Contingency Arguments, Idealism, and More |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- I chat with Michael Jones (@InspiringPhilosophy) about contingency arguments, idealism, the argument from limits, and so much more.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
OUTLINE
0:00 Intro
1:08 Michael’s opening
11:27 Joe’s opening
28:48 Discussion
1:08:05 Q&A
LINKS
(1) The original video from @tgtengage: • @InspiringPhilosophy ...
(2) Contingency Argument playlist: • Contingency Arguments
(3) Argument from Limits video: • The Argument From Limits
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uN...
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason
My Springer book: (a) www.amazon.com/Existential-In... (b) link.springer.com/book/10.100...
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/josep...
I’m very impressed by what you covered in the introduction, Joe. Important points and great presentation.
Really fun discussion, thanks!
A marvellous debate, and so refreshingly good-humoured. Thank you!
Half-marvelous. Only Joe's part was worth listening to.
One of the better discussion I seen where we get to the point and not a bunch of fluff going on
OMG a new video 😱! So cool!
Can’t wait to see the Symmetry Breaker video, especially what you think of James Collin’s Existential Inertia breaker
Send me an email and I’ll share something with you🙂
@@MajestyofReason 🥹
@@MajestyofReason Great discussion. On intuition and idealism, you don't need to go to India, the biblical Hebrew language contains the idealism structure.
For example, use a Hebrew version of John 1:1, in the beginning, first or when, however you translate BERESHIT>DEVAR the word. DEVAR, can be both a noun and a verb, as a verb it's to speak and speech, as a noun it's a word, idea, a thing and information.
It's perfectly legitimate to say, WHEN THE THING IS NEXT TO GOD THE THING IS GOD. But it's not limited to that translation.
Also, if you want to argue against the Trinity fine, I argue the Trinity in it's Orthodox construction cannot make sense in biblical Hebrew and if you can get a Hebrew expert to prove me wrong please do, I've made this challenge for over ten years. You make a trinitarian statement but it's not going to be identical to the Greek or English or Latin Orthodox construction of three PERSONS, in Hebrew a person is an Adam or BEN ADAM a son of Adam. I wouldn't say ONE ELOHIM IN THREE ADAMS, although I think Mormons do, and this is messianic Jewish Christians were progressively labeled ARIAN as theology became more Greek and Latin.
I don't think they were Arian, although some probably were, rather I don't believe a messianic jew who thought in biblical Hebrew would in good conscience say he believed in what came from be the required Orthodox statement, and it was required by the time of Theodosius 3 and you could lose your tax and exemption and be prosecuted for opposing it.
So I don't think it's fair to argue against biblical Christianity by refuting the Trinity and I would even go so far as to say it smacks of antisemitic in that it denies the original semitic construction and language.
Now there are modern native israelies who do think in Hebrew and claim to be trinitarian, but as I said, I don't know how they reconcile that and I can't get a response.
Now, I'm not calling trinitarians heretics per se, I'm just saying like the physicist Feynman often did THAT'S NOT RIGHT AND ITS NOT EVEN WRONG. So in conclusion, since you have no christian commitment that you would be the fair and impartial voice that asks the "Christian" philosopher CAN YOU SAY IT IN BIBLICAL HEBREW? Most of what Michael is arguing can, and I wish he would because that would be fair to how Jesus, the Christ, the Jew, would speak about what is Christian.
Joe's common sense arg against theistic idealism is so interesting! Really genuinely thought provoking
Based Joe
When it comes to the Trinity I think Jonathan Edwards' "Unpublished Essay on the Trinity" (which is freely online) has a profound suggestive speculation on why God is a Trinity. To simplify it and partly use other theologians' terms, the eternal generation of the Son is due to God's exhaustive knowledge of Himself that is so intense that it literally begets another timelessly eternal person (namely the 2nd person of the Trinity), while the love and affection between the two persons is so intense that it eternally results in the timeless eternal procession of the Holy Spirit (the 3rd person of the Trinity). So, there's a sense in which the Spirit is depends on the Father and the Son [assuming the filioque], and the Son on the Father, such that all three are necessarily existent (hence all three are truly and fully Divine), even if only the Father alone is self-existent (being the fons deitatis).
Consciousness might require the ability to distinguish one's self from another. Or maybe the ability to reflect on oneself. It could be that that self -"conception" in God is so intense that it "begets" the Son. I'm of course using the concept of "conception" equivocally. A mental conception and conception of offspring. Interestingly, that's how the New Testament conceives (pun) of Christ. He's both the Logos/Word/Reason & Sophia/Wisdom of God AND [as well as] the Son/Offspring of God.
In which case, strict monotheism might be impossible. Meaning, a unipersonal God might be impossible. God, in order to be personal, might need to be multi-personal.
Super interesting, this response probably made the most sense
The word "reflection" also has two senses in which we can apply to the Trinity. There's a sense of the word reflection that has to do with mirror images. Another sense of reflection has to do with thinking upon something (e.g. "Upon further reflection, I realize I was a selfish child in my youth"). Given what I said above, the 2nd person of the Trinity might be the Father Reflecting (as in thinking) of Himself with such intensity that it eternally mirrors another real person (i.e. the Son). This is how Jesus could say in John 14:9b, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" NOT that the Son IS the Father (that's the heresy of Modalism), but rather, the Son perfectly reveals and represents the Father because the Son is exactly like the Father (without actually being the Father). The Father, Son and Spirit share the same divine nature.
Seems like you'd need an explanation why the father begets only one son. Which demonstrates the property is not unlimited.
@@goldenalt3166 hmmm I thought about that and I think it might come down to God’s character. Idk if this is heretical but just a thought, it’s possible that God is not necessary triune but chooses to be / represent himself to humans or his creation I. General. So I guess what I’m saying is that God isn’t triune by necessity but more so for our sake.
Still watching through, but was at the end of Joe's opening comments and had some thoughts.
First, as a Christian I have certain concerns about Christian idealism and its compatibility with other Christian doctrines, particularly sin and atonement. I'm not sure how sin works if everything is part of the mind of God. Wouldn't that implicate God in our sin? If you believe that God created a world with existential inertia, then he is not directly involved in sin going on. I'm not sure how we avoid that conclusion on idealism. Also, the atonement starts to get weird. If our very existence is somehow contained in the mind of God, then what does it mean for us to be alienated from God? How could it be possible that we would be separate from him if we are literally part of his thoughts?
That said, I'm sure that those worries stem more from my ignorance of Christian Idealism. There are likely thoughtful responses to those worries out there and I simply haven't encountered them.
I will say that I think Joe gives a very plausible set of objections to the argument from arbitrary limits. In particular, the assumption that certain things "count" as properties to be unlimited while others don't seems difficult.
When I think through the contingency argument, I'm more modest in what I think can be gleaned from it. I think it shows that there is a necessary foundation for reality. I think Ockham's razor would shave off multiple loci for the foundation so that we're reasonable for positing 1 and not more than 1. I also think that its ability to bring about contingent effects implies some possible difference within the foundation, and (as the foundation) there cannot be anything more fundamental that explains those differences. So what do you call something that can bring about different effects with the explanation for those differences found within the thing itself? Sounds like free agency to me, which implies personhood. So we'd wind up with a single personal being who exists necessarily as the foundation for all reality. That's enough for me to count as a good reason to affirm theism.
I learned a ton. Thank you!
.Joe's mind fascinates me. His logical, philosophical engine is so turbocharged, can he turn it off? How does small talk work for him? Does he watch soccer and consider how it works in block time?
He is a charlatan. Hides behind "intelligence" and "rationalism" without saying anything meaningful. He doesn't care about Truth. He's just playing a game to masturbate his ego.
If you have a narrative that not only claims that its explanatory power is all-encompassing, but also that it is the only explanation that you can use to come to the truth of the universe, then everything that it doesn't explain, or everything that it explains insufficiently, and anything that has a better epistemic standard met outside of it, is going to necessarily undermine the expectations of the standards that it sets for itself. The fact that other religions all seem to be playing the same game in this regard makes me think that it is much more likely that the propositions they assert aren't necessary to grasp the truths they convey. Looking at these texts as symbolic and metaphorical removes that burden, as opposed to total fundamentalism. If these texts really are just ideas that humans develop, then all of the expectations are met.
This doesn't necessitate atheism, but it posits that maybe god doesn't reveal himself to humans and that maybe human revelation is something that can emerge only through the subjective experience .
Metaphorically, god the father is ontological perfection, the holy spirit is how that interacts with us through consciousness, and Christ is the capacity for us to relate to that personally and transcend our egos by orienting our perception around the father. The three person's don't have to be individual manifestations of one supreme being, they are the different ways that the one can be revealed to the many. There are three of them, not because it is limited, but because we are in our perception of it.
Could you clarify the distinction between "asserting a proposition" and "conveying a truth"?
You are so good. You’re literally a legend.
And he WILL be a legend. But InspiringPhilosophy is inmortal
@@logans.butler285 inmortal? Now there's a new word for you. 🤔😬🙄
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Ok, wrong term. Should've used… INVINCIBLE
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
@@logans.butler285
*"But InspiringPhilosophy is inmortal"*
The hell?
I have a question that's not related to the video, feel free to delete it if you see it as spam.
I've been reading philosophy for a few years and I've read some of the big names, like Plato, some Schopenhauer, Aurelius, some Nietzsche and a few others.
With many philosophers I find that they are not very rigorous, Nietzsche for example sometimes reads more like a poem.
I like your style of reasoning, I also like how you incorporate formal logic into your arguments.
Do you follow any particular "school" of philosophy? What books or other resources would you recommend to someone who wants to dive deeper into that style of reasoning?
What you’re describing is what is classically called the continental/ analytic philosophy distinction. In my view there isn’t a robust, stark divide here, but what you described as the more poetic mode of expressing philosophical thought falls more within the continental bin, whereas the style that Joe is exemplifying is properly “analytic”. If you are attracted to this latter style, I suggest looking into the analytic tradition and perhaps reading some secondary literature on it to discover individual philosophers. A good historical read that covers this distinction can be found in A.C. Grayling’s The History of Philosophy. Hope that helps
@@j.s.weinhold6223 Thanks!
The commenter above me is correct! Also, I have some book recommendations for you! Check out my video here: ua-cam.com/video/a2zoBCPe7WY/v-deo.html
and the various book videos in my playlist here: ua-cam.com/play/PLxRhaLyXxXkbOGcxCZPjybRASmKynBfGN.html
@@MajestyofReason Thank you.
I can understand where Michael is coming from about idealism. For me, I am a mathematical platonist, so I can think of everything as mathematical. Thus, ultimately, everything seems to be this kind of abstraction. Of course, I don't know if it can logically lead to idealism from this, however. I also struggle with the idea that properties are bundled.
Aristotle frames properties as things as such: "Some things, again, are present in a subject, but are never predicable of a subject." He uses whiteness as an example, and says that it's present in, but never predicable of anything. As I understand it, this is akin to saying Socrates is white, but white is not Socrates. Also, like you, Joe, I'm a monist as well. I think dualism is unappealing, and I think reality can be best explained with things as a single substance.
I don't know if this explains anything phenomenally, but I tend to think of the mind as a process of the brain. However, this process would be considered abstract. So I think that perhaps the framing might help if it was thought of as quasi-concrete, rather than abstract.
at 8:45 I didn't catch first name IP was listing. Who Coleman?
The problem I have with the argument from limits is many limits contradict each other. For instance "justice and mercy" and "love and glory". Another problem I have is it seems to me the right to privacy is a perfection, that God has none of since he is omniscient.
You're debating grumpy cat?
There is something that I don't really understand. I am struggling with the concept of something existing necessarily. When I think about the concept, the next thing that comes to mind is why is there even a concept of necessary or why is the universe or world or whatever made in a way that that thing, whatever it is, is necessary. The original premise is, that every contingent thing seems to have an explanation. I would counter with the assumption that everything seems to have an explanation, even things that might be necessary. Hell maybe everything we see is necessary because everything is deterministic. We might not even know what contingent things are. I would really like to hear your opinion on if the concept of necessity is even in its core possible.
A necessary existence is Necessarily explained by itself
@32:25 wth was that from you and michael lmao I was like wtf from the random kawaii interlude during this deep philosophical discussion
Joe, can you do a video with Michael Heumer talking about his argument for reincarnation and a soul. He is an atheist to my knowledge. Id want to see your objections to his arguments.
Even if we start out with some actual facts, motivation and extrapolation gets us straight back to our conditioned beliefs. Also does the existence of some amazing contingent whotsit necessarily entail some even more amazing cause? Also some definitions of Idealism make a lot of sense. In fact are difficult to argue against. Like for example the basic fact that our experience is fundamentally a mental projection - we only imply, based on the "brain's" projections that Reality is actually material. Evolution explains why we believe our brain's projections.
I wouldn't say "straight back". We can extrapolate based on facts and then test those extrapolations. It's when you extrapolate based on extrapolations that you start to lose certainty.
It seems that looking for an ultimate foundation is impossible. You have to stop somewhere. It seems most useful to me to stop at the point where you have no control or predictive power.
@@goldenalt3166 Mea culpa re "straight back" I was referring to someone who was "motivated" by a particular conclusion.
Awesome debate from my favorite agnostic and one of my favorite Christians 👍. Even though I do disagree with a lot of people in the comments and I do think they misunderstood a lot of Michael’s positions, and I think some other arguments are just foolish, at least you’re audience is critical unlike Matt Dillahunty or most online atheists audiences for the most part, they’re basically just minions not here though. So I feel like I can actually have conversations with people I feel like that part in a large from you.
Hi, I'm a fan of Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, and so forth. I love their style and substance and I listen to their stuff religiously. All that said...
I'm a gnostic theist. I don't believe they're correct on their ultimate conclusion, and frequently disagree with their premises. I'm definitely not a minion for them, and I agree to disagree. I also don't usually agree with Inspiring Philosophy, even though I agree with him on his conclusions to some extent.
It's important to understand WHY we believe in things though, and ultimate skepticism is a power tool for refinement of positions.
@@philzeo you’re a fan of dillahaunty? Lol thanks you saved me time, wouldn’t even try to discuss with you.
@@Darksaga28 You'd look a lot less silly if you'd finished reading my comment
@@philzeo OK I apologize I should’ve clarified, i’m not talking about all Dillahunty fans or all fans of those type of atheist UA-camrs, I definitely have had rational conversations with many of them, and you’re definitely one of them. It’s also great that you can recognize their flaws unlike many of their fans, you’re definitely not a minion, i’m talking about the people that just blindly regurgitate what they say, Anna really nothing but talking point machines for these people, I personally don’t like either, I think Aron is good at debating flat earthers and Young Earth creationists, but beyond that when it comes to Christianity, Philosophy history and pretty much everything else, he to me it’s just a Dunning Kruger effect personified, and I find him to be very dishonest and hypocritical on those issues, and I feel like Care is far more about winning and he actually does about getting somewhere or truth, I think a prime example of this was his debate with inspiring philosophy, especially during the answers and questions peried, and also Michael said that he tried to give him the of studies he used in their debate and he refused to accept them twice. As for Dillahunty I think he can be pretty respectful I hear a lot of Christians saying that he’s a jerk he doesn’t really come off that way, he’s pretty respectful and most of his debates, I really the only times I see him B just mean is with some of his callers but to be fair those people got on my nerves as well, but some other times it’s just totally uncalled for, and just makes him look nasty, I think he’s a pretty good understanding of science, except for quantum mechanics but I mean most people so I can’t really blame him for that, but again when it comes to Christianity, Philosophy, history and pretty much every other subject he again to me it’s just a Dunning Kruger effect, can I find his understanding of theism and theistic arguments for God to be incredibly superficial and he doesn’t really seem to be able to critique them or any issues that have to do with Christian theology or Christianity, i’m beyond the most completely superficial level possible, and I feel like he’s doing most of his debates just to inflate his own ego and because he has a very loyal fan base that he knows will watch the debate, and give it publicity, because he really goes into most of his debates knowing nothing about the subject really at all, unless it’s something related to atheism or science, he does seem like a nice guy though I feel like if I met him in person and we could have a good conversation about whatever, I don’t think he’s completely unreasonable he’s reasonable on some things but overall I would say he’s more unreasonable than reasonable. What do you mean by gnostic theist, do you mean agnostic theist because I know what that is I’ve never heard the term gnostic theist before. I myself am a Christian deist, I want to believe in Christianity and I think I’m getting closer and closer to being a Christian, but there’s still some things that for me you’re holding me back, One is the resurrection but I haven’t really studied the evidence on it all that much just what I’ve seen from debates, and I just find the probability of Deism to be more probable than Christianity or atheism.
@@Darksaga28 he’s not one of the brainwashed ones he’s actually smart from what I’ve seen.
Omnipotence, omniscience, concious, absolutely perfect
Defended by occam's razor
Didnt catch any justification that omniscience, omnipotence etc. is actually a less complex assumption though: it was just asserted without justification so occam's razor is rejected by hitchen's razor
Also doesnt unlimited also make it necescary that your assumed being is both omnibenevolant and omnimalevolent simultaniously? ... or perfectly evil god anybody?
Ok so points were better made in the video.
What I am confused
49:44 I understand Joe's preference for simplicity and unity. But reality in the physical universe isn't like that. It could be that Ultimate reality is neither either one or many, but both. This is why Cornelius Van Til and his disciples claim that the doctrine of the Trinity solves or at least illuminates the age old philosophical problem (or (maybe the oldest of all). Namely, the problem of the one and the many. All worldviews have a tendency to prefer or slide toward either unity/oneness or diversity/manyness. Christianity says both are true both in the created realm and in the uncreated, divine realm.
5:00 Seems like powers sufficient to create contingent things would not be arbitrary, and would be more simple in that it would not add additional power unnecessary to the explanation.
10:00 I'm into Russellian monoism. Haven't explored Idealism much. Interesting.
17:00 MR makes a similar point to my first point above far better than I could.
I find Russellian Monism very interesting myself since I lean towards Neutral Monism. I don't think lacking epistemic access to what the substance is rules out the possibility of reality being more than merely conscious phenomena. I'm not even sure what it means for consciousness to be considered a substance. I find a dual-aspect theory problematic. Maybe Bertrand's neutral monism and logical atomism are compatible, in the same way existence pluralism and substance monism seems compatible. Maybe a substance separates and combines in space in an endless cycle (cyclical causality) the way Heraclitus suggested but then wouldn't that presuppose space was itself a substance which contradicts substance monism. What are your thoughts?
I think F.H. Bradley was right to hold to existence monism as opposed to existence pluralism (after considering the nature of relations and distinctions) but at the same time, wrong to hold to Idealism over Neutral Monism. Maybe he never considered Plato's allegory of the cave? I think Bertrand was right to think Existence was a brute fact but wrong to divide existence into basic things/categories in the way Aristotle did.
@@CMVMic I'm just an amateur UA-cam philosopher so I don't think I'm going to be of much help to you! You are in way deeper than me.
I don't know the difference between neutral monoism and Russellian monoism? Do you know of a good resource on that topic?
Have you debated any presups or gone over presuppositionalism on your channel?
Debating presups is a huge waste of time. Their fundamental assertion is that since you are not a Christian you don't have justification for intelligibility and rationality (plus they think everyone knows the Christian god exists and they just suppressed it, which basically implies that the interlocutor is fundamentally a liar).
Basically every discussion with them goes like this
Presup: I'm right and for you to even have a discussion with me about how I can be wrong, you'd need to presuppose my god, which means you are wrong "
Interlocutor: well no, I think you are wrong and I don't presuppose your god.
Presup: how do you know that? You can't unless you presuppose my god, that means I'm right and you are wrong.
There it is. Presup is the kindergarten of apologetics. The lazy way of defending the faith. It's not even an argument, cause they never show anything, just assert things over and over
@@piage84 idk about this. maybe in the case of the more naive and less philosophically/theologically lliterate ones, but if i am not mistaken people like van till, clark and others actually do/did try to argue/show why they are presupps and why they think that's the correct way. if they succeded is another thing, but they do/did argue with opponents/critics in a better way than what you describe here.
@@jonathacirilo5745 for both philosophy litterate and illiterate, presup apologetics is just sophistry of the highest level.
It's for narcissists and lazy thinkers. There's really nothing of substance in the "argument".
@@piage84 idk about that, but my knowleadge about it is admitedly pretty ameteurish so i can't really say if you're wrong or not.
@@jonathacirilo5745 do you know the presup argument?
It all revolves around them having a circular, question begging worldview, but complaining that atheists have a circular, question begging worldview. Only that in their mind, their circularity is virtuous, whilst atheist's circularity is vicious. There's not such thing as virtuos circularity. Both worldviews are based on axioms (that by definition are don't have a justification). They love to point to the fact that atheists don't have a justification for intelligibility, without realising that they don't have it either.
Just read or listen to any presup. It's not hard. It's actually very simple and frankly quite dumb. You just need to cut through the big words they love to use and to hide behind.
Susan Schneider! One of the best Pensées guests!
Which foundational entity do you think most plausible for the metaphysical necessary existence?
I reject the idea that we need a foundational entity. To me this is like asking: which city is the starting point of planet earth?
@@goldenalt3166 How could contingent beings have ever come into existence if not from a foundational entity? How is it possible that there is something rather than nothing, if at one point, there was only nothing?
@@nanashi7779 No-one believes in a point where there was nothing.
@@goldenalt3166 Are you suggesting that the universe has existed eternally? Or at the very least, "something" has existed for an infinite amount of time?
@@nanashi7779 There are many possibilities. Again, I reject the whole methodology of looking for a beginning or foundation.
❤ Mike's cat
"Kalam or... Lebanese" got me
I am a psychologist and I know God exists because nothing can be created from nothing and it is impossible an infinite regress. Nothing that is something can be infinite. Nothing that is something can be God. I am not talking about faith, but logic. It is impossible the existence of infinitude of days, people, love, stars, density, or anything else. Only possibilities can be infinite, only potential can be infinite. Only nothingness can be infinite. We know the universe was created from an eternal intelligence of an infinite nature different to the finite nature of the creation or what has a beginning or existence. The nature of God coincides with our psychology and all reality. Do you think I am making up my God? God is easy to explain and impossible to understand because reality is a miracle by nature, an impossibility possible, the existence of infinitude. God is absolutely everything, everything that ever existed, exist and would exist, the perfect metaphysical living entity all is part of. Would you memorize a logical fallacy to preserve knowledge useful for future generations and not lie to innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To understand only to want to understand is required. Atheists commit the atheist fallacy always because they believe God is sky daddy and don’t believe God exists, and they are wrong because they believe. God is the idea of perfection for a good person honest and rational that makes perfect sense because is for all lives the same perfect justice with perfect knowledge with perfect hell and heaven with perfect karma because everything we do we do it to Ourself. An atheist is an organ asking for evidence that the body exists. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news.
Religion and atheism are misunderstandings of reality harmful to God’s Life, the only that matters and exists for me. Life is not a joke that was created from nothing and we matter because we are literally God, Time and Space. Humanity censor knowledge that saves lives. What more do you need to know to understand? Future generations would understand, so why don’t you?
45:00 I’m sorry this just seems to be purely trying to construct an argument from motivated reasoning. It’s fine to explore hypotheses this way, but it’s easy to see how glaring the issue is if we were to just without trying to argue for a trinity, just either consider a divine being made of 0 persons, 1 person, 2 persons,… and so on and try to say anything about the relation ship in general grounds.
Or by really considering what would be needed for love. Like, common, it really doesn’t seem like the hypothesis predicts what Michael wants to predict here.
And it seems like the reason he’s trying to make it predict that is theologically motivated.
I repeat, that it is fine to explore like this but it can be deceptive if context is left out.
PS, i'll send out a memo when i start caring what people say in replies.
59:00 "there's some sorta gap there. and it's hard to see how you bridge that gap" with the second person?
59:50 (time stamp irrelevant) this sounds like the gap between thee Objective and thee Subjective. (i hope you read that in Bill Craig's voice. Objective. SUBjective.😂)
1:30:48 great discussion
Is the universe contingent?
If we truly want to reduce the number of brute facts in an explanation then we should really consider the idea that the universe is the singular, necessary concept that this philosophical logic requires.
Perhaps we are residing in a non-sentient, possibly self-replicating universe that has no agenda or emotion, and where time is irrelevant to everything but the conscious mind.
And compare that to the complexity of an infinite being with an intellect.
..A being who must by definition know everything.
Even the origins of infinity? Is deemed to be oitside of time, which begs a few question;
When did he do anything? How long does he wait to recieve prayers? Is he ever surprised by anything? How does he not get bored? Why did he create anything in the first place? How did he create stuff? Does he even know how he created stuff? Does he know why he created stuff? Could he create something different? Did he create something different?
So many complications!
39:40 Can we really make a distinction between conscious properties & the conscious mind that harbours the properties? Granted, I personally agree that God can’t have free will (because God is outside of time, & changing one’s mind implies imperfection), but if He harbours ANY conscious properties, even just one, is it still meaningful to speak of His mind NOT being conscious?
I'd say yes. Being "conscious" requires having ALL the properties of consciousness. Computers have many of the properties like making decisions and responding to inputs. We don't call then "conscious".
@@goldenalt3166 They don’t make decisions, they only respond to input, which has more in common with a water faucet or a light bulb than with consciousness. Responding to input is not a property of consciousness.
@@geomicpri Then you'll have to be much more clear in your definition of "consciousness". What are the properties?
@@goldenalt3166 Self awareness, subjective experience, awareness of thought, intentionality, etc.. are properties of consciousness.
@@geomicpri So nothing that we can possibly determine for anyone else?
Wouldn't it be awkward if there IS a God but it isn't accurately represented by ANY known religion?
Taoism lol
It sure would make my day!!
I can’t see a possibility outside of pantheism, deism (which is ultimately what he described as atheistic thomism), or a world where God interacts with conscious beings in the universe. All three of these bases have been covered
I’ve been thinking about the arguments that were made in regard to the Trinity. And it’s relation to “unlimited-ness” and necessity. Thought of a few experimental ideas. May or may not be theologically sound but are just open for criticism/reproof.
1. To preface this, it could be argued that we have no other reference point for an omniscient mind and whenever we come up with an explanation as to why it’s necessary or unnecessary, we automatically fail by assuming that the omniscient consciousness functions similarly to our own consciousness. Therefore, philosophy in of itself cannot be used to argue for the Trinity (since in order to philosophize over it, we must have a valid understanding of the nature of it, which we don’t) but instead it relies on the historic proof and on-going demonstration of miracles and divine revelation. If in some way it’s necessary for an unlimited omniscient mind to exist as 3 persons - no more and no less persons - we wouldn’t know since we have no other reference points to other omniscient minds to compare it to. So contingency arguments shouldn’t have to rely on proving the Trinity, since that would instead rely on divine revelation.
2. Alternatively, perhaps it’s important to think about what exactly are these 3 persons. The Father, Word, and Spirit. The word is also referred to the Angel of The Lord. Angel is used in reference to sending messages. Word/message of God. So perhaps In order for an unlimited God to have internal thought/internal dialogue, there must be a sender of the message, a message, and the receiver of the message. (Some also perhaps use the word “love” - to justify that if God is all-loving He must love himself, and the Trinity is a manifestation of that love.) But in terms of messages, the Spirit acts the receiver of the message, and acts upon it. The Word of God is still God - therefore the message must be God. God must exist as both receiver and sender to have internal dialogue, but yet receiving and sending are two different things and so God is the same but yet there’s a distinction - we call this distinction personhood. Under the Idealism perspective, this might become even stronger since anything that God communicates in His mind actualizes in reality. Therefore in order to speak internally, there is automatically a necessity for Trinity. Since God is eternal, this internal dialogue must also therefore be eternal. You cannot separate a person’s own internal dialogue from the identity of the person himself.
In order to have an omniscient deity that is unlimited but yet without a Trinity, would have to imply that this deity is limited by being incapable of internal dialogue. Which is a significantly large limitation compared to a deity who is capable of internal dialogue.
WHAT I get from this is, at least as far as I can conclude, is that it's actually a Diune deity. Or, the essence and the substance. Or, possibly, the intellectual property and the physical / substantive property. However, this all still reduces, to me, to a mono-being, albeit one capable of understanding its own parts. No different than me understanding my own fingernails as part of my being, or my brain understanding my limbs as being part of the whole. A greatest thing would necessarily be indivisible from the whole while containing all aspects of the whole simultaneously to the greatest possible extent.
@@philzeo Understanding yourself is different than having an internal dialogue.
Internal thoughts.
Perhaps understanding yourself is a part of internal dialogue, but internal dialogue includes a lot more.
And while you yourself having internal dialogue can technically result in some form of mental trinity (sender, message, recieved,) since you’re a limited temporal, non-omnipotent, that sort of trinity in your own mind is of little to no significance. But when raised to the degree of a non-temporal omnipotent entity who’s mind grounds all of reality, it’s a lot more significant.
It still is a mono-being. It should be expected to be. There is some singularity and yet trinity within every internal dialogue in your head when you contemplate quietly. You are still the sender, you are still the message, and you are still the receiver.
But the limitation of being temporal is that this 3-fold identity is 1. Restrained by the barriers of your psychology. 2. Comes and goes, is not eternally overlapping. Sometimes you just don’t send anything.
Once again just an experimental idea. Open to changing the theory. But I heavily disagree with labeling what I described as simply “understanding it’s own parts”
1. It seems like if you can't understand, then you claim to know that it's a Trinity at all.
2. It takes two to converse, three for a moderated debate, but four for a team vs team challenge. Choosing particular human activities that needs people doesn't seem to resolve the perfect complete number. Being future omniscient would seem to negate any need for another person since you'd already know how they'd respond.
@@goldenalt3166 The first point I made is a separate point from the second. The first post is basically just saying that we wouldn’t be able to know why or how that works without God just telling us directly. It is not to say that we can’t know at all - just that if we do know, it would have to rely on God’s revelation to us. If God exists, we may never know how the mind of God functions.
The second goes against this idea by purposing a possible explanation (while still acknowledging that it may not be actually valid.) No people are being arbitrarily created for the sake of any goal in this example. And once again - this is NOT about God understanding Himself. This is about INTERNAL DIALOGUE. How does God internally contemplate? The tri-aspect of internal dialogue would have no role for a fourth possible person. There would be a missing role if there were only 2. Nothing God thinks would be internalized if it was only 1.
Saying that God should prefer 1 person as opposed to 3 is like saying that God should prefer our world being 1 dimensional instead of 3 dimensional.
@@drserr6581 for #1 if you can't understand it, then it doesn't matter if God tells you, or a book tells you, right?
For #2, I still don't see why you choose a particular configuration to call the perfect one. Without 5 he can't be a soccer team. Sure, given that you pick out an arbitrary relationship, you can say that three works best for that.
Plenty of arguments for theism make me think "huh, I could see how someone with different intuitions could accept that". I just can't get there with any defense of the trinity. Every time it sounds like someone who already has their conclusion and is just trying to reason their way to it.
Well we dont get the trinity from philosophy and natural theology. Rather it is a revealed truth from Jesus and the apostles. We believe the trinity because its taught by the authors of the new testament , and we appeal to philosophy to show that it is coherent.
Where in the new testament do we get the trinity? I think it takes an awful lot of inference. I can't help but see it as an attempt to shoehorn developing high christologies into the text.
@@Sveccha93
Shoehorn high Christologies? Have you read John 1, Hebrews 1, or Colossians 1?
Or perhaps the numerous passages where Christ identifies himself as God: John 5:18, Matthew 28:19, John 8:58...
I could go on but its clear that the new testament is the source of the high view of Christ that the Church has defended for 2000 years. In spite of the great intuitiveness of unitarianism and arianism, the doctrine of the trinity has remained the Orthodox theological position precisely because adherence to Christ and his Apostles requires it.
@@agenttex5748 surely you have enough awareness to know why these are problematic and none of them truly present trinitarian dogma as such. For something so obvious, it was codified pretty damn late. I think there is a good amount of confirmation bias on this topic. Plenty of scholars have discussed that passages over the centuries, you can't just lay them all out like a slam dunk.
That is what all religious arguments I’ve ever heard of are like. Not one of them is without logical fallacies.
36:10 Wouldn’t it be in particularly surprising that if Christianity is true, the cultures that we typically take to have inherited and propagated the Christian tradition would be wrong while some some of the completely different traditions got it right?
Wouldn’t that give a bit more weight in favor of those traditions?
*Wrong on the question of idealism vs other options, that is.
56:00: it is really clear which hypothesis has more brute facts and it is naturalism: where the origin of the universe, the order, the interaction of the components, the laws, the presence of conscious beings, morality, the fine tuning of the universe and a thousand other things exist either as brute facts or as convenient coincidences that must be accepted on blind faith. It also has the problem of running away from rationality since it needs irrationality as part of its essence. And all this assuming that you can even define and differentiate what is natural from what is not.
I dont see how that follows. All naturalism posits is that what exists and the way(s) in which it exists is a brute fact. I see no reason to think how an anti-naturalist claims are any different. please enlighten us since you yourself seem to suggest it is irrational to make a distinction between what is natural and what isnt.
@@CMVMic "I don't see how that follows. All naturalism posits is that what exists and the way(s) in which it exists is a brute fact"
Well, you said it yourself: if everything is a brute fact, "naturalism" would be the most brute hypothesis of all. Here you would agree with me.
"I see no reason to think how an anti-naturalist claims are any different"
If you've already accepted the above, almost every other worldview is less brute.
"Please enlighten us since you yourself seem to suggest it is irrational to make a distinction between what is natural and what is not."
Can you point me to where I said that? Not?. You see? At your level it doesn't look good to do a "straw men" like that. What I wrote was: ". And all this assuming that you can even define and differentiate what is natural from what is not."
One question: if I would say that I believe that God is natural since he is the ontological basis of everything natural. What would be the problem?
@@nemrodx2185 if anyone is making a strawman here it is you. You made all these allegations that naturalism posits these things but it doesn't do that. It is a complete nonsequitur. A naturalist can easily claim what exists and how it exists are brute facts. So in what way, does theism make less Brute facts? Are you claiming that certain aspects of Theism do not claim these as brute facts as well?
Also, whether I accept that as my brute fact is completely irrelevant. Sure, a naturalist view may differ in scope but not on that particular point.
Did I say ' you said it was irrational'??! Okay then so don't strawman me. I said it seems that you were suggesting this. The English language must be rly hard for you to comprehend. All that just to deflect the question lol how pathetic. And you expect me to answer your question? 🤣
I mean if you can't differentiate what is natural from unnatural then whose view are you even talking about? Which view is the unnatural one? Lol
@@CMVMic "The English language must be rly hard for you to comprehend. All that just to deflect the question lol how pathetic. And you expect me to answer your question? 🤣"
Sorry man... I thought I saw somewhere else a "Trim Electro" making high level philosophical comments. I probably got confused. I'm not interested in conversing with atheists/naturalists of the "Sky Daddy" "Flying Spaghetti Monster" type. It's evident from your empty ad hominem attacks and your lack of real interaction that you don't even take these issues seriously.
@@CMVMic Then you're not paying attention. When you have a horse which wins 99/100 races, you have a high chance it'll win the 100th. Non naturalism has won zero races. So to claim they're the same is just to not be arguing honestly.
There are, of course, many arguments for the existence of God and mountains of evidence.
We think that God is eternal, perfect, timeless, powerful and knows everything etc.
And he sent his son to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:6, 15:24).
One alternative perspective is that all things that exist exist necessarily. Also, it's unclear to me how a necessary creator could create continent beings without the creator itself having continent properties. Maybe someone could explain this to me?
To me it seems this is only possible if "Randomness" can exist. But I think this is merely definitional. "Randomness" is an unchanging substance that produces contingent outcomes.
Perhaps it’s best to put it this way, X is contingent if and only if there is some factor F which if different would change the ontological status of X and factor F is itself not necessary. In this case X is creation and factor F is God’s choice to create X. So long as God’s choice was not one he had to make, meaning he had free will, then God can create X with a contingent status.
@@chipan9191 What is the factor Fg that makes God's choice contingent?
@@goldenalt3166 the fact that nothing compelled God to choose to create nor choose to create specifically what he created.
@@chipan9191 No, no, no. You said that there must exist some factor that made the difference. Do you need to revise your definition of contingency?
Marlon Wilson is the best reader
I'm not as philosophically inclined, but isn't it the case that you can also be an idealist and an atheist? Just because the foundation of reality come from minds fundamentally, doesn't mean a god follows or exists. All it means is that, the conjuration of abstract objects or concepts are infinite and all have the capacity to exist from this logic no?
there are atheist idealists so yeah I guess? but the theist will argue that theistic idealism makes more sense/is the correct form.
Idealism increase very lot the probability of theism
@@LoLiNfOs How so?
Idealism seems stronger after this conversation
Idealism is truth! Check out Dr Bernardo Kastrup.
I don't understand Michael Jones opening... If all reality is mind in some sense, then why does he think that his mind is contingent ??
If his mind doesn't exist (when he sleeps, when he is unconscious), then reality doesn't exist in his view... So what is fundamental to reality would be his mind... The necessary thing is indeed a mind, it HIS mind...
If reality is fundamentally physical, so you think you’re fundamental to reality as a physical being? Also, the “what about when I’m asleep” argument only works against solipsism, and he’s clearly not a solipsist
@@whatsinaname691 *-"If reality is fundamentally physical, so you think you’re fundamental to reality as a physical being?"*
An idealist certainly won't agree that *"reality is fundamental physical"*
*-"Also, the “what about when I’m asleep” argument only works against solipsism, and he’s clearly not a solipsist"*
Sure... If all reality is mind in some sense, then the simplest answer is : all reality is ONE's mind in some sense...
@@MrGustavier Presumably you’d agree to the former, and Solipsism lacks explanatory power
Dude, please look into having a conversation about idealism with Bernardo Kastrup! It would be great
When I you see Michael hair pattern
Me:- 👈 iPhone notch. ......🤣
This Joe guy looks like Tom Holland
im at the point where I think idealism and materialism are both rational possibilities as well as even the idea that both could be true or neither. As for God Im open to an outside being existing to this universe but I don't think this is likely. I don't think God is single personal being or at least anything like a being the way a human or an animal is.. This kind of God seems to be projection of man largely connected to humans sense of morality. A pantheist or panenthiest idea of God even if it is more just metaphorical seems much more likely.
Joe, me again: Meow… am I to understand that you are never going to dialogue and or friendly debate Pat Flynn?
Idealism is truth! Check out Dr Bernardo Kastrup for some solid explanations. I'm an Advaita Vedantin, which is nondual Hinduism (Idealism). But, Dr Kastrup explains Idealism very well.
Dude stop spamming. Also Bernardo Kastrup convinced me that idealism is true personally, but his work fits better on a Christian background rather than a polytheistic one if you asked me
@logans.butler285 not spamming, engaging... with actual thoughts on the topics. And, good, glad Bernardo made sense, and if u can apply nondualism to Christianity (kinda how Meister Eckhart believed) then more power to you. I use nondual Hindu verbiage/symbols to dive into idealism.
@@logans.butler285
*"but his work fits better on a Christian background"*
Any nonsense fits in with a Chistian background. When you are dealing with mythology, you can make it up as you emotionally see fit. So 50,000 denomnination for Christians, Christian Atheism, Christian weak Panentheism, Christian Idealism. Make up whatever garbage you want.
*"Idealism is truth!"*
Yes it is true. True QUACKERY!
@@Dhorpatan um... Christianity is fairytale quackery.... Advaita Vedanta is time tested, scientifically congruent reality.
I think, as a potential answer to the question of why God would set it up so that our intuitions might be very far away from what is actually the case, it doesn’t seem to be a huge deterrent for people in the context of God belief whichever way they swing. People with idealist intuitions tend to default to some type of teleological view and so do those that do not share idealist intuitions. As far as I’m aware, no cultures default to atheism without something external influencing them (like modern philosophies, etc). I really hope this makes sense 😂
I guess that depends on what you mean by atheism. Many cultures didn't attribute the supernatural to things I'd call God. I thought I'd heard of an isolated tribe where missionaries found that the people didn't even have language that could describe a God.
wait - so perfect omniscience is about knowledge, not experience....but God gains an 'extrinsic understanding of his own nature through experiencing himself through other persons'.
But apparently two other persons was enough to give him all the knowledge of this experience he required.
I think that's a bit of a giveaway - Michael used the phrase 'other persons'. I'm left wondering - if there are 'other persons' that make up the trinity - then God himself is the first. But that kinda goes against the idea that they are all God. I think Michael made a Freudian slip.
..and the whole distinction between knowledge and experience seems very dodgy.
this argument seems so weak. Maybe im missing something, but is the core of this argument just: "If God made everything, that would be a really simple explanation. That seems likely (due to being simple) , so now i will dedicate my entire life to believing this thing i literally just made up!"
like... ok sure its kinda simple in a way, is that really all you need to believe in all this stuff? that does not come close to my standard of evidence for belief.
Not to mention all the stuff MR said, like how its probably not really all that simple of an explanation, and atheistic versions of the that stance exists, ext.
Idk I just dont get it I guess
Reality doesn't make sense without God.
@@aisthpaoitht why not? and how does the god concept make sense of the world?
@@SuperLemonfish look into any concept and you'll see that it dead ends in terms of explanation without God. A thing cannot explain itself. It's not logically possible, as Godel proved. All language is tautological and dead ends at our immediate experience. We can only infer the existence of God through analogical proofs, but ultimately EVERYTHING requires a leap of faith, or else you live in solipsism.
@@aisthpaoitht What sort of "dead end" do you mean?
And why is god not a dead end.
finally, lets say god was a hypothetically a possible answer to these "dead ends" you say exist. Why should i believe god is the ACTUAL explanation and not just a potential explanation.
For example, if my lawn is wet, a potential explanation would be that it rained, but perhaps the actual explanation is from my sprinklers.
@@SuperLemonfish Dead ends such as first mover, ability to explain the existence of particular things with a purpose, morality, our own consciousness, the ability to explain anything at all. Basically all the philosophical problems and proofs for God. Not to mention math (Godel proving that an equation cannot validate itself - which extrapolated out means the universe cannot be its own truth). And the ability to explain how math and geometry exists in the first place.
God is not a dead end because God is by definition able to answer all of these questions.
God is not the ONLY way to explain reality. It's just the way to explain that makes the most sense with the least cost. It explains best. You could explain reality in terms of everything being brute fact, or existing only in one's mind, or any number of alternatives, but God makes the most sense and just so happens to match with the God of the Bible.
We got a very a basic intuition from our experience and consciousness that a G word exist. Debate around our intuition and experience is very circular because there is not much facts like universal and objective.
Then for the rest we got to take a leap of faith toward what historic person revealed best what's behind that word. His properties, characters etc...
IDEALISM IS TRUE BABEY!!!!!
Yessss!!! Idealism is truth! Check out Dr Bernardo Kastrup.
The god that IP worships has nothing to do with the god of the bible or the historical Israel or early Christianity.
You have to understand apologists and apologetics. It’s about describing their god and giving him the magical powers they need to try and win an argument. It has little to do with the actual Bible and more to do with winning philosophical arguments.
Why should it? This is a debate regarding theism and agnosticism, not agnosticism and Christianity lol
@@CMVMic How would you feel if your partner had to exaggerate who you are with other people, in order to not feel stupid because of the person you are in reality?
@@jacoblee5796 Philosophizing God into existence.
@CubanClyde That's so vague and dumb (even stupid.) That's just straight out deism. A god of one's own imagination. A new category of god altogether. A god that can't be worshipped if you would wish to. And so on.
Because Joe does not understand/include the relativization of all the natural explanations, he's epistemically hobbled. If he were to relativize a causal system, that system would become an occasionalist system. So, sure, one can throw up their hands and say "It can be this. It can be that. It could be anything." as long as they don't include special relativity.
Genuinely interested in what you're saying here. I know all the terms but am curious what entailment of special relativity is at play. Can you briefly explain?
This statement is discussing the concept of relativization and its relation to natural explanations and epistemology. It suggests that Joe does not understand or include the relativization of all natural explanations and as a result is "epistemically hobbled." Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge and belief, and in this context, it refers to the limitations in Joe's understanding of knowledge due to his lack of relativization.
Relativization refers to the idea that something is relative to something else and is dependent on the context or perspective. In this statement, it is suggested that if Joe were to relativize a causal system, that system would become an occasionalist system. Occasionalism is a philosophical theory that suggests that all events are caused directly by God, and that the apparent causality between natural events is illusory.
The statement also suggests that one can throw up their hands and say "It can be this. It can be that. It could be anything," as long as they don't include special relativity. Special relativity is a theory of physics that explains how the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another, regardless of their relative velocity. The statement suggests that by including special relativity, the relativization of natural explanations becomes more complex.
In summary, the statement is suggesting that Joe's lack of understanding of the relativization of natural explanations limits his understanding of knowledge and that relativizing a causal system will lead to an occasionalist system. It also states that one can throw up their hands and say "It can be this. It can be that. It could be anything," as long as they don't include special relativity.
@@jjjccc728 The point is STR "limits". It places limits on how we can describe a non-idealized cause. Fact is, it can't be anything if one's goal is to discuss nature ontologically. Non-idealized causal systems (relativized ones) do not locally micro-evolve. Relativized systems include concepts like "Block Universe" or quantum cosmology's "causal patch". Which are quasi-occasionalist.
As for occasionalism, the term is used primarily as a deist cause. But I think we can just as easily describe occasionalism as any system which require external encoding of an event.
The concept of "STR limits" refers to the limitations of the Standard Model of particle physics, which is the current theoretical framework that describes the fundamental particles and forces that make up the universe. The idea is that the Standard Model cannot fully explain certain phenomena, such as gravity and dark matter.
Regarding non-idealized causality, it is true that some theories, such as the "block universe" concept, suggest that the universe is predetermined and that there is no real causality. Other theories, such as quantum cosmology, propose that causality only exists within certain limited regions of the universe, known as "causal patches."
@@eenkjet Who or what provides the external encoding? Unless you want an infinite regress you have to stop somewhere. Deists stop with God and atheists stop with nature or the unknowable.
I think the main difficulty is in imagining things that DON'T exist while simultaneously being consistent.
there are 4 categories of existence
1) collections of properties that are inconsistent and not physical
2) collections of properties that are consistent and not physical
3) collections of properties that are consistent and physical
4) collections of properties that are consistent physical and virtual
are you saying that God doesn't exist or that naturalism doesn't? english is not my first language so I might be misreading you, or you made a mistake, idk.
@@jonathacirilo5745 if God exists, insofaras as his properties are inconsistent with each other, those collections of inconsistent properties exist outside of logic, which exist outside of the physical universe, therefore, the only way to be connected to god (his inconsistent properties) is to think about him (the way we think about a dead relative).
@@dmitrysamoilov5989 idk about this, or if it is a proper response to my question, but thanks anyway I guess?
@@jonathacirilo5745 basically my views are changing as I'm thinking about it deeply. It would be difficult to argue something if I am just going to change my mind in a couple of days.
What u see now is my updated view.
@@dmitrysamoilov5989 I see
I'd like to know more about pancakeism. I want to chew on it some more, but I just have too much on my plate right now.
Theres so much to respond to here, I just may do a reaction stream. Heres a few points I'd like to address on idealism:
1. Idealism fits just fine with common sense, just as George Berkeley argued. Idealists believe objects exist and persist, they simply see them as mental instead of physical. It can be argued that almost all humans start off as subjective idealists of sorts, just see Piaget's work on object permanence with babies. It's only later when we grow older that we're socialized to be materialists, and this is mainly for this time period were currently in since idealism actually used to be the majority view in the 19th and early 20th century. And as IP noted, in the east what we call idealism is seen as common sense in many parts. If we went back to the 19th century when idealism was the majority (and rightfully so) then Joe wouldn't have an argument about us not naturally being idealists.
2. I'm an idealist and I don't subscribe to bundle theory. I hold to substratum theory, so the objections to bundle theory wouldn't apply to my idealism.
3. I wouldn't say the fundamental mind and the derivative minds are ontologically distinct in kind. I don't believe in the natural/supernatural dichotomy, it seems too dualistic to me and I'm a monist. I see my idealism as a form of priority monism, so derivative minds are parts of the whole fundamental mind. So there isn't a radical difference. I have a video talking about mental decombination called "Idealism and the Decombination Problem" that may address some of Joe's concerns that he said at the end of the discussion portion.
Thanks again to IP and Joe! It was great seeing you guys discuss this. There should definitely be a talk thats all about idealism.
@@Jareers-ef8hp I'm glad to be here as well. I'll have to check that out.
What would be the distinction between mental and physical here in relation to the objects? Is there some central mind that is constantly imagining those objects?
@@Daniel-cz9gt There is no distinction. What we call "physical" is actually mental. In my version of idealism there is a single fundamental subject who experiences everything.
In that case there seems to be quite some difference that is beyond just degree between our mind and the central mind.
@@Daniel-cz9gt How so?
With respect to idealism. I think it is caught by the map territory fallacy. Descriptions of matter are not the same as the thing described.
The map-territory analogy is a concept used to explain the relationship between a model, or map, of a system and the system itself. The analogy suggests that a map or model of a system is not the same as the system itself, but is a representation of it. The map can be used to understand and navigate the system, but it is not the system itself. The map is a simplified and abstract version of the territory or system it represents, and as such it may be incomplete or contain errors. The map-territory analogy is often used to explain the limitations of scientific models and theories, and to emphasize the importance of understanding the relationship between a model and the system it represents.
Idealism is truth! Check out Dr Bernardo Kastrup.
@@monkkeygawd I've checked him out before. I remain skeptical. Idealism is unfalsifiable.
@jjjccc728 nondualism is the only theory that makes rational sense. Checks the right boxes. Matter has been proven to have zero stand alone existence. Everything exists IN Consciousness.
@@monkkeygawd how has matter been proven to have zero standalone existence? What do you mean by prove in this context?
@@jjjccc728 "What we can measure is never going to be the world as it is in itself. So what quantum physics is telling us is that matter has no stand-alone reality. Matter is how the world appears to us when we measure it, when we interact with it, when we observe it - whatever word you prefer to use."
Dr. B. Kastrup
Michael says he wants the fewest brute facts on his view. He's a libertarian when it comes to will. Aren't all libertarian free will actions brute contingent facts?
Simplicity is a very vague and subjective concept. i dont see how you can build a strong case with that at the core like theists do for god
is that Spider Man?
I'm all in for pancakism 😊
Idealism wins. What else can explain the fact that the atoms and particles we are made off of change with time, but we are still the same? Not a single atom that constitutes you now are the ones you were made of when you were 10, but you are still you. How? A non-material substance has to exist by necessity.
Or the definition of "you" is flawed, or just because your atoms change, your mind only marginally changes too in a way that allows us to still identify as the person from when we were 10.
@@QuintarFarenor
The dialectic exercise in the following three paragraphs should help one to understand the nature of the fundamental conscious observer, that is, the ULTIMATE observer of all phenomena, or, in other words, the subject, which is the authentic self (as opposed to any material object).
If someone were to ask you if you are the same individual you were at birth (or even at conception), you would probably respond in the affirmative. So, then, what PRECISELY is it about you that has remained constant since conception? In other words, what is the self-identity you had as an infant, which is the present “you”? It cannot be any part of your body or mind, since none of the atoms or molecules in your zygote body are extant, and “you” certainly did not possess a mind at conception. If you are reasonably intelligent, you may claim that your genotype is the same now as it was then. However, it has recently been scientifically demonstrated that genetic code can mutate throughout an individual’s lifetime, or at least that the expression of individual genes are switched-on according to various environmental factors, such as stress, diet and exposure to pollutants. Furthermore, nobody factually conceives of their essential nature as being merely a sequence of genes!
More intelligent souls would probably counter thus: “That which persists from my conception to the present moment is my sense of self.”
This too, is fallacious, since the sense of self does not emerge until at least a couple of years after birth. An infant has no ideation of itself as an individual actor. You may then say “I was a (male/female) human being” but that doesn’t specify any PARTICULAR human (you, yourself).
So, then, what EXACTLY is it that remains “you” from conception till death? As demonstrated, it cannot be any particular thing or object. That which we refer to as “I” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit) is existence itself, which precedes any artificial sense of self (“ahaṃkāra”, in Sanskrit). It is, in other terms, no-objective-thing, non-localized-spaciousness, the Subject-of-all-subjects, the Ground-of-all-being, which is the Universal Self. Therefore, your hypostatic nature is eternal Being-Conscious-Bliss, usually referred to (quite inaccurately) as “God” by Theists. Of course, if one was to ask the typical Theist of the nature of a person’s essence, he/she would use the terms “soul” or “spirit”.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Well there you see, is the problem. I don't think I'm the same "me" I was 40 or even 20 or even 5 years ago. My everything changed, what stayed the same (as per identity) is my name and even that can and for some did change in all these years.
So no, I would not answer in the affirmative, most would because they don't know any better or they interpret their sense of self as something that always is.
I am NOW. The person writing you this was different and is only the same as in that I still claim the birth certificate and biological mother and father as mine from when they were assigned to me (please excuse the personified description).
So by your definition, I would not have a Soul. And I don't mind.
@@QuintarFarenor
🐟 10. EGO (THE SENSE OF SELF):
The Latin first-person singular pronoun, “EGO” (“I”, in English) has been incorporated into the English language, yet with a rather unorthodox import, particularly in spiritual circles, where it is used as a noun, although it is a poor translation of the Sanskrit “ahaṃkāra”, which is more accurately a verb. Most persons misuse the word to designate “an exaggerated sense of self-importance”, “arrogance”, “conceit” or “stubbornness”, etcetera. Compare the analysis of egoity in this chapter with the Freudian concept of “The I” (“Das Ich”, in German).
“Ahaṃ” simply means “I/Ego”, and “ahaṃkāra” means “Creating the I/self”, or “Activating the sense of self”, or “Constructing one’s identity”.
The English calque (that is, loan translation) of the Sanskrit term “ahaṃkāra” might be either “I-doer” or “I-maker”, or possibly “ego-maker”.
As an aside, some Sanskrit scholars have noticed that the word “ahaṃ” is formed of a+ha+ṃ, a triad of Śiva (a), Śakti (ha) and bindu (ṃ). The entire Sanskrit alphabet is enclosed by those two syllables, just as the Greek tongue begins and ends with “alpha” and “omega”, respectively. “I am the Alpha and the Omega!”, said God in the book of “Revelations”. Incidentally, the palindrome of “ahaṃ” is “mahā”, meaning “GREAT”.
The most accurate definition of “Ego/I” is: “the self, which is a conscious human PERSON”. A human person is the Stainless Consciousness of Source (i.e. “Spirit” in Theistic terminology, or the “Very Ground of all Being” in non-Theistic verbiage), acting through a particular body-mind complex, which in turn, is an ever-morphing biological organism. As explained elsewhere in this Holy Scripture, the body-mind complex is more accurately described as a process (a verb) rather than a fixed object (a noun), which is why the mystics of ancient India (properly called “Bhārata”) preferred to categorize all transient phenomena as “unreal/non-existent” (“asat”, in Sanskrit), rather than “real/existent” (“sat”, in Sanskrit). So how do “you” feel now that it has been demonstrated that “you” are non-existent? Or, to be more accurate, how do you feel once it has been demonstrated in this chapter that what you have always considered to be a static, perpetual, singular, individual persona, is in fact nothing more than a nebulous process of mind and matter, without any enduring substance whatever? See also “person” in the Glossary.
If you are reading this text, the chances are that you have heard countless so-called “gurus”, as well as their deluded followers, proclaiming that you are not your body, or that you are neither your body nor your mind. The first thing that comes to my mind whenever I hear that objectively-false statement is this: “Do you say the same thing when referring to any other species of life? For instance, would you make the same claim about such creatures as cats or cockroaches? If not, then why do you claim that of we humans?” It is truly absurd for one to assert that a man is not a man. However, it is truly accurate to declare that a man’s ESSENTIAL nature is Spirit/God/Brahman (Ultimate Reality).
That which proclaims, “I am not my body”, is just as much a component of the human person as any other part of the body-mind construct!
When we behold any non-human living organism, whether it be a microbe, a plant, a fungus, a fish, an amphibian, a bird, or a mammal, we never say to ourselves, “This plant/animal is NOT its body”. We invariably assert, for example, “This (mango) tree is a large plant belonging to the Mangifera indica species, with elongated leaves and an extensive root system below the ground”, “This insect is a bee with six legs and two sets of wings”, “This is a cat”, “That animal is a walrus”, “My pet dog is pregnant”, etcetera. So, when so-called “ultra-spiritual” folk (who are, in fact, really just neophyte religionists) make the silly claim that they are NOT their body-mind organism, it is not only disingenuous, it is downright absurd and laughable. Of course a human being is a human being! Obviously, we are a mammal and we have both a gross physical form and a subtle material form (i.e. consciousness). There is no such object as a “spirit” or a “soul” to be found in our being, for those terms actually refer to the subject. So, logically, one who asserts that he is NOT his body-mind ought to make the same claim of any other living creature, such as a cockroach. Read the Glossary entries “subject”, “object”, and “spirit” to understand the precise meaning of these terms.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Did you read what I wrote? Or did you just copy some long text about the Ego and such from somewhere?
I don't define myself by any static identifier, I am me, in past present and future. I am not the same me as I was yesterday or I will be tomorrow.
My body and consequently my mind has and does change.
If I were to get technical, I would describe a Person as the Person born at a specific date, by a specific other circumstance which may or may not be another person in the far future.
I recognize a person (considering they don't have twins for the sake of argument) because over time their appearance and mannerisms doesn't arbitrarily change enough to be called a different person.
It's not though that I only identify someone visually.
A person only is identified as a different person if both, body and mannerisms (mind?) changes to an arbitrarily large degree (it's a spectrum really).
Considering that if a soul (metaphysical/supernatural entity) were to exist we can't experience the soul of another being, I can't use it to identify anyone.
So I'm roughly with you that the body+mind could be defined as a soul, if we allow that soul to be changeable in arbitrarily small steps to still be the "same". But honestly it all breaks down real quick as we can't or won't really define these steps and how big or small they may be.
Identification of a person is done by others and is not contingent on how we see ourselves. How we see ourselves can try to inform the identification of us by other persons but it's not a logical necessity, it's a social one.
Idealism is such a W
I think Idealism is false
Idealism is just solipsism with extra steps
Idealism:
Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a human subject, or else that of a Universal Conscious Mind (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism.
The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”.
Thus, both these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind (and of course, they rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, especially in the case of the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism).
Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the philosophical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers (see that Glossary entry), probably due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mr. Venkataraman Iyer.
This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality).
At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the word “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem indistinguishable from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita.
The metaphysical view postulated in my book, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (advaita, in Sanskrit), is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout human history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”.
Both Idealists and naturalists (which includes materialists and physicalists) negate Absolute Reality, since both consciousness (at least the form of consciousness advocated by Idealists) and matter are RELATIVE. For instance, when a materialist, such as the typical professional physicist, states that the foundation of reality is some kind of particle/field/string, those things are always in relation to something other than those things (either another particle or field, even if that scientist advocates for the Unified Field), or else, are in relation to nothing. Similarly, those who believe in the metaphysical schema of Idealism claim that some kind of mind (either a discrete mind such as a human mind, or else a certain form of Universal Consciousness) is fundamental, even though (like all concepts) mind is a relative notion - mind is in relation to matter.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I ain’t readin allat but yeah it’s not solipsism, just has religious implications
@@breezy1x132 Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Many people don't realize this but the possibility of a god does not increase the possibility of your religion being truth
Worse still, they immediately assume that you're an atheist just because you don't follow their particular religion
He’s not trying to argue for Christianity he’s trying to argue for general theism yeah Captain obvious he knows that.
@@logans.butler285 and atheists automatically assume that you must be a Christian because you don’t want to strawman their arguments and you see theism as anything but ridiculous, i’m talking about anti-theists not atheists in general.
“Many people don’t realise this” because it’s not true. Period.
The existence of God doesn’t ENSURE the truth of your religion, but it definitely increases the possibility, if not the probability! If there is no God, there is ZERO possibility or probability. If there is a God, they both become non-zero.
That’s an “increase”.
@@pleaseenteraname1103Yes! Also that
"You want to reduce the number of brute facts"
"You want something that is simple"
Introduces god
Divine simplicity. The simplest of all.
@@aisthpaoitht The unfathomable simplicity , works in mysterious ways.
Love these guys. I’m not biased but IP won lol ❤
Just because you like his conclusion, because his explanation for the conclusion was absolutley lacking.
For example why it has to be a necessary being instead of a necessary substance. "a necessary substance has not the perfection of being".
My questions would be why does a necessary anything need to be perfect or why does perfection entails that one is a thinking agent?
Debases the whole argument in one question.
@@QuintarFarenor and what does perfection even mean?! It's in the eye of the beholder.
@@QuintarFarenor God don't process ie. thinking. process entails imperfection. so every of His output is just perfect
@@QuintarFarenor As I get older, I'm having more and more doubts about consciousness being a great-making property. For all I know, it's much greater to be a rock, just vibing in intergalactic space for billions of years without there being anything that it's like to be it.
@@kamilgregor Same.
5:58 fully losing my mind at the notion that positing a perfect being can be described as simple. It entails a ton of properties, and just because you have a collective term for it (perfection) doesn't make it simple. He rattles off that it needs consciousness, omnipotence, omniscience etc as if those don't involve a massive cost of complexity.
Compared to the universe existing as a brute fact, the perfect being is a stack of cards on ship in a storm.
First, rright * sniff *?
There are no contingent things. There is only one substance in reality. Existence is a brute fact
I agree - I reject that there are various modes of existence
Necessary being is fundamentally a brute fact.
@@senkuishigami2485 You can try and define it that way, if it exists though is still not shown.
@@senkuishigami2485 the source of all intelligibility is actually the quantum field, i cannot
be wrong about this as the quantum field doesn't have a mind and therefore
cannot deceive me, it beams information direct to my brain and everyone's
brain via the wave function of the universe, and you are misinterpreting this as god as
you are an irrational theist, you know i'm right, you are suppressing the
truth cos all you want is the comfort of heaven. what you are saying makes
no sense as you have no intelligibility
Hi. I've seen you comment on previous posts. I like your point of view. Although I am not wedded to substance monism, this has for quite some time been the position I am leaning towards.
One quibble. I hope I'm not intruding. but haven't you thought that perhaps analogous to how the concept "mother" does not apply to humanity (understood as a whole), although all humans have a mother, the concept "explanation" does not apply to Nature understood as a holistic whole although all the parts derived from that "whole" do? You may think this is basically what you already believe, but my point is that just as we do not believe that because humanity understood as a whole has no mother, the mother of humanity is nothingness or brute fact, but simply that the concept of mother is not something that can be coherently applied to the whole as opposed to its constituent parts. One argument I have been toying with is that it is intuitively true that every explanandum must be distinct from its explanans, but if Nature (understood as a holistic totality) is all that exists, then to demand an explanation of Nature is simply to presuppose that there can be anything other than "Totality." But that is absurd by definition.
Joe Schmid, I admire your knowledge and intelligence (at your very young age of 21), I saw you display on 'rationality rules'.
I have since then subscribed to your channel.
but I have to say, don't know if it is your age or just your character... you are being way too polite to these religious people and are allowing them to pose the absurd claims without burning them into the ground, which I know you could, but you just don't because then this would be like most debates, the religious person feels attacked and goes for the ad homonyms or strawman.
that's just the good and intelectually honest way of doing things. normal and decent people don't go into debates to "burn them into the ground", only mentally or morally challenged antitheists, fundamentalists and people and general do it. he was being adequadely polite not way too, and the other side didn't make any absurd claim, and it would perfectly ok to feel attacked when one is being attacked, which is what happens in low tier and intelectually dishonesty debates between new atheists types and the like. tankfully this wasn't one of these.
@@jonathacirilo5745 yea sorry... I don't agree..., nearly EVERY point the religious guy makes is beyond absurdity, assumptions, false claims and straw-manning.
I certainly don't agree we should let ANYone just speak without bounds...
you try talking to a flat earther and change his mind.
It is just because these idiots are being listened to and given a voice and a nice large internet group they can join, they feel they are not alone in their crazy views.
there is nothing as dangerous as an uninformed/uneducated/crazy/... group of people trying to impose their F*ed up ideas onto another...which religious people are.
and religious people are THE most crazy group there is.
@@gregorybaetens8056 agree to disagree then.
@@jonathacirilo5745 not to restart our disagreement, but this is just one example of some people who shouldn't be allowed to speak. they twist their words and fills people with the biggest nonsense...ua-cam.com/video/JuMsC7dlBgs/v-deo.html
and before you say ideas aren't dangerous... think about the idea 1 man had and what became of it... Adolf Hitler had a certain idea... I think ideas that can make gullable people do horrible things, is very dangerous.
and that is what he is doing.
and in my opinion people like that don't deserve a voice to speak, because it dangerous and plain wrong, period.
@@gregorybaetens8056 I disagree with both those guys and with you. ideas can't be dangerous, they can be good or bad, smart or stupid, it's the people who follows the bad and stupid ideas that can be/are dangerous. but censoring people's ideas/voices IS a bad and stupid idea, both because it doesn't actually solve anything and because it can make things worse.
i dunno, let me see, do i go with sabine hossenfelder, sean carroll and roger penrose, or some god bloke. decisions decisions.
sorry, i should really be more respectful, who is more likely to be right, a theoretical physicist, a physicist and a nobel winning physicist, or some bloke who makes videos.
This is a classic textbook example of Argument from Authority
@@Jareers-ef8hp or Newton and majority of scientists/philosophers in human history before Modern age
IP is such a Renaissance man though, truly a second Da Vinci
@@Jareers-ef8hp I agree with you
@@Jareers-ef8hp whatabout those nix eh?
I still cant give whatever to an "necessary being" outside of philosophical masturbation. its still doesnt explain anything why its there to begin with. Just something is possible, so its mean literally nothing.
its all big mumbo jumbo that are just philosophical and dont have merit when you put them against simple question. Like, why its perfect? how can it be perfect? if it perfect why does it need to create anything? you want to masturbate philosophically, then try harder.
I mean, barely 5 minute in and it still the same arguments that as been told a thousand of time and been refuted also.
why do we even need to debate this?
Michael seems intent on proposing Idealism purely to give a foundation for his idea that the foundation of all reality is a mind, ie God. This seems terribly post hoc. What's more, he also seems intent on undermining this idealism by granting so many arbitrary differences between the mental and the physical - to the extent that he appears to view the world very much as a naturalist or a dualist would.
sorry, this is no comment on the debate itself. it was fine, sure, np there.
but I'm sorry, nearly EVERY point the religious guy makes is beyond absurdity, assumptions, false claims and straw-manning.
so in terms of this being civil and not cursing each other out, it's fine, but listening to the religious crap makes a however well-made debate, very hard and tedious to listen to.
I'm sorry again, but if you have half a brain and a decent education, you CAN NOT call yourself religious! you would have to BELIEVE things you have LEARNED not to be possible.
the point being... you can be educated and still religious, but in 99% of those cases, you would be religiously indoctrinated BEFORE you started your studies and tried to fit everything you learn under the banner that you (think) 'KNOW' (indoctrination ; saying you know the thing that is impossible to KNOW, hence it's called belief) god exists...
rarely someone will become religious after getting a great education! in 99% of the cases that would be the way around.
@@gregorybaetens8056There have been quite a few long form interviews with Sean McDowall on my UA-cam recommendations recently.
He sometimes introduced converts (former atheists) who are also scholars.
9 out of 10 times the conversion to Christianity came long before they started higher education.
9 out of 10 times they are academics in the field of apologetics.
I fully agree... A conversion after reaching an actual academic degree, it's a one in a million (so it's worth to believe according to William Craig)
That's why they always point to Anthony Flew. He was an atheist philosopher first, and then at an advanced age became a philosopher of religion.
@@oscargr_ point being...some people go crazy?
sure, np, my statement still stands.
@@gregorybaetens8056 Point being it happens so infrequently that they always point to the same guy.
And he was hardly a good example
Joe, I appreciate you taking the theistic arguments seriously, but you're missing out on some major things of the theistic worldview as compared to non-theistic worldviews. How about the anthropocentrism of theism (why would God care about humans? Why would he impregnate a human woman (with himself?)?)? How about the absurdity of any normative fact, let alone an objectively good god? How about the epistemic vices of theism (no epistemic humility, no epistemic charity to other views, close-minded, authoritarian, dogmatic, confirmation bias, etc.)? How about the (arguable) virtues of naturalism over supernaturalism? The genetic fallacy doesn't show theism is false, but it does show that theism is not rational in general. I think Freud, Feuerbach, Nietzsche were right about this. You should be adding some psychological discussion and also why it's not ad hominem or genetic fallacy, since you obviously can address the silly arguments themselves as well.
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
1. If God is literally omniscient and all powerful under the premise of theism - then He must’ve intentionally created everything. Since if you lack weakness and are all-knowing, I don’t see how it’s possible for you to accidentally make something. I can’t see how any created entity would be accidental or insignificant in the mind of this God. Meaning humans are intentionally created.So if theism is true, it would make sense for God to have some sort of relation to humanity.
2. Why would God impregnate a woman with himself? There’s an idea that a blessing to undo a curse must fit within the pattern of the curse. Mary fulfills the typological role of the new Eve for the new covenant. Fulfilling what God promised Eve that her seed would crush the head of the serpent.
There’s literally no contradiction of values or facts by simply asking “why.” Not understanding why doesn’t automatically debunk it. And so it’s an insignificant argument. A proper argument should point out a contradiction.
4. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all teach humility as being a major tenet of their faith. Charity is also a major tenet. Not judging biasly is also a major tenet. Just because you personally see religious people not being humble has no bearing on what the scripture itself teaches. It just means that they fail to live up to their Holy Book.
“Close-minded, authoritarian, dogmatic,” literally means nothing. You could easily be accused of the same.
I would die of cringe and embarrassment if Joe responded to an argument of Christian idealism with “B-but you’re an authoritarian 😱😱”
Genetic fallacy also.
If Christianity is true, those labels don’t even matter. We are discussing what is fact or fiction. Your political biases mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
5. I don’t see what virtues naturalism in of itself has. Naturalism merely states that there’s nothing outside of the laws of nature. There are no inherent values to naturalism nor supernaturalism. It’s a statement of reality, not feelings - not obligations - not values.
6. What does this even mean “the genetic fallacy doesn’t show theism is false but it does show theism is not rational” 🤣🤣
There’s a reason why the genetic fallacy is a fallacy. You yourself seem to acknowledge that you’re using it.
Once again, I would be so embarrassed for Joe if he responded to philosophical arguments with using the genetic fallacy and then acknowledging the genetic fallacy and then trying to justify why it’s not actually a fallacy.
We are discussing truth. If everyone who believes that the moon landing was real, ended up being alt-right authoritarians - that wouldn’t make the moon landing less true. Attacking character has nothing to do with the validity of the statement.
Even the most “rational” of people can be totally consistent while being serial killers and school shooters. Being rational does not mean you will be moral. Being irrational does not mean you will be immoral. Although one helps the other out, it’s not a black and white dichotomy.
And plus you’re just going off of generalizations of entire groups. These generalizations are entirely based on temporal things that change over time.
If Christians suddenly became the most moral people ever in 10 years would that somehow make anyone believe? If not, then neither should should them falling to immoral vices that are condemned by their own Holy Book be a reason to not believe.
Idealism is a terrible proposition.
L
@@TheOtherCaleb??
Why?
@@dustinellerbe4125 it’s how kids these days say “I disagree”
@theothercaleb245 oh, so you're acting like a child because you don't agree with me. Got it.
LOLOLOLOLLL! He doesn’t want to discuss the science he used in his arguments that a made up invisible magical being necessarily created the universe? What nonsense - a god is “necessary” only to intellectually dishonest presups.