I’m not a fan of the as hoc comment. It was not an ad hoc statement in the Bible that God said about “Himself” that He is the “I Am”. Science has yet to define the “I Am” or the fundamental quality of existence. Science talks about virtual particles popping in and out of existence when they really should say, popping in and out of observability. We know so little. It boggles my mind to hear scientists talk about closing in on ultimate and final comprehension of a domain. So little humility.
I'm working on a documentary about 'life after death' and have been surprised by the lack of intellectual humility I've encountered when interviewing some scientists. What's particularly troubling is how they often dismiss and scoff people with broader perspectives as naive or silly. It's disheartening to see this closed-mindedness.
I love using a quote from a famous atheist here, "the problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves while wisemen remain full of doubt"
The thing I keep wondering is why we assume we are capable of comprehending God, or eternity, to form an accurate opinion in the first place. Are we not limited by the particular structures of our brains and senses? In much the same way, can a dolphin comprehend God? We certainly can’t comprehend existence in the same way that dolphin does.
... we can not assume to know....we can only have faith for lack of knowledge of the truth but for a good reason.... and many, including myself, who have sincere faith in a Loving GOD were shared with the light that made us understand GOD better...
A reasonable point, but the problem is not understanding complexity, rather the very simple and obvious contradictions between the idea of a loving God and the reality of the world eg.the problem of evil as expressed in Epicurus' paradox.
Humons live too much inside their heads. They have forgotten how to live in their hearts. Kindness, nurturing, and good will have been lost, and the world is now at a tipping point.
It seems we are locked into our particular perspective as a result of the particular laws that made us. Our understanding of reality fades on both ends of the scale in which we exist. Truly massive scales elude our comprehension, as does the truly small. Time scales beyond certain points become meaningless. Infinity is meaningless. In order to discuss any of these things, we must first break them down into concepts we can explain with our language, and there's the rub. Any explanations we understand are not those realities. Many scientific facts can only be described accurately using mathematics, and while we can find agreements between these facts, thus proving them to be true, we are locked out of all relatable understanding of the actual facts. They are not reality, just a representation of individual parts of it's function.
Event sequence requires three things: existence, time and things. If the state before the universe had no space time or things, it had no event sequence - until the first event. It is a definable state, however. No energy, no space, no time, no things and no event sequence. That's a definable if incomprehensible state. At a specific moment, for a probably inexplicable reason, something happened to bring the universe and the laws that govern it into space/time existence. Everything that has transpired since, including us, follows the natural laws and conditions in place at the absolute beginning. Everything (us included) is a distinct and yet deeply integrated part of the whole universe. It is us and we are it. The universe is everything that science says it is. It is self-aware (us and any other entities that are self-aware). It is continually evolving - changing its state according to the laws and rules that govern it. Are these comments refutable by any informed and educated person? I don't think so. So where does "God" come into this. I think that "God" is the self-contained, featureless state that existed before the universe, allowed it to come into being, gave it the laws and rules to develop over time and provide for us, or other self-aware beings to to be. The universe and "God" are separate but one, simultaneously. The problem of evil is not a problem but an inevitable product of self-awareness coupled with free-will. Nothing or nobody cares or is affected by our triumphs or failures but us. We are simultaneously, ultimately important and completely insignificant. The original self-conscious entity was the"God" of the state before everything and the "God" that watches, listens and experiences the past, current and future universe, through and outside of us. "God" mourns our loses and failures and celebrates our success and accomplishments. Nobody can prove or disprove my ideas about "God" existence or reality. These ideas are what I choose to believe to be true.
Very decent Q & A! As for people with spiritual experiences going "all the way", I would rather suggest that people with spiritual experiences can harbor different assumptions and intuitions. Most people can relate to a story of Newton puzzling about an apple landing on his head, or the taste of chocolate, or the puzzle of desiring a better description of "protons behaving like particles and waves". In a similar way there are thousands of people who can intuitively relate to anyone who claims to have been "out of their body, floating on the ceiling", "going through the tunnel" and or have experienced how everything is made out of love. People with spiritual experiences vary just like any population. Some wonder intentfully at the mysteries of gravity and material existence while looking at a cup on a table, while others, in their whole life, will never wonder. There are endless questions about spiritual realities that people with spiritual experiences do not "go all the way" with while others will tell you they met God, can tell you what God told them to tell you and for them thats all of it.
cosmological argument for causation of cosmos might include backward causation of time in future with causation of space into past (causation being the present)?
Grayling is an atheist and a materialist. Whether or not there is a god is a metaphysical question. Grayling’s leap of faith regarding ultimate reality is that there is no god or for that matter no aspects of reality we cannot perceive. Grayling posits a bleak and constrained reality. Seems to me we should have considerable humility given the vastness of reality. As it says in the Bible we see creation through a glass darkly. I can’t be sure but I choose to hope that there is an underlying good underlying creation, god!
"Why Evil and Suffering?" .. suffering and comfort can not destroy our immortal souls.... only losing faith or without faith in a loving GOD can hurt our immortal souls... ...pain and pleasure that we experience on earth are God-given hints that represent Heaven and Hell in the spiritual realm, for us to believe that there is a better or worse place out there hereafter, to hopefully believe in the existence of a loving GOD for our salvation.... ..our lost souls were not sent here for a vacation but to give as a chance to save ourselves from returning to emptiness (hell) by regaining our faith in a loving GOD...
At 86 the most evident thing on earth and the universe, is the presence of God in every quantic atom. It is childish to explain God with sacred books and religions. All emanates from the human fear of death, and the ambition of some, to build a ladder, to reach Heaven and become like God. My philosophy of Reality and Eternity is totally in a little poem that I composed some fifty years ago. It goes like this : ETERNITY : I have been the sky and I haver been the sea. I have been the wind and I have been the tree. This is how I know that I was, that I am, and that after I die, through my quantic atoms I will live in million of bodies, for million of years. This is REALITY for every living or not living creature. Michel Di Sclafani
I never understood the problem of evil. If you believe that you will live for eternity in heaven after death, then why does it matter that there is childhood cancer? The kid will die, then go to heaven and be happy forever. So, who cares?
It's clear Mr. Grayling has devoted his entire intellectual energy to repudiating theism. Men can repudiate almost anything. But they will be judged based on the quality of their repudiation.
Brahma Sutra with commentary by Sankara, Ramanuja, Sivananda. Upanisads with commentary by Sankara and Radhakrishnan. Plato's Parmenides translated by Thomas Taylor. Proclus exhaustive commentary on The Parmenides. These 4 vworks are the greatest texts that will guide one to the Heart center concerning God. Understanding nomenclature, the very science of naming things and defining things is imperative and is too recognizing the mind and limitations of. Methods in apophasis, retroduction(which follows the logic of via negativa), synthesis, and engaging into the dialectic(which isn't just simple critical thinking). People are trapped in their minds, right. It seems people are comfortable with their beliefs and don't actually want to put the time in to discover what the appellation of God refers to.
All of this spiritual study and it’s gotten you nowhere distinct from the common heathen, commenting in endless threads in service of your own vanity. Funny that.
@@o2xbthe Quran is wonderful. Scriptures used in religions come with negative karma and I try to avoid such. And seeking the truth of Allah, beyond the personal truth, one is required to let go of all beliefs, emotional attachments, familiarities, bias, and conditions of every kind. In studying the texts above it will only bring greater clarity to one who seeks to grasp the deeper truths of the scriptures religion uses. For the Brahma Sutra and Upanishads are not religious text or dogma, but for every man, regardless of class, caste, creed etc., a mirror of his very soul, pure and transcendent.
@S3RAVA3LM what you say for the uppanishads, you can say for the Quran. There is no negative karma associated with the worlds of Lord of all the worlds.
"Why We Can Not Know GOD, Why Faith?" ... our physical human vessels serve as shields to knowledge of our spiritual past existence, this is why we can not know GOD.. ...and the reason why we can only have faith is because it was losing faith in GOD's Love that we fell from Heaven and so, only by regaining our faith in a loving God, without knowing, that we all can return back HOME....
It's odd that we get to believe in God and not be dismissed out of hand, but just mention that you're an evidence-driven extraterrestrial researcher and you're dismissed as a weirdo.
Oddness and weirdness are deviations from conformity, not scientific terms. Science is not about conformity, God is. Believing in a divine entity that has its fingers in the machine is unreconcilable with reductionism. I think God and religion are good for society and people generally, but it has no place in science.
@@theydisintegratemany of the great scientist of the renaissance all believed in God. Many of the great philosophers of those times were also believers. Atheism is a very modern concept.
Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection).
@nypala Only if we accurately reasoned the entire infinity of the Deity. But even the Bible (one of Paul’s letters) says that our musing on God are partial knowledge, he likens it to seeing through muddy water (or stained glass, I forget his specific metaphor right now). But Paul says basically that all human knowledge of God is partial (including prophecies). So this kind of reasoning would not hold power over the actual God, who is infinitely greater than even the Bible can depict (being a finite book, for one)
If we knew god existed we wouldn’t live with true free will like we have not knowing either way. With that said, to think there’s no higher intelligence or power at work in the universe is crazy to me. Whether that power cares about us or not is a different story. I hope they do 😂
The guest argues that the universe is eternally present but at the same time argues against an eternally existing God. What is the logic or sense in his reasoning? I find none. His is a very hollowed argument. Scientific evidence from all directions point to the physical universe having a beginning of some sort.
@thomabow8949 I have replied to this post previously but I'm not seeing it in the thread. So I am trying to repost it. There is evidence that the celestial bodies are aging. Stars deplet their fuel, explod and die off. This regular occurrence does not support the claim that the universe has eternally existed. There has not been found any evidence that the universe is self sustaining.
We observe a universe. We don't observe a cause for it. If we can say that there can be eternally existing things, then we don't need to suppose a separate eternally existing unobserved cause, we can just suppose an eternally existing universe. He's not so much arguing for an eternally existing universe, he just thinks we can't exclude that option, and he's not so much arguing against a separate un caused cause or whatever he's just saying we have no evidence for such nor reason to suppose one.
@simonhibbs887 You are totally wrong. We observe a universe and the laws of physics we currently work with vehemently adjudicate a cause for the universe. For example, if a pressure is within a system, there has to be a source, a cause, of that pressure. It is as simple as that. If there is anything eternal, it has to work outside of the current laws of physics governing this physical universe because we have not observed anything of that sort in this universe. While it can be extrapulated that someting eternal has to be in existence, our current laws of physics do not accommodate such. So it has to work outside of the current laws. Simply put, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that this physical universe has eternally existed. It is not self sustaining - the stars deplete their fuel and they die after that. What more evidence is needed to prove that the universe is not self sustaining? It is also worth noting that those who once rediculed the concept of an eternally existing stuff are now being forced by observed facts to backtrack and adopt the very position they once trashed. They have even began fashioning a god of their own making. Fickle, isn't it?
Remember that "God" is a thing that has been defined by individuals and cultures over the millennia - often shaped to serve their own needs at the time. If one strips away the cultural practices and institutions and defines "God" in the simplest terms that can be in conformity with what is known about reality and existence, a totally different and much more possible "God" emerges.
I AGREE.. you are too unsmart to understand reality. You need a higher IQ to grasp dying is safe because captain kirk and Spock can access all of your memories with the USS Enterprise or a 1981 Delorean. Your memories physically exist at this moment.. if you can travel half as fast as entanglement. If you put a mirror 10 light years away.. you could see 20 years into the past.. and if anything surpasses light speed as 2022 nobel prize in physics does... Then memory is logical and reasonable as simultaneous block universe events. Idiots like Kuhn cannot grasp simple Einstein level science Dying is safe because memory is EXTERNAL. You'll be more convinced AFTER you're born to a smarter mom
Can you do arguments for Thanos and the Infinity Stones next? How about Superman? These stories are all also internally logically consistent and all in reference to the world we all inhabit. Can we start with, is there any evidence of this actually existing in reality instead of just internal logical consistency before even bothering with the family idiot's career choice to lie to children for a living?
One question. Why the disdain for those who believe in a "God" or a particular cultural definition of "God"? Your beliefs are yours alone. Prove to me that "God" in some form doesn't exist - I doubt you can, because every supportive or counter argument ends in speculation and/or hope. Whether secular or religious.
@@ronhudson3730 How much respect and value do we as a society give to people who claim that the Jedi Force is an actual fact of reality? Do you keep sitting next them on the bus? Do you trust them to teach your kids anything about reality in school at all? You can acknowledge these people believe this and that is their culture. That's fine. There is zero respect for them when they transition from being a comicon fan to believing that Yoda and The Death Star actually exist. Oh prove to me that the Death Star and The Force don't exist. The Starwars stories are internally logically consistent and reference reality of our world. - I also doubt you can because you can't prove a negative (philosophy 101 if you ever bothered to take the class) No difference for religious claims about the actual existence of the supernatural, healing spells cast through mantras chanted, etc. Religious people are just comicon nerds that dove too deep into their favorite comic book and now can't tell the difference from their comic book and reality.
@@ronhudson3730 Why the disdain? Seriously? Let's say you find yourself on a bus sitting next to a grown man wearing a Jedi costume. He's just heading out to the local Comicon event; Good guy; just likes to geek out about his favorite fantasy series; know's way too much about the subject matter. Just a harmless eccentric guy. Now he tells you that "The Force" actually is real, that there actually is an intergalactic battle going on between the Rebel Alliance and the Empire, that the Death Star is real, and he can manifest lighting bolts out of his finger tips and move objects with his mind. How much respect do you give this person now? This grown man who believes this. Now here's grown men that geek out about their favorite 1st century cultural myths in a collection of books called the bible. Okay fine, but they actually think the god in these stories is the good guy, not thanos. Okay bit of a moral failing there. Oh it gets worse, they actually believe that thanos is real, that they can perform cultural ritual practices to channel thano's powers to heal and curse people. They actually believe healing spells exist, that magic exists, that ghosts and witches exist. They believe this to the point where they are willing to kill any witch they find, they are willing to kidnap indigenous children from tribes on every continent on this planet in order to "save their souls", they are willing to perform any wicked act against humanity to serve thanos (nothing is off limits since their moral reference point for "good" is what thanos declares, not humanity). So why the disdain? Abrahamic religions are not some cute and cuddly benign fan base of fantasy. And these abrahamic religious cultures live by the golden rule, which is immoral. They believe to treat others the way they would want to be treated. Well guess what? Not everyone wants to be treated by the moral standards and values of Thanos and his sycophant followers. Abrahamic moral teachings and culture is not universal to all of humanity for how everyone else feels and receives love and respect. The Golden Rule allows these morons to believe they have a divine right to impose their moral standards and culture on everyone regardless of all the other cultural diversity of the world. They are mandated and morally directed to make the world into their thanos culture. And thus you get religious wars, moral justifications of forced conversions, etc. because these abrahamic cultures believe that they would feel loved if they were taken from their heathen families and had their souls saved by being raised in christian/jewish/muslim families and orphanages and schools through forced conversion. To everyone else, that's crimes against humanity.
... arguing each other may squeeze out the better or best idea, or sensible belief, that can free one from the stoopidity of staring at Darwin's IGUANA as the Original Mama...
1. Proof it 2. By using the "create " you are already intruding your bias. Existences may not be created. Wow probably they just exist. Nobody created the PI constant or the prime numbers.
@bbravoo Take whatever you like to the extreme interpretation of whatever is being said, and you end up with the ridiculous. The simple message is that talking about how things came into existence is a whole lot different to the emergence of that existence, and that includes your own existence.
@@bbravoo For instance, talking about the weather won't help you understand it until you experience it. Taking about existence or how it came into being is not the same as living it. We ignore what is important and argue over the detail.
Diverse is really understating the situation. It's almost like they were designed to satisfy the varied cultural needs of different areas. Even blending with local beliefs to create their own take on the subject.
This guy seems to violate some basic principles of philosophical reasoning. Like deciding what is true and backfilling the story. His casual dismissal of the cosmological argument seems to lack any actual substance. I wish I could have such blind faith. You're going to have to do a little more than that.
God. A one-time mortal, next higher than Lord God ruler over all the people on earth, and in the lower heavens, for a season. Lord God. A one-time mortal, next higher than Lord, ruler over part of the people on earth and the lower heavens, for a season. Lord. A one-time mortal, ruler over part of the people on earth for a season. God said: I am, as any other spirit of the dead, a one-time man upon the earth, thy elder brother of tens of thousands of years' experience. Distinguish, then, that the twain God and The Creator are not the same one. No more is thy God than what thou shalt be in time to come, and all angels, the Gods and Lords and generals and captains and chiefs in heaven are but the brothers and sisters of mortals and the spirits of the dead; and none of these, however exalted, can create Life or Motion or an Individual or Person. These are from The Great Spirit, The Creator.
This channel must be running out of material to even be taking the word "God" seriously and pretending to wonder "if God exists". Please. How embarrassing.
Why the need to argue God's existence? If God were real wouldn't his actions be evident for everyone to see? Instead we see earthquakes, sickness, and war. Hello, 911 call to God. Are you there? Out to lunch? Do you exist at all? 😢
For further information, see my response to @russel6011 above. Is it so hard to be nice and allow people their own beliefs without the denigrating sarcasm?
Don't forget: There is sickness, therefore there are doctors. There are wars, and also Hero's. There are earthquakes and balances also. The good transcends the material. So the wise ones acknowledged. Matter they equated to evil, but this evil is not something in itself, but the lack of something, this being The Good, as a shadow is a lack of light. There is a direction for man to go, but this requires as prerequisite, in unlearning everything one thinks they know. Your initial postulation here recognizes the lack of Good in certain respects regarding the finite existential life while you precluded The Good altogether. The great Philosopher's discuss all of this. Imagine two species who are mad, each wanting absolute control, therefore is incurred a war. Is war in itself evil or the 2 species mad. If the 2 sides sought out knowledge and wisdom , would there even arise a war. There, too, are righteous wars to be fought and with just reason.
Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection)…….
Specific gods can be dismissed much easier For example, the old testament God is petty, misogynist, prone to anger and a lot of other things that make it unfit for a perfect being Allah inherited a lot of those attributes. Like being obsessed with some foods,
Anything that has a beginning, had a cause. The universe has a beginning so it has a cause. What caused the beginning? - It began from nothing ❌ - It began itself ❌ - the beginning was caused by something which had another cause ❌ - it was caused by something which was uncaused 💯 👍 The uncaused cause is God!
@@SuatUstelHe defined god as an exception to the rule by being uncaused. Of course that renders the argument self contradictory which is a different kind of invalid.
@@simonhibbs887 This is the same kind of argument as the one from our last conversation in which you corrected step 4 by replacing being with cause. It was completely unclear why such a correction would invalidate the argument, and you didn't explain it. Now, when you have practically the same argument but which uses the term cause, you dismiss it as contradictory. It would be interesting to hear why.
@@kitstamat9356 In that last case I wasn't replacing being with cause. The person who wrote the list added in a being. That's what step 4 was doing. I was just asking what the basis was for doing so. In this case I think the OP comment has been edited. Not sure. Anyway, as it stands the author gives no reasons for picking any particular options on the list.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes, if you start with "Everything has a cause" you end up with an inconsistency, but this argument is correctly formulated - from the time I read it, there is no contradiction in it. The reasons for excluding all but the last logical possibility are intuitively quite obvious.
@robrn1975 What do you mean by the word soul? Imagining being without something that you can not point to or describe is just nonsense. It's like asking whether someone has a heart. You don't mean their physical heart, even though you can point to it, but the nature of that person. What do you mean in your use of the word soul?
I've watched dozens of these videos and I never cease to be amazed about how slow the auto-focus feature is on their camera.
I’m not a fan of the as hoc comment. It was not an ad hoc statement in the Bible that God said about “Himself” that He is the “I Am”. Science has yet to define the “I Am” or the fundamental quality of existence. Science talks about virtual particles popping in and out of existence when they really should say, popping in and out of observability. We know so little. It boggles my mind to hear scientists talk about closing in on ultimate and final comprehension of a domain. So little humility.
It boggles my mind to hear theologians talk about closing in on an ultimate and final comprehension of a domain. So little humility.
There are definitely theologians with little humility. That does negate the comment however
I'm working on a documentary about 'life after death' and have been surprised by the lack of intellectual humility I've encountered when interviewing some scientists. What's particularly troubling is how they often dismiss and scoff people with broader perspectives as naive or silly. It's disheartening to see this closed-mindedness.
I love using a quote from a famous atheist here, "the problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves while wisemen remain full of doubt"
@ Proverbs 14:15 “The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.”
The thing I keep wondering is why we assume we are capable of comprehending God, or eternity, to form an accurate opinion in the first place. Are we not limited by the particular structures of our brains and senses? In much the same way, can a dolphin comprehend God? We certainly can’t comprehend existence in the same way that dolphin does.
... we can not assume to know....we can only have faith for lack of knowledge of the truth but for a good reason.... and many, including myself, who have sincere faith in a Loving GOD were shared with the light that made us understand GOD better...
A reasonable point, but the problem is not understanding complexity, rather the very simple and obvious contradictions between the idea of a loving God and the reality of the world eg.the problem of evil as expressed in Epicurus' paradox.
I like the way A.C. Grayling thinks. Bring on Graham Oppy to the mix.
Humons live too much inside their heads. They have forgotten how to live in their hearts. Kindness, nurturing, and good will have been lost, and the world is now at a tipping point.
It seems we are locked into our particular perspective as a result of the particular laws that made us. Our understanding of reality fades on both ends of the scale in which we exist. Truly massive scales elude our comprehension, as does the truly small. Time scales beyond certain points become meaningless. Infinity is meaningless. In order to discuss any of these things, we must first break them down into concepts we can explain with our language, and there's the rub. Any explanations we understand are not those realities. Many scientific facts can only be described accurately using mathematics, and while we can find agreements between these facts, thus proving them to be true, we are locked out of all relatable understanding of the actual facts. They are not reality, just a representation of individual parts of it's function.
Event sequence requires three things: existence, time and things. If the state before the universe had no space time or things, it had no event sequence - until the first event. It is a definable state, however. No energy, no space, no time, no things and no event sequence. That's a definable if incomprehensible state. At a specific moment, for a probably inexplicable reason, something happened to bring the universe and the laws that govern it into space/time existence. Everything that has transpired since, including us, follows the natural laws and conditions in place at the absolute beginning. Everything (us included) is a distinct and yet deeply integrated part of the whole universe. It is us and we are it. The universe is everything that science says it is. It is self-aware (us and any other entities that are self-aware). It is continually evolving - changing its state according to the laws and rules that govern it. Are these comments refutable by any informed and educated person? I don't think so. So where does "God" come into this. I think that "God" is the self-contained, featureless state that existed before the universe, allowed it to come into being, gave it the laws and rules to develop over time and provide for us, or other self-aware beings to to be. The universe and "God" are separate but one, simultaneously. The problem of evil is not a problem but an inevitable product of self-awareness coupled with free-will. Nothing or nobody cares or is affected by our triumphs or failures but us. We are simultaneously, ultimately important and completely insignificant. The original self-conscious entity was the"God" of the state before everything and the "God" that watches, listens and experiences the past, current and future universe, through and outside of us. "God" mourns our loses and failures and celebrates our success and accomplishments. Nobody can prove or disprove my ideas about "God" existence or reality. These ideas are what I choose to believe to be true.
If you cannot call it God without qoutation marks, whu not call it anything else?
Perhaps call it a Floopsie. Or a Flippety. Or a Ragnack.
Very decent Q & A!
As for people with spiritual experiences going "all the way", I would rather suggest that people with spiritual experiences can harbor different assumptions and intuitions.
Most people can relate to a story of Newton puzzling about an apple landing on his head, or the taste of chocolate, or the puzzle of desiring a better description of "protons behaving like particles and waves". In a similar way there are thousands of people who can intuitively relate to anyone who claims to have been "out of their body, floating on the ceiling", "going through the tunnel" and or have experienced how everything is made out of love.
People with spiritual experiences vary just like any population. Some wonder intentfully at the mysteries of gravity and material existence while looking at a cup on a table, while others, in their whole life, will never wonder. There are endless questions about spiritual realities that people with spiritual experiences do not "go all the way" with while others will tell you they met God, can tell you what God told them to tell you and for them thats all of it.
Thanks
cosmological argument for causation of cosmos might include backward causation of time in future with causation of space into past (causation being the present)?
Grayling is an atheist and a materialist. Whether or not there is a god is a metaphysical question. Grayling’s leap of faith regarding ultimate reality is that there is no god or for that matter no aspects of reality we cannot perceive. Grayling posits a bleak and constrained reality. Seems to me we should have considerable humility given the vastness of reality. As it says in the Bible we see creation through a glass darkly. I can’t be sure but I choose to hope that there is an underlying good underlying creation, god!
"Why Evil and Suffering?"
.. suffering and comfort can not destroy our immortal souls.... only losing faith or without faith in a loving GOD can hurt our immortal souls...
...pain and pleasure that we experience on earth are God-given hints that represent Heaven and Hell in the spiritual realm, for us to believe that there is a better or worse place out there hereafter, to hopefully believe in the existence of a loving GOD for our salvation....
..our lost souls were not sent here for a vacation but to give as a chance to save ourselves from returning to emptiness (hell) by regaining our faith in a loving GOD...
historical arguments for God are human (anthropomorphic), not divine?
Argument about God never approach true. Brains keep out perfect pictures about God absolutetly reality.
At 86 the most evident thing on earth and the universe, is the presence of God in every quantic atom. It is childish to explain God with sacred books and religions. All emanates from the human fear of death, and the ambition of some, to build a ladder, to reach Heaven and become like God. My philosophy of Reality and Eternity is totally in a little poem that I composed some fifty years ago. It goes like this : ETERNITY : I have been the sky and I haver been the sea. I have been the wind and I have been the tree. This is how I know that I was, that I am, and that after I die, through my quantic atoms I will live in million of bodies, for million of years. This is REALITY for every living or not living creature. Michel Di Sclafani
I never understood the problem of evil. If you believe that you will live for eternity in heaven after death, then why does it matter that there is childhood cancer? The kid will die, then go to heaven and be happy forever. So, who cares?
It's clear Mr. Grayling has devoted his entire intellectual energy to repudiating theism. Men can repudiate almost anything. But they will be judged based on the quality of their repudiation.
Brahma Sutra with commentary by Sankara, Ramanuja, Sivananda.
Upanisads with commentary by Sankara and Radhakrishnan.
Plato's Parmenides translated by Thomas Taylor.
Proclus exhaustive commentary on The Parmenides.
These 4 vworks are the greatest texts that will guide one to the Heart center concerning God.
Understanding nomenclature, the very science of naming things and defining things is imperative and is too recognizing the mind and limitations of.
Methods in apophasis, retroduction(which follows the logic of via negativa), synthesis, and engaging into the dialectic(which isn't just simple critical thinking).
People are trapped in their minds, right. It seems people are comfortable with their beliefs and don't actually want to put the time in to discover what the appellation of God refers to.
All of this spiritual study and it’s gotten you nowhere distinct from the common heathen, commenting in endless threads in service of your own vanity. Funny that.
@@asyetundetermined oh is that right
@S3RAVA3LM what about the Quran?
@@o2xbthe Quran is wonderful.
Scriptures used in religions come with negative karma and I try to avoid such. And seeking the truth of Allah, beyond the personal truth, one is required to let go of all beliefs, emotional attachments, familiarities, bias, and conditions of every kind. In studying the texts above it will only bring greater clarity to one who seeks to grasp the deeper truths of the scriptures religion uses. For the Brahma Sutra and Upanishads are not religious text or dogma, but for every man, regardless of class, caste, creed etc., a mirror of his very soul, pure and transcendent.
@S3RAVA3LM what you say for the uppanishads, you can say for the Quran. There is no negative karma associated with the worlds of Lord of all the worlds.
So many gods, so little time.
"Why We Can Not Know GOD, Why Faith?"
... our physical human vessels serve as shields to knowledge of our spiritual past existence, this is why we can not know GOD..
...and the reason why we can only have faith is because it was losing faith in GOD's Love that we fell from Heaven and so, only by regaining our faith in a loving God, without knowing, that we all can return back HOME....
It's odd that we get to believe in God and not be dismissed out of hand, but just mention that you're an evidence-driven extraterrestrial researcher and you're dismissed as a weirdo.
Oddness and weirdness are deviations from conformity, not scientific terms. Science is not about conformity, God is. Believing in a divine entity that has its fingers in the machine is unreconcilable with reductionism. I think God and religion are good for society and people generally, but it has no place in science.
Humans eh? What can you do.
@@theydisintegratemany of the great scientist of the renaissance all believed in God. Many of the great philosophers of those times were also believers. Atheism is a very modern concept.
Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection).
...or ghosts. I've had the experiences. I know what I can hear.
If it were actually possible to prove the existence of God by reasoning, wouldn't it imply that reason had power over God?
Sorry, don’t buy that one. If I can prove Vladimir Putin has nuclear weapons, that doesn’t put them at my command.
@nypala Only if we accurately reasoned the entire infinity of the Deity. But even the Bible (one of Paul’s letters) says that our musing on God are partial knowledge, he likens it to seeing through muddy water (or stained glass, I forget his specific metaphor right now).
But Paul says basically that all human knowledge of God is partial (including prophecies). So this kind of reasoning would not hold power over the actual God, who is infinitely greater than even the Bible can depict (being a finite book, for one)
If we knew god existed we wouldn’t live with true free will like we have not knowing either way.
With that said, to think there’s no higher intelligence or power at work in the universe is crazy to me. Whether that power cares about us or not is a different story. I hope they do 😂
The guest argues that the universe is eternally present but at the same time argues against an eternally existing God. What is the logic or sense in his reasoning? I find none. His is a very hollowed argument. Scientific evidence from all directions point to the physical universe having a beginning of some sort.
What evidence is this?
@thomabow8949 Aging is one good evidence of that. Celestial bodies age and die . That does not support any claim of eternal existence.
@thomabow8949 I have replied to this post previously but I'm not seeing it in the thread. So I am trying to repost it.
There is evidence that the celestial bodies are aging. Stars deplet their fuel, explod and die off. This regular occurrence does not support the claim that the universe has eternally existed. There has not been found any evidence that the universe is self sustaining.
We observe a universe. We don't observe a cause for it. If we can say that there can be eternally existing things, then we don't need to suppose a separate eternally existing unobserved cause, we can just suppose an eternally existing universe. He's not so much arguing for an eternally existing universe, he just thinks we can't exclude that option, and he's not so much arguing against a separate un caused cause or whatever he's just saying we have no evidence for such nor reason to suppose one.
@simonhibbs887 You are totally wrong. We observe a universe and the laws of physics we currently work with vehemently adjudicate a cause for the universe. For example, if a pressure is within a system, there has to be a source, a cause, of that pressure. It is as simple as that. If there is anything eternal, it has to work outside of the current laws of physics governing this physical universe because we have not observed anything of that sort in this universe. While it can be extrapulated that someting eternal has to be in existence, our current laws of physics do not accommodate such. So it has to work outside of the current laws. Simply put, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that this physical universe has eternally existed. It is not self sustaining - the stars deplete their fuel and they die after that. What more evidence is needed to prove that the universe is not self sustaining?
It is also worth noting that those who once rediculed the concept of an eternally existing stuff are now being forced by observed facts to backtrack and adopt the very position they once trashed. They have even began fashioning a god of their own making. Fickle, isn't it?
I learned a lot about God after my encounter with Satan that I just learned the Nikola Tesla had exactly the same experience I had.
God is One. Not two. One.
The way God has been thought for thousands of years is no longer convincing and religious ideas about God do not do justice to metaphysical infinity.
Remember that "God" is a thing that has been defined by individuals and cultures over the millennia - often shaped to serve their own needs at the time. If one strips away the cultural practices and institutions and defines "God" in the simplest terms that can be in conformity with what is known about reality and existence, a totally different and much more possible "God" emerges.
I AGREE.. you are too unsmart to understand reality. You need a higher IQ to grasp dying is safe because captain kirk and Spock can access all of your memories with the USS Enterprise or a 1981 Delorean.
Your memories physically exist at this moment.. if you can travel half as fast as entanglement.
If you put a mirror 10 light years away.. you could see 20 years into the past.. and if anything surpasses light speed as 2022 nobel prize in physics does...
Then memory is logical and reasonable as simultaneous block universe events.
Idiots like Kuhn cannot grasp simple Einstein level science
Dying is safe because memory is EXTERNAL.
You'll be more convinced AFTER you're born to a smarter mom
Can you do arguments for Thanos and the Infinity Stones next? How about Superman? These stories are all also internally logically consistent and all in reference to the world we all inhabit. Can we start with, is there any evidence of this actually existing in reality instead of just internal logical consistency before even bothering with the family idiot's career choice to lie to children for a living?
One question. Why the disdain for those who believe in a "God" or a particular cultural definition of "God"? Your beliefs are yours alone. Prove to me that "God" in some form doesn't exist - I doubt you can, because every supportive or counter argument ends in speculation and/or hope. Whether secular or religious.
@@ronhudson3730 How much respect and value do we as a society give to people who claim that the Jedi Force is an actual fact of reality? Do you keep sitting next them on the bus? Do you trust them to teach your kids anything about reality in school at all? You can acknowledge these people believe this and that is their culture. That's fine. There is zero respect for them when they transition from being a comicon fan to believing that Yoda and The Death Star actually exist. Oh prove to me that the Death Star and The Force don't exist. The Starwars stories are internally logically consistent and reference reality of our world. - I also doubt you can because you can't prove a negative (philosophy 101 if you ever bothered to take the class) No difference for religious claims about the actual existence of the supernatural, healing spells cast through mantras chanted, etc. Religious people are just comicon nerds that dove too deep into their favorite comic book and now can't tell the difference from their comic book and reality.
@@ronhudson3730 Prove to me that God, in some form, does exist, and then we can work from there
@@ronhudson3730
Why the disdain for Thanos?
@@ronhudson3730 Why the disdain? Seriously? Let's say you find yourself on a bus sitting next to a grown man wearing a Jedi costume. He's just heading out to the local Comicon event; Good guy; just likes to geek out about his favorite fantasy series; know's way too much about the subject matter. Just a harmless eccentric guy. Now he tells you that "The Force" actually is real, that there actually is an intergalactic battle going on between the Rebel Alliance and the Empire, that the Death Star is real, and he can manifest lighting bolts out of his finger tips and move objects with his mind. How much respect do you give this person now? This grown man who believes this.
Now here's grown men that geek out about their favorite 1st century cultural myths in a collection of books called the bible. Okay fine, but they actually think the god in these stories is the good guy, not thanos. Okay bit of a moral failing there. Oh it gets worse, they actually believe that thanos is real, that they can perform cultural ritual practices to channel thano's powers to heal and curse people. They actually believe healing spells exist, that magic exists, that ghosts and witches exist. They believe this to the point where they are willing to kill any witch they find, they are willing to kidnap indigenous children from tribes on every continent on this planet in order to "save their souls", they are willing to perform any wicked act against humanity to serve thanos (nothing is off limits since their moral reference point for "good" is what thanos declares, not humanity). So why the disdain? Abrahamic religions are not some cute and cuddly benign fan base of fantasy.
And these abrahamic religious cultures live by the golden rule, which is immoral. They believe to treat others the way they would want to be treated. Well guess what? Not everyone wants to be treated by the moral standards and values of Thanos and his sycophant followers. Abrahamic moral teachings and culture is not universal to all of humanity for how everyone else feels and receives love and respect. The Golden Rule allows these morons to believe they have a divine right to impose their moral standards and culture on everyone regardless of all the other cultural diversity of the world. They are mandated and morally directed to make the world into their thanos culture. And thus you get religious wars, moral justifications of forced conversions, etc. because these abrahamic cultures believe that they would feel loved if they were taken from their heathen families and had their souls saved by being raised in christian/jewish/muslim families and orphanages and schools through forced conversion. To everyone else, that's crimes against humanity.
No argument can create an existence, and neither can an argument create your own existence. So don't argue.
... arguing each other may squeeze out the better or best idea, or sensible belief, that can free one from the stoopidity of staring at Darwin's IGUANA as the Original Mama...
1. Proof it
2. By using the "create " you are already intruding your bias. Existences may not be created. Wow probably they just exist. Nobody created the PI constant or the prime numbers.
@bbravoo Take whatever you like to the extreme interpretation of whatever is being said, and you end up with the ridiculous. The simple message is that talking about how things came into existence is a whole lot different to the emergence of that existence, and that includes your own existence.
@@bbravoo For instance, talking about the weather won't help you understand it until you experience it. Taking about existence or how it came into being is not the same as living it. We ignore what is important and argue over the detail.
Diverse is really understating the situation. It's almost like they were designed to satisfy the varied cultural needs of different areas. Even blending with local beliefs to create their own take on the subject.
See plantinga.
This guy seems to violate some basic principles of philosophical reasoning. Like deciding what is true and backfilling the story. His casual dismissal of the cosmological argument seems to lack any actual substance. I wish I could have such blind faith. You're going to have to do a little more than that.
God. A one-time mortal, next higher than Lord God ruler over all the people on earth, and in the lower heavens, for a season.
Lord God. A one-time mortal, next higher than Lord, ruler over part of the people on earth and the lower heavens, for a season.
Lord. A one-time mortal, ruler over part of the people on earth for a season.
God said: I am, as any other spirit of the dead, a one-time man upon the earth, thy elder brother of tens of thousands of years' experience. Distinguish, then, that the twain God and The Creator are not the same one. No more is thy God than what thou shalt be in time to come, and all angels, the Gods and Lords and generals and captains and chiefs in heaven are but the brothers and sisters of mortals and the spirits of the dead; and none of these, however exalted, can create Life or Motion or an Individual or Person. These are from The Great Spirit, The Creator.
Words. Lots of words.
Herman Philipse has classified all used arguments for God. "God in an Age of Science?" (search for the book). He did literally this.
This channel must be running out of material to even be taking the word "God" seriously and pretending to wonder "if God exists". Please. How embarrassing.
George Burns is god.
and diverse arguments for no God.
Why the need to argue God's existence? If God were real wouldn't his actions be evident for everyone to see? Instead we see earthquakes, sickness, and war. Hello, 911 call to God. Are you there? Out to lunch? Do you exist at all? 😢
For further information, see my response to @russel6011 above. Is it so hard to be nice and allow people their own beliefs without the denigrating sarcasm?
Don't forget:
There is sickness, therefore there are doctors.
There are wars, and also Hero's.
There are earthquakes and balances also.
The good transcends the material. So the wise ones acknowledged. Matter they equated to evil, but this evil is not something in itself, but the lack of something, this being The Good, as a shadow is a lack of light.
There is a direction for man to go, but this requires as prerequisite, in unlearning everything one thinks they know.
Your initial postulation here recognizes the lack of Good in certain respects regarding the finite existential life while you precluded The Good altogether.
The great Philosopher's discuss all of this.
Imagine two species who are mad, each wanting absolute control, therefore is incurred a war. Is war in itself evil or the 2 species mad.
If the 2 sides sought out knowledge and wisdom , would there even arise a war. There, too, are righteous wars to be fought and with just reason.
0:49 zeus didn't like that
God ran away when men printed dollars.
Not good old pounds sterling. Only dollars. Tells you what you need to know. 😅
@@simonhibbs887 because he read it on the dollar... 'In God we trust'.
Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection)…….
"...as literacy revived in the Medieval Period..." it's like Dr. Grayling doesn't even know what the Quran is
Specific gods can be dismissed much easier
For example, the old testament God is petty, misogynist, prone to anger and a lot of other things that make it unfit for a perfect being
Allah inherited a lot of those attributes. Like being obsessed with some foods,
Anything that has a beginning, had a cause.
The universe has a beginning so it has a cause.
What caused the beginning?
- It began from nothing ❌
- It began itself ❌
- the beginning was caused by something which had another cause ❌
- it was caused by something which was uncaused 💯 👍
The uncaused cause is God!
No no no. Your principles applies to God itself!!!!
@@SuatUstelHe defined god as an exception to the rule by being uncaused. Of course that renders the argument self contradictory which is a different kind of invalid.
@@simonhibbs887 This is the same kind of argument as the one from our last conversation in which you corrected step 4 by replacing being with cause. It was completely unclear why such a correction would invalidate the argument, and you didn't explain it. Now, when you have practically the same argument but which uses the term cause, you dismiss it as contradictory. It would be interesting to hear why.
@@kitstamat9356 In that last case I wasn't replacing being with cause. The person who wrote the list added in a being. That's what step 4 was doing. I was just asking what the basis was for doing so.
In this case I think the OP comment has been edited. Not sure. Anyway, as it stands the author gives no reasons for picking any particular options on the list.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes, if you start with "Everything has a cause" you end up with an inconsistency, but this argument is correctly formulated - from the time I read it, there is no contradiction in it. The reasons for excluding all but the last logical possibility are intuitively quite obvious.
Do you have a soul?
You make it sound like an attachment or an add-on.
@SillyHumons do u have one ?
@@robrn1975 Do you?
@@SillyHumons of course . Imagine being soulless
@robrn1975 What do you mean by the word soul? Imagining being without something that you can not point to or describe is just nonsense. It's like asking whether someone has a heart. You don't mean their physical heart, even though you can point to it, but the nature of that person. What do you mean in your use of the word soul?