39:34 ...the infinite past existed and was killed from the eschaton. Reminds me of the whole " there can be no infinite timeline of the universe otherwise we'd never be able to get back to now"
Sam, thank you for comparing Penrose's mysteries to those of Neo-Platonism--it added to my understanding of Kastrup's Analytic Idealism--I need to watch this video again, but in fitting the Mental (Mind) to the Nous, you said this Mind, which can equated to Logos, must proceed from the Uncreated, a higher level, since Logos is...[insert what I need to watch the video again for here--conditioned? patterned?] and cannot be the ontological irreducible? Is that what you said? Sam, you are such a good teacher--clear, winsome, unaffected. It's obvious in all your videos how brilliant you are, but like good art or good music, you leave space in your talking, you don't exhaust or overwhelm with a firehose of knowledge. Your videos that grapple with ontology are my favorites--thank you!
6:45 I think bill Craig is right. gods mind contains the three categories but we can say he is closest to the mind. In that we can understand God through the mind. The mind being the do in Japanese and the logos in Christianity.
Amazing discussion. But why do you single out as “hubristic” giving transcendent mind properties to the posited ultimate ONE, but not to give other properties? Surely it’s just a question of whether or not the reason given for the particular property in question is good or not.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
39:34 ...the infinite past existed and was killed from the eschaton. Reminds me of the whole " there can be no infinite timeline of the universe otherwise we'd never be able to get back to now"
That's such a crazy cool and weird idea though. Not sure about it but it certainly is cool
26:58 I’m glad I’m not the only one that has a tough time saying “positivism”
1:38:12 I feel the same way! Probably for completely different reasons.
Sam, thank you for comparing Penrose's mysteries to those of Neo-Platonism--it added to my understanding of Kastrup's Analytic Idealism--I need to watch this video again, but in fitting the Mental (Mind) to the Nous, you said this Mind, which can equated to Logos, must proceed from the Uncreated, a higher level, since Logos is...[insert what I need to watch the video again for here--conditioned? patterned?] and cannot be the ontological irreducible? Is that what you said? Sam, you are such a good teacher--clear, winsome, unaffected. It's obvious in all your videos how brilliant you are, but like good art or good music, you leave space in your talking, you don't exhaust or overwhelm with a firehose of knowledge. Your videos that grapple with ontology are my favorites--thank you!
6:45 I think bill Craig is right. gods mind contains the three categories but we can say he is closest to the mind. In that we can understand God through the mind. The mind being the do in Japanese and the logos in Christianity.
super trippy fellas
finally somebody has a conversation on a level that I can understand what is being talked about clearly. You guys must be running hax
Amazing discussion. But why do you single out as “hubristic” giving transcendent mind properties to the posited ultimate ONE, but not to give other properties? Surely it’s just a question of whether or not the reason given for the particular property in question is good or not.