Відео

As I understand the argument we can simply say that there NEVER was a time when the universe did not exist - it has ALWAYS existed - in which case the question about HOW it got started simply does not arise. One might object to the notion that the universe has ALWAYS existed, but that's a separate question.

Give my regards to Prof. Wes Morriston - I was a grad student in one of his classes on Hume and philosophy of Religion. I meant to complete my PH.D. at CU Boulder - but life had other plans - and now find myself in France for very complicated reasons. He was by far one of my favorite profs. at CU Boulder (where also I had the time of my life during the 7 years I was there. Leaving Boulder Colorado was the worst decision I ever made in my life.). Do fix that microphone!

What is an apha and omega & where are you placing it? Results are in yet right off the bat referencing sources that inadvertently didn't know what we know re introduces circle arguements that's already been dealt with & cant help but be limited in knowledge we now have. St Augustin time & place application was Graced by God but he can't know how he in fact is wrong about unveiling hidden axioms of complexity. he specifically is opposed to such prophetic predictions it falls under messianic apocalyptic in his day.esoteric taxonomical defense is an opposite view. Father's loins idealistic forces of faith physical lawisms works echoes in successful human behavior in addition and subtraction/curses & blessings plagerized correlated prescribed back upon the world around us mothers womb =e=mc Eco systems feedback loop of many order of magnitude scaled epochs smaller to larger. But it was , 3 different approaches. After the fact emerging energetic actors was reduced & taken off the table, but most of the world threw away that memo! Went on about the normal practices. Threw temper tantrums argued even war & civil war over the results. In many ways the urge for a grand unified theory is driven by those motivations . One says magical matter the other was more anylitical physical mystification but 1500s we come to learn both wasn't the mosaic after all. paganism greeko assyrian babyl does get into 2nd temple Judaism & of course lends to both servitude & the reformation after all over this very eltrodynamical measure. You can witness in france Olympics that which is now removed from most Christianity today. Greatest devide ever held by it ! English gives us the alphabetical exodus married to indo European language you just mine as well forget all else. We know el =elementary its greeko assyrian babyl umbrella term stochastic approach platonic macro micro English is by passing out of context unicorns 🦄 that Homer cant help but Adopt & adapt so you mine as well cut 800bc - 1500s ad out don't bother referencing it . I say this as a Christian with all the affinities that come with that. Then we have more Jobe from uzartu mosaic triality of self free will that apparently gives us our math mapping formalism all be it flipped now after it's longitude and latitude unlocked the 3 keys to the cosmos for us. specifically defending against that taxonomical order. One where spirit of God is hovering over the waters of cosmos nature building breathe of life giving. Littery st paul indicating infinite space of nothing in between is the spirit of this power greater than before e =mc. This later has been the one who said idealistic forces faith and physical lawisms works or curses & blessings, addition and subtraction including energy, mass are all secondary effects from that frame of reference space between infinite sum. It is nothing more than a personification of powers greater than ourselves that for human logic struggles to accept ground zero is an object of renormalizablty, tells us to reorientate, and claims to he an object 1 body line of motion & frame of reference subjective as it is. Were in a reductionism to come to know this creater through his creation it doesn't have to be more complicated or driven into nilhisms. Alpha and omega has no beginning & no end. By default x nothingness Is something with even more emerging energetic actors out of it by all accounts of measure

Can't you run this thru an AI noise fixer of some sort? I wanna watch it but can't get past malplass audio

This is unwatchable because of how bad Malpass' mic is.

Appreciate the reupload. I was having trouble getting through the first one. Hopefully this one has fixed all of the hijinks

Fantastic discussion!

Wow, this was a really great debate. I hope it gets more attention in the future. I really enjoyed watching it. Thank you so much for hosting it!

No, it's not sound. The Kalam is special pleading. If the universe began to exist then so too did the principles therein, and can't logically be applied. You don't get exempt the principle you need to make your argument, just because.

You "say" you are convinced there is "something" else. You also say that the Kalam is not enough to convince you. So, what does convince you? What's the point of presenting something that does convince you. Like every other theist you make a lot of claims without providing evidence for them. The time to believe something is AFTER you have good evidence for it. Bring the evidence. You are wishy washy as all crap! I can't believe you are a Dr. of anything.

why do these channels exist? vanity?

just a quick reminder that the first amendment conflicts with the first commandment "thou shalt worship whoever you want" and that the declaration of human rights gives ME more rights than god. and a history lesson cos the USA is a secular nation, not many people seem to know that, and the founding fathers were at best deists and certainly not christian. hitchens became a naturalised american purely because of the constitution. the UK is officially christian, the US is officially secular. is it annoying that the satanic temple has the SAME RIGHTS as the church?

radioactive decay happens at random intervals and has no cause, quantum events don't need causes. learn basic science. quantum fields do the job nicely.

When you begin with the claim that you're not a theist and you're not an atheist, you lose all credibility as the position is necessarily binary, you have to be one of the other. It's the same as claiming you are married, but you're not married.

"Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument Sound?" This is easy, no.

Everything that begins to exist has a natural cause The universe began to exist (questionable; especially as the latest data from the JWST is casting serious doubts on the Big Bang being the beginning of everything) Therefore the universe has a natural cause. All that anyone disputing this has to do is provide an example of something beginning to exist (completely ex nihilo, not reshaped, like a wooden chair or a clay pot) that doesn't have a natural cause.

Er ... boy you want to talk about red flags? "I'm not a theist, but here's my book subtitled a rational journey from disbelief to the existence of god" in addition to the published papers where you literally argue that theism is more rationally sound than atheism. But, no, you're not a theist? Come on dude. Then you try to present yourself as some middle ground between theism and atheism? You're full of shit. Theists believe in a god, atheists do not. What, exactly is the middle ground here? That you maybe, possibly think a god might exist? Or you maybe think possibly a god doesn't exist? In both cases you still fall into the category of theist. Stop trying to position yourself in the middle of something that doesn't have a middle ground in order to try and bolster your claims to one side or another. You are being intentionally deceitful when you do this. After going through your published works, you publish exclusively in theological papers. You are, by far, a theist. You just try to lie to pretend to be more credible than you actually are. Glad to see CUNY is still producing students of high moral fiber.

0:18 "I'm not a theist and I'm not an atheist". Either you accept the proposition "there is at least one god", or you don't. There logically is no other position. Maybe he doesn't even know what his own position is? Not sure what he wants to argue, but this already is a massive fail in the first minute. I don't accept any of the premises of the classical Kalam. Not that everything that comes into existence needs a cause, nor that the universe came into existence. Sorry.

Boiler up!

Why is Huemer being cut off during the Q&A?

Dan says that taking the anarchist view is not persuasive, but since when is persuasiveness equivalent to truth? Galileo's arguments about the sun and the earth were not persuasive to the church, but that doesn't mean that he was wrong, it just means that the church didn't want to be contradicted and have their narrative disrupted. Philosophy is about finding the truth no matter whether people like the truth or find it easy to digest or not.

You see open borders in the EU & Europe. Germany is experiencing very high immigration of slavic, romanian, hungarian and italian people and is doing pretty fine with it. With a population of about 80 Mio it absorbed in 2 years 1.16 Mio ukrainians.

In my humble opinion Adam Driver lost the debate here. Just saying.

I think Dan makes a few errors. One is that he doesn't have an overarching political theory, which is fine, but it should make the strength to which he holds his position weaker. If you're unwilling to stake out principles to be challenged on their implications, then you have less reason to believe that any of your views are correct. Two is the assumption of libertarian anarchism. We want to know what the account is for the state having the amount of authority required to have the right to harmfully coerce Marvin. This does not entail that all authority is unjustified. Three is that he rejects the economic research that shows immigrants are a (large) positive benefit, saying that the research was done on much more limited migration. A paper Caplan commonly sites is Clemens 2011, but immigrants as a percent of the population hasn't gone up THAT much since even 2000. Also, he presents no research of his own, which ought to be crucial. Finally, he says that a country is more analogous to a family than a club or marketplace. Why would anyone treat 300 million people whom they've never met as a family? Absurd. And even if we were a family, that still wouldn't justify harmfully coercing Marvin without some account of authority, as using harmful coercion on a non-family member to prevent competition of a job is prima facie unjustified.