Does God Exist? Hume's Answer.

[quinndc]

This video is really good, I love the quality and effort you put into your videos

[jungjunk]

It also matters what exactly does the word God means in the question.

[tejaldole]

So aesthetically explained! Thank you so much for this vid.

[jmaniak]

Descartes already had the concept of god in his head. It would be impossible to suppose god put any thoughts in his head without that presupposition.

[IAN-xeye]

David Hume Another Great Scotsman, now that's a fact, A lot of great people have come from Scotland, and that's another fact.
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[YA-xoru]

I agree that philosopher 100%, why doest the question come to our brains in the first place. Each and every human being cross the world think about God and they worship something. That itself is the prove that god exist.

[olivercroft]

Great channel, like your communication style

[mubarakvodel]

I disagree with Humes fork. You can use the power of *induction* to reason something that is neither analytic or synthetic.

“The sun will rise tomorrow” - is not analytic by definition nor synthetic by observation, because you can’t see tomorrow. However, because the sun has risen every day for millennia, we can conclude, by induction, that it will rise again tomorrow.

[andreasplosky]

I never heard any convincing argument for the existence of gods, and I have a library full of theological books. It all sounds equally nonsensical.
Great video. I am glad it got recommended to me. Subscribed!

[mryee]

A better question would be “what do you mean by God?”

[ecyranot]

Descartes said, I think; therefore, I am." Then he said, "I think of god; therefore god exists." I guess his next statement would be, "I think I'm god; therefore I am."

[duffypratt]

I don’t think the ‘should’ here is moral. Rather, Hume says that there is no rational basis for a belief in God. He comes to the same conclusion, for slightly different reasons, for the existence of causality and, most disturbingly, for even the existence of the self. Thus, not only does he reject DesCartes on the existence of God, but also rejects the famous Cogito ergo sum.

If the ‘should’ is in some sense moral, then the next question would be, is the statement ‘one should not believe X’ analytic or synthetic. Most will conclude that it is neither, and thus…

[ttv_mxr_btw_sweatytryhard]

Ok this is brilliantly explained, i have to do a phylosophical thesis for (guess what) Philosophy and this was greatly explained and beautifully organized. Defo going to put this video as the first credits link

[josephmore]

as presented, it appears as if Hume sets the rules of the game, and wins by following his own rules

[philipdubuque]

Didn't Ludwig Wittgenstein "put paid" to the synthetic/a priori position in the Tractatus? Enjoyed this video presentation.

[arthurmoiret]

Descartes proof is way oversimplified, which makes it sound dumb, but it's actually not.

[kenknight]

Appreciate these videos taking on this very difficult prospect of explaining historical western philosophical positions. One suspects that had Hume been able to know the Teleological (“fine tuning”) argument, he may have had a different response with respect to meeting his synthetic criteria. BTW, the apparent disdain for the Cartesian position at 0:50 is a bit off-putting (perhaps I am being over-sensitive).

[mikechristian-vnle]

A cat is not an animal by definition the same way that a bachelor is unmarried. Cats are bodies, like spoons and planets. We know that they are animals by observation before we wrote the definition: "a cat is a particular kind of animal."

[joshc]

Would not it be irrational and unethical for God to save people based on their created intellect rather than their chosen ethics/morals? Hence, pursuing the wisdom of the world doesn't lead to God, but pursuing righteousness does.
"Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, 'Murmur not among yourselves.
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him'" - John 6:43-44a

[theother]

Which god? Some might exist and it might be that any that do exist are unknown to humans.
The real question is 'Is the universe a natural or artificial phenomena?'. If you answer that it is artificial then the next question is 'Who (is/are) the artificer(s)?'.