered presenting proof. Proof has been here for way over two thousand years. Just about anyone can get a copy also. God is real, & although there are fallacious arguments, I do not give them. You should try reading the four gospels as history. You might just find Jesus is not such a bad guy, might even have come to save you, for all you know. Only life, guidance, Love, & eternity on the line. Not that you need any of that in life. Think about it. God Bless

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

I don't know how you've heard it, but I have heard that a necessary being would be uncaused, nor self-caused. I don't think God caused himself; I agree with you that would be absurd. He had no cause or beginning.

@@MasterSongStudiosReal it’s still special pleading - to suggest everything else just fit the paradigm except for a god and with no explanation why or how. At least with cosmological eternal models we have a base to make informed inferences. For instance, Hawking’s latest model depicts a universe with a geometric spacial boundary but a timeless dimension, suggest it had no absolute begging. And time catalyzes or emerges out of this boundary. Of course we don’t know if this is true, we’re still trying to come up with methods to test and experiment with these models (and there might be some progress there) but the physics is ultimately sound. I don’t see the point in evoking some supernatural entity to solve the problem. We have no evidence to suggest such a thing even exists. And to further rely on special pleading to make the case, makes it seem even weaker. It’s kind of baked into his response, “I don’t think of god in that way” - are we able to verify any of the traits he applies to for? Is there anything empirical to reference? What is the correct way to think about a god?

@@sumo1203 first off, I don't invoke God to solve a problem. I believe in God mostly from my own experience in his presence, but when I go around trying to convince people, I usually use arguments outside of my personal life. I'm not well rounded on the argument from contingency, but I consider myself pretty well read on theodicies, the kalaam cosmological argument, the fine tuning argument, the new testament accounts, and the moral argument. These are what I draw my arguments from. I will admit, these aren't what convinced me initially, but they do reinforce my faith. I also admit that what you said goes way over my head, as u haven't been studying philosophy very long. If you want, we can talk about any of the things I listed to show proof for God, but I really don't even understand what the people in the video are talking about. Sorry again and thank you for your patience.

@@MasterSongStudiosReal I know you didn’t invoked god, I was talking about the argument.

@@MasterSongStudiosReal and sure happy discuss. I’ve studied physics and cosmology way longer. I think philosophy alone is a bit pointless in arguments for god as the premises still need to be demonstrated. I’m not sure which version of the kalam you favor but the I believe the premise that “the universe had a beginning” is unfounded.

Justification for my existence: my parent’s and my genes

@@BY-rx5bl That begs the question of your own existence and its a fallacy.

Please point out precisely where he committed these fallacies.

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

That means...?

It's not necessary that confirmation bias *always* fails as a pathway to truth. It may limit the amount of 'truths' one is exposed to though

@@SelcraigClimbs Not all wild guesses or assumptions fail , but they are not pathways to truth.

@@imagoportraits562 they are not reliable but it does not mean they *always fail*. I agree with your point, I disagree with your specific wording in your original post.

@@SelcraigClimbs A broken watch is correct twice a day, but it's useless unless you have a reliable watch to tell you when its correct.

@@imagoportraits562 absolutely agreed. However you did not mention reliability in your original post. If you were to say a broken watch is *always* wrong then that would be false.

*Sorry, but your Ad Hominem argument is as fallacious as it gets.*

So you 'feel' that a 19 year old can speak with authority & conviction when he hasn't even been graduated from university? You feel he can make a compelling, persuasive case for anything? I have three younger brothers and three grown up sons; that at least puts me on the male side of the debate in terms of how 19 year old males feel at that age. With a name like O'Connor, he is also like myself from Irish stock. An Irish 19 year old who thinks he knows it all. My my. Pray tell, what say thee?

*So you 'feel' an Ad hominem argument is not fallacious? Arguments speak for themselves. The age, education, experience or whatever else you'd like to throw on the pile, is irrelevant to whether the arguments have merit. You apparently have no rebuttal to anything he stated, so you attack his character instead.* "An Irish 19 year old who thinks he knows it all." *I don't think that's true in the slightest. He comes across as a very humble person willing to learn. You, on the other hand, come across as what you claim him to be. Can you say 'projection'? LOL*

Indeed 'arguments speak for themselves'. Debate on the other-hand requires nuance, credibility which comes with maturity, and careful awareness of the subject matter, otherwise known as humility. We are after all talking about antiquity to the present age, a tall ask even for the brightest minds. Is this the best the atheist movement want to 'project'? I am not so sure Aquinas, Jerome, Bonventure, de Avila, de Siena, Augustine, Origen, Philo would possess such ego as to attempt to persuade they knew much about anything at 19. Ne Timeas.

"credibility which comes with maturity," *Ahahahaaaa!!!! Credibility comes with having a good argument. Something you apparently don't have so, you resort to an Ad hominem argument. Also, the fact that you are trying desperately and ineffectively to discredit Alex, demonstrates you lack maturity so, according to you, you have very little credibility.* "and careful awareness of the subject matter, otherwise known as humility." *WTF?! That's not at all what is known as humility. Either way, Alex shows great awareness of the subject matter &humility, you do not. You've shown nothing, but arrogance and condescension.* "a tall ask even for the brightest minds." *Just from this short discussion, it's obvious Alex is a far brighter mind than you.* "Is this the best the atheist movement want to 'project'?" *Is your constant Ad hominem and projection the best you've got? You haven't even touched on a single point that you think Alex was wrong about. Your argument is fallacious and your projection obvious. Congrats!!*

*I determine non-determinism illogically irrational.*

I determined that ;)

*It was determined you'd determine that.*

What do you determine i say after your next comment?

*I determined you'd say that.*

Logic is also invisible and undetectable, yet logic exists, maths exists.

No, "logic" doesn't exist...it is a concept not an object. It is a description of the relationships between things that do exist. Same for math...the number 7 doesn't exist..it is a concept used to describe relationships between objects that do exist

@@robertwhite1810 So "you" dont exist. Cool story bro...

Robert White Your argument doesn’t exist. Guess we don’t have to refute it then. 😎

erdingtown *If God is "energy" then:* 1. How it created multiple complex and separated yet united products? 2. What kind of "energy" it is? 3. So we have multiple "gods"? since we have " multiple" source of energy? *Is this what you are saying?*

Maigen Snow "if you can say that material doesn’t need a beginning" *Energy is not material.* "I can then say intelligence then can also “come from nothing”" *You can say whatever you want. Too bad you can't support your ridiculous claim. Nor does your assertion even follow from material not needing a beginning. (To be clear, I'm not arguing that matter did not 'begin'. I'm just pointing out that your assertion does not follow.)* "at that point we’ve got God" *No, at that point you have an unevidenced claim.*

+MS *First, I'll go even slower since it's readily apparent that you still haven't grasped it. Second, you don't need questions answered to present an argument. Third, how many times do I have to state that I don't believe 'nothing' has ever existed to require everything to have 'come from'?*

+ Maigen "I believe that something that always was there eternally is God," *I don't care about what you believe, I care about what you can evidence. Do you or do you not have actual evidence that invisible magicians exist?* "because as far as we know from scientific study" *Where's the rest of your statement? There should be a comma after 'study' and then the rest of your statement explaining the 'because'. To be clear, science does not support your ridiculous claim in the slightest.* "I see no reason to believe that only matter is eternal" *I didn't state that I believe MATTER is eternal.* "I believe everything is including intelligence and consciousness" *Do you have any evidence that either intelligence or consciousness can exist absent a material brain?* "Unless you can demonstrate that consciousness somehow sprouted from a lifeless rock or helium molecule I’m going with the obvious answer" *Ahahahahaaaaa!!!! Yeah, wouldn't want to admit you don't know!!! That's called an argument from ignorance. You don't know what causes intelligence and consciousness, therefore, you'll fill in your ignorance with imaginary invisible magicians. The obvious answer is A BRAIN.* "we exist in the mind and body of God" *Got any evidence to support that ridiculous claim? Got any evidence intelligence or consciousness can exist without a functioning, material brain? Cricket, cricket, cricket.....Didn't think so.* *Come back when you've got same actual evidence and not just fallacious arguments.*

Your terms are fucked up- God is not energy.

If you read the story, it tells that God is all those things you mentioned.

Are you drunk?

Obviously nothing can exist in nothing if nothing always existing nothing, so it's a trick question used by religions to bullschitt you and BEGGAR you day and night for lifetime donations,. So all you have to rebutt all this eternal BS is say that when you get a fantastically tiny form with no physical forms in or around it, that's what you're going to get in that particular form of geometry. The rest is just pure man-made bullschitt to get you and your children and you children's children into lifetime donations forever and ever and ever and ever. Pure Bulshit just like man-made politicks. Amen.....

*So, your 'god' doesn't exist, got it.* *That's got to be the dumbest argument for the existence of a 'god' I've ever heard.*

"That's got to be the dumbest argument for the existence of a 'god' I've ever heard." - Asix Wrong. It's an argument AGAINST the existence of God. You clearly dont understand the difference between "existence" and "beign". You are reducing God to a "thing". You are not alone. All christians do.

"It's an argument AGAINST the existence of God." *Yeah, I know. It's supposed to be an argument that your invisible magician 'IS', as if 'IS' doesn't equate with exist. It's a ridiculous argument no matter which way you look at it.* "You clearly dont understand the difference between "existence" and "beign"" *Oh, I certainly do. You clearly don't know what existence means.* *Got any evidence that your invisible magician 'IS'? Cricket, cricket, cricket....too funny.*

The question isn't nonsense; it's just poorly worded. The question is whether there is some aspect of reality that *has* to exist-- whether there's some aspect that could not fail to exist. If so, could we give that aspect a physical description in terms of either contemporary physics or perhaps an extension of physics down the road? Or perhaps there's a mindless mega-verse (in which our universe appears) that is necessary. Or maybe theism really is the answer. I don't know. But the question isn't nonsense at all. Btw, I understand that you were trying to approach this with a Feser/Aquinas style of argumentation. At least it seems like it? If so, cool. The arguments there are very fun, regardless of whether they succeed or fail.

"as if 'IS' doesn't equate with exist." Exactly. They are two different words. We dont need two words to say the same thing. You dont know the difference between "IS" and "EXIST". The difference is obvious. The difference is "EX". It means "OUT" of something. The word "IS" means simply to BE . It does not need an external factor. It IS. You need a Universe to exist. You dont understand because it is simple. You are looking for something complex. GOD IS. The Univers EXIST. It came OUT of God.

stuckmannen Dang it! Oh well, at least I can be second.

This Alex is just another typical atheist who likes to argue for the sake of arguing. And ironically these atheists have a god complex personality. They like to pick a nick name like 'science', reason', 'logic', 'thinker' to indicate that their thinking is always right and yous is not.

He's questioning, yes. Why is that bad lol it's not pride to question why Cameron does not need a cause for God but needs one for everything else

Adam Chan: I’ve seen a couple of your characterizations of “the typical atheist,” I wonder if you could give your definition of “atheist,” please? I could use some clarification there.

@@adamc1694 Ah yes, because you aren't allowed to want answers without being a typical atheist. Get over it. I can so easily reverse your statement and call you a typical theist who resorts to ad hominem's when they don't have a valid criticism. Your behaviour mirrors that of a condescending theist who dislikes being questioned and has to find a way to demean their opposition instead of actually pondering over their argument. We only get places if we debate, and to dismiss views as illogical or accuse people of having a God complex will only hinder that. Alex has readily invited criticism of his ideas, that's how it should be. This world is struggling because it's filled with people from both ends accusing others of things they aren't doing and they refuse to acknowledge that disagreement is a good thing, instead of seeing disagreement and questioning as a personal attack. I can't call Cameron a dishonest theist because I disagree or I felt he wasn't being as concise as Alex, I'll make valid criticisms of his argument instead. That's how we get anywhere and to silence opposition by refusing to actually consider their views will only stop progression

@@seans5289 “the typical atheist,” = a person who doesn't want to believe; if God exists he can't have things his own way... so God is a nuisance.....

Mr. C what unfortunate luck

Mr. C What fortunate luck

Bullshit I’m 496th

What are you talking about? That's not an argument. Either its true or not.

Debbie King Tampa Even as an atheist I have to tell you that the cosmological argument and argument from contingency are completely different arguments.

This is what happens when ignorance coupled with baseless confidence.. Debbie educate yourself ...those r two different arguments...omg

@jimbob4484 The point being, God did not begin to exist and the science points to everything having a beginning. Which means space/time had a beginning. God is defined as having no beginnng or end. He is outside of space/time. Therefor without God, it is circular.

@@brando3342 and how do you know that God didn't begin to exist?

@jimbob4484 How do I know? Well, that isn't how he's described and I wouldn't worship him if he was created... because that wouldn't be God. God is outside of creation, necessarily.

@@brando3342 so you believe God was uncaused because that is how God is described? How do you know what was described is true? Consider that different religions also describe different concepts of God/Gods. How do you determine which one is correct? Still not sure how you don't see the contradiction in Cameron saying that something causing itself wouldn't make any sense but he is happy to accept an uncaused creator 🤔

@jimbob4484 I'm saying that the science we discovered through Edwin Hubble and then the Hubble telescope matches perfectly with the scripture that was written thousands of years before we used science to show it. If the science is correct and what we know is space/time had a beginning, then God CANNOT have a cause, because anything outside of space/time necessarily cannot be inside space/time. Anything outside of time, does not have a beginning or an end. It is not a contradiction because the science shows space/time had a beginning and God is described as outside of space/time, which matches the science. Not sure if I can make that any clearer.