Do you find this person's argument to be sound?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
This individual is arguing for the existence of God using the argument of contigency. Is his argument sound. Watch this video first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNnS9eIn_2U&t=2s&ab_channel=BasiraEducation
And then watch this video where he argues "Why Evolution Doesn't Disprove God" and in fact, he argues evolution proves God's existence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIGpfzXvgO4&ab_channel=BasiraEducation
Comments on Question
Please summarize the arguments here rather than just linking to videos of the arguments. Thanks.
So for an argument to be sound, we need true premises and a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises. If you are asking if this guys argument is sound, we need to know what the argument is, i.e., what are the premises and the conclusion. Please don't make us watch two 10 minute videos to find these arguments—just write them here. If there was no formal argument presented, and this is essentially just a philosophical musing and/or rant, than the best we can do is refute his reasons and give our opinion, in which is beyond the scope of this forum. If this is the argument from contingency, just look on YouTube for "argument from contingency refuted" and you will find many videos. Here is one by Matt Dilluhanty, who generally knows his stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6esL6yz52Q .
Shawn, Matt Dillahunty’s video on the contingency argument was recommended by someone in this thread. He assesses the reformulation that Michael Chase Walker commented on below. Matt made several mistakes in his analysis of the argument, due to a lack of research, to name one culprit. Of course, this then played a role in his bad evaluation of the argument. Hamza's presentation of the contingency argument is not persuasive and was too shallow to do the complexities of the issue justice. If anything, Hamza and Matt's videos might whet your appetite for philosophical food.
Evaluating contingency arguments has been a special area of interest for a growing number of metaphysicians in contemporary philosophy. Their research is accessible to the public, often for free.
I recommend Graham Oppy and William Rowe as sources to start researching into rebuttals to the contingency arguments. I recommend Alexander Pruss, Joshua Rasmussen, and Robert Koons as sources to start researching into defenses of contingency arguments. Besides evaluating entire contingency arguments, some of their papers are about basic issues such as the structure and strategies of contingency arguments, the plausibility of various formulations of the principle of sufficient reason, etc. These are academic philosophers, so prepare for technical language, formal logic, and hair splitting stuff in their papers. But quality research pays back with a quality education and an informed perspective on whether there is a sound formulation of the contingency argument, Shawn.
Answers
2Good God (pun intended) this is unbearable! Why would you waste your time listening to this claptrap, let alone tormenting others with it? If you want to debate the soundness of The Argument from Contingency just do so, it's certainly not that great of a challenge without subjecting us to this paralogical blather.
First of all, right off the bat Karamali deceptively Straw Man's Dr. Dawkins by misconstruing his explanation as to why he considers himself an atheist, and then grossly exaggerates it to be a slur against all theists. Hamza is clearly not arguing in good faith at all.
So, no, it is not a sound argument and is readily dismissable.
Secondly, the whole point of logic is to develop techniques for evaluating the cogency of arguments independently of the arguer's identity. So, there is no need to watch an Imam drone on about so-called universal contingency when we can simply debate the argument itself.
The Argument from Contingency is:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause). Mmmm, okay!
2. If the Universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. (Bingo! Right there we have a non-sequitur fallacy).
3. The universe exists. Well, duh!
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence. In fact, it has quite a few.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God. WTF? Circulus in probando.
Im only going to attempt to respond to the content of the first video shared. To summarize:
The video is titled "Why Atheists Mistake God For a Fairytale". It begins by showing a clip of an Aljazeera interview with scientist Richard Dawkins being asked "are you an atheist?".
He states "for all practical purposes, yes. Nobody can actually say for certain that anything doesn't exist. But I'm an atheist in the same way that I'm an a-leprechaun-ist, and a-fairy-ist, and an a-pig unicorn-ist".
The video then cuts to a clip of Hamza Karamali (the author of the video) trying to explain what he thinks about Dawkins words . He understands the statement to mean: there is no evidence for pig unicorns, or fairies, and no evidence for God's existence. So belief in God is like belief in fairies or pig unicorns.
Firstly, it's worth being pointed out that it seems Dawkins is using an appeal to ridicule. He trivializes the question of gods existence by equating it to things that seem ridiculous (the existence of pig unicorns) See: Appeal to ridicule
Secondly, it can also be argued that Dawkins reasoning commits the fallacy of special pleading. He is suggesting that belief in God is irrational because there is no evidence to prove that any God exists, yet he also seems to admit that there is no evidence to prove that atheism is true, but believes it's rational. See: Special Pleading
Hamza attempts to offer a rebuttal of Dawkins' statement. He first counters by stating:
-There is no evidence for fairies, pig unicorns, etc.
-Fairies, pig unicorns, etc, do not exist.
-However, there is evidence for God
The evidence he offers is what he calls the "argument from contingency". To keep things short, let's use the explanation of this argument from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that lines up with Hamzas version:
"1.A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed) exists.
2.All contingent beings have a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for their existence.
3.The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings is something other than the contingent being itself.
4.The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5.Contingent beings alone cannot provide a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings.
6.Therefore, what sufficiently causes or fully adequately explains the existence of contingent beings must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7.Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.
8.The universe, which is composed of only contingent beings, is contingent.
9. Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe."
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#DeduArguCont
Answering the OP, I think one could make a case for why this argument is not sound. One could respond that the universe is not contingent. It could also be argued that while the argument from contingency is sound, it does not necessarily prove that God exists (see Non Sequitir)
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
There is a formal argument made, and he lays it out quite clearly, but you have to listen to it. Why should I write out what you can listen to in less time that it takes to read a newspaper article. I fail to understand why you don't want to listen to a video that takes less time than your writing me back three times.