not really, calling people who essentially believe that leprachauns rule the universe isn't clever. i'm wondering where this idea that hell is torment came from. satan and god had a falling out, satan rejected god presumably. so if i reject god, i'm satan's ally surely? why would my pal want to torment me? burning christians alive, sure i can see that, but if i sell my soul to satan, and now i'm an amazing guitar player, why would he burn his investment? if i reject god and satan rejected god then it's christians satan wants to burn, not me. there will be two heavens, one boring one where you just suck up to god for eternity, and satan's heaven, a fun palace where the artists, musicians, writers and comedians go.
I don't know how I missed this when it was originally posted, but I am glad that I stumbled across it now. This was a phenomenal conversation! I am a huge fan of Josh's work and I have a great deal of respect for Paul Draper, so it was a real treat to hear them discuss these questions. I guess Joe is fine too.
I'd never heard Paul Draper talk until now and as soon as he introduced that pun about the "fundaMENTAL", I immediately liked him even more. Awesome and unique discussion! Thank you, Joe.
Great conversation! I think, despite his humillity, that Dr. Rasmussen is a much more organized and clear thinker, but Dr. Draper brough some really interesting possibilities into the conversation. Thank you, Joe!
Part of the reason is that Josh is very, very used to these sorts of dialogues, and yet this is really Draper’s first dialogue of this kind. And this is in addition to being very introverted and not liking being recorded haha. (Plus Draper is about the clearest thinker I’ve ever come across in writing, apart from maybe Plantinga and Lewis🙂)
@@MajestyofReason Thanks for answering. Btw, I've been listening to your discussions with Chistopher Tomaszewski, wich are changing my views about divin simplicity.
@@adriang.fuentes7649 That's wonderful to hear! I love serving others in their pursuit of truth :) Btw, If you email me at the end of August (and mention your name, which I'll recognize), I'll send you a pre-print PDF of my forthcoming Springer book which discusses in depth arguments for and against divine simplicity
@@MajestyofReason I'll write you, for sure! Maybe it will change again my credence, wich has increase because some of Tomaszewski responses (I am a not-classical theist because this specific topic). Thank you again for all your wonderful content :)
Just clicked and haven’t watched yet but my man, this is just incredible that you got this conversation to happen, major kudos! Your audience is so grateful
I made a joke originally because I am naturally a pretty sarcastic person haha, but in all seriousness after finishing the video, this was a really great discussion. I really enjoyed it. Thanks Joe, and Josh, and Paul for doing this! 👍
“The first thing to realize...is that most people go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification, and that one man’s world of beliefs is apt to be incompatible with another man’s, so that they cannot both be right. People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.” ― Bertrand Russell
Yes, I’ve got a few ideas for future episodes, so something will happen at some point. It’s hard to find the time these days. I think a book on the KCA is beyond me for a while at least. Should have a few papers out on it soon though
@@alexmalpass will you make episodes with Logos, Rob koons,Andrew Loke,Brian Leftow,Ed feser,Timothy O'Connor, erik wielenberg and if possible Pruss or WLC in your channel at some point? Thank you for your hard works and for everything you do for us ❤❤❤
This was really something incredible to listen to. It was two incredibly intelligent philosophers of religion working together based on where the discipline can actually take us. I'm struck at how different and good this was compared to normal theist-atheist debates/conversations. It was like the exact inverse of the Turek-Hitchens debate.
at the end of the day though, it's all hot air. you can only demonstrate god, you can't talk him into existence, all this does is give credibility to voodoo.
Are you ever planning on doing a discussion with Bernardo Kalstrup on his analytic idealism? I’m very intrigued by his views and I think he would be a great guest to have on!
I'm still trying to understand it. He uses so much language that just makes his view super opaque to me. I have no clue what he's even getting at with dissociative boundaries of perception and all that
4/4 42:00 Is an indeterministic process still something? That doesn’t seem to explain fundamentally why there is something rather than nothing. 51:21 I am not sure how Rasmussen’s point that if reality was claimed to be fundamentally blue that it would seem to him to cry out for explanation is relevant to Draper’s question of whether the laws of physics with some uniform explanation still has features that cry out for explanation. I wonder if in the back of his head if he was wondering if such laws would actually explain perceptions of red, green, or blue or conscious experience generally or not. However, I think Draper made a good point that if we are asking why the universe is one way rather than another way that it would be a mistake to let our background knowledge of things related to the perception of the color blue to influence our thinking to think that reality fundamentally really plausibly can’t be blue. If we put that knowledge to the side, I do think that it doesn’t seem particularly implausible.
1:17:30 Hey Joe! The idea that we could be though of as ‘dream characters in the mind of god’ is a thought that I had several year back, and I have been sympathetic to ever since. A way that this has helped me conceive of how reality might be is seeing ‘reality’ and ‘existence’ in relative terms. When I conceive of a pink elephant, there is a ‘real’ pink elephant that ‘exists’ in my mind, and that pink elephant has ‘real’ properties, like color, shape, weight, etc.. It’s not a fake pink elephant, it’s a ‘real’ conceived thing that has contingent existence in my mind. But a real thing that exists in my mind, doesn’t exist outside of my mind. I can now imagine 3 people in my mind, and these three people are ‘real’ people. And they are able to have conversations with one another and have unique personalities, and interact with the pink elephant, and the ‘real’ idea of gravity is pulling them all down etc.. What I can’t do, is imagine that these people have unique subjective consciousness apart from myself. There is a sense that they do have subjective consciousness that is not shared with each other, but the ‘source’ or ‘center’ of that consciousness is really something that is coming from myself. If we imagine that the ‘reality’ that we experience is likewise mind like, but not limited in the ways that our own minds are limited, we would find that our own consciousness, and that the matter that surrounds us, is all made up of the same ‘substance’. I think that a way of describing this view might be something like: panentheistic idealism. I would love to hear your thoughts on this!
1:38:11 Oooh this panpsychotheism idea is really interesting to me, I love how it incorporates some form of open individualism. Open individualism is something that's very attractive to me even though my intuitions for leaning toward it aren't shared by everyone or even most people. I really hope to remember to dig into this idea :D
"the collective(infinite regress or finite) is dependent and is not going to be dependent on something within itself. It's dependent on something external". Are we talking about a block universe then? Is the block universe dependent on something external? Does there have to be an explanation for something fundamental? or is everything still abstract? Edit: why is the collective dependent?
Did drapper says something Exists is a brute contingent fact?and which basis he says that there has to be something rather than nothing...i didn't catch his words....can please clarify me?
This was a fascinating conversation, with so many ways to pick my brain about. Thank you for this Monsieur Schmid. As a random amateur on the interweb with only casual explorations of such topic I won't be able to add any depth or breadth to the conversation. But that doesn't prevent me from delivering some thoughts of mine, if anything as an offering to the less-than-perfect agent of UA-cam AlgoTheism. Let's first offer a conceivable challenge to the seemingly prevalent intuition that the mental could be fundamental. In retrospect it seems clear prima facie that this intuition people have is contradicted by our very first experiences as living organisms first, as well as thinking agents later in our development. Our existence arises in a preexisting world, from which we receive input even before we become aware of it, then self-aware as we grow. This input remains consistent and non-mental evidence for this world, which can be understood on a working basis as this phenomenon of externality. At no point do we directly exchange thoughts with other agents, nor are we even encountering agents in our earliest experiences. Systematically, input is empirical, _not_ mental per se. Similarly, we further establish the demarcation between our lived internality and this externality by delivering output, which is equally empirical. At no point does mental output ever obtains. In summary, our existence and subsequent mental experiences are contingent, and interaction with other agents occurs only in the form of empirical input and output, interaction which ceases definitely once the empirical process called death occurs. Therefore, our only experiences of this world that we happen to share cry out for the prima facie case that the empirical phenomenon is prior; that the mental phenomenon is posterior, and contingent upon the empirical phenomenon. Whence then comes the intuition that the mental could even be fundamental in the first place? It's obviously not because of our interactions with the world, nor is it thanks to some kind of innate knowledge of a mental foundation to existence, since we have to actually think about this stuff to even begin to get intuitions about it, namely because the question of the foundations of reality are anything but intuitive, and only arises after our thinking skills have matured enough to attempt to grasp said question. Well, as far as I can tell this 'intuition' seems to be a by-product of abstract reasoning, logic, and theory of mind, only coming up after some habituation with mental constructs and experiences, once our 'mental lives' have matured enough to possibly start agent causation attribution to just about any uncommon occurrence. This appears neither as a genuine intuition, nor as an actually logical proposition. On the contrary, this is wholly inconsistent with prior experiences with agents, or early memories of our mental lives. All in all, it sounds like a deeply ingrained cognitive bias rather than anything else... Last but not least, a counter intuition can arise out of seemingly undeniable observations: any and all of our abstractions, mental images, and concepts, are particulars or composite constructs that are systematically made from pre-experienced patterns of empirical input. We never construct any mental picture out of whole cloth, we always pick some existing elements and build something new with it. On the other hand, however weird and complex our ideas can be, reality consistently and relentlessly surprise and surpass them. Empirical reality composes and surpasses mental fictions, that's the counter intuition I could offer to illustrate the contingent and limited nature of mental imagery, compared to empirical experiences.
when Dr.Drapper was answering Why is there something rather than nothing...did he choose indeterministic process?and says something have to exist and then says that fundamental thing (something)is always existed and it's a brute contingent fact that it exists? I'm confused, please clarify me...!
2/4 26:10 Josh really gets into the notion of things that just seem to call for explanation and that would therefore not be fundamental. If someone were to posit a beginingless eternal necessary turtle as fundamental, it just seems that turtles aren’t the kinds of things that are that way. Something about turtles seems to cry out for explanation that aren’t resolved by postulating that one turtle is fundamental. Here’s the problem. Why can’t we say the same thing about mind? Everything that seems to be the case about mind from our experience is that they aren’t the sort of thing that is fundamental. Minds start to exist, they are contingent, they are physically dependent, they are temporally sequential. They seem to cry out for explanation which is why there is so much written from multiple perspectives in the philosophy of mind. So why think turtles are such that they seem to not be fundamental when we can say much the same about minds (remember consciousness is being posited as the basic thing that demarcates mind from non-mind; so, it is not enough to state that mind in a fundamental sense is totally other from conscious experience as argued about in the philosophy of mind within the context of this conversation.)
When Josh uses the dream analogy about controlling objects/creating them. He could have brought up using virtual reality as an example too. I agree with Draper at the end and noticed this in John Buck vs Emerson debate. Theodicy of soul building has a huge flaw which is as Paul points out some people are put in such shitty conditions they can't grow such as child dying from cancer. I think Josh needs to look at other ways to handle this. Personally, I think Davies's book on evil has a decent take.
What do you think about the reply that if we're helping ourselves to an eternal soul, the time spent suffering as a child with cancer approaches zero next to eternity?
@@wootsat I am not sure how that is soul-building when you suffer and die as a baby. It doesn't build anything. Also, do they get a free get into heaven card? Certain people would take that over living 80 years on this planet.
@@wootsat I think Christianity has all the necessary resources to explain away the problem of evil and suffering. Would childhood cancer be awful for the child and family, yes of course. But God is perfectly loving and in heaven there are no tears so obviously all the trauma has been healed, plus it's an eternity of joy compared to a tiny temporal moment of pain etc etc. That said these all sound ad hoc and very unconvincing to me personally.
@@Kvothe3 That is the only plausible answer I can think is that yes our lives are a blink of an eye compared to the eternity of the afterlife. However, if you believe in Hell and what about animal suffering?
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Perhaps if God exists and thus Hell, one could say that if a person ends up there then its because and only because they fully deserve it. Thus, somebody who doesn’t deserve hell won’t be there, and there is no need for concern about the occurrence of injustice
3:03 I could be wrong here, but based on Josh Rassmussen's working definition of minds here that a mind is definitionally a thing that can have contents of consciousness, it seems like physicalism together with certain ontological assumptions like the assumption that fundamental fields are things that exist or that a universal wave-function is a thing that exists would lead immediately to some form of panpsychism. If physicalism is true and fundamental fields exist and the brain has contents of consciousness and contents of things grounded in or functionally realized by fundamental fields are also contents of the fields then fundamental fields can have contents of consciousness and therefore some combination of fundamental fields could be considered a mind. Something similar would follow for a universal wave function.
Fundamentally great discussion ! Joe where can I find the animation thing ? Btw in one of your old videos you said WLC will be on your channel with another philosopher soon. Any updates ?
Had to be postponed (without definite reschedule date) due to personal reasons of one of the philosophers As for the animation, I found it on n some website with free animations - I don’t remember, unfortunately! Much love my man❤️
3/4 37:31 - 43:30 The notion that uniformity does not cry out for explanation in the way variety/diversity does was super fascinating. I think his appeal to the notion of scientific progress to support this resonates in our intuitions in a quite compelling manner. If indeed uniformity cries out for explanation in the way variety/diversity does then any time scientific observations of diversity are explained by a uniform explanation then one would have no reason to see that as progress as it could be rightly pointed out that one is merely substituting something that cries out for explanation by something else that also equally cries out for explanation. No progress would be made as the causal explanation would be seen as just as problematic as the initial observations.
I do have a couple of concerns though I quickly admit that this line of argument is new to me. First, it does seem like one could argue that new knowledge has resulted nonetheless if a uniform explanation equally explains diverse observations as a diverse explanation does. Second, what if uniformity still cries out for explanation even if not as much as variety/diversity does? It seems that a uniform postulation might be less problematic as a brute fact than a diverse postulation but it doesn’t mean that a uniform postulation is best understood as a brute fact. It seems that there must be additional justification to argue that some particular explanation or explanations are brute facts. The only additional justification that comes to mind is when we can’t think of a plausible more fundamental explanation. I just don’t know if that is a good reason to ignore something crying out for explanation even of it is crying out less loudly if you will than diversity does.
when Dr.Drapper was answering Why is something fundamental to this question did he says that fundamental was always existed and it's a brute contingent fact?i didn't catch his response...did he says something like this for example why our universe is like this rather than nothing...and thus universe is like uniformity and it's a brute contingent fact? please clarify me
@@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785 He did state that in his view that something being fundamental just basically means that something always existed but that he sees these things as contingent rather than necessary. It is unclear whether or not he thinks that there are necessary truths that are fundamental. What was interesting to me is that he appealed to an indeterministic process choosing between nothing or the near infinite possible number of somethings. However, in my mind that is just saying that something always existed, namely, the indeterministic process he was referring to.
59:06 I think that having greater predictive power of a specific hypothesis over the disjunction of every other specific candidate you're willing to consider doesn't necessarily favor the specific hypothesis over each equally specific alternative you're willing to consider. For example I could argue that the standard model quantum field theory has vastly more predictive power over the general hypothesis that the standard model being false. For example the standard model predicts the existence of neutrinos while the general disjunctive amalgamation of all ways it could be false doesn't make that prediction. However that doesn't mean that the standard model has more predictive power than the Pati Salaam model. The Pati Salam model might make some true predictions that the Standard Model doesn't while making every true prediction made by the Standard model. Similarly even though the hypothesis that fundamental reality is mental makes predictions that the disjunctive amalgamation of all ways fundamental reality could be not mental doesn't, that doesn't favor mentality being fundamental over every single individual equally specific hypothesis where fundamental reality isn't mental.
@@davidjanbaz7728, do you have compassion for the poor, innocent beings that you NEEDLESSLY slaughter each time you feed on dead animal carcasses, Silly Sinner?
Umm..im little bit confused here! Why something fundamental? to this question's answer did Paul draper said because he thinks something Exists is a brute contingent fact? i didn't catch his answer... please reply
Wow this was an awesome surprise. Thanks Joe! I found Draper's PSR as restricted to variety really interesting. Curious as to what you thought about it.
Im not so sure of the validity of the move of saying it is more probable something exists rather than nothing. When we have abstracted the question from any external considerations, why should we presume that our intuitions about what would be more probable apply at all in these circumstances? Once we have abstracted the question from all external considerations, we also need to do so in regards to our notion of simplicity. On what basis do you say one thing is simpler than another? Do we solely define simplicity with regards to our mode of knowing? When we are abstracting from all external considerations I don’t think we do have any basis for saying a dog with a red scarf around his neck is saying something more specific than just saying a dog.
I apologize because my comment has nothing to do with the subject of the video. But I would like to know if substance monism implies that all objects other than substance per se have to be a set of properties, or is it possible to introduce something like second substances but that their only purpose is to be carriers of properties? That is, being a carrier of properties does not make substance substance, but independent of any other being, does it not? Perhaps I am wrong and it is forced that whoever accepts that there is one and only one substance has to accept that all other objects are nothing more than a set of united properties. Which causes me to wonder, since I would not understand what it is that holds them together to form, for example, someone like me, a self-conscious being. Perhaps another property?
monism: the view in metaphysics that reality (that is, Ultimate Reality) is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system; the doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being; any system of thought which seeks to deduce all the varied phenomena of both the physical and spiritual worlds from a single principle, specifically, the metaphysical doctrine that there is but one substance, either mind (idealism) or matter (materialism), or a substance that is neither mind nor matter, but is the substantial ground of both. Cf. “dualism”. Perhaps the oldest extant metaphysical system, Advaita Vedānta, originating in ancient Bhārata (India), which is the thesis promulgated in this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is a decompositional dual-aspect monist schema, in which the mental and the physical are two (epistemic) aspects of an underlying (ontic) reality that itself is neither mental nor physical, but rather, psychophysically neutral. On such a view, the decomposition creates mutually exclusive mental (subjective) and physical (objective) domains which are both necessary for a comprehensive metaphysical worldview. The mere fact that it is possible for Awareness to be conscious of Itself, implies that, by nature, Ultimate Reality is con-substantially BOTH subjective and objective, since it would not be possible for a subject to perceive itself unless the subject was also a self-reflective object. Cf. “advaita”, “dualism”, “Brahman/Parabrahman”, “Saguna Brahman”, “Nirguna Brahman”, “subject”, and “object”.
You can also read up Michael Della Rocca ' The Parmenidean Ascent' chap 2-3. He explains in more detail why Substance must be a monism and addresses your concern regarding properties.
I don't understand why our ideas of god had to muddy the waters - apart from force of habit . Also a turtle is dependant on the totality of itself in each particular moment. It may also be dependant on its past incarnations. When we talk of self dependance and time dependance - strange ideas like fundamental moments and fundamental identity crop up, which just highlight the limitations of conceptualisation.
1/4 Josh’s broad definition of Fundamentality: Not derived by, grounded in, explained in terms of, or caused by any prior elements or realities. Q: Can’t at least some brute facts arguably meet this definition of fundamental? The wavefunction isn’t derived by anything else; at best it is inferred. Naturalists will see no reason why it must be caused by something else any more than mind must be caused by something else. It isn’t grounded in naturalism as such a view is just a description of what naturalism would be. It also seems that it can’t be plausibly explained in other terms as such terms would just massively underdetermine the explanation at best; it would be like explaining God in terms of the wavefunction.
6:50 Infinitely old things could be non-fundamental if they're functionally realized by something. For example if there were an infinitely old cellular automaton like Conway's game of life being simulated by another infinitely old cellular automaton, the first would be functionally realized by the second. Also consider the case of an infinitely old count down through all the natural numbers til the counter reaches 0. The infinitely old count is dependent on the infinitely old counter and is therefore not fundamental.
Argument against Fundamental/Non-Fundamental Things 1. Relations are unintelligible cf. The Parmenidean Ascent - Michael Della Rocca. 2. If relations are unintelligible, then there are no distinct existences i.e. existence pluralism is false 3. If (2) is true, there is only existence i.e. Existence Monism 4. If (3) is true, then there cannot be a distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental things C. There are no fundamental or non-fundamental things. Defense of 1. Bradleyan Reverse Argument P1. Relations by their nature are grounded in atleast one of its relata i.e. they cannot be free floating. P2. If relations cannot be grounded i.e. to be explained, then relations are unintelligible P3. If relations are unintelligible, then there are no relations P4. Relations are unintelligible (proof by Bradley’s Regress) Therefore, if the answer to the first key question is No, then questions 2-4 are irrelevant. For a more in depth defense, see discussion between Ash Ahmed Dherar and myself on 'Pantheism vs. The Kalam Cosmological Argument' video on Majesty of Reason. fyi. It's over 200 comments long lol *Argument in support of Existence Monism.* . P1. The world is the only concrete object needed to explain how the world evolves P2. If the world is the only concrete object needed to explain how the world evolves, then if there were proper parts of the world, these proper parts would be explanatorily redundant or epiphenomenal entities. If the world suffices to explain everything, then there is nothing left for its proper parts to explain. P3. There are no explanatorily redundant or epiphenomenal entities. C1. The world has no proper parts cf. Cf. Existence Monism Trumps Priority Monism - T. Horgan & M.Potrc. or In Defense of Existence Monism by P.Finocchiaro. If we assume the answer to the first key question is yes, then either Metaphysical Foundationalism, Coherentism or Infinitism. *Argument From Distinct Existences* P1. There are atleast two distinct things, A and B (assumption) P2. If there are atleast two distinct things, then there cannot be a necessary connection between them P3. A sufficient reason, A, is some thing or things distinct from B, which guarantee(s) or necessitate(s) the existence of B P4. There cannot be a sufficient reason for B P5. The PSR is false For a defense of Hume’s Dictum i.e. there are no necessary connections between distinct existences, see paper: A Defense of Hume's Dictum by Cameron Gibbs. For a defense of the idea of necessary connection, see paper: Hume’s account of causation by Sun Demirili or Hume’s Idea of Necessary Connexion by Oswald Handfing. *Further Argument* 1. There are distinct existences 2. Either there is a set of distinct existences or not 3. If there is a set, it cannot exist without its members 4. If there are members within a class, they belong to a set 5. If the members are fundamental to the set and vice versa, then metaphysical coherentism (MC) is true. cf. Viciousness and Circles of Ground (Ricki Bliss 2014) and Metaphysical Interdependence (Naomi Thompson 2016). 6. If MC is true, then distinct existences are interdependent. 7. Interdependent existences cannot be more fundamental than another 7. If distinct existences are interdependent, there must be something that links them together. 8. If there is something that links them together, they cannot be distinct. 9. If there is no set, then their existence is a brute fact. 10. If their existence is a brute fact, then the brute fact presupposes a more fundamental existence 12. If there are non-fundamental existences, then there must be an account for the distinction 13. If there is an account for the distinction, there must be a relation between them 14. If there is a relation between them, then the relation must be intelligible. 15. If relations are brute facts i.e. they are inexplicable, then relations are unintelligible as per definition. 16. If relations are unintelligible, then they do not exist. *Argument against Brute Facts* Proposition: Nothing is without a reason, or whatever is has a sufficient reason. Definition 1. A sufficient reason is that which is such that if it is posited, then the thing is. Definition 2. A requisite is that which is such that if it is not posited, then the thing is not. It is a necessary condition or entity that is ontologically prior to what it is a requisite for. [1] What is has all [its] requisites. For if one is not posited, then the thing is not (see def. 2). [2] If the requisites of a thing have all been posited, then the thing is. If [x] it is not, it will be kept from being by the lack of a requisite. [3] Therefore, all the requisites are a sufficient reason (see def. 1). [4] Therefore, whatever is has a sufficient reason. Defense of [1] - Can there be a thing without requisites? If a requisite is a mere necessary condition, then it is obviously the case that each thing has a requisite, that is, has a necessary condition. Also, each thing has a requisite in a stronger sense according to which a requisite is ontologically prior to the thing for which it is a requisite. Defense of [2] - One could argue [2] is question begging and claim that it presupposes the PSR. For e.g. An objector might say: Even if all the requisites of x are posited, then it could still be the case that ‘x-brutely-fails to exist’. A thing may fail to exist, not because a requisite is lacking, but rather for no reason at all. However, the claim that ‘if [x] is not, it will be kept from existing by the lack of a requisite’ is not justifiable. Therefore, [2] is not question begging. See below reasoning: Consider the following potential requisite of x’s existence: (R1) x does not brutely fail to exist. That is: it is not the case that x’s failure to exist is a brute fact. R1 is a requisite for-and thus a necessary condition of-x’s existence. To say that R1 is a necessary condition of x’s existence is not to say that R1-i.e. x does not brutely fail to exist-is itself necessary. Indeed, as we will see, even if x exists and thus does not brutely fail to exist, there may well be some possible situation in which x brutely fails to exist. Is R1 a requisite of x’s existence? It’s plausible to say that it is, and this is so on either understanding of “requisite.” It’s clear that if requisites are mere necessary conditions, then R1 is a requisite of x’s existence: if x exists, then (obviously) x does not brutely fail to exist. Because the requisites of x’s existence include “x does not brutely not exist” in a plausible way, we can therefore argue for [2] in a non-question-begging way. The claim here is not that simply because R1 is true-i.e. because x does not brutely fail to exist-x’s existence is not a brute fact. The claim is, rather, that, because R1 which is true is a requisite for x’s existence and because all the other requisites of x’s existence obtain, x’s existence is not a brute fact, i.e. x has a sufficient reason. Thus [2] is defended. [3] and [4] follows logically. Thus, it can be argued that whatever is has a sufficient explanation. To claim existence is not apt for explanation begs the question. Why not? Such a view incorporates an Identity Theory of Truth. If existence is not apt for explanation, then it follows logically that anything that exists is also not apt for explanation since existence is an umbrella term. Existence is not a spectrum nor a binary, it is a genus. Now I am testing out these arguments just to see where they fall short lol I do not necessarily commit myself to their conclusions.
I just saw this and was a bit thrilled to have a fellow religious man mentioning my name ;p .. ( it's an inside joke from within our 100+ comment debate. )
@@AShaif hahaha I thought you would see this. Despite the back and forth, I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion. PS. You are the religious one, not me! But you can keep dreaming... :P
@@workt42 start with Michael Della Rocca - PSR and The Parmenidean Ascent. I can go on forever listing books to read but you can start with those for now.
THE CONSTRUCTION PROBLEM, Josh is discussing requires the fine tuning argument in the phenomenal world such that we are aware of the hylemorphic union of our nuomenal perception. The fundamental constants are coordinate necessarily such that we have the weak and strong ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE such that anthropos may know this from experience. This is the argument in genesis, it's the fine tuning argument for a reality such that anthropos may image a consciousness that appreciates reality. THIS, however remains limited as to purpose, and should predict that God himself would have wanted to personally enjoy this reality when he established it, and this is the META-SUPER ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, that the purpose was that the hylemorphic GODMAN should experience himself in his desired and accomplished reality as CHRIST.
Fundamental reality Necessary things If something is eternal it is necessary This statement doesn’t seem to be entirely true. What if some eternal things exist only because another more fundamental eternal thing exists. Example if time exists eternally it only exists because God exists eternally. Or like Ryan Mullins says a possible world exists because God exists. These things seem to be dependent on each other but it doesn’t seem to follow that because time exists God must exist. So it seems fundamental falls into the God category not the time or possible world category. Just some quick thoughts that seem to give the God hypothesis at least a little bit of an edge as a more sufficient reason or explanation.
Is Fundamental and necessary existence same?and when drapper says something fundamental exists did he says that fundamental is a brute fact or brute Contingency?
Perfect deism is only more inline with pain and suffering if heaven is not part of the equation. Most people hold this short present moment as having some kind of overriding weight. There are lots of reasons for this moment of our eternal lives to be the way it is. If heaven is a place that we will not act against God than we had to experience this life. Some reasons to consider. 1. Free will seems to be foundational to goodness. If we are to have free will in heaven there has to be something to keep people from reliving the past or our present moment of pain. 2. Soul building or character building 3. Natural evil as a consequence of bad choices. Example fall doctrine both human and angelic. 4. We don’t know what we don’t experience. There are mountains of miracle claims if some are true then God intervenes when it is for the best. He might stop natural evils daily and probably does. We just don’t know it because it didn’t happen. 5. Dreams and visions are bringing people to Jesus all over the world this wouldn’t happen unless there is a heaven and perfect theism was the more appropriate explanation.
Gross misrepresentation of what Rovelli would say, and in fact most capable scientists in this domain. I really hate it when Mathematicians and physicists downplay the role of philosophy of science, but debates like this really give philosophy a bad name. Incredibly fluffy stuff, massive lack of precision, utilizing words like "prior to" as if that's not a temporal statement and therefore subjects to limitations in our understanding of its limits. Same with "information". We would need a LOT more to even suspect something like "consciousness all the way down". We need to use more careful language when we talk about these things, and really take care to qualify terms with all the context that's available to us.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf if you include humanities, such as social sciences, in your definition of science, then you have all the tools you need to tackle anything "ought" related. But that wasn't the topic of this specific conversation.
You discuss this as if your trying to explain the nature reality to YHVHJESUS. Each of us has a FUNDAMENTAL SELF reference for any argument we make (Descartes), we are the 0 of the coordinate axis we map onto reality with our maths in the synthetic apriori intuitions of space-time. This hylemorphic experience is time as the counter of the movement in the mind as space is the counter of the movement in the world. 1. My thinking existence is fundamental to my knowledge of reality. 2. My thoughts about reality are contingent upon my consciousness and sensory experience. 3. That I lose consciousness and am mistaken about reality frequently in my personal experience such that I doubt my conclusions is self evidence of my contingency to a fundamental consciousness an I AM with the PSR within himself without self doubt whose consciousness is entirely sufficient for coherence, and consistency in the maintaining of the space-time manifold I inhabit. He does so with perfection even when I am unconscious. The YHVHJESUS neither slumbers nor sleeps is a statement that ontological necessity, that in the incarnation YHVHJESUS did sleep and did die yet predicted his resurrection is the evidence of the probability of the PSR for reality within himself as a synthetic apriori such that his consciousness is the foundation, or FUNDAMENTAL of our reality. THIS IS ONTOLOGICAL STATEMENT THAT YHVHJESUS IS THE ROCK OF OUR SALVATION, at least from stupidity if we accept his words concerning life as his words concerning his resurrection should have been accepted. "WORDS ARE WISEMENS COUNTERS AND THE CURRENCY OF FOOLS " Thomas Hobbes.
Lol when you ask what sorts of things can be eternal, one always feels tempted to mention spherical things. Obviously if anything eternal has a shape it must be a sphere, right? Also Paul’s argument for the intrinsic probability of the universe is mistaking negative statements for positive ones. Negative statements add nothing since if they did then positive statements would not add complexity. Everything has an infinite number of negative statements one could make about it and when combined with the positive statements it is equal in complexity to total negativity. Everything is therefore already at maximum complexity and changing a positive to a negative neither adds nor subtracts from the total amount and your idea of intrinsic probability becomes meaningless. Hence negative statements in reality equal zero while only positive statements add complexity Also there’s no point in mentioning science takes an interest in underlying uniformity. The principle of repeatability entails this. This is merely a limitation of the scientific method that it cannot study nonuniformity And may I say that the word “probability” is beginning to make me nauseous. Could anything be a more obvious attempt to draw credibility through a magical association with science? Who would credit probability if quantum physics hadn’t popularized the idea that it is fundamental? I don’t doubt it has always been useful but I do doubt you’d hear it dripping from every philosopher’s lips if they hadn’t heard it in physics lectures. And there’s never any use mentioning Hume. He’s the Chicken Noodle Soup for the Materialistic Soul. He’s a rambling idiot, but if you already agree with him his historical authority feels like a warm blanket I’m sorry but the longer I listen the more it sounds like Paul is just very fond of finding excuses not to question his assumption.
i'm wondering where this idea that hell is torment came from. satan and god had a falling out, satan rejected god presumably. so if i reject god, i'm satan's ally surely? why would my pal want to torment me? burning christians alive, sure i can see that, but if i sell my soul to satan, and now i'm an amazing guitar player, why would he burn his investment? if i reject god and satan rejected god then it's christians satan wants to burn, not me. there will be two heavens, one boring one where you just suck up to god for eternity, and satan's heaven, a fun palace where the artists, musicians, writers and comedians go.
Suffering has a cause. Hell is, by definition, a continuous cycle of that which causes suffering. It is immediate, direct, and causal. It is not a place where you hang out with your buddies and drink beer lmao
@@davidjanbaz7728 oh no, I definitely would rather be in heaven than here wondering if he exists or not. I'm guessing it would be the most wonderful thing possible. I'm a hopeful non theist.
@@davidjanbaz7728 oh no, I definitely would rather be in heaven than here wondering if he exists or not. I'm guessing it would be the most wonderful thing possible. I'm a hopeful non theist.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Bishob Barron just in the Lex Fridman podcast said things like: God is not being in the same sense as things in the world so he doesent compete for space with other objects/ beings.. When He comes closer things get more alive. Like Moses and burning bush it burned without fire consuming it. ( I know He can be other way too ) This also seen in incarnation and in process of Theosis ( God became man so that man can become god ) -- God is To be To be. He is I Am He is essense of to Be. Thats why He is closer to you than you are to your self and with everything else, most intimitately so, But same time He is Higher than anything and is totally other, "where is god here? nowhere". people think God is like other beings somewhere and theists believe in that and atheists say they dont believe that there is that God. But they think what God is, is like all the other beings in the world to be found but He is outside, like Tolkien is outside his book. yet he is behind everything that there is in the book. Offcourse philosphers are different :) they know about the consciousnes Act. 17:28 _For in him we live, and move, and have our being_
32:00 If Dr. Paul Draper's theory of intrinsic probability is taken to be a theory of intrinsic objective probability it does give an interesting answer to the question of "why something rather than nothing?," but it's unsatisfying to me for a few reasons. Firstly the specificity considerations seem to be the weaker part of the theory of intrinsic probability than the internal coherence vs tension considerations. It seems like our reasons for believing the specificity considerations rely on our intuitions and experiences relating to states of affairs on earth and in the observed parts of outer space, and I'm not sure if those intuitions and experiences apply to states of affairs very far removed from our experiences like there literally being nothing at all. There being nothing at all seems to be one of the most removed states of affairs we can possibly consider from our intuitions about and experiences with the observed regime. So it leaves open a serious question. Why do intrinsic probability considerations relating to specificity apply to nothingness?
1:26:14 I just realized, fundamental mind theology poses a unique version of the problem of evil for omnibenevolent theism because not only is there evil, but there's evil in the mind of god. If all of reality is an expression of god's thoughts then there's evil in god's thoughts, but omnibenevolent beings are usually thought of as not having evil contents of their thoughts. This especially has problems for Christian theism because IIRC Jesus says thinking about doing evil things is just as bad as actually doing the evil.
02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom. In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yoga”, in Sanskrit). Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the phenomenal creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. Conscious Awareness). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything that can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is merely happenstance and NOT caused by any particular person. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has individual free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” This illusion of liberty of volition is excruciatingly difficult, if not utterly impossible, for most humans to surmount. The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...
The ANTIDOTE to all mental anguish is to firstly discern pain from suffering, then to achieve complete relief from that miserable state of existence, by abandoning the erroneous belief in personal authorship, and abiding in the primordial sense of being (the unqualified “I am”, which is one’s core identity). This is the very same peace that is experienced each night during the dreamless phase of the sleep cycle. This “resting imperturbably as Flawless Awareness” can be practiced on a regular basis, until it is fully assimilated and integrated into one’s life. Every person, from time immemorial, has been either intentionally or unwittingly seeking such causeless peace, most commonly by practicing one of the four systems of YOGA (a Sanskrit term meaning “religion”, or “union”) delineated in the sixteenth chapter of this work, or in creating wealth and the acquisition of material possessions, or else in psycho-physical pleasures. That peace of mind is also referred to as “happiness”, “joy”, or “love”, and often presumed to be a temporal state, since many assume, incorrectly, that continuous peace is unavailable in this life. Fortunately, that is not the case - it is eminently possible to live one’s life acquainted with unbroken peace of mind, if destined. Following DHARMA (frameworks of authentic religion and societal duties) is not guaranteed to achieve that desired tranquillity of mind, but even so, it is beneficial for individuals, since it establishes a structure that enables one to more easily elevate oneself beyond the mundane, animalistic platform (i.e. the base pursuits of eating, sleeping and mating). Intrinsic to dharma is the division of the adult male population into the four classes of society, and the inherent role of girls and women in society, as fully elucidated in latter chapters of this Holy Scripture. So, now that you understand life, and the reason why we are suffering here in this (ostensively) material universe, you are now able to become liberated from all mental suffering, RIGHT? WRONG! It is imperative to approach an authentic spiritual master to assist you to come to the above realization, by slowly undoing your past conditioning. Just as you have been conditioned over an entire lifetime to think one way, you need to be re-conditioned to think another way (in alignment with your essential identity as The Divine). For one who has himself for a teacher, that man has a veritable fool as his teacher. Even if you adhere closely to the precepts of a competent teacher, you may still not come to a full understanding of life, but if you are sincere, humble and dedicated, you will definitely find more peace in your daily life - all of which was DESTINED to occur, of course. Furthermore, if you are suitably-qualified and it was ordained, you may be fortunate enough to receive discipline from one of the EXTREMELY rare fully-enlightened masters residing on earth at any given time (perchance even the current World Teacher himself), and subsequently realize the aforementioned philosophical concepts, by diligently studying authoritative doctrines (especially the most accurate and complete of all extant Scriptures, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”), serving your guru with great reverence and devotion, and by deliberately avoiding undue harm to oneself, to other individuals, to society as a whole, and to the natural environment, including other life forms. Most beneficially, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is, apart from illegitimate (non-monarchical) governance and feminism, arguably the foremost existential crisis. Best wishes for your unique, personal journey towards unalloyed peace and HAPPINESS! “The cure for nescience is unerring knowledge”. “You are this universe and you are creating it at every moment, because, you see, it starts now. It didn’t begin in the past - there IS no past.” ************* “Find out who you REALLY are so that when death comes…there is no-one to kill, for while you are identified with your role, with your name, with your ego, there is someone to kill. But when you are identified with the whole universe, death finds you already annihilated and there’s no-one to kill”. ************* “A wise Rabbi once said, ‘If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I, and you are not you’. In other words, we are not separate.” ************* “Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way.” ************* “The reason we die is to give us the opportunity to realize what life is all about”. ************* “The meaning of life is life itself.” Professor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts, British-American Philosopher. (06/01/1915 - 16/11/1973). “The universe is not outside of you. Look inside yourself; everything that you want, you already are.” ************* “Stop acting so small. You are the universe in ecstatic motion.” ************* “We are one. Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself.” ************* “What you seek is seeking you.” ************* “Don’t you know yet? It is your light that lights the worlds.” ************* “The lamps are different, but the light is the same.” Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī, Persian Sunni Muslim poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic. (30/09/1207 - 17/12/1273).
Literally two of the most brilliant minds in the western academy today on the philosophy of religion. Thank you so much for putting this together Joe.
No, that's what a few would have you believe. They try too hard. Greetings. Jajajaj
Brilliant and lacklustre are RELATIVE. ;)
not really, calling people who essentially believe that leprachauns rule the universe isn't clever.
i'm wondering where this idea that hell is torment came from. satan and god had a falling out, satan rejected god presumably. so if i reject god, i'm satan's ally surely? why would my pal want to torment me? burning christians alive, sure i can see that, but if i sell my soul to satan, and now i'm an amazing guitar player, why would he burn his investment? if i reject god and satan rejected god then it's christians satan wants to burn, not me.
there will be two heavens, one boring one where you just suck up to god for eternity, and satan's heaven, a fun palace where the artists, musicians, writers and comedians go.
@@HarryNicNicholas this was like a contest of bad/dumb comments and you took the prize. holy shit.
Dear RealAtheology, would you ever interview and dialogue with Pat Flynn?
Poor Sheldon, no one believing he’s fundamental. I believe in you, Sheldon :,(
I don't know how I missed this when it was originally posted, but I am glad that I stumbled across it now. This was a phenomenal conversation! I am a huge fan of Josh's work and I have a great deal of respect for Paul Draper, so it was a real treat to hear them discuss these questions. I guess Joe is fine too.
I'd never heard Paul Draper talk until now and as soon as he introduced that pun about the "fundaMENTAL", I immediately liked him even more. Awesome and unique discussion! Thank you, Joe.
Great conversation! I think, despite his humillity, that Dr. Rasmussen is a much more organized and clear thinker, but Dr. Draper brough some really interesting possibilities into the conversation.
Thank you, Joe!
Part of the reason is that Josh is very, very used to these sorts of dialogues, and yet this is really Draper’s first dialogue of this kind. And this is in addition to being very introverted and not liking being recorded haha. (Plus Draper is about the clearest thinker I’ve ever come across in writing, apart from maybe Plantinga and Lewis🙂)
@@MajestyofReason Thanks for answering. Btw, I've been listening to your discussions with Chistopher Tomaszewski, wich are changing my views about divin simplicity.
@@adriang.fuentes7649 That's wonderful to hear! I love serving others in their pursuit of truth :)
Btw, If you email me at the end of August (and mention your name, which I'll recognize), I'll send you a pre-print PDF of my forthcoming Springer book which discusses in depth arguments for and against divine simplicity
@@MajestyofReason I'll write you, for sure! Maybe it will change again my credence, wich has increase because some of Tomaszewski responses (I am a not-classical theist because this specific topic). Thank you again for all your wonderful content :)
@@MajestyofReason who is lewis?
Just clicked and haven’t watched yet but my man, this is just incredible that you got this conversation to happen, major kudos! Your audience is so grateful
I made a joke originally because I am naturally a pretty sarcastic person haha, but in all seriousness after finishing the video, this was a really great discussion. I really enjoyed it. Thanks Joe, and Josh, and Paul for doing this! 👍
Thanks for this Joe!
“The first thing to realize...is that most people go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification, and that one man’s world of beliefs is apt to be incompatible with another man’s, so that they cannot both be right. People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.”
― Bertrand Russell
Damn, this is pairing is perfect. I love Draper's work, too bad he doesn't do online appearence more. Brilliant guy ; and great discussion
Joe the agnostic miracle worker! Thank you for bringing these two together!!
Josh R. Is one of the most intelligent men out there.
Too bad he is now a universalist right?
Brilliant!!
Two excellent guests
Hey Dr Malpass, are we going to see thoughtology back anytime soon? Look forward to any of your future work too.
Will you write a book on KCA?
You should debate pruss or koons on *problems of endless future* .
I was about to ask same question as jake. More thoughtology episodes would be great lol maybe get koons on debate his psr argument with pruss.
Yes, I’ve got a few ideas for future episodes, so something will happen at some point. It’s hard to find the time these days. I think a book on the KCA is beyond me for a while at least. Should have a few papers out on it soon though
@@alexmalpass will you make episodes with Logos, Rob koons,Andrew Loke,Brian Leftow,Ed feser,Timothy O'Connor, erik wielenberg and if possible Pruss or WLC in your channel at some point?
Thank you for your hard works and for everything you do for us ❤❤❤
Joe! You should release this videos on podcast- I’d love to listen to them while working out or at work
This was really something incredible to listen to. It was two incredibly intelligent philosophers of religion working together based on where the discipline can actually take us. I'm struck at how different and good this was compared to normal theist-atheist debates/conversations. It was like the exact inverse of the Turek-Hitchens debate.
Much, much love❤️
And great to see you here!!
at the end of the day though, it's all hot air. you can only demonstrate god, you can't talk him into existence, all this does is give credibility to voodoo.
Yay! Thanks for organising this Joe.
❤❤ The clarity of this conversation is a thing of beauty.
YESSS
Are you ever planning on doing a discussion with Bernardo Kalstrup on his analytic idealism? I’m very intrigued by his views and I think he would be a great guest to have on!
I'm still trying to understand it. He uses so much language that just makes his view super opaque to me. I have no clue what he's even getting at with dissociative boundaries of perception and all that
4/4 42:00
Is an indeterministic process still something? That doesn’t seem to explain fundamentally why there is something rather than nothing.
51:21
I am not sure how Rasmussen’s point that if reality was claimed to be fundamentally blue that it would seem to him to cry out for explanation is relevant to Draper’s question of whether the laws of physics with some uniform explanation still has features that cry out for explanation. I wonder if in the back of his head if he was wondering if such laws would actually explain perceptions of red, green, or blue or conscious experience generally or not. However, I think Draper made a good point that if we are asking why the universe is one way rather than another way that it would be a mistake to let our background knowledge of things related to the perception of the color blue to influence our thinking to think that reality fundamentally really plausibly can’t be blue. If we put that knowledge to the side, I do think that it doesn’t seem particularly implausible.
This was very enjoyable to listen to
1:17:30 Hey Joe!
The idea that we could be though of as ‘dream characters in the mind of god’ is a thought that I had several year back, and I have been sympathetic to ever since.
A way that this has helped me conceive of how reality might be is seeing ‘reality’ and ‘existence’ in relative terms.
When I conceive of a pink elephant, there is a ‘real’ pink elephant that ‘exists’ in my mind, and that pink elephant has ‘real’ properties, like color, shape, weight, etc..
It’s not a fake pink elephant, it’s a ‘real’ conceived thing that has contingent existence in my mind.
But a real thing that exists in my mind, doesn’t exist outside of my mind.
I can now imagine 3 people in my mind, and these three people are ‘real’ people. And they are able to have conversations with one another and have unique personalities, and interact with the pink elephant, and the ‘real’ idea of gravity is pulling them all down etc..
What I can’t do, is imagine that these people have unique subjective consciousness apart from myself.
There is a sense that they do have subjective consciousness that is not shared with each other, but the ‘source’ or ‘center’ of that consciousness is really something that is coming from myself.
If we imagine that the ‘reality’ that we experience is likewise mind like, but not limited in the ways that our own minds are limited, we would find that our own consciousness, and that the matter that surrounds us, is all made up of the same ‘substance’.
I think that a way of describing this view might be something like: panentheistic idealism.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this!
Why stop at being a dream character? Maybe God actually imagined you since he does not sleep
Holy crap
Are you a THEIST, Mr. Parker?
If so, for what reason(s) do you BELIEVE in God?
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices he's a theist
@@emkfenboi, I'm a subscriber to his channel. I was more interested in his response to my SECOND question. ☝️☝️
The motive for everything is infinite boredom. Boredom clearly caused activity, but boredom has no beginning. Therefore it is fundamental.
1:38:11 Oooh this panpsychotheism idea is really interesting to me, I love how it incorporates some form of open individualism. Open individualism is something that's very attractive to me even though my intuitions for leaning toward it aren't shared by everyone or even most people. I really hope to remember to dig into this idea :D
@MajestyOfReason...you should maybe get Bernardo Kastrup on the channel to give a good defense of Analytical Idealism.
"the collective(infinite regress or finite) is dependent and is not going to be dependent on something within itself. It's dependent on something external".
Are we talking about a block universe then? Is the block universe dependent on something external? Does there have to be an explanation for something fundamental? or is everything still abstract?
Edit: why is the collective dependent?
Damn!it was too good! Thanks Schmid
This is what I find to be fundamental: everything is impermanent, nothing can be called self, and everything is inherently unsatisfactory.
37:48-38:00 nah Draper wildin 💀
Did drapper says something Exists is a brute contingent fact?and which basis he says that there has to be something rather than nothing...i didn't catch his words....can please clarify me?
Draper and Josh!! This is just metaphysically impossible!!
Hey is this one of the key members of team reductio. Big faan ❤️
Oh wow Zeeman! Big fan ❤️
@@sreejithm2994 who are they?
This was a fascinating conversation, with so many ways to pick my brain about. Thank you for this Monsieur Schmid.
As a random amateur on the interweb with only casual explorations of such topic I won't be able to add any depth or breadth to the conversation. But that doesn't prevent me from delivering some thoughts of mine, if anything as an offering to the less-than-perfect agent of UA-cam AlgoTheism.
Let's first offer a conceivable challenge to the seemingly prevalent intuition that the mental could be fundamental. In retrospect it seems clear prima facie that this intuition people have is contradicted by our very first experiences as living organisms first, as well as thinking agents later in our development.
Our existence arises in a preexisting world, from which we receive input even before we become aware of it, then self-aware as we grow. This input remains consistent and non-mental evidence for this world, which can be understood on a working basis as this phenomenon of externality.
At no point do we directly exchange thoughts with other agents, nor are we even encountering agents in our earliest experiences. Systematically, input is empirical, _not_ mental per se. Similarly, we further establish the demarcation between our lived internality and this externality by delivering output, which is equally empirical. At no point does mental output ever obtains.
In summary, our existence and subsequent mental experiences are contingent, and interaction with other agents occurs only in the form of empirical input and output, interaction which ceases definitely once the empirical process called death occurs.
Therefore, our only experiences of this world that we happen to share cry out for the prima facie case that the empirical phenomenon is prior; that the mental phenomenon is posterior, and contingent upon the empirical phenomenon.
Whence then comes the intuition that the mental could even be fundamental in the first place? It's obviously not because of our interactions with the world, nor is it thanks to some kind of innate knowledge of a mental foundation to existence, since we have to actually think about this stuff to even begin to get intuitions about it, namely because the question of the foundations of reality are anything but intuitive, and only arises after our thinking skills have matured enough to attempt to grasp said question.
Well, as far as I can tell this 'intuition' seems to be a by-product of abstract reasoning, logic, and theory of mind, only coming up after some habituation with mental constructs and experiences, once our 'mental lives' have matured enough to possibly start agent causation attribution to just about any uncommon occurrence. This appears neither as a genuine intuition, nor as an actually logical proposition. On the contrary, this is wholly inconsistent with prior experiences with agents, or early memories of our mental lives. All in all, it sounds like a deeply ingrained cognitive bias rather than anything else...
Last but not least, a counter intuition can arise out of seemingly undeniable observations: any and all of our abstractions, mental images, and concepts, are particulars or composite constructs that are systematically made from pre-experienced patterns of empirical input. We never construct any mental picture out of whole cloth, we always pick some existing elements and build something new with it. On the other hand, however weird and complex our ideas can be, reality consistently and relentlessly surprise and surpass them. Empirical reality composes and surpasses mental fictions, that's the counter intuition I could offer to illustrate the contingent and limited nature of mental imagery, compared to empirical experiences.
when Dr.Drapper was answering Why is there something rather than nothing...did he choose indeterministic process?and says something have to exist and then says that fundamental thing (something)is always existed and it's a brute contingent fact that it exists? I'm confused, please clarify me...!
2/4 26:10 Josh really gets into the notion of things that just seem to call for explanation and that would therefore not be fundamental. If someone were to posit a beginingless eternal necessary turtle as fundamental, it just seems that turtles aren’t the kinds of things that are that way. Something about turtles seems to cry out for explanation that aren’t resolved by postulating that one turtle is fundamental.
Here’s the problem. Why can’t we say the same thing about mind? Everything that seems to be the case about mind from our experience is that they aren’t the sort of thing that is fundamental. Minds start to exist, they are contingent, they are physically dependent, they are temporally sequential. They seem to cry out for explanation which is why there is so much written from multiple perspectives in the philosophy of mind.
So why think turtles are such that they seem to not be fundamental when we can say much the same about minds (remember consciousness is being posited as the basic thing that demarcates mind from non-mind; so, it is not enough to state that mind in a fundamental sense is totally other from conscious experience as argued about in the philosophy of mind within the context of this conversation.)
Dualism and the type josh subscribes to would believe immateriality of the mind does exist in us.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf That doesn't change my points though. Physically dependent is not the same as Physical.
When Josh uses the dream analogy about controlling objects/creating them. He could have brought up using virtual reality as an example too. I agree with Draper at the end and noticed this in John Buck vs Emerson debate. Theodicy of soul building has a huge flaw which is as Paul points out some people are put in such shitty conditions they can't grow such as child dying from cancer. I think Josh needs to look at other ways to handle this. Personally, I think Davies's book on evil has a decent take.
What do you think about the reply that if we're helping ourselves to an eternal soul, the time spent suffering as a child with cancer approaches zero next to eternity?
@@wootsat I am not sure how that is soul-building when you suffer and die as a baby. It doesn't build anything. Also, do they get a free get into heaven card? Certain people would take that over living 80 years on this planet.
@@wootsat
I think Christianity has all the necessary resources to explain away the problem of evil and suffering. Would childhood cancer be awful for the child and family, yes of course. But God is perfectly loving and in heaven there are no tears so obviously all the trauma has been healed, plus it's an eternity of joy compared to a tiny temporal moment of pain etc etc. That said these all sound ad hoc and very unconvincing to me personally.
@@Kvothe3 That is the only plausible answer I can think is that yes our lives are a blink of an eye compared to the eternity of the afterlife. However, if you believe in Hell and what about animal suffering?
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Perhaps if God exists and thus Hell, one could say that if a person ends up there then its because and only because they fully deserve it. Thus, somebody who doesn’t deserve hell won’t be there, and there is no need for concern about the occurrence of injustice
3:03 I could be wrong here, but based on Josh Rassmussen's working definition of minds here that a mind is definitionally a thing that can have contents of consciousness, it seems like physicalism together with certain ontological assumptions like the assumption that fundamental fields are things that exist or that a universal wave-function is a thing that exists would lead immediately to some form of panpsychism. If physicalism is true and fundamental fields exist and the brain has contents of consciousness and contents of things grounded in or functionally realized by fundamental fields are also contents of the fields then fundamental fields can have contents of consciousness and therefore some combination of fundamental fields could be considered a mind. Something similar would follow for a universal wave function.
Is fundamental reality intuitive or counter intuitive?
Suggestion: Could you pls invite Philip Goff on to discuss his cosmopsychism sometime? Thanks :)
Fundamentally great discussion !
Joe where can I find the animation thing ?
Btw in one of your old videos you said WLC will be on your channel with another philosopher soon. Any updates ?
Had to be postponed (without definite reschedule date) due to personal reasons of one of the philosophers
As for the animation, I found it on n some website with free animations - I don’t remember, unfortunately!
Much love my man❤️
@@MajestyofReason thanks
3/4 37:31 - 43:30
The notion that uniformity does not cry out for explanation in the way variety/diversity does was super fascinating. I think his appeal to the notion of scientific progress to support this resonates in our intuitions in a quite compelling manner. If indeed uniformity cries out for explanation in the way variety/diversity does then any time scientific observations of diversity are explained by a uniform explanation then one would have no reason to see that as progress as it could be rightly pointed out that one is merely substituting something that cries out for explanation by something else that also equally cries out for explanation. No progress would be made as the causal explanation would be seen as just as problematic as the initial observations.
I do have a couple of concerns though I quickly admit that this line of argument is new to me. First, it does seem like one could argue that new knowledge has resulted nonetheless if a uniform explanation equally explains diverse observations as a diverse explanation does. Second, what if uniformity still cries out for explanation even if not as much as variety/diversity does? It seems that a uniform postulation might be less problematic as a brute fact than a diverse postulation but it doesn’t mean that a uniform postulation is best understood as a brute fact. It seems that there must be additional justification to argue that some particular explanation or explanations are brute facts. The only additional justification that comes to mind is when we can’t think of a plausible more fundamental explanation. I just don’t know if that is a good reason to ignore something crying out for explanation even of it is crying out less loudly if you will than diversity does.
when Dr.Drapper was answering Why is something fundamental to this question did he says that fundamental was always existed and it's a brute contingent fact?i didn't catch his response...did he says something like this for example why our universe is like this rather than nothing...and thus universe is like uniformity and it's a brute contingent fact? please clarify me
@@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785 He did state that in his view that something being fundamental just basically means that something always existed but that he sees these things as contingent rather than necessary. It is unclear whether or not he thinks that there are necessary truths that are fundamental.
What was interesting to me is that he appealed to an indeterministic process choosing between nothing or the near infinite possible number of somethings. However, in my mind that is just saying that something always existed, namely, the indeterministic process he was referring to.
@@blamtasticful so,he takes indeterministic process and says something always existed and it's a brute fact right?
@@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785 I honestly don't know. Joe and Josh didn't probe his view on that point much.
that loop is so satisfying
59:06 I think that having greater predictive power of a specific hypothesis over the disjunction of every other specific candidate you're willing to consider doesn't necessarily favor the specific hypothesis over each equally specific alternative you're willing to consider. For example I could argue that the standard model quantum field theory has vastly more predictive power over the general hypothesis that the standard model being false. For example the standard model predicts the existence of neutrinos while the general disjunctive amalgamation of all ways it could be false doesn't make that prediction. However that doesn't mean that the standard model has more predictive power than the Pati Salaam model. The Pati Salam model might make some true predictions that the Standard Model doesn't while making every true prediction made by the Standard model. Similarly even though the hypothesis that fundamental reality is mental makes predictions that the disjunctive amalgamation of all ways fundamental reality could be not mental doesn't, that doesn't favor mentality being fundamental over every single individual equally specific hypothesis where fundamental reality isn't mental.
BRUH
IKR
First Oppy and Swinburne, and now Draper and Rasmussen?? What's next? Shellenberg and Pruss?
Cameron, have you ever considered becoming a COMPASSIONATE vegan?
Then you could name your channel "COMPASSIONATE Capturing Christianity". ;)
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices I am a compassionate non vegan !
@@davidjanbaz7728, do you have compassion for the poor, innocent beings that you NEEDLESSLY slaughter each time you feed on dead animal carcasses, Silly Sinner?
@@logans.butler285 how about Dr.Erik wielenberg vs Andrew loke
So, my ultimate takeaway from this incredibly deep discussion is of course…. Sheldons all the way down 😁
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. -h.j.s.
Umm..im little bit confused here! Why something fundamental? to this question's answer did Paul draper said because he thinks something Exists is a brute contingent fact? i didn't catch his answer... please reply
Hey man, any word on the Eric Reitan/Rasmussen discussion?
Happening in October😊
@@MajestyofReason Awesome! the hero I need, but not the one I deserve. I am unworthy 🙇♂️🍕💙
Bro I love the animation thing
Thank you everyone for this gigachad big brain content. Fundamentally brilliant , thank you
Let’s go!!!
Wow this was an awesome surprise. Thanks Joe! I found Draper's PSR as restricted to variety really interesting. Curious as to what you thought about it.
I think it’s a respectable view; though, I favor a PSR applying to contingent things🙂
Im not so sure of the validity of the move of saying it is more probable something exists rather than nothing. When we have abstracted the question from any external considerations, why should we presume that our intuitions about what would be more probable apply at all in these circumstances?
Once we have abstracted the question from all external considerations, we also need to do so in regards to our notion of simplicity. On what basis do you say one thing is simpler than another? Do we solely define simplicity with regards to our mode of knowing?
When we are abstracting from all external considerations I don’t think we do have any basis for saying a dog with a red scarf around his neck is saying something more specific than just saying a dog.
Looking forward to this! Thanks Joe.
I apologize because my comment has nothing to do with the subject of the video. But I would like to know if substance monism implies that all objects other than substance per se have to be a set of properties, or is it possible to introduce something like second substances but that their only purpose is to be carriers of properties? That is, being a carrier of properties does not make substance substance, but independent of any other being, does it not? Perhaps I am wrong and it is forced that whoever accepts that there is one and only one substance has to accept that all other objects are nothing more than a set of united properties. Which causes me to wonder, since I would not understand what it is that holds them together to form, for example, someone like me, a self-conscious being. Perhaps another property?
monism: the view in metaphysics that reality (that is, Ultimate Reality) is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system; the doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being; any system of thought which seeks to deduce all the varied phenomena of both the physical and spiritual worlds from a single principle, specifically, the metaphysical doctrine that there is but one substance, either mind (idealism) or matter (materialism), or a substance that is neither mind nor matter, but is the substantial ground of both. Cf. “dualism”.
Perhaps the oldest extant metaphysical system, Advaita Vedānta, originating in ancient Bhārata (India), which is the thesis promulgated in this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is a decompositional dual-aspect monist schema, in which the mental and the physical are two (epistemic) aspects of an underlying (ontic) reality that itself is neither mental nor physical, but rather, psychophysically neutral. On such a view, the decomposition creates mutually exclusive mental (subjective) and physical (objective) domains which are both necessary for a comprehensive metaphysical worldview. The mere fact that it is possible for Awareness to be conscious of Itself, implies that, by nature, Ultimate Reality is con-substantially BOTH subjective and objective, since it would not be possible for a subject to perceive itself unless the subject was also a self-reflective object.
Cf. “advaita”, “dualism”, “Brahman/Parabrahman”, “Saguna Brahman”, “Nirguna Brahman”, “subject”, and “object”.
You can also read up Michael Della Rocca ' The Parmenidean Ascent' chap 2-3. He explains in more detail why Substance must be a monism and addresses your concern regarding properties.
Did they define fundamental?
I don't understand why our ideas of god had to muddy the waters - apart from force of habit . Also a turtle is dependant on the totality of itself in each particular moment. It may also be dependant on its past incarnations. When we talk of self dependance and time dependance - strange ideas like fundamental moments and fundamental identity crop up, which just highlight the limitations of conceptualisation.
Causation as a folk science
1/4 Josh’s broad definition of Fundamentality: Not derived by, grounded in, explained in terms of, or caused by any prior elements or realities.
Q: Can’t at least some brute facts arguably meet this definition of fundamental? The wavefunction isn’t derived by anything else; at best it is inferred. Naturalists will see no reason why it must be caused by something else any more than mind must be caused by something else. It isn’t grounded in naturalism as such a view is just a description of what naturalism would be. It also seems that it can’t be plausibly explained in other terms as such terms would just massively underdetermine the explanation at best; it would be like explaining God in terms of the wavefunction.
6:50 Infinitely old things could be non-fundamental if they're functionally realized by something. For example if there were an infinitely old cellular automaton like Conway's game of life being simulated by another infinitely old cellular automaton, the first would be functionally realized by the second. Also consider the case of an infinitely old count down through all the natural numbers til the counter reaches 0. The infinitely old count is dependent on the infinitely old counter and is therefore not fundamental.
This is exactly what was going through my mind lol
Draper hit a few foul balls. Overall, a bunch of great hits. Good content 👌
Argument against Fundamental/Non-Fundamental Things
1. Relations are unintelligible cf. The Parmenidean Ascent - Michael Della Rocca.
2. If relations are unintelligible, then there are no distinct existences i.e. existence pluralism is false
3. If (2) is true, there is only existence i.e. Existence Monism
4. If (3) is true, then there cannot be a distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental things
C. There are no fundamental or non-fundamental things.
Defense of 1. Bradleyan Reverse Argument
P1. Relations by their nature are grounded in atleast one of its relata i.e. they cannot be free floating.
P2. If relations cannot be grounded i.e. to be explained, then relations are unintelligible
P3. If relations are unintelligible, then there are no relations
P4. Relations are unintelligible (proof by Bradley’s Regress)
Therefore, if the answer to the first key question is No, then questions 2-4 are irrelevant.
For a more in depth defense, see discussion between Ash Ahmed Dherar and myself on 'Pantheism vs. The Kalam Cosmological Argument' video on Majesty of Reason. fyi. It's over 200 comments long lol
*Argument in support of Existence Monism.* .
P1. The world is the only concrete object needed to explain how the world evolves
P2. If the world is the only concrete object needed to explain how the world evolves, then if there were proper parts of the world, these proper parts would be explanatorily redundant or epiphenomenal entities. If the world suffices to explain everything, then there is nothing left for its proper parts to explain.
P3. There are no explanatorily redundant or epiphenomenal entities.
C1. The world has no proper parts
cf. Cf. Existence Monism Trumps Priority Monism - T. Horgan & M.Potrc. or In Defense of Existence Monism by P.Finocchiaro.
If we assume the answer to the first key question is yes, then either Metaphysical Foundationalism, Coherentism or Infinitism.
*Argument From Distinct Existences*
P1. There are atleast two distinct things, A and B (assumption)
P2. If there are atleast two distinct things, then there cannot be a necessary connection between them
P3. A sufficient reason, A, is some thing or things distinct from B, which guarantee(s) or necessitate(s) the existence of B
P4. There cannot be a sufficient reason for B
P5. The PSR is false
For a defense of Hume’s Dictum i.e. there are no necessary connections between distinct existences, see paper: A Defense of Hume's Dictum by Cameron Gibbs. For a defense of the idea of necessary connection, see paper: Hume’s account of causation by Sun Demirili or Hume’s Idea of Necessary Connexion by Oswald Handfing.
*Further Argument*
1. There are distinct existences
2. Either there is a set of distinct existences or not
3. If there is a set, it cannot exist without its members
4. If there are members within a class, they belong to a set
5. If the members are fundamental to the set and vice versa, then metaphysical coherentism (MC) is true. cf. Viciousness and Circles of Ground (Ricki Bliss 2014) and Metaphysical Interdependence (Naomi Thompson 2016).
6. If MC is true, then distinct existences are interdependent.
7. Interdependent existences cannot be more fundamental than another
7. If distinct existences are interdependent, there must be something that links them together.
8. If there is something that links them together, they cannot be distinct.
9. If there is no set, then their existence is a brute fact.
10. If their existence is a brute fact, then the brute fact presupposes a more fundamental existence
12. If there are non-fundamental existences, then there must be an account for the distinction
13. If there is an account for the distinction, there must be a relation between them
14. If there is a relation between them, then the relation must be intelligible.
15. If relations are brute facts i.e. they are inexplicable, then relations are unintelligible as per definition.
16. If relations are unintelligible, then they do not exist.
*Argument against Brute Facts*
Proposition: Nothing is without a reason, or whatever is has a sufficient reason.
Definition 1. A sufficient reason is that which is such that if it is posited, then the thing is.
Definition 2. A requisite is that which is such that if it is not posited, then the thing is not. It is a necessary condition or entity that is ontologically prior to what it is a requisite for.
[1] What is has all [its] requisites. For if one is not posited, then the thing is not (see def. 2).
[2] If the requisites of a thing have all been posited, then the thing is.
If [x] it is not, it will be kept from being by the lack of a requisite.
[3] Therefore, all the requisites are a sufficient reason (see def. 1).
[4] Therefore, whatever is has a sufficient reason.
Defense of [1] - Can there be a thing without requisites? If a requisite is a mere necessary condition, then it is obviously the case that each thing has a requisite, that is, has a necessary condition. Also, each thing has a requisite in a stronger sense according to which a requisite is ontologically prior to the thing for which it is a requisite.
Defense of [2] - One could argue [2] is question begging and claim that it presupposes the PSR. For e.g. An objector might say: Even if all the requisites of x are posited, then it could still be the case that ‘x-brutely-fails to exist’. A thing may fail to exist, not because a requisite is lacking, but rather for no reason at all.
However, the claim that ‘if [x] is not, it will be kept from existing by the lack of a requisite’ is not justifiable. Therefore, [2] is not question begging. See below reasoning:
Consider the following potential requisite of x’s existence:
(R1) x does not brutely fail to exist.
That is: it is not the case that x’s failure to exist is a brute fact. R1 is a requisite for-and thus a necessary condition of-x’s existence. To say that R1 is a necessary condition of x’s existence is not to say that R1-i.e. x does not brutely fail to exist-is itself necessary. Indeed, as we will see, even if x exists and thus does not brutely fail to exist, there may well be some possible situation in which x brutely fails to exist. Is R1 a requisite of x’s existence? It’s plausible to say that it is, and this is so on either understanding of “requisite.” It’s clear that if requisites are mere necessary conditions, then R1 is a requisite of x’s existence: if x exists, then (obviously) x does not brutely fail to exist. Because the requisites of x’s existence include “x does not brutely not exist” in a plausible way, we can therefore argue for [2] in a non-question-begging way.
The claim here is not that simply because R1 is true-i.e. because x does not brutely fail to exist-x’s existence is not a brute fact. The claim is, rather, that, because R1 which is true is a requisite for x’s existence and because all the other requisites of x’s existence obtain, x’s existence is not a brute fact, i.e. x has a sufficient reason. Thus [2] is defended.
[3] and [4] follows logically.
Thus, it can be argued that whatever is has a sufficient explanation. To claim existence is not apt for explanation begs the question. Why not? Such a view incorporates an Identity Theory of Truth. If existence is not apt for explanation, then it follows logically that anything that exists is also not apt for explanation since existence is an umbrella term. Existence is not a spectrum nor a binary, it is a genus.
Now I am testing out these arguments just to see where they fall short lol I do not necessarily commit myself to their conclusions.
I just saw this and was a bit thrilled to have a fellow religious man mentioning my name ;p .. ( it's an inside joke from within our 100+ comment debate. )
Truth is Simple is Beautiful Remember E+inst/ein,.
@@AShaif hahaha I thought you would see this. Despite the back and forth, I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion. PS. You are the religious one, not me! But you can keep dreaming... :P
@@workt42 start with Michael Della Rocca - PSR and The Parmenidean Ascent. I can go on forever listing books to read but you can start with those for now.
@@Hbmd3E How simple? Lol
Sheldon is love, Sheldon is life.
Uhh… I wish I didn’t just look up the original story of that slogan. 🤦🏻♂️ Ignorance really is bliss.
OH SNAP
THE CONSTRUCTION PROBLEM, Josh is discussing requires the fine tuning argument in the phenomenal world such that we are aware of the hylemorphic union of our nuomenal perception.
The fundamental constants are coordinate necessarily such that we have the weak and strong ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE such that anthropos may know this from experience. This is the argument in genesis, it's the fine tuning argument for a reality such that anthropos may image a consciousness that appreciates reality.
THIS, however remains limited as to purpose, and should predict that God himself would have wanted to personally enjoy this reality when he established it, and this is the META-SUPER ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, that the purpose was that the hylemorphic GODMAN should experience himself in his desired and accomplished reality as CHRIST.
Josh Rasmussen & Paul Draper: black and yellow blob edition
So many Calebs out there :)
It’s a great name
😍😍
Fundamental reality
Necessary things
If something is eternal it is necessary
This statement doesn’t seem to be entirely true.
What if some eternal things exist only because another more fundamental eternal thing exists.
Example if time exists eternally it only exists because God exists eternally.
Or like Ryan Mullins says a possible world exists because God exists.
These things seem to be dependent on each other but it doesn’t seem to follow that because time exists God must exist.
So it seems fundamental falls into the God category not the time or possible world category.
Just some quick thoughts that seem to give the God hypothesis at least a little bit of an edge as a more sufficient reason or explanation.
Is Fundamental and necessary existence same?and when drapper says something fundamental exists did he says that fundamental is a brute fact or brute Contingency?
Perfect deism is only more inline with pain and suffering if heaven is not part of the equation. Most people hold this short present moment as having some kind of overriding weight.
There are lots of reasons for this moment of our eternal lives to be the way it is.
If heaven is a place that we will not act against God than we had to experience this life. Some reasons to consider.
1. Free will seems to be foundational to goodness. If we are to have free will in heaven there has to be something to keep people from reliving the past or our present moment of pain.
2. Soul building or character building
3. Natural evil as a consequence of bad choices. Example fall doctrine both human and angelic.
4. We don’t know what we don’t experience. There are mountains of miracle claims if some are true then God intervenes when it is for the best. He might stop natural evils daily and probably does. We just don’t know it because it didn’t happen.
5. Dreams and visions are bringing people to Jesus all over the world this wouldn’t happen unless there is a heaven and perfect theism was the more appropriate explanation.
Gross misrepresentation of what Rovelli would say, and in fact most capable scientists in this domain. I really hate it when Mathematicians and physicists downplay the role of philosophy of science, but debates like this really give philosophy a bad name. Incredibly fluffy stuff, massive lack of precision, utilizing words like "prior to" as if that's not a temporal statement and therefore subjects to limitations in our understanding of its limits. Same with "information". We would need a LOT more to even suspect something like "consciousness all the way down". We need to use more careful language when we talk about these things, and really take care to qualify terms with all the context that's available to us.
I don’t think science can answer the ought question
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf if you include humanities, such as social sciences, in your definition of science, then you have all the tools you need to tackle anything "ought" related. But that wasn't the topic of this specific conversation.
You discuss this as if your trying to explain the nature reality to YHVHJESUS. Each of us has a FUNDAMENTAL SELF reference for any argument we make (Descartes), we are the 0 of the coordinate axis we map onto reality with our maths in the synthetic apriori intuitions of space-time. This hylemorphic experience is time as the counter of the movement in the mind as space is the counter of the movement in the world.
1. My thinking existence is fundamental to my knowledge of reality.
2. My thoughts about reality are contingent upon my consciousness and sensory experience.
3. That I lose consciousness and am mistaken about reality frequently in my personal experience such that I doubt my conclusions is self evidence of my contingency to a fundamental consciousness an I AM with the PSR within himself without self doubt whose consciousness is entirely sufficient for coherence, and consistency in the maintaining of the space-time manifold I inhabit. He does so with perfection even when I am unconscious. The YHVHJESUS neither slumbers nor sleeps is a statement that ontological necessity, that in the incarnation YHVHJESUS did sleep and did die yet predicted his resurrection is the evidence of the probability of the PSR for reality within himself as a synthetic apriori such that his consciousness is the foundation, or FUNDAMENTAL of our reality.
THIS IS ONTOLOGICAL STATEMENT THAT YHVHJESUS IS THE ROCK OF OUR SALVATION, at least from stupidity if we accept his words concerning life as his words concerning his resurrection should have been accepted.
"WORDS ARE WISEMENS COUNTERS AND THE CURRENCY OF FOOLS " Thomas Hobbes.
Lol when you ask what sorts of things can be eternal, one always feels tempted to mention spherical things. Obviously if anything eternal has a shape it must be a sphere, right?
Also Paul’s argument for the intrinsic probability of the universe is mistaking negative statements for positive ones. Negative statements add nothing since if they did then positive statements would not add complexity. Everything has an infinite number of negative statements one could make about it and when combined with the positive statements it is equal in complexity to total negativity. Everything is therefore already at maximum complexity and changing a positive to a negative neither adds nor subtracts from the total amount and your idea of intrinsic probability becomes meaningless. Hence negative statements in reality equal zero while only positive statements add complexity
Also there’s no point in mentioning science takes an interest in underlying uniformity. The principle of repeatability entails this. This is merely a limitation of the scientific method that it cannot study nonuniformity
And may I say that the word “probability” is beginning to make me nauseous. Could anything be a more obvious attempt to draw credibility through a magical association with science? Who would credit probability if quantum physics hadn’t popularized the idea that it is fundamental? I don’t doubt it has always been useful but I do doubt you’d hear it dripping from every philosopher’s lips if they hadn’t heard it in physics lectures.
And there’s never any use mentioning Hume. He’s the Chicken Noodle Soup for the Materialistic Soul. He’s a rambling idiot, but if you already agree with him his historical authority feels like a warm blanket
I’m sorry but the longer I listen the more it sounds like Paul is just very fond of finding excuses not to question his assumption.
i'm wondering where this idea that hell is torment came from. satan and god had a falling out, satan rejected god presumably. so if i reject god, i'm satan's ally surely? why would my pal want to torment me? burning christians alive, sure i can see that, but if i sell my soul to satan, and now i'm an amazing guitar player, why would he burn his investment? if i reject god and satan rejected god then it's christians satan wants to burn, not me.
there will be two heavens, one boring one where you just suck up to god for eternity, and satan's heaven, a fun palace where the artists, musicians, writers and comedians go.
Suffering has a cause. Hell is, by definition, a continuous cycle of that which causes suffering. It is immediate, direct, and causal. It is not a place where you hang out with your buddies and drink beer lmao
It'd be so much better if Josh's God would just stop hiding from us all so we can quit making guesses 😉
He's protecting you ; you really wouldn't want the whole presence of God showing up !
@@davidjanbaz7728 oh no, I definitely would rather be in heaven than here wondering if he exists or not. I'm guessing it would be the most wonderful thing possible. I'm a hopeful non theist.
@@davidjanbaz7728 oh no, I definitely would rather be in heaven than here wondering if he exists or not. I'm guessing it would be the most wonderful thing possible. I'm a hopeful non theist.
It would violate law of the freewill world
@@davidjanbaz7728
Bishob Barron just in the Lex Fridman podcast said things like: God is not being in the same sense as things in the world so he doesent compete for space with other objects/ beings.. When He comes closer things get more alive. Like Moses and burning bush it burned without fire consuming it. ( I know He can be other way too ) This also seen in incarnation and in process of Theosis ( God became man so that man can become god )
-- God is To be To be. He is I Am He is essense of to Be. Thats why He is closer to you than you are to your self and with everything else, most intimitately so, But same time He is Higher than anything and is totally other, "where is god here? nowhere". people think God is like other beings somewhere and theists believe in that and atheists say they dont believe that there is that God. But they think what God is, is like all the other beings in the world to be found but He is outside, like Tolkien is outside his book. yet he is behind everything that there is in the book.
Offcourse philosphers are different :) they know about the consciousnes
Act. 17:28 _For in him we live, and move, and have our being_
32:00 If Dr. Paul Draper's theory of intrinsic probability is taken to be a theory of intrinsic objective probability it does give an interesting answer to the question of "why something rather than nothing?," but it's unsatisfying to me for a few reasons. Firstly the specificity considerations seem to be the weaker part of the theory of intrinsic probability than the internal coherence vs tension considerations. It seems like our reasons for believing the specificity considerations rely on our intuitions and experiences relating to states of affairs on earth and in the observed parts of outer space, and I'm not sure if those intuitions and experiences apply to states of affairs very far removed from our experiences like there literally being nothing at all. There being nothing at all seems to be one of the most removed states of affairs we can possibly consider from our intuitions about and experiences with the observed regime. So it leaves open a serious question. Why do intrinsic probability considerations relating to specificity apply to nothingness?
1:26:14 I just realized, fundamental mind theology poses a unique version of the problem of evil for omnibenevolent theism because not only is there evil, but there's evil in the mind of god. If all of reality is an expression of god's thoughts then there's evil in god's thoughts, but omnibenevolent beings are usually thought of as not having evil contents of their thoughts. This especially has problems for Christian theism because IIRC Jesus says thinking about doing evil things is just as bad as actually doing the evil.
02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom.
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yoga”, in Sanskrit).
Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the phenomenal creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. Conscious Awareness).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything that can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is merely happenstance and NOT caused by any particular person. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has individual free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” This illusion of liberty of volition is excruciatingly difficult, if not utterly impossible, for most humans to surmount.
The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above.
Cont...
The ANTIDOTE to all mental anguish is to firstly discern pain from suffering, then to achieve complete relief from that miserable state of existence, by abandoning the erroneous belief in personal authorship, and abiding in the primordial sense of being (the unqualified “I am”, which is one’s core identity). This is the very same peace that is experienced each night during the dreamless phase of the sleep cycle. This “resting imperturbably as Flawless Awareness” can be practiced on a regular basis, until it is fully assimilated and integrated into one’s life.
Every person, from time immemorial, has been either intentionally or unwittingly seeking such causeless peace, most commonly by practicing one of the four systems of YOGA (a Sanskrit term meaning “religion”, or “union”) delineated in the sixteenth chapter of this work, or in creating wealth and the acquisition of material possessions, or else in psycho-physical pleasures. That peace of mind is also referred to as “happiness”, “joy”, or “love”, and often presumed to be a temporal state, since many assume, incorrectly, that continuous peace is unavailable in this life. Fortunately, that is not the case - it is eminently possible to live one’s life acquainted with unbroken peace of mind, if destined.
Following DHARMA (frameworks of authentic religion and societal duties) is not guaranteed to achieve that desired tranquillity of mind, but even so, it is beneficial for individuals, since it establishes a structure that enables one to more easily elevate oneself beyond the mundane, animalistic platform (i.e. the base pursuits of eating, sleeping and mating). Intrinsic to dharma is the division of the adult male population into the four classes of society, and the inherent role of girls and women in society, as fully elucidated in latter chapters of this Holy Scripture.
So, now that you understand life, and the reason why we are suffering here in this (ostensively) material universe, you are now able to become liberated from all mental suffering, RIGHT?
WRONG! It is imperative to approach an authentic spiritual master to assist you to come to the above realization, by slowly undoing your past conditioning. Just as you have been conditioned over an entire lifetime to think one way, you need to be re-conditioned to think another way (in alignment with your essential identity as The Divine). For one who has himself for a teacher, that man has a veritable fool as his teacher.
Even if you adhere closely to the precepts of a competent teacher, you may still not come to a full understanding of life, but if you are sincere, humble and dedicated, you will definitely find more peace in your daily life - all of which was DESTINED to occur, of course.
Furthermore, if you are suitably-qualified and it was ordained, you may be fortunate enough to receive discipline from one of the EXTREMELY rare fully-enlightened masters residing on earth at any given time (perchance even the current World Teacher himself), and subsequently realize the aforementioned philosophical concepts, by diligently studying authoritative doctrines (especially the most accurate and complete of all extant Scriptures, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”), serving your guru with great reverence and devotion, and by deliberately avoiding undue harm to oneself, to other individuals, to society as a whole, and to the natural environment, including other life forms.
Most beneficially, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is, apart from illegitimate (non-monarchical) governance and feminism, arguably the foremost existential crisis.
Best wishes for your unique, personal journey towards unalloyed peace and HAPPINESS! “The cure for nescience is unerring knowledge”.
“You are this universe and you are creating it at every moment, because, you see, it starts now.
It didn’t begin in the past - there IS no past.”
*************
“Find out who you REALLY are so that when death comes…there is no-one to kill, for while you are identified with your role, with your name, with your ego, there is someone to kill. But when you are identified with the whole universe, death finds you already annihilated and there’s no-one to kill”.
*************
“A wise Rabbi once said, ‘If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I, and you are not you’.
In other words, we are not separate.”
*************
“Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way.”
*************
“The reason we die is to give us the opportunity to realize what life is all about”.
*************
“The meaning of life is life itself.”
Professor Dr. Alan Wilson Watts,
British-American Philosopher.
(06/01/1915 - 16/11/1973).
“The universe is not outside of you. Look inside yourself; everything that you want, you already are.”
*************
“Stop acting so small. You are the universe in ecstatic motion.”
*************
“We are one. Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself.”
*************
“What you seek is seeking you.”
*************
“Don’t you know yet? It is your light that lights the worlds.”
*************
“The lamps are different, but the light is the same.”
Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī,
Persian Sunni Muslim poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic.
(30/09/1207 - 17/12/1273).
@@milos223, the book recommended in my previous comment. ☝️