The Argument for God from Logic @MajestyofReason

Majesty of Reason | The Argument for God from Logic @MajestyofReason | Uploaded March 2022 | Updated October 2024, 3 hours ago.
Does logic prove God? I don't think so. In this video, I explain why. Enjoy the bonus soccer, too ;)

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

RESOURCES

(1) God and Abstract Objects playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkYkLZlEC5BDoeGKBLIi3P6p

(2) The Lord of Non-Contradiction: proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf

(3) My website: josephschmid.com

OUTLINE

0:00 The Argument from Logic
42:36 Bonus Soccer

A problem for effective altruism? | Dr. Travis Timmerman

The Modal Ontological Argument: An Analysis

$A Users Guide to Bayes Theorem What is Bayes Theorem? How is it used in philosophy, statistics, and beyond? How should it NOT be used? Welcome to the ultimate guide to these questions and more. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid OUTLINE 0:00 Intro and outline 3:10 What is Bayes’ Theorem? 4:50 Belief and credence 14:46 Interpretations of probability 24:52 Epistemic probability 28:32 Bayesian epistemology 30:50 Core normative rules 33:05 Propositional logic background 42:32 Kolmogorov’s axioms 54:25 Dutch Books 57:25 Ratio Formula 1:02:03 Conditionalization principle 1:10:47 Subjective vs. Objective Bayesianism 1:13:50 Bayes’ Theorem: Standard form(s) 1:39:25 Bayes’ Theorem: Odds form 1:53:06 Evidence 2:09:25 Visualizing Bayes’ Theorem 2:49:41 Common mistakes 2:49:53 Base rate fallacy 2:52:28 Evidence for H vs. Making H probable 2:53:43 Total evidence requirement 2:54:58 Fallacy of understated evidence 2:59:36 Confirmation is comparative 3:01:07 Evidential symmetry 3:07:56 Strength asymmetry 3:11:40 Falsifiability as a virtue 3:12:27 Likelihood ratio rigging 3:19:32 Conclusion and Resources NOTES (1) The argument I give around the ten-minute mark admittedly doesnt address the view that (i) credences dont exist, and yet (ii) we can still account for the relevant data about our doxastic lives by appeal to beliefs about probabilities. It also doesnt address the view that while credences exist and are distinct from beliefs, beliefs about probabilities suffice to account for the relevant data. While I have independent reservations for these views, its worth noting them nonetheless. The belief/credence part of the video was mainly an exercise in warming listeners up to talk of credences so they would be more receptive to the rest of the video. Its a necessary preamble to the main event: Bayes Theorem. I grant that a proper defense of belief-credence dualism — and a proper defense of the overly-basic motivations I sketched at the ten-minute mark — would need to contend with these alternative proposals! CORRECTIONS (1) At 52:55, I meant to say that the SECOND claim entails the FIRST while the FIRST does not entail the SECOND. Oops! (2) Thankfully, the audio improves at 28:32! Remind me to never record a solo presentation using Zoom… (3) Heres an important clarification about the roommate/magical marker example given around 2:07:00. In the video, I was not clear about the content of the hypotheses in question and how this affects their likelihoods and priors. Here is how I should have spelled out the example. Consider two hypotheses: H1: My friend wrote on my board H2: My marker by itself wrote on my board The data is: D: Dont forget to take out the trash! is written on my board Now, H1 renders D quite surprising, given that my friend knows all about my diligent habits of taking out the trash, etc. If H1 is true, he would most likely have written something on the board then erased it (since he knows I dont like him touching my board, etc.). And even if he didnt erase it, it would be very odd for him to write this given that he knows Im super diligent about the trash. But H2 renders D far, far more surprising. Of all the possible things the marker could conceivably have written on the board by magically floating upwards etc., only an absurdly small fraction are even coherent, let alone English words strung together to compose an intelligible, grammatical, contextually relevant English sentence. Of course, H1 has higher prior than H2. But the point made in the video stands, since the likelihood of H1 (i.e., P(D|H1)) is very low, but its still much greater than the likelihood of H2 (i.e., P(D|H2)), and hence data can still be evidence for a hypothesis even though the data is very surprising on that hypothesis. LINKS (1) Want the script? Become a patron :) (2) Videos from @3blue1brown: (i) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZGCoVF3YvM , (ii) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_85TaXbeIo , (iii) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG4VkPoG3ko (3) Videos from Dr. Ben Page (@thinkingillustrated5281): (i) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNQeOJoeiW0 , (ii) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zlaFnYqGYo (4) Pages article on the Bayesian Bar: https://www.academia.edu/41820082/Introducing_Bayesianism_Through_The_Bayesian_Bar (5) Over 100 Arguments for God ANSWERED: https://youtu.be/iP0Mh42jvV4 (6) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193121/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2 THE USUAL... Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreason My website: https://josephschmid.com My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid$

A Failed Demonstration of Gods Existence

Theism and the Argument from Material Causality | Dr. Felipe Leon

Is Divine Simplicity Compatible with Trinitarianism? | Dr. Rob Koons & Dr. Ryan Mullins

Do Composite Objects Exist? | Dr. Eric Olson

The new REBUTTED case for Gods existence