Thomas Aquinas argues that the universe has an essence (whatness) but does not have existence per se (existence in and of itself), meaning its existence must be added from another source. Since the universe is material and contingent, it cannot have existence intrinsically. This leads to the conclusion that there must be an uncaused cause (God) that has existence per se and is the source of all existence.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
Agnostic says he might go to CHURCH because of Pascal’s Wager; Live DebatesAjouté :
proof needed that God exists. We're simply to give the proof. We're here to give the proof as well. We're not just here to make the claims.
Bible says this, the Bible says that of the Bible, but at the same time, we're going to show why atheism or agnosticism cannot stand on its own and that it needs indeed needs God. Without God, you know, persons cannot be sustained. We're going to have the onlogical argument.
We're going to have all kinds of argument in favor of God's existence.
The cosmological argument. The argument from Thomas Aquinus concerning essence and existence and why we need a god who does not have existence added so that we can finally exist.
But folks, we just got started. Double tap. Double tap. Monte, I see you. God bless you, man. How's it going? How's it going? Double tap. You know, we just got started right here. Now here, right here, here.
Switching it up as usual, you know.
Trying to see if we can speak to some atheist or agnostics for today first.
First, first first. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
But yeah, atheism has been proven false already. Atheism is false.
But Christianity, however, is true.
Christianity is true.
God bless all the Christians in the chat. God bless. God bless.
There are there are many beautiful arguments for God's existence. Z. No.
Why no? You should believe in God, man.
God is uh true and atheism has been disproven already.
Disproven already.
I have no reason to. Well, you do because the universe came about. It was caused. And if it was caused, then God is a cause of that. The being that caused the universe must be powerful enough to cause it. And you cannot have an infinite regress. So God exists. So that's a conclusion. So that means that God exists. He is the uncaused cause.
That's what it is. Can you just show you believe in falsehood? How so? I just showed that atheism is disproven that actually God does exist because the universe was caused. So God caused it.
Prove is your God that caused it. We can get to that. Right now we're just talking about theism first.
Learn to read. I do learn to read. Not a different being. What do you mean not a different being? You're saying that the universe is the being that caused itself. Congrats. That's a contradiction. Congrats.
But yeah, why can't you have an infinite regress of causes? Because I think it leads to paradoxes such as the one that is presented in um the paper pastor paradox by Rob Coons or uh the grim reaper paradox by Alexander Puce. Those are pretty good paradoxes to go through.
And uh if you cannot if you cannot have a infinite regress of causes, then you do have a starting point. And another way that you can go about this is to say that the reason that you must have a starting point of causes and that starting point must be uncaused itself is that that's the only way in which things are now caused because things are actually sustained by that very uncaused cause.
Yeah, folks. And atheism so far has been disproven.
>> What's up, man?
>> What up, brother?
>> How's it going?
>> My brother. Anyways, um what does agnostics mean, my brother?
>> Uh well, it depends like if you're talking about soft agnosticism or hard agnosticism, but it's actually >> hard agnosticism.
>> Yeah, hard agnosticism. You can uh have different definitions for it, but I take it to mean that it's um you know someone who says that they don't know if God exists or not. But there >> Oh, what about the the soft one, brother? The soft fluffy one, brother.
>> Why are you asking about that, my friend? Are you like are you an agnostic or are you atheist or what?
>> Nah, brother. I believe in God, brother.
But anyways, um tell me about the soft fl.
>> Okay. Well, you know, I'm trying to reach uh others who are non-believers, so but uh >> yeah, I appreciate you coming on the >> I appreciate you coming on, though. All right, God bless you, man.
>> Yeah. All right, double tap, double time. Let's get the likes on, folks. Uh yeah, the point is to talk to atheists.
I think I should have made that clear somehow. Uh but yeah, to debate showing why God does exist. Religion is true.
You do have religion. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Um, why would I believe in something with zero evidence? Well, there is evidence. Atheism has been disproven, right? Like a in atheism, you don't have a cause that caused the universe, but the universe itself is caused.
It's a contradiction. How do you have something which is caused without a cause?
That's not going to work. David Hume is not going to save either. So, God definitely must exist for the universe to exist.
the way.
How did the flood happen? It happened because there was water.
>> Hey, how's it going? Truthful one.
>> Hi. I'm good. Yourself?
>> I'm good, man. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Are you a atheist or agnostic?
>> I'm an atheist. Um, you said that it has been disproven. I'd like to know how.
It's been disproven because the universe was caused and God is the cause of the universe and there cannot be an infinite chain of causes because it would lead to contradictions.
>> How do you know it was caused?
>> I know that it was caused because the universe itself as it has the essence it does not have existence per se. So existence was added to the universe. So essence being the whatness of something what something is and then existence being the fact that it is or uh that it is. So that the universe has it has essence and we can we can understand it is intelligible to us and just because something is uh just because something is intelligible or understandable for us it does not necessitate that it has existence but it does exist. The universe does exist. The question now then is does it have does the essence of the universe have existence per se meaning intrinsically just the moment that you have the essence of the universe you do have the existence the answer is no and if that's the case then existence was added to the essence of the universe but the only way that it was added was not per se meaning intrinsically so it was added per accident meaning extrinsically So, >> so why do you say the universe doesn't um have a intrinsic existence?
>> Yeah. The reason that I say that is I extrapolate from material things and I realize that inductively speaking material things do not have existence per se. So I'll give an example right uh like look at this AirPod. Do you think that this AirPod so obviously it has an essence right? We can uh comprehend it.
It's intelligible. It has a whatness, right? What is this? You can answer.
Okay. I ask you the the moment that you think about this AirPod as it is intelligible in your mind. Does it mean it exists per se like just intrinsically it already exists or did like the manufacturer have to add existence to it?
Um the manufacturer manufactured it.
>> Awesome. Is what?
>> Yes. That's that's right. Right. So that's very important because then it helps us realize that this one material thing and then this other material thing and then this other material thing. Just because it's a you know aggregate of material things imagine this is the universe. It doesn't somehow make it such that it now has existence per se.
Right? So if if you imagine this this one planet, this is the second planet and then this is the rest of the universe. It's all added together.
>> What if I just told you that this thing has existence per se?
>> Okay. I think the problem that I have with that is is this that those items that you brought up there, it's made of matter. Okay. And as far as we know, matter always existed in one way, shape or form. It was never created. So it always existed.
>> Well, so just to be clear, would you say then that the aggregate of those three things they would be uh uncaused by the manufacturer?
>> Oh, I would say the manufacturer manufactured in that shape in that form.
But the materials that make it up the matter always existed.
>> Okay. So there was the forming of things, right?
>> The what?
>> Was the of things. So the so there was the forming of this right?
>> Yeah.
>> And with that forming of this would you consider that a kind of creation?
>> Uh yeah.
>> Okay. So likewise with the universe for the universe that we're considering there was the forming of the universe and that forming of the universe is a kind of creation.
>> Uh I disagree with you. So when I look at the iPods I know how iPods is manufactured. I got background knowledge on on that but on the universe I don't have any background knowledge that the universe was created.
>> Well the thing is the universe itself is material and the airpod itself is material. So that's why when you were asking me originally my answer was I extrapolate from the material things of my experience and I realized that hm just because I say there's this one thing that was manufactured this other thing that was manufactured this other thing that was manufactured and just because I have a aggregate of all these things just combine all the trees everything just because now it's a whole bunch it doesn't make it so such that now now it's uncreated that makes no sense. Which is what I think the the position of uh of those who disbelieve in God or at least one position it would lead into. Just because there's a um like a like a grouping of things that are material, it doesn't make it such that the universe now itself is uncaused.
>> No. So the problem is this. When we look at items certain items like your earpods, right, we know what that that's created based on our background knowledge. Okay? because we know things like that plastic and metal is manufactured in that sort of shape. But when it comes to the universe, we don't have any information to tell us that the universe was created in that way.
>> Uh I think that we do because the universe considered in its essence does not have existence per se. So therefore it's its existence must be added from another.
And I don't >> I think exist I think universe has existence per >> wait. So just to be clear you think that the universe when uh as it is intelligible as it has a whatness it has existence per se.
>> So my understanding of the universe is the universe exists.
>> Of course nobody's denying that. I'm asking the universe has it having existence is that existence added to the universe from another or is it just from itself aka per se >> I think from itself >> okay I think that's an assertive position that's like saying what what if I told you right so you and I we've never seen specifically this airpod being made what if I just told you this thing just has existence per se >> okay so this is where a little bit disagreement comes I have background knowledge and so do you of AirPods right of plastic of those sort of things electronics being made that's why we can come to the conclusion then that has been made but when it comes to the universe we don't have that background knowledge and therefore we cannot say that that is made in the same way >> so just to be clear you're saying that we both have background knowledge of material things right >> yes >> awesome is the universe material >> uh yes >> so I think likewise just like you were extra lady, you and I, we did not see this AirPod being created specifically.
What if this thing just popped out of existence out of nowhere?
>> But but that's what I've been trying to explain to you. We have background knowledge of those sort of things being made. That's why we don't assume it's can pop out of nowhere.
>> Awesome. I would say that we do have background knowledge for the universe being made because the universe itself is material as well. So we extrapolate from material things. Like I said, just because you have this one thing with this other thing, etc., etc. You just grew them all together. There's no reason as to why that now it's suddenly uncaused. That makes sense to me.
>> I think you you're failing to see the difference between the universe and things that that human beings manufacture. I think that's the problem.
No, >> I mean, even with other things that human beings don't manufacture, such as trees. So, think about the tree that is 100 yard away from, I don't know, from this one point in Africa that you're thinking of. How do you know that tree did not just pop out of existence out of nowhere? How do you know that tree has its existence from another aka another human being planted it and it actually has existence due to the uh sun photosynthesis, due to the the water. So the existence of that tree now as it is grown in that one point uh in Africa it's it's actually something which got it existence from another. How do you know that thing did not just pop out of existence out of nowhere >> to answer these to to answer these sort of questions the answer is always the same. It's due to our background knowledge. We know how trees are formed and how it comes about but we don't have that same logic for the >> Awesome. So I think that maybe we reach a rock bottom point where I think we disagree because I do think that it's clearly analogous. They're both material and just because one thing is bigger, just because the universe is a bigger grouping of material things, it doesn't make it such that the universe is suddenly somehow uncaused. If you would say that that tree that you have not seen grow from Africa grow up, if you don't think that that thing was uncaused, but you think that it did uh get its uh existence from another, aka it is caused, then I think that you can extrapolate from that that the universe itself is also caused.
>> So, >> okay, I disagree. Um I know she just aimed at the alien. Thanks for having us.
>> Yeah, thanks my friend. All right, God bless. Byebye.
I saw many small children making AirPods. What is this? What are you talking about, man? Hope defenders, God bless. God bless. How the folks doing today? Let's get the lights up today.
The Maria, God bless you, man.
God bless. God bless. Galatians 1:6 through12. God bless. Also, you didn't acknowledge the fact that you committed a logical fazy. Does he believe in God though? I believe in God. Uh, I don't think he did. He was pro. He I think he said he was an atheist. Very, God bless you, man. Let's get the likes up. Don't tap. Don't tap the screen, man. Thank you. God bless. Thank you.
Uh, tell him tell him a what is that? Awesome or something? My brother, is that Filipino or is that Tagalo?
Causality is purposefully mysterious.
Okay. Universe is contingent. Yes, I love the contingent argument for gas existence. God bless you. The kalam cosmological argument strongly supports theism. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All powerful.
Okay. Why did you put all powerful and then just the cross out? I think that God is all powerful.
Prove it icon. Well, prove what? That God exists. Yeah. Atheism has been disproven as I've been arguing. We can bring forth different arguments as well.
Once again, people, this was my first way of doing apologetics. I actually like to talk uh talk to atheists or agnostics prior to talking to Muslims or debating Protestants or actually no it was I think I debated Protestants first and then atheism agnostics uh you know philosophy and then I jump to talking to Muslims a lot but but yeah folks tap the likes tap the likes then they kiss one another and we one another. Hey man, how's it going?
>> Yo, what's up? Do I have to stay my age?
>> Uh, no. But are you 18 or not?
>> Yeah, I'm 19.
>> Cool, man. Awesome. Awesome. Awesome.
Bless it. So, are you atheist or agnostic, man?
>> Yeah, I'm agnostic. Well, I'm open to um the idea of there being God, but I'm not sure right now. Like, I think both propositions, God exists and not exist, are like equally um balanced for me right now. So, I guess it's interesting to talk to you.
>> Yeah, definitely. Well, I think that it's really good to talk to agnostics who are in your position like 5050. Um, because I think that >> Awesome. Yeah. I think that Pascal's wager is probably a good way to go.
Basically, Pascal's wager said that says that if you believe in God, you know, maybe you go to church, you read the Bible, you miss out on about like one or two hours of your week. You know, obviously you keep the commandments. So, that I mean, that's basic, right? And you're you're trying to be virtuous, so you're going to have to forgo certain sins. You can't get drunk, you know, but you could drink obviously, but just in moderation, you can't get drunk. Um, no fornication, things like that, right?
So, there are these little things that you have to forego that you have to build this kind of discipline for, but the reward is great in the end. You will receive happiness in heaven. Uh, as opposed to, you know, living as a non-believer, you jeopardize your chance of getting that eternal happiness, eternal peace in heaven. Um, >> right.
>> So it's like, yeah, like if you think about the expected value from what you have to risk or what you have to leave behind of this limited amount of maybe one or two hours missed out on that Sunday because you go to the church service uh versus eternal life. I think it's really worth it to take that chance, take that risk just as you would in a business or um, you know, in some other kind of pursuit that you have in life. So basically that's why I think Yeah. So I think that you should take the risk of believing in God if that's a risk at all.
>> Interesting. I mean I talked to theists um but I I rarely encounter you know like Pasc Pascal's wager to this um in the in the conversation right but interesting I I never really dive deep into Pasc wager but if I understand correctly Pas Pascal's wager is not talking about justification but it's just like talking about the wager instead of the possibilities if you were to take theism instead right >> yes sir so it's more like a epistemic kind of uh argument you can think of it it's not so much the cosmological contingent argument, the onlogical argument for God's existence that we usually hear. So yeah, it's more epistemic. So that's why I think that it's perfect for those who are like 5050 uh like yourself. I mean like I I mean what's your intuition here uh concerning the argument that was brought forth?
>> Yeah. Well, I mean, like I said, I'm not really an expert on Pascal's wager because I haven't, you know, when I talk to theists and atheists, I don't really encounter because usually we we uh discuss and debate like justifications with like cosmological calamity all that right but for pas we wager for all I know right now for my knowledge you can correct me if I'm wrong like um there's some objections like um if you just like take uh like blind faith that like you you put yourself to worship ship God like um some objections objections might be that like maybe God lives at your intention and not your like um I don't know I forgot the exact of argumentation something like that and the second point might be like it's not justification so you might not have just justification for your uh position but it would just be like a wager something like that >> yeah so let's let's go over your first point right concerning Um, I don't know why I have a brain fart, but let's go over your second point. So, it's not justification. So, I agree that it's not justification. Uh, let's start here. Do you think that it's bad to believe in the Christian God?
>> Do I think it's bad? Um, it's an ethical question, right? Moral. Um, I I I think it's a case by case basis. I don't know.
Like I'm agnostic on that as well. So, >> yeah. Okay. So, I mean that that's actually fine that you're agnostic on it because it sort of addresses the second point. You're saying that it's not justification for belief in God. Yeah, that's um once again Pascal's wager is not saying that it's like a cosmological argument. It's not saying that it's a calam argument specifically or something like that. It's more an epistemic uh question. So like epistemically you should believe in God and of course with that belief you're going to carry out your actions. Okay, now I remember your first question. So basically it's concerning the intention, right? So are you bringing forth the comment of connection of saying, hey, if you take Pascal's wager and actually believe in God, it does not necessitate that you actually go to heaven because it seems like it's ungenuine.
Well, yeah, because I I talked to the before and they say like especially Christians, they'll say like um the reason you go to heaven isn't like um how do you say like it God looks at your intentions or look at your motivation instead of like the um your knowledge or like your ignorance, right? So like to that Pascal's wager like if you're not you're not like seeking God as in your motivation or your valition then it seems to be not a quote unquote like the relationship God desires this this the internal critique of fees that anyone shut in.
>> Okay. Yes. Uh do you believe the manifestation I promise this is related.
Are you mean like the uh mysticism or >> not? Not so much that, but like how it's usually used in slang essentially like if you have a goal in life, really imagine yourself as you know taking on that position and being able to reach it and like a have a kind of carp mentality and a go hard, grind all day kind of mentality and then you'll actually eventually reach that goal. Do you believe that?
Um, not really. I my personally I'm a like a r rationalist. So I I believe that like you I I base my decisions off of like um justification on the best explanation possible with the evidence. I I don't really believe in like um um what do you call yeah manifestation or like very hard and it will happen. I just go based on what is the best considering what the evidence I have what what is the most rational decision. Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I got you. The reason that that I asked that is basically I'm trying to get at the fact that you can be sanctified in the Christian faith.
So, you believe in God and of course in the very beginning you're still learning about stuff. You know, once again, you're still 50/50, but the fact is you take on that position of uh of your acts being in line with Christianity. You're not fornicating. You're not getting drunk. Um you're following his commandments. You're going to church and you're experiencing the music. You're experiencing the changes in your mind.
Uh you're experiencing the good community, the joys and the laugh and the peace uh that comes with like a good worship service for example. Um you're seeing how the mass is uh Jesus centered and you become more in love with Jesus and so etc etc etc. So now your brain is being wired and your spirit is being wired again. Uh all right this guy's gonna get muted for saying that. And as a result of which um now your belief in God is actually not hindered. Your belief in God is actually easier. And so now in the end when you actually die it's it's actually genuine. It's no longer non-genuine. Right. Not genuine but it's actually genuine in the end because you've been worked on it. Right.
>> Right. But considering going back to Pascal's wager, this is only true if right this an if then condition like if theism is true if Christianity is true but if you look on the other side of the coin if it's not true then >> is nothing right if you make make it a constructive truth table like these are the possibilities are going to happen right but like like I said like my quote unquote like personal foundation like axiom didn't call like I I base it on justification more right like if like for If if I do something that isn't what I have justified or what or what goes against my justification, it seems to me to go against my valition of the things I'm doing that that's for me anyways that that's like my foundation. So I think that's the flaw or that's the downside of Pascal's wager for me anyways.
>> Okay. Do you think that the losses are limited if God does not exist? So the loss of having to go to church, maybe that one hour on a Sunday, maybe the loss of you know foregoing certain sins uh although I would say that that's actually a good thing because you actually build virtue. So let's say for example the sin of getting drunk if you forgo that you have to resist it. I would say that that's actually being virtuous in in temperance which is a virtue. So, um, so if you stack up all these potential negatives or these negative things, these losses with being a believer in Christianity versus the potential reward, would you agree with me that the losses are limited? So, like that one hour on a Sunday, maybe some Bible reading, stuff like that.
>> Well, if you mean in the case if um theism is false, would it be a like a limited loss? No just in general like uh in in the case where where theism is false in the case where theism is true right would you agree with me that the things that you have to forego like you have to leave behind like certain sins you have to leave behind um you know bad influences let's say uh you have to leave behind uh you know this and that you have to spend some time talking to God right although I would argue all these things are actually good for your good to be virtuous etc etc it actually makes you be uh makes you more happy, more peaceful. But if you consider these things as losses in the very beginning, would you still agree that they're limited in number and in quality?
>> Um, and I I haven't really thought about these questions, but um because I'm not expert, but okay, I'm following your question. Um, I think like I don't know. Can you answer a little bit?
>> Yeah. Yeah, I would say that is limited.
Yeah, I would say it's limited, right?
So, so think about like this Sunday you're gonna miss out on an hour because you're gonna go to church.
>> Um, and then maybe on that on next Friday you your your your friends are telling you, hey, do you want to go to the club and get drunk? You're going to say like, no, I don't want to get drunk.
You know, maybe I'll hang out with y'all just for a little bit, but I'm not going to get drunk. So, there are these little little awkward moments, moments where you have to follow the commandments of God. Um once again although I would say that these are good things right you're being temperate you're self-control you're building virtue uh stuff like that >> discipline yeah but like that's that's limited right that's not like infinite meaning that one hour plus another hour plus another hour every Sunday of your life that's only a limited number right >> um I mean life here is at least infinite as we know it. I mean finite as we know it.
>> Yeah. So okay. Okay. Awesome. So that means that your losses would be finite if you were to really lose anything. I would say that you're not. Now, however, if if God exists, >> you actually get a chance of with infinite happiness, infinite joy, infinite peace. Right? So So notice what you have now, right? Whether God exists or not, you're an agnostic for you know, right? 50-50.
What you should go for it with is yeah, I'm going to try to see if God exists.
I'm going to live as a Christian and all the rest. Why? Because the loss is limited. One hour this Sunday, another hour this Sunday, I cannot fornicate, you know, uh I'm going to wait for marriage, um etc., etc., right? But as a result, I get this infinite reward in heaven, right? If God exists and even if God did not exist still I built up all these virtues right of being temperate self-control of being uh chased right having chastity not not being lustful towards women right etc etc so I actually build virtue although I have to change my ways it's going to be difficult it's going to be a process but in time I actually build virtues it's actually good for me and I also get this potential infinite reward in heaven of infinite happiness. So that's why I think that you should take Pascal's wager.
>> Interesting. Um and what would be your response to my um critique of theism?
What like you know that you don't get to heaven because of like what you I guess do but rather like God looks at your intention like how do you recon?
>> So uh what what was the conclusion there? Were you thinking that that's wrong or that's u it's a contradiction?
Does it contradict the Bible? You know, et intention, right, for for you to be in a quoteunquote relationship with him, then >> like it seems to me that like for you to take the relationship for you to put your quoteunquote faith or trust in God, right? Like as I said, my personal foundation is justification for it goes hand in hand, right? But if your justification is weak or is not like uh strong enough, right? I'll say like over 50% if you're talking like uh like an analysis, right? Um like it seems to me it would be like quite difficult to put your or how do you how do I put this? Um it seems to me to be difficult if you were to put your trust in God if your justification is weak to begin with. I I don't know like if that makes sense.
Like I'm not sure if God's gonna >> also I think I understand what you're trying to say. Let me see if I I understand properly first. Basically, are you asking for like an argument for God's existence more explicitly >> to to back up the wager? We started off I mean we started off on your terms of how you want to convince me as an anostic but you took Pasco wager but I'm just telling you my foundation as in your response right you're just you're putting Pascal's wager out there and just giving a critique in response to >> right I I'm just trying to see like what you're trying to say with your response um to to be honest like like I I would like to see like what the conclusion was like you were mentioning God knowing our intention and I'm not sure where that was going so Like are you saying like okay we have >> that's one objection I know like that's one objection I know because like in in Pascal's wager like you're only choosing theism because you get infinitely and compared to a finite loss right as you mentioned but in in theism as much as I heard and you can correct me I'm wrong if I'm not steal maning theism correctly but in Christianity like if I understand correctly you you get to be in heaven or with God not because of the the things you do or like your your um your acts here but your relationship with God, right? Your valition.
>> But the thing is my my valition anyways is to be put my trust in God with my justification, not with like a blind faith if that makes sense.
>> What's the >> Yeah. What's the justification there that you're thinking of?
Well, justification would just be like uh the let me try. Justification would just be like you're trying to support your your your intellectual belief, your proposition.
>> Okay. Just after affecting that. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, basically, you're asking for a more explicit argument for God's existence. I understand. Especially, you know, since you you're you're more on the rational side, like you mentioned.
Awesome. So, I think that um I think that the previous argument that I brought up was pretty good, but uh what arguments are you like closer to to like believing in because it seems to me like you surveyed some arguments like the cosmological argument, the onlogical argument. Um like you know what other arguments do you think?
>> Well, I mean she has a lot of arguments to me so I don't know. It depends on the person I'm talking.
>> Okay, awesome. Yeah, I do think I do think that the argument from Thomas Aquinas is pretty good. Uh the fact that the universe does not have existence per se, meaning in and of it itself, rather it has existence from another, that proves that there this other thing is the cause of the universe. But if that other thing does not have existence per se, it would also have existence from another. But if it has existence from another, that other thing would also have either existence from itself or from another, etc. But I would say that this infinite chain of regress cannot happen because it would result in the absurd conclusion that the universe does not actually exist right now.
>> Oh, this is Thomas Aquinus first way, right? I mean, I read Thomas Aquinus a little bit because I had a lot of Christian influence and I know he's a Catholic doctor, right? Um I I I read his book. I I know his five ways. You're talking about the first way, right? The argument from motion.
>> Uh it's not exactly the argument from motion. Actually what's interesting is Gavin Kerr Dr. Gavin Gavin Curry he's a great to that I follow pretty closely at least back then not lately uh he argues that this argument from essence and existence is actually found in Aquinus's uh essay no what is like on on being and existence I think yeah or on essence and existence that's his writing and he was writing that when he was younger but that argument that I just brought forth is actually found there and it actually is the foundation for the five ways. So the five ways it's like a more specific way or different ways of putting it but you need that foundational argument from existence and essence that I just brought forth to you basically. Uh so it's not exactly the first way or one of the five ways but it is definitely foundational and you can you need basically if you argue if you argue uh deep into the arguments of the five ways you need this foundational ar argument of existence and ex in essence that's what gamut kur is saying >> I see so it's more like a prerequisite >> yes sir and this prerequisite is actually a standalone argument you don't need to have a specific uh you know fifth way argument from Aquinus to go with this uh this pre prequisite this prerequisite argument I think is already successful basically I'll give you an example right so uh what is the essence of a thing essence is just the whatness of of a thing right it's intelligible you can comprehend it so therefore it's it has an essence now the thing is not every single thing with an essence has existence one example can you think of a unicorn right now close your eyes think about a unicorn Okay, now that unicorn has an essence, right? It has a whatness. We both know what a unicorn is, right? It has a whatness. But I ask you, does that unicorn have existence?
>> Like in reality, >> does not have >> No, it doesn't have it doesn't have physical ontology.
>> Exactly. I'm assuming.
>> So that means that just because something has essence, it does not necessarily say that it has existence.
So too just because this thing has has an essence right we both know that it's an airpod right what it is it's an airpod it has a whatness it does not necessitate that it has existence rather what happened was the manufacturer was you know one of the causes for it to have existence I would say ultimately god is the cause as well but god working through the manufacturers to give it existence um so likewise just because you have a combination of things so this thing with this other thing and then ultimately you just combine a whole bunch of stuff to be the universe. Just because you have this universe now it does not thereby mean that this thing somehow has existence per se existence in and of itself. Rather it has existence from another. But if it has existed from another ultimately ultimately ultimately uh the existence from another must end such that that other thing that final last thing must have existence in and of itself from itself not from another so that being >> well now we're getting to murology you know what mirology is right >> yes the study of parts >> yeah so the universe is I mean if we can agree on a definition is the totality of physical things whatever you know scientific understanding is about physicality >> so it's like the totality there there is no more like physical things outside the universe the universe is the totality of the set of physical things can we agree on that >> yes >> and you're saying that like each part right so now this is mur murological account like you're saying each part of the universe is caused by another part >> uh yes So the tree for example is a part of the universe and it was caused by another part of the universe such as the human such as the the water and the sun >> right and and you're saying therefore the totality of the which is the whole right the universe is caused by something outside of it.
>> Yes sir.
>> Well wouldn't that just be the uh you know the whole part fallacy right?
>> Yeah I know the whole part. Yeah, like just because Yeah, I understand. Uh, and what would you say is the objection then to saying that the whole universe itself must be uh caused because I think that Alexander proves he has properly answered David Hume's argument already.
>> Um, okay. Um, I guess I'm just I'm not making any positive point. I'm just like um pushing back on the the argument you made that the fact that you know these parts cause in the shame of their totality of the universe somehow makes the totality of the universe calls like I I don't see how you get to that >> like there's a missing supremacy or something.
>> Uh the the reason I would get to that is just by extrapolation your go Dr. Puce. Oh my goodness. You literally have a picture of Alexander Pruce. Oh my goodness. Yeah. I mean, it's been a while since I've read this article from from his uh it's a very just like tough tough article or writing new a new cosmological arguments, but he basically goes over the big conjunctive fact. So, this is a directly related to what we're talking about. Your objection is very similar to David Hume where David Hume is saying that there that that big conjunctive fact is actually explained. Um, how should I go about answering this? I mean I think that one way to really um answer this is I think really just going forth with that example that I brought forth that if you have just a conjunction of things it does not make it such that thereby it has existence in and of itself. So I'll give an example right consider this bundle of things. It's not just one thing it's a bundle of things. Why do you claim that uh this bundle of things was caused?
Um how are we defining causality? You mean like um >> uh in the or yeah in the sense that it has existence added to it, right? So it was potentially in existence and then it was actualized to be in existence due to another actual thing. So that other actual thing might be the manufacturer.
>> Oh would this be defeated by um do you know physical monism?
Uh like are you saying that every single thing is just one being? Well, yeah, because like um I'm not saying I'm taking this position like strictly, but I'm just saying this is one possible objection because like for example there's a problem of identity in metaphysics that you know that you know a ship is like at what which point is what part this part right like if it loses one atom is it still this bottle like at what point right um if you think about like the physical moment's position like they can just say that all parts are like all parts of the universe is like just one totality. There is no distinction. Like only our minds are the ones that make these groups of like clumps of quoteunquote parts and just like call it like a bottle like a cap as you mentioned. So how would you defeat physical monism if that would be >> Yeah. I think I think that is just a absurd conclusion. Uh so physical monism will lead into saying that this is not one being and this is not another being.
That's already absurd. Um like I think that not all arguments are like super complex to disprove like Moore's arguments from his hand. Like I have a hand and it's right here and so therefore I have a hand like it exists.
So stuff like that like I I don't think all arguments are all that complicated.
Like this is one being, this is another being, two beings. Simple to to say that they they are actually just one being.
It makes no sense. This is one being, this is another separate being.
>> But that's just conceptually though like but like if you actually think about this physical ontology like what is the boundary that separates that two objects? You just have >> space. Space and time. You said the boundary, right? Space and time I would say. So even if I went out of existence like like try this thought experiment right you and I um we go out of existence I will still say that this thing is a separate thing than this thing even if nobody is observing these two things right there's no intellect uh intellection happening toward these two things even then these two things are separate things >> sure but like at what point is there boundary that you classify or define as being separate like Yeah, that boundary, >> right? I think that it's unclear, but even if you say that that's an absurd conclusion that it's unclear, it's still not as terrible as saying that those two things are not separate beings or separate things. And uh I mean >> like for for our purposes obviously, but like if we like I think problem identity is a real problem in metaphysics that like like how can you say actually two objects are distinct except your your purpose, right? Like if obviously I can say like my my left hand and my right hand are separate but in physical monism I'm not saying I'm holding this I'm just saying that this is possible but like in physical monism >> right like there is no clear or there is no actual um quote unquote like separate like it is just all one totality of physical things like there is no you >> once again yeah I think that it's absurd it's a absurd conclusion so that's basically how I say it it's like people say like, "Hey, Ken, you don't have a hand." Okay, like bro, like I have a hand. Look, so I I just use Moore's argument. Um, it's that simple. I don't think all arguments take a whole lot to just disprove. But anyways, um, yeah, man. I think that ultimately God does exist because the universe as the big conjunctive fact must be explained must be explained. Um, yeah, >> actually I'll get actually I think I remember what Bruce was saying. By the way, the person who is a Pruce fan, correct me if I'm wrong. I think this was Pruce's um you know, objection against David Hume's answer, which is what you you were trying to say, right?
Like what if um the whole universe it's just like these little parts are being explained, right? But the actual conjunction of the universe itself is unexplained.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Well, I don't want to take too too much time, but like u last thing I'm just going to grant your um argument from I'm not I'm not sure what the name is, but like let me just grant you that argument, right? Um because I know a lot of people want to come up and talk, but let me let me just grant you that argument. Um do you believe God is a mind? Right. In theism, like you believe God is a mind, right? Right.
>> Uh I would say that God has a mind. It depends on how you define a mind. I know. And if you define it just as spiritual, then I guess God is spiritual. John 4:24.
>> Well, mine I'll just say like um like a rational um capacity that can act with according of his nature.
>> Sure. If you define it that way. Okay.
>> Sure. And I I guess last thing before I I go is like how do you um even that argument that you just made like how do you get to a mind that a mind is responsible for the existence of the physical universe?
>> Yeah. I also Yeah. And that's why I think that it's very important that you mention the valition as well with the mind. If this mind has the valition to do such and this mind itself is uncaused um then it would have the and since it is the cause of all the caused things it itself is the causer and that's why I would say that it causes everything >> basically.
>> Yeah. I I don't say that it's like it's it's the mind in the sense of the human mind like >> so I I make a distinction between my brain and my mind but anyways with my mind just itself it doesn't have causal power >> in the physical sense let's say that it doesn't have causal power in the physical sense but it has causal power in the mind sense so it can it can think of the unicorn mind can think of the unicorn And so that means that it was potent the unicorn was potentially thought of and then it was actually thought of. I think that God is just uh that powerful such that he was able to uh cause things into existence.
>> Interesting to you. Um I think you might disagree some Christian is that you know the placebo effect right that the mind actually affects your physical body.
like without your mind, you cannot even >> move your arm because you consciously made that decision to lift up your left hand if that that's the command you want to do.
>> Like I I don't know that that might be a problem of consciousness, but I don't want to get into that. But anyways, okay.
>> Interesting position. Yeah. Yeah, that that's an interesting point.
>> Um yeah, I I think if I grant your argument about the first argument you made, I think it's the case for theism is really really strong. I might be I might be a weakist.
Are you thinking of Pascal's wisd I'll definitely look up Pascal's wisd after a conversation definitely like maybe I'll get to go to church all that through that experience you know >> dude like from a middle ground perspective I'm just a guy you know looking I'm seeking truth and seeking rationality and if theism is true if God exists all that Christianity is true then hey I'm open for it you feel me?
Yeah, definitely, man. And I think that the this one Bible verse like always helps me, especially when I was first reverting into the faith when I was 17 and a half years old. I'm now 24 and I remember specifically at least you know I was struggling with um this one sin and I couldn't shake it off but like just confessing it to the Lord daily like bro like there's a lot of process uh progress happening and you know I'm free from that one sin and uh I mean one other specific thing I guess you could say like video games I was playing video games excessively but I just went like cold turkey and now I don't even really want to play video games. So like trust the process like they say and I think that if you are really in that 50/50 position there's a way in which God can work in your heart through worshiping with music with uh your uh with other Christians with going to church going to mass with finding peace in prayer maybe you're distracted in prayer as well but anyways you're building discipline and maybe with consistency you're building also that discipline maybe you have to forego certain lustful things that would build your chastity, etc., etc. There I think that really there are no downsides to Christianity in the sense of uh the way that you live out the commandments of God, >> fasting and prayer. Yeah.
>> Do you know last thing do you knows?
Like I've been reading the >> the opposite >> like the guy who said that like >> and it's really beautiful like I'm not theist yet as I'll say myself but like I think his quote is really beautiful that he said like if Christ were to remain outside of truth he would still remain with Christ right so that just highlights that how um the beauty of Christ or the aesthetics of Christ right aesthetics and philosophy like is more powerful than rationality right or justification. So I think the like I read the Oski and it's like really beautiful even though you know I'm still in the middle of the fence.
>> Yeah. Like I think >> yeah I think I might you know just live out that journey and I'm from a middle ground perspective. I'm still seeking truth and yeah I mean whatever it comes I mean I'm still young. I'm still 19 so right >> I got >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Dude, that's that's super good and and it's good to see I would say, you know, concerning that quote that you mentioned, there's an aspect of God that is definitely mysterious and Christians do not shy from mystery. Of course, we do say that God cannot be a contradiction. What he says cannot contradict say uh good morality things like that. So we do bring forth rational things but we don't say that every single thing is such that we can rationalize about. That's not to say that that mystery according to us is not rational. That mystery could be rational in the bigger understanding of God, but that mystery could be a an an an enigma to us. And I guess in that sense, you could say that it's not rational for me if I can't grasp that bigger mystery. But as long as that bigger mystery is not a contradiction, I think that there's no problem with you know continuing the faith and that should not be a stumbling block. Oh >> yeah, definitely. I mean even even in philosophy you get to the epistemic limits right that you cannot prove reason by reason you cannot prove logic by logic that's the foundation that's the trima right you eventually end up with like a circularity or foundation or you know these things >> so I think yeah it's fair to remain in like a quoteunquote um um ballistic position but you know >> it depends yeah I I think this is beautiful. This what makes philosophy really beautiful in my opinion. But >> yeah.
>> Yeah. I appreciate talking to you today, man. Like it um good to uh share some uh exchange of our knowledge and I I hope you know it progresses to a good end.
>> Freeze, man. Preach. All right. Take care. I pray that God leads you well.
All right. Byebye.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
>> All right, folks. That was an awesome conversation. Awesome conversation.
Double tap if you thought that that was an awesome awesome conversation.
Very terrible conversation understanding as well. You know how long are you gonna be live for? H maybe like another half an hour. Yeah, but double tap if you think that that was a good conversation.
How the folks doing it? Yo, dude. I'll talk.
Yo, thank you. Thank you for the donut.
Donut. Donut. W combo. Yes, sir. Andre, what's up, man? How's it going? Double tap. Do you think that that was a fire conversation? Very, very good conversation. I think it was very fruitful as well. You know, towards the end he said that I think I might go to church. Hey, as long as you're considering it, that's good for me. You know, you're not saying that you will go. So, I'm not having my hopes that high, but there's still a kind of happiness I currently feel that I presently feel due to you saying that.
Like, yeah, double combo. For real. For real. He tell the of God. What are you saying, man? W combo. Very very good.
Which god are we talking about right now? Uh Christianity. The Christian God.
But I think openly like from a uh from a st from a starting point, you can just say like just theism in general.
1 Corinthians 11:5-6. What about that?
But yeah, folks.
>> Yeah. And uh people on on the YC, if y'all would like to discuss, hop on Tik Tok. hop on Tik Tok and then you can request up like Pope Defense is saying hop on Tik Tok. This is where we're talking. Theism in general is a copout.
I don't think it's a copout. I don't think it's a copout. Uh because I think that if you're having a discussion about whether God exists or not, uh I think that it can lead into the conclusion of there being a all powerful omniscience omni benevolent being.
So RS revision what is that?
All right.
These people will say anything. So the believers will come to his life to not sure what he's saying.
Oh, okay. Religious studies like lowkey want to join for like are you a believer in God? It's more so I'm trying to reach the atheist and agnostics. Why should someone believes in something you can't even prove? Well, that's assuming that you cannot prove God's existence. God is proven. Atheism is actually disproven.
What about Pascal's paradox? I don't think there's a paradox of Pascal's wager. No. Uh, can I join? No, you're an atheist. Prove it then. What? Prove that atheism is false. Atheism is false because the universe is caused to exist, right? It has an existence. It has existence. And that existence did not come from itself. Oh, defenders. God bless you. Can check this for you. All right, brother. All right. Well, will for sure. For sure. Thank you. Thank you.
Someone believe in the Bible literally.
H Saki said, "Yeah, we believe in the Bible literally." What do you mean? What is your standpoint? Um, atheist. Atheist agnostic from Poland. Yeah. Well, actually, Poland is very Catholic. You should become Catholic, man. Why not become a believer in Jesus? There are good reasons to become typical Christian liar. Okay, I know who I'm not inviting up. Ken, do you think Christian women should cover their heads? Um uh should is a very strong word. I would say that in uh 1 Corinthians chapter 11 verses two an hour Paul does talk about how that is a tradition and uh I think that it's you know something that you can do you can do in church but it's not something which is uh binding for all times. I think that was more in the local church that Paul was in for the corinthians.
And uh if you notice as well, there were certain regulations concerning the hair.
Um this is probably due to the helanization of uh of the folks there.
And so they would have thought that longer hair I think it was meant for like women or something like that. Or yeah, maybe my my thought my thinking is not even though I say God is fake. I believe Christians are real. Obviously, bro, like we exist. Look at this.
But yeah. All right, let's get another one. Let's get another one. Let's get another one.
Maybe Samson. Yeah, maybe Samson.
I should believe something you can't prove. Uh, no, it's something I could prove. Oh, somebody was saying to invite group.
I invite this guy there.
You seem chill. Thanks, bro. Thanks.
Please, can I join? I'm an atheist.
Atheism has been disproven, man. Hey, how's it going?
>> What's up, man?
>> Nothing much, man. Bless it. Bless it.
Bless it. How are you?
>> Yeah, I'm pretty good.
>> Cool.
>> So, uh, you said you're Christian, right?
>> Yes, sir.
>> I always think that like, so I've done a couple of these things before. I always think it's good to start by saying like, you know, obviously I respect religious belief and I'm not like against it or whatever. It's just not how I align my personal beliefs. But like um I heard you mention uh causation or cosmology before.
>> Why you believe in God?
>> Yeah.
>> Like uh what kind of causation argument?
>> Uh concerning essence and existence. So the universe has essence. Its essence is basically the whatness of something. So I always bring this up like we both know what this is. This is the AirPod case, right? AirPods. So it has an essence but just because it has essence it does not mean that it has existence. So the fact that this thing does exist is actually because it was caused to exist from another. So it was given existence from another. It does not have existence in and of itself meaning per se. So it has existence from another but it if that other thing has existence from another and then from another and then from another and then from another add infinite.
It sounds almost like Aquinus's first way like as in >> it's strange it doesn't seem it it doesn't intrinsically contain existence.
I think I would I would dispute that.
>> Okay, awesome. So, uh >> so it sounds like I'm going to try and steal manual position because I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying.
It sounds to me almost like you're saying like are you talking about hierarchical chain of causation as in like um oh are you talking about contingencies is that what you're saying >> uh in in a way sure I think there there may be a mixing of terms here so I know hierarchical causation is a term that Ed Faser uses a lot and concerning contingency that's obviously uh you know popularized due to live nuts and foods and coons but I'm talking more specifically about the way that Aquinus would use it in his writing on being and essence which is actually not explicitly found in the Suma theologia. The sum theologian talks about the five ways right that we famously know and you mentioned the first way which I think is successful but the essence and existence thing that I'm talking about here is actually more specific it was it's actually a writing from a finest when he was actually even younger than the suma >> so than when he was writing the suma and so it's actually something which is even more foundational to the five ways so uh Dr. Gavin Kirk, he's a Thomasist. He says that the five ways really only succeed when you are analyzing them very deeply ultimately because of this argument on being an essence or uh yeah on being an essence or on essence and existence however it's translated in the English. So this argument that I'm bringing forth is actually the more foundational one that uh it's it's actually not well known as the five ways.
>> I don't think I've ever heard it phrased like that before. Definitely not.
>> Yeah. So you start off with like a premise saying everything has an essence.
>> Yes sir.
>> What do you what would you define an essence as?
>> Whatness of something. So um it we can know what it is. It is intelligible.
>> Right. So this thing has a whatness.
This thing has another whatness. Right?
We can tell this is like a a candle, you know? So that's one thing that's an essence, right? It has its own essence.
And this other thing has another essence of being a airpod.
>> I don't know if I would like I think the categories that you would put on something to define it as a singular thing would be sort of subjective >> like >> um so it's okay. Yeah. So considering it being a singular thing just like if you put the candle on the table what's the actual relevant distinction between the table and the candle being one object?
Why can't you view it as one object? I think it would lead to an absurd conclusion because very clearly I think uh first of all by intuition it is very clearly two different things. So one is a candle the other one is a table. Um uh honestly I think I can just stop there to be honest. Like I'm not even trying to be like >> I see what you're saying.
>> Yeah.
>> Um but like I feel like that's only because you have preconceived notions about what a candle is, right? Like if you never heard of a candle before or a table and you saw a candle on top of a table as as far as Yeah. As far as it seems to you it's just one object, right?
>> No, not not necessarily because there I mean they're separated by time and space.
>> There's like there exists it sounds like you're talking about like the land of the forms as in do you think there's like a you know something external to time and space which is like >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. the essence of the candle.
>> I would say that I don't really hold to Plato's uh forms exactly or I I should say that I'm more agnostic, but I would say that at least God exists outside of space and time.
>> And right >> um the point though is that God does add existence to something. So this other this the bas the basic point of getting to the s's is just to simply say that you can uh you can know this thing uh as it has a whatness and you can know that it is distinct from this thing as it has its essence or is what so >> to think is only ever view like objects as like unified and like you know one thing. I I view that sort of like what do you what's the word like um differentiating between objects like that? I mean as far as I can tell that's >> and is any reason to um say like you know >> Wait, so do you think the table and the candle are one thing?
>> Like I don't think there I don't think there's a relevant distinction to be made.
>> Okay. So are they one thing or two?
your your notion of a candle and the fact that they can be separated but like >> so so would you so even with your notion right I understand right so you mentioned the notion would you say that even with the notion are they one thing or two things the candle and the table >> you have individual notions of a candle on the table but at the end of the day they just matter >> so they're two things >> you you conceive of two different things because you already have a preconceived notion of what a candle and a table is >> but at the end of the day they just matter But they're not actually fundamentally separate. You know, if you melted them down and put them in a pot, they would cease to be separate things.
Like the only thing that's separating them, >> is there I got you. Yeah. Is there a distinction between is there a distinction distinction in reality between >> um the between a quark and I don't know like what other fundamental thing I don't know or let's say more specifically between the nucleus and the proton, right? It's a nucleus. Am I getting my physics now?
>> The nucleus. But I understand what you mean. Um >> uh I think at that level, >> no neutron. Neutron. My fault. Is there a distinction? I said I said nucleus.
I'm thinking of biology. Neutron. Is there a distinction between the neutron and the proton in reality?
>> Um yeah. I think when you get to like such a fundamental level, I guess there does have to be some kind of like separation and definition.
>> Okay.
>> What they are. So the neutron has his own essence and the proton has its own essence, right? And they the essence indicate to us that they and and they're not just merely notionally distinct or distinct in our minds, but they are actually distinct in reality. The the proton and the neutron that is.
>> Yeah. I mean I think they have much more like set sort of parameters as to what they they are.
>> Let's let's start there then. Let's let's start there. Let's imagine this is the neutron. Let's imagine this is the proton uh you know somewhere them being distinct. Does the neutron have existence in and of itself?
>> Um as in are you trying to say like does it exist necessarily or are you trying to say does it is it actual?
>> Uh it obviously we agree that it's actual. What I'm saying is does it have existence in and of itself or does it have existence from another?
>> Right. just from the consideration of its essence of the neutron. Right? When you have the consideration of the essence of the neutron, you automatically uh come to the conclusion, oh, okay, it exists just merely from the essence of it.
>> I would say like um the state of affairs of the universe does include the the neutron and the proton, but like >> I don't know.
>> I'm not sure you're answering my question though.
>> Yeah. My question >> my question is does something cause the pro the neutron to exist >> as in right now is there something substantiating it existence that you're asking me >> sure >> so let me just quickly clarify like are you talking like temporal causation as in a causes as you move through time >> not not necessarily temporally >> temporally or or hierarchically like you mentioned >> well either is what you're saying Well, temporally would be linearly uh causation. Hierarchically would would not care about time. So I I'm saying either way. So literally speaking or hierarchically speaking, is the neutron caused by another?
>> See, I don't think you have to be specific with the question. If you ask me, okay, like is it >> caused by another thing?
>> Is it caused by another thing? Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. I can make it specific. So is the neutron caused by another thing?
Right. So >> okay. So this neutron is caused by another thing and that other thing that caused it. What is it called?
>> The you're saying the the neutron is the effect. Then the previous thing would be the cause.
>> Yes. What what is that previous thing that is the cause? What are its characteristics? Is that God or?
>> See, because you're you're sort of smuggly making me answer a question which I didn't really put myself into.
So like if you're asking me like is this neutron in this position right here?
What caused this this neutron to be at this point in space at this point in time? Then I would have to say you know some kind of collision of energy between you know these these particles colliding at this separate time prior to this like this moment. Like if you're asking me like what is the cause of the existence of this neutron like like why is it in existence then like also it's like >> so what would be your answer to that?
>> Why is it in existence? What would be your answer?
>> Why is it in existence? What's your answer?
>> Like say first of all existence is quite a broad term. No, no, no.
>> Existence can be >> Does your hand exist?
>> Does your hand exist?
>> Okay. Well, you could say if you define something as in existence if it's within time and space, then you would say God doesn't exist, right? But you would say God is in reality.
>> What I'm saying is existence is like, you know, some people believe the past is like in ontology. Like some >> We're not even talking about time though. We're not talking about the A or B theory of time to show you that like existence can encapsulate multiple different meanings like >> existence just mean that it is the fact that it is >> okay >> are you talking like temporally >> huh >> you have to ask me specifically like temporally or hierarchically >> both either way you go either way you go is either way you go is the neutron caused by another thing >> uh yeah I would say it is contingent on something and cause it exist.
>> Okay. That other thing is that other thing contentious.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, >> contingency.
I mean if you're if you're adding on the essence and existence uh distinctions that I'm making. But anyways, what's very important is earlier you um earlier you denied that the AirPod or earlier I made the claim that the AirPod does not have existence per se and you actually denied that. Do you remember? Yeah, I would say that like >> Okay, so now what's what's very important is what's interesting is the moment you get to the neutrons, right?
You would actually say that the neutron was caused by another meaning the neutron does not have existence by itself. The neutron does not have existence per se.
>> That's not true. That's not how that works. So like >> no by definition wait.
>> So when you say when you say that something has existence per se, what is that saying?
I didn't said per se. I said it is in the state of affairs of the universe.
>> I don't think you're understanding even my terms. When you're saying that the neutron or the air pod has existence per se, it means that it has existence not from another, not from another. But you admitted that in the case of the neutron, it does have existence from another. Therefore, the neutron does not have existence per se. So I would say phrasing that I used specifically I said the airports are in the state of affairs of the universe right now then I then I made the distinction between if you're asking me why they're in this exact like point in space and time then you can talk about the collision something else or if you're asking me about like >> okay either way either way there's a cause from another thing right >> yeah I believe in causation cause and effect right >> okay was this airpod caused to exist by another.
>> Okay. I don't like this question. This question is like if you're asking me about >> honestly you can clarify your position and I'm going to move on.
>> Yeah, you can clarify your position and I'm going to move on. I honestly this is the point where I don't like philosophy.
It's just it's just too absurd for me.
No. So you can clarify your position to answer your question and I can understand how that might seem a bit absurd and a bit stupid but like it is just because my my answer changes about whether you're talking about temporal or hierarchical. If you wait, repeat the question one more time as you said it.
Just one more time.
>> It's all right, man. I'm gonna move on to the next person, bro. Like, I don't I don't like this kind of philosophy.
>> It's useless, man.
>> All right, bro. Have a good one.
>> Anyway, >> take care, man. Bless.
>> Yeah. It's like, bro, like there's there's a certain point where you just said like your hand exists. Like, if you deny that your hand exists, say goodbye to the conversation, man. Like if if you're if you're saying that this thing I don't know man in conclusion it's not that the philosophy is hard it's just the philosophy sometimes get gets absurd with I don't know like skepticism with absurdities like yo um I think philosophy is useful don't get me wrong don't get me wrong philosophy is use useful but I do think that that sometimes philosophy when it is mishandled it can lead into uh you know wrong directions or even terribly sophistry. I don't want I don't I don't want to discuss sophistry. All right. If we're saying that this thing is not a separate thing than this and there's no further clarification. I think the conversation should be ended like all right we're going to move on.
But folks just double tap double tap the screen. Galatians 6. God bless you. or Galatians one. Watchmaker argument doesn't equate to a God created the universe. It's not a watchmaker argument though.
It's not even a watchmaker argument.
It's not fine tuning or anything like that. Come on. Focus. Focus.
Wait. Atheism has been disproven.
The veracity of the historicity of scripture Jesus and his ministry teachings are what? Like proofs. To the uncaused cause fallacy is awful. How is that a fallacy? It's the only way to explain the universe having been caused.
You cannot disapprove atheism.
Uh, I can't do that, but I could disprove atheism. I can't disapprove atheism, but I will disprove atheism.
Yeah, let's let's work on our English, people. Let's work on our English.
Philosophy is an evidence for God.
Congrats, bro. Congrats. Congrats for a lot. Yeah, philosophy isn't evidence for God. I guess philosophy is not evidence against God either. So all those atheistic arguments, all those uh philosophical concerns that you brought forth against God's existence, they're not arguments against God either.
Conceding you cannot prove you're God.
By the way, that was not my claim. I'm reading a comment. But >> hey, how's it going, man?
>> Good.
>> Good. Are you a agnostic or atheist?
>> No, I'm an atheist.
>> Okay. And uh yeah, I think that atheism has been disproven.
>> How could you disprove atheism?
>> Uh my showing that atheism is false.
>> But what is atheism? Is it this belief >> that there's no god? That god is this is not accepting the proposition.
>> Uh so you're speaking of soft atheism, which is basically agnosticism.
No, it's not self atheism. It's atheism.
It's that I don't accept the belief in a god as presented.
>> Okay. So, >> there's no evidence for it.
>> Awesome. So, I would say that would you say that the universe was caused to exist?
>> No.
>> Okay. Uh would you say that this AirPod was caused to exist?
>> Of course.
>> Okay. How about these two things? Are they caused to exist? Those are all manufactured objects that were manufactured by people. So, of course, I know they were supposed to exist.
>> Okay. Now, how about you add this other thing and a million other things to the group for what's the purpose?
>> So, so now that the group just make a category adjustment, any manufactured object, artifact created by a human being was caused to exist.
>> Okay. And uh what about the trees? So you have tree one and then tree two and then tree three. You add them all together. Were they all caused to exist?
>> If when you use cost now you're you're going to another category from natural from unnatural to natural.
>> Yeah. So I'm adapting.
>> Let me let's make a clarification first before I can answer. So, are they talking about manufactured items like artifacts and you're talking about naturally occurring items like trees? You're talking about two different categories of causation?
>> Yes, sir. And are the trees caused to exist? Can you answer the question?
>> Of course they are. But they're not caused like a manufactured >> in the same way.
>> Thank you.
>> Not in the same way. Of course it's not the same way. So the tree is caused to exist. Um and then is the is earth caused to exist?
>> But but when you say caused you have to specify it more in a sense of caused by uh intelligent agent or caused by a process.
Which one are you referring to?
>> Uh just if there is a causer there is the thing >> noer. No causer. Okay. The sun. Is the sun the cause of the trees uh growing?
>> No, not a causer. It's a cause.
>> Have a good one, man. Have a good one.
Have a good one. Apparently, we don't know English either. Let's search up the definition of causer. Oh my goodness.
>> This is This reminds me of why I hate I stopped, dude. This reminds me of why I stopped, you know, like diving deeper into philosophy. You get to the point where people don't understand basic definitions. What is the definition of a causer? Is a person, thing, or event that produces an effect. Congrats. Does the sun right being a thing produce the effect of the tree growing? Yes, genius.
>> Oh my goodness, man. Low key, this rage bait.
Oh my goodness, man. Bro, this is reminding me why I do not like to discuss so that much uh philosophy.
All right, bro. Apparently the trees are or Yeah, the trees growing. That's an effect. What was the causer?
The sun.
Your accent is nasely. Yeah, I woke up uh with a runny nose today.
I actually Yeah, I do not get a lot of sleep. Maybe that's why. Is that actually a cause?
Christians are spiritual preschoolers.
Nice comment, Ken. Is it sound for me to say that they have to know there is a God in order to not believe in him? It depends on what argument you're bringing forth. Uh saying that in and of itself, I'm not convinced of it. If you believe claims people tell you but can never prove, it's illogical.
Uh so what about in court? Do you hear stuff from certain claims from uh or from certain people who are claiming things?
You don't take the testimony of eyewitnesses.
This argument is boring. I'm more interested in one is whether religion is beneficial to people's lives. No, I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in whether it's true or not. Now you always sound nasally. Well, I guess I have a deep voice. Maybe lock doors.
Mhm.
>> He was trying to use his little preschool tricks and he knew I wouldn't fall for them. Yeah. You wouldn't fall for them because you didn't realize that the son was a causer of the tree as well.
Congrats, bro. Congrats on your absurd conclusion.
>> Hey, what's up?
>> Hey, how's it going, man?
>> Pretty good. Pretty good. So, I'm I'm agnostic. Um, >> cool.
>> So, why why why should I believe in God?
uh you should believe in God because atheism and agnosticism has been disproven. Um but just just just to be clear though like uh agnosticism as in you know like 5050 you know like God could exist, God could not exist.
>> Yeah. You know or um but he said so you have an argument for God's existence.
>> Yeah man. I think more more epistemically though. More epistemically because when I speak to to agnostics Yeah.
I'm okay with that. What's the >> Yeah, I I think that you should believe in God epistemically speaking. And I'm not saying that by this argument it thereby means that God does exist. Okay.
The but the point of this argument is I think it's actually very powerful for agnostics uh those who are 50/50 between the fence or on the fence. And the reason I say that is it's basically saying that you know living as a Christian um you'll have to forgo certain sins and uh you'll have to go to church maybe like for an hour or two on that Sunday stuff like that. So there are certain little losses although I would say that they're actually good for you right you actually build community you uh as you go to church >> is the argument for God's existence >> once again I told you that this is not an argument for God's existence. This is an epistemic argument as to why you should believe in God as an agnostic.
>> So, you're saying because he has community and >> yeah, uh that's part of it. But I'm saying that um ultimately you should believe in God because uh if there is even a chance that God exists, uh you have a good you have a better chance of getting to heaven if you believe in God and and live the Christian life, >> right?
>> Yeah.
So wait one at a time. Are you are you trying to say that that utility in being in believing God in the sense that you know you you have community like social social utility there is that the argument are you >> uh I I would say ultimate utility is heaven. But the reason that I bring forth the community aspect is just to simply counter the objection that having to go to church for an hour and missing out on that one hour on that Sunday is a loss. So I bring forth community to counter that. But I would say that the ultimate utility that I'm talking about is the fact that you have infinite happiness in heaven.
>> Right? Okay. So I don't think I don't think I care too much about the utility argument. I mean, I do see I do think that social utility and community and stuff like that, I think that's important. I think um atheists or agnostic or whatever could always find a community that could make them have time. I'm not I'm not too interested in that.
>> That's not the point of it though. Like >> I'm saying that it's rational to believe in God as an agnostic in your position 5050. It would be rational to take that leap of faith so to speak and belief in God because you get a greater utility.
It would be more rational. So I'll give you an example. Let's say that the coin flip is 50/50. Okay? So it could land on heads or it could land on tails. Okay?
If it lands on heads, then I uh give you $1,000. If it lands on tails, you lose $10.
Would you take that bet?
>> So you I think you're referring to you referring to Pascal's wager basically at this point.
>> Somebody asked, "But how do you know it is 50/50?" He told me that it's 5050, right? His belief in God as an do you understand? Do you understand how what Pascal's wager is?
>> Yes. Yes, I do. But but typically would you take that coin flip?
>> Yeah, I mean if if this coin flip if um if it's 5050 um I get $1,000 and 50/50 what's what's that part?
>> You lose $10 if it lands on uh tails.
>> Okay. So yeah, I mean yeah if I if I if I if I get heads $1,000 if I lose I lose $10. I don't see why.
>> Yes. Exactly. And would you say that it's actually rational for you to take that?
>> Yeah. I mean, it's a it's a small law.
$10 lost to $1,000 win. Yeah.
>> Awesome. The reason that I bring that up is I think that obviously it's not a one onetoone correspondence, but I think that's analogous to the belief in God concerning Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager basically says that the things that you have to uh go through in life as a Christian, so you have to leave behind a certain sense. For example, you cannot get drunk, right? And wager doesn't he's not referring to Christianity right Christianity >> I I understand >> yeah but I I would say that you should go with the more likely religion to be true >> yeah that's so I think so if you're just talking about and all religion all god so you need to not start with one you need to give evidence that god exists and two you need to give evidence that the Christian god exists >> yeah before we get there do what do you think is the more likely religion to be true if God if the relation think any of them are true.
>> Okay. Yeah. So in in that case I think that you you should study it but I think that most people's intuitions would be such that Christianity is more likely true than say for example Islam.
>> Why?
How do I how do you even know God if God with a mind exists? How do you even get to that?
>> Yeah. [ __ ] get to like the the type of religion.
>> No, I I I I think that we're going all over the place now, you know, like we're talking about different religions. We're talking about God having a mind let's stay focused, right? Let's stay focused. Let's let's say that it could e it could be Christianity, it could be Islam, whatever. Right? Um >> let's I'm say let's type religion. I'm just simple.
I'll get the religion part. How do you know or be a god with a mind that exists? What do you have? What's the argument for just that? We cannot after that. We cannot certain if this god is a Christian god or Islamic god or Indian word. We cannot go after that. But let's just go put the card before the horse.
How do you know a god exists at all?
>> Sure. Yeah. I I'll go where you want to go. All right. So I would say that God exists because things have essences and some things have essences or actually things have essences but without their existence per se. So they have their existence from another. So I'll give an example. This thing it has an essence right? We know what it is. It's a you know like a it's a candle. So it has an essence. You know what it is. But does a candle have existence in and of itself or does it have existence from another like the manufacturer caused it to exist?
>> Yeah.
Relation here.
>> Okay. So, um basically from that argument you would extrapolate to all other things that are physical, right?
You stack all these physical things up.
Now you have a big conjunctive fact of physical things existing. Now what if I just told you that that big conjunctive fact of physical things existing is actually uncaused. I would say that that's actually absurd. That's actually absurd. So just because you know like this one thing is caused this one other thing is caused and this other thing is caused and now there's a stack of them.
It does not mean that thereby they are no longer uh caused. They are still caused by another. So the material thing >> of causes what's wrong with that?
>> Uh it would lead to the absurd conclusion that nothing would actually be in existence. So I'll give an example.
>> Yeah, I'll give an example. Right. So let's say that this uh thing X was actually caused by thing Y and thing Y was caused by thing Z. So Z caused Y to have existence. Y caused uh X to have existence. None of these things have existence from their essence. So none of these things have their existence per se intrinsically that is. And if that's the case, they all have their existence from another. But if that other thing that has that give existence to um Z has also existence from B and B has existence from A then this would lead into an infinite regress. But if this infinite regress were such that uh were the case in this imaginary example um x would actually not be in existence.
Y would actually not be in existence. Uh z would actually not be in existence because this whole chain this whole aggregate of things having existence from another. None of them have existence per se or in and of themselves. So if you think about X as being in this circle, right? X is in the circle. X uh X caused by Y, Y caused by Z, Z caused by B, B caused by A and A caused by another, etc., etc. There's an infinite regress of things, right? In the end, when you finally get to X, X does not actually exist. The only way X exists is if there's a final foundation for X and Y and Z and B and A to uh to be in existence.
just my current is not like this first member.
>> Awesome.
>> Yes. So, I I'll give you an example.
Does my does my extension cord for my laptop does it have power in and of itself or does it have power from another source such as my uh wall plug wall cord or what do you >> regret? So, so I have so so can you answer the question? Does my extension cord have power to power my computer?
All right. The extension cord causing my computer to be powered on. Does the extension cord have power per se or does it have power from another from another?
>> Okay. What if I told you that actually my computer is powered by one extension cord and then which is which is powered up by another extension cord which is powered up by another extension cord and then another extension cord. Add infin item. But there's no foundation for this power. It's just this other thing, this other power cord which has power from another power cord which has power from another >> sentence right there.
>> So I So I have I have a question for you, Bobby. If that were the case, right, there's just an infinite number of power cores powering up my computer.
Does my computer actually power get power? Yes, because you just explained the game, >> my friend.
No first member.
>> If there's no first member, my power my computer cannot be powered up. My computer will be off.
>> Let me grant you this. Let me grant the first member. I'll just get you to >> Yeah. Well, well, before we get there, are we actually at the first member yet?
Like, do you do you realize where I'm trying to go with this? Because >> Yeah, I understand. It's the I think the arguments one of our arguments. Um but how let me grant the first member. How do you not get to God?
>> Yeah. Uh okay. So so you grant it right?
You grant that there that there would be this first member analogous to how there would be this this power source not just an infinite you know chain of power cords right you agree with that?
>> Yeah. I agree with that. Let's go to let's get to the first let's get to God.
>> Yes. So I would say that this being um would be God because it caused everything.
What's the definition of God? Let's just make sure we got that now. What does that mean? Uh >> I would say that God is all powerful, all knowing, all good. And I was saying that being is good. And if God causes being, then God is good.
>> Well, so why why should I think that this first member needs to be in your dance?
uh this first member I would say that it it's the source for all things in existence and if that's the case then it's the cause um and it would be uncaused right it would be uncaused because it's the prime move that we were talking about I agree with you that's uncaused but why don't you agree to any other feature beyond like uncaus say yes to any other all the stuff you just said beyond besides being uncaused >> uh I I would say that it is the it is all powerful because it costs Okay, cool. But let's say all powerful mean that it caused everything. But why do I how do you know it's all good or any other future that you just how do you get what's the argument for those things?
>> Uh I would say that being all good is such that you have being. So I take the Thomas Aquinus view on goodness which is being is actually good. Being per se is good. And if God is the cause of all beings then he causes good and uh he himself does not have any privations of being because from him all beings come forth. Uh he himself would by definition be good because I define uh goodness as you know or being as goodness.
>> Why why do I accept this definition of good?
>> Uh because without being you don't have any measure of goodness.
So >> I understand what is being what is being here being just an entity that exists.
>> Uh not it doesn't necessarily take like a physical entity if that's what you think.
>> It doesn't mean physical. I'm not I'm not saying that. You're just saying something has like some onlogical existence.
>> Yeah. Like uh and if you mean also like Yeah, sure. Onlogical existence. Sure.
Sure. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. We'll go with that.
>> Yeah. But why should I now equate that to good? What is good? Why is that thing that equals good?
>> Uh because the only way you measure goodness and badness is if they're were being in the first place.
>> The only way I measure goodness and badness with it being I don't know. I don't know if I me I don't know what I mean there. How do I measure badness?
>> Yeah. So, uh basically Thomas Aquinus he has like a very specific argument.
Honestly, it's been a while since I've uh you know looked it up, but it's basically from like perfection. And his idea is our I our understanding of perfection is due to something having being that is proper to it. So the chair what what do you consider as a good chair? Well, a good chair presumably it would have seat with being right. So the seat is actually not a hole, right? If you have a chair with a hole right there, that's that's not a good chair for you to sit on. But the chair, if it serves its function, it should have beam filling up that seat as it is proper to the thing. Uh so it's not like we're saying that it has to have like an excessive amount of being, right? It doesn't it doesn't need like a mountain.
The chair doesn't need a mountain on it.
The chair just needs to have that surface that should have and as long as it serves its function according to its category as a chair of allowing us to sit it's a good chair. So >> when you say what so when you say what I think the chair why we call it good chair is because we the mind I like for example I don't I think the chair is given because some mind has made some judgments of his goodness right I don't know I don't know like how to judge something that's good without mind so if like no mind exist and there's just this share I'm not too sure what good or bad means here.
>> Sure, no worries. Yeah, I'm I'm okay with that claim.
>> Badness to me doesn't seem to have any real value here. I'm not sure what good what a good chair is.
>> Wait, so you don't know what a good chair is.
>> Yeah, I'm saying that the reason I call a chair good is because of some mental some mental reason, right? So, >> okay. So, God in mind in the universe devoid of mind >> in the universe devoid of all mind. I'm not too sure what that is. Listen, those notions exist, >> right? The universe is devoid of a mind.
>> Think this being is good.
>> Yeah. The universe is devoid of a mind, but God has a mind. So, God is the judge of good.
>> Rolling with your definition, which I don't necessarily accept.
>> I didn't give any definition. I'm just understand why I should think this being.
>> No. No. Like I mean like your definition as in you measure goodness according to the mind which I don't necessarily accept.
>> I think I think so just right also.
So to me um good or bad is just some subjective notions. I don't know what in the world the mental don't know what good or bad means.
>> Okay. So >> when you say when you say God when you in this arguments they g say God is good. Oh this being is good. I'm not too sure why I should think that >> because he's a being. Why should I think >> well according to my definition? Yeah.
According to the definition that being you define goodness to equal ontological existence. I'm not too sure for that.
>> Uh being is good. That's according to how I define it. But even in ethics, I would say that um you would need Yeah.
Yeah. Actually, I I wouldn't want to dive deep into ethics because that's a different topic. But I would say basically uh if you wrote with the definition that God is by definition good because God calls beings. That's basically what we mean when we say that God is all good.
>> The argument why some people like existence have to equal good. It seems like what makes it good like are you saying it's good because of like your like you gave some mental like you given some mental reasoning to why it should like if if like >> no it's not just that it has to serve its function as it as in the category that it is and the measure of its goodness is in accordance with um you know the the being that it has. So my um like I should have eyes and I'm missing an eye. That's a bad thing. That's a privation on my part.
>> Yeah. That's because we we determine like for evolution sex or how we determine evolution determined that having eyes is good for like seeing and >> Okay. So so having eyes is good, right?
But if you lack an eye then that's bad, right?
>> Well, it's just an evolutionary kind of statement. Yeah. you have from standpoint. Yeah.
>> Okay. Awesome. So, >> depend organism you are.
>> Yeah. Exactly. That's that's really good that you said it depends on what organism you are. That's what I was saying the whole time. That's why the chair is in its own category. It doesn't need a mountain sitting on it. It doesn't like the chair. You don't judge the goodness of a chair by it randomly having a candle on the chair. Like that makes no sense.
>> I don't judge tornadoes. I don't judge clouds and tornadoes being good or bad.
I do think they're just neutral tense.
>> Yeah, I think that has it serves its functions. But uh in any regard, so that's why I would say that this being would be good. I would say that this being is powerful, right? All powerful in fact because it caused everything.
And uh I would say that it's all knowing as well because it caused everything. So from it knowing this from it having caused this thing ultimately it itself would have to know of this thing very intimately. So the quirks uh and uh you know the up and down courts that make this up.
>> I don't think I'm not worth the argument that was again the argument that it's all known because it cost I don't think that's valid.
>> No the argument that it's Wait, hold on.
So the the fact that it's all knowing is due to the fact that it's a prime mover more specifically.
>> Wait, how? No, you could be you could be you could be mover and lack any kind of like mental state.
>> I I would say that >> you need to be a first member. You don't need to have like to be like >> when I would disagree when I granted you the first member, right? First member doesn't mean doesn't have to have any features beyond being like the first member to push everything else forward.
>> Yeah, I would disagree with that. I would disagree with >> arguments why I need to have all those extra features.
>> Yeah, I I would say that you would need to have all these other features because um uh because a lot of things are actually very uh fine-tuned and uh a mind would actually fine-tune things in such a manner. So uh I mean more specifically I think that this kind of argument uh would work in the direction of saying that this uh uncaused cause is actually uh with a mind. Uh so for example consider that when you walk outside why is it that a random tiger doesn't does not pop out of nowhere and lava is just going down your throat and somebody is just randomly yelling in your ear. So when you walk outside, why does why why do those three things not randomly pop up? I think it's because there's control. Uh so the laws uh in physics it helps us to uh realize that the creator of the universe is actually a control person and that control person and I just define the person here as the the rational agent and so this person would um would actually be the cause of you know why or uh he would be the sustainer of the universe and would be the cause as to why that thing does not happen. that random lava just goes down my throat that this random tiger pops out of nowhere etc etc. So I would say that's why this being uh is personal and if it's personal it has a mind and if it has a mind it would not just simply be a theistic god from um and it has a mind that is constantly sustaining the the universe due to a given existence.
>> Where does God just get this knowledge of lava from? Where did it come from?
Where does God get this knowledge of lava?
>> Yeah. Where like this know the knowledge of like you're saying he has all this knowledge to make these t into existence. Where does he get where does he where does he get knowledge of tires from? Where did that come from?
>> Of tiger like >> you said tigers and tires not in our existence.
>> Yeah.
Where he gets the knowledge of these things from.
>> Are you saying like how God knows these things? Yeah, >> God knows these things uh by knowing his essence because he creates things from his essence.
So God doesn't know things like how in the way that us human beings know things like that they are external to us and like a common uh representative view of knowledge. God doesn't have that kind of representative view of knowledge. I actually think that there would be absurd conclusions if a Christian were to say that God has a representative uh you know way of knowing things. But instead, God actually knows things by knowing his essence. And from knowing his essence, his essence being the cause of all things, uh all things come about.
And so he would know all things by knowing his essence.
>> So wait, are you saying are you saying that the reason God knows s is because he knows himself? Yes, that's right.
That's a toistic position.
>> You're saying that the information that causes all things turn is is God's mind causing sense or is his essence creating cause and sense?
>> Uh his essence his essence would be causing things. But the way that he knows things is uh through knowing his essence.
>> So is the reason like if the reason is it because of God's knowledge or is it because of God's essence?
The re So are you saying how does God know that tigers exist or are you saying how tigers don't pop out of existence or not?
>> Yeah. Is the reason the reason the reason tigers exist? Is it because of God's knowledge or God's essence?
>> Tigers exist because God creates them.
And God creates them through his essence.
And God knows tigers exist due to God knowing his essence. That's a tumistic position. And uh somebody in the comment earlier said this guy's making things up as he's gone. Check out Dr. Gavin Kerr.
Dr. Gavin Kerr replying to Joe Schmid uh I think it was the um yeah the Joe Schmid had an argument basically and Ryan Mullins as well. All right. Dr. Gavin Kerr explains that God's view or his view and the toistic view on God's God knowing things is actually God knowing his essence and from God knowing his essence he knows things. So nobody's making things up here. We're talking toistically.
>> You're saying that the reason tigers exist is because God pulled the knowledge from his essence and then wield it into existence.
>> No. No. The the reason that tigers exist is that his essence creates these things. his essence being unmoved and is and is the mover.
>> What I'm asking is I want to know if his essence the knowledge of tigers and then God's mind is God's God using his mind to >> his mind his mind has knowledge he uses mind to will tigers into existence.
>> Sure. He uses his mind to will tigers.
Yeah.
>> Okay. because of he because he has his knowledge of his ancestors.
>> Um in just sense I'm not my question.
>> No, you're you're asking how does God knows know that tigers exist? I told you that God knows tigers exist because God knows his essence.
>> Yeah. But tigers but he Okay. Prior to prior to existence in the world in the world where God exist alone >> there's no prior because son's time there is no time. So you don't even say prior. So okay >> that makes no sense.
>> I know. Okay. Do you can you is it possible to say something like in your view is it say that God can is it logically possible to for God to exist alone?
>> There's no alone. There's no alone because technically according to Gavin Kerr God is always alone. And the reason that God is always alone is that he himself just causes everything and then there's nothing that is next to God. God is outside time, space and everything.
God is eternal. So you never even say that God is with like the uh God is with his creation.
>> Yeah. All I'm saying is that all I'm saying is in a in a in a I guess in a possible possible using this like possible world like I'm saying like in in a situation where there's no other existence any other any other type of existence outside God.
>> God is necessary. Sure.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
In this particular kind of existence does God God will have knowledge of tigers.
Uh God knows tigers exist because God knows his essence. That's that's what I'm saying. So >> I'm not saying >> yeah it's it's a I I I will say that it's a change from an external perspective. So uh that means that uh just as for example when I know the tree the tree doesn't know me. But now there's a connection between me and the tree right? I know the tree I comprehend the tree but the tree does not change at all. It is unchanged by my knowing it.
But I myself am changed or consider another if I'm shorter than my little brother and then my little brother grows up and then he becomes taller than me that is not a change because I actually grew myself but it is a Cambridge kind of change Cambridge change in which my brother actually grew taller than me and now relationally speaking by the connection he is actually taller than me. So too in the case of God God as creator is only in the sense of a Cambridge change. God himself is unmoved. He is unchanged. But from the side of creation, it is changed. It came from potentiality to actuality. So the universe was potentially in existence.
Then the universe was actualized to be in existence due to God who is the unmoved mover moving the universe into existence.
So it's a Cambridge change.
>> Not too sure why like this this kind of change will require.
>> Yeah. this this >> it seems to me it seems to be case that if if the information if the information already exists for this prime mover to create all this I don't understand why you can just you can just like have this natural disposition to just create without the need of a mind I want to understand what exactly the mind is doing here to to >> yeah like like I mentioned the the uncaused cause of the universe must have a mind because and one of the reasons being is you know you walk out and then the tiger is not biting your neck and lav is going down your throat and then randomly there's a person yelling at you. That shows control. That shows control on top of this universe having been caused.
That's like saying the the universe was randomly caused by a rock. Sure.
Typically speaking, you don't think that rocks create things. But then let's say you're walking in the jungle and you see a watch. That's like me telling you, "Hey, by the way, that watch was actually created by that rock over there. Is it possible?" Sure. If you want to like get super skeptical, sure it might be like very very very unlikely, but it's possible. But how likely is it that that a rock would actually cause such a thing? So fine tuned.
>> So I guess I don't see an issue if there's nothing I guess logically if if we live in a reality where tigers pop in and out of existence. I don't see anything that's logically is not like anything logically wrong with it. Like is it logically impossible for tiger to live for in a reality but tiger just pop in existence?
>> Yes, of course it's logically possible but it's not the fact. The fact of the matter is tigers don't randomly pop out of existence. Lava does not go down my throat randomly out of nowhere >> because there's this person God imagine a universe without a mind where you know that order and I can imagine a universe without a mind where there universe has no mind one universe has order one universe has disorder right >> so so you would say that it's it's okay so in your view you find it probable that a that it's that the universe having been caused it is orderly in a law like it follows law like regularity uh patterns and yet the cause of the universe was without a mind.
>> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I right now it seems to me what parts not invoke mind because to me I just happen to live in the reality where there's order but that doesn't seem to give any reason to have a mind because I could also imagine a possible >> I just hope Bobby I'm not sure if you're listening >> possible hypothetical way that's also a mind >> Bobby I have a question you walk in the jungle you see the watch did did a did a person with a mind create the watch or do the rock create the watch? What What's more likely?
>> A person with a watch.
>> No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You walk in the jungle, you see the watch on the floor?
>> Is it more likely that a rock created that watch or a person with a mind created that watch?
>> Yeah, a person with a mind.
>> Why is that? Is it because the watch follows a law like regularity? It actually measures time. It keeps going forward.
>> Based on our prior, we've only only seen people >> know people that have believe to make watches make watches.
>> Okay. Awesome. Awesome. So based on our prior Yes, that's good, Bobby. That's good. So based on our priors based on our priors, material things are caused by other things, right?
>> Wait, Bobby. So based on our priors, material things are caused, right?
I see the wrong.
>> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You said based on our prior. So, so that means So, Bobby, that means that the tree, right? The tree was caused the rocks they were formed from mountains, right?
>> So, so that means based on our priors, these material things, they were caused by another.
>> I'm talking about minds. I'm talking to agree with you that everything needs a mind causes.
>> No, I I never said everything needs a mind. All I'm saying is that if you if you say that based on our priors, you know that the watch was actually created by a person with a mind. I would say likewise based on our priors, you know that material things are created by another. And if that's the case, that other thing that creates the material things, it must be uncaused and it must be the causer of all these material things. And so the universe will actually be caused.
>> Have a mind though.
>> I What? What you say?
>> I don't have to agree.
>> It would. Okay. Yeah. So should you say you don't agree that I have a mind? I would say that it has to have a mind.
The reason being is it's analogous to the watch that you find in the jungle.
>> Yeah. Based on my prior, I see people make watches. Cool. But I've never seen like a rock made a watch. I don't based on that. I don't need to believe that because I see people make watches. I need to think um an ancient something mind that exists makes universes. I have no prior. Well, why is it that you is it is your only reason wait for the watch example >> chain of sequences I could like know something that has been causal relation but I don't see why relation I would say that this in the case of God specifically it must have a mind god must have a mind because things are ordered uh in a lawike way so if that being the case it must have a mind to control it to sustain in such a manner No, I don't think it does because you could just you could just have something with just a natural disposition just to create the way things are.
>> No, no, I don't think that's likely because >> No, I don't think that's likely because then that would be like saying that the watches pop out of nowhere, right? So even if Right. So even if I whether I have seen other people making watch or not, that has no bearing on that specific watch that I see in the jungle.
That specific watch that I I see in the jungle. If I'm a real skeptic, I would have to say that yeah, it's possible that the the rock can somehow cause the the um the watch to come about in such a way that it moves in such a law like regular uh regular pattern.
>> Let me let me put a >> I have to go by the way in one moment.
So, so you can get the last word that say God to God, right? God's only properties, his goodness and this stuff like that. You wouldn't say that these properties that God that you give to God, God is using his mind to control it, right? You wouldn't say that.
>> Is that your last thing?
>> God isn't using his mind to be all powerful. God isn't using his mind to be all good. God doesn't use his mind to be all knowing. Like these things that you g to God, these are just features that God has >> he that he himself cannot influence.
>> I I believe in divine simplicity. So I believe that his mind is his power. But that's a really long discussion. But thanks man for the conversation. I have to head out now.
>> All right. I'mma follow you real quick.
>> All right. Bless you.
>> All right folks. Let's say that's it.
I'mma head out now. Got to do some stuff, but good combos. Uh, one dude said that he would he's planning to go to church. Go to church. All right. Be blessed. Yes, indeed. The might is power. Yes. Wow. Wow. That's amazing, isn't it? Yeah, divine simplicity. If you don't accept divine simplicity, I do think that it leads to the conclusion that God is actually not the cause cause. So, uh, but of course, you wouldn't. This guy said, "Define this simplicity." Oh my goodness. Define simplicity. Dude, Chris, you should get out of here, learn English, and then come right back. Okay. Divine simplicity. Go learn English, then come right back.
Stop. Stop. Stop playing. Stop playing.
Oh, well, I guess the the f The F letter is close to the V letter. I guess so. I guess so. But I'm pretty sure you spelled that in in such a way.
But all right. God bless, folks. Search up what divine simplicity is. All right.
All right. God bless y'all. Take care.
Take care. Deuces.
Vidéos Similaires
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
I Cringed Watching These Protestants Critique Catholicism
jaynijackson
458 views•2026-06-05
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
Nietzsche's Last Man Explained in Minecraft
twozziii
117 views•2026-05-30
