DEBATE: The Argument for God From Reason • Cosmic Skeptic vs Max Baker-Hytch

--------------------------VIDEO NOTES--------------------------

The argument from reason was popularised by C.S. Lewis, but has a number of specific variations. Max Baker-Hytch is a tutor in philosophy at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, and challenges me in this episode of 'Unbelievable?' to respond to his version of the argument.

'Unbelievable?' is a show on Premier Christian Radio, hosted by my friend Justin Brierly, which brings together Christians and non-Christians for debate and discussion. It hosts some excellent conversations, and it is well worth subscribing (this is my fourth appearance on the show!)

--------------------------------LINKS---------------------------------

-----------------------------CONNECT------------------------------

SOCIAL LINKS:

Snapchat: cosmicskeptic

----------------------------CONTACT-------------------------------

Or send me something:

Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SinHurr]

I'm amazed Alex has time for this between YouTube, University, and filming two seasons of Netflix's hit UK Comedy, Sex Education.

[vanessacarlson]

If there is a god, I pray he gives me the wisdom to stop reading the comments while trying to listen.

[cassif]

The host is really good at what he's doing. I appreciate when he stops the conversation and says things like "Let's explain that term to the audience"

*Really cool how a Christian talk show host invites atheists on and actually listens to their arguments and gives them time to speak. Props for not being an echochamber. Also, Justin is good at appealing to the layman by defining jargon and giving general summaries of arguments.*

[BryanStiles]

Max: Spends 15 minutes laying out his entire argument.

Alex: Makes a 2 minute reply.

Max: "yeah, so there's quite a lot to respond to..."

[alexsummers]

I love how a philosophy student is holding his ground against a philosophy professor.

[cassif]

51:52 "Maybe I'm just misunderstanding why this needs to be so complicated"
Me most of the times the Christian guy was speaking

[TheRealGuywithoutaMustache]

It's always fun to see these debates. I love them.

[cassif]

Isn't this basically an overly complicated God of the gaps argument? We don't fully understand the biology behind complex thought, therefore something supernatural must fill in the gaps

[eredain]

Right. That's why I don't trust my calculator. There's nothing in there but naturalistic processes, atoms, electrons, etc.. How can it possibly get the right result under those circumstances? That's why I always just go with my gut in matters of math.

[Steve-hugw]

I would have liked Alex to have really hammered a few points:

1. Max is making a supernatural-of-the-gaps argument.
2. Max is making an argument from ignorance.
3. There are many scientists who have bothered to actually get up from their easy chairs, roll up their sleeves, and actually investigate scientifically the questions of consciousness, subjectivity, and mind. They are still at it, but most seem hopeful of eventual, concrete answers.
4. How can Max possibly know that atoms can’t be arranged so as to produce consciousness and rational thought? Indeed, how could he have the foggiest idea one way or another, let alone start assigning probabilities to any of it? Based on what?

[theethereal]

So glad to see another genuinely engaging debate. Can’t help but admire Alex

[JeffreyIsbell]

All this guy is doing is taking the “trouble with explaining consciousness” as evidence of “a problem with naturalism”. Simply, the fact that consciousness can’t be conclusively explained doesn’t mean it’s not natural. In fact, there’s more evidence that it is natural than the ridiculous notion that it’s not, given nothing can be shown to exist that is not natural.

[trevorlunn]

Interesting discussion, but Dr. Max says *_"atoms-in-motion in the void"_* can't ground reasoning but apparently *_"Non-Atoms in Non-Motion in the Non-Void" [God!]_* does AND this is based on probabilities and non-inference????
*Colour me so not convinced, the colour isn't on the spectrum!* 😎

[ApostateltsopA]

I'm 7 minutes in and pulling out my hair. That makes me worry that I'm Dunning Krugering on this. I'll listen to the rest because these are great, but can someone point out a flaw in this response?

Saying there is no truth to atomic motion is like saying there is no turn signal to atomic motion, yet with enough atoms behaving predictably we get a whole car and it's working turn signal.

How is this not just absurd reductionism on the host and theist's part?

[MatthewCaunsfield]

With Max being a professor, I was really hoping for some fresh new theist arguments.
Instead we get a combination of the watchmaker and the incredulity arguments, plus a real obsession with molecules and atoms.

I am a little surprised that no-one mentioned consciousness as an emergent property of the brain (together with the water molecules ≠ wetness example) but that might be a testament to Alex's resourcefulness in bringing new material to the table.

And of course thanks to Justin for hosting. More like this please! :-)

[notastrangeperson]

Thank u so much for this channel! I became an atheist on my own around 2nd grade. I never really knew anyone that wasn’t religious. This channel makes me “included”. Thanks!!

[mikealcock]

The theologian has immense difficulty in understanding how "intentionality" can emerge from the physical world, but no problem at all in asserting that a non material, non physical, timeless, infinite, spiritual, personal entity can produce a material universe. I know how stuff can produce mind, I don't know how mind can produce stuff. The minds we actually know about, just can't do that sort of thing. We call it magic.

[pneumonoultramicroscopicsi]

After finishing watching the debate, unfortunately I'm still on the side of naturalism, and the question of the nature of consciousness is pretty obvious to me, since it can be altered by merely introducing some chemicals to the body, or the existence of diseases that can change how people reason like schizophrenia (and those same diseases are treated using chemicals, antipsychotics for example) which means it's of a material nature, sure we don't understand consciousness in the sense of explaining how it comes to happen step by step, but that's just a matter of time in my opinion before this issue is going to be resolved.

[Neoklis]

40 minutes in and I'm convinced Max had only encountered the concept of the human brain moments before turning up to the debate.