Anselm & the Argument for God: Crash Course Philosophy #9
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Fresh
It is fascinating that up until now in this course, if you applied what people claimed to be science and what is pseudo-science, then evolutionism is pseudo-science. The pseudo-scientists are bombarded with information that would have disproved their theory--if they were looking to disprove it (as real science does. But, because they are looking to confirm their theory and trying to make evidence fit into their theory, they are as much pseudo-scientists as Popper said Freud was. Hank Green makes a comment that to be involved in philosophy related to God, you have to be willing to be an atheist. In converse then, someone who wants to remain in the field of philosophy should also be willing to be a theist. Many aren't. Yet, they aren't excluded from the field of philosophy or other sciences. But, then that impacts the outcome, because the very people who don't want to believe in a Creator as an alternative have been effectively eliminated from the conversation while those who want to believe their isn't a Creator have access to all the resources to support their alternative theory and anyone who introduces evidence to the contrary is taken out of the main stream or their evidence is denounced (like Mary Schweitzer's blood and soft tissue in dinosaur bones. That isn't science, at least according to Popper and what Carl Green claimed is still in practice today in science (when it really isn't, if someone isn't genuinely looking for the truth, willing to throw out their theory when new evidence contradicts it, and not just support what they want to believe--which you taught was labeled pseudo-science)
reply
It is fascinating that up until now in this course, if you applied what people claimed to be science and what is pseudo-science, then evolutionism is pseudo-science. The pseudo-scientists are bombarded with information that would have disproved their theory--if they were looking to disprove it (as real science does. But, because they are looking to confirm their theory and trying to make evidence fit into their theory, they are as much pseudo-scientists as Popper said Freud was. Hank Green makes a comment that to be involved in philosophy related to God, you have to be willing to be an atheist. In converse then, someone who wants to remain in the field of philosophy should also be willing to be a theist. Many aren't. Yet, they aren't excluded from the field of philosophy or other sciences. But, then that impacts the outcome, because the very people who don't want to believe in a Creator as an alternative have been effectively eliminated from the conversation while those who want to believe their isn't a Creator have access to all the resources to support their alternative theory and anyone who introduces evidence to the contrary is taken out of the main stream or their evidence is denounced (like Mary Schweitzer's blood and soft tissue in dinosaur bones. That isn't science, at least according to Popper and what Carl Green claimed is still in practice today in science (when it really isn't, if someone isn't genuinely looking for the truth, willing to throw out their theory when new evidence contradicts it, and not just support what they want to believe--which you taught was labeled pseudo-science)
reply
Fictasia
As Almost all analogies inherit errors, in the case of gardener analogy has also have one which is-
Without a gardener, probability of growth of a plant is very high whereas in case of formation of this universe through big bang is not possible without any cause(the god) as through our eyes, we can observe there is not single process in this universe which happen without a prior cause explaining all the initial conditions, sometimes we feel something is occurring on its own because we don't have complete data or understanding.
And finally if someone say that rules inside the universe will not work outside of it or for it, then that is just a statement and not a valid argument how could you possibly know that rules governing the universe will not work outside of it when your study uses the concepts of the universe itself. Hope this opens some people's mind
reply
As Almost all analogies inherit errors, in the case of gardener analogy has also have one which is-
Without a gardener, probability of growth of a plant is very high whereas in case of formation of this universe through big bang is not possible without any cause(the god) as through our eyes, we can observe there is not single process in this universe which happen without a prior cause explaining all the initial conditions, sometimes we feel something is occurring on its own because we don't have complete data or understanding.
And finally if someone say that rules inside the universe will not work outside of it or for it, then that is just a statement and not a valid argument how could you possibly know that rules governing the universe will not work outside of it when your study uses the concepts of the universe itself. Hope this opens some people's mind
reply
nunya
I just got out of a discussion where it was claimed that atheism is based on personal incredulity, and thats somehow wrong because it lacks an ontological reflectiive or deductive process. I'm like ok. and? That brand of incredulity is just a weak form of preferential bias, derived by ones own experiences. But it just got weird when they said that prefernces have nothing to do with incredulity therefore I'm wrong, which became a difference without a distinction. Invoking ontology really made no sense in these arguments and incredulity is somehow bad for not being inherently ontological, despite all decisions having an inherent ontologocal process? As any might guess the conversation didn't move on from there amd devolved into insults and how atheism is an anti-intellectual position. Im still confused by it.
reply
I just got out of a discussion where it was claimed that atheism is based on personal incredulity, and thats somehow wrong because it lacks an ontological reflectiive or deductive process. I'm like ok. and? That brand of incredulity is just a weak form of preferential bias, derived by ones own experiences. But it just got weird when they said that prefernces have nothing to do with incredulity therefore I'm wrong, which became a difference without a distinction. Invoking ontology really made no sense in these arguments and incredulity is somehow bad for not being inherently ontological, despite all decisions having an inherent ontologocal process? As any might guess the conversation didn't move on from there amd devolved into insults and how atheism is an anti-intellectual position. Im still confused by it.
reply
Rome7tay
To argue about the existence of god is illogical, pointless even. My understanding is that whether or not he/she does exist, the idea itself goes beyond our physical comprehension. Therefore the belief can never be known. The reason no one was ever able to debunk the idea is simply because the idea of god is more complex than the capacity of our own minds. Don-t live life as a dog would chasing his own tail, futile. You can only manage what you can control and what you cannot is. simply beyond you.
reply
To argue about the existence of god is illogical, pointless even. My understanding is that whether or not he/she does exist, the idea itself goes beyond our physical comprehension. Therefore the belief can never be known. The reason no one was ever able to debunk the idea is simply because the idea of god is more complex than the capacity of our own minds. Don-t live life as a dog would chasing his own tail, futile. You can only manage what you can control and what you cannot is. simply beyond you.
reply
Luke
Anselm-s flaw for me is that he operates on the assumption that all things that are real are better than the imagined version. We-ve all experienced scenarios where this isn-t true. Example 1: Chasing a person you desire only to find that a relationship is hard work and not nearly as blissful as you imagined. Example 2: Imagining all the things you could buy when you win the lottery vs all the social and administrative stress that comes with a lottery win in reality.
reply
Anselm-s flaw for me is that he operates on the assumption that all things that are real are better than the imagined version. We-ve all experienced scenarios where this isn-t true. Example 1: Chasing a person you desire only to find that a relationship is hard work and not nearly as blissful as you imagined. Example 2: Imagining all the things you could buy when you win the lottery vs all the social and administrative stress that comes with a lottery win in reality.
reply
Alpha
It's an interesting argument to assert that God is (one step better than ) the best thing one can possibly imagine. Every person on this planet can imagine a completely different 'best thing'. That would make God all best things and doesn't define God at all. It makes God a 'collection of best things' like the best ice cream flavor, or fastest car, or most perfect photo ever taken, etc. In other words, it's totally a meaningless descriptor.
reply
It's an interesting argument to assert that God is (one step better than ) the best thing one can possibly imagine. Every person on this planet can imagine a completely different 'best thing'. That would make God all best things and doesn't define God at all. It makes God a 'collection of best things' like the best ice cream flavor, or fastest car, or most perfect photo ever taken, etc. In other words, it's totally a meaningless descriptor.
reply
Techn0way
There-s also the argument that the presuppositions of God believers is, well, God himself and everything else is built from Him, which is unjustified. But the presuppositions of a materialistic atheist-s law of nature is also unjustified, we just have to accept that some things are true and real so we can apply logic and reasoning to explain things. Therefore we could neither deny nor prove the existence of God with our methodology.
reply
There-s also the argument that the presuppositions of God believers is, well, God himself and everything else is built from Him, which is unjustified. But the presuppositions of a materialistic atheist-s law of nature is also unjustified, we just have to accept that some things are true and real so we can apply logic and reasoning to explain things. Therefore we could neither deny nor prove the existence of God with our methodology.
reply
cliffjamesmusic
As soon as one accepts the notion of a source, then one has defined the existence of a creative process. As soon as one accepts the notion of reason, then one has defined a conscious source. God exists because of the man-made concepts of source and reason, whether or not such an entity really exists or existed.
reply
As soon as one accepts the notion of a source, then one has defined the existence of a creative process. As soon as one accepts the notion of reason, then one has defined a conscious source. God exists because of the man-made concepts of source and reason, whether or not such an entity really exists or existed.
reply
Moses
Mock Him all you want, keep feeding your ego with pride and haughtiness. but as they say there's a time for everything. right now we are on earth, but a time will reach wen it will be decided whether you will spend your eternity in heaven or hell. And it's not that far. it's the moment you die. so keep up
reply
Mock Him all you want, keep feeding your ego with pride and haughtiness. but as they say there's a time for everything. right now we are on earth, but a time will reach wen it will be decided whether you will spend your eternity in heaven or hell. And it's not that far. it's the moment you die. so keep up
reply
Steve
If something exists then something must exist. Unless it is not necessary for something to exist that something exists. If you exist then it seems to me that at least something exists by name you unless you can account for your own existence without reference to any other existence.
reply
If something exists then something must exist. Unless it is not necessary for something to exist that something exists. If you exist then it seems to me that at least something exists by name you unless you can account for your own existence without reference to any other existence.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
