Bertrand Russell’s Flawed Argument against the Existence of God

As a teenager, Bertrand Russell became an agnostic based on the assumption that everything requires a cause—even God. In this brief clip, R.C. Sproul shows where Russell made a critical mistake in his thinking, one he failed to see throughout his life.

[Tractorman-xjgt]

I hear atheists say "I miss Hitchens"; as a believer, I say "I miss Sproul" - glad we have these videos !!

[TrulyLordOfNothing]

TLDR: Everything that exists doesn't need a cause. principle of causality is not violated in the case of God, only things that come to be i.e change requires a cause(explanation).

[foodthort]

Sproul is really saying that you pre-suppose an eternal god who is then an exception to the principle that everything else that exists must have a cause (i.e. the god). This cosmological argument for a god is no better than the ontological and teleological arguments. If people feel they need to believe through faith (John 20:29) that is fine, but the balance of evidence just isn't there to support it.

[lisaregoart]

Two categories exist for all things : eternal (uncaused) & temporal (caused). God is uniquely positioned in the first category with everything else in the second category.

[bobbabai]

I love it. This guy criticizes Russell for not sticking to the "defining God into existence using my favorite definitions of words" - this guy's version of the cosmological argument. But he can't see himself making a simple, bald-faced assertion "God has no cause because I don't think it could be any other way". Or, the more likely explanation is this guy is simply a dishonest apologist, and will obfuscate whatever he needs to in order to convince his audience.

Russell was simply, as a teenager, becoming convinced the "first cause" argument was silly, which it is. It is simply an assertion that there must have been a first cause. And then believers go on to say "the first cause must have been the particular God I'm interested in, which had no cause, by the way", then they give no basis for believing that is true. That's a worse argument than a naturalist saying "universe is the first cause because it has always existed and didn't have a cause". We don't know if it's true, but it certainly is a bad argument. But it's a better argument than the first cause being a god, because we can demonstrate a universe exists. So why not just keep it simple and say "the universe always existed"?

And then, of course, Russell went on to dispatch all of the common and not so common arguments for the belief that a God exists. This guy pretends he's unaware of all that.

[themutupoguy]

This seems like a logical critique, but it still hinges on an assumed being.
As far as I know, humans have never encountered an uncaused Being or a thing that has no origin/has always been. But We examine the world around and conclude that all this is an effect of a particular cause. And in the theist's POV, that cause then has to jump particular hurdles to become the God of the particular belief we belong to.

[UN-Seki]

How exactly does this modify the argument against the existence of God? It is an argument of skepticism in first place. If not everything that exists requires a cause, then the universe does not require a God to cause it. By adding God to the equation, you're multiplying factors beyond evidence and necessity.

[jonroth]

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
Roman's 1:22

[jessyjonas]

“ because although they knew God
They did not glorify Him as God nor were
Thankful but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened. “ Romans 1:31

THE CAUSAL ARGUMENT

[Pandaemoni]

We also now know that there are events that (by most interpretations) have no cause in quantum mechanics. The radioactive decay of an atom, for example, is a purely probabilistic event. No particle moves, nothing othrwise changes and nothing "causes" an atom to decay at a quantum level. If things within the universe and within time can happen without a cause, then that creates a strong reason to doubt whether our understaning of cause and effect would or could have any application to the birth of the cosmos, as that would involve some occurrence outside of space and time. Our intuitions have to doubted in such alien circumstances.

[FlandiddlyandersFRS]

Russell's statement that, _"None of the stock arguments for God are logically valid"_ stands unrefuted.

[williamseric]

Why did Russell get it wrong? Because he failed to realize that he was a finite created being, and that God is beyond our limited human understanding. There's one thing for sure; he most certainly understands it now.

[eliecher]

the statement that every cause must have an effect can avoid infinite regression 2 ways:
1. at least 1 circular relationship sequence
2. there exists at least 1 thing that is not an effect and is a cause

Now, nothing here guarantees a personal being.
Nothing guarantees a prime cause. (even if 2 is the case, there can be more than 1 causes that are not effects)

[jimsmith]

All this is to again assert that god doesn’t need a cause? That’s very convenient of course, but until we have confirmation that god exists, we have no reason to accept this as true. It is simply a possible explanation.

[behonestwithyourself]

I think Bertrand Russell understood cause and effect. He also said theres no reason to suppose there was a start to the universe. We dont really know. Thats the truth.

[MarcScott-Taylor]

there is absolutely no flaw in bertrand Russels argument, he said that no one knows the first cause but the way the universe is structured shows that the physical laws that governs the cosmos assembles in an evolutionary way and does not arrive fully formed as if made by magic

[navid]

I'm shocked how no one there burst out laughing!! This man miserably failed to show how god isn't an effect and the universe is and why a cause doesn't need a cause to exist? his only argument was "in Christianity we believe..."😂😂 this was his method to falsify Russell😂 again, good job to everyone there who didn't bust out laughing lol.

[raygsbrelcik]

In the end of these intellectual discussions, the simplistic reality
of the existence of---not only organic material, but how it managed
to assemble itself, complete with all the proper organs, located in
all the right places...all by itSELF!
The "Stuff of life, " just spinning around in space, where there is no
Oxygen---no chance, no sign of life whatsoever, and yet..."BOOM--
LIFE!"
Absurd---absolutely absurd.

[Andrew-kijz]

Well this is bamboozled me with science, but we should only go by facts, we should never go or get lost in assumption, God tell us in his word the Bible, "I am the Alpha and Omega" very clearly said in God's word

[fletcherberryman]

While articulate, and well capable of public speaking, not a single pushback he provides holds up against formal logic. That isn’t to say that one can’t find faith in a Higher Power elsewhere, but here he fails to address the many, many arguments Russell makes and instead focuses on just one. He doesn’t hold a candle to the much more difficult fallacies that Russell points out in his books…this man clearly never read them, or worse, knew he couldn’t overcome them.

He also doesn’t understand basic math and logic as he claims (though some points are okay at best).

I point this out only because it scares me that people hear a well spoken man and conflate that with his being truthful or correct in all he says. We all know where that’s led us in history.