I’m sure that was dennet

The second speaker

Unfortunately. The fact that Aron Ra versus Kent Hovind has more views than this is an insult.

Beilby kind of killed it though. The fact the Naturalist can accept P(R/(N•E•C)) proves he has the faculties called into question.

@@luke2080 by avoiding the core premises of the argument . You athiests can't understand the argument. You only care about scientific evidence. You don't understand science is for the physical and observable world. Philosophy is more superior.

@peteryoung301 by avoiding the core premises of the argument . You athiests can't understand the argument. You only care about scientific evidence. You don't understand science is for the physical and observable world. Philosophy is more superior.

@peteryoung301 your argument doesn't destroy plantigas argument

I love when apologist say you can't prove God with science then proceed to argue for God using science. When in actuality it all boils down to a God of the gaps argument. Because they never point to God through the argument, they only point to the part we don't understand yet and claim since we don't understand it yet it had to be God did it. I'd like to see one apologist use science we do understand and try to explain how he/she knows God did that part.

ya, it's what the new movement is about. They don't think Christians need to be contended with seriously. In their minds, it's ok because they're the anointed ones who are taking it upon themselves to help cure us small folk of our ignorance.

@@bradleymarshall5489 as they should be doing

Typical atheist debater

@@oscar1748what is a “typical atheist debater”

Ayo

Your Qur'an is a copy of the Holy Bible

If you want to come to the truth of CHRIST

lol

@@Romailjohn your Holy Bible is a rewrite if Zoroastrianism.

That would be kind of cool to do with many of these older debates that have potato quality mics. I wonder if there is a market for this?

@@SonOfTheLion fiver voice actors maybe? not sure who would cough up the money for the good of the youtube community tho loll

Debates are pointless.. how do we have constructive discussion in search for truth!

I'm glad I can understand MOST of it now.

The term is UNmatched.

jwkivy Nice try but no.

@@Maximus5798 Nice try, but yes.

The dude literally said during a debate: what if the universe caused itself?

@iOS SANOS I've always observed a cause existing before the cause. I've yet to observe God. C'mon this is metaphysics 101 known since the ancients

He is a genius! :)

Daniel rules

He's great at hiding the fallacy and trying to redirect the burden of proof. Even if you accept all his arguments about evolution it still wouldn't get you to Christianity or any other religion.

Why not

By no amount of argumentation you would ever be able to know God. Just like by no amount argumentation would I ever be able to know your mom. By I can infer you have one

It's one of those arguments that if I saw it on Reddit or something, I would dismiss it, but because it's held to so confidently by one of the most influential philosophers today, I have investigated further and I think it's more powerful than it initially seems

OK, so, in what sense is it a bad argument? I recently found out about it and it's really bugging me, so, could you dissect it for me? I'm not being snarky or anything like that, I'm not saying "prove it if you dare", I'm personally unconvinced that there is anything supernatural, despite what my name might suggest, but this argument is just flat out annoying, I feel like no matter what I say, the theist will just respond "bUh yOuR UsInG CoGniTivE", and basically just shut me down, so, I need you to scratch my itch here, I think I'm looking at it the wrong way or I'm missing something.

@@muhammadhassanaliiqbal1117 Well, I should first say that I am a theist myself, and I do think there are great arguments for God's existence. But, this is not one of them. It is entirely based on confusions about our cognitive abilities and it also assumes that a Naturalist must be a Reductive Materialist. It would take a very long comment to go over everything, so let me just briefly list a few of the problems: 1) Knowledge is not a kind of belief. So, a lion seeing or smelling a water source nearby has nothing to do with "acquiring a belief". 2) Neither believing nor knowing are a "state". For one thing, if they were mental states, then they would cease when we were unconscious (asleep). They would have what is called "genuine duration". But they don't. We still believe in (and know) all the same things when we are asleep as we do when we are awake. 3) The central concept of this argument is that an animal could have cognitive capacities (like seeing) which are geared by Evolution only for survivability; not for coming to know/believe truths. But, how could an animal survive with mostly false beliefs? If it associates seeing and smelling bodies of water with an opportunity to drink, but is mistaken, surely it will die of thirst. The abilities of animals (to find and get food, to avoid danger, to remember and learn...) are impossible to deny. This idea that a lion's genes might predispose him to walk East for water is ridiculous. A lion doesn't know which way East is, nor do its genes. Besides, if it happens to be born to the West of the water source, then surely it will still go East and die of thirst. This whole concept of animals is untenable. 4) The one point that at least begins to make sense is when we shift to talking about human abilities to reason on deep, metaphysical or scientific matters. Why should Evolution have selected for that? Of course, many of the basic skills involved (problem solving, following evidence where it leads, cooperation...) make perfect sense for Evolution to hold onto, especially when you include sexual selection (these traits could have been favored by mates, because it increases their offsprings' chances of survival). In any case, this turns into a different argument altogether about how we got our powers of reason. Plantinga's approach doesn't seem to add much of value to the discussion. I mean, sure, if you had reason to think that your cognitive faculties were unreliable, you would have reason to doubt all your beliefs, including that one. But, believing that we got here via unguided Evolution doesn't seem to give any reason to think our cognitive faculties are unreliable. Quite the opposite: An animal's survival quite often depends on astonishing abilities to find out what's really going on (i.e. the truth) under difficult and tricky circumstances.

@@Mentat1231 the evolutionary argument against naturalism isnt an argument for Gods existense. Im sorry and im not trying to be rude but the rest of your entire comment became null and void the moment i read this grave and fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. Also, lol, yes.... knowledge absolutley is a kind of belief. "true and justified belief"... Thats literally what its universally defined as.... by everyone... Including all naturalists and supernaturalists like Dennet and Plantinga. It seems you have some incredibly fundamental misunderstandings of this argument and the surrounding philosophical concepts.

Yes. Agent Intellect channel has Plantinga/Dennett debate with captions. It seems they are accurate.

William Lane Craig ( Reasonablefaith.org ) has recently devouted much of his time on the subject, and InspiringPhilosophy is also currently doing a series on that, so stay tuned ;)

@@bromponie7330 It doesn't look like WLC answers my particular questions. For example, I'm interested if Adam or Eve's father had a soul and if not, why not?

@@tomandrews1429 They did have a soul. The soul is a term interchangeable with the mind (not to be confused with the brain, they are entirely seperate). Check out IPs series on the case for the soul, scientific evidence has suggested that the brain presupposes the mind (soul in theological terms) and that the mind is not emergent but rather fundamental.

@@abdulrahmanterfas9869 If they have a soul, did God judge them and send them to either heaven or hell?

@@tomandrews1429 im not a christian but by my knowledge of christian theology, I would say yes.

I thought an old shoe, but pancake works too.

If cognitive systems track truths, I wonder how we came about the evolutionary belief in gods that seems to be inseparable from being human? Or is that perhaps a single exception in what are otherwise only true beliefs that grant evolutionary fitness?

I never got the impression Ayaan particularly disliked Christianity. In “Heretic”, she seems like she is appalled whenever anyone compares it to Islam. Otherwise, I did not know this.

To give the devil his due, Dennett is the only one of the Horsemen with any relevant credentials and he is the only one who seems approachable or self-reflexive. None of the other horsemen would have even tried to mention premises one

Appreciate Plantinga for what? His arguments are mostly trollish. There are good theist philosophers out there like Swinburne, Van Inwagen but Plantinga is not one of them. He is dishonest like Craig.

@@anteodedi8937, I bet you're one of the dead people who voted for Brandon. Try using your remaining functional nuerons to find a clue. Thanks for playing woke.

Maarten Henning Yeah this is the best that we could do. The original was really, really bad.

1. We have first person experience. 2. Something something something. C: Therefore the Christian God exists. I don't see how you're ever going to make that one work, whatever you insert in P2. By the way, the entire field of Neuroscience seems to suggest the mind is a process of a physical brain and brain states, nothing spooky appears to be going on there. For example, at present they are training machines to decode thoughts directly from the brain, with great success. If the mind was immaterial I doubt that would ever be the case. When machines themselves begin to have first person experiences that will remove yet another gap in which to try to hide a God or Gods, assuming the primitive behaviours and denial of reality seemingly inherent to the human race don't make this planet unlivable first of course.

@@mattsmith1440 I wasn't intending nor was I implementing a "proof" with my comment above. However, I will demonstrate one of plural reasons why I believe in God. P1.) Spacetime emerges from entangled information. (1) -experimentally established from tests of Bell's(2) & Leggett's inequalities P2.) Entangled information is integrated information (consciousness) -(3) experimentally established via quantum biological effects in gamma-synchrony in anesthesia C1.) Spacetime emerges from consciousness. P3.) A single universal wavefunction exists that entangles all information into a single integrated information state. (Wheeler-DeWitt equation -experimentally tested in 2013) C2.) Physical spacetime emerges from a single universal conscious being. (God exists).

@@kieran296 To my knowledge, quantum physics has no model of consciousness or God, and I think the whole waveform collapse thing works against an omnipresent God rather than the other way around. If you find that woo convincing though, good luck to you. To me it's highly suspect, like all invocations of quantum stuff in 'spiritual' arguments I've ever seen. Are all the other reasons you believe as good as that one?! I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really don't see how anyone would find that at all convincing.

@@mattsmith1440 It's isn't woo. That "woo" accusation has been refuted over and over again. It is just what people ignorant of physics and philosophy say. You can read peer-reviewed papers on this topic by Bernado Kastrup for example: ispcjournal.org/journals/2017-19/Kastrup_19.pdf The founders of quantum mechanics took the connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics very seriously. It is just materialists who try to deceptively get around it's implications which is why physicalism suffers from the hard problem of consciousness.

@@LogosTheos Matt Smith = *crickets chirping* :)

In what sense?

@@tomandrews1429 consistency

Kev Conn Can you be specific about something you thought he was wrong about?

@@CapturingChristianity Hello.. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply he is wrong, but given his reputation as a leading philosopher I thought he might have had some more original, thought provoking ideas.

Kev Conn You don’t think his argument that P(R|N&E) is low is thought provoking?

You haven't exactly substantiated your claim, friend.

The R in the argument represents the proposition: R: Our cognitive faculties are reliable. According to Graham Oppy in his book Naturalism and Religion, _"Plantinga also defends a similar argument against naturalism with weaker premises (EANN*)."_ The argument is basically the same but includes the proposition: R': Our cognitive faculties that produce our metaphysical beliefs are reliable. _"Here is an argument for the conclusion that (EANN*) cannot be a good argument for a theist to make._ _Let T be theism. Suppose that Pr (R'/T) is not very low._ _Clearly, Pr (R') is very low. If the cognitive faculties that produce our metaphysical beliefs were reliable, then - on Plantinga's account of reliability - those cognitive faculties would produce a preponderance of true beliefs over false beliefs. But there is simply no agreement - among philosophical experts or among the broader public - on a wide range of metaphysical beliefs. Indeed, in many cases in which there is division of opinion among the philosophical experts, there is no metaphysical belief that is accepted by anywhere near as much as half of those experts. Moreover, this pattern of division of opinion repeats among those who agree on some metaphysical matters: there is enormous division of opinion about metaphysical matters among theists; and there is enormous division of opinion about metaphysical matters among Protestant theists; and there is enormous division of opinion about metaphysical matters among Evangelical Protestant theists; and so on._ _However, if Pr (R') is very low, then Pr (R' & T) is very low, because the probability of a conjunction is less than or equal to the probability of either conjunct._ _But, since Pr (R'/T) = Pr (R' & T) / Pr (T), Pr (R' & T) = Pr (R'/T) x Pr (T)._ _Hence, given that Pr (R' & T) is very low, if Pr (R'/T) is not very low, then Pr (T) is very low._ _But theists cannot suppose that Pr (T) is very low. So, in fact, theists must suppose that Pr (R'/T) is very low._ _But if theists suppose that Pr (T) is very low. then, _*_by the very same reasoning that Plantinga adopts to show the N&E is self-defeating if Pr (R'/N&E) is very low, it follows that T is self-defeating._* _I take this last argument to establish that theists must suppose that there is something wrong with the reasoning in EAAN*; and, since the reasoning in EANN* is the same reasoning in EAAN, I also take this last argument to establish that theists must suppose that there is something wrong with the reasoning in EAAN. Since Plantinga is a theist, he cannot suppose that the reasoning in EAAN* and EAAN is good."_ - pages 72-73. This is sufficient to show Plantinga's argument is a failure but Oppy goes on to show other reasons why it does not succeed.