Yujin Nagasawa - Radical New Concepts of God
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Wear your support for the show with a Closer To Truth hoodie, T-shirt, or tank: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Is God, if there is a God, a personal, conscious, all-powerful Supreme Being? Some offer radically different concepts of ‘God’, exploring novel ideas of what God may be like. They challenge theism - the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - with radically new kinds of gods. Is this ‘heresy’? Or enlarging our vision of what the Ultimate can be like?
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen: shorturl.at/mtJP4
Yujin Nagasawa is the Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oklahoma.
Donate to Closer To Truth and help us keep our content free and without paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Religious ideas about God do not do justice to metaphysical infinity.
I thought this channel sucks it is so 2010... lol
*Save the cheerleader, save the world" - Hiro, from Heroes
Didnt know he was a scientist 👀
The God of the Bible is very different from the so-called gods discussed in this episode, for several reasons.
One admirable quality he has is that he is communicative. And that is exactly what an intelligent God would do.
In his communication with his human creation, he said this: "You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be enticed to serve them." (Exodus 20:4,5) If these celestial structures were God himself, the intelligent communicative God would not forbade rendering worshipful service to them.
God is the future of us that occupy the entire Block Universe.
...Virgin Time: without episodic systems, with his linguistic science, he created entropic Time at various rhythms, with a lot of gunpowder: very expensive. Good luck: getting home...
So the question is: does this God, which is actually just the universe and/or all universes, make decisions?
Have you tried An Answer to Job, by Carl Jung? It explores God's agency, limits and awareness as a primordial force of nature.
@@RSCa3218 I haven't but I wasn't really referring to the Christian God as Jung is. I meant in reference to this pantheistic god they discuss in the video.
*"So the question is: does this God, which is actually just the universe and/or all universes, make decisions?"*
... To qualify as a pantheistic "decision-making universe" only a single decision is required to meet your requirement: *Decision:* _"Evolve."_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I agree. And what do you mean by "Evolve"? What did the evolving? And what justification is there to believe this evolving was decided on by an agent? Basically, please elaborate
@@Akira-jd2zr *"I agree. And what do you mean by "Evolve"?"*
... A "movement into higher complexity" - which is exactly what the universe has been doing from the start, what it is currently doing, and what it will continue doing.
*"What did the evolving?"*
... Existence.
*"And what justification is there to believe this evolving was decided on by an agent? Basically, please elaborate"*
... I could not ask for a better question! Thank you! I hope Simon Hibbs reads this response. I'm sure he'd have a chuckle.
The agent is "Existence" and it seeks one fundamental property: *justification* (aka: "The 5th Law of Existence"). This theory is predicated on the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" and the basis for my book
Note that I am not a pantheist, and my ToE is more in line with panentheism.
"God" does not exist in this dimension (the 3rd dim.), which is the only one you can understand. The vast cosmos, physics, chemistry, and nature are the only things out there (the Universe). Anything beyond those must wait until after d34th--if you'll even experience anything after that event.
"If there was no God, it would be necessary for mankind to invent one." --V
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
The mystic's approach is not to objectify, define or explain "god" in any way.
How about we just admit that we are finite beings and therefor incapable of comprehending an infinite being?
Works for me and I'm betting that's OK with God too.
hinduism falls under panentheism i guess
Advaita in Hinduism is pantheism. Brahman is that unchanging reality from which all else arises and into which all else subsides. The occurrence of the universe is acausal and without purpose. Brahman is not an individual and does not sit in judgement and punish or reward. While the universe itself is acausal, everything in the universe is governed by karma or cause and effect. One need not pray to Brahman. The only goal of Advaita is to realise that you are not an individual, that who you think you are is illusory.Rather, your real nature is limitless and indentical to Brahman
And Brahman is Nirgun and Nirakar, meaning no attributes and formless. Only when it takes a form it has attributes, i.e. Sagun and Sakar. But above Prakriti and Purush from Sanhkya Darshan.
Better start believing soon because he came here two thousand years ago and told you what to do. Jesus is the truth and the life, nobody gets to the father but through him.
“ lean not on your own understanding but in all things faith”
He’s coming soon
how might an Anselmian God have real / substantive existence? as time? causation? other?
God true evidence is emperism mystic. God is true in Religious experience. Consciousness NOT figure out God it is absolutetly evidence in physic, a lot philosophy schools. Guys God concept is inconsistency with Religious experience. Rambling. rhetoric.
"Radical Concepts of GOD"
After GOD split Himself into three parts, the whole existence is now manifested by three Godly ENERGIES who are:
God the Father (Physical Universe), God the Son (us, free souls), and God the Holy Ghost (Divine Creator)..
...many faithfuls could not understand this set up, this is why they call it the MYSTERY of the Holy Trinity..
Nevertheless, it is your sincere faith in a loving God that matters to the Holy Spirit that can save your soul and NOT how imperfect men interpret GOD... HE understands it is all about HIM..
The TRUTH out there is independent from the concepts of imperfect men.. so, have sincere faith if you want to return to your Original HOME..
In other words, you do not need to know or interpret GOD. All you need is to have sincere faith in the existence of a Loving God for your soul to return HOME... and If you do, you may receive the light that can make you understand God much better because of your faith....
To me "God" refers to the supernatural entity Jahweh of the Abrahamic Bible, etc., while Pantheism seems to describe Existence. The first is a mythical being, the other the real world. Using the same word (God) to describe both is confusing and unhelpful. They are NOT the same. Please get a linguistics expert on the show. 😮
(1:30) *YN: **_"So, it's not very clear exactly what kind of extra element God has in the pantheistic picture."_* ... This is one of the better video breakdowns of "God." You have the three Goldilocks versions (traditional, pantheistic and panentheistic) each with their own specific attributes. My ToE is more in line with the Panentheistic version with the "additional factor" being *intelligence.* ... Intelligence is an observable characteristic of reality, and there is no reason to suspect it hasn't been present from the beginning.
Scientists and atheists struggle with the presence of intelligence because they can't swish it around in a test tube, so they default to marginalizing its overall significance. ... Whatever cannot be physically explained is dismissed.
However, at the end of the day, there is no logic, evolution, organization, or structure without the presence of "intelligence." It's the operating system for the universe.
I'd say God (or nature) is intelligence and we (and every observable thing) is a part of it. There is only intelligence. Everything else is just its demonstration (or manifestation).
How does philosophical idealism like Kastrups cosmic psychism fit into this
What if all universes and realities were part of the pinky toe of a hyper-dimensional big purple jello monster?
You are going to gain about as much insight into the world by pondering my question as the one in this video.
Reruns are insults.
Empty words.
Carl Saga pointed out that there are many completely different, mutually incompatible beliefs and definitions of god. If asked if one believes in god, whether you say yes or you say no the questioner has learned absolutely nothing.
*"If asked if one believes in god, whether you say yes or you say no the questioner has learned absolutely nothing."*
... I would argue that the questioner learns that the person saying "Yes!" believes there is something _more_ to Existence than simply what we can observe. Brian Greene believes there are tiny little "vibrating strings" that form our reality. ... Without being able to observe them, what is Brian telling me that's any different than what the person who said "Yes" is telling me?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >... I would argue that the questioner learns that the person saying "Yes!" believes there is something more to Existence than simply what we can observe.
As Yujin explained in the interview, pantheists believe that god is identical with the universe, so apart from the fact there are parts of the universe we cannot observe, this is not correct. That's why they called pantheism "theism for atheists".
On Brian Greene, he needs to put up the evidence, and crucially he would agree with that completely. This is what makes him a scientist. So far he hasn't got any, and he knows that, and you know that he knows that. String Theory is stuck at the theoretical stage, it's not evidentially supported and unless it is it will remain an interesting exercise in mathematics, but not physics.
@@simonhibbs887 *"As Yujin explained in the interview, pantheists believe that god is identical with the universe, so apart from the fact there are parts of the universe we cannot observe, this is not correct"*
... In fairness, many physicists tout an infinite Multiverse whereas other physicists tout a single finite universe. If a questioner were to ask a physicist if reality can be explained through physics, wouldn't their answer be just as trivial as the theist's?
*"On Brian Greene, he needs to put up the evidence, and crucially he would agree with that completely. This is what makes him a scientist."*
... But then it all comes down to gaslighting. Greene has an hour-long, Hollywood-production-type video with CGI graphics that would make Spielberg jealous that touts String Theory as the _real deal._ It was so persuasive and well-orchestrated that it moved me to weep.
However, he also qualified it all with a quickie CYA blurb at the very beginning saying, _"Although S.T. is a speculative theory (yadda-yadda) ...."_
Greene is simply more 'artful" at describing his unfalsifiable faith than theists.
Second Attempt: *"As Yujin explained in the interview, pantheists believe that god is identical with the universe, so apart from the fact there are parts of the universe we cannot observe, this is not correct"*
... In fairness, many physicists tout an infinite Multiverse whereas other physicists tout a single finite universe. If a questioner were to ask a physicist if reality can be explained through physics, wouldn't their answer be just as trivial as the theist's?
*"On Brian Greene, he needs to put up the evidence, and crucially he would agree with that completely. This is what makes him a scientist."*
... But then it all comes down to gaslighting. Greene has an hour-long, Hollywood-production-type video with CGI graphics that would make Spielberg jealous that touts String Theory as the _real deal._ It was so persuasive and well-orchestrated that it moved me to weep.
However, he also qualified it all with a quickie CYA blurb at the very beginning saying, _"Although S.T. is a speculative theory (yadda-yadda) ...."_
Greene is simply more 'artful" at describing his unfalsifiable faith than theists.
Physicalists or scientists touting things has one decisive difference from the beliefs of theists. Scientific beliefs are in principle falsifiable. If inflation theory is proved false by evidence, there will be no denier multiverser cult of renegade scientists forming communes in remote areas to escape 'the man' of scientific rigour. It will be as dead as the luminiferous aether and epicycles. The same goes for string theory and Greene.
Show me a religious video produced by a church that starts with a caveat that they might be wrong about all this and they don't have any proof, and who really knows?
All scientific theories a scientist might 'believe' is conditional on this touchstone of falsifiability. Sometimes we don't know if a theory will turn out to be falsifiable or not. We've thought they might not be before, and then found a way to test them. If it is falsifiable, and it is falsified, it's game over. That's it. Done.
This is a fundamental distinction between the nature of scientific and theistic commitments.
Hello Mr. anchor,
Don't do too much drama with your disturbing distorted voice and body language while playing your role.
It is really ridiculous and makes you a loughing stock to the viewers 😂.
You would rather CTT use an emotionless AI-generated talk-bot? ... Seriously?
Bogus discussions😂
Boring repetitive commenter. Do not recommend.
Why?
Modal panentheism seems to me just extended pantheism. If you define god as the totality of all possible world which are all actual if you assume modal realism, you have just extended the range of actual natural things. It's not like possible worlds would be supernatural/godish things after all.
What I find disappointing here is that, while Yujin lays down these positions, god is just a superfluous synonym. I don't see him adding a divine element or something of the sort as he speaks. So what distinguishes these positions from atheism exactly? I see nothing that does the trick except linguistics.
What I think is genuine pantheism is the sort of pantheism you find in Hinduism where only god exists, and the world is illusory. They keep the traditional transcendent omni god of theism (which I think is the only valid/genuine notion) and eliminate the world from the picture, which of course is a crazy move but at least it is genuine pantheism.
While pantheism/panentheism as portrayed here seems as atheism dressed up in different words.
My problem with modal theism isn't that there's anything wrong with it theologically, there are plenty of theological beliefs I think you and I would both agree are nonsense or full on incoherent, it's that nobody actually believes this. It's a hypothetical belief about god Yujin has come up with as an academic exercise. I'm not entirely sure that makes it even actual theology.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes, I agree. It's not theology, at least not as portrayed here by Yujin.
I don't think that possible worlds are actual. But let's say they are. I don't see how the totality of all possible worlds brings the godish/theos element regardless of him naming it god.
Bogus channel