Speaker A
[music] After updating on the data, the posterior is clear. Monkey Boy's YouTube is intersubjectively and stands independently the greatest of all time.
A detailed philosophical discussion on the cosmological argument, fine-tuning, and the limits of inductive reasoning in cosmology.
Key Takeaways
- The causal principle is likely metaphysically necessary but supported primarily by inductive evidence.
- Inductive reasoning in cosmology faces challenges due to the limited observable sample of the universe.
- Empirical claims like the Big Bang are scientific explanations but do not necessarily rely on enumerative induction.
- Philosophical dialogue benefits from clear, workable definitions to avoid fallacious demands for precision.
- The concept of God in the cosmological argument involves non-temporal causality distinct from temporal priority.
Summary
- The video features a dialogue focusing on the cosmological argument and objections related to causal principles.
- Discussion on the robustness and metaphysical necessity of the causal principle for things that begin to exist.
- Examination of objections based on inductive reasoning and sample size limitations in cosmological evidence.
- Debate on whether empirical claims about the universe, such as the Big Bang, rely on valid inductive generalizations.
- Clarification of the difference between empirical evidence and inductive generalization in cosmology.
- Exploration of the concept of the universe’s sample size being only 2-5% observable and its implications for physics.
- Consideration of the logical and metaphysical implications of causality and existence before the universe.
- Discussion on the nature of God in relation to temporal and causal priority.
- Analysis of the logical coherence and rationality of belief in God based on the cosmological argument.
- Engagement with philosophical fallacies such as Loki’s wager to maintain workable definitions for debate.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Setting the Ground Rules
- 02:07Discussion on the Cosmological Argument and Causal Principle
- 04:34Inductive Reasoning and Sample Size in Cosmology
- 06:31Empirical Evidence and the Big Bang Debate
- 10:58Philosophical Implications of Causality and Existence
- 19:20Nature of God and Temporal vs. Causal Priority
- 27:39Summary and Final Clarifications
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Subscribe to his channel and Patreon. Yo, what's up? Hey, what's up? Want to talk fine tuning or something?
Speaker A
No, I actually want to talk about the cosmological argument. Um, I do want to put some stipulations before the cosmological argument. I want to keep this like one v one v one, like if, uh, you know, I don't want a bunch of
Speaker A
people coming up or anything like that. So, okay.
Speaker A
Okay. Uh, the other thing is like if you can like be not needlessly pedantic about things.
Speaker A
I'm not sure what counts as that, but I'm not sure I can promise that.
Speaker A
Okay. I can promise being not needlessly pedantic but certain—yeah. You might consider what I think essential to be pedantry.
Speaker A
Okay. Well, I mean something like, like Loki's wager. You ever heard of that?
Speaker A
No.
Speaker A
Loki's wager fallacy. Not sure.
Speaker A
Okay. It's sort of like—yeah. This is—I mean, we'll just play it by ear, but it's sort of like the idea if your interlocutor is demanding like this impossibly precise
Speaker A
definition and if you don't get it, like the conversation can't proceed. So, what I'm looking for is like if we can just keep some workable definitions, even if you don't agree with them in principle, but just like something
Speaker A
workable to help the conversation like move forward, would that work?
Speaker A
Okay.
Speaker A
Okay. So, all right.
Speaker A
It doesn't even need to be a definition. So long as the concept's clear enough for dialectical application, then we can run with the concept.
Speaker A
Okay. Well, I kind of wanted to go through the cosmological argument, but there's, uh, there's a few objections. You put out a video. I think there's about five objections to like a causal principle. I want to kind of like work through those.
Speaker A
Uh, I don't think they work, like, uh, one of them being that today. I'm assuming you're taking a more robust notion. You're taking it to be metaphysically necessary for all things that begin to exist to have a cause, right?
Speaker A
Or not. You're just saying it's like a probably true proposition that evidence exists.
Speaker A
I think it's probably true. I think most of the evidence points that way. Like, for example, in this video, you bring up like sample, like the sample space, like the
Speaker A
inductive sample size is too small and that sort of like use that as like an undercutter for the causal principle. And, uh, what I'd want to say to that is if I think [clears throat] that proves too much because if we take
Speaker A
the logic of that then you would just like undermine physics itself. Like the sample size of like physics, like when we look at like something like the big bang, when we examine like red shift or microwave background radiation, it's not
Speaker A
like we're exploring the 95% of the universe, like the furthest reaches. Our sample size is small. So this would like completely undercut like the big bang.
Speaker A
It would also like—how does it undercut the big bang? Because we're—that's an inductive claim, like red shift. These are observations.
Speaker A
These are inductive observations that we're not getting from the furthest reaches of space. And so the point you're making in that video is that they're saying that's undercutting the Big Bang because it's an—because the Big Bang is
Speaker A
an inductive claim.
Speaker A
Okay. Correct. It like has empirical evidence that supports it, right?
Speaker A
Well, it's inductive. How?
Speaker A
Because it's an empirical claim. It's a claim about the universe. That's not induction.
Speaker A
You're talking—I'm talking if by induction you just mean anything that includes induction here. I mean inference about generalization. If you're just considering here evidence induction more generally to include evidential reasoning, then that wouldn't even be an objection to that type of
Speaker A
induction. I'm talking about inductions where you generalize from all known X's RP to all X's RP and the sample of known X's RP are vastly too small to generalize globally.
Speaker A
Where in the big bang are they doing a type of general generalizable inference because they're extrapolating it onto the entire universe? They're like red shift when they're making these empirical observations the sample size is small. So your objection would apply
Speaker A
here because they're extrapolating to the entire universe. You're saying what happened to the entire universe from a small inductive sample size. And we could also say something like I'm not sure.
Speaker A
Yeah. I mean, so first I'm not even sure anything about the physics there and what you're saying is right, but I assume the people who make those inferences include statisticians. So I'm not very confident that those people ignore these conditions of statistics.
Speaker A
Um, whether or not you think that's too powerful an objection. Hold on. Like you don't think the big bang is like you don't think that's an empirical claim about the universe that's based on empirical observations. Obviously it's an
Speaker A
empirical claim but I don't know what supposed to be the generalization is. We're saying they're making a claim about the entire universe.
Speaker A
The thing you said that we only have 5% universe, the entire universe, entire universe.
Speaker A
What's that? What about the entire universe that it expanded, the entire universe, the big bang?
Speaker A
You don't know what the big bang means anymore or because what you don't know what the big bang is?
Speaker A
Why are you asking that? Because you're—you—you don't seem to understand. I'm not asking you what the big bang is.
Speaker A
You're saying that what's being said is the big bang, everything expanded. That that's—it's not saying that, but you're saying that there's a sample of things observed to expand to everything, to the entire universe expanded. I'm not sure if that's right.
Speaker A
You're saying the big bang is not a claim about the universe in its entirety.
Speaker A
It's about the entire universe.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker A
Okay. So then the point works. And what is the sample size? What is the empirical sample size that we extrapolate onto the entire universe?
Speaker A
So the claim is that we have a sample of things that ex—of the universe expanding and then we generalize from those portions of—
Speaker A
Yes. And if we—if we go back to your video, your claim is what? What is the
Speaker A
sample size we have of the universe?
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker A
Yeah. But I don't even think those are not even analogous though.
Speaker A
They are because you're using the sample. You talk about dark matter and dark energy. That's about the universe.
Speaker A
Correct.
Speaker A
Yeah. But there's a difference between an inference from something like all objects are moving in some direction at the same rate which can have a uniform explanation like, uh, the entire universe expanded from every individual thing is
Speaker A
causally—
Speaker A
No, you block the inference because you—no, you block the inference because you say our sample size of the universe is too small.
Speaker A
That holds whether we're talking about—
Speaker A
No, that's what your video says.
Speaker A
Yeah, but you're not—you're not understanding the point I'm making. I'm saying that those are not analogous because in one case you can have—is the sample size of our universe 5% or
Speaker A
not? That's what your video says.
Speaker A
Yeah, I'm not denying anything I said in the video. I don't know what you—
Speaker A
Okay. Is it 5% or not? What did you claim?
Speaker A
First, that's an abductive inference. It's about the best explanation for the fact that all these things are moving in the same direction [clears throat] at the same rate. And simple a simple yes or no is did you claim that our sample
Speaker A
size of the universe is 5% or not in your video?
Speaker A
Actually less than that.
Speaker A
Okay. I believe our sample size—I can pull up the numbers I have. That's all I need for the point. Your claim is that our sample size of the
Speaker A
universe is only 5% or less. Physics much less.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker A
Okay. Much—let's say 2%. Physics is operating within that 2% sample size.
Speaker A
Yeah. Physics is operating, operating within that 2%, whatever you want to call it, the less than 5%.
Speaker A
Yeah. Physics is operating within that one 6 actually.
Speaker A
Yeah. Physics is making empirical observations within that sample size and then extrapolating onto the rest of the universe at l—
Speaker A
it's a what kind of induction is it what kind of induction is it it's abduction from what from what are physicists abducting from the if you're asking me what's the explanation The explan what is that asking?
Speaker A
Yes, the Okay, you're asking what's the size? We're observing celestial bodies expanding away in you know and what where are we getting that information from? What's sample size of the universe?
Speaker A
You're asking what's the size of the sample? Yes. What is the source and sample size that we're getting that information from in the universe?
Speaker A
I'm not sure what that's asking. Okay. When physicists when physicists observe red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation from which they infer that the universe is expanding to which they rewind this is this is one of the primary premises of like the big bang.
Speaker A
Where are they getting this information from? Are they empirical observations? Yes. And how big is the sample size of the universe from which we draw this empirical observation?
Speaker A
I think it's 90016%. Okay. So we are taking a small sample size and extrapolating it to the rest of the universe. Something your video says we can't do.
Speaker A
You're not getting that's what we're doing. That's it's an empirical claim that we're extrapolating.
Speaker A
You can use all this other phrasiology. That's what's happening. The phraseology matters. The point is that there are different inferential strategies.
Speaker A
Yes. Is this inferial strategy ever not inductive? Ever not empirical? Is it ever not inductive from an empirical data set? Is it ever not an empirical data set from a less than 5% sample size?
Speaker A
Obviously, when you do abduction, there's empirical facts that you seek to explain. That's just how that inference works.
Speaker A
Yes. So, there are empirical facts. Is it ever not empirical? mean it's induction because it has to do with is red shift ever not an empirical fact.
Speaker A
That's an empirical fact. Yes. Yes. That we get from a less than 5% sample size.
Speaker A
And we extrapolate onto the rest of the universe. Given your argument, we should actually think maybe there's oxygen in the furthest reaches of space.
Speaker A
Sounds like induction. Yeah. But when you say extrapolate, it sounds like you're talking about enumerative induction, which is not the inferial strategy being employed when talking about the big bang. Obviously, the big bang is a scientific explanation. So, obviously, it's an
Speaker A
explanatory theoretic inference. So, it's abduction. And the reason that matters is because the unless you're going to make the claim, but the empirical support comes inductively.
Speaker A
Yes. Obviously, you're going to have empirical informations with respect to abductive reasoning. That doesn't mean because some empir there's an empirical fact that that's just hands down inductive. Could still be an abductive argument, which is what you're not
Speaker A
getting. It's an abductive argument based on a small empirical sample size. Right? There's a small size when doing the but that doesn't change. That doesn't change in this point.
Speaker A
Okay. Well, the claim is that doesn't change. You would have to show how Well, you tell me when do let's just imagine let's just imagine do physicists think let's go into the furthest reaches of space like further than than our
Speaker A
telescopes can penetrate. Do physicists think there's red shift out there? Mhm. Probably. Probably. So the reason they're extrapolating that is because of this small less than 5%.
Speaker A
I mean they they actually do. Yeah. Yeah. And why do they think that? Because of what sample size tells answer.
Speaker A
What's that? They think that they think that not because they're generalizing from their observations to literally everything.
Speaker A
It's because they have an explanation where the explanation explains uh that fact by assuming it's true of the whole universe and there's theoretical merit to that explanation which is why it's very popular by the lights of physicists.
Speaker A
Right. But all of that is grounded in in empirical observation from a small sample size. It's not isolated from I know you've said this a million times.
Speaker A
Yes. Yes. You've said this a million times. That's right. And if we were to apply your logic, this empirical sample size, we this would block that inference. We could not extrapolate. We couldn't make that abduction because that entire abduction is rooted
Speaker A
in that empirical sample size, which you say is less than 5%. Which is true, but the point is it would block physics. If we employed your logic, we couldn't even we couldn't say anything about the universe at large
Speaker A
because of that sample size being too small that you in your video you kind of like chuckle about. The other thing when you're reasoning, when you're reasoning abductively, you make assumptions. And that's why there's stuff like Ham's razor where you prefer explanations that
Speaker A
make least assumptions. Assumptions are licensed by the practice of inductive reasoning. So long as you have a a a sufficient sample or a s a sufficiently high web of explanations that are live and plausible then what you do is you
Speaker A
compare all the candidate explanations and you compare them on the basis of various theoretical virtues ones including the least amount of assumptions and it is true. It makes the assumption that that's true of the entire universe. What it's not doing is
Speaker A
an uh an enumerative induction from our sample to everything. It's assuming that that's true of the whole universe to explain it with a hypothesis which that hypothesis has a various set of virtues that license you to believe it
Speaker A
epistemically. Yeah. But those virtues are rooted in some empirical observation. That's that's where it all begins is this empirical observation red shift cosmic macro wave background radiation. It's not isolated from that. It's grounded in that. It's extrapolated from that. So
Speaker A
that that inductive that inductive uh sample size is the ground for that that abduction.
Speaker A
It doesn't go away. doesn't go away. Of course, you can yeah, you can engineer theoretical virtues on the basis of empirical reasoning. Okay?
Speaker A
I mean, it doesn't have to be empirical reasoning. You could reason a priori, you know, for example, a certain uh probabistic truth like parsimony simplicity and then when I'm talking about research, those types of simplicity principles can be reasoned
Speaker A
based on pure reason. But yeah, but physicists aren't like we're not doing this they're not doing this by pure reason.
Speaker A
Like the big bang is it's it's it has empirical verification. And that's how they're saying in the furthest reaches of space there is probably red shift and there's probably microwave background radiation and there's probably expansion because we see that
Speaker A
in our sample that even theoretical I'm talking about the claim that even theoretical principles are reasoned based on the basis of empirical uh evidences. That's not even necessarily true. There are various theoretical virtues that have nothing to do with
Speaker A
empiricalations. Yeah. I I think at the end of the day it's still the case that some are aesthetic or have values and considerations.
Speaker A
Yeah. This is this is all peripheral to the point, you know, like I think we can agree on because I think we're reaching a deadlock here. What if I just bite the bullet? Yeah, that rules out the big
Speaker A
bang. So what? Yeah, that that means that that's that's a horrible like objection to the causal principle.
Speaker A
Why does that mean it's a horrible If it rules out the big bang, then it's a horrible objection. What's the argument?
Speaker A
Well, I mean the level of skepticism that's required like you're just going to deny the big bang to hold that inductive point.
Speaker A
You think there's oxygen in the furthest reaches of space, monkey boy? Because our sample size is too small to say otherwise.
Speaker A
Yeah. Let's say I like you're willing to bite that bullet. Reasonably say that. Well, that obviously.
Speaker A
Do you want to be that skeptical? Well, I'm asking you what are you going to say of substance if I bite that bullet?
Speaker A
There's nothing. I just be at an impass. Like you just you want to be skeptical like in the face of any evidence. Then there's nothing more I can say.
Speaker A
Like we we would just have no common ground. You're just admitting you're just admitting that you don't have anything of sub. So if someone disag if you want to be that skeptical, there's nothing I can say to you.
Speaker A
Okay. Show that. Okay. But you're accusing it of being irrational, abandoning reason, but you can't show how they shouldn't believe that on an on the basis on an episodic basis.
Speaker A
They shouldn't believe that. It just sounds like you're saying you shouldn't believe it, but I don't have anything to go to show for that. Okay. Then why would I care if you think that?
Speaker A
Yeah. I mean, I just I guess I would have no interest. You like flat earther or a solopist? Like I I just have no interest in like trying to convince somebody of something. Let me ask you this. What's the asymmetry?
Speaker A
What's the asymmetry here? Um, if you don't believe in atheism, then I I just stopped talking with you. Uh, the view is just so ridiculous. Um, but I'm not going to show you it's epistemically ridiculous. I'm going to accuse it of
Speaker A
being so, and I don't have anything to show for it. How's that asymmetrical? I mean, if I don't Yeah. If we abandon like commonality, if like let's say I abandon like any any like common philosophical ground with you,
Speaker A
like let's say I had just I don't know just tons of bizarre ideas. Maybe let's say I like rejected like epistemic norms or something. Like what point would you have to like talk to me? Like why would you even bother?
Speaker A
That's not even analogous. How is it not analogous? There's got to be some like for a conversation there has to be talking about there has to be something shared between like such a radical Okay, no one's denying that. But now you're describing a
Speaker A
scenario where someone has such radical values that they're not receptive or sensitive to reason. I'm talking about someone who is two people are sensitive to reason. someone accuses a position of being of of an objection to or a
Speaker A
position too strong. How would you be how would you be sensitive to reason if there's all of this empirical evidence for the big bang and you just flatly reject it because of this inductive point?
Speaker A
Do you think there's oxygen in the furthest regions of space? Should I should we entertain that too?
Speaker A
Because this would apply here. The sample size we have is less than 5% that there's oxygen in no in there's no oxygen in space. So let's say you you say well why should I believe there is oxygen? There's no oxygen in the
Speaker A
furthest reaches of space. Why would I Why would anyone entertain that monkey boy? Because I would follow too.
Speaker A
Like given your evidence, if you're sensitive to evidence, if you're sensitive to evidence, why would you reject all the empirical evidence for the Big Bang?
Speaker A
Because of that sample size evidence for the Big Bang. What the hell? What's that?
Speaker A
You're completely lost. You're completely lost cuz no one's denying any empirical evidence for the Big Bang.
Speaker A
You're saying that the objection I give against No, there is no Big Bang. If your if your view holds, if your logic holds, there is no Big Bang because we can't make that inductive inference. We talk a lot. Okay. Well, I already
Speaker A
explained how it's not inductive, but granted it were an inductive and that's somehow an objection as well as to the big bang. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You would either have to forfeit the objection or forfeit the big
Speaker A
bang and keep the objection. I'm saying if I grant you that and I decide to believe in the objection, what do you have to show that that's some mistaken epistemic practice and you said nothing.
Speaker A
You said you have nothing yet somehow it you still affirm it's a bad epistemic practice while you couldn't show that it were a bad epistemic practice. But I can say it's a bad epistemic practice to believe in theism and also not have
Speaker A
anything to show for it. I don't see how those are asymmetrical. And if they're asymmetrical, then you could just get a reductio just as you talked about with the objection, which I've already explained sufficiently how those are not
Speaker A
even the same inferential strategies. So that objection about it being too strong. It doesn't even work. But then you would get the same thing on your side. It would be a double-edged sword because then you would have to say that
Speaker A
an atheist is licensed to do that same practice. It's just as fair. They do that same practice.
Speaker A
Yeah. I don't think this is analogous to like with atheists and and what okay in virtue of what is it not analogous? That's what I'm asking because there's some commonality. Like we agree on certain things when we come
Speaker A
to the table. It's not like this bizarre like this inductive this inductive point. You're willing to hold that. I would just say like what is this thing about not commonality? Both people are rational agents, but one makes the claim that
Speaker A
it's irrational to believe P. No commonality. There has to be they say they have nothing to give.
Speaker A
Yeah. Still affirm it's irrational and somehow they can't show to anyone they're irrational for having that view.
Speaker A
How's that interesting? Right. I mean, if Hey, let let's just grant the point. I mean, if you want to deny if you want to hold to that inductive point you make in that video and deny the Big Bang, then you can you
Speaker A
can do that. I'm not even going to bother with that. I would just take that as a concession how Okay, you can take I would just take that as a concession.
Speaker A
But I will also the skepticism is too strong. I will also take as a concession that what you're doing is symmetrical to an atheist saying that theism is irrational and they have nothing to show for and there that's a fair move to do. But they
Speaker A
just continue to say it's rational and not have anything to show against it. Unless you're going to explain how they're asymmetrical.
Speaker A
What's what's the uh what's the analog here? Like what's the connection? The analog the analog is that one thing is being accused of being irrational.
Speaker A
The interlocator asks how it's irrational. The person who accuses it of being irrational admits they have nothing to show for it, but yet still adamantly affirms it's irrational.
Speaker A
And somehow that's fair that they they're still licensed to continue to say it's it's irrational.
Speaker A
Well, what is going to say if you don't have anything to show for it being right?
Speaker A
I mean, you're sort of saying, right? Are are you agreeing yet? You shouldn't say it's irrational cuz then in this case, you said it's irrational to believe in an objection that strong if it defeats the big bang.
Speaker A
What is What is the theist doing? What is the theist doing that's analogous to you?
Speaker A
The fact they're saying that the theist, what do you mean? You mean the atheist kiss? Yeah. What the theist is is believing something irrational.
Speaker A
Which what is it though? What's the irrational thing? What's the irrational? The proposition God exists is irrational belief. And and how is that irrational?
Speaker A
And how is that irrational? I have nothing to show for it, but it's still irrational. Is exactly what you're doing.
Speaker A
Okay. I mean, I don't even know if I use the word irrational. I'm just saying you've you're just biting a bullet, like an evidential bullet, by just denying like physics.
Speaker A
If you don't have when you say have nothing to show for it, that means you can't provide an epistemic reason. So, if you don't have a reason in favor of P and that's just what it means to be
Speaker A
irrational, to believe in something without Do you think Do you think there's oxygen in the furthest reaches of space?
Speaker A
Mhm. Okay. Awesome. I guess we're done here. We're done here. I guess I could say that.
Speaker A
Yeah. I mean, if Sure. I mean, as far as that point, this doesn't answer my question.
Speaker A
I have no interest in the exercise. If you think that there's oxygen in the furthest reaches of space, then I'm not going to construct an argument against that.
Speaker A
Have fun with it. Because the sample size is too small to say otherwise. Have fun with it.
Speaker A
How about we talk about this then? How about we talk about the the diversity of the sampling? I mean, if we're sampling from our local universe, why would for what reason would we think other patches of space, given how vast space is going
Speaker A
to appear similarly or even identically or whatever, right? I mean, there could be oxygen in maybe some other diverse patch of space.
Speaker A
Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. Why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't that apply? Our sample size is too small. It's not diverse enough.
Speaker A
Maybe there is oxygen in some other sample space in in outer space. We can't say for sure practice of accusing me of believing in things that are like adjacent or basically do the same thing. But it's not an answer to my question. That would
Speaker A
just be a two quotequote. What I'm asking you is if you could tell me how you're justified in believing everything not even in the universe. You're saying everything simplicity which is even stronger than everything in the universe. Now how do we generalize from
Speaker A
a local patch of the universe to every everything in the universe even stronger than that? And what reason would we have to think that the further patches of space would appear anything similar?
Speaker A
It's like if I knew the vastness I mean just you're repeating the inductive objective. Imagine imagine I knew the vastness of the earth. Imagine I knew the vastness of the earth. I knew the different um population numbers and
Speaker A
whatever else and then I sampled everyone in Brooklyn and then I wanted to generalize to everyone the average income of everyone in the world's simplicity. Well, why would I think that the income rates would appear anywhere similar from Brooklyn to every part of
Speaker A
of the earth? Why would I why would I be warranted in thinking that? Right? I mean sample those those spots.
Speaker A
That's just that's just your inductive objection and again it's like well given you what's your response?
Speaker A
Hello. Yeah, it's my Yeah, that's just and we we've just been talking about that. So I guess oxygen is in in the furthest reaches of space.
Speaker A
It's just out there in space. Is that an answer to my question? No, I'm just showing like that's just a reductio of it. Like if you if you're [clears throat] okay with that, that's fine. I'm I I just think it's absurd.
Speaker A
So So you're just saying you don't have a response to the objection. I I just don't have the energy to respond to that. [laughter] You don't have the energy to respond.
Speaker A
You do have the objection because there's just I'm just too tired to give that objection. I most definitely have.
Speaker A
I've been working. I have to convince you. I have to take the time and energy.
Speaker A
I intellectually carry all of TikTok. I don't have the energy to talk with to convince somebody that there's no oxygen in the furthest reaches of space.
Speaker A
[ __ ] [ __ ] rhetoric is that game. Serious. If your view commits you to being skeptical of whether there is oxygen in the furthest reaches of space, that says more about your view than me [laughter] than mine. If you want to go with that,
Speaker A
if you're happy with that, that's fine. I'm not gonna argue against something that ridiculous.
Speaker A
And I think I I'm hoping the audience is intelligent enough to see how ridiculous that would be.
Speaker A
Yeah. The other point you make in that video or you too tired to render it.
Speaker A
I have no interest. I mean, if if you want to drop me because of that, I'll No, I'll take that. I'll take you being skeptical of whether there's oxygen in space as a concession. I'll take that.
Speaker A
Great. Okay. That's a concession, right? Yeah. Yeah. The other thing you you you laugh about in that video is the causal principle.
Speaker A
You're like the causal principle. William Lane Craig comes up with this. I probably talk about this.
Speaker A
Yeah. Let's talk about the the fact you're talking about an exilo cause when all causes we observe are pick wickish. Sure you're already familiar with this objection. So yeah, we don't observe new substance come into being. We observe
Speaker A
the form of a substance change. I chop down a tree. I build a log cabin. I chop down a slab. I break down a slab of marble. Heat it or whatever. form a statue. You're talking about material existence appears into being at a point
Speaker A
where it didn't before not matter is reformed some way. What reason would we have when seems in fact like an evidence against that type of principle?
Speaker A
I would just say that observed is pick causes. Yeah, that that just kind of that directly an evidence against your view.
Speaker A
Yeah, this would just this would just attack that the inductive point, but like Craig isn't his his primary point is not inductive. This is what this is what goes back to what we were just talking about like this metaphysical
Speaker A
intuition which you laugh about. What's out I asked you from the onset if you're making the robust claim it's the principle is understood to be a claim of metaphysical necessity. It's metaphysically necessary thing that begins to exist as a cause and you said
Speaker A
that you're making a weaker claim that being it's likely true the proposition everything that begins to exist as a cause. You made this very explicit which was the point from the onset clarifying that you don't switch up which you now
Speaker A
are doing. Now you're saying that you're forfeiting and resorting to a different in fact stronger claim but because there's a non-inductive approach to reasoning about it but you said you're not making that claim. Are you what are you now making that claim?
Speaker A
The the reason I'm not going to go with metaphysical anything metaphysically uh modal is because you're skeptical of that. What I would just say is that the idea is incoherent. the idea.
Speaker A
But you I thought you said right now that you want to get off the induction because Craig's main point is not inductive but about it being a metaphysical intuition about the principle but then you not the point about the my I never said the
Speaker A
primary support for the causal principle is inductive. I'm what I was saying is that your point about the 5% 95% of the universe does not undercut the inductive point. That's the only reason I brought that up. I never said that was the full support of
Speaker A
the the causal principle. I think the causal principle is just supported upon reflection and I think anything like any alternative to it is just incoherent.
Speaker A
The inductive approach is making a different claim than the claim you're talking about. Now, one is a claim of metaphysical necessity. Another is just a claim of likelihood.
Speaker A
Yeah, I I I get that. But I never said that. The reason again the reason I brought up the reason I brought up No, hold on. The reason I brought up your point about the inductive sample space is because you use that to undercut the
Speaker A
inductive support for the causal principle. That's a different that's a different proposition than saying the causal principle's primary support is inductive. I never said that.
Speaker A
You're saying when you're interpreting the causal principle as it's likely everything that begins to exist as a cause that I have inductive objections when your claim instead is that it's metaphysically necessary everything that begins exists as a cause.
Speaker A
Yeah. I'm not saying it's metaphysically necessary. I'm saying that the alternative is incoherent. The It's inco It's When you say incoherent, are you saying logically incoherent?
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. It's logically incoherent. That what what exactly is logically? That something can come from nothing or being can come from non-being. There has to be some kind of causal conditions.
Speaker A
Let's be really clear here. By come from nothing, you are not rififying nothing. Nothing there is a quantificational phrase.
Speaker A
Not raifying. Okay. If it's so if it's a quant if it's a quantificational phrase and it's incoherent that something comes from nothing, then it's not true that God comes from nothing. So God has a has a cause.
Speaker A
No, no. This is just I I'm not even sure how you're getting that from anything.
Speaker A
Well, it's a dichotomy. I never said God comes from. God is just uncaused. God comes from nothing. I'm saying it's it's a dichotomy. He comes from something or nothing, which I I'm not even sure what what that's what that's targeting with
Speaker A
anything I said. It's targeting your view. You're denying that God that something can come from nothing. Something can't come from nothing. Then God can't come from nothing. God can't come from nothing and God comes from something. Uh presumably
Speaker A
many people say God is sovereign. Maybe you're a Dist might not uphold that view, but that means you're committed to saying God comes from something. He has a cause. I'm not sure that's I'm not sure. Are you just kind
Speaker A
of struggling with the idea of like the phrase something cannot come from nothing. Being cannot come from non- being. Maybe there's maybe there's no way to speak of this without uh without some raifying language. But it's it's not entailed in the concept. Maybe the
Speaker A
language raifying, but I'm not raifying. I'm not accusing you of doing that. You're right.
Speaker A
But you're you're sort of taking what I'm saying then trying to extrapolate it to some point about God. The same language would apply to God. And I'm like, I'm not saying that.
Speaker A
Right. But that that entails that God comes from something. What entails? What entails that?
Speaker A
What entails that? It's not the case for anything. It can come from nothing. It's not the case that God can come from nothing.
Speaker A
When did I don't even recall saying that anything it could come from nothing. That's why you said you're understanding the causal principle to be saying something. You said it right now. It's in fact you're saying something. You're saying there has to be the causal
Speaker A
principle comes from nothing. Yeah. It's just extra. It could just be uh so it's logically incoherent to say God comes from nothing. So God must come from something.
Speaker A
God doesn't do any coming at all. There's no becoming. There's no becoming. God doesn't do any coming. Well, it's either there's no becoming with God.
Speaker A
What's that? That's a dichotomy. God comes from something or nothing. That's a dichotomy. Well, he there's no becoming at all. I think this is just I'm not even sure where what the point is.
Speaker A
It sounds like you're saying God comes from nothing, right? That's just saying God comes from nothing. And God doesn't do a becoming.
Speaker A
He doesn't come from anything. Monkey boy, I'm sure you're I'm sure you're familiar with I'm sure you're familiar with Craig's metaphysical intuition.
Speaker A
Do you know what he says? I'm talking about you contradicted yourself. You just Right. Right. Do Do you think Are you just unfamiliar? Are you just being pedantic?
Speaker A
I'm not being pedantic. You're like evading the fact is contradictory. The underlying principle for premise one is that being cannot come from non-being.
Speaker A
This is a pretty standard statement. Yeah. That's just saying it's like you're just quibbling over nothing.
Speaker A
Yes. You're trying to like make it something it's not. I'm saying that by your own commitments, your position self-defeating.
Speaker A
Okay. Okay. That's the charge and the explanation is the fact that it's a dichotomy. Something comes from something or nothing. Nothing can It's not the case for anything. It's possible.
Speaker A
If something is coming into existence, it has to come from something. That's what it's saying. If something begins to exist, it has to come from somewhere.
Speaker A
There have to be causal conditions of some kind. That's all it's saying. That's all it's saying.
Speaker A
Okay. But you're saying it's impossible something comes from nothing. Logically, do you think it's possible?
Speaker A
You think it's possible? We're not talking about my beliefs. I'm talking about how you're self-defeating it. That's what you're saying. Then what we could get is a contradiction that God The point is there there there has to be
Speaker A
something does not come from something. If we imagine not anything there has to be something from which something else if it's going to come into existence there has to be something.
Speaker A
There can't be not anything. And the reason why right and the reason why is not anything entails no potentialities, no powers, no possibilities. When you say that there is not anything, there is no possibilities. That is a complete denial
Speaker A
that anything could happen. So how could something come into being when there is a complete denial that anything could happen? That's incoherent. That's why there has to be Yeah, I mean I obviously deny that. I doubt you can spear a contradiction, but
Speaker A
that is not a contradiction. Can't even address it. That just sounds like burden shifting.
Speaker A
It's not burden shifting. You're if there's not anything, there's no possibility. Theism. Theism is contradictory. Okay, what's the argument it's contradictory?
Speaker A
How is it not contradictory? Not burden such thing. Okay, it's like you make no sense. But look, the point is here's this argument. Um some exclusively something comes from something or it's not the case or it comes from nothing.
Speaker A
God comes from some God does not come from something. Uh if it's uh not it's not possible that for anything it comes from nothing. If it's not possible for anything it comes from something then necessarily for anything it comes from
Speaker A
something. Um and then from two and four, God comes from something and comes from nothing. Conclusion, God cannot exist.
Speaker A
Yeah. I mean, I I don't even know what to say to that except God is not I'm not sure.
Speaker A
There is no becoming. God is not coming from anywhere. This is this is talking about something beginning to exist.
Speaker A
If that if that's not happening, then the puzzle principle now sounds like you're qualifying your statement cuz I think you're just being pedantic.
Speaker A
You're just being pedantic. I'm being pedantic. Yes. Yeah. You're being pedantic. That's just rhetoric.
Speaker A
No, that's what you're doing. You know what I'm talking about. You know what? You know what these things are.
Speaker A
[clears throat] You're just quibbling over words. Acting like I'm confused about anything. Yeah. You're just quibbling over words, man.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. So, [snorts] it sounds like instead you're not saying what you did say explicitly. It sounds like you're denying that it's logically incoherent for anything that it comes from nothing.
Speaker A
But instead, for anything that begins to exist, it's logically incoherent. Something begins to exist and comes from nothing.
Speaker A
But you didn't the former. Are are you denying? But you know what these concepts mean?
Speaker A
you know what these concepts mean. You're just quibbling over like the this colloial use this colloial language that I'm using. You're just you're just quibbling and just being pedantic.
Speaker A
It's like this commenter said this isn't semantic. No one's quibbling on anything. I'm talking about if the principle is not that it's logically impossible that something comes from nothing simplicity and rather it's impossible that something that has a
Speaker A
beginning comes from nothing then you escape the initial issue which is that the argument that God's impossible but then you would still have to provide a reason to think it's logically impossible something that brute facts exist or at least brute facts begin to exist.
Speaker A
So are you saying the former or the latter? Brute facts begin to exist. I'm I'm I'm supposed to be saying the latter or Yeah.
Speaker A
Recapitulate everything you're saying because I'm trying to like find something worth responding to. Hold on a second. I'm going to write this down.
Speaker A
Okay. Give me one second. So, just to clarify, premise one is talking about I think we might be on the same page. Things that begin to exist, things that are coming into existence.
Speaker A
Okay. So, yep. And then what else are you saying here? Well, you made the statement and I'm trying to clarify. If you want to say the more modest statement that everything that begins to exists that uh for it's not possible that something
Speaker A
begins to exist without a cause or it's not possible something doesn't have a cause.
Speaker A
No, it's the f the first one. If something begins to exist, it it has to have a cause of some kind. Some causal conditions have to be there.
Speaker A
Okay. So, you are admitting it is possible then that something Um, without a beginning doesn't have a cause.
Speaker A
No. Say that again. Say that again. Do you think it's possible something without a beginning has no cause?
Speaker A
Something without a beginning has no cause. Mhm. Let's say yes. Okay. It is possible. And I don't really see what it is in virtue of having a beginning that makes it impossible. So we could challenge whether there's some
Speaker A
salient fact there is somehow something without a beginning has no cause. Yeah, I don't really see how it's Isn't that Isn't it Isn't it kind of redundant?
Speaker A
The what? What's Isn't it just redundant? Is what redundant? Something without a beginning not having a cause. Isn't that the same thing?
Speaker A
No. Something cannot begin in have a cause. In what sense? That if causation doesn't have temporal condition, then it's not a temporal condition that the cause is temporally before its effect. So something can be in.
Speaker A
How do you have causation without temporality? How do you have causation without temporality? I thought that was your view. You think God's in time then?
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. Once he causes the causal act after he causes that means in the but in the act of causing he's a temporal while he's No no no no not at all the simultaneous with the act of causing he instantiates
Speaker A
time. This happens together. He he's in time as he's causing or you could say at the moment he causes time begins.
Speaker A
He's no longer temporal at the causal act. I mean he's no longer a temporal.
Speaker A
the instance he is causing he's in time. Yeah. At the same moment, at the same moment the causal act occurs, time is instantiated.
Speaker A
So the instance he's producing a cause, but that means he's already causally efficacious when he's outside of time.
Speaker A
How do you start causing then in the act of causing? Well, causally efficacious. Do you mean like he's got the potential to cause?
Speaker A
That's not the causal act. That he has the power to cause. But then you're saying that it is I mean that's not contradict something but then it is possible something atoral causes if he has the potential to cause
Speaker A
a temporally. Yeah. What's what's the contradiction? Okay. Well I'm not saying there's a contradiction. What I'm saying you're if you have the view that something can amporary cause then what you can get is something that is infinitely indefinitely into the past temporally
Speaker A
speaking like imagine a universe without a beginning that it still has a cause because a condition of being the cause for the universe does not require that the cause is temporally before the effect to which obviously you can't be
Speaker A
before something that doesn't have a beginning. Wait, by the way, I'm not bringing up people because he said he wants to do oneonone.
Speaker A
There's Mason and several others who are trying to come up to talk, but yeah, Mason especially.
Speaker A
Yeah, I got a few more minutes. Anyway, um let me write that down again. What is that? What is that last thing you said?
Speaker A
You said something about the univer. Yeah, I I didn't say otherwise. I I I would hold something like simultaneous causation. Not I'm trying to understand his views, but I don't I don't think that would affect like the universes being caused
Speaker A
or the universe being past finite. out. How does God enter the act of causing? I don't even understand that.
Speaker A
There is no like entering the act of causing. There's no entering. It's just there's no before. You're just assuming like you're assuming like you're assuming like a temporal a temporal chain or a temporal uh timeline like God is just
Speaker A
doesn't have to be temporal. Well, I mean when you say like he he enters the act of causing, you're just assuming the thing in question. Like there's he's sitting around waiting and then he enters. It's not happening.
Speaker A
What's that? But there's obvious there's obviously more than one sense of before, right? There's like logical priority, ontological priority, causally like in the case I just described where God is causing the universe and the universe is indefinite into the past. God is still
Speaker A
causally before the universe, but he's not temporally before the universe. So it doesn't follow if I use before language that that implies that it's temporal. So I don't really understand your point, right?
Speaker A
What it means to say there's not a moment before where he's not causing because that doesn't mean God is I don't even know what it means for there. What does that even mean? So God doesn't begin doing something that
Speaker A
produces an effect. There's just the aftermath without the him going into causing. What does that even mean to say you're causally that those things are causal.
Speaker A
There's no there's no per se not per se events. But there's no states where there is not God causing then God causing. So there's there's no temporal state.
Speaker A
There's no temporal state but there's a timeless state but there's there's okay. Okay. So, there's a timeless state where God is not creating then enters creation and then becomes temporal.
Speaker A
No, that's I don't think you're wording it correctly. There's God You even said yourself before God caused he was outside of time. You said that.
Speaker A
So, I'm confused. Right. Well, then if I said that here's what I would say more like precisely.
Speaker A
God exists timelessly. Sans's creation and he enters into time. It's it's an onlogical it's onlogically prior.
Speaker A
God is ontologically prior. Okay. Wait, wait, wait. So, is there two gods? The god that causes and the god that doesn't cause?
Speaker A
No. Why would there be two gods? Why would there be two gods? Okay. So, then god is ontologically before himself after he causes.
Speaker A
No, I don't there's no that's what you said. I don't even know how that follows from anything. God is ontologically before himself.
Speaker A
He's onlogically prior No. He's onlogically prior to the creation of the universe. He's ontologically prior to the universe. That's it. I'm not sure when else why you're getting all this other stuff.
Speaker A
Okay. So, you're not saying, "Okay, God's onlogically prior to the universe." Not temporarily prior prior.
Speaker A
But when you But I'm talking about the the phrases before he caused. There's a before God caused and an after God caused.
Speaker A
Yeah. If I use that phrase, that's onlogical. Yeah. If I use that phrase, that's there's no there's no state. Okay. So, there's no state where God didn't cause.
Speaker A
There's no temporal state. Temporal state. There is a timeless state where God didn't cause. There's no temporal state where God didn't cause.
Speaker A
So, but there is a state whether temporal, ontological, whatever. There's some meaningful sense of God. God before he caused and after he caused. Correct.
Speaker A
So, there's a state before God caused. An onlogically prior state. Yeah. But so if God's so there's a state where God after he caused and a state before he caused. So the God before he caused is is onlogically before the God who caused.
Speaker A
I don't know where you're getting I don't I'm not sure where you're getting this this concept. God before the God who caused the caused.
Speaker A
I'm not sure. There's God after he caused and before he caused in the sense of there's God existing timelessly sans creation.
Speaker A
And at the moment of creation God obtains temporal relations. It's the same God. Same God.
Speaker A
He just enters. He obtains temporal relations. That's it. Nothing. I'm not sure. There's no two gods. There's God. There's a timeless God.
Speaker A
God, God creates and he obtains temporal relations. They're not two gods. Understanding. You You said You said there's God after and before he created.
Speaker A
So God before he created. When I asked what's the sense of before God created, you said ontologically before the state prior.
Speaker A
He's ontologically prior to himself after he creates. Where are you getting? He's ontologically prior to himself. What What does that mean?
Speaker A
You said the before. You said the before is onto He's ontologically prior to the universe. I never said himself.
Speaker A
Okay. So there then but I asked you okay you think there's God's onlogically before the universe but is there a state where God did not create and then did and you said yes. So then there's a before and after God creating. So the
Speaker A
God before when I actually there's a timeless state ontologically. No. No. There's a timeless state and there is a temporal state. Those are not on the same. They're not on one timeline.
Speaker A
We're not talking temporal. We're not talking temporal priority. Well then I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I priority. The onlogical it's not a different god.
Speaker A
It's it's a timeless god. We could do the premises stuff again. We could do the premisy stuff again. I just want to clarify before I give the argument and you can tell me which premise you deny.
Speaker A
You said it is your view that there's a state before God created and went after.
Speaker A
Right. Yeah. An onlogically prior state to be clear. He like he he just said it. Okay. So premise one there is a before God created. Premise two, the sense of priority is ontological. Premise three, if the sense of priority is ontological
Speaker A
and God is before and there's a God before he created, then God before he created is onlogically prior to God after he created. Conclusion, there's two gods and that just follows because onlogical priority is irreflexive, meaning it's different existing things.
Speaker A
So there's two gods. Yeah. I'm not sure how that follows. I don't know. There's just God who exists timelessly and then there's God who You don't know how that follows? No, I don't. Honestly, I think there's I think
Speaker A
there's something going wrong with what you're understanding. So, but um Okay. Either way, I'm gonna have to bounce.
Speaker A
I'll have a concession. I'll take that one as a concession. Sure. Okay. Sure. Sure. Okay. [clears throat] All right.
Speaker A
All right, man. Good talking. All right, man. Good talking. Your word. Take care. Yeah, D. That was a beating. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. That was kind of like a beating. We could bring Mason, though. I don't know if
Speaker A
Mason connected. Yeah, you didn't. Oh, he did. What? What did you think about that?
Speaker A
Um Well, I mean, he was just making a bunch of errors and so that's why I wanted to talk to him.
Speaker A
He's scared to talk to you, right? Or would that be your evaluation? Well, I mean, like, he's been running away about the Lydia of the group thing he posted, so I wanted to get him to admit that um that [music]
Topics:cosmological argumentcausal principleinductive reasoningBig Bangphilosophy of religioncosmologyfine tuningGodmetaphysicsphilosophical debate
