Do you think we can disprove square circles? Square: a plane figure with four equal straight sides. Circle: a plane figure with all points on its perimeter being equidistant to one single point, called "center".
27:43 Sorry but again, no. Earth is habitable to life forms like us because we developed here. If the atmosphere was 0% oxygen then life developing on earth would obviously not use oxygen. If life was silicon based then obviously it wouldn't be carbon based. We are shaped by our environment, our environment wasn't shaped to host life as we know it now, that is the more accuratly the scientific understanding of the Goldilocks zone and other aspects of our "just so" existence.
"If the atmosphere was 0% oxygen then life developing on earth would obviously not use oxygen." It actually happened. Oxygen in atmosphere is the waste product of early cyanobacteria, important part: bacteria. All the oxygen there was on earth formation went doing what oxygen do best: it oxydes everything (mostly silicon and iron) until it was all spent. The one we have is the extra, and we wouldn't have it if not for life.
@@kregorovillupo3625 u right, I saw it wasn't a great point after I posted it because I forgot how prebiotic conditions were anaerobic, however I think the point about carbon and silicon still conveys the gist well enough.
15:09 Speaking on cosmology here and then describing time while also talking about the expansion of the universe is very human but not accurate. Time isn't a single absolute thing, time is a feature of the universe in its current state.
12:29 "there is no beginning of greek mythology there is infinite regression" nope and you acknowledge that's not the case a moment later. The origin of it all is Chaos (the void). Wiki: "Chaos (Ancient Greek: χάος, romanized: Kháos) is the mythological void state preceding the creation of the universe (the cosmos) in ancient near eastern cosmology and early Greek cosmology. It can also refer to an early state of the cosmos constituted of nothing but undifferentiated and indistinguishable matter" but this void and chaos is thought of and talked about as having agency and decisions. It does not have a predecessor.
This was the Greek blunder, if 1) all causes have antecedent causes, and 2) the "material" of Chaos (void) is eternal, then there is no first cause that causes motion and change to exist in the first place. Plato's demiurge creates from Chaos, that is from pre-existing material (that came from...?) hence the paradox of infinite regression. Which is why Christian cosmology demands an non-material, eternal prime mover to create the material world ex nihilo.
@@FrSteveMacias but if we can comfortably understand time as just a feature of the universe, not a primordial substance that stretches into Infinity, then this idea of a prime mover for the Big bang is fundamentally flawed, is it not? Time before the Big bang is kind of ridiculous in the same way that people tried to talk about time before God. So I'm wondering why a-priori you assume God to fill this Gap in your knowledge? I'm sorry if some of my comments come across as indignant, I don't mean it that way. It's just an Earnest question, but too many times I've had people misconstrue my question for an attack and I just want to make sure that's not heard here. Thank you for your lecture, very much enjoying it!
3:37 Uh... Real quick Alexander the great was in the 330 bce... Definitely NOT a contemporary of a Christ figure. Also it's not accurate to say we have more evidence for Jesus than we do for Alexander the great because while there are some writings from the time that also mention a teacher killed by the Roman and Jewish authority we have actual physical EVIDENCE for the existence of Alexander and his actions.
Lee Strobel's argument is that the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death in 323 BC (hence contemporary with Christ), yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy. But my point here is that these sort of debates are secondary to real epistemological issues.
@@FrSteveMacias I'm sorry, but Lee looks to just simply be wrong here's two citations via Wiki on just a simple Google search. "Diodorus Bibliotheca historica (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Cleitarchus and Hieronymus of Cardia. It is the oldest surviving Greek source (1st century BC). Diodorus regarded Alexander like Caesar as a key historical figure and chronological marker. Curtius Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy. His work is fluidly written, but reveals ignorance of geography, chronology, and technical military knowledge, focusing instead on the character." Both of these writings therefore predating all of the gospels... I understand the point being made here doesn't hinge on these details however, miss representing the historical and written evidence for Alexander the great to make the story of the gospels sound more palatable is what I'm sure you would call disingenuous. Unless I'm missing something major here it looks like your epistemology for writing your course should inherently now be much more sceptical of claims made by Lee on this point alone. There are LOTS of issues with the epistemology he presents in his book with special pleading around every corner but I recognize you aren't defending those ideas right now.
@@FrSteveMacias I'm sorry, but Lee looks to just simply be wrong here's two citations via Wiki on just a simple Google search. "Diodorus Bibliotheca historica (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Cleitarchus and Hieronymus of Cardia. It is the oldest surviving Greek source (1st century BC). Diodorus regarded Alexander like Caesar as a key historical figure and chronological marker. Curtius Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy. His work is fluidly written, but reveals ignorance of geography, chronology, and technical military knowledge, focusing instead on the character." Both of these writings therefore predating all of the gospels... I understand the point being made here doesn't hinge on these details however, miss representing the historical and written evidence for Alexander the great to make the story of the gospels sound more palatable is what I'm sure you would call disingenuous. Unless I'm missing something major here it looks like your epistemology for writing your course should inherently now be much more sceptical of claims made by Lee on this point alone. There are LOTS of issues with the epistemology he presents in his book with special pleading around every corner but I recognize you aren't defending those ideas right now.
- I'm sorry, but Lee looks to just simply be wrong here's two citations via Wiki on just a simple Google search. "Diodorus Bibliotheca historica (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Cleitarchus and Hieronymus of Cardia. It is the oldest surviving Greek source (1st century BC). Diodorus regarded Alexander like Caesar as a key historical figure and chronological marker. Curtius Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy. His work is fluidly written, but reveals ignorance of geography, chronology, and technical military knowledge, focusing instead on the character." Both of these writings therefore predating all of the gospels... I understand the point being made here doesn't hinge on these details however, miss representing the historical and written evidence for Alexander the great to make the story of the gospels sound more palatable is what I'm sure you would call disingenuous. Unless I'm missing something major here it looks like your epistemology for writing your course should inherently now be much more sceptical of claims made by Lee on this point alone. There are LOTS of issues with the epistemology he presents in his book with special pleading around every corner but I recognize you aren't defending those ideas right now.
My guy, please learn some modern cosmology. If you are going to be educating people and you utter "Physicists believe millions of years ago... maybe theyve expanded to billions of years" you are revealing you dont have an elementary school understanding of modern cosmology. The Big Crunch model? Absolutely not a common view, not in 40+ years. Secondly, the point about the universe not being cyclical and it is only a Hebrew view that claims an absolute beginning reveals an almost unbelievable naivete about origin stories the world over. I was watching trying to keep an open mind, but if you cant be bothered to accurately represent the ideas you are contrasting I have to pass, I can no longer believe you are being honest. You seem like a nice guy, but if your intro is this fundamentally flawed on basic, googlable facts about opposing views its not worth watching further.
Appreciate the comment and I'm sure if you were here during the study, we'd have some fun discussions. I'm generally dismissive of the epistemological relevance of the inflationary models in cosmology (whether the "bang" proposed was in the *millions* as first proposed a hundred years ago, or *billions* as proposed since Edwin Hubble) because they all fail to account for source of matter or to account for their assumption of metaphysical cognizance. In other words, if the cosmic background radiation measured out the age of our current universe to a trillion years, I would first have to assume that such measurements are possible - which itself presupposes a rational and universal nature to matter that is coherent in time and space. The point I'm trying to convey, perhaps poorly, is that these models do not claim to identify a single origin of the universe and do not solve our transcendental questions. But these do presuppose certain metaphysical realities that aren't justified by empirical observation, pragmaticism, rationalism, idealism etc. I'd be happy to stand corrected with another Ancient Culture that holds to an Ex Nihilo Cosmology? Of the major worldviews that I've studied in ancient philosophy the cyclical model (as most clearly represented in the Hellenistic traditions) certainly dominates all discussions. Certainly, many can and do borrow from the Hebrew cosmology.
@@FrSteveMacias I think your response about the timeline of the big bang being irrelevant to your point is entirely fair and well explained, and yet my point was about the tenor of your introduction... I hadn't made it to the content before being offput. It seemed like a flippant and almost intentional dismissal, possibly based on a lack of understanding, for comedic effect. If someone begins a discussion with an intentional misrepresentation of the basic facts of a view they are contrasting, it is hard to take the rest of what they have to say seriously. In a way, this was perhaps exacerbated in this case as you seem like the kind of person who very well does *have* the facts at hand, to which I am then inclined to believe that you've chosen such an misrepresentation intentionally for some rhetorical reason. There are Asian and African origin myths that are absolutely not based on Hebrew cosmology and posit noncyclical creation based on an ex nihlo act of some deity. The Rig Veda is contentious in Hinduism on this specific subject. There are innumerable examples as literally just googling the phrase shows. I dont think you were being intentionally deceptive. I know for such a presentation your time is limited and these briefly stated starting points were hardly the crux of your argument; but so is mine. If I watch an introduction to discussion and the presenter (whom I have little to no information on) immediately falters on some basic and widely known facts I think I'm warranted to be mighty suspicious in regards to the rest of what they say.
I think you are correct that we all start with certain presuppositions. But whatever you "presuppose" you cannot prove to someone who does not share your presupposition. I presuppose that reason can be used to gain understanding of reality. If you don't agree, we have no basis for a conversation about the nature of reality. By the way, I presuppose this because I literally have no choice. That is, I cannot conceive of a reality that does not work this way. On the other hand, I find I have no difficulty conceiving that God does not exist in reality.
It is not about debating which presuppositions are true, but rather exploring whether our presuppositions are internally consistent. A typical presup tautology would build like this : "If absolute truth exists, that you can know things can be true, that logic exists and that it is universal, not made of matter, and does not change." At any point in this build up, rejecting one destroys any shared preconditions for intelligibility. The presup is making an argument that this sort of transcendental argument is pointing to God, and specifically argues for the God of Holy Scripture.
@@FrSteveMacias 1) I never mentioned debating which presuppositions are true, so I'm not sure what that is responding to. 2) Even supposing that presuppositions (or perhaps you had mind "a worldview") should be internally consistent is itself a presupposition (and one I have myself, to be clear). 3) In my experience, all the arguments from Christian "presuppositionalists" bottom out into presuppositions that I do not share. Such as "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility, the laws of logic, etc.". I don't presuppose that, so I need an argument that entails that and that is never forthcoming.
@ FSM: you also need to presuppose that absolute truth is accessible to the human mind, a presupposition I reject. It's not necessary for intellegibility; nor the observation that logic doesn't give access to absolute truth either. For mathematicians (I'm a qualified and experienced teacher math and physics) it's very easy to prove the Theorem of Pythagoras and equally easy to disprove it, using logic. So much for absolute truth. Still ToS is highly intellegible.
@@FrSteveMacias "It is not about debating which presuppositions are true, but rather exploring whether our presuppositions are internally consistent. " I presuppose my presupposition to be internally consistent when I presuppose all you say it's wrong. Therefore you're wrong, always, and we shouldn't trust what you say. Don't you want to talk about "which presupposition are true" now? Can't you see the value, the purpose of engaging in that kind of discourse? "A typical presup tautology would build like this : "If absolute truth exists" IF. It seems your tautology doesn't start as a tautology, as in self-evident, if you have to call an IF. Now, can you demonstrate that there's something existing like "absolute truth" that isn't a definition we give? We don't want ending up using that IF as a SINCE, don't we? "that logic exists" Yes, logic exists because we formalized how thinking should be used as a tool and called it that. And we are still standing on that IF. "and that it is universal," Universal? There are various ways of "logicking", and there's the possibility some things will evade human logic forever, so no it's not "universal" as in appliable in every circumstance. And we are still standing on that IF. "not made of matter" Yes, it's "not made of matter" in the same way a soccer game isn't made of matter, because it's an activity not an entity. Logic is an activity entities engage in. And we are still standing on that IF. "At any point in this build up, rejecting one destroys any shared preconditions for intelligibility. " ... beacause I presuppose so. See why it isn't so much convincing to those who aren't convinced yet? And that IF now is used as a SINCE to get a THEREFORE. You can't do that. Or you can, IF you just want to be so open on dishonesty. Thought I had forgot you was still standing on an IF? And you call this "tautology"? Did you got philosophy degree with the mickey mouse mail course, the one you get with the point on cereals?
36:48 why did god create eve sinful then? Because without the knowledge of good and evil how could she have known that questioning god was sinful if god didn't build that as apart of her nature from creation?
I guess we're lucky we have your book to defend bible ideas. It's good seeing as you too realize the bible doesn't make any sense if we don't apply mental gymn... I mean, apologetics. And than presuppositional apologetics, the notorious factory of low bars and barrel's bottoms... (sorry, i usually don't bother going around to be jerky in theists channel. But YT algorithm won't stop pushing this on me so here's your interaction, bots. Now leave me alone)
17:42 ? What do you mean your beliefs aren't mythology? They are literally jewish mythology, unless the discussion of the inerrancy of the bible is to be had here which would also fundamentally break this idea down that its NOT mythology
29:15 All truth is circular? Im interested if this is applicable to none faith ideas to you or do you make special epistemology for faith instead of science?
Circular reasoning is inescapable in every domain of knowledge-consider something simple like Newton's First Law of Motion. Claim: Newton's First Law of Motion (Law of Inertia) is true because objects at rest remain stationary unless acted upon by an external force. Evidence: Empirical Observation - We observe that objects at rest tend to stay still unless something pushes or pulls on them. How this is circular: By interpreting the observation as evidence that supports Newton's First Law, we are essentially assuming the truth of the law itself in the process of making the observation. Are you able to suspend your belief in the reliability of your observation (test your evidence) or does your epistemology assume the reliability of empirical observation to be true? Or is there another standard outside of empirical observation that one may use to evaluate the reliability of empirical observation?
@FrSteveMacias I get that you teach apologetics, but does no voice in your head slap you on the wrist when you equate empirical evidence as being circular the same way people inventing a god is circular? All models are wrong, but some are useful. A map doesn't actually show the world as it exists the world simply exists as the way it is but maps help us understand the world. Similarly, gravity isn't just the ways we measure it, gravity is something separate that we verify with empirical evidence. Do tell, where is your empirical evidence for a space wizard god. And no, the bible isn't empirical evidence of a god, but simply of peoples belief in a god. Also in science there is a method for proving things wrong, infact the whole point of science is to try and PROVE a theory wrong, we have ways we can tell you of how to disprove the law of gravity or the theory of evolution or germ theory, or nuclear theory, but you aren't doing that. You are begging the question, you are already supposing God and have left no room to be proven wrong. If you have no room to be proven wrong then you are not making a testable claim and therefore it's not a logical conclusion to accept your premise in the absence of any methodology. God is unprovable and therefore unknowable. The voice in your head is your own, not a bronze age storm god.
@@FrSteveMacias I get that you teach apologetics, but does no voice in your head slap you on the wrist when you equate empirical evidence as being circular the same way people inventing a god is circular? All models are wrong, but some are useful. A map doesn't actually show the world as it exists the world simply exists as the way it is but maps help us understand the world. Similarly, gravity isn't just the ways we measure it, gravity is something separate that we verify with empirical evidence. Do tell, where is your empirical evidence for a space wizard god. And no, the bible isn't empirical evidence of a god, but simply of peoples belief in a god. Also in science there is a method for proving things wrong, infact the whole point of science is to try and PROVE a theory wrong, we have ways we can tell you of how to disprove the law of gravity or the theory of evolution or germ theory, or nuclear theory, but you aren't doing that. You are begging the question, you are already supposing God and have left no room to be proven wrong. If you have no room to be proven wrong then you are not making a testable claim and therefore it's not a logical conclusion to accept your premise in the absence of any methodology. God is unprovable and therefore unknowable. The voice in your head is your own, not a bronze age storm god.
4:23 again I think you are sorely mistaken about dating of Alexander the great because the first written accounts of Alexander the great were in the first century possibly as early as 30-70ad none of the christian texts can be confidential dated to be within 100 years of jesus. Most were written in the 2 and 3rd century along with most of those also survive gospels and books we call gnostic and are dismissed by Christians as heretical even though they are as old as any canon gospel account.
Add to that, when supernatural characteristics are attributed to Alexander we dismiss them. And not for presuppositions, but because we simply have no reasons to believe thme accurate.
25:20 I'm sorry, but faith systems don't OWN reason. And reason is often in conflict with faith especially when talking about bronze age faith against modern morals. Theres a reason we dont atone people to death and its not because the bible condemns it.
30:36 this has always been a funny idea to me, that if someone asked what would convince them and they answerer with something that could be explained by natural causes that somehow WE have outsmarted god and he can't overcome our internal logic 😂 IT'S GOD why have you made him so weak and small?
The truth doesn’t need apologetics, only religions
Do you think we can disprove square circles?
Square: a plane figure with four equal straight sides.
Circle: a plane figure with all points on its perimeter being equidistant to one single point, called "center".
This was hilarious satire.thanks for the laugh.
😬, indeed it was. ;)
Heh! I was wondering earlier today when a non-short video was going to be uploaded.
27:43 Sorry but again, no. Earth is habitable to life forms like us because we developed here. If the atmosphere was 0% oxygen then life developing on earth would obviously not use oxygen. If life was silicon based then obviously it wouldn't be carbon based. We are shaped by our environment, our environment wasn't shaped to host life as we know it now, that is the more accuratly the scientific understanding of the Goldilocks zone and other aspects of our "just so" existence.
"If the atmosphere was 0% oxygen then life developing on earth would obviously not use oxygen."
It actually happened. Oxygen in atmosphere is the waste product of early cyanobacteria, important part: bacteria. All the oxygen there was on earth formation went doing what oxygen do best: it oxydes everything (mostly silicon and iron) until it was all spent. The one we have is the extra, and we wouldn't have it if not for life.
@@kregorovillupo3625 u right, I saw it wasn't a great point after I posted it because I forgot how prebiotic conditions were anaerobic, however I think the point about carbon and silicon still conveys the gist well enough.
15:09 Speaking on cosmology here and then describing time while also talking about the expansion of the universe is very human but not accurate. Time isn't a single absolute thing, time is a feature of the universe in its current state.
12:29 "there is no beginning of greek mythology there is infinite regression" nope and you acknowledge that's not the case a moment later. The origin of it all is Chaos (the void). Wiki: "Chaos (Ancient Greek: χάος, romanized: Kháos) is the mythological void state preceding the creation of the universe (the cosmos) in ancient near eastern cosmology and early Greek cosmology. It can also refer to an early state of the cosmos constituted of nothing but undifferentiated and indistinguishable matter" but this void and chaos is thought of and talked about as having agency and decisions. It does not have a predecessor.
This was the Greek blunder, if 1) all causes have antecedent causes, and 2) the "material" of Chaos (void) is eternal, then there is no first cause that causes motion and change to exist in the first place. Plato's demiurge creates from Chaos, that is from pre-existing material (that came from...?) hence the paradox of infinite regression.
Which is why Christian cosmology demands an non-material, eternal prime mover to create the material world ex nihilo.
@@FrSteveMacias but if we can comfortably understand time as just a feature of the universe, not a primordial substance that stretches into Infinity, then this idea of a prime mover for the Big bang is fundamentally flawed, is it not? Time before the Big bang is kind of ridiculous in the same way that people tried to talk about time before God. So I'm wondering why a-priori you assume God to fill this Gap in your knowledge?
I'm sorry if some of my comments come across as indignant, I don't mean it that way. It's just an Earnest question, but too many times I've had people misconstrue my question for an attack and I just want to make sure that's not heard here. Thank you for your lecture, very much enjoying it!
3:37 Uh... Real quick Alexander the great was in the 330 bce... Definitely NOT a contemporary of a Christ figure. Also it's not accurate to say we have more evidence for Jesus than we do for Alexander the great because while there are some writings from the time that also mention a teacher killed by the Roman and Jewish authority we have actual physical EVIDENCE for the existence of Alexander and his actions.
Lee Strobel's argument is that the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death in 323 BC (hence contemporary with Christ), yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.
But my point here is that these sort of debates are secondary to real epistemological issues.
@@FrSteveMacias I'm sorry, but Lee looks to just simply be wrong here's two citations via Wiki on just a simple Google search.
"Diodorus
Bibliotheca historica (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Cleitarchus and Hieronymus of Cardia. It is the oldest surviving Greek source (1st century BC). Diodorus regarded Alexander like Caesar as a key historical figure and chronological marker.
Curtius
Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy. His work is fluidly written, but reveals ignorance of geography, chronology, and technical military knowledge, focusing instead on the character."
Both of these writings therefore predating all of the gospels... I understand the point being made here doesn't hinge on these details however, miss representing the historical and written evidence for Alexander the great to make the story of the gospels sound more palatable is what I'm sure you would call disingenuous. Unless I'm missing something major here it looks like your epistemology for writing your course should inherently now be much more sceptical of claims made by Lee on this point alone. There are LOTS of issues with the epistemology he presents in his book with special pleading around every corner but I recognize you aren't defending those ideas right now.
@@FrSteveMacias I'm sorry, but Lee looks to just simply be wrong here's two citations via Wiki on just a simple Google search.
"Diodorus
Bibliotheca historica (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Cleitarchus and Hieronymus of Cardia. It is the oldest surviving Greek source (1st century BC). Diodorus regarded Alexander like Caesar as a key historical figure and chronological marker.
Curtius
Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy. His work is fluidly written, but reveals ignorance of geography, chronology, and technical military knowledge, focusing instead on the character."
Both of these writings therefore predating all of the gospels... I understand the point being made here doesn't hinge on these details however, miss representing the historical and written evidence for Alexander the great to make the story of the gospels sound more palatable is what I'm sure you would call disingenuous. Unless I'm missing something major here it looks like your epistemology for writing your course should inherently now be much more sceptical of claims made by Lee on this point alone. There are LOTS of issues with the epistemology he presents in his book with special pleading around every corner but I recognize you aren't defending those ideas right now.
@@FrSteveMacias :/ my comment keeps disappearing
- I'm sorry, but Lee looks to just simply be wrong here's two citations via Wiki on just a simple Google search.
"Diodorus
Bibliotheca historica (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Cleitarchus and Hieronymus of Cardia. It is the oldest surviving Greek source (1st century BC). Diodorus regarded Alexander like Caesar as a key historical figure and chronological marker.
Curtius
Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy. His work is fluidly written, but reveals ignorance of geography, chronology, and technical military knowledge, focusing instead on the character."
Both of these writings therefore predating all of the gospels... I understand the point being made here doesn't hinge on these details however, miss representing the historical and written evidence for Alexander the great to make the story of the gospels sound more palatable is what I'm sure you would call disingenuous. Unless I'm missing something major here it looks like your epistemology for writing your course should inherently now be much more sceptical of claims made by Lee on this point alone. There are LOTS of issues with the epistemology he presents in his book with special pleading around every corner but I recognize you aren't defending those ideas right now.
My guy, please learn some modern cosmology. If you are going to be educating people and you utter "Physicists believe millions of years ago... maybe theyve expanded to billions of years" you are revealing you dont have an elementary school understanding of modern cosmology. The Big Crunch model? Absolutely not a common view, not in 40+ years. Secondly, the point about the universe not being cyclical and it is only a Hebrew view that claims an absolute beginning reveals an almost unbelievable naivete about origin stories the world over. I was watching trying to keep an open mind, but if you cant be bothered to accurately represent the ideas you are contrasting I have to pass, I can no longer believe you are being honest.
You seem like a nice guy, but if your intro is this fundamentally flawed on basic, googlable facts about opposing views its not worth watching further.
Appreciate the comment and I'm sure if you were here during the study, we'd have some fun discussions.
I'm generally dismissive of the epistemological relevance of the inflationary models in cosmology (whether the "bang" proposed was in the *millions* as first proposed a hundred years ago, or *billions* as proposed since Edwin Hubble) because they all fail to account for source of matter or to account for their assumption of metaphysical cognizance.
In other words, if the cosmic background radiation measured out the age of our current universe to a trillion years, I would first have to assume that such measurements are possible - which itself presupposes a rational and universal nature to matter that is coherent in time and space.
The point I'm trying to convey, perhaps poorly, is that these models do not claim to identify a single origin of the universe and do not solve our transcendental questions.
But these do presuppose certain metaphysical realities that aren't justified by empirical observation, pragmaticism, rationalism, idealism etc.
I'd be happy to stand corrected with another Ancient Culture that holds to an Ex Nihilo Cosmology? Of the major worldviews that I've studied in ancient philosophy the cyclical model (as most clearly represented in the Hellenistic traditions) certainly dominates all discussions. Certainly, many can and do borrow from the Hebrew cosmology.
@@FrSteveMacias I think your response about the timeline of the big bang being irrelevant to your point is entirely fair and well explained, and yet my point was about the tenor of your introduction... I hadn't made it to the content before being offput. It seemed like a flippant and almost intentional dismissal, possibly based on a lack of understanding, for comedic effect. If someone begins a discussion with an intentional misrepresentation of the basic facts of a view they are contrasting, it is hard to take the rest of what they have to say seriously. In a way, this was perhaps exacerbated in this case as you seem like the kind of person who very well does *have* the facts at hand, to which I am then inclined to believe that you've chosen such an misrepresentation intentionally for some rhetorical reason.
There are Asian and African origin myths that are absolutely not based on Hebrew cosmology and posit noncyclical creation based on an ex nihlo act of some deity. The Rig Veda is contentious in Hinduism on this specific subject. There are innumerable examples as literally just googling the phrase shows.
I dont think you were being intentionally deceptive. I know for such a presentation your time is limited and these briefly stated starting points were hardly the crux of your argument; but so is mine. If I watch an introduction to discussion and the presenter (whom I have little to no information on) immediately falters on some basic and widely known facts I think I'm warranted to be mighty suspicious in regards to the rest of what they say.
I think you are correct that we all start with certain presuppositions. But whatever you "presuppose" you cannot prove to someone who does not share your presupposition. I presuppose that reason can be used to gain understanding of reality. If you don't agree, we have no basis for a conversation about the nature of reality.
By the way, I presuppose this because I literally have no choice. That is, I cannot conceive of a reality that does not work this way. On the other hand, I find I have no difficulty conceiving that God does not exist in reality.
Well said
It is not about debating which presuppositions are true, but rather exploring whether our presuppositions are internally consistent.
A typical presup tautology would build like this : "If absolute truth exists, that you can know things can be true, that logic exists and that it is universal, not made of matter, and does not change." At any point in this build up, rejecting one destroys any shared preconditions for intelligibility. The presup is making an argument that this sort of transcendental argument is pointing to God, and specifically argues for the God of Holy Scripture.
@@FrSteveMacias 1) I never mentioned debating which presuppositions are true, so I'm not sure what that is responding to.
2) Even supposing that presuppositions (or perhaps you had mind "a worldview") should be internally consistent is itself a presupposition (and one I have myself, to be clear).
3) In my experience, all the arguments from Christian "presuppositionalists" bottom out into presuppositions that I do not share. Such as "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility, the laws of logic, etc.". I don't presuppose that, so I need an argument that entails that and that is never forthcoming.
@ FSM: you also need to presuppose that absolute truth is accessible to the human mind, a presupposition I reject. It's not necessary for intellegibility; nor the observation that logic doesn't give access to absolute truth either.
For mathematicians (I'm a qualified and experienced teacher math and physics) it's very easy to prove the Theorem of Pythagoras and equally easy to disprove it, using logic. So much for absolute truth. Still ToS is highly intellegible.
@@FrSteveMacias "It is not about debating which presuppositions are true, but rather exploring whether our presuppositions are internally consistent. "
I presuppose my presupposition to be internally consistent when I presuppose all you say it's wrong. Therefore you're wrong, always, and we shouldn't trust what you say. Don't you want to talk about "which presupposition are true" now? Can't you see the value, the purpose of engaging in that kind of discourse?
"A typical presup tautology would build like this : "If absolute truth exists"
IF. It seems your tautology doesn't start as a tautology, as in self-evident, if you have to call an IF. Now, can you demonstrate that there's something existing like "absolute truth" that isn't a definition we give? We don't want ending up using that IF as a SINCE, don't we?
"that logic exists"
Yes, logic exists because we formalized how thinking should be used as a tool and called it that. And we are still standing on that IF.
"and that it is universal,"
Universal? There are various ways of "logicking", and there's the possibility some things will evade human logic forever, so no it's not "universal" as in appliable in every circumstance. And we are still standing on that IF.
"not made of matter"
Yes, it's "not made of matter" in the same way a soccer game isn't made of matter, because it's an activity not an entity. Logic is an activity entities engage in. And we are still standing on that IF.
"At any point in this build up, rejecting one destroys any shared preconditions for intelligibility. "
... beacause I presuppose so. See why it isn't so much convincing to those who aren't convinced yet? And that IF now is used as a SINCE to get a THEREFORE. You can't do that. Or you can, IF you just want to be so open on dishonesty. Thought I had forgot you was still standing on an IF? And you call this "tautology"? Did you got philosophy degree with the mickey mouse mail course, the one you get with the point on cereals?
36:48 why did god create eve sinful then? Because without the knowledge of good and evil how could she have known that questioning god was sinful if god didn't build that as apart of her nature from creation?
Yeh, Eve was framed.
I guess we're lucky we have your book to defend bible ideas. It's good seeing as you too realize the bible doesn't make any sense if we don't apply mental gymn... I mean, apologetics. And than presuppositional apologetics, the notorious factory of low bars and barrel's bottoms...
(sorry, i usually don't bother going around to be jerky in theists channel. But YT algorithm won't stop pushing this on me so here's your interaction, bots. Now leave me alone)
17:42 ? What do you mean your beliefs aren't mythology? They are literally jewish mythology, unless the discussion of the inerrancy of the bible is to be had here which would also fundamentally break this idea down that its NOT mythology
29:15 All truth is circular? Im interested if this is applicable to none faith ideas to you or do you make special epistemology for faith instead of science?
Circular reasoning is inescapable in every domain of knowledge-consider something simple like Newton's First Law of Motion.
Claim: Newton's First Law of Motion (Law of Inertia) is true because objects at rest remain stationary unless acted upon by an external force.
Evidence: Empirical Observation - We observe that objects at rest tend to stay still unless something pushes or pulls on them.
How this is circular: By interpreting the observation as evidence that supports Newton's First Law, we are essentially assuming the truth of the law itself in the process of making the observation.
Are you able to suspend your belief in the reliability of your observation (test your evidence) or does your epistemology assume the reliability of empirical observation to be true? Or is there another standard outside of empirical observation that one may use to evaluate the reliability of empirical observation?
@FrSteveMacias I get that you teach apologetics, but does no voice in your head slap you on the wrist when you equate empirical evidence as being circular the same way people inventing a god is circular?
All models are wrong, but some are useful. A map doesn't actually show the world as it exists the world simply exists as the way it is but maps help us understand the world.
Similarly, gravity isn't just the ways we measure it, gravity is something separate that we verify with empirical evidence. Do tell, where is your empirical evidence for a space wizard god. And no, the bible isn't empirical evidence of a god, but simply of peoples belief in a god.
Also in science there is a method for proving things wrong, infact the whole point of science is to try and PROVE a theory wrong, we have ways we can tell you of how to disprove the law of gravity or the theory of evolution or germ theory, or nuclear theory, but you aren't doing that.
You are begging the question, you are already supposing God and have left no room to be proven wrong. If you have no room to be proven wrong then you are not making a testable claim and therefore it's not a logical conclusion to accept your premise in the absence of any methodology.
God is unprovable and therefore unknowable. The voice in your head is your own, not a bronze age storm god.
@@FrSteveMacias I get that you teach apologetics, but does no voice in your head slap you on the wrist when you equate empirical evidence as being circular the same way people inventing a god is circular?
All models are wrong, but some are useful. A map doesn't actually show the world as it exists the world simply exists as the way it is but maps help us understand the world.
Similarly, gravity isn't just the ways we measure it, gravity is something separate that we verify with empirical evidence. Do tell, where is your empirical evidence for a space wizard god. And no, the bible isn't empirical evidence of a god, but simply of peoples belief in a god.
Also in science there is a method for proving things wrong, infact the whole point of science is to try and PROVE a theory wrong, we have ways we can tell you of how to disprove the law of gravity or the theory of evolution or germ theory, or nuclear theory, but you aren't doing that.
You are begging the question, you are already supposing God and have left no room to be proven wrong. If you have no room to be proven wrong then you are not making a testable claim and therefore it's not a logical conclusion to accept your premise in the absence of any methodology.
God is unprovable and therefore unknowable. The voice in your head is your own, not a bronze age storm god.
4:23 again I think you are sorely mistaken about dating of Alexander the great because the first written accounts of Alexander the great were in the first century possibly as early as 30-70ad none of the christian texts can be confidential dated to be within 100 years of jesus. Most were written in the 2 and 3rd century along with most of those also survive gospels and books we call gnostic and are dismissed by Christians as heretical even though they are as old as any canon gospel account.
Add to that, when supernatural characteristics are attributed to Alexander we dismiss them. And not for presuppositions, but because we simply have no reasons to believe thme accurate.
@@kregorovillupo3625 Good point
25:20 I'm sorry, but faith systems don't OWN reason. And reason is often in conflict with faith especially when talking about bronze age faith against modern morals. Theres a reason we dont atone people to death and its not because the bible condemns it.
30:36 this has always been a funny idea to me, that if someone asked what would convince them and they answerer with something that could be explained by natural causes that somehow WE have outsmarted god and he can't overcome our internal logic 😂
IT'S GOD why have you made him so weak and small?
He can, but He doesn't will to.
@@AwesomeWholesome does god will for all men to be saved?