She's that rare person who speaks extemporaneously just as well as another person might write. Clear speaking and writing are indicative of a well-ordered mind.
I think it’s got something to do with how she clearly doesn’t need to impress anyone. She’s a female intellectual, in a male dominated field, who’s not making it about identity politics. She’s just herself.
I listened to the video again. I think it's because she has "experience". And she speaks from that (her deep faith). But she is able to work with the academic concepts, to explain it to intellectuals (lol). And she demonstrates a lot of flexibility, an ability to look at the issue from various perspectives, evaluate them in terms of their pros and cons, their coherency, as an articulation.
"Is the ultimate reality personal or not?" The ultimate reality can become personal IF and ONLY IF you have become aware of it experientially, and not merely intellectually.
Isn't reality there whether you are experientially or intellectually aware of it at all - the bolt of lightning or the falling tree branch obliterates whether or you know.
I don't understand why "atheists" ask for "proof of existence of God".. When the God is defined as " transcendent", beyond physical boundaries etc... Then how do you expect that God would just show up like a 'thing' in the world.? Now, one can say that i dont want to bother about something that is not physically identifiable. That's honest, humble etc.. I think those who demand proof of God, and engage in such debates are afraid that might be missing something, and moreover they want to form a group so that they can gain psychological strength to support their belief, just like religious people do
8:23 to end - There is always a point where beliefs break down when pitted against what is real. But, I appreciate her honesty. Good on you for pinning her down, RLK. Sarah, if you ever get your answer from God, make sure to come back and let us know.
@Muzaffar Zaky Muzaffar, how are you my friend? That is an interesting point. I wonder if there are simply definition differences among cultural times and places? Did the material ring true sounding for you as you read it? The Sufi material on my shelves is limited to Rumi. I certainly believe their is only one core reality to all teachings, and even before there were teachings and ancient as well as modern interpretation, that reality was in place. It was in place when dinosaurs walked the earth and even before the earth was. I believe it may yet simply be an unknown law of physics which governs the fine tuning for life in the universe. I don't know what it is. I don't simply credit that to a deity, but as far as I can tell, that's the only difference in our thinking. It does however require we take different actions. One requires worship. Of course I believe the christian trilogy is a silly notion as they interpret it. A three part creator concept is harder to explain than a one part for sure. They must add layers that don't make sense and require blind belief. If the trilogy is however, metaphoric for the conscious, subconscious and the universe in which we all share our existence, that would be the only way it could make sense to me. I like metaphoric ideas. Understanding the teachings at face value or literal realities, not interpreted, requires a belief in the supernatural. I can't quite do that. I don't have a reason to believe in a living creator being, though I am open to the idea. I know we have talked of this already. But that concept creates questions of it's own that cannot be answered. At some point, we simply believe, or not. But I am glad you and I can wonder about these issues and talk openly about them. It is refreshing.
@Muzaffar Zaky The first link works for me and I have a question already. The second one does not. I get to a page in, is it Turkish? And when I click on the English translation tab it goes to a video.
Yes, alternative concepts of god are a natural progression beyond many of mankind's traditional, small-minded conceptions of god, which came about during more primitive times characterized by great fear and superstition.
It is always amazing to me how so called intellectual religious people explain God and Religion in a way that does not remotely resemble what the average religious person believes.
Perhaps because what the average person believes is just one box in a room full of boxes. So many sects and sub-sects of all world religions, to say nothing of the myriad tribal belief systems still acknowledged. A true believer can not be an impartial observer of world religions, you can, at best, compare others to YOUR standards - well, that's all well and good, but what about the Holy Trinity/End of Days/Lord Krishna/the Prophesy/the Prophesy/the Prophesy on and on... Plus, you never hear about the also-rans, those without the press to keep the dream alive. Around 30 AD there was a man who developed a way to relax your tired body after a hard day crucifying Jews - they called it Pontius Pilates, but it never caught on. So some carpenter that snagged a contract with an Eastern philosopher to remodel an upstairs granny suite to turn it into a b&b learned a few tricks that let the Council of Nicea turn him into a superspreader. And here we are.
On the intellectual level I think this is true; however, as for religious experience there doesn't seem to be such a great divide for the varying sorts of religious believers. I know atheists who know nothing about science yet preach it as a foundation for their beliefs. I don't necessarily consider this a problem for atheism since they aren't making a thoroughly educated assertion. In other words, I don't therefore use the large consensus of ignorant atheists to reject atheism.
Panentheism makes cosmos indistinct within a greater God, although seems to take a little away from transendence of a distinct God. Discussion of benefits and drawbacks on this point would help.
Transcendence is a human term, not really relevant to an actual God unless "He" is a petty God, in which case "He" is decidedly not worthy of worship. That God is one of OURS, not one of the cosmos'. EVERY one of our Gods except the new breed - Prosperity Jesus, Xenu - were created when our universe was geocentric. Look at our actual place in the visible universe, even in this galaxy, on a backwater arm of one f billions of spiral galaxies. You God has a LOT more to transcend than one tiny planet. And a LOT more Plans for all sentient beings...
We are trying to talk about thing that cannot be described. Conceptualizing thing that cannot be grasped by mind. And then trying to find alternate to it. This is beyond hope 😊
It is at least very, very difficult and I'd expect might take somewhat more that 11 minutes to tease out to the core - many, many elevens of minutes indeed (and I've spend some of that myself and sift there still).
Sounds like standard practice to me: experience and observe, find something interesting, make a conjecture, look for support, test (is this the equivalent of measuring your experience with God, e.g. "count every blessing"?), come to an understanding (theory), discuss. In the science industry we do this, get a lot of people to agree at some level, and establish widely accepted knowledge. A true practice of analytical philosophy does the same thing. This isn't surprising and is quite rational for human beings to do. What is the truth and what is not is like the limit of a function whose domain and end behavior both tend to infinity. As far as knowledge and discocery are concerned, this is the innate and fundamental precipice of the human condition. The truth cannot be known, but you can get very close; and you need a lot of people to agree on it. The subject is not as advanced as it appears. Human psychology has not changed very much over 221,000 years; hence, nothing new under the sun.
@Yedidya K Oh, i see; a force for good👍. i like it! But; as i see it, good is constrained to perspective where as articulations of *truth constrained by perspective* are valid in all perspectives. Coherence and truth relate to each other and to stability, without personal judgement. But i think you're right; they're not mutually exclusive.
Of the 3; Pantheism, Panentheism and Pandeism Panentheism would seem to offer the greatest scope.all 3 probably originally came out of Animism so must go back to Paleolithic times obviously under other names.
We can do that, yes.... when we no longer need language to communicate, but can just sense one another’s thoughts directly. Words are, after all, so limiting.
@@MendTheWorld We can use language to refer to ideas; figuratively more so than iconically..? Can't we? Like, we can call spiritually enabled scientism "Spiritually enabled scientism", for example.
I can just see how two people similarly have same conversation a few thousands years ago, wondering, imagining, fantasizing, guessing. And then they were saying, "Let's write down our ideas as a definitive guidance for other people."
Both were, at best, attempts to explain the workings of the planet without the knowledge necessary to grasp our true relationship to the infinite. God now only iss needed to explain about 0.001 seconds at the beginning of time, the Big bang Equivalent. What really happened in that fateful thousandth of a second? Was it a Harry-=Potter style wave of a celetial wand, "Universus Existus?" Or a declaration "I am that I am. You am that You am. Leave Me alone, I am tired..." Note: the ONLY place it would be "technically" possible for a monotheistic God-being to observe the observable universe - as opposed to "be" the universe - is at that very exact center, the pinpoint where it happened, to misquote Hamilton. I visualize "God" on "His" throne, staring into the depths of the universe wearing his VR glasses.
As an alternative there is also Melville's Moby Dick, chapter 96 The Try Works, A Catskill Eagle which will get you off to a good start on your journey, too - ourgame.mlblogs.com/herman-melville-catskill-eagle-64e6c055dfa7
I sort of believe in god, I just don't believe in religion! I very much dislike terminology..i much prefer to think if god exists then god is energy or consciousness, not the bearded man sat on a cloud.
@@MrDorbel well god is very much a term (and notion) created by man..But consciousness - regardless of its terminology - is very much fact - and therefore if there is something grander out there I feel it would relate to consciousness or energy as everything in the universe contains both. I believe every living thing including our universe has consciousness. I like to think of the universe as a huge conscious brain and we are the cells existing within it. If there is a higher being then it will be an all ecompassing all powerful higher consciousness. OR Maybe our "god" of this universe (as I believe in eternal universes) is actually an alien(s). Now that's an interesting theory! Maybe each universe has its own creator. Ok now I am getting too deep.
@@Dion_Mustard You may like to think of the universe as a huge conscious brain, but there is no evidence to support that. There is no evidence that everything in the universe "contains consciousness" as you put it. There is no evidence that the universe is eternal. You are not getting too deep, you are, not meaning to be unkind, making stuff up.
@@Dion_Mustard I think about it in the same way as you. There is certainly something more out there than our five sense human existence. I've felt it. What that is and how grand it may or may not be, simply isn't known. The idea of god only makes sense to me, if we define that as something like, "the sum of all in existence", which we're a part of. And we individually are metaphorically as synapses or memories in a greater mind. And I also feel that, religion doesn't get you there. I kind of view religion as a carrier. But the truth is deeper than religion gets to.
@@MrDorbel God is infinite and cannot be tied to a single definition. From the Bhagavad Gita: "Understand simply: I, the unchanging and everlasting sustain and permeate the entire cosmos with but one fragment of my being."
@@mysticwine So you say! Why can't God be uniquely defined? Ask 100 people what a hippopotamus looks like and even those who have never seen a live one will agree on all the important details. Ask 100 people to describe God and you'll get 100 ansers! What does that tell you? The quote from the BG is just mystic woo-woo, what Dan Dennett calls a deepity, something that sounds profound but is in fact meaningless twaddle.
@@danielpaulson8838 What does the word "liturgy" mean to you? If one engages liturgy sincerly they might be successful. Do "successful liturgy" or "electrotonic symphony" mean anything to you?
Are you referring to the two people in this video? Why would you conclude that? Perhaps because they simply do not use language in exactly the same way you do when talking about faith?
If there's a "God the Father" that is totally beyond and not worth naming or sculpting and a "God the Son" that is truth and the only non-illusory self then, i don't see a problem.
The creation out of nothing is the critical part.. the christ.. is a being whose experienced the state of nothing which is death and then the son is reborn.. This happens through blackholes.. in my case I linked the Milky E Way and Andromedas which somehow balance out to be 0.. So here we are.. Christ is infinite because so is 0.. So ask me a question if you want.
At the state of 0 there is no good or evil.. there is just love.. good and evil is a state of duality which love cannot comprehend. The fathers reality is without good and evil.. there is only love.. where as the sons reality has a mother which introduces a sense of duality.
@@ferdinandkraft857 lol.. nope.. but things are going just fine.. luckily youtube land is a safe space for these type of ideas.. especially given the context of the video.. Id say its quite acceptable.
@@ferdinandkraft857 not that it really matters.. but meds or no meds i support myself. I have a business. A house.. 2 employees.. pay taxes.. will make $80ish k this year.. have no kids ect.. Just like flapping my jaw on closer to truth videos.. Not sure how your question is relevant.
For many it seems God isn't anything seen, measured, or verified. It's just the title of a list of things required to fill any gap in scientific knowledge.
Sarah spends the God selection wheel, let's SEEEE where it stops...And THERE it is, *Yahweh* the Hebrew God..Congratulations are in order considering that the LAST contestant got Pele the volcano God, and was the RIGHT age to qualify for the sacrificial list..So congratulations Sarah!
They are discussing the material under consideration from a scholarly point of view. EVERY field of study has its own academic vocabulary to help scholars communicate with each other in a precise way. I don't conclude that two physicians discussing medicine are not making much sense because I'm unfamiliar with the way they happen to be using language. For what it's worth, Sarah Coakley and Robert Lawrence Kuhn make a lot of sense to me probably because I've had the privilege of having studied both philosophy and theology. If I listened in, however, on a conversation between two brain surgeons, I'd assuredly be lost. I might give it a go, however, and try to follow along as best I could!
Your asking someone who’s established in Christianity about pantheism. Not the best representation of this idea. Vedic philosophy isn’t overly represented on this channel. I’m quickly loosing interest.
God is YAHWEH, please Dr. Robert L. Kuhn, I am Ph.D in Philosophy of Science and professor on a university of México. Read Torá, go with mesianic people. Shalom to you from somebody in Mexico.
Among RLK's interviewees she really seems to have her mind together better than most.
She's that rare person who speaks extemporaneously just as well as another person might write. Clear speaking and writing are indicative of a well-ordered mind.
I don’t know this woman but I looove her
I don't know why. But I had the same reaction. I like her.
I think it’s got something to do with how she clearly doesn’t need to impress anyone. She’s a female intellectual, in a male dominated field, who’s not making it about identity politics. She’s just herself.
I listened to the video again. I think it's because she has "experience". And she speaks from that (her deep faith). But she is able to work with the academic concepts, to explain it to intellectuals (lol). And she demonstrates a lot of flexibility, an ability to look at the issue from various perspectives, evaluate them in terms of their pros and cons, their coherency, as an articulation.
"Is the ultimate reality personal or not?" The ultimate reality can become personal IF and ONLY IF you have become aware of it experientially, and not merely intellectually.
DMT ?
Isn't reality there whether you are experientially or intellectually aware of it at all - the bolt of lightning or the falling tree branch obliterates whether or you know.
Agree. I think it is personal, but at the same time it is difficult to access on a personal level for most of us.
I don't understand why "atheists" ask for "proof of existence of God"..
When the God is defined as " transcendent", beyond physical boundaries etc... Then how do you expect that God would just show up like a 'thing' in the world.?
Now, one can say that i dont want to bother about something that is not physically identifiable. That's honest, humble etc.. I think those who demand proof of God, and engage in such debates are afraid that might be missing something, and moreover they want to form a group so that they can gain psychological strength to support their belief, just like religious people do
Seems to me that if u want a god then take one and if u don't want one, then give it a miss. And what significance u give to your idol is up to u.
The Hindus got the safest idea, a different god for everything and everyone and no fighting who's god got the biggest
8:23 to end - There is always a point where beliefs break down when pitted against what is real. But, I appreciate her honesty. Good on you for pinning her down, RLK. Sarah, if you ever get your answer from God, make sure to come back and let us know.
@Muzaffar Zaky Muzaffar, how are you my friend?
That is an interesting point. I wonder if there are simply definition differences among cultural times and places? Did the material ring true sounding for you as you read it? The Sufi material on my shelves is limited to Rumi.
I certainly believe their is only one core reality to all teachings, and even before there were teachings and ancient as well as modern interpretation, that reality was in place. It was in place when dinosaurs walked the earth and even before the earth was.
I believe it may yet simply be an unknown law of physics which governs the fine tuning for life in the universe. I don't know what it is. I don't simply credit that to a deity, but as far as I can tell, that's the only difference in our thinking.
It does however require we take different actions. One requires worship.
Of course I believe the christian trilogy is a silly notion as they interpret it. A three part creator concept is harder to explain than a one part for sure. They must add layers that don't make sense and require blind belief.
If the trilogy is however, metaphoric for the conscious, subconscious and the universe in which we all share our existence, that would be the only way it could make sense to me.
I like metaphoric ideas. Understanding the teachings at face value or literal realities, not interpreted, requires a belief in the supernatural. I can't quite do that.
I don't have a reason to believe in a living creator being, though I am open to the idea. I know we have talked of this already. But that concept creates questions of it's own that cannot be answered. At some point, we simply believe, or not.
But I am glad you and I can wonder about these issues and talk openly about them. It is refreshing.
@Muzaffar Zaky The first link works for me and I have a question already.
The second one does not. I get to a page in, is it Turkish? And when I click on the English translation tab it goes to a video.
Yes, alternative concepts of god are a natural progression beyond many of mankind's traditional, small-minded conceptions of god, which came about during more primitive times characterized by great fear and superstition.
It is always amazing to me how so called intellectual religious people explain God and Religion in a way that does not remotely resemble what the average religious person believes.
Perhaps because what the average person believes is just one box in a room full of boxes. So many sects and sub-sects of all world religions, to say nothing of the myriad tribal belief systems still acknowledged.
A true believer can not be an impartial observer of world religions, you can, at best, compare others to YOUR standards - well, that's all well and good, but what about the Holy Trinity/End of Days/Lord Krishna/the Prophesy/the Prophesy/the Prophesy on and on...
Plus, you never hear about the also-rans, those without the press to keep the dream alive. Around 30 AD there was a man who developed a way to relax your tired body after a hard day crucifying Jews - they called it Pontius Pilates, but it never caught on. So some carpenter that snagged a contract with an Eastern philosopher to remodel an upstairs granny suite to turn it into a b&b learned a few tricks that let the Council of Nicea turn him into a superspreader.
And here we are.
On the intellectual level I think this is true; however, as for religious experience there doesn't seem to be such a great divide for the varying sorts of religious believers.
I know atheists who know nothing about science yet preach it as a foundation for their beliefs. I don't necessarily consider this a problem for atheism since they aren't making a thoroughly educated assertion. In other words, I don't therefore use the large consensus of ignorant atheists to reject atheism.
Revelation stops with the first person, for everyone else it's hearsay. Great minds here, but all speculation when it comes to God. Nothing concrete.
Paine, The Age of Reason
Panentheism makes cosmos indistinct within a greater God, although seems to take a little away from transendence of a distinct God. Discussion of benefits and drawbacks on this point would help.
Transcendence is a human term, not really relevant to an actual God unless "He" is a petty God, in which case "He" is decidedly not worthy of worship. That God is one of OURS, not one of the cosmos'. EVERY one of our Gods except the new breed - Prosperity Jesus, Xenu - were created when our universe was geocentric. Look at our actual place in the visible universe, even in this galaxy, on a backwater arm of one f billions of spiral galaxies. You God has a LOT more to transcend than one tiny planet. And a LOT more Plans for all sentient beings...
It would help if your first sentence wasn't incomprehensible nonsense.
@@MrDorbel not incomprehensible that am aware of
@@thesoundsmith thank you for your comment
@@jamesruscheinski8602 Perhaps English is not your first language. I'm afraid I could extract no meaning from what you wrote.
We are trying to talk about thing that cannot be described.
Conceptualizing thing that cannot be grasped by mind.
And then trying to find alternate to it.
This is beyond hope 😊
It is at least very, very difficult and I'd expect might take somewhat more that 11 minutes to tease out to the core - many, many elevens of minutes indeed (and I've spend some of that myself and sift there still).
Now, we are getting a bit closer to truth.
Sounds like standard practice to me: experience and observe, find something interesting, make a conjecture, look for support, test (is this the equivalent of measuring your experience with God, e.g. "count every blessing"?), come to an understanding (theory), discuss. In the science industry we do this, get a lot of people to agree at some level, and establish widely accepted knowledge. A true practice of analytical philosophy does the same thing. This isn't surprising and is quite rational for human beings to do. What is the truth and what is not is like the limit of a function whose domain and end behavior both tend to infinity. As far as knowledge and discocery are concerned, this is the innate and fundamental precipice of the human condition. The truth cannot be known, but you can get very close; and you need a lot of people to agree on it. The subject is not as advanced as it appears. Human psychology has not changed very much over 221,000 years; hence, nothing new under the sun.
I can't think of an objective good that would make good more fundamental than God. I think that my existence is good, but others could disagree.
There is nothing like Him.
He is the one and only.
He is free of need.
@Gaytony until it's all vivid and real....
@@X_x_kingfisher_x_X, yes when you cross over.. will be there
I would replace "the Good" with "the True".
@Yedidya K Oh, i see; a force for good👍. i like it! But; as i see it, good is constrained to perspective where as articulations of *truth constrained by perspective* are valid in all perspectives. Coherence and truth relate to each other and to stability, without personal judgement.
But i think you're right; they're not mutually exclusive.
Of the 3; Pantheism, Panentheism and Pandeism Panentheism would seem to offer the greatest scope.all 3 probably originally came out of Animism so must go back to Paleolithic times obviously under other names.
I appreciate the point about labels but then we just jump back into it. Can we stop using names and championing people? Let's stick to ideas.
We can do that, yes.... when we no longer need language to communicate, but can just sense one another’s thoughts directly. Words are, after all, so limiting.
@@MendTheWorld We can use language to refer to ideas; figuratively more so than iconically..? Can't we? Like, we can call spiritually enabled scientism "Spiritually enabled scientism", for example.
People need personal, good God, it is a great fortheir happy life. But they are afraid of God and hell, this is not so happy.
I can just see how two people similarly have same conversation a few thousands years ago, wondering, imagining, fantasizing, guessing. And then they were saying, "Let's write down our ideas as a definitive guidance for other people."
Can we please get Christopher Langan on this show.
Possible that there is revelation / experience of God new as the Christian covenant grew out of Abrahamic covenant.
Both were, at best, attempts to explain the workings of the planet without the knowledge necessary to grasp our true relationship to the infinite. God now only iss needed to explain about 0.001 seconds at the beginning of time, the Big bang Equivalent. What really happened in that fateful thousandth of a second? Was it a Harry-=Potter style wave of a celetial wand, "Universus Existus?" Or a declaration "I am that I am. You am that You am. Leave Me alone, I am tired..."
Note: the ONLY place it would be "technically" possible for a monotheistic God-being to observe the observable universe - as opposed to "be" the universe - is at that very exact center, the pinpoint where it happened, to misquote Hamilton. I visualize "God" on "His" throne, staring into the depths of the universe wearing his VR glasses.
She’s fantastic and super knowledgeable/wise.
Replace god with logic, critical thinking and common sense. Science doesn’t require a god to explain the universe
For a complete understanding of God, look into advaita Vedanta. Just look up sarvapriyananda on UA-cam. Nisargadatta Maharaj is also a must read!
As an alternative there is also Melville's Moby Dick, chapter 96 The Try Works, A Catskill Eagle
which will get you off to a good start on your journey, too -
ourgame.mlblogs.com/herman-melville-catskill-eagle-64e6c055dfa7
今週中に論文が完全に完成します。
I sort of believe in god, I just don't believe in religion!
I very much dislike terminology..i much prefer to think if god exists then god is energy or consciousness, not the bearded man sat on a cloud.
We already have names for energy and consciousness. How does calling either (but presumably not both!) God add to our knowledge?
@@MrDorbel well god is very much a term (and notion) created by man..But consciousness - regardless of its terminology - is very much fact - and therefore if there is something grander out there I feel it would relate to consciousness or energy as everything in the universe contains both. I believe every living thing including our universe has consciousness.
I like to think of the universe as a huge conscious brain and we are the cells existing within it.
If there is a higher being then it will be an all ecompassing all powerful higher consciousness.
OR
Maybe our "god" of this universe (as I believe in eternal universes) is actually an alien(s). Now that's an interesting theory! Maybe each universe has its own creator.
Ok now I am getting too deep.
@@Dion_Mustard You may like to think of the universe as a huge conscious brain, but there is no evidence to support that.
There is no evidence that everything in the universe "contains consciousness" as you put it.
There is no evidence that the universe is eternal.
You are not getting too deep, you are, not meaning to be unkind, making stuff up.
@@Dion_Mustard I think about it in the same way as you. There is certainly something more out there than our five sense human existence. I've felt it. What that is and how grand it may or may not be, simply isn't known. The idea of god only makes sense to me, if we define that as something like, "the sum of all in existence", which we're a part of. And we individually are metaphorically as synapses or memories in a greater mind.
And I also feel that, religion doesn't get you there. I kind of view religion as a carrier. But the truth is deeper than religion gets to.
Are you sure religion says God is a bearded man in heaven?
All concepts of God are valid.
Really? They can't all be true can they? They can of course all be totally invalid.
@@MrDorbel God is infinite and cannot be tied to a single definition. From the Bhagavad Gita: "Understand simply: I, the unchanging and everlasting sustain and permeate the entire cosmos with but one fragment of my being."
@@mysticwine lol. That's a nice mythological being you're telling us about.
@@publiusovidius7386 Prove it
@@mysticwine So you say! Why can't God be uniquely defined? Ask 100 people what a hippopotamus looks like and even those who have never seen a live one will agree on all the important details. Ask 100 people to describe God and you'll get 100 ansers! What does that tell you?
The quote from the BG is just mystic woo-woo, what Dan Dennett calls a deepity, something that sounds profound but is in fact meaningless twaddle.
Where is the evidence?
@1:45 "...transformative interaction with..." I sez, pardon?
The stars were aligned just right. Or DMT.
@@danielpaulson8838 What does the word "liturgy" mean to you?
If one engages liturgy sincerly they might be successful.
Do "successful liturgy" or "electrotonic symphony" mean anything to you?
@@mediocrates3416 People make comments.
Welcome to social media.
@@danielpaulson8838 The benefit of dialog is lost, and that's a real shame.
Dialog or just ignore me: very depressing.
It's so hard to see beautiful people spiral down into the dark realms of demented psychosis.
:-)
Sorry, what's that you said? I was too busy hiding in my cave of blind ignorance.
Are you referring to the two people in this video? Why would you conclude that? Perhaps because they simply do not use language in exactly the same way you do when talking about faith?
Is God fifth fundamental force ? if yes then God exsists ,if not , God does not exsist
If there's a "God the Father" that is totally beyond and not worth naming or sculpting and a "God the Son" that is truth and the only non-illusory self then, i don't see a problem.
Dread it, run from it, aethism still arrives.
The creation out of nothing is the critical part.. the christ.. is a being whose experienced the state of nothing which is death and then the son is reborn..
This happens through blackholes.. in my case I linked the Milky E
Way and Andromedas which somehow balance out to be 0..
So here we are..
Christ is infinite because so is 0..
So ask me a question if you want.
At the state of 0 there is no good or evil.. there is just love.. good and evil is a state of duality which love cannot comprehend.
The fathers reality is without good and evil.. there is only love.. where as the sons reality has a mother which introduces a sense of duality.
Question: have you taken your meds?
@@ferdinandkraft857 lol.. nope.. but things are going just fine.. luckily youtube land is a safe space for these type of ideas.. especially given the context of the video.. Id say its quite acceptable.
@@ferdinandkraft857 not that it really matters.. but meds or no meds i support myself. I have a business. A house.. 2 employees.. pay taxes.. will make $80ish k this year.. have no kids ect..
Just like flapping my jaw on closer to truth videos..
Not sure how your question is relevant.
For many it seems God isn't anything seen, measured, or verified. It's just the title of a list of things required to fill any gap in scientific knowledge.
I need alternative of UA-cam and this channel.
Then why are you HERE? Failure to exercise free will is not an excuse.
If there is a god ..he is a bad dude...
He will have some explaining to do when he comes this way again
The creation is the creator, the creation does not need a creator.
I find these God discussions positively inane.
Why’s that
Sarah spends the God selection wheel, let's SEEEE where it stops...And THERE it is, *Yahweh* the Hebrew God..Congratulations are in order considering that the LAST contestant got Pele the volcano God, and was the RIGHT age to qualify for the sacrificial list..So congratulations Sarah!
So much talk about shared delusions and deeply rooted need for explanation...
They talk and talk and talk. They talk so much but does not make much sense.
They are discussing the material under consideration from a scholarly point of view. EVERY field of study has its own academic vocabulary to help scholars communicate with each other in a precise way. I don't conclude that two physicians discussing medicine are not making much sense because I'm unfamiliar with the way they happen to be using language. For what it's worth, Sarah Coakley and Robert Lawrence Kuhn make a lot of sense to me probably because I've had the privilege of having studied both philosophy and theology. If I listened in, however, on a conversation between two brain surgeons, I'd assuredly be lost. I might give it a go, however, and try to follow along as best I could!
Its funny how people can talk so seriously of imaginary friends
Imaginary numbers are quite real
@@aqilshamil9633 so is the Loch Ness monster
@@robertosvrahimis3304 , ask any EE
If we can comprehend what God is. Then he's not God. It's like ants trying understand humans.
@Swoosh Swish We wouldn't be humans if we could understand the ant's understanding.
Jesus is God in the flesh, and Jesus said, God is good. God equals Good.
Your asking someone who’s established in Christianity about pantheism.
Not the best representation of this idea.
Vedic philosophy isn’t overly represented on this channel.
I’m quickly loosing interest.
Alternative facts???!!! hahahahah
Why do all these religious fundamentalists express themselves with these slightly insane false smiles all the time?
"So let's talk about Pantheism"
"I don't believe in Pantheism because I'm a Christian"
"Oh, I guess that's it for Pantheism then"
An alternative concept of god? Hmmm, let me think. Truth maybe?
God is YAHWEH, please Dr. Robert L. Kuhn, I am Ph.D in Philosophy of Science and professor on a university of México. Read Torá, go with mesianic people. Shalom to you from somebody in Mexico.
@@patriciaking410 Shall we NOT be curious about other Gods then?
To others god is Shiva
Or Zeus
Or allah
Or Jesus
Or Odin
And a few million more