dang just missed this, watching now though :D

Shout out to one of my fav UBC profs! :D

Hume's objection about many gods has been refuted. Objection:"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" Responses: "Of the ‘unity of the Deity’ the proof is, the uniformity of plan observable in the universe. The universe itself is a system; each part either depending upon other parts, or being connected with other parts by some common law of motion, or by the presence of some common substance. One principle of gravitation causes a stone to drop towards the earth, and the moon to wheel round it. One law of attraction carries all the different planets about the sun. This philosophers demonstrate. There are also other points of agreement amongst them, which may be considered as marks of the identity of their origin, and of their intelligent author. In all are found the conveniency and stability derived from gravitation. They all experience vicissitudes of days and nights, and changes of season. They all, at least Jupiter, Mars, and Venus, have the same advantages from their atmospheres as we have. In all the planets the axes of rotation are permanent. Nothing is more probable, than that the same attracting influence, acting according to the same rule, reaches to the fixed stars: but, if this be only probable, another thing is certain, viz. that the same element of light does.* The light from a fixed star affects our eyes in the same manner, is refracted and reflected according to the same laws, as the light of a candle. The velocity of the light of the fixed stars, is also the same as the velocity of the light of the sun, reflected from the satellites of Jupiter. The heat of the sun, in kind, differs nothing from the heat of a coal fire. In our own globe the case is clearer. New countries are continually discovered, but the old laws of nature are always found in them: new plants perhaps or animals, but always in company with plants and animals, which we already know; and always possessing many of the same general properties. We never get amongst such original, or totally different, modes of existence, as to indicate, that we are come into the province of a different Creator, or under the direction of a different will. In truth, the same order of things attends us, wherever we go. The elements act upon one another, electricity operates, the tides rise and fall, the magnetic needle elects its position, in one region of the earth and sea, as well as in another. One atmosphere invests all parts of the globe, and connects all: one sun illuminates; one moon exerts its specific attraction upon all parts. If there be a variety in natural effects, as, e. g. in the tides of different seas, that very variety is the result of the same cause, acting under different circumstances. In many cases this is proved; in all is probable. The inspection and comparison of living forms, add to this argument examples without number. Of all large terrestrial animals the structure is very much alike. Their senses nearly the same. Their natural functions and passions nearly the same. Their viscera nearly the same, both in substance, shape, and office. Digestion, nutrition, circulation, secretion, go on, in a similar manner, in all. The great circulating fluid is the same: for, I think, no difference has been discovered in the properties of blood, from whatever animal it be drawn. The experiment of transfusion proves, that the blood of one animal will serve for another. The skeletons also of the larger terrestrial animals, shew particular varieties, but still under a great general affinity. The resemblance is somewhat less, yet sufficiently evident, between quadrupeds and birds. They are alike in five respects, for one in which they differ. In fish, which belong to another department, as it were, of nature, the points of comparison become fewer. But we never lose sight of our analogy, e. g. we still meet with a stomach, a liver, a spine; with bile and blood; with teeth; with eyes, which eyes are only slightly varied from our own, and which variation, in truth, demonstrates, not an interruption, but a continuance, of the same exquisite plan; for it is the adaptation of the organ to the element, viz. to the different refraction of light passing into the eye out of a denser medium. The provinces, also, themselves of water and earth, are connected by the species of animals which inhabit both; and also by a large tribe of aquatic animals, which closely resemble the terrestrial in their internal structure: I mean the cetaceous tribe,* which have hot blood, respiring lungs, bowels, and other essential parts, like those of land animals. This similitude, surely, bespeaks the same creation and the same Creator." (William Paley "Natural Theology") "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

Excellent discussion

Hi Real Atheology! I have watched your videos in the past and I thought there were some of the most thoughtful philosophical atheistic content on this site. I really enjoy your style. With that said, I am wondering what are your thoughts on a the new so-called “psychophysical argument” for theism? I am hearing from a lot of people that it is the so-called “new best and strongest argument in favor of theism.” This is, of course, a very might claim (especially for a new argument). Do you think it is a powerful argument that undermines naturalism? If not, what are some great arguments to use against it? Thanks 😊

Was David Hume an atheist? It seems hard for me to tell. He certainly wasn't religious and did hold religions in contempt. He raised many objections to many theistic arguments, yet in the end he seems to have been persuaded that some transcendent designer of some sort does exist, even if he only accepted it cautiously as the best of a bad lot of explanations.

Hume's objection to the cosmological proof is also untenable. Objection:"Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being? " Responses: "Which aspects of physical reality are necessary and why should we think this? According to contemporary physics, even the smallest subatomic particles have not always existed but came into being early in the expansion of the cosmos. And remember, a necessary being cannot fail to exist under any circumstances and so will be without beginning. " (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas") "First, these ideas are in conflict with modern science. According to science, many natural laws are statistical in nature. Statistical laws are probabilistic: Given the initial conditions, the results are probable, not necessary, and more than one result can occur. For instance, according to modern physics, the laws governing subatomic particles (e.g., electrons and protons) are statistical. Second, if the processes of the world are logically necessary and can be traced back to some ultimate necessary fact, then every event is determined in the strongest possible sense. Why accept that? Virtually everyone has deep-lying metaphysical intuitions to the contrary. For example, I've got a red shirt on, but it certainly seems to me that I could have put a white shirt on instead. I think we ought to accept such metaphysical intuitions in the absence of very strong arguments to the contrary. " (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")