Видео

Conceivability does not entail metaphysical possibility (and is self-defeating), so the entire argument is done.

I was very blessed by this, thank you and God bless!

Social Trinity? You mean Cappadocian Trinity. The Cappadocian Trinity is the Trinitarian teaching accepted by the council's....not Augustine's view. The Nicene Creed is explicit. " We believe in One God, the Father Almighty". He is the true God from which the other 2 Persons of the Trinity have as their Source.

Unitarianism = Problem solved.

I think that logic and the other branches of mathematics are what Wittgeinstein calls family resemblance. Mathematics is a broad field, and I personally think that Logic is a branch of Mathematics and not the other way around. I think logic is a part of mathematics that studies the consistency and coherency of Mathematics. True meaning that it is consistent with the structure and axioms that we have laid down, and false being that it is inconsistent with the structure and axioms laid down. Logic is a description of a structure, but is not the structure itself. It is a verification tool. Logic cannot tell you what is a circle. We use geometry for that. It can tell you though using geometry if a thing is consistent with the properties of a circle. It really seems like a folly to reduce everything in mathematics into logic.

What a silly title to the clip! 😂

Natura non formalis

How is the fine tuning powerful when what you have to do to land on one ofthe infite set of desires to actualize some constants (life permitting) over another require you to build into the hypothesis, the intentions and characteristics of that being wuich comes completelyfrom thin cloth? You uave to introduce auxiliary hypothesis about what kind of being god is and from there its just really interesting to take the explanandum and bake it into your explanans under the guise that god desires that explanandum to obtain. Its just the same brute contingent charge on the level of why gods desires for some constants rather than some other or none at all. Such a boring argument. Ill just do the samething with naturalistic dispositions and call it powerful.

Does any body really think the fundamental reality is anything like what we see and what we get through our senses. Nothing at all, we need to give it up on physicalism, materialismnis is bad shit cracy. Time and space are not fundamental. A theorie of everything is just not possible, but lets not stop to gain more and deeper Insights, lets just give up any claims that we know a lot or that we know the most. i mean 40 years of very expensive super accelerators and great mathematics we get the higgs Boson thats not a lot. We are like flat eathers who do not want to give up an obviously higly insufficient standard model.

I preffer the latin approach. Seems much more accurate in the bible. Jesus never said there are 3 different minds/wills in the Godhead

I think a thing just can’t be existent just by definition. If I say there are two concepts, Bigfoot and Rbigfoot, where RBigfoot is like Bigfoot in every way except real, that doesn’t make him real. I understand the idea of a necessary being is a bit more complicated but I don’t think it still suffers from the same kind of issue.

I think the counter-argument misunderstood the original argument. My son has a Lego set of a flower. If you describe every piece and how they all fit together, you have described the flower. There is no new information required. That shows that "flower" and "all Lego pieces arranged in a certain way" are the same two pieces of information and are probably ontologically equivalent. You can play the game where you say that on one level it's Lego pieces and on another level it's flower, but you don't need to have some spooky external extra ontology to make the flower exist. You don't have that with consciousness. I can have the knowledge of all the identities of all the neurons and their connections and that tells me nothing about the conscious experience (if any) that this particular collection of connected neurons has. Therefore, there is something else needed to know about the system besides the identities and connectome of the neurons. I don't know how saying that "maybe you can't know what that experience is unless you ARE that collection of neurons" disputes that. Yes, and that's because the two facts - collection of neurons and their experience - are two different facts.

The "Best" argument for God is "The FIne Tuning Argument". So the bar is THAT LOW!!!

Right

Language ≠ Comprehension

Unless I'm missing something I don't understand why the simulation argument is taken seriously. The moment you posit that our universe is not the "real" universe you immediately forfeit the ability to make probabilistic claims about the "real" universe. You have no idea how that universe works. The laws of physics could be completely different. So how could it ever be anything other than completely futile to start making claims about what is/isn't possible or probable in that other universe?

Words are social constructs.

Mankind (Sisyphus) working upon a boulder (many conditions of mortal life) will eventually discover the futility of those labors. God, working upon mankind, undoubtedly knows His efforts are mostly futile, but works upon us (all of us) anyway. Sadly, there is an untold number of us that will not reach heaven. For those souls, were God's efforts futile? In outcome yes, but in practice, no. When mortal man becomes a believer of God's word, and become doers of Gods work, they trade one exercise in futility for another. Anyone who has preached the Gospel has undoubtedly experienced the love, indignation, victory, and loss that is associated with trying to persuade people to aim higher. I literally feel like Sisyphus, but trading one boulder for another. What makes the latter boulder better is that it is a labor of love or anthropy vs narcissism. Love is more enduring than pleasure.

The Mary’s Room experiment raises many fascinating questions, but it proves nothing. One cannot assume that Mary knows all of the physical facts without assuming what is to be proven. After all, that’s what the experiment is trying to prove, namely that the Mary’s new experience is not a physical fact. One can assume that Mary knows all of the scientific facts, but then that does nothing to disprove physicalism.

consciousness is an emergent property of a brain (btw, oppy is generally right and humer is generally wrong)

There is more complexity in the unconscious parts of human cognition than the conscious. Converting all the different sensory input into perception, attention selecting what to attend to based on a whole host of things, memory selection, etc. etc. Consciousness is a pretty simple system of attending to the few things that are pushed to it, and directing attention. And you aren’t more conscious when you are quickly manipulating a lot of information than you are when you are spacing out staring at the wall (which isn’t manipulating much information). The connection between information complexity and consciousness breaks down pretty quickly when examined closely.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument came from Medieval Islamic scholars. (The contingency argument can also be traced to Medieval Islam, such as to Ibn Sina.) That's why it is named "kalam." Imam al-Ghazali actually gave arguments for why the universe was not eternal, he did not solely rely on revelation. I wish Dr. Kenny mentioned these important details.

Best God argument: fine tuning. If the natural constants can change, maybe they are different in other parts of the Universe, but we haven't observed those parts yet because they are greater than 14 billion light years away. The non-observable Universe is large enough to hold an infinite variety of areas with different physical values.

This sounds a lot like Hylomorphism and the prime matter + form distinction. PM on its own is pure potential and has no existence without form acting upon it - which makes me wonder what distinguishes it from the fundamental information and "structure" view here.

Jews did catch that, from what I've readen in other scholars. They saw God as having a masculine and a femenine aspect, apparently.

It looks to me that Mark Colyvan has a basic misunderstanding of Godel theorem when applied to an Universal Turing Machine (UTM) (as reported by Gregory Chaitin). Mark Colyvan point to an algorithmic solution which does not exist, since the problem is in the machine itself. You only can provide a particular a statement for a particular context and not an universal statement that will permit the UTM to overcome the Godel theorem once and for all. Human mind is NOT subject to the rules of a UTM. In other words sir Roger Penrose is right!

JOHN 14:2614:6, 3:3-5, THEN REPENT OF YOUR SINS, EAT THE FLESH AND DRINK THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST REVELATION 2:17, I RECEIVED A WHITE STONE, AS IT JUST MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARED IN MY KJV BIBLE, I RECEIVED A BIBLICAL MESSAGE 5/22/2020,STARTED NEW JOB AT DOING THE LORD’S WORK, SON OF MAN, FEEDING THE HUNGRY, SHALOM

When you say The Social Trinity is related to the Cappidocian Fathers, comes from a lack of knowledge and study. I recommend Nicaea and its Legacy by Ayres. Social Trinity is completely novel approach.

bro on the left has the deadliest combination. Obnoxious zoomer haircut and obnoxious millennial mustache. Crazy.

Chance transition os not an argument for a faulty position in my view.

The problem with the Mary's Room question is that the conclusion one draws depends primarily on the assumption that one brings into it. If physicalism is true, and Mary knows everything physical about the color red, then she would necessarily know what it is like to see red. So, if she knows all about red because it was magically fed into her brain, then she knows what it's like to see red by way of hallucination. If she knows about red because she studied it and tested it, then that would imply that she must have seen red, as a necessary part of her studies on red. In that case, given the premise of the thought experiment, she both knows red and does not know red. If one assumes substance dualism, then Mary's Room confirms substance dualism, for the reasons that are commonly discussed.

I propose that the Bible (in Gen 1 & 2) actually gives us a definition of what is essential to be persons and that it does so in terms of oneness. Gen 2 in the building of woman out of adam is showing us how adam and eve are not animals but are what we call persons. Adam is not complete (as the image of God) without eve and more especially without her being built out of him. If adam had found her amongst the animals it would have been because she was an animal. And by extension or implication so too adam would have been an animal. Remember adam is formed from the ground just as the animals are. If eve was found amongst the animals then she too must have been formed from the ground .. formed separately from the ground to adam. The assumption of the text is that eve is created differently to the animal females. Rather eve is built from adam. She is not separate to him. There is an essential oneness to them that the animals do not have. In fact the narrative is describing to us that to be persons (and to be in the image of God) there must be present this essential oneness. Thus there is given a definition of something that is essential to be persons. Persons must be of one essence. Persons must have this essential oneness that we see in the building of eve out of adam. Now the Gen story is answering Gen 1 how adam/Adam is the image of God, how adam is like God. In Gen 1 there are 2 parallel enigmas. How can God be described in both the singular and plural? And how can adam be described in both the singular and plural? The answer in regard to adam is found in the building of woman out of man in Gen 2. There is now two but there is an essential oneness to them. It is thus that mankind can take on the name adam/Adam/mankind. So it is this essential oneness that is necessary to petsonhood that is a feature of adam being like God. So we have introduced in the building of eve out of adam the solution to the singularity/plurality enigmas of Gen 1 in regard to both adam and God. We should not be surprised that when we get to know God better this is what He us like. As we encounter Him as persons we should already know that He must have this essential oneness. I propose it is this base upon which the first Christians could so readily accept the revealing of the 3 divine persons without thinking the oneness of God is compromised. In fact atheir understanding of adam and eve is the basis for their understanding and acceptance of the revelation of God in the 3 persons of the Father. Son and Holy Spirit. This is consistent with what Paul says in 1 cor. ... 8 v6. 11v7-9. And 1 cor 10 re Christ the rock. Paul in 1 cor 11 argues from Gen 2 woman out of man and explains the image of God in tetms of the 2 stage creation of adam of Gen 2. "man is the image of God" as seen in the forming of man who can be related to and spoken to by God "man is the glory of God" and then the building of woman out of man to complete hom as the image of God "woman is the glory of man"

at 4:49 I feel like there is a way to restate this argument as proof that our consciousness comes another conscious being.

No system with a Godel sentence can prove Godel's Theorem. A co-author and I proved this using Godel's method, formally, in 2018, and offered a phenomenological candidate for the non-algorithmic aspect of the human mind. A generalization of this proof is being presented in April. Look here: eprints.lse.ac.uk/89244/

There is no such thing as information without a user that is being informed. Causal relationships in physical systems are not information. We can understand them in terms of information, of course, but that is because we experience. So the concept of information already presumes consciousness. It cannot, therefore, be an explanation for consciousness.

This way if reading Leibniz seems to ignore the fact that the Monadology is not the only place he presents a version of his Mill argument. He also presents versions in a letter to Pierre Bayle, and in the preface to his New Essays. These make it clear that he is engaging materialism, as he encountered it. His letter to Bayle, for instance, was part of a long exchange with John Toland, who argued for materialism.

This is a deeply philosophical question. And the cherry on top is there's no consensus answer. 🙃

what if i define omnipotence as being able to do anything? would that be able to avoid the problem of infinite power? but then is that just a semantical issue and the two things are talking about the same thing?

Perhaps the laws of logic are imperative, prescriptive laws. Then they wouldn't be propositions :) 'Thou shalt use words in the following ways in order to use classical logic!'

WTF is wrong with Graham Oppy? I made an effort to find out if he's disabled or has a disease and I couldn't find anything. This is a non ironic comment, genuinely interested.

1:00 Logocism actually did NOT work! WTF!!!

If you guys get tired of Christianity only being a mental exercise, ONLY theoretical, come home to the Holy Orthodox Church. The Christian life is real, not abstract. Reformed theology only presents a school of thought, and is only moralism.

in regards to Sophia the AI bot, would the deviant causal chain be the team of humans that developed her? #pointtoponder

What was said at the end about, "if you believe this then why aren't you a Christian" is so cringe. Firstly, Christianity doesn't hold a monopoly on Truth. Just because they believe in something true, doesn't mean everything they believe in is true. Also, this argument (and philosophy in general) predates Christianity and is not original to them Otherwise, good clip and summarised these arguments very well actually

Putnam - at least in the description given - did not account for the possibility that false neural information is being given to the brain in a vat by the mad scientist overseeing the brain in a vat. And because we can never know what sort of neural information is being pushed through the hypothetical brain in a vat (to what extent it is false or misleading), our logic and reasons for believing we are not a brain in a vat could itself be a neural misdirection injected to the brain in a vat. I don't know if it's possible to refute the skepticism provided by this brain-in-a-vat hypothesis.

I think Godell’s incompleteness theorem blurrs the line between math and philosophy. How there are more non integers (fractions/numbers with decimals) between 0 and 1, than there are integers (whole numbers) between 0 and infinity.

Wisdom is his wife the Heavenly Jerusalem.

I agree that this description of the GOD's Trinity, described as 'partialism' is NOT heresy. His character, revealed through His Own Devine revelation, is completely unified in Love, Holiness, Wisdom, mercy, and justice. To whom? To us, the last thing He chose to create and IMPRINT Himself as a pointer & reminder of our need for Him. Has anyone seen the Father? No, yet Jesus says His to His apostles in John 14 that they have seen the Father: through Him? How is that? Has anyone seen your mind? Can anyone 'materialize' a human mind/consciousness? NO, & yet, we can see what the character of a fellow human's mind is by the actions of their physical body via their actions and words. The same could be said of a humans' spirit/soul. No human can put their spirit physically into an object or quantify what 'spirit' actually is made of. Does this make my Mind or Spirit or Body more or less valuable or indentifiably inferior to any other 'person/part' of who I or You are? No. Do we not, as humans created by God, have internal conversations with ourselves? Do not our various equal parts comune in total love with each other? (Aside from the obviously fallen sinful state we find ourselves in constant war with ourself) When Jesus died on the cross as an ultimate final perfect sacrifice for our sin, why did He say, 'Mark 15:34 ESV - And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Unless He subjected Himself in total obedience to be separated, like us fallen humans, and experience separation from His Mind/Father, and Holy Spirit for our sake?! I believe that only a perfect Creator could leave such a powerful testimony of Himself in such a simple, yet deeply complex 'reflection/sampling/pointer' to His Devine love for us & further exemplify His profound Holy, and Glorious character. 🙌🏽🎉⚡️

Simplicity is a Platonian concept. It's not Biblical idea that must be defended. Platonian divine simplicity is like a mathematical origin point that is static. It's an irrelevant concept that the Church should have ignored.

thanks for the vid using this as info for a university essay, keep up the good work!