@@roblovestar9159 Not when theyre ideologically possessed, most are these days, they believe in stories rather then evidence, like SJWs for example an other useful idiots!
@HenryDavidT Dont even go there on gravity which is not proven nor self evident even within mainstream science. --- Our need for a creator may stem from the need for hierarchies and our need of archetypes bothe of which seems embedded within our subconscious to know our place and to create archetypes over and over again throughout the eons. ----- Within the five sense reality, we are at the top of the hierarchy, and those at the top of the human hierarchy, may have drawn inspiration to create an archetype from the supranatural, someone and something above us to guide us, which also cemented their authority which now came from the unknown that only they could commune with.
@HenryDavidT "You don't have to believe in the extreme curvature of space-time (gravity), as it is self-apparent". There is no sense in which it is "self-apparent".
@@roblovestar9159 "....objective and empirical evidence would be sufficient proof for me." This is not unreasonable; and to 21st century mankind, the bar is set higher for acceptance of a religious belief than it was 1000, 2000, or even a few hundred years ago. All I might suggest is that human beings experience things that are not strictly empirical, but that are often seen as objective upon closer scrutiny: A sense of right and wrong, what is beautiful and what is ugly, a sense of purpose and meaning (both on a micro and macro scale), discernment about higher forms of love as opposed to baser forms of "love", as well as self-evident concepts that one finds in logic and mathematics. But I will admit, if you come to a convicting belief in God it must come from your heart and your mind. I have had periods in my life where I see evidence God nowhere (in fact quite to the contrary), but then I have had periods where the reality of God seems as obvious as the Sun rising.
I don’t think that we usually form our religious beliefs on the basis of arguments. We come up with arguments afterwards to rationalise and defend what we already believe.
Nietzsche, in his Gaia Scienza claims that this is the case with all philosophy, and makes fun of Kant for "reaching" his categorical imperative after X thousand pages of reasoning. I think he has a point.
مرحبا محمد...كيف الحال....أنا عادة ما أتابع هذا البرنامج...و أقرأ أحيانا بعض التعليقات ....لكن ما لفت إنتباهي الآن الإسم **محمد العبد الله**.....طبعا سررت بذلك كثيرا....تحياتي لك.....
That's likely true a lot of the time, but it certainly isn't all the time. I was an atheist for all of my life until about a year ago, where I became a Christian, because my exploration of the arguments led me to believe that the cumulative strength of the evidence made it more likely to be true than not. I became a Christian for the same reason I had been an atheist: because I had honestly been searching for what is true. edit: to be fair, you did in fact write "usually" :) But I think it's possible to be persuaded about the truth of Christianity through the strength of the evidence.
Analytical philosophy is by definition deductive, in fact analytic philosophers take pride in being reductionists. Even what we call accepted scientific theories like quantum mechanics don't even qualify as science by standards of analytic philosophy.
@@saimbhat6243 I'll accept the first sentence, but not the second. Analytic philosophy doesn't speak in any way to quantum mechanics, they're different magisteria imo.
@@GreenDistantStar You should read karl poppers and W. Quine's views on modern physics. While as popper is very clear in showing his distaste for quantum physics, W. Quine indulges himself in verbal acrobatics and complex wordplay to justify the ontological claims of modern physics.
@@saimbhat6243 I like Popper's ideas and he's accurate when he points out the limits of our knowledge. This of course doesn't mean we can substitute any old nonsense and claim equivalence, which is what religion frequently does.
Robert Kuhn.I recently came across a video of yours and I must say, that I too am a deep thinker and am now a subscriber to your channel😊. In this comment I shall give my concept on why I believe in a creator. I grew up in a Catholic home. In adulthood I gained basic knowledge of other religions and their beliefs.I am also drawn to documentaries of NDE.( near death experiences).I could go on,lol. I was taught faith. I learned the concept of faith from from within my own thoughts of all the knowledge I've come to know. To sum it up, I asked myself God or whichever one chooses to call our creator, is life, and love. If you've ever loved someone or some pet we all know that feeling that special feeling of being in their presence and having them as part of our lives. Love can't be seen, or held .You can't put it in a jar and say "look, here's love", but we know it exists because it affects our soul, our inner emotional being. Just as we can't see the molecules of oxygen we inhale or exhale we know it's there because it sustains our life. Such is faith. It's not what you can see, it's what you can't see. I've had my experiences that have given me that boost when my faith has been low. I give thanks each day for the blessings I have and mostly for my living being. See from within not with eyes of the head but the soul. Live by the 10 commandments.If you need a reminder, just pull out a bill from your wallet read the back. In GOD WE TRUST.🤗
I think it's fair to say that you cannot definitively "prove" that God exists. But keep in mind that that is a very high bar indeed. You cannot prove that I exist, but I think you will agree that I most likely do. Almost all of what we do, think and work with in our life we do not have ultimate proof for. But I actually agree with your criticism. I think Robert is making a mistake in thinking that he will be able to prove without a doubt the existence or non-existence of God. At one point, you have to make a decision on the basis of the evidence: for or against. Of course, this doesn't imply that you cannot ground that decision in evidence, indeed very strong evidence, I would say, but there is always a room for doubt. Personally I find the argument from contingency for the existence of God at the very least makes for an intellectually valid and reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe. It doesn't mean it's necessarily true or beyond doubt, but it is logical, coherent and a reasoned explanation.
@@JakobNHansen the whole nonesense about necessary vs contingent beings is analogous to the nonsense that creationists spout when they talk about micro evolution and macro evolution.
God as a phenomenon are deep creative thoughts, carried and shaped by cosmic energy, visualized and materialized in our mand to be suitable to our culture or political interests. It is not necessary to flatter anyone with proof, to convince them. The world is ruled by manipulators, illusionists, and reverence for those in a small circle.
"Thermodynamics will NEVER be overthrown"--Albert Einstein THIS universe is HEAT...ONLY, EVER ! Heat cannot originate de novo/exist eternally/go from hot to cold then restore to heat. #1-#2-#3 "LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS" There IS NO reconciliation between the extant universe and THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. NO "illusion/manipulation/reverence"---THE MOST established, incontrovertible physical FACT KNOWN!!! 'CREATION MYTHS" pervade EVERY CULTURE AND SOCIETY throughout ALL OF HISTORY. BECAUSE they are beyond UNANSWERABLE; they diametrically conflict with ALL KNOWN SCIENCE: "LIFE FROM NON-LIFE & A UNIVERSE EITHER ETERNAL OR OUT OF NOTHING" ---WHATEVER IS YOUR MUMBO JUMBO, it's bullshiiittt. "GOD" is the ABSOLUTE INABILITY of humans to bring about even the first principal in responding to life & physical existence. LIKE IT OR NOT...THE UNIVERSE CARES NOT!!
The premise of God is the truth of life. Freedom and creativity is to choose a person. As for compulsion, it is when freedom is absent. There is nothing more than the hypothesis of God.
As a metaphysician while it is true that in phenomenology inductive reasoning is more powerful or persuasive than deductive reasoning, it is worth parsing the limitations of deductive reasoning in the context of causality and/or the causal powers, properties and/or qualities of the human mind. To start, the cosmological argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. As such, Kant's argument is very persuasive. "Every event must have a cause" is a synthetic a priori judgement as produced from self-aware human beings; the mind. In physics , the metaphysical language of mathematics that humans produce and it's effectiveness, along with this sense of wonderment confers no darwinian biological survival advantages. You don't have to know the laws of physics to evade falling objects nor do you need a sense of wonderment when darwinian instinct is mistakenly all one needs.... . The point to be made here is what causes humans to believe in causation in the first place? Does the ability to wonder about such things improve one's quality of life ? Does it take primacy in advancement of any physical theory or needs for human happiness? And what causes self-organization; where are those instructions in that big piece of dirt called Singularity? Remember in physics, all theories start with synthetic propositions which in turn can be empirically tested. And such ability to wonder about stuff, does indeed, enhance ones quality of life. And so does the deductive/metaphysical laws (mathematics) and language of the universe itself. We value such laws. I would say that the materialist and/or atheist is in a big pickle as to the reconciliation of such qualities or properties of the human mind.
Thank you for another provocative video in your series; this one exploring again the existence of “God” but this time argued from analytic philosophy. “God” defined as: Supreme Infinite Creator and Ultimate Source of the observable universe and beyond. All-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-Good, all-free. Here are my 2 comments. 1. Need for God: Whether or not there actually is a God, we know this. Man NEEDS a God. Why? For solace, comfort, rejuvenation, recovery and frankly retention of sanity. For far too many, there is simply too much insufferable and interminable pain, suffering, evil, and misery in this world. 2. Existence of God: I have always taken the view that we mere mortals cannot ever “prove” or “disprove” God. Why? Because we are trapped forever within our space-time universe and locked forever into our perception of Reality based on our limited senses at our evolutionary stage. The very concept of God, let alone proving/disproving God, is beyond our mental and cognitive capacity. On a related mathematical note, I have also always thought that Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (or my interpretation of it) establishes that we cannot prove or disprove God. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (first theorem) starts with an apparently closed, rational, axiomatic system (for example, our observable universe in my interpretation). The theorem essentially posits that certain statements, even if true, sitting arguably outside as well as inside of the system (such as those about natural numbers) cannot be proven from within that system. God would, by force of definition, have to be considered OUTSIDE of our closed system (i.e. our universe). Thus, God even if true cannot be proven by us mortals, since we are forever trapped WITHIN our universe system. Thanks again for the video.
Hey gary... thanks for sharing such a well thought-out view. I'm not familiar with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem so I'll have to read up on it. Are you in academics? You sound like a teacher. John
The only GOD that exists is not somewhere up in the cosmos!! Instead it's right here, where you walk, sleep, breath, eat & sh#t. Aka MOTHER EARTH. Everything you described she has. Without her there's NO LIVING THING THAT CAN EVOLVE...
A piece from a new book titled: Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlie all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law which allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice verse. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment of time than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to between making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always to respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result from any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things in a conventional way - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life - including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream - already exists within us. ua-cam.com/video/NR5DdqjMxgA/v-deo.html Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo www.youtube.com
@Neil I can't speak for everyone who chants, but for most the purpose of chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is to awaken our inner Buddha Nature (Enlightenment - compassion-wisdom and to have love and respect for all life). When that is the underlying main purpose, then all other needs (far more than just wants) come about naturally.
Wouldn't that attitude practically eliminate any discussion between people? Are we not all in some ways attached to our beliefs? I think the point is not so much whether someone is biased or not, because we all are, but whether the arguments can stand up to scrutiny.
Jakob Nørgaard Hansen discussing and simply taking is not the issue. If I’m concerned about life insurance I cannot get an unbiased opinion from an insurance agent. Same thing can be applied to talking about religion with a theist. We are biased do gain the approval of another, or to gain acknowledgement and support. Same goes with asking an atheist about god... they fear that there’s a possibility no matter how tiny that they could be wrong. Everyone is an atheist until the plane they are in starts falling from the sky.
God is everywhere. The Eternal Energy that creates, holds and transforms everything in the Universe/Cosmos. Exodus 3:2-6 1 Timothy 1:17 Revelation 22:12-16 Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it only transforms ( Physics/Chemistry ), i.e., Energy IN = Energy OUT The Alpha = Omega The first = the last The beginning = the end The root = the offspring The bright morning star 🌟, the Sun 🌞, is the main source of energy that gives heat and light energy to sustain life on our mother paradise planet earth 🌏. Good morning! 💖✌️💡🌞🌟🇵🇭🌏
"God" is simply the anthropomorphization of *_the fundamental experiential nature of existence._* If we live in a universe that's fundamentally experiential...religious thought is inevitable.
The problem is, not everything in reality can be understood with experiments, there is quite a bit of reality that in order for us to understand it as precise as possible, theory must play a role. And that tends to lead to philosophy.
@@413PDS All experiments *are observed,* all observation *is mental,* and all mentally observed events *are experiential.* Therefore all experiments are underlain by observation & *thought,* and philosophy is the art of properly structured thought. Philosophy is *undeniably* the mother of all disciplines. Checkmate.
"In both cases can't we be more honest about the worldviews that are described, theistic or non-theistic, without proof." I really like that statement. But is my worldview like "looking through a glass darkly?"
Yes. He is admonishing us to be candid in admitting our inherent and undetachable biases or filters on the world. In experimental science however, as contrasted with metaphysics or philosophy, we should ultimately be driven by the apparent data. And of course modify and correct our scientific theory to conform to that data, if we wish our science to offer meaningful value.
John Brzykcy Thanks for your comments. Appreciate them. As for biases, I’d like to think that most of us can eventually overcome our “subjective” biases, such as those rooted in our individual cultures or personal histories. Some biases however may be “objective” and much more difficult to jettison. Perhaps those affecting our perception of reality and based more on limitations of our senses and instrumentation. For example, we cannot directly or accurately account for “dark matter” or the origins of “dark energy”, which may profoundly skew our thinking and theories. As we know, both of those account for “only” about 95% of the known universe. All this might be like trying to “comprehend” the Andromeda Galaxy with a pair of binoculars. Anyway, I’ll have to ponder all this more closely. Thanks again for your comments.
@@garybala000 Once again your views are very good. I have to read more on "bias" and the psychology behind it. I like your comparison of "trying to 'comprehend' the Andromeda Galaxy with a pair of binoculars."
The thing with rationality is it is not an absolute; no one is perfectly rational or completely irrational. We can be extremely rational in many areas of our thought while other areas have not been considered and so we end up being somewhere in between. Which then leads people to say irrational things while appearing rational (myself included). It is a complete guess to suppose that God cannot be known through an analytical approach; there is no way to *know* this one way or the other unless it is actually recognizably the case. And to say that it isn't the case just because we have yet to recognize it is not rational. Just because I haven't found my keys in all the places I have looked doesn't mean my keys don't exist. Or more ethereal, just because I have not seen something *I did not know existed* lately, doesn't mean I won't see such a thing.
Hey Steve... your perceptions sound very good. I liked your comparison about the lost keys. I wonder why there cannot be an absolute rationality? I see that as indicating we are "fallen creatures." Do you think "rationality" evolves in the brain? John
John Brzykcy absolute rationality would be capable if one knew all things and thus could account for them; which, I would say, is how God functions. Whereas, we are on an infinite spectrum and so it is possible to be on that spectrum at one position and look at someone else and see their rationality as “approaching the limit” in a way where they *appear* absolutely rational.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Appreciated. If you don't mind me sharing more of my views unsolicited, this is closely related to the overall subject matter I discuss in this video series: ua-cam.com/play/PLlCvb4x5HsNK61Vhl8DfHcDlFhYsLzE8n.html
@@earthexpanded Wow.... I watched part of the first video that you made. Very interesting. It must have taken some effort and talent to make those videos. By the way, are you a teacher? In academics? Thanks for sharing those videos. I'll try to watch more soon. John
INFINITY AND ZERO ARE NOT OPPOSITES OF EACH OTHER : THEY ARE THE SAME : TRYING TO GO TOWARDS ZERO ONLY LEADS YOU TO INFINITY ( APPARENTLY INWARDS ) WHICH IN REALITY HAS NO BOUNDARIES : YOU CANNOT STAND OUTSIDE INFINITY BECAUSE THERE'S NO OUTSIDE : IT IS ONE "WHOLE " : THERE IS NO CENTER AND THERE IS NO CIRCUMFERENCE : BECAUSE WE AS AN INFINITESIMAL ORGANISMIC ENTITY ARE LIMITED BY CERTAIN GEOMETRICAL CONTOURS WE HAVE AND THEREFORE CANNOT CIRCUMVENT IT , WE JUST CAN'T COMPREHEND THE WHOLE ALTHOUGH WE HAVING A SENSE OF INDIVIDUALITY ARE NOT PART OF THE WHOLE : WE ARE THIS "WHOLE " : CALL IT WHATEVER ! BELIEVER OR NO - BELIEVER : NOTHING MATTERS : ENJOY THE ETERNAL BLISSFUL DANCE HERE AND NOW IN INFINITY !
Thinking about God? Or thinking about thinking? Is God available to those who get their thoughts, theories, in order? Does reality itself interact with...a certain way of thinking? Or does a certain way of thinking lead one to an interaction with..something other than one's self that created, and can therefore destroy, one's self? How would that interaction go? Can a thought process get in God's way? What would be the end result of such a collision? Is mental activity sufficient to discover infinity or is it too feeble an apparatus? Thinking about God maybe should involve getting yourself out of God's way so you can survive a near fatal collision. Maybe the only thinking that gets you a survivable encounter with God is one less direct. Intentional but less...selfish and preconceived. Renunciation?
I think Robert Lawrence Kuhn should confront the arguments that they give him: those of the believers with the atheists and those of the atheists with the believers. Clayton's strawman fallacies would have been knocked down in a second if he presented them to Swinburne. And considering that Kuhn wants to beware of logical fallacies, it is in his best interest to make sure that they are not sneaking fallacies to him, presenting the arguments of one, to the other ( they will be willing to point out fallacies if they see them [or clarify misunderstandings if the charge of fallacy is unfair])
Swindburne arguments didn't even start to make sense. How can you say with a straight face : the universe exists because god made it and it is true because it is the simplest explanation? This "simplest" argument is frankly just plainly stupid.
I guess it would be entertaining to watch everyone argue with each other, but I like the format chosen. It allows you to hear what each person thinks without interruption, so that you can make connections and see the contours of the debate rather than having it done for you. It is more like reading various books on the topic.
@@IZn0g0uDatAll I agree, Infiniity is opposite to zero and simpler than some big number he quoted? Where does he get that sort of argument? Even the xistence of something like infinity is questionable. Suddenly going from a coupe of particles attracting one another by gravity to a simple being that is omni-everthing is a pretty big stretch.
'Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?' - Epicurus
If God is easily proved, then you don't need to believe in existence of God. If God somehow hide himself, then it is only have a meaning: to make true motives of human being appear clearly into surface. Imagine the world with unquestionable existence of God, human don't have chance to act freely and independent because she/he feels obligated to follow this God will.
Induction depends on one's assigning personal truth value to observed evidence. When I view the available evidence, particularly undeserved pain, suffering, and early death, I place that on the evidence for no God, or at least an uninvolved, creator God.
Hey George.... I understand what you mean and why you place such evidence on the scale in favor of "no God." I hope someday we can balance the scale, or better yet, tip the scale in the other direction.
For a few minutes, I had to take a break from this channel and it's comments. So I turned to a UA-cam song by The Seekers. I still am a philosophical "seeker," but sometimes in a different sense.
The basic concept of God as in the Greek old Testament is more simple than thought. God is the SIGHT that which constantly watches the personal and collective actions of everyone. It is similar to self consciousness but in its own law. A sight around you that you realize and sense that it is there. So if you make something "against the natural harmony or law of existence" you soon realize that you´ve been watched (even if you take all people away) and that presence would actually command something from around you to restore things into line. That is the basic original concept of God (according to the ancient Greek). From there the Greek OT developes the idea of interacting and actually acknowledging its energies and even powers.
This accumulation of possibilities about existence of divine supernatural being is actually very interesting. Where does those miracles come from, there are no such things as music or dancing in physical description of the world. Human limbs doesn't grow back, that's true, but we can heal and recover our strength, find something that motivate us to persist further, overcome near impossible obstacles, this are no small wonders. Solution is very simple, we live in two, perhaps three connected, but different states of reality. Story goes like this. First it was only a potential of energy. Than something happened and energy materialized in form of an universe. Than matter became alive somehow, whatever we mean by that. Material reality and life are two completely different physical phenomena. Life is based on material reality, but is not like matter. People confuse those two modes of reality, they observe life and project living principles to an ordinary matter. Arguing from perspective of living does provide many clues about divine presence, call it a human spirit or joy of living, doesn't matter. But observing material nature alone does not, it's like looking at pictures of Mars and wondering what kind of benevolent and omni potent entity created all that dead desert, what a brilliant achievement that is, compared to foggy Venus. It's round, dead and boring, useless piece of large rocks, that's what worlds without life really are. And there's that third mode of reality we call conscious self. It emerge from living body, that emerge from material substance and substance emerged from energetic cosmic forces. Consciousness is none of them, it's just highest mode of hallucinations and visualizations, shaped by symbolic language and cultural rituals, to simplify that exotic state of existence. Thing is, arguing about God from conscious perspective is much like God would ask himself if he exist. Forget about everything you know for a moment, close your eyes, relax your breathing and just be, is this what being a God feels like?
Ontological Distinction: The priority of Being in relation to beings. The way God is spoken of in the West regards God as another being among beings. However, all beings must necessarily have existence in order that they be. The peak of logic is Being and Nothing.
When Antony Flew proclaimed that he could no longer subscribe to a wholly naturalistic view of creation all the great hack Richard Dawkins could say was that Flew was a senile old man. How traumatic must it have been for Dawkins to see one of his gods fall?
Hey David.... Someday all the "gods" that we create and worship will fall. I can't speak for Richard Dawkins, but I hope that creation is more than a "wholly naturalistic" process. Maybe I am becoming a "senile old man" too?
@@jewulo Dawkins and his dismissive attitude does. Shouldn't Dawkins have been willing to speak with Flew to discuss his radical shift in point of view?
In the final analysis the First Cause must be infinite. A good description, in my view, is to imagine an infinitely spiralling vortex between infinity and nothingness. You will never find a start or end point to this vortex as it is spiralling infinitely inward and infinitely outward. One side has no beginning, the other no end, but there is always an in-between...a medium for the two polar opposite sides. The reason it is a vortex is because beyond space and time the only medium possible between these natural polar opposites is one dimensional spin. And if it wasn't for these infinite polar opposites interacting as the positive and negative forces behind nature (creating this spin that stirs energetic waves of potential) then nothing would happen. My point is that if we change the arguing from "does God exist", to "does The Infinite exist" then the analytical philosophy is far more explainable in my view. The big question is, can the infinite side be described as an infinite "being" or not.
The existence of quadrillions of vintillions of "identical-specs" microLego's (the fundamental particles that serve as building blocks of all the material objects of the universe) speak for themselves as one piece , among many pieces, of strong evidence of the existence of intelligent design. And intelligent design leads naturally to a designer-creator .
Richard Swinburne says people for millenia have seen the world as a beautiful and organized place....but Singapore has only been in existence since 1958.
I enjoy this series because my derires and doubts agree with the host,,, however the series reminds me of that Discovery Channel format as exemplified in their series Gold Rush in which the prize always eludes the seekers. One perpetually hovers on the edge of defeat but hope is ever the 24 carat premium.
Newman's 'Grammar of Assent' claims that one can maintain as a certainty that which has come through an accumulation of probabilities. We pretty much do that throughout the day, 'insights are a dime a dozen,' as Lonergan happily said. This might help clarify PC's position.
I would have to disagree. PC is rather clear that philosophical proof of God’s existence, even proof through probability, is not present in the current discourse (and may even be impossible). Such statements seem to echo Kierkegaards sentiments concerning faith and reason. A faith which Newman would most certainly be in opposition to (don’t know about Lonergan tho).
He said "..do not work" not that they are false. I think he meant specifically 'on proving a god'. And I would guess he's talking with he's general knowledge in mind, not just what he "learnt" in this video. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
@@planc3318 I agree that deductive arguments do work as a reasoning tool, but so far the ones I've heard tend to work against proving a god. Which is what I think he meant. Not that deductive arguments never work. And that's what even Philip Clayton says in the video "..you can't compel belief in god, not through rationality, not through any other means." and he's a believer himself.
Interesting point as you could argue that it is a matter of logic not opinion wether analytical philosophy/deductive arguments work or not. The belief in the “fact” that “Science” is founded on logic is “deductive reasoning” not to mention the beliefs in the metaphysical/philosophical foundations of “science” such as knowledge, identity, being, time and space etc. Equally, you can’t prove logic with empirical science. To argue different is to argue in a circle. I was also a bit surprised he came to that conclusion about deductive reasoning so easily as he usually sums up the arguments in a more neutral and objective conclusion. However, it could be that “Faith” morals, ethics, god points and anti theistic points actually are beyond the measure of science, logic/deductive reasoning. According to G.K. Chesterton “the poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits”. Nevertheless, perhaps It also depends on what particular “deductive” arguments you are referring to. If you’re referring to the anthropic principle for example it could be argued that this kind of argument fails because whilst it may be true mainly by virtue of its logical form it is not a valid claim to knowledge as it is a tautology and is not supported by observation of reality such as the appearance of “fine tuning”. Equally, according to the brilliant physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose the Anthropic principle “tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts”. Also I think our interviewer is becoming as forgetful as the rest of us in his elaborate quest for knowledge and answers as he actually interviewed the expert on string theory professor Leonard Susskind who stated... “I have to say that if [string theory fails], as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as [Intelligent Design]” (Leonard Susskind). Interesting deductive argument!! All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
“Most contemporary theist philosophers of religion as well as theologians agree that deductive arguments fail to prove God’s existence.” Perhaps, this could have been the most accurate way of putting it.
Our universe does not play by the rules of Pandora. Life is not connected by the self-evident deity Eywa. Na’vis don’t doubt about the existence of a guiding force because they have the deep direct connection with it. If there’s a fundamental, core entity from which we came into existence such (human-like) connection isn’t present. Our hallucinating mind does not serve for that purpose, nor science does so far but it’s our best hope.
Weird stuff is found in the world of Code 6 English Gematria, where A=6, B=12, C=18, D=24,......., Z=156. Here, we find that words "THE BEAST IS #AAA" turns out to have a total numerical value of 666. What a coincidence. We also find that the name "CHRIST" has a total numerical value of 462. Now what is a Christian ? Well if we check for the total numerical value of the word "DECEIVE - IAN", it turns out to be 462. And, if we check for the total numerical value of the word "TRUTH - IAN", it turns out to be 666. I'm so confused. Wait a second, that's not enough confusing yet. CHRISTOS = 666 and KRISTOS = 666, plus DIABOLOS = 462. OK, that should do it. I'm fully confused now.
Yep. And the whole idea of "god made it" as the right explanation because it is simple is mind bogglingly bad. Quantum mechanics is a horrendously complicated way to explain the behaviour of subparticles, yet it appears to be true. I can make up many simpler explanations that would all be wrong.
Philip Clayton only featured straw man fallacies in that interview. For example, of all the papers and books that I have read (a lot), on the principle of sufficient reason used in cosmological arguments, I have never seen that it is argued that it must be true because God exists and he is the foundation that explains everything that exists. On the contrary, they always try to give independent arguments that support this principle.
Truth (love) created good (god). And god (good) creates joy, beauty and harmony (heaven). Ignorance (absence of good/god) does the exact opposite. Vampires (greed) transform heaven into misery, ugliness and conflict (hell) because the loveless, lifeless are ignorant (dead).
(19:20) Swineburne said "The theory makes the data probable". Should it not be the reverse? Comporting data makes the theory more probable? (19:35) Isn't simplicity superfluous? Sure it makes confirmation easier. But if you don't have comporting data, simplicity doesn't help. And if you have multiple theories that equally comport to your data, it just means you need more data to narrow it down. I think simplicity is just a nice-to-have.
No, Swinburne is correct about this. How can data make a theory probable? To test a theory, you use it to make predictions, then compare those predictions to the actual data. The closer the predictions are to the data, the stronger the theory. Imagine looking at a dead body and trying to figure out whether the person was killed by a snake or a dog. If the snake theory is correct, you would expect to find tooth marks that resemble the teeth of a snake, and if the dog theory is correct, the marks should resemble the teeth of a dog. When you look at the person's neck and see teeth marks that look like dog's teeth, then you can say that the dog theory makes the data more probable than the snake theory makes it, since it is unlikely that a person killed by a snake would have teeth marks on their neck resembling a dog's teeth.
Why is it that evil and suffering in the world promotes there is no god? What if god just creates and observes? Why do we think god would or should intervene when suffering occurs, because god is omnipotent? Good or evil proves nothing.
Hey Dean... the questions about evil and suffering have been debated for thousands of years. You state "what if god just creates and observes?" I rather prefer to think of a God who is involved with His creation. But then how would we resolve the evil and suffering? I've been asking that myself while battling side-effects of cancer the last 14 years. Jesus did heal many people, so His "good deeds" must say something about good and evil.
Swinburne lays out a masterful mumbo-jumbo of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. And you have to appreciate according to his logic that god must be infinite in all his facets, just because it is simple. (And despite the fact that we could never know whether a god, even an extremely powerful one, would in fact be infinite in all those dimensions.)
It's possible that a MGB (Maximally Great Being) exists. If a MGB exists, then it exists in a PW (Possible World). If it exists in a PW, then it exists in all PWs. If it exists in all PWs, then it exists in an actual world. Therefore, MGB exists. Thus, if the existence of a MGB is even a logical possibility, then by definition, that implies its actuality, because if a MGB is logically possible, then it follows that it must exist. Logical Possibility is defined here. home.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/logicalpossibility.html
one classic reply is to say that a being that can create a universe without itself existing is greater than one that needs to exist in order to do so. The point being that the definition of mgb is at best subjective and quite possibly incoherent.
An “act of God” generally describes an event that can’t be predicted or prevented with reasonable care. “Force majeure” is a contractual clause used in business. It relieves the parties of their obligations under the contract in the case of uncontrollable events. Follow not that of which have no knowledge and desire. If you have the knowledge and desire, you are special and “Force majeure”. We don't know, where event can't be predicted or prevented special for you to have direct answer to believe and nobody know how to make you believe or do not believe. Nothing can do it unless an "act of GOD" something that only you know and believe. Science won't help unless there is proof and evidence that work and will never able to believe and not to believe, respectively. Strictly scientific research methods and we don't know, the things we know for the scale of billion of years and infinite or to the novel scale that challenge GOD existence, nobody is right except you with an "act of GOD"?
Arguing about God is like having money in the bank and talking about all the things you could do with it. Just practice Self enquiry and find the kingdom of heaven within us
So much dancing with words must be done to be able to believe in some invisible magical daddy-friend. Swinburne believes that when you accumulate a lot of bad arguments, that they together prove the existence of the invisible magical daddy-friend. Sure mr Swinburn, that is how it works. Just listen to Swinburnes unbelievably confused, fallacious and shockingly weird babble at the end. If that doesn't push you over the edge into atheism, then nothing will. Swinburne is like a humbug generator.
Our need for a creator may stem from the need for hierarchies and our need of archetypes bothe of which seems embedded within our subconscious to know our place and to create archetypes over and over again throughout the eons. -- Within the five sense reality, we are at the top of the hierarchy, and those at the top of the human hierarchy, may have drawn inspiration to create an archetype from the supranatural, someone and something above us to guide us, which also cemented their authority which now came from the unknown that only they could commune with.
Your comment is completely irrelevant to the topic. Even if it is in our DNA to believe in God or not, it says nothing about the existence of God or how sound is the argumentation. At most, it would be a Genetic Fallacy about how mankind came to believe in God.
@@prime_time_youtube My point is that its in our SUBCONSCIOUS to create archetypes, an as apart of a hierarchy we find ourselves at the top so imagined one above us. Not apart of the DNA tho thats absurd.
@@eponaalbion LOL! Hahaha, you are really an ignorant guy. a) You did not get it: Your comment is completely irrelevant to the topic. Even if X explains the belief in God, it would say nothing about the existence of God or how sound is the argumentation. At most, it is a Genetic Fallacy. b) It is not absurd, LOL! There is a hypothesis that the vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) may cause spiritual beliefs. BTW, many Christian philosophers argue something similar to this issue (i.e. Alvin Plantiga). But again, that says nothing about the existence of God.
Why not need a creator for we all come from nothing. Nothing is something for the real nothing not excist. If God is coming from nothing too why we need this creator?
I think Robert is making a mistake in only wanting to ascertain the truth of the Christian religion through philosophy. Christianity was not derived logically through philosophical premises, but developed organically around the life, death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ. That was at the heart of the message of the Apostles from the very beginning, and it is therefore the ressurrection that Robert needs to look into. I believe that the best explanation of the historical facts is that it indeed happened, aided indeed by the philosophical arguments for the likelihood of the existence of God. In short, the historical accounts and the actual spread of the religion is the key aspect missing in the cumulative case that Robert is exploring.
Hey Jakob.... I pretty much agree with your perspective. What do you mean by "developed organically?" I don't know if Robert will ever "investigate" the resurrection of Jesus on this channel. I think there is one thing that is unique about Christianity. It points to a God/Son of God who both died and was resurrected for mankind. As far as I know, no other "religion" talks about such a love of God. Regarding the spread of Christianity, it does seem somewhat extraordinary how it grew from just 12 apostles and some other disciples into a major "religion."
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I mean by that, that Christianity didn't emerge as a fully developed and complete philosophical system. Instead the apostles witnessed something unique in history, and they set out to spread the word of what they had seen and the teachings of Jesus. What I also mean by developing organically is, that Jesus didn't write The Bible - he started a Church. And that Church afterwards wrote the books that went into the new Testament, canonized the old Testament and collected it in what we know as The Bible today. And that same Church also developed doctrine over time, as they came to a fuller understanding of what Jesus had taught, how he emerged from and fulfilled the Judaic prophecies and law. This process has been undergoing since where great saints and thinkers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas furthered our understanding of God as revealed through Christ - Aquinas for example using the deistic philosophical arguments from Aristotle of the Uncaused First Cause as one of the ways of reasoning the existence of God. The point is, that such philosophical arguments and underpinnings of the Faith were not what made it grow explosively - it was the witness and martyrdom and miracles of the Apostles that had converted a third of the Roman Empire only a few hundred years later, before it became officially recognized as the religion of the Roman Empire. And yes, I think you are right that the fact that Christianity spread so incredibly quickly and that the apostles were willing to be martyred for what they had witnessed is something truly amazing and something that gives credence to the Faith. Finally, on the point about development of doctrine, I think St. Cardinal Newman had a wonderful picture - that the Church started as an acorn that since grew into a great tree. It developed but stayed true to the roots, unfolding the Truth inherent to it.
Would you extend the same charity to every other religion? Are the best explanations for Buddhism, Islam and Mormonism also that the claims of their founders where true? What about Wicca, Raelianism and Scientology?
@@KonradZielinski i dont know that it's a special charity to say that historical claims can be evaluated using historical methods. I would certainly use the same methods of historical and textual criticism to reject Islam, Mormonism and so on. And you are right that the truth of Christianity would imply the falsity of the others. I don't suppose, however, that you have a real problem with the truth being exclusive, you just seem to not believe that it's Christianity?
THERE IS NO ANALYTICAL WAY TO “PHYSICALLY” DEFINE “GOD” - THERE IS OBVIOUSLY BY WAY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE THAT A COLLECTIVE FORCE DOES EXIST - HOWEVER THERE IS NO WAY TO DEFINE WHAT FORM “GOD” MANIFEST - (FOR LACK OF BETTER WORDS)
@@jamessmith989 Still posting this obvious lie. The probability is still ZERO. You have prophecies that were easy to make up a story about being fulfilled.
@Stephen B The bottom line. (Old testament) Isaiah 53:5-12 (New testament) Roman's 5:6-8 consider the three dimensional image left on the shroud of Turin by an event horizon.
It is the Christian position that God did reveal himself. But you are right that men throughout all ages and places have felt within them that there must be a God.
Tools of perspective help... i believe in an exponentialy empty diluting universe subtracting of its own countenance by witholdinng neg enegy ... says what greater then looser a.i. in a substsnciating tone of endevor and contradiction emulated exponentialy
Why would a god make us from the same stuff the universe is made of when it is supposed to be god is not made of universal stuff and is outside the realms of mortals. We are supposed to be made of god stuff. Here’s your contradiction if we are the children we would be made of god stuff and not universal stuff
Read your bible. Man was not made of "God" stuff. Man was made from the Earth itself. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7
With sufficient knowledge, everything can be explained .... even God ! And we are always the moron of someone ! Organized entropy do not explain sufficiently the immense complexity of the cell division process and therefore there’s a possibility of a being far superior than us. I am afraid that only death will be the only way to know the « truth « !
@@raymondhuot1684 Hey Raymond.... I hope I never call anyone on here a "moron." Everyone has their own thinking process and some things in life just remain unknown and even mystical. Even a moron deserves time to try to express their views.
Religion makes sense when you look at 'masculinity'. You cant define this word without mentioning physical violence, and this is where the man of the old times saw that for civilization to prosper, we need to have gods in place, as farmers and then modern day industrial civilization needs man to cooperate, if we instead go around plundering and burning down other weaker mens' houses and property alongside r aping and mur dering women and children, it would have never lead to the stage of development of civilization that we see today. Gods are an evolutionary part of human evolution. If we remove them (like we see today, the modern day liberal/leftist/woke nonsense) then it is easier to become completely entrenched by Consumerism. Its easier to sell to people who believe: nothing comes after death and theres a forever emptiness before and after your death. So you do the best in this life, your only life, to consume as much as you can.
Robert Kuhn, Since you obsess over this question so much, you already believe in God, otherwise you wouldn’t put so much effort into this subject. People that call themselves atheists often ponder more on God then most average Christians.
Just because humans find the idea that things happen because someone made them happen appealling, does not mean the universe actually works that way. This bias is a byproduct of us being social animals. Our brains are primed for thinking about other humans. Positing an inteligent agent is also not in any way simple. Far from it, this is about as complicated an answer as we can give to any question.
You might be right. But you don't actually know that with 100% certainty. Your position is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. What you are in essence stating is that only science can produce real truth, or as a variation, that only that which science can describe is real. But neither of those statements are scientific in nature, and if they were true they would be false by invalidating themselves.
Emeritus Richard (the only one worth time of rebuttal) fails to distinguish demigods from brut fact Spinoza style ultimate Reality and have long forgotten Parmenides Being. In the food chain of IQ in the Universe there is no statistical reason to believe that Human beings are necessarily at the top of the intellectual performance realm of possibilities. Following that line of reasoning it is also true that our Reality could be simulated by such demigods. Nonetheless demigods with minds as contingent beings are slaves of fate determinism or perfect correlation if you prefer on the Universal Wave function. In a word Demigods self perception of volition and power over our simulated Universe is itself an illusion subject to Brut Fact BEING. Again as I stated often in other Closer to Truth occasions a mind is only needed to solve problems or attempting to predict the future in order to avoid suffering or discomfort. That is to mean a mind requires incompleteness to make sense. By definition the old testament Abrahamic God falls into logical contradictions as such God would not need a mind. No logical space for the personal God. You are left with just 2 axioms under Occam's razor: Reality as a whole is a brut fact. Reality is Ordered including in that order the apparent disorder needed to value the ultimate order it has. It's value is predicated intrinsically in the apparent chaos described classically in the problem of Evil. There is no value in water if one is no thirsty. No value in food if one is not hungry. No value in life if one does not die. (Even if death is more akin to a "great sleep" of your immortal Archés (atomic map and phenomenology) until the "machine" goes round in another turn of the Wheel a Aeon)
@@juaniespel I never use applied psychology in every day life, not even in tense circumstances, because to know a man is to feel how he feel about things, not how he look, what he do and what he say. It's also the best way to hide your true emotions and insight, if any clue can reveal state of mind, than fake everything. It's like thinking without using any words in your mind, if you really know, you doesn't need to explain it to yourself.
I would say agnosticism is not a worldview, but that atheism is. Just like theism can have different expressions, so can atheism, but it still has positive content beyond doubt or non-commitment to the veracity of an idea, which would be the agnostic position. Atheism makes a positive claim about the nature of reality. It is, for example, very often coupled with a standpoint of philosophical materialism, that all causes must in the end be reducible to the material, or that the only mode of gaining knowledge is through science. These positions are intellectually valid and reasonable to hold, I think, but they cannot themselves be ultimately proven beyond a doubt. Therefore, holding these positions does in fact constitute a worldview that has an element of value-judgement, and not just a "facts-based" position.
God has barely any place in analytic philosophy. Most great analytic philosophers have said next to nothing about God. This itself can be the subject of another episode.
There can be no argument against existence of God, world is democratic, majority of people believe in presence of creator and supreme life force, so we all must live as God is real and present phenomena. People are always right, who knows what could happen if faith would became forbidden, it might be believe in magic and supernatural manifest as sense of conscious self somehow, take this away from humans and we might turn back into animals once more. Not all is lost, two can play this game, if we can imagine better explanation than God, people might except that nonsense just as well and they'll forget about God, just like we got rid of paganism and occult. It already happened in a sense, chatolics transcended over old Hebrew God and replaced him with human spirit. What does it mean, it's like replacing humanism would change very notion of what it means to be human, but this would not be such a good idea than. Nobody knows what can replace humanity, perhaps only certain genes are part of the divine nature and most human kinds belong in animal classifications. Just saying, it's not that simple as many might think, can't just argue God away because lack of evidence about his existence, it takes much more powerful voodoo than an ordinary word salad can provide.
If your definition of God is a perfect "being" who has infinite power and infinite knowledge, I'll tell you why such a being cannot exist. Suppose there is a God who created this universe and has all knowledge there is in this universe and beyond. However this God would have no way of knowing if this God was created by another God, who gave this God a sense of perfection, a sense of infinite knowledge, a sense of infinite power, a sense of existing without a beginning or end, etc, BUT, not a means to sense the creator God. So this God would not be perfect in clarifying the doubt of having a creator God. This is so for the creator God too.
@The Calling Thanks my friend, you are making a lot of assumptions and imposing your own attributes and qualities to God. But what you said, "having been 'created' he would lack necessity, not be pure Act, and would therefore not be God." is the premise of my argument above. If a God exists, that God cannot be sure of its (cant use he or she) own perfection due to the reason I mentioned above, which makes the very idea of perfect God invalid.
@The Calling Your statement "As pure Act it would lack any perfection" is self contradiction! By the definition of pure actuality, it must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must lack nothing, which in turn means perfection! Only then would it be immutable. So, pure actuality implies perfection. And my argument shows why a pure actual perfect being is not possible. Just like the universe and the beings in it are in a state where they cannot sense their creator, God, if exists, also cannot be certain that its seeming sense of perfection/infinite knowledge/infinite power have not be endowed by another creator God, who did not give it the means to sense its creator. So if a God exists, it cannot be pure actual/perfect. This invalidates the very nature of God and thus its existence. Your argument is that since as per your definition of God, its pure actual, it cannot have a creator. But this is circular logic. You are assuming that there is a pure actual God. I am showing that such a pure actual / perfect being is not possible. Hope its clear now.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Yes, pretty much! Lets look at a hypothetical scenario. There is an infinite God. This God decides to create a hundred different Gods with their own realms and a sense of being infinite themselves and infinite power within their realms. Each of these 100 Gods create universe(s) in their realms and thinks they are perfect and can do anything and everything. But the original creator God did not give them the means to sense anything outside their realms. So if a God exists, it cannot be sure if its the creator or created, which makes perfection never possible. This invalidates the whole concept of pure actuality and God itself.
@The Calling Friend, you are just sticking onto "God necessarily exists and that it is indeed pure actuality". Its your faith and I respect that. However my argument is simply that such a pure actual being is logically impossible due to reasons I stated in my comments above. Also, I am sure you know about the omnipotence paradox. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
It's amusing that people think that if they use big words and intricate twists of logic it will breathe an air of legitimacy into their preferred scaffold of bullshit. Their nonsense brings them comfort and they mistake this comfort for validity.
That's a very uncharitable position. If you were to apply the same standard to yourself, would you say that your condescension bring you a sense of superiority, and that you mistake this a proof of the validity of your position? These psychological dismissals of other people's positions don't help engage the actual question of the validity of the positions.
Many clever men want to know the origin of life, the universe etc. The Bible fully explains everything. For example, it explains the origin of Sin. Sin came into the world because Eve was beguiled by a talking snake in the garden of Eden. But what idiot put the snake in the garden ?
Logic eh? We shall see... where the bleep is the argument? I'm looking for one, but your dancing around it. Funny thing is, at no point did anyone offer empirical evidence or tests... just said there are arguments - but then did not present any argument. Let alone anything valid or sound arguments.
Phil Clayton, in my viewpoint, is the most honest theistic philosopher interviewed. And that is akin to my viewpoint.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
― Stuart Chase
Nah. The first part seems to be true, but for the latter, objective and empirical evidence would be sufficient proof for me.
@@roblovestar9159 Not when theyre ideologically possessed, most are these days, they believe in stories rather then evidence, like SJWs for example an other useful idiots!
@HenryDavidT Dont even go there on gravity which is not proven nor self evident even within mainstream science.
---
Our need for a creator may stem from the need for hierarchies and our need of archetypes bothe of which seems embedded within our subconscious to know our place and to create archetypes over and over again throughout the eons.
-----
Within the five sense reality, we are at the top of the hierarchy, and those at the top of the human hierarchy, may have drawn inspiration to create an archetype from the supranatural, someone and something above us to guide us, which also cemented their authority which now came from the unknown that only they could commune with.
@HenryDavidT "You don't have to believe in the extreme curvature of space-time (gravity), as it is self-apparent". There is no sense in which it is "self-apparent".
@@roblovestar9159 "....objective and empirical evidence would be sufficient proof for me." This is not unreasonable; and to 21st century mankind, the bar is set higher for acceptance of a religious belief than it was 1000, 2000, or even a few hundred years ago. All I might suggest is that human beings experience things that are not strictly empirical, but that are often seen as objective upon closer scrutiny: A sense of right and wrong, what is beautiful and what is ugly, a sense of purpose and meaning (both on a micro and macro scale), discernment about higher forms of love as opposed to baser forms of "love", as well as self-evident concepts that one finds in logic and mathematics. But I will admit, if you come to a convicting belief in God it must come from your heart and your mind. I have had periods in my life where I see evidence God nowhere (in fact quite to the contrary), but then I have had periods where the reality of God seems as obvious as the Sun rising.
I don’t think that we usually form our religious beliefs on the basis of arguments. We come up with arguments afterwards to rationalise and defend what we already believe.
Nietzsche, in his Gaia Scienza claims that this is the case with all philosophy, and makes fun of Kant for "reaching" his categorical imperative after X thousand pages of reasoning. I think he has a point.
مرحبا محمد...كيف الحال....أنا عادة ما أتابع هذا البرنامج...و أقرأ أحيانا بعض التعليقات ....لكن ما لفت إنتباهي الآن الإسم **محمد العبد الله**.....طبعا سررت بذلك كثيرا....تحياتي لك.....
That's likely true a lot of the time, but it certainly isn't all the time. I was an atheist for all of my life until about a year ago, where I became a Christian, because my exploration of the arguments led me to believe that the cumulative strength of the evidence made it more likely to be true than not. I became a Christian for the same reason I had been an atheist: because I had honestly been searching for what is true.
edit: to be fair, you did in fact write "usually" :) But I think it's possible to be persuaded about the truth of Christianity through the strength of the evidence.
Nizar Mahfoud و لك التحية أخي الكريم، فعلا برنامج شيّق و يستحق المتابعة.
أخ محمد أين تسكن...على كل حال إن أحببت أن نتواصل....هذا رقم هاتفي و الواتس اب 004915171096342
Bertrand Russell sorted this out a century ago, his debate with Fr Copleston a landmark statement of position.
Analytical philosophy is by definition deductive, in fact analytic philosophers take pride in being reductionists. Even what we call accepted scientific theories like quantum mechanics don't even qualify as science by standards of analytic philosophy.
@@saimbhat6243 I'll accept the first sentence, but not the second. Analytic philosophy doesn't speak in any way to quantum mechanics, they're different magisteria imo.
@@GreenDistantStar You should read karl poppers and W. Quine's views on modern physics. While as popper is very clear in showing his distaste for quantum physics, W. Quine indulges himself in verbal acrobatics and complex wordplay to justify the ontological claims of modern physics.
@@saimbhat6243 I like Popper's ideas and he's accurate when he points out the limits of our knowledge. This of course doesn't mean we can substitute any old nonsense and claim equivalence, which is what religion frequently does.
Robert Kuhn.I recently came across a video of yours and I must say, that I too am a deep thinker and am now a subscriber to your channel😊. In this comment I shall give my concept on why I believe in a creator. I grew up in a Catholic home. In adulthood I gained basic knowledge of other religions and their beliefs.I am also drawn to documentaries of NDE.( near death experiences).I could go on,lol. I was taught faith. I learned the concept of faith from from within my own thoughts of all the knowledge I've come to know. To sum it up, I asked myself God or whichever one chooses to call our creator, is life, and love. If you've ever loved someone or some pet we all know that feeling that special feeling of being in their presence and having them as part of our lives. Love can't be seen, or held .You can't put it in a jar and say "look, here's love", but we know it exists because it affects our soul, our inner emotional being. Just as we can't see the molecules of oxygen we inhale or exhale we know it's there because it sustains our life. Such is faith. It's not what you can see, it's what you can't see. I've had my experiences that have given me that boost when my faith has been low. I give thanks each day for the blessings I have and mostly for my living being. See from within not with eyes of the head but the soul. Live by the 10 commandments.If you need a reminder, just pull out a bill from your wallet read the back. In GOD WE TRUST.🤗
Its refreshing to find theists who admit there are no sound deductive arguments for god.
I think it's fair to say that you cannot definitively "prove" that God exists. But keep in mind that that is a very high bar indeed. You cannot prove that I exist, but I think you will agree that I most likely do. Almost all of what we do, think and work with in our life we do not have ultimate proof for.
But I actually agree with your criticism. I think Robert is making a mistake in thinking that he will be able to prove without a doubt the existence or non-existence of God. At one point, you have to make a decision on the basis of the evidence: for or against.
Of course, this doesn't imply that you cannot ground that decision in evidence, indeed very strong evidence, I would say, but there is always a room for doubt.
Personally I find the argument from contingency for the existence of God at the very least makes for an intellectually valid and reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe. It doesn't mean it's necessarily true or beyond doubt, but it is logical, coherent and a reasoned explanation.
@@JakobNHansen I would reply that the whole necessary vs con*ingent being distinction is a false dictomy,
@@KonradZielinskicould you expand on that? What do you mean with a false dichotomy in this case?
@@JakobNHansen the whole nonesense about necessary vs contingent beings is analogous to the nonsense that creationists spout when they talk about micro evolution and macro evolution.
@@KonradZielinski alright then. Good day to you! :)
Religions, there are many. God, there is only one. God is hope.
Notice how civil the comments are here versus average UA-cam
God as a phenomenon are deep creative thoughts, carried and shaped by cosmic energy, visualized and materialized in our mand to be suitable to our culture or political interests. It is not necessary to flatter anyone with proof, to convince them. The world is ruled by manipulators, illusionists, and reverence for those in a small circle.
"Thermodynamics will NEVER be overthrown"--Albert Einstein
THIS universe is HEAT...ONLY, EVER !
Heat cannot originate de novo/exist eternally/go from hot to cold then restore to heat.
#1-#2-#3 "LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS"
There IS NO reconciliation between the extant universe and THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.
NO "illusion/manipulation/reverence"---THE MOST established, incontrovertible physical FACT KNOWN!!!
'CREATION MYTHS" pervade EVERY CULTURE AND SOCIETY throughout ALL OF HISTORY.
BECAUSE they are beyond UNANSWERABLE; they diametrically conflict with ALL KNOWN SCIENCE:
"LIFE FROM NON-LIFE & A UNIVERSE EITHER ETERNAL OR OUT OF NOTHING"
---WHATEVER IS YOUR MUMBO JUMBO, it's bullshiiittt. "GOD" is the ABSOLUTE INABILITY of humans to bring about
even the first principal in responding to life & physical existence. LIKE IT OR NOT...THE UNIVERSE CARES NOT!!
"It is stranger than we can think" RBS Haldane.
The premise of God is the truth of life. Freedom and creativity is to choose a person. As for compulsion, it is when freedom is absent. There is nothing more than the hypothesis of God.
Richard Swinburne provides the best arguments for God of anyone I've ever heard.
Could you explain what he was saying I don’t understand it on the level he was teaching
As a metaphysician while it is true that in phenomenology inductive reasoning is more powerful or persuasive than deductive reasoning, it is worth parsing the limitations of deductive reasoning in the context of causality and/or the causal powers, properties and/or qualities of the human mind. To start, the cosmological argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
As such, Kant's argument is very persuasive. "Every event must have a cause" is a synthetic a priori judgement as produced from self-aware human beings; the mind. In physics , the metaphysical language of mathematics that humans produce and it's effectiveness, along with this sense of wonderment confers no darwinian biological survival advantages. You don't have to know the laws of physics to evade falling objects nor do you need a sense of wonderment when darwinian instinct is mistakenly all one needs.... .
The point to be made here is what causes humans to believe in causation in the first place? Does the ability to wonder about such things improve one's quality of life ? Does it take primacy in advancement of any physical theory or needs for human happiness? And what causes self-organization; where are those instructions in that big piece of dirt called Singularity?
Remember in physics, all theories start with synthetic propositions which in turn can be empirically tested. And such ability to wonder about stuff, does indeed, enhance ones quality of life. And so does the deductive/metaphysical laws (mathematics) and language of the universe itself. We value such laws.
I would say that the materialist and/or atheist is in a big pickle as to the reconciliation of such qualities or properties of the human mind.
Thank you for another provocative video in your series; this one exploring again the existence of “God” but this time argued from analytic philosophy.
“God” defined as: Supreme Infinite Creator and Ultimate Source of the observable universe and beyond. All-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-Good, all-free.
Here are my 2 comments.
1. Need for God: Whether or not there actually is a God, we know this. Man NEEDS a God. Why? For solace, comfort, rejuvenation, recovery and frankly retention of sanity. For far too many, there is simply too much insufferable and interminable pain, suffering, evil, and misery in this world.
2. Existence of God: I have always taken the view that we mere mortals cannot ever “prove” or “disprove” God. Why? Because we are trapped forever within our space-time universe and locked forever into our perception of Reality based on our limited senses at our evolutionary stage.
The very concept of God, let alone proving/disproving God, is beyond our mental and cognitive capacity.
On a related mathematical note, I have also always thought that Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (or my interpretation of it) establishes that we cannot prove or disprove God.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (first theorem) starts with an apparently closed, rational, axiomatic system (for example, our observable universe in my interpretation).
The theorem essentially posits that certain statements, even if true, sitting arguably outside as well as inside of the system (such as those about natural numbers) cannot be proven from within that system.
God would, by force of definition, have to be considered OUTSIDE of our closed system (i.e. our universe). Thus, God even if true cannot be proven by us mortals, since we are forever trapped WITHIN our universe system.
Thanks again for the video.
Hey gary... thanks for sharing such a well thought-out view. I'm not familiar with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem so I'll have to read up on it. Are you in academics? You sound like a teacher. John
The only GOD that exists is not somewhere up in the cosmos!! Instead it's right here, where you walk, sleep, breath, eat & sh#t. Aka MOTHER EARTH. Everything you described she has. Without her there's NO LIVING THING THAT CAN EVOLVE...
"Arguing Leprechauns with a Fruit Loops abacus."
Fixed your title for you.
Reality is not two, there can be no primacy. Awareness is known by awareness alone. God is self evident.
A piece from a new book titled: Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration.
‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses.
To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlie all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law which allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice verse. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment of time than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents.
Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to between making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always to respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result from any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things in a conventional way - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life - including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream - already exists within us. ua-cam.com/video/NR5DdqjMxgA/v-deo.html
Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
www.youtube.com
@Neil I can't speak for everyone who chants, but for most the purpose of chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is to awaken our inner Buddha Nature (Enlightenment - compassion-wisdom and to have love and respect for all life). When that is the underlying main purpose, then all other needs (far more than just wants) come about naturally.
You cannot get an un biased answer from another human being if that human being has something to gain or lose as a result of their explanation....
Wouldn't that attitude practically eliminate any discussion between people? Are we not all in some ways attached to our beliefs? I think the point is not so much whether someone is biased or not, because we all are, but whether the arguments can stand up to scrutiny.
@@JakobNHansen not unless they do the 'self-work' to remove or mitigate ego, bias and belief.
Jakob Nørgaard Hansen discussing and simply taking is not the issue. If I’m concerned about life insurance I cannot get an unbiased opinion from an insurance agent. Same thing can be applied to talking about religion with a theist. We are biased do gain the approval of another, or to gain acknowledgement and support. Same goes with asking an atheist about god... they fear that there’s a possibility no matter how tiny that they could be wrong. Everyone is an atheist until the plane they are in starts falling from the sky.
God is everywhere. The Eternal Energy that creates, holds and transforms everything in the Universe/Cosmos.
Exodus 3:2-6
1 Timothy 1:17
Revelation 22:12-16
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it only transforms ( Physics/Chemistry ), i.e.,
Energy IN = Energy OUT
The Alpha = Omega
The first = the last
The beginning = the end
The root = the offspring
The bright morning star 🌟, the Sun 🌞, is the main source of energy that gives heat and light energy to sustain life on our mother paradise planet earth 🌏.
Good morning! 💖✌️💡🌞🌟🇵🇭🌏
"God" is simply the anthropomorphization of *_the fundamental experiential nature of existence._* If we live in a universe that's fundamentally experiential...religious thought is inevitable.
The problem is, not everything in reality can be understood with experiments, there is quite a bit of reality that in order for us to understand it as precise as possible, theory must play a role. And that tends to lead to philosophy.
@@413PDS All experiments *are observed,* all observation *is mental,* and all mentally observed events *are experiential.*
Therefore all experiments are underlain by observation & *thought,* and philosophy is the art of properly structured thought.
Philosophy is *undeniably* the mother of all disciplines.
Checkmate.
يا ربي لطفك بعبادك. اللهم لا تحرمنا فضلك و كرمك
"In both cases can't we be more honest about the worldviews that are described, theistic or non-theistic, without proof." I really like that statement. But is my worldview like "looking through a glass darkly?"
Yes. He is admonishing us to be candid in admitting our inherent and undetachable biases or filters on the world.
In experimental science however, as contrasted with metaphysics or philosophy, we should ultimately be driven by the apparent data.
And of course modify and correct our scientific theory to conform to that data, if we wish our science to offer meaningful value.
@@garybala000 Hey Gary... I really like your statements and views. By "undetachable biases" do you assume we can never alter or adjust our biases?
John Brzykcy Thanks for your comments. Appreciate them.
As for biases, I’d like to think that most of us can eventually overcome our “subjective” biases, such as those rooted in our individual cultures or personal histories.
Some biases however may be “objective” and much more difficult to jettison. Perhaps those affecting our perception of reality and based more on limitations of our senses and instrumentation.
For example, we cannot directly or accurately account for “dark matter” or the origins of “dark energy”, which may profoundly skew our thinking and theories.
As we know, both of those account for
“only” about 95% of the known universe. All this might be like trying to “comprehend” the Andromeda Galaxy with a pair of binoculars.
Anyway, I’ll have to ponder all this more closely. Thanks again for your comments.
@@garybala000 Once again your views are very good. I have to read more on "bias" and the psychology behind it. I like your comparison of "trying to 'comprehend' the Andromeda Galaxy with a pair of binoculars."
The thing with rationality is it is not an absolute; no one is perfectly rational or completely irrational. We can be extremely rational in many areas of our thought while other areas have not been considered and so we end up being somewhere in between. Which then leads people to say irrational things while appearing rational (myself included). It is a complete guess to suppose that God cannot be known through an analytical approach; there is no way to *know* this one way or the other unless it is actually recognizably the case. And to say that it isn't the case just because we have yet to recognize it is not rational. Just because I haven't found my keys in all the places I have looked doesn't mean my keys don't exist. Or more ethereal, just because I have not seen something *I did not know existed* lately, doesn't mean I won't see such a thing.
Hey Steve... your perceptions sound very good. I liked your comparison about the lost keys. I wonder why there cannot be an absolute rationality? I see that as indicating we are "fallen creatures." Do you think "rationality" evolves in the brain? John
John Brzykcy absolute rationality would be capable if one knew all things and thus could account for them; which, I would say, is how God functions. Whereas, we are on an infinite spectrum and so it is possible to be on that spectrum at one position and look at someone else and see their rationality as “approaching the limit” in a way where they *appear* absolutely rational.
@@earthexpanded Thanks... your views are interesting
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Appreciated. If you don't mind me sharing more of my views unsolicited, this is closely related to the overall subject matter I discuss in this video series: ua-cam.com/play/PLlCvb4x5HsNK61Vhl8DfHcDlFhYsLzE8n.html
@@earthexpanded Wow.... I watched part of the first video that you made. Very interesting. It must have taken some effort and talent to make those videos. By the way, are you a teacher? In academics? Thanks for sharing those videos. I'll try to watch more soon. John
INFINITY AND ZERO ARE NOT OPPOSITES OF EACH OTHER : THEY ARE THE SAME : TRYING TO GO TOWARDS ZERO ONLY LEADS YOU TO INFINITY ( APPARENTLY INWARDS ) WHICH IN REALITY HAS NO BOUNDARIES : YOU CANNOT STAND OUTSIDE INFINITY BECAUSE THERE'S NO OUTSIDE : IT IS ONE "WHOLE " : THERE IS NO CENTER AND THERE IS NO CIRCUMFERENCE : BECAUSE WE AS AN INFINITESIMAL ORGANISMIC ENTITY ARE LIMITED BY CERTAIN GEOMETRICAL CONTOURS WE HAVE AND THEREFORE CANNOT CIRCUMVENT IT , WE JUST CAN'T COMPREHEND THE WHOLE ALTHOUGH WE HAVING A SENSE OF INDIVIDUALITY ARE NOT PART OF THE WHOLE : WE ARE THIS "WHOLE " : CALL IT WHATEVER ! BELIEVER OR NO - BELIEVER : NOTHING MATTERS : ENJOY THE ETERNAL BLISSFUL DANCE HERE AND NOW IN INFINITY !
These capitals really help. Much more convincing.
@@Ploskkky Maybe he believes upper and lower case are not opposites of each other...
Thinking about God? Or thinking about thinking? Is God available to those who get their thoughts, theories, in order? Does reality itself interact with...a certain way of thinking? Or does a certain way of thinking lead one to an interaction with..something other than one's self that created, and can therefore destroy, one's self? How would that interaction go? Can a thought process get in God's way? What would be the end result of such a collision? Is mental activity sufficient to discover infinity or is it too feeble an apparatus?
Thinking about God maybe should involve getting yourself out of God's way so you can survive a near fatal collision. Maybe the only thinking that gets you a survivable encounter with God is one less direct. Intentional but less...selfish and preconceived. Renunciation?
Finally, clarity has arrived
I think Robert Lawrence Kuhn should confront the arguments that they give him: those of the believers with the atheists and those of the atheists with the believers.
Clayton's strawman fallacies would have been knocked down in a second if he presented them to Swinburne. And considering that Kuhn wants to beware of logical fallacies, it is in his best interest to make sure that they are not sneaking fallacies to him, presenting the arguments of one, to the other ( they will be willing to point out fallacies if they see them [or clarify misunderstandings if the charge of fallacy is unfair])
You need to be more specific and point out what the straw man fallacies are. You don't get to just say "straw man" and drop the mic.
I don't think you really listened to Clayton. Swinburne even fails when you let him talk to himself in a mirror.
Swindburne arguments didn't even start to make sense. How can you say with a straight face : the universe exists because god made it and it is true because it is the simplest explanation?
This "simplest" argument is frankly just plainly stupid.
I guess it would be entertaining to watch everyone argue with each other, but I like the format chosen. It allows you to hear what each person thinks without interruption, so that you can make connections and see the contours of the debate rather than having it done for you. It is more like reading various books on the topic.
@@IZn0g0uDatAll I agree, Infiniity is opposite to zero and simpler than some big number he quoted? Where does he get that sort of argument? Even the xistence of something like infinity is questionable. Suddenly going from a coupe of particles attracting one another by gravity to a simple being that is omni-everthing is a pretty big stretch.
'Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?'
- Epicurus
If God is easily proved, then you don't need to believe in existence of God. If God somehow hide himself, then it is only have a meaning: to make true motives of human being appear clearly into surface.
Imagine the world with unquestionable existence of God, human don't have chance to act freely and independent because she/he feels obligated to follow this God will.
A thousand flawed arguments do not add up to an unflawed argument.
Induction depends on one's assigning personal truth value to observed evidence. When I view the available evidence, particularly undeserved pain, suffering, and early death, I place that on the evidence for no God, or at least an uninvolved, creator God.
Hey George.... I understand what you mean and why you place such evidence on the scale in favor of "no God." I hope someday we can balance the scale, or better yet, tip the scale in the other direction.
For a few minutes, I had to take a break from this channel and it's comments. So I turned to a UA-cam song by The Seekers. I still am a philosophical "seeker," but sometimes in a different sense.
I’ll Never Find Another You?
The basic concept of God as in the Greek old Testament is more simple than thought. God is the SIGHT that which constantly watches the personal and collective actions of everyone. It is similar to self consciousness but in its own law. A sight around you that you realize and sense that it is there. So if you make something "against the natural harmony or law of existence" you soon realize that you´ve been watched (even if you take all people away) and that presence would actually command something from around you to restore things into line. That is the basic original concept of God (according to the ancient Greek). From there the Greek OT developes the idea of interacting and actually acknowledging its energies and even powers.
This accumulation of possibilities about existence of divine supernatural being is actually very interesting. Where does those miracles come from, there are no such things as music or dancing in physical description of the world. Human limbs doesn't grow back, that's true, but we can heal and recover our strength, find something that motivate us to persist further, overcome near impossible obstacles, this are no small wonders.
Solution is very simple, we live in two, perhaps three connected, but different states of reality. Story goes like this. First it was only a potential of energy. Than something happened and energy materialized in form of an universe. Than matter became alive somehow, whatever we mean by that. Material reality and life are two completely different physical phenomena. Life is based on material reality, but is not like matter. People confuse those two modes of reality, they observe life and project living principles to an ordinary matter. Arguing from perspective of living does provide many clues about divine presence, call it a human spirit or joy of living, doesn't matter. But observing material nature alone does not, it's like looking at pictures of Mars and wondering what kind of benevolent and omni potent entity created all that dead desert, what a brilliant achievement that is, compared to foggy Venus. It's round, dead and boring, useless piece of large rocks, that's what worlds without life really are.
And there's that third mode of reality we call conscious self. It emerge from living body, that emerge from material substance and substance emerged from energetic cosmic forces. Consciousness is none of them, it's just highest mode of hallucinations and visualizations, shaped by symbolic language and cultural rituals, to simplify that exotic state of existence. Thing is, arguing about God from conscious perspective is much like God would ask himself if he exist. Forget about everything you know for a moment, close your eyes, relax your breathing and just be, is this what being a God feels like?
I find it strange that so much thought goes in to trying to hunt down and prove God, when I'd god cares it could sort the argument out instantly!
Ontological Distinction: The priority of Being in relation to beings. The way God is spoken of in the West regards God as another being among beings. However, all beings must necessarily have existence in order that they be. The peak of logic is Being and Nothing.
When Antony Flew proclaimed that he could no longer subscribe to a wholly naturalistic view of creation all the great hack Richard Dawkins could say was that Flew was a senile old man. How traumatic must it have been for Dawkins to see one of his gods fall?
Is Professor Richard Dawkins really a hack? In what way? Please explain why you think this to b e the case.
Hey David.... Someday all the "gods" that we create and worship will fall. I can't speak for Richard Dawkins, but I hope that creation is more than a "wholly naturalistic" process. Maybe I am becoming a "senile old man" too?
@@jewulo Dawkins and his dismissive attitude does. Shouldn't Dawkins have been willing to speak with Flew to discuss his radical shift in point of view?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 That assertion wouldn't be according to my point of view.
@@davidpaz9389 What assertion?
In the final analysis the First Cause must be infinite. A good description, in my view, is to imagine an infinitely spiralling vortex between infinity and nothingness. You will never find a start or end point to this vortex as it is spiralling infinitely inward and infinitely outward. One side has no beginning, the other no end, but there is always an in-between...a medium for the two polar opposite sides.
The reason it is a vortex is because beyond space and time the only medium possible between these natural polar opposites is one dimensional spin. And if it wasn't for these infinite polar opposites interacting as the positive and negative forces behind nature (creating this spin that stirs energetic waves of potential) then nothing would happen.
My point is that if we change the arguing from "does God exist", to "does The Infinite exist" then the analytical philosophy is far more explainable in my view. The big question is, can the infinite side be described as an infinite "being" or not.
The existence of quadrillions of vintillions of "identical-specs" microLego's (the fundamental particles that serve as building blocks of all the material objects of the universe) speak for themselves as one piece , among many pieces, of strong evidence of the existence of intelligent design. And intelligent design leads naturally to a designer-creator .
Richard Swinburne says people for millenia have seen the world as a beautiful and organized place....but Singapore has only been in existence since 1958.
I enjoy this series because my derires and doubts agree with the host,,, however the series reminds me of that Discovery Channel format as exemplified in their series Gold Rush in which the prize always eludes the seekers. One perpetually hovers on the edge of defeat but hope is ever the 24 carat premium.
I don't know what god is, so I don't know if it exists.
Very good answer. 👏👏👏
First of all there is no acceptable definition of god.
That which nothing greater can be conceived.
All sums have an endless remainder. Primes are the constancy to the continuity of the continuum.
Love this UA-cam series!
Newman's 'Grammar of Assent' claims that one can maintain as a certainty that which has come through an accumulation of probabilities. We pretty much do that throughout the day, 'insights are a dime a dozen,' as Lonergan happily said.
This might help clarify PC's position.
I would have to disagree. PC is rather clear that philosophical proof of God’s existence, even proof through probability, is not present in the current discourse (and may even be impossible). Such statements seem to echo Kierkegaards sentiments concerning faith and reason. A faith which Newman would most certainly be in opposition to (don’t know about Lonergan tho).
Arguing God doesn't make sense because according to all religions God is One so there is only God.
This was awesome. Some really good considerations. Thanks 🙏🏻
“Deductive arguments everyone agrees are false”
You interviewed only 3 people tho
He said "..do not work" not that they are false. I think he meant specifically 'on proving a god'. And I would guess he's talking with he's general knowledge in mind, not just what he "learnt" in this video. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
AliumZOR I guess but the statement is too general, many philosophers of religion(perhaps most) would argue deductive arguments do work
@@planc3318 I agree that deductive arguments do work as a reasoning tool, but so far the ones I've heard tend to work against proving a god. Which is what I think he meant. Not that deductive arguments never work. And that's what even Philip Clayton says in the video "..you can't compel belief in god, not through rationality, not through any other means." and he's a believer himself.
Interesting point as you could argue that it is a matter of logic not opinion wether analytical philosophy/deductive arguments work or not. The belief in the “fact” that “Science” is founded on logic is “deductive reasoning” not to mention the beliefs in the metaphysical/philosophical foundations of “science” such as knowledge, identity, being, time and space etc. Equally, you can’t prove logic with empirical science. To argue different is to argue in a circle. I was also a bit surprised he came to that conclusion about deductive reasoning so easily as he usually sums up the arguments in a more neutral and objective conclusion. However, it could be that “Faith” morals, ethics, god points and anti theistic points actually are beyond the measure of science, logic/deductive reasoning. According to G.K. Chesterton “the poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits”.
Nevertheless, perhaps It also depends on what particular “deductive” arguments you are referring to. If you’re referring to the anthropic principle for example it could be argued that this kind of argument fails because whilst it may be true mainly by virtue of its logical form it is not a valid claim to knowledge as it is a tautology and is not supported by observation of reality such as the appearance of “fine tuning”. Equally,
according to the brilliant physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose the Anthropic principle “tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts”. Also I think our interviewer is becoming as forgetful as the rest of us in his elaborate quest for knowledge and answers as
he actually interviewed the expert on string theory professor Leonard Susskind who stated...
“I have to say that if [string theory fails], as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as [Intelligent Design]”
(Leonard Susskind). Interesting deductive argument!!
All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
“Most contemporary theist philosophers of religion as well as theologians agree that deductive arguments fail to prove God’s existence.” Perhaps, this could have been the most accurate way of putting it.
Our universe does not play by the rules of Pandora. Life is not connected by the self-evident deity Eywa. Na’vis don’t doubt about the existence of a guiding force because they have the deep direct connection with it. If there’s a fundamental, core entity from which we came into existence such (human-like) connection isn’t present. Our hallucinating mind does not serve for that purpose, nor science does so far but it’s our best hope.
I love this channel so much information and wisdom from people..
Weird stuff is found in the world of Code 6 English Gematria, where A=6, B=12, C=18, D=24,......., Z=156. Here, we find that words "THE BEAST IS #AAA" turns out to have a total numerical value of 666. What a coincidence. We also find that the name "CHRIST" has a total numerical value of 462. Now what is a Christian ? Well if we check for the total numerical value of the word "DECEIVE - IAN", it turns out to be 462. And, if we check for the total numerical value of the word "TRUTH - IAN", it turns out to be 666. I'm so confused. Wait a second, that's not enough confusing yet. CHRISTOS = 666 and KRISTOS = 666, plus DIABOLOS = 462. OK, that should do it. I'm fully confused now.
"Arguing Analytic Philosophy With God" would have been a more interesting title though.
If Braveheart's Edward Longshanks and René Descartes had a baby ... you'd get Richard Swinburne
it's like Making a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter with plumber's tools
The argument at 21:00 is so bad it's embarassing.
Amongst other things the concept of 'person' will slipped in at the start without justification.
Yep. And the whole idea of "god made it" as the right explanation because it is simple is mind bogglingly bad.
Quantum mechanics is a horrendously complicated way to explain the behaviour of subparticles, yet it appears to be true. I can make up many simpler explanations that would all be wrong.
Excellent.... thanks 🙏.
Philip Clayton only featured straw man fallacies in that interview. For example, of all the papers and books that I have read (a lot), on the principle of sufficient reason used in cosmological arguments, I have never seen that it is argued that it must be true because God exists and he is the foundation that explains everything that exists.
On the contrary, they always try to give independent arguments that support this principle.
Truth (love) created good (god). And god (good) creates joy, beauty and harmony (heaven).
Ignorance (absence of good/god) does the exact opposite.
Vampires (greed) transform heaven into misery, ugliness and conflict (hell) because the loveless, lifeless are ignorant (dead).
That music still gives me the creeps at night
Some very interesting discussions
(19:20) Swineburne said "The theory makes the data probable". Should it not be the reverse? Comporting data makes the theory more probable?
(19:35) Isn't simplicity superfluous? Sure it makes confirmation easier. But if you don't have comporting data, simplicity doesn't help. And if you have multiple theories that equally comport to your data, it just means you need more data to narrow it down. I think simplicity is just a nice-to-have.
No, Swinburne is correct about this. How can data make a theory probable? To test a theory, you use it to make predictions, then compare those predictions to the actual data. The closer the predictions are to the data, the stronger the theory.
Imagine looking at a dead body and trying to figure out whether the person was killed by a snake or a dog. If the snake theory is correct, you would expect to find tooth marks that resemble the teeth of a snake, and if the dog theory is correct, the marks should resemble the teeth of a dog. When you look at the person's neck and see teeth marks that look like dog's teeth, then you can say that the dog theory makes the data more probable than the snake theory makes it, since it is unlikely that a person killed by a snake would have teeth marks on their neck resembling a dog's teeth.
Why is it that evil and suffering in the world promotes there is no god? What if god just creates and observes? Why do we think god would or should intervene when suffering occurs, because god is omnipotent? Good or evil proves nothing.
Hey Dean... the questions about evil and suffering have been debated for thousands of years. You state "what if god just creates and observes?" I rather prefer to think of a God who is involved with His creation. But then how would we resolve the evil and suffering? I've been asking that myself while battling side-effects of cancer the last 14 years. Jesus did heal many people, so His "good deeds" must say something about good and evil.
Swinburne lays out a masterful mumbo-jumbo of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. And you have to appreciate according to his logic that god must be infinite in all his facets, just because it is simple. (And despite the fact that we could never know whether a god, even an extremely powerful one, would in fact be infinite in all those dimensions.)
It's possible that a MGB (Maximally Great Being) exists.
If a MGB exists, then it exists in a PW (Possible World).
If it exists in a PW, then it exists in all PWs.
If it exists in all PWs, then it exists in an actual world.
Therefore, MGB exists.
Thus, if the existence of a MGB is even a logical possibility, then by definition, that implies its actuality, because if a MGB is logically possible, then it follows that it must exist.
Logical Possibility is defined here.
home.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/logicalpossibility.html
one classic reply is to say that a being that can create a universe without itself existing is greater than one that needs to exist in order to do so. The point being that the definition of mgb is at best subjective and quite possibly incoherent.
@@KonradZielinski Your comment is incoherent, not the argument. Pozdrowienia.
An “act of God” generally describes an event that can’t be predicted or prevented with reasonable care. “Force majeure” is a contractual clause used in business. It relieves the parties of their obligations under the contract in the case of uncontrollable events. Follow not that of which have no knowledge and desire. If you have the knowledge and desire, you are special and “Force majeure”. We don't know, where event can't be predicted or prevented special for you to have direct answer to believe and nobody know how to make you believe or do not believe. Nothing can do it unless an "act of GOD" something that only you know and believe. Science won't help unless there is proof and evidence that work and will never able to believe and not to believe, respectively. Strictly scientific research methods and we don't know, the things we know for the scale of billion of years and infinite or to the novel scale that challenge GOD existence, nobody is right except you with an "act of GOD"?
Any philosophical analysis, no matter how brilliant, of God is pointless since we have no proof of His existence.
This interview has to be years old, Swinburne is much older now than in the video
Unfortunately all of us are much older. But are we any wiser? I wonder about that.
If the dog "flies" i want to see it. To believe that it flies is not enough
Can't you just imagine a dog flapping in the air with his pawns?
@@xspotbox4400 🤔 hum. No
@@xspotbox4400 but I will admit when I was 6 I imagined a lot of weird stuff.
Hey Edward... how about the "flying monkeys" in THE WIZARD OF OZ?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 oh I'd imagined something better 😉
typical human nature.always ask why.free will that's God's gift to man.let the games begin
Arguing about God is like having money in the bank and talking about all the things you could do with it.
Just practice Self enquiry and find the kingdom of heaven within us
Many may find the kingdom of hell within, and not the kingdom of heaven.
So much dancing with words must be done to be able to believe in some invisible magical daddy-friend. Swinburne believes that when you accumulate a lot of bad arguments, that they together prove the existence of the invisible magical daddy-friend. Sure mr Swinburn, that is how it works.
Just listen to Swinburnes unbelievably confused, fallacious and shockingly weird babble at the end. If that doesn't push you over the edge into atheism, then nothing will. Swinburne is like a humbug generator.
“some invisible magical daddy-friend.” Hysterical.
Conclusion for both atheism and theism is absurd too.. so just pick one of them to believe..
@Pisstake , I also can say the similar to you..
Our need for a creator may stem from the need for hierarchies and our need of archetypes bothe of which seems embedded within our subconscious to know our place and to create archetypes over and over again throughout the eons.
--
Within the five sense reality, we are at the top of the hierarchy, and those at the top of the human hierarchy, may have drawn inspiration to create an archetype from the supranatural, someone and something above us to guide us, which also cemented their authority which now came from the unknown that only they could commune with.
Your comment is completely irrelevant to the topic. Even if it is in our DNA to believe in God or not, it says nothing about the existence of God or how sound is the argumentation.
At most, it would be a Genetic Fallacy about how mankind came to believe in God.
@@prime_time_youtube My point is that its in our SUBCONSCIOUS to create archetypes, an as apart of a hierarchy we find ourselves at the top so imagined one above us.
Not apart of the DNA tho thats absurd.
@@eponaalbion LOL! Hahaha, you are really an ignorant guy.
a) You did not get it: Your comment is completely irrelevant to the topic. Even if X explains the belief in God, it would say nothing about the existence of God or how sound is the argumentation. At most, it is a Genetic Fallacy.
b) It is not absurd, LOL! There is a hypothesis that the vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) may cause spiritual beliefs. BTW, many Christian philosophers argue something similar to this issue (i.e. Alvin Plantiga).
But again, that says nothing about the existence of God.
@@prime_time_youtube we are the existence thats the point ;)
@@eponaalbion HAAJAJAHAHAHAhahaHA! Congrats, your reasoning has no parallels!
People belief is based emotions, at it's core, not objective logical reasons.
Wrong again.
@@jamessmith989 You are lying again.
Intuitions more than emotions/feelings, hence reluctant atheism.
Why not need a creator for we all come from nothing. Nothing is something for the real nothing not excist. If God is coming from nothing too why we need this creator?
Hey... your statement made me think of the phrase "ashes to ashes, dust to dust."
Good video.
Plot twist . You are God;)
Now you have ultimate truth;) spread the good news
I think Robert is making a mistake in only wanting to ascertain the truth of the Christian religion through philosophy. Christianity was not derived logically through philosophical premises, but developed organically around the life, death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ. That was at the heart of the message of the Apostles from the very beginning, and it is therefore the ressurrection that Robert needs to look into. I believe that the best explanation of the historical facts is that it indeed happened, aided indeed by the philosophical arguments for the likelihood of the existence of God. In short, the historical accounts and the actual spread of the religion is the key aspect missing in the cumulative case that Robert is exploring.
Hey Jakob.... I pretty much agree with your perspective. What do you mean by "developed organically?" I don't know if Robert will ever "investigate" the resurrection of Jesus on this channel. I think there is one thing that is unique about Christianity. It points to a God/Son of God who both died and was resurrected for mankind. As far as I know, no other "religion" talks about such a love of God.
Regarding the spread of Christianity, it does seem somewhat extraordinary how it grew from just 12 apostles and some other disciples into a major "religion."
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I mean by that, that Christianity didn't emerge as a fully developed and complete philosophical system. Instead the apostles witnessed something unique in history, and they set out to spread the word of what they had seen and the teachings of Jesus. What I also mean by developing organically is, that Jesus didn't write The Bible - he started a Church. And that Church afterwards wrote the books that went into the new Testament, canonized the old Testament and collected it in what we know as The Bible today. And that same Church also developed doctrine over time, as they came to a fuller understanding of what Jesus had taught, how he emerged from and fulfilled the Judaic prophecies and law. This process has been undergoing since where great saints and thinkers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas furthered our understanding of God as revealed through Christ - Aquinas for example using the deistic philosophical arguments from Aristotle of the Uncaused First Cause as one of the ways of reasoning the existence of God.
The point is, that such philosophical arguments and underpinnings of the Faith were not what made it grow explosively - it was the witness and martyrdom and miracles of the Apostles that had converted a third of the Roman Empire only a few hundred years later, before it became officially recognized as the religion of the Roman Empire.
And yes, I think you are right that the fact that Christianity spread so incredibly quickly and that the apostles were willing to be martyred for what they had witnessed is something truly amazing and something that gives credence to the Faith.
Finally, on the point about development of doctrine, I think St. Cardinal Newman had a wonderful picture - that the Church started as an acorn that since grew into a great tree. It developed but stayed true to the roots, unfolding the Truth inherent to it.
@@JakobNHansen Wow... you were awfully fast in typing back to me! Let me take some time to re-read your comment. Greetings from Florida
Would you extend the same charity to every other religion? Are the best explanations for Buddhism, Islam and Mormonism also that the claims of their founders where true? What about Wicca, Raelianism and Scientology?
@@KonradZielinski i dont know that it's a special charity to say that historical claims can be evaluated using historical methods. I would certainly use the same methods of historical and textual criticism to reject Islam, Mormonism and so on. And you are right that the truth of Christianity would imply the falsity of the others. I don't suppose, however, that you have a real problem with the truth being exclusive, you just seem to not believe that it's Christianity?
THERE IS NO ANALYTICAL WAY TO “PHYSICALLY” DEFINE “GOD” - THERE IS OBVIOUSLY BY WAY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE THAT A COLLECTIVE FORCE DOES EXIST - HOWEVER THERE IS NO WAY TO DEFINE WHAT FORM “GOD” MANIFEST - (FOR LACK OF BETTER WORDS)
9:56 is this guy against psychedelics or something?
44 Messianic prophesies foretold and fulfilled. The Absolute and the probability of One.
@D L Luke their all dead. Except for Judaism... it's the same God in the new testament.
@D L Luke I know about Islam and somewhat Second Temple Judaism.
I know only the basics of eastern religions.
What does it have to do with it?
@@jamessmith989 Still posting this obvious lie. The probability is still ZERO. You have prophecies that were easy to make up a story about being fulfilled.
@D L Luke Wow.... why do you say that "Christians are the Anti-Christ.?
@Stephen B The bottom line. (Old testament) Isaiah 53:5-12 (New testament) Roman's 5:6-8 consider the three dimensional image left on the shroud of Turin by an event horizon.
Instead of God coming telling his existence ; Men always go out of extraordinary to try to justify God exists .
Some people just choose to ignore.
beasts_and unicorns , your fantasy daddy in he sky is childish and pathetic
@@jeffamos9854 Pride comes before the fall.
It is the Christian position that God did reveal himself. But you are right that men throughout all ages and places have felt within them that there must be a God.
@@JakobNHansen it's more than a feeling Jakob.
Tools of perspective help... i believe in an exponentialy empty diluting universe subtracting of its own countenance by witholdinng neg enegy ... says what greater then looser a.i. in a substsnciating tone of endevor and contradiction emulated exponentialy
Why would a god make us from the same stuff the universe is made of when it is supposed to be god is not made of universal stuff and is outside the realms of mortals. We are supposed to be made of god stuff. Here’s your contradiction if we are the children we would be made of god stuff and not universal stuff
Read your bible. Man was not made of "God" stuff. Man was made from the Earth itself.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis 2:7
With sufficient knowledge, everything can be explained .... even God !
And we are always the moron of someone !
Organized entropy do not explain sufficiently the immense complexity of the cell division process and therefore there’s a possibility of a being far superior than us. I am afraid that only death will be the only way to know the « truth « !
Hey Raymond.... thanks for sharing your perspective. I pretty much agree with it
John Brzykcy
I appreciate, at least I am not your moron.
@@raymondhuot1684 Hey Raymond.... I hope I never call anyone on here a "moron." Everyone has their own thinking process and some things in life just remain unknown and even mystical. Even a moron deserves time to try to express their views.
Religion makes sense when you look at 'masculinity'. You cant define this word without mentioning physical violence, and this is where the man of the old times saw that for civilization to prosper, we need to have gods in place, as farmers and then modern day industrial civilization needs man to cooperate, if we instead go around plundering and burning down other weaker mens' houses and property alongside r aping and mur dering women and children, it would have never lead to the stage of development of civilization that we see today.
Gods are an evolutionary part of human evolution. If we remove them (like we see today, the modern day liberal/leftist/woke nonsense) then it is easier to become completely entrenched by Consumerism. Its easier to sell to people who believe: nothing comes after death and theres a forever emptiness before and after your death. So you do the best in this life, your only life, to consume as much as you can.
Robert Kuhn, Since you obsess over this question so much, you already believe in God, otherwise you wouldn’t put so much effort into this subject. People that call themselves atheists often ponder more on God then most average Christians.
Hey Christian. I like your statement "People that call themselves atheists often ponder more on God than most average Christians." Makes me think.
Just because humans find the idea that things happen because someone made them happen appealling, does not mean the universe actually works that way. This bias is a byproduct of us being social animals. Our brains are primed for thinking about other humans. Positing an inteligent agent is also not in any way simple. Far from it, this is about as complicated an answer as we can give to any question.
You might be right. But you don't actually know that with 100% certainty. Your position is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. What you are in essence stating is that only science can produce real truth, or as a variation, that only that which science can describe is real. But neither of those statements are scientific in nature, and if they were true they would be false by invalidating themselves.
@@JakobNHansen Correction, only science has lead to real truths. Other other ways to the truth, I don't know of any but I can't rule it out.
I wonder if the host of this video has already discover the truth
He will or won't soon enough when he dies
Emeritus Richard (the only one worth time of rebuttal) fails to distinguish demigods from brut fact Spinoza style ultimate Reality and have long forgotten Parmenides Being. In the food chain of IQ in the Universe there is no statistical reason to believe that Human beings are necessarily at the top of the intellectual performance realm of possibilities. Following that line of reasoning it is also true that our Reality could be simulated by such demigods. Nonetheless demigods with minds as contingent beings are slaves of fate determinism or perfect correlation if you prefer on the Universal Wave function. In a word Demigods self perception of volition and power over our simulated Universe is itself an illusion subject to Brut Fact BEING.
Again as I stated often in other Closer to Truth occasions a mind is only needed to solve problems or attempting to predict the future in order to avoid suffering or discomfort.
That is to mean a mind requires incompleteness to make sense.
By definition the old testament Abrahamic God falls into logical contradictions as such God would not need a mind. No logical space for the personal God.
You are left with just 2 axioms under Occam's razor:
Reality as a whole is a brut fact.
Reality is Ordered including in that order the apparent disorder needed to value the ultimate order it has. It's value is predicated intrinsically in the apparent chaos described classically in the problem of Evil.
There is no value in water if one is no thirsty.
No value in food if one is not hungry.
No value in life if one does not die. (Even if death is more akin to a "great sleep" of your immortal Archés (atomic map and phenomenology) until the "machine" goes round in another turn of the Wheel a Aeon)
No eye contact; that man doesn't believe a word he is saying...
No eye contact, he is reading from his memory, his eyes doesn't see, only look.
@@xspotbox4400 That may well be the case, but my argument sustains
@@juaniespel I never use applied psychology in every day life, not even in tense circumstances, because to know a man is to feel how he feel about things, not how he look, what he do and what he say.
It's also the best way to hide your true emotions and insight, if any clue can reveal state of mind, than fake everything. It's like thinking without using any words in your mind, if you really know, you doesn't need to explain it to yourself.
Atheism is not a worldview it is perhaps a consequence of some worldviews. I don't feel qualified to say whether the same is true of Theism.
I would say agnosticism is not a worldview, but that atheism is. Just like theism can have different expressions, so can atheism, but it still has positive content beyond doubt or non-commitment to the veracity of an idea, which would be the agnostic position. Atheism makes a positive claim about the nature of reality. It is, for example, very often coupled with a standpoint of philosophical materialism, that all causes must in the end be reducible to the material, or that the only mode of gaining knowledge is through science. These positions are intellectually valid and reasonable to hold, I think, but they cannot themselves be ultimately proven beyond a doubt. Therefore, holding these positions does in fact constitute a worldview that has an element of value-judgement, and not just a "facts-based" position.
God has barely any place in analytic philosophy. Most great analytic philosophers have said next to nothing about God. This itself can be the subject of another episode.
Well ready to be shown a leg growing back should be very magical no pun intended
Read Tolstoy's Confession.
Why am I afraid of religious people?
There can be no argument against existence of God, world is democratic, majority of people believe in presence of creator and supreme life force, so we all must live as God is real and present phenomena. People are always right, who knows what could happen if faith would became forbidden, it might be believe in magic and supernatural manifest as sense of conscious self somehow, take this away from humans and we might turn back into animals once more.
Not all is lost, two can play this game, if we can imagine better explanation than God, people might except that nonsense just as well and they'll forget about God, just like we got rid of paganism and occult. It already happened in a sense, chatolics transcended over old Hebrew God and replaced him with human spirit. What does it mean, it's like replacing humanism would change very notion of what it means to be human, but this would not be such a good idea than. Nobody knows what can replace humanity, perhaps only certain genes are part of the divine nature and most human kinds belong in animal classifications. Just saying, it's not that simple as many might think, can't just argue God away because lack of evidence about his existence, it takes much more powerful voodoo than an ordinary word salad can provide.
If your definition of God is a perfect "being" who has infinite power and infinite knowledge, I'll tell you why such a being cannot exist.
Suppose there is a God who created this universe and has all knowledge there is in this universe and beyond. However this God would have no way of knowing if this God was created by another God, who gave this God a sense of perfection, a sense of infinite knowledge, a sense of infinite power, a sense of existing without a beginning or end, etc, BUT, not a means to sense the creator God. So this God would not be perfect in clarifying the doubt of having a creator God. This is so for the creator God too.
@The Calling Thanks my friend, you are making a lot of assumptions and imposing your own attributes and qualities to God. But what you said, "having been 'created' he would lack necessity, not be pure Act, and would therefore not be God." is the premise of my argument above. If a God exists, that God cannot be sure of its (cant use he or she) own perfection due to the reason I mentioned above, which makes the very idea of perfect God invalid.
Hey Abhilash... are you basically saying that a God could "think" He is perfect, yet not be so?
@The Calling Your statement "As pure Act it would lack any perfection" is self contradiction! By the definition of pure actuality, it must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must lack nothing, which in turn means perfection! Only then would it be immutable.
So, pure actuality implies perfection. And my argument shows why a pure actual perfect being is not possible. Just like the universe and the beings in it are in a state where they cannot sense their creator, God, if exists, also cannot be certain that its seeming sense of perfection/infinite knowledge/infinite power have not be endowed by another creator God, who did not give it the means to sense its creator. So if a God exists, it cannot be pure actual/perfect. This invalidates the very nature of God and thus its existence.
Your argument is that since as per your definition of God, its pure actual, it cannot have a creator. But this is circular logic. You are assuming that there is a pure actual God. I am showing that such a pure actual / perfect being is not possible. Hope its clear now.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Yes, pretty much! Lets look at a hypothetical scenario. There is an infinite God. This God decides to create a hundred different Gods with their own realms and a sense of being infinite themselves and infinite power within their realms. Each of these 100 Gods create universe(s) in their realms and thinks they are perfect and can do anything and everything. But the original creator God did not give them the means to sense anything outside their realms.
So if a God exists, it cannot be sure if its the creator or created, which makes perfection never possible. This invalidates the whole concept of pure actuality and God itself.
@The Calling Friend, you are just sticking onto "God necessarily exists and that it is indeed pure actuality". Its your faith and I respect that. However my argument is simply that such a pure actual being is logically impossible due to reasons I stated in my comments above.
Also, I am sure you know about the omnipotence paradox.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
It's amusing that people think that if they use big words and intricate twists of logic it will breathe an air of legitimacy into their preferred scaffold of bullshit. Their nonsense brings them comfort and they mistake this comfort for validity.
That's a very uncharitable position. If you were to apply the same standard to yourself, would you say that your condescension bring you a sense of superiority, and that you mistake this a proof of the validity of your position?
These psychological dismissals of other people's positions don't help engage the actual question of the validity of the positions.
Many clever men want to know the origin of life, the universe etc.
The Bible fully explains everything. For example, it explains the origin of Sin.
Sin came into the world because Eve was beguiled by a talking snake in the garden of Eden.
But what idiot put the snake in the garden ?
Logic eh? We shall see... where the bleep is the argument? I'm looking for one, but your dancing around it. Funny thing is, at no point did anyone offer empirical evidence or tests... just said there are arguments - but then did not present any argument. Let alone anything valid or sound arguments.