okay so i'm live i'm gonna keep going with the refutation of the 500 arguments true now this is another argument the holocaust of children that i came across it's very um i guess uh competitively or emotionally named but um i think it's interesting so it's gonna create humans so they could really follow him most would reach the edge of accountability so that they could choose fully but most humans have born have died before the age of accountability which is what the holocaust refers to now this um this includes both um spontaneous abortions as well as children who die very young um and like high resident mortality that exists throughout history so if you add all these together um you get that most humans who have ever been born before the age of countability which also plays into the um what we were talking about earlier with like evolution and tediology and stuff like that like human reproductive systems which naturally you know abort the majority of pregnancies uh miscarriages are evil meaning they're falling away from the goodness of being the goodness of health obviously so yes miscarriages are evil but god is not the source of any evil uh the abuse of the good gift of free will is the source of every evil every evil is the consequence either directly or indirectly of sin actual sin or original sin and all actual stim all actual sin stems from original sin could not be possible without original sin so if god created humans so they could freely choose to follow him which he did most would reach the age of accountability says who this another one of your dogmas of your absurd religion most humans ever born have died before the age of accountability might be true might not be true it's completely moot but uh in god in his wisdom and in his justice is making sure that everything is as it should be in the afterlife so those who end up in limbo like the unbaptized children they get to enjoy like an earthly sort of paradise without the beatific vision that's god's prerogative okay do some unbaptized children go to hell i don't think so but it's possible i don't know i don't think do some under the age of say seven go to hell yeah the church has anecdotal stories from saints uh that suggests that so at least the church allows these stories to circulate so it makes me think that it's in principle possible that a very young person could have ill will even though it seems like they're too young to have reached the age of reason but god only knows but there are those stories floating around yeah there's many aspects many aspects that make that make that true um um oh i should probably yeah probably rather than born i should have said most humans conceived actually would have been more persuasive there because that would include you know spontaneous abortions but yeah um anyway mention christianity claims that god created him secretly jesus to follow him which relates to preparations once they've christianity's fault so this is a bit similar to the empty universe argument like if god created innocent purpose and why does most of us have no purpose if god created humanity or humans to freely use the volume and why do most of them have an opportunity to ever do that that doesn't really make sense yeah so that's the basic idea of this which is why this causes a mobile version and abductive form so the best explanation is why christianity is false i think it's a good one actually so it's argument from desire oh there's definitely one of those coming up that's one of my favorites i think it's a good one actually so okay okay that ends the uh theological argument against christianity a lot of those relate to like hell um or like the incarnation and other points like that um i think mosaic law is there as well if you haven't watched the first episodes the first four episodes or five if you count episode zero then you might want to go back and see how i treat with all the different uh forms of argumentation that they put together because they have the principal forum and then there's the inductive abductive bayesian modal etcetera so i don't want to repeat all that here but you'll also see in my last episode that i mentioned about how it's absurd to argue against christianity for example biblical stuff if you're not even a monotheist because christianity presupposes monotheism if you don't know who and what god is then there's absolutely no point in looking at any holy books of any monotheistic religion it's completely absurd because you need to submit to the authority of that religion the authority of the church if you belong to what you think is the true religion then you have to acknowledge that that religion has the authority given to it from god to teach you infallibly right and as far as i know the holy roman catholic church is the only religion that actually makes that bold claim but if you don't make that claim what are you left with you're left with subjectivism and just uh each feedism each person has their own connection to god directly and they're all contradicting each other so it doesn't make a lot of sense now epistemological arguments now these arguments don't actually generally show that god doesn't exist but they tend to show that it's not reasonable to believe that god exists so they're slightly weaker in that sense um okay appeal to philosophical scepticism the philosophical sector is about external waters more than the knowledge available to you know to humans um philosophically will not be reasonable for us and want us to know him and christianity claims to does he just want to know the focus so philosophical skepticism this is number number one philosophical skepticism about the external world is reasonable given the knowledge available to man well i do i i do quite a bit of work on this in my meta episodes talking about how i came to god i came to monotheism through radical doubt which led me to hard solipsism and then having abandoned all my faith-based belief beliefs i was left only with so you can go back and watch my med episodes on dope faith and reason and the architecture of dope faith and reason whatever i called it architectural belief or whatever i called it where i talk about this in more depth but basically you can apply philosophical skepticism a radical doubt the most extreme application of doubt possible and you are still left with your reason so you're still able to reason your way out of it back to monotheism uh or if you've never been a monotheist then to monotheism from uh solipsism hearts ellipsis so premise number one philosophical skepticism about the external world is reasonable yeah i i agree it's reasonable number two philosophical skepticism would not be reasonable if god existed and wanted us to know him well no i just uh i just explained that radical doubt i think is the best pathway to monotheism or the hard agnostic or for the uh atheist the true atheist i think it's the best path i've argued that for years on this podcast it's not for everyone you need to be tough-minded and you need to be willing to stare into the abyss and not cave not cave and go back to naive realism number three christianity claims that god exists yes god does exist and wants us to know him yes god does want us to know him and we can know him in spite of philosophical skepticism and because of philosophical skepticism that's the beauty about the existence of god and our ability to know the existence of god everything leads to the knowledge of god for those who are honest with themselves and who are seeking the truth sincerely everything my philosophical skepticism here right i mean yeah well that would be one version of it oh like evil demon would be one version you could soften it a bit you could just soften it as a clamp we just can't know anything um about the way you know reality really is because you know the you know the phenomenon we look at this we only have our perceptions we can't see what's behind that so there's different ways of that's why it was a bit vague on what exactly it is because there's different ways you can take it i just call it philosophy yeah but you can kind of frame it so it kind of like forces christians to adopt relatively implausible philosophical theories like direct realism and stuff like that yeah exactly and the idea is that that wouldn't be raised i don't need direct realism catholicism doesn't teach direct realism there's sort of a mixed realism uh it's admittedly a hairy hairy question this whole idea of relativism uh realism but if you look up the uh article on realism at new at newadvent.org you'll get a rough idea of what the church teaches well if authorities doesn't want to know it would have given us ways around the skepticism that we don't seem to have so such an argument the christianity is false there um although you could weaken it just say it's an argument for it being um not reasonable to be a christian so this is a modal formulation of that argument um now presumption faith season this is one that's been controversial lately i guess well partly uh it's going to release latexism is why i mention that so um it is most responsible for eight years of position and absolute strong evidence of favorable pleasure there is no strong evidence of these therefore atheism is number one it is most reasonable to adopt atheism as the default position absent strong evidence in favor of theism well all evidence is in favor of theism if you have two brain cells to rub together right because the contingent implies the necessary the imperfect implies the perfect the finite implies the infinite so if you have two brain cells to rub together you know that all of the evidence is not only strongly in favor of theism but it absolutely proves it beyond any doubt not just a reasonable doubt but any doubt we can have no doubt we can have 100 certainty about the existence of god the uncaused first cause and many of his pure perfections these attributes which are identical among themselves and in god eternally so one is false it is not most reasonable to adopt atheism as the default position to adopt now um obviously some christians are going to deny too uh but this is just argument for presumption of atheism absent absent strong evidence to defeat that essentially so you could think of this as a primation argument if you like probably she is risky to be an atheist and in terms of justifying one um you could justify it on the basis of balkans racer that it's simply to be an atheist and stronger against it well there the simplest explanation for the uncaused first cause is that there is absolutely no candidate for an alternative point of view there's no philosophical basis for any other point of view there has to be an uncaused first cause and that's what we call god because we can know many of the attributes of god these pure perfections so this is a non-starter um he's a modal form really necessary sorry that would be like so this is a basically appealing to a um uh what's that alvin playing together he talks about proper basicality of csm absolutely atheism is probably basically no clear phrases so atheism is probably basically now if you want to go full number one absent clear defeaters atheism is a properly basic belief no it's not i just talked about that how we can know the one thing we can know with certainty is that god exists and that atheism is false so this is a non-starter once again on this basis you could say that actually atheism has intrinsic defeated feeders so that when you see arguments in favor of um the favor of theism you just have to defeat interesting defeated fears to defeat those arguments so you can never be convinced that you can never be defeated exactly you've just got so many defeated defeated defeated defeaters that you just all the defeaters and it's self-defeating or something i don't know and here's a formula exists it's pop again this is just like um probably basically oops wrong uh thing okay explain your impressive things this is one that i quite like i really like um probably basically but i do like experience i just unmuted myself to cough and then muted myself nice um i just want to say that we are also on one five six we didn't mark going over um oh yes yeah right so they had 154 quickly so we've already passed them and we're not even halfway yet so not yeah that's just weak source 154 unbelievable um it's important atheism so some results uh wait it's unnecessary to believe unless that belief provides a new explanatory power the black god is just praising those of you want your power there foreign god the belief that god exists is not a faith-based belief that we can have by way of the natural light of reason without recourse to revelation religion any texts or any uh faith-based beliefs whatsoever no probabilities no guesswork it's just 100 certain that there is one and only one uncaused first cause and that this uncaused first cause has all of the pure perfections right so this again is a non-starter all of these epis epistemological arguments are going to be non-starters um so one is a pretty standard um epistemological position i think that like that's what justice believes is there explanatory power really speaking and so then two um you would justify just because it's not clear what god explains um and you could not make an argument from the success of science for example explaining lots of things and it hasn't seen the bodies necessary there um and then appeal to philosophical theories for morality or whatever else you might want to explain um and then the burden is on the theaters to show that god has explained right actually this is where that's true i think theaters do have a burden to show that why we should think that god exists in terms of postulating his explanation there um so that's the base of that argument there um expansions of these are modalities that seem to be true right that need be uh in some cases and then we've got an abduction much more likely under falling razer when engaging in metaphysical reasoning we should not multiply entities because there's no necessary introduced god so we should notice god i agree with number one but number two there is no necessity to introduce god into our metaphysics that's completely absurd completely false if there were even one alternative to the uncaused first cause then maybe you could pause it number two here but there's no alternative there's no there's no possibility it's absolutely impossible that there is not one and only one uncaused first cause and uh so you've got nowhere to run nowhere to hide you literally you have no excuse very straightforward argument and one is widely accepted um and so unless and until theius can provide a case where it's necessary when you do function physics i think we should hold firmly to the logically inescapable uh conclusion here that which should notice she's going to physics i mean you should just try as an atheist to justify your your faith-based beliefs like your belief in the material world the other et cetera good luck with that someone says um by the way are we a powerpoint arguments in this i guess paid google drive to we can't remember uh who the that was one of them i think conditioning philosophers are the relevant experts concerning is mine it is reasonable to believe in something that's deferred by the majority of experts i think that's oh my god this is embarrassing number one it is reasonable to believe in something that is affirmed by the majority of relevant experts that is cringe i disagree i strongly disagree all of the relevant experts not just the majority all of them are wrong about right we are finite creatures we are not god we are finite creatures we are not the creator we are creatures if god were to quiz any of the relevant i don't care how how genius these so-called experts are if god were to quiz them on all the facts of creation i guarantee you the score the final score of each and every expert would be zero zero out of infinity zero out of infinity okay i'm rounding down to zero it would be zero point zero zero zero zero zero zero zero right percent as a percentage in terms of uh numerical correct answers i mean uh yeah they're gonna get some a certain fraction of the questions correct a certain number of questions they will answer correctly right but as expressed as a percentage there's so much to know this is what humility teaches us that the more you learn the more you discover the more you realize how little you know and how much more there is to learn and how many more questions there are than answers so if you put yourself even as an atheist in the perspective of god you look from god's point of view at all of creation that for the object of all of the matter and energy configurations in space-time all of its developments and all of its natural science phenomena all the history all the morality every everything if you look at all of that and you as from god's perspective you make a test a series of questions an infinite series of questions because it is for all intents and purposes limitless the number of facts included in this test it becomes evident right away that there's no one that can answer a significant percentage it's always going to be zero percent test score there's just too much to know right we've barely scratched the surface but luckily we don't need to be uh omniscient to go to heaven we just need to have good will so this is missing the point completely this whole argument number 162. it's missing the point a pretty plausible position philosophers are the relevant experts in systems as well i also think that's possible you wouldn't ask theologians because they don't actually at least quite theologians they're interested in talking about the properties of god not whether he exists yeah they presuppose yeah like i think yeah they presuppose the existence of god i think to do theology right philosophers are the ones that yeah it's one of the presuppositions of theology you have to you don't have to presuppose god you can presuppose the opposite presuppose there is no god that's what i do and then follow that to its logical conclusions it's called a reduction to absurdity proof and then you end up with the uncaused first class what you call it you know the king of france is bold like the speaker kind of presupposes yeah right you know it's not whether exactly i think a lot of theologies like that and so the most contemporary losses are not looking good so that's based on the paper survey which i think that they're actually doing well no i know that they're doing a new version of that i don't know when the results can be released i'll be quieting i'll probably do a stream on that actually um but the original one from 2009 um would you want to go to hell just because most people go to hell i mean i'm not claiming that most people go to hell but if it were the case that most people go to hell would you want to go to hell for that middle of the pack you know do you want to be a normal person doing the normal thing the average thing if the normal and average thing to do is to go to hell which is that what you would elect to do we need to go through the narrow gate and we need to strive for holiness we need to strive we need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling we don't need just we don't need to follow the pack along the broad and pleasant highway to hell right so if number three most contemporary philosophers do not believe in god so what let's pray for them right let's pray for their eternal salvation because they're in grave grave danger found i think it was 75 or something percent it was like 71.8 or something in my mind maybe that's right from 70's percent of philosophers were atheists point 66.6 percent fifteen or thirteen percent were things and then others that was like other that was a joke um so yeah clear majority in fact i think it is the second most um the second strongest majority in all of the positions of the answer the only one that's stronger was that um was the existence of the real physical world like realism about the world but none of the philosophers who are atheists have a philosophical basis for belief in the real world they've got a higher agreement but only slightly slightly higher than it's like 85 percent belief that they're like there's a real world they're a philosophical justification so-called is naive realism well it seems to be it's what they would call a prima facie argument um so yeah there's a strong consensus among philosophers that god doesn't exist so first of all does now there's another consensus changing argument but world history consensus changing arguments most people threaten history of not being christians most people aren't in history oh sorry if most people have not been christians is unresponsible if the christianity is true because god would want to be christians so there'd be more christians number one most people throughout human history have not been christians well that could be the case i don't see the relevance i mean the catholic church teaches that everyone who belongs to the elect everyone who has been saved or who is going to be saved each one of those individuals is a de facto christian at the moment of death because if you're not christian at the moment of death you're going to hell there is absolutely no possibility of salvation outside of the holy roman catholic church right so everyone in heaven is christian now i mean when they were walking in the earth they could have been atheists muslim jews whatever it doesn't matter right what matters is what happens at the moment of death what's your orientation at the moment of death and god's giving you the graces you need to become a christian and to remain a christian up until and at the moment of death so that's what it's all about once we get to heaven we'll see how each winding and complicated journey ended up at the gates of heaven right and how each non-christian became a here below we don't have access to that that story that information sometimes we can see we can see conversion stories death bed conversions and these sorts of things but for the most part we don't see that um therefore it is unreasonable to and there's an adaptive formulation of that and a basic formulation that but we can move on so russell's teapot this is a this is a fun one is unreasonable it's going to be falsified even in principle i might add even in principle can't be falsified there's no way to falsify even in principle the existence of god therefore he's understood to believe in existence of it is unreasonable to hold beliefs that cannot be falsified i don't know about that number two there is no way to falsify the existence of god there's no there's no possibility that god does not exist right it's just impossible it's just logically impossible is there a way to falsify the is there a way to falsify the fact that can we falsify the laws of thought can we falsify the law of identity a is a do we falsify that can we falsify the law of the excluded middle a or not a can we falsify the law of contradiction or the law of non-contradiction as it's sometimes i always find russell's teapot interesting like like i do think it's a really good um it's always a really good one to point out in the discourse with theists when they when they're trying to like force you to um sort of you know prove there is no god by like assessing like every proposition that exists that's true and like worked out that there's any better about governments like that and it's like yeah you know you can do the same thing with the teapot right and it seems like you're actually justified and not believing in the teapot rather than like you you know the default is you have to believe in the teapot um until until someone can show that there's no good reasons for believing in the people oh you can deny the existence of a teapot but you cannot deny the existence of god if you theoretically as a thought experiment deny the existence of god you assume the non-existence of god then you end up if you have two brain cells to rub together you end up with the logical contradictions that force you to admit that there is one and only one uncaused first cause that everyone calls god so the t paul the teapot is contingent it doesn't have to be right and the teapot itself is all the proof you need of the existence of god because the teapot's contingent that implies the necessary being um but yeah and that's the basis of this argument here that's just sorry well there was kind of like weird about it as well in the sense of like you know like the um the issues that they're all with like the poppery and pophary and falsification philosophy of science where it's kind of like it's like it's a good kind of heuristic but it's not quite what's going on in science as well like i think there could be issues for the russell's people think in the same sense where it's like you know you don't have to only believe things that can be falsified or something like that but it doesn't have to be an eye falsification that has like a critic a critical experiment or something like that it could just be falsified by any means in principle okay right so that that's what president to clarify premise one that's what sorry it is possible in that sense but i mean it's supposed to be an analogy right so um and uh somebody makes a good point here specific muscle can't be fighting predictions but potentially that's true right but it seems to me that most of christianity are devised precisely so they cannot be falsified um so like you give evidence that like i mean this stream has been getting a lot of observations that to me at least seem to christianity is not a model of god okay christianity is a faith-based religion that happens to be a monotheistic faith-based religion but the monotheistic part is not faith-based the christian part is faith-based right the trinity the incarnation the redemption all these sorts of things those are faith-based it can't be known was certainly by the light of natural reason without recourse to faith and revelation so there aren't different models of the god of monotheism now there are different religions that have not understood properly false religions that have not understood the pure perfections of god and how they manifest and that have attributed a divine source to holy books that are demonic or just man-made right that's that's happening all the time but there's a distinction that needs to be among monotheistic religions and the monotheism which is not faith-based at all there's always adult explanations um or ad-hoc responses right and it seems to me therefore that maybe it's not actually falsified if you if you don't admit any of these apparent falsifications um yeah so um that's the basis of that there uh an argument there and there's a modal form possibly necessarily there is no way to false about these as god um and that could just be based on god's properties that there could be such a being that cannot be like you couldn't falsify these instead of being that those properties inductive form most widely held under them there will be three consecutive sevens within in the decimal expansion of part it's a phosphorus like if verifiable i think it's like yeah of course it is it's vital i can perfectly investigate even the electron non-cognitivism or something like that um exists because it's just you could find him yeah evolutionary psychology of religion so there's an evolutionary psychology argument against all the evolutionary argument against naturalism um this is a version against uh against religion so human relations so human religious belief forming tendencies have evolved in a manner that is non-truth tracking now that would be justified on the basis that most human religious or you know spiritual beliefs um are false uh i mean they must because they're contradictory um and there's all sorts of animalistic and polytheistic and superstitious police that humans have that i'm including here so religious in a broad sense um so they can't be truth-tracking in general because there's so many members wrong uh completely wrong in uh mutual contradictory and so forth there's only one truth there's only one true religion there's only one true church right because there's only one source of truth that's god so this is putting the cart before the horse you need first to understand who and what god is the uncaused first cause and then you can pick your religion right i can guarantee it will be a monotheistic religion because once you understand who and what the first cause is you will not become a pantheist or a polytheist or a modest of any sort you certainly won't become an atheist you will be a monotheist and you will choose among the established monotheistic religions or just continue on your way as a generic monotheist i don't think there's anything wrong with that but i think that god once you discover who and what god is you will be compelled as i was to worship god publicly and to discover the true religion and generic monotheism ain't it but as a starting point i think it's a it's a good starting point but if that's true then there's a reason to trust you and religiously forming um tendencies probably i should say like faculties there or you should never trust human religious belief forming tendencies no you need to become a monotheist and then god will give you graces and faith and knowledge wisdom right gifts of the holy spirit wisdom understanding counsel fortitude knowledge piety fear of the lord charity joy peace patience kindness goodness generosity gentleness faithfulness modesty self-control and shasta you'll get the gifts the fruits of the holy spirit right once you're monotheist if you're sincere in your quest for truth something like that but the basic idea there is that the way we typically go about forming religiously seems to be systematically um not very reliable um evolutionarily speaking um so human religious belief tendencies are the primary justification for belief in god so the argument there incentive is author that's nonsense human religious belief-forming tendencies are the primary justification for belief in god there's no the belief in god is not a we can know with certainty now we have to have faith also right it's not enough just to have a philosophical certainty that god exists you also need faith but in the context of going from non-theist to monotheists you don't need faith if you get the graces for faith and you accept the graces for faith and you have faith first and then come to understand that we can know with certainty by the light of natural reason that's fine but you as an atheist talking about coming to a belief in god you have no basis for saying that the primary justification or belief in god is some sort of willy-nilly religious belief-forming tendencies that's nonsense use your brain don't follow the pack following the pack will never get you anywhere don't trust any human being trust only in god but to believe in god you need to use your god-given free will and reason stop abusing your free will and your reason what's your preference is it's saying that most people don't believe in god because of precise theological arguments um i do that's how i came to god but like i just said if you come through faith great you can bolster your faith with philosophy if that's your proclivity or maybe you'll wander off like nathan did and you'll become an atheist after having allegedly ostensibly been a christian that happens right depends how much you love the truth but they believe in it just because well i mean it's more like a probably basic belief or an appeal to some sort of personal experience or appeal to um uh like some sort of theoretical sense or something and those sort of political intentions which are specifically religious or spiritual are the justification most people give and even a lot of philosophers like for example william lane craig offers those sorts of things as the primary justification for his theism not his philosophical arguments and even many other theological arguments actually appeal to those sort of intuitions about causation or morality or something so not everything like the intellectual argument i don't think is an example of that so the anthropological language will be outside this but even a lot of arguments appeal to these sort of human spiritual or religious tendencies um a clear example this would be uh c.s lewis's desire argument that's a very clear example it just specifically appeals to that um so the point is though that those are unreliable and we shouldn't trust them if they're unreliable therefore it's unreasonable to believe in god so here's um to contribute another red herring here's what i thought about well i just quickly went to the toilet right so if you're if you're engaging in like speculative metaphysics and you're like speculating that there's this this thing that kind of like exists that we just haven't like got to yet that's like outside of say like natural cause of reality it's not speculation we are forced by reason to admit that there is one and only one uncaused first cause it's not sitting around fantasizing we're being forced by reason the thinking person is being forced by his god-given reason to acknowledge that god exists period a platonic form or whatever i don't know um i mean it's the wrong sort of question to suppose that we'll like get to it when we sort of break out of the natural cause of reality something like that but this is like you're populating this like speculative entity now if you're taking the position that that entity does not exist it's always sort of possible that you kind of like that you do find it which would like you know like you discover it somehow through through thinking or something like that which would falsify it or god like we discover god through like a complete sciences or something this is what i was thinking about about the way that they're not symmetrical um but then the problem is that if you're taking the position that that speculative entity speculative specular speculative entity does exist right but then the person is saying no it's not it but it actually doesn't exist you're always going to say you know you can always just push it out into this like realm of the speculative realm is always like just beyond like the horizon of our knowledge of what we've currently discovered and so it never gets full that's like what i'm trying to say there's an asymmetry this is not what the monotheist does this is what the atheist does when he hides behind an inordinate agnosticism right oh the complexity and uh you know uh the mystery of the natural world and all this sort of nonsense that the modern atheist so-called atheist tries to hide behind monotheists who have a philosophical bent do not need to resort to any guesswork any speculation or any agnosticism we have a wholesome agnosticism as monotheists there are many things we don't know right we are not omniscient just because we worship an omniscient god we will in the next life have access to uh some sort of participation in god's omniscience which will be wonderful but we're not omniscient here below so we do have a certain agnosticism a healthy and balanced agnosticism about many things i could take a guess he was probably s somewhere around the average height of type at his time and place whatever but i don't know exact height of jesus at any given particular moment in his life i know when he was a zygote he was i don't know if i didn't articulate that very well yeah and the idea there is that when you postulate something existing you should be sure to postulate it in such a way that it could be potentially falsified if it's possible in a way that never could be then it's not reasonable to believe anything like that precisely because it's unfortifiable well is one plus one equals two is that falsifiable because i'm asserting it as true okay are you really going to say well that's not falsifiable therefore it's not true i know use your brain's voice yeah and that's why there is an asymmetry because you you could um yeah you think you're just providing just beyond yeah yeah yeah as well that's a good point um okay uh inductive evolution argument abductive reason more expected or more senses obviously more reliable truth ranking you know ensure that we're able to form this is a place in a more truth-striking way just like our other senses are visually more deliberately truth-tracking all right now this argument's interesting that i found that in my researches um the failure of theistic philosophers or specifically evidentialistic philosophers so evidentialistic losses are failed to produce arguments for these things as well which persuaded other philosophers or at least most of the philosophers if god existed evidently losses would have would have produced possessions of god therefore so this is saying why obviously philosophy so unsuccessfully persuading anyone because you see this isn't generally true there are many philosophers who persuade other philosophers um of their position like i was just thinking um hillary parkman and uh soul cripty in their arguments about semantic externalism and um external theories of justification have been quite successfully supporting other people uh klein two dogmas of imperialism is extremely persuasive um likewise there's a lot of other arguments in um in free will and in um involved with mind and other areas where particular forces may be very influential persuading people but not philosophy religion no one's persuaded these arguments so if god existed why wouldn't there be better arguments for him basically the evidence well i came to god i came to monotheism through philosophy okay does that count for anything i mean there are many many people who are philosophically minded who come to god through philosophy i don't know what an evidentialist theistic philosopher is but all of the evidence points to god because all of the evidence is contingent and the contingent implies the one and only necessary being whose essence is existence right so if this is another survey of uh the bell curve and most people don't believe this most people don't believe that most people don't find arguments persuasive for the existence about this sort of thing well that's neither here nor there that we live in a fallen world we our intellects are dim our wills are weak so don't be surprised if most people end up going to hell i'm not saying that's the case but don't be surprised if that's the case third therefore doesn't exist and of course there's a modal version and an inductive form that's repeated intensive aesthetic losses are failed to deal with arguments four things of god which persuaded other or many other philosophers in fact we know of any cases where a philosopher someone who was a well yeah he was uh i mean his friend was talking about he thought about which means uh yeah in fact because he expected that god does not exist possible which is basically the problem of alternative monotheism also one that i came across in my researches so there are numerous logically possible mathematical theories as well if you like christianity as one now many of these models can explain the evidence uh that is not very well i don't know where about is it what was i talking about i mean you're on 179 so i can't really i think what evidence did i mean there i think it just means the evidence oh first super chat well cheers so safe to google have under no moral obligation to unreasonable answers only obviously like i'm not different to whatever evidence we think supports god so whether that's creation or fine tuning or moral likeness or anything like that i think that was the idea here um yeah you just mean like consistent with the evidence or like yeah like the evidence we have broadly speaking whatever evidence that is that you think is explained there's only one monotheism which is classical theism okay so i don't know what you're talking about with other logically possible monotheisms if you're talking about religions yeah they're different religions obviously and there's only one true religion but the all of the monotheistic religions if they are truly monotheistic are founded on monotheism and monotheism is not a faith-based belief right so this this argument is a non-starter once again one pound equals one push but this argument for atheism now this is a spoof of the um what the fish style proofs of the nobility paradox um but if it's possible that something is known then there must be uh then all probably must be either someone who knows all propositions or something like that um so here's my attempted sprue for that so the modal episode calculation if frame proposition p if p is possibly true then p is notable the propositional exist is not noble which is uh obviously something that christians might accept but the atheist may regard as possible because you know how could you know that such a thing exists any argument that you give for god's existence there are other ways of explaining it there's other ways of um accounting for the evidence being aliens or whatever else aliens are contingent my friend is it aliens all the way down this is a non-starter the proposition god exists is not knowable i don't even know what that means i mean god exists we can know that god exists so i suppose we can know the proposition that god exists also but our faith does not terminate in propositions but in the realities behind those propositions and our certain knowledge in the existence of god does not terminate in a proposition the certain knowledge of a proposition but in the reality of that proposition um saying that using the mobile and bayesian versions is cheap that's why anyways okay axiological arguments these are like moral arguments and of course the problems are going to come in here thick and fast so let's make a start the logical problem of evil god is perfect perfectly good i'm president of nations if god is perfectly good we would prevent all evil if he was saying which obviously they should say he would prevent evil if he was able to if god is omniscient and omnipotent he will be able to prevent all the evil and suffering in the world but exists therefore god's not exist so this is number one god is perfectly good omnipotent and omniscient true if number two if god is perfectly good he would prevent all evil if he was able to false have you googled lately the problem of evil have you boys looked into this you've got lots of books behind you there have you read any books about the problem of evil the problem of evil is readily solved by the good gift of free will and the fact that that good gift is prone to abuse we've gone over this ad nauseam virgin logical problem you know um from one degree from human being to um people suffering in the world so this is against this is um i don't think anyone's done human only it was a pretty like politics by the way that was able to have satan within like like lucifer um being like brendon whatever it was there was this old the actual story in the old testament is there's like this old uh i don't i don't even know how you referred from urian like there's a place called uh and from there outside of the bible there's this old story about like what happens with the morning star and i've got i've got one of these books here but it's at the bottom of the pile so i can't bring it out basically that's that is the original story that the bit in isaiah that made it into the bible is like basic is like um i don't know if you say whatever but it's like it's like based on that and then that is translated into latin by jerome and then like later people are just reading that in latin and going uh you know this theology of lucifer is full from from grace and stuff like that which is all just like made up based off of this story about what like venus does in the sky that the uh the audience so you're gonna use legends and myths and stories and natural science to explain away the existence of satan as an atheist is that does that make sense to you we catholics believe that the bible is inerrant it's infallible it is written the primary author of the entire scriptures is god almighty the holy spirit secondary authors are and there's no error contained in any part of scripture or in its entirety there's no error in scripture but we have scriptures only on the authority of the church it's a god-given authority that the church has and the church alone can interpret the scriptures including the doctrines contained in scriptures including the doctrine of the fallen angels and including satan the doctrine concerning satan so you boys aren't even monotheists yet so you have no authority you don't have it by definition you have no god-given authority you don't have a god-given church you don't have a god-given canon you don't have a god-given sacred deposit of faith scripture and tradition you don't have any of that so all of your stories about where the idea of satan came from are just so much nonsense the buck stops with you you're the pope of your atheistic religion you judge what makes sense and what does not make sense of all the religions and all the stories and all the fairy tales true and false the book stops with you interesting uh and we've got a prominent version which i think is particularly suffering so obviously this is uh stolen from this guy here so hopefully i didn't all right job of paraphrasing it here but this holds that prior to creation there's no evil in god of any kind true this is god created everything outside himself i mean i think those are pretty clear god we're true well true and false uh true colloquially we can say evil exists the lack of goodness exists but evil has no substance but ism is false evil the source of evil is not god how many times we have to say this the source of evil is not god the source of evil is the abuse of the free will of rational creatures created by god i think you've mentioned this happening either i couldn't contribute to a perfection but does um but yeah changes so i think this link yeah so the perfect way so be a great good to them on the whole so the idea here is that a horrendous evil is one in which you have some reason to think about private facilities and think that given this evil um the person in question um their life can't have been good for them overall because that evil was just so horrific basically um so aren't you basically one where politicians think that it made the person's life so bad that actually would be better that they've never been born um now premise two there is a that's really just a definition but parameters is absurd i think god would laugh around because why would he allow anyone to experience people so bad that their whole life would be like worse uh that they're not existing in the first place uh but there are other industries quite plausibly um i think it's pretty easy to think of examples of that i probably don't need to give some um therefore some certain things exist is the problem of evil once again they're rehashing the same stupid argument it's obvious that horrendous evils exist but god is not to blame god is not the source of any evil we rational creatures and the angels who are also rational creatures have abused our free will the good angels have not abused the free will but the bad angels fallen angels did abuse their free will and they're still abusing their free will to this day to the extent that they are allowed to wreak havoc among humans here below so this is another non-starter and it's better that someone has never existed again like you know very god but um and that's the version of that there are many here industries while they're basically experiencing men suffering in the natural world i guess they might be your zoologist who would disagree with that but i think that that's just the fact that um anonymous would not have created a world of animals experiencing suffering this is just more a problem of evil and of course there's a mother they're mostly having fun out there right so it's it's all this week is it some love do you like look at that and you know yeah it's clearly not okay and of course the bayesian functions is the hypothesis of indifference these and holds the bosses have been different as false so we have some reason to think that special pleasure trade design from placer and payne there's some pork right over here so black and paint have a tiny connection with biological functions the best explanation for why a patient placement may have a tight connection to biological function is the hypothesis of a difference these moles of losses of the difference is false so we have strong reason to think that these means also false so the idea here in terms of um in terms of why this works or like why the two is best explanation is that if these are true it's not really clear why there will be this tight connection between laser pain and biological function because god could just have said our pleasure and pain to really achieve any purpose that he wanted including perhaps connecting with spiritual function if he wanted to or just have them being these sort of separate things like it's not really obvious why or he could have just made us to be uh like to have no qualia he maybe he could have made us to be um you know uh he's a philosophical zombies right uh if you think that's meant for possible but um at least it's not really clear why this is time connection whereas evolution has a very good story to tell about why there's this connection because they're directly connected to survival and motivation of animals and so forth um and the reason this is relevant to the existence of god of course is because pain is extremely unpleasant and so it's unclear why an anonymous god would allow this tight uh connection between them um when he could do it otherwise and not have to ensure that so i think there's an interesting argument here in the garden of eden there was no suffering no disease no death right so you can blame the fall of our first parents if you're looking to blame someone but you can't blame god okay now number one pleasure in pain have a tight connection with biological functions yeah because we have a nature as creatures we have a nature dogs have a dog nature humans have a human nature so yeah god was not frustrated in his design when he set out to create nature to be natural and to have pleasure and pain these sorts of things their natural and their good functions right and they even in this fallen world they can help us to navigate uh to heaven not forget our way to have by doing good and uh avoiding evil we cannot completely we cannot completely avoid suffering in this fallen world so we just need to make our suffering redemptive and salvific and meaningful by uniting all of our sufferings to the sufferings of our lord and savior jesus christ but i don't see what how this argument holds any water i mean you're going to try to argue for some evolutionary nonsense but god created our natures and he included pleasure and pain as part of our animal natures i don't see what the argument is against i don't know what this hypothesis of indifference is maybe it's an evolutionary thing but evolutionary evolution is false and creationism is true god created his creatures with a specific nature and the ability to experience pleasure and pain it's not exactly not even against existence but i've just formulated it so that it's an argument against at least many forms of christianity so many forms of christianity but quite a lot of them say that morality depends on god's god is that standard that absolute objective eternal and unchanging standard of truth and goodness and beauty and justice and mercy and everything else all the pure perfections that god has are a dental identical among themselves and with god okay so it's not that god's commandments are somehow external to god it's the life of god god is absolutely simple so it's the life of god christ and his church are one right holy god fully man christ and his church holy god holy whom so um this is like craig says about rally for example people are great so any form of christianity that agrees with craig is going to be successful with this argument here if now it depends on god's final commandments finally they're not um nothing external god calls them or they're not depend on anything outside of god would be one way to think about that they're not holding to anything outside of god if rally depends on cause of everything morality is arbitrary but it's not arbitrary therefore this brand of christianity is false oh it's not arbitrary because god did not freely choose infinite in every pure perfection god's free will acts add extra only right it makes absolutely no sense to talk about uh god's free will in the life of the trinity he loves himself of necessity same thing with the morality of god it's not a uh it's not something separate from god god is goodness god is life god is truth right so this this has been resolved very early in the church and the there's no need to rehash euthyphro now obviously there's arguments around that but i don't really think they work but i don't think we need to get to those here so uh we'll just move on because that challenge uh on the basis of the levels and all good god is no more likely to exist under a legal god but if they're equal probable then there's not really justified therefore this is not actually justified do you like imagination i can imagine an all-evil so-called god that's a misuse and abuse when you get to hell if god forbid you end up in hell you will understand what an all evil master looks like and how an all evil master treats you you'll understand and it will be too late at that point so repent today because you boys are in grave danger i'm not losing any sleep over because you do have the ability to repent before the moment of death and god is giving you all the graces you need to repent and i'm praying for you each and every day so i'm not losing any sleep over it but you better repent and the sooner the better because you don't know how soon death is coming for you could be also in the epistemological category but i've decided to keep it here um so this is interesting because i think i've uh i've not really i actually think this stuff so you can sort of like you know like when when they're looking when they're trying to make they you know that we see and stuff like that and i think i mean this argument falls where i didn't really refute it but the argument falls apart because it's just it is we can know with certainty that god is all good okay that's number one the other thing is it's just silly to imagine that god is capable of any evil even if we didn't know philosophically we were too dim of wit to figure out that god is all good using pure reason even if we were to dim a wit to come to that knowledge just look around does it look like we have a master here below that's omnipotent to wreak havoc no satan is being restrained constrained obviously we have a little glimpse of heaven here below and we also have little glimpses so i mean just on the face of it that is absurd to imagine that this world has a master that is unfettered with his lust for evil but the real counter argument the refutation of this obviously is that we can know with certainty that god is all good that you can just a rather than being like here's why you're wrong you can just say like here's how like can't we just invert the reason the other way and then why do we go with one rather than the other one yeah just invert reasoning right the reason that the um reductio argument works the reduction to absurdity argument works is precisely because there's an asymmetry right it's a or not a so if a is true we can assume not a and follow to its logical conclusions which will entail genuine contradiction and then we have to conclude we're forced by logic to conclude that a is the case we can't just invert arguments as you boys keep repeating throughout this seven and a half hour ordeal in this dependency point so i think that's the role that these arguments should play in discussion rather than just but yeah it's an abuse of reason abuse of philosophy so-called an abuse of logic this whole exercise that these boys got up to yeah the um one objection to the evil challenge that i or response i guess that i have heard was saying that basically appealing to moral internalism so it's saying that god knows everything that includes not knowledgeable moral facts and undermining journalism that implies you're naturally motivated you're not necessarily motivated by knowing those that would be saying you can't be omniscient and um or evil any audition being would be also only according to that i think there's a whole bunch of i mean you could just reject morality which i think is important or like um evil's just a provision of good type thing as well so yeah if you boys think that evil has substance i'd love to see you package and present just do a little uh video where you've got your microscope you've got some evil substance under your microscope or in a jar or just point to it maybe it's up in the sky maybe it's over there somewhere if you're wanting to argue that evil is not a privation of the good then put your money where your mouth is in other words it's ridiculous but but like i think you're only going to really believe that in the first place you know that's like a theistic conception like um i think at least what good and evil are so yeah everything in reality points to and proves the existence of god everything even the fact that evil is a privation of the good and if you want to refute that claim that evil is a privation of the good then just present one example one example of an evil substance good luck with that what you know why except that if if we're actually starting from a neutral so yes god permits undeserved suffering yes god does permit that evil yes he does for our highest good only if it ultimately produces a net benefit or the sufferer did christ benefit from his sufferings his undeserved sufferings he but he suffered voluntarily not involuntarily so maybe that's not a good example i'll have to think about this one this is the standard of the odyssey here um now if that's true and if god exists there are more obligations to prevent yeah this is not going to pinch then our obligation to prevent um uncertainty suffering derives entirely from god's well we just saw that god's commands are identical with his the eternal and immutable truths of the church the dogmas are directly from god they're revealed by god they're not subject to change they're not man made excuse me so the commandments of god are nothing else than the life of god christ and his church are one holy god our moral obligation derives entirely from god that is true number two is true regardless of one i haven't unpacked one yet i haven't quite understood yet if god only permits undeserved and voluntary suffering if it ultimately produces a net benefit for the sufferer i would say that's probably true i just i'm not sure if anyone that's not the god man jesus christ suffers undeservedly i guess the blessed virgin mary yes she suffered her sufferings were not involuntary though she she volunteered she was willing to suffer with christ so there's a bit of a bit of a problem with the phrasing of number one because i can't commit to it i can't commit to it but number two is true number three we sometimes have a moral that does not derive entirely from god and so the moral obligation does not derive entirely from god's commands that's false so number three is false all of our moral obligations derive entirely from god's commands aka god's essence his being his life so this one is false if two why should we prevent uh uncertainty suffering since god told you not to because it wouldn't be you couldn't say well kiss would help the person because it wouldn't because the only well what god wants is the best for each of his rational creatures so there's no contradiction between saying oh well i feel a moral obligation but uh you know you want to be free from god's commands gree free from morality well god is morality that morality that you're citing is god observationally suffering that would allow would benefit them anyway so you're actually helping them by preventing by um preventing underserved suffering you're only doing it because god tells you to but according to three we sometimes have a moral obligation to prevent undeserving suffering that does not derive entirely from god's commandments all morality derives directly from god god is morality god is that standard that absolute objective eternal and immutable standard of truth and goodness and beauty and justice and all the rest you haven't understood that step one in metaphysics is monotheism right step one god exists so you boys are floundering you're mired opinion have uh relativism that perverts everything you don't have a solid foundation for any of your faith-based beliefs which abound and you're not in a position even to about morality truth goodness justice or anything else because to do so if that standard is eternal objective immutable and eternal then you're a de facto monotheist at that point you're no longer an atheist just to say that this is the principle from as i said ordinary morality which says that look if someone is suffering from undeserving if somebody's successfully understanding suffering then at least sometimes they'll be often you should hold that person regardless of whether god tells you to or not which i think is a very sensible ordinary god always tells us to help people and to not harm people right doesn't mean that i'm going to leave my station in life and go pack my bags and go to the third world and try to be a hero feeding the situation back here that i'm morally obligated to tend to but when you're in a position to help it's reasonable to help and it's it's appropriate to take action then you should take action this always stems directly from god and his goodness that's what morality is sort of um uh moral conception there and follows from this that god doesn't exist right this is actually very interesting because i think that um this can be used to object to creating styles of moral arguments because if you're going to say that god only allows suffering is for the benefit of the sufferer and then you sort of got to say well then why do we ever try to help people well because god tells us to but then you have to accept that the only reason we have for doing people is because god tells us to but that's just exactly impossible even if someone is someone is and that suffering is ultimately allowed by god as it always is allowed by god permitted by god for the greatest good even if that's the case we still try to alleviate the suffering because we'll never be able to alleviate all the like jesus said when he was walking the earth the poor you will always have with you but you will not always have me so don't worry about the poor they're always going to be there if you're concerned about the poor don't worry you're always going to have them that suffering will always be here until the very end of time right so don't worry about that but worry about your lord and savior jesus christ justice was great says his morality realism he just says like well it's just obviously true that they're a victim and when i say don't worry about before i mean serve them but not at the expense of serving christ you say well look if you've got to accept that it's just obviously true that we have obligations to help people who are and every time you do serve the poor and the suffering you are serving christ as long as you do it for god and for neighbor for god's sake suffering involuntarily but whether or not god demands to like just irrelevant with the community you should just do that right so natural virtue is useless it's not salvific it doesn't get you to heaven right so if you are an atheist and you're helping people for the praise that you'll get and it raises your status in the community and all these sorts of things or just because you have a natural inclination to do the right thing you have a sort of you're riding on the fumes of the judeo-christian morality that comes from god that is identical with god then you know that will bring graces it's a sort of atheistic prayer of sorts it will bring you the actual graces you need to convert to monotheism and ultimately to the one true religion but the natural virtues in and of themselves are not meritorious okay so it's important to understand that distinction between the natural virtues and the supernatural virtues so i as a faithful catholic as a monotheist i have the supernatural virtues of faith hope and charity so when i engage in charitable acts alleviating the suffering of my neighbor for god's sake it's meritorious it's giving god more glory it's uh elevating my potential spot in heaven um i i think that the argument's just strong here is any great formulation more like instantly i i mean i do think like atheist would probably i i understand that craig it seems to me but i do thin