Видео

Violence is not evil in and of itself. The idea that these texts are a problem usually comes from 2 things. First people not carefully reading the text and second not understanding the use of hyperbole in scripture.

all knowledge about God is wrong. doubting this is doubting the greatness of God. we can know God and only then do we know the limitations of knowledge. we have yet to know the reality of these words from Paul, ""let God be true and every man a liar"

If they had access to each other's works and were copying from each other, even adding details like the guards at the tomb explicitly to combat rumors of the body being stolen, then you don't have independent eyewitness accounts. You have no way of knowing which accounts were corroborated or which were just repeated. At best you have one person who claims to be an eyewitness, writing down their gospel decades after the fact. Others might claim to be eyewitnesses, but if they were referencing and copying another's work, then they're not independent. Add in those decades and influence by those years of tradition and competing/conflicting accounts that they were demonstrably aware of, and their memory becomes a near worthless source.

Although dualism is a relatively better position to take than materialism, I feel there are a few problems with it. If one wants to subscribe to a parallel substance dualism like Leibniz or Descartes, you run into the classic interaction problem. These two fundamental and irreducible substances can have no causative relationship with each other, and no correspondence outside of coincidence. Leibniz attempts to answer this problem by positing psycho-physical fine-tuning by God, saying that the only reason physical states correlate to mental states at all is because God ordained the match on purpose, but I have several issues with that proposal. 1. While I don’t object to a fine-tuning argument on principle, to suppose an arranger between these two substances where one substance suffices is not at all parsimonious. This kind of fine-tuning argument is not as explanatorily powerful as, for analogy and example, the usual cosmological fine-tuning argument theists like to use a lot. The argument for the fine-tuning of the universe for life is a successful abductive argument because it’s starting from our basic sense perception, and tries to explain how matter can organize in such a way that life is possible, but it doesn’t opine on the nature of matter itself to make its case. This psycho-physical arrangement is only needed IF dualism is true, which is not nearly as self-evident as the fact that we are alive and the universe allows for us (the life-permitting fine-tuning argument,) nor is it inherently more probable than any other interactionist model like idealist manipulation of information-with-the-appearance-of-matter for instance. 2. If matter and mind have to be arranged in advance to correlate with one another because causal relationship is impossible, then how can God, who is Spirit (according to both Scripture and philosophy,) affect matter Himself? If matter is a truly parallel substance, the mind of God should no more be able to interact with matter than we can, nevermind create it. This only pushes the problem up to God’s doorstep. 3. What even leads us to believe in matter outside our consciousness? We don’t perceive matter; we perceive our perceptions of matter. Whether that perception corresponds to a reality beyond our awareness is something we can never know because we can’t step outside of our mind to find out. We don’t know for sure whether our minds correspond with external matter, we only know for certain that our minds correspond to our perceptions. I’m not saying that everything is only our imagination, as things can obviously surprise us, but matter is only a theory to explain what we perceive. It’s the perception that is the question first. If we can’t establish the reality of matter with the same certainty that we can our minds and their perceptions, how can we posit an arrangement between them by God? 4. If substance dualism is true, then the ontological argument for God’s existence fails. If both matter and mind are fundamental substances and one can exist without the other, then it’s possibly that purely material worlds exist, or in other words: mindless worlds. But a mindless world can’t house a Maximally Great Being, because He is minded. The MGB is supposed to exist in all possible worlds (by virtue of necessity being a maximally great property,) and if the MGB can’t exist in some worlds, then He is not necessary, and by contraposition impossible. The only way you can say that God exists in all possible worlds is if mind exists in all possible worlds, but that is merely the same as saying that mind is necessary and matter is not, which is the idealist position anyway. 5. Ultimately, I find that dualists make a good argument for the reality of mind, but they don’t in turn make a case for the reality of matter. Matter is simply defined as “any substance existing independently of mind,” but that only answers what matter is not; that doesn’t explain what matter is (“independent” is a negative word, and “mind” is its referent; not a good look for materialists or dualists here.) If matter is truly something that exists without needing mind, then why does its definition need mind to relationally oppose it? If by matter one means “anything in spacetime that has mass” then matter at bottom is not material, because our most current physics describe the lowest matter best as immaterial probabilistic non-local information states (regardless of whether you think the observer has a casual relationship to such information or not is not my concern right now) and philosophically, models like bundle theory (where objects are nothing more than the sum of their perceived attributes) are also fully working models of the nature of objects. 6. Dualists have to make the case that there exists a spatiotemporal concrete reality that doesn’t need us to know about it to exist. But if we don’t need to know it exists for it to exist, then how can we know for certain? How can we know for certain our perceptions align with reality when things like illusions exist? Again, I’m not saying things can’t exist without our knowledge, or things can’t surprise us, but I am saying that positing an uncertainty as a fundamental substance seems imprudent. Matter can exist, but it can’t be fundamental if it’s only a probabilistic rationalization of our experiences, even if it’s a good rationalization, it’s not 100% perfect. 7. The fact of the matter is, mind is the only thing we know for sure. Matter is the theory to explain what we sense. From both a scientific perspective (the most recent physics) and a philosophical perspective (bundle theory,) matter can be explained immaterially, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that mind is fundamental, rather than matter or both in coincidence. Many are concerned that this collapses to solipsism, but one need not worry about solipsism as a logical consequence. Leibniz’ law of indiscernibility of identicals renders the solipsist world indistinguishable from a realist world, but with extra assumptions that exist only to be explained away. Also a simple modus tollens render solipsism false. If my mind is necessary, then it ought to have attributes befitting of a necessary mind (immutability, perfection, omniscience, etc.) My mind does not have these attributes, therefore my mind is not necessary. So if mind as such is fundamental, but not my mind in particular, then another mind outside of myself is responsible for my existence and the existence of all contingent minds, which is the theistic idealist case.

I have a question about 10:15 In a debate between Eli Ayala and Tom Jump on the question "Is there Reason to believe in God?", Eli brought up that Bertrand Russell pointed out The Cognito was fallaciously circular (the debate is on the Revealed Apologetics Spotify account, but I cannot find it on the Revealed Apologetics RUclips channel. If you listen to the episode, it is at the 26:45 minute mark.). Tom Jump strongly objected and said Bertrand Russell "never ever said that." Eli was unable to provide the source at that moment. Can anyone provide the source? Did Bertrand Russell say that The Cognito was fallaciously circular? (Full disclosure, I haven't watched this whole video essay yet.)

1:00:53 I wish you discussed the Buddhist arguments.. These are the most influential arguments against the self today, as far as I know. Folks like Sam Harris keep pushing the doctrine of 'anatta' non-stop because of the Buddhist background, and people are buying this non-sense. He also claims that neuroscience supports the idea that there is no place in the brain where the self can be found (or, if you're a dualist, there is no specific place in the brain where the immaterial self connects to the brain to manifest itself).

I'm a physicalist. Doesn't an individual self disappear when the brain is destroyed? The self is a brain state. The brain is physical. ## Charting the Terrain of the Self: Examining the Conceptual Map Source 1 endeavors to construct a conceptual map of the **substantive self**, a philosophical concept asserting that the "self" is a real, unified, and enduring entity. The source grapples with a fundamental question: **Does a "self" actually exist, or is it merely an illusion or a convenient linguistic construct?** **The Territory:** The territory being mapped is the very nature of our existence as conscious beings. It encompasses our subjective experiences, thoughts, beliefs, and the enduring sense of being a single, continuous "I" throughout our lives. **The Map:** 1. **The "I" as the Center:** The map posits a central point, the "I," the self, which serves as the anchor for all conscious experience. This "I" is not merely a passive observer but an active agent that thinks, feels, believes, and experiences the world from a first-person perspective. 2. **The "I" as Possessor and Relator:** The map depicts the "I" as the owner and experiencer of thoughts and feelings. It argues that experiences are inherently possessed and relational; there cannot be a pain, for example, without someone feeling it. This ownership and relationality necessitate a self to serve as the "owner" and the subject of the relationship. 3. **The "I" as Unifier:** The map highlights the unity of conscious experience. Our sensory inputs, thoughts, and emotions are woven together into a single, coherent stream of consciousness. This unity requires a unifying principle, and the map proposes that the "I" provides this principle. 4. **The "I" as Enduring:** The map traces a line of continuity through time, representing the persistence of the "I" despite physical changes. It draws upon our intuitive sense of being the same person over time and uses memory as evidence of this continuity. **The Fit of the Map:** **Strengths:** * **Intuitions and Phenomenology:** The map aligns well with common intuitions about ourselves. Most people have a strong sense of being a unified, continuous self that possesses thoughts and experiences. The map grounds its arguments in the phenomenology of our lived experience, making it accessible and relatable. * **Addressing Skepticism:** The map directly engages with the skepticism of philosophers like David Hume, attempting to dismantle their counterarguments and demonstrate the inherent self-contradictions in denying the self's existence. * **Conceptual Clarity:** The map effectively uses philosophical concepts like "substance," "simplicity," and "immateriality" to refine our understanding of the self. These concepts, though complex, help to distinguish the self from mere physical matter or a collection of disparate experiences. **Limitations:** * **The Physicalist Challenge:** While the map strongly suggests an immaterial self, it acknowledges that physicalism, the view that everything is ultimately physical, can offer alternative explanations. It concedes that a physicalist could posit a fundamental physical particle as the basis of the self. This leaves a potential gap in the map's representation of the territory. * **Eastern Philosophy:** The map primarily focuses on arguments arising from Western analytic philosophy. It briefly mentions, but does not explore, perspectives from Eastern philosophical traditions, some of which challenge the notion of a fixed, enduring self. A more comprehensive map might incorporate these alternative viewpoints. **Overall, the map drawn in Source 1 provides a compelling and detailed depiction of the self as a substantive entity.** It effectively leverages philosophical arguments and common intuitions to support its claims. While it acknowledges some limitations, it offers a valuable framework for understanding the nature of our existence as conscious beings.

Where would you put illusionism (Keith Frankish) and your opinion/ criticism of the same?

Good work from the intro :) I will watch it fully later. I wanted to ask what's your thoughts on epistemological skyhook or global debunking arguments against naturalism? Where if we assume that the naturalist holds onto the following two premises: 1) Causal closure naturalism [which can be argued to be a consequence of staunch naturalism and naturally follows from it] 2) Physicalist view of mind We essentially can reach the conclusion that are thoughts are predetermined for us by causal chains, and this essentially is a epistemological issue for the naturalistic worldview and parsimony breaker (where a worldview that can explain the same as naturalism/physicalism like theism or even supernaturalism atheism, is much superior to the standard popular naturalistc position. Now there are various versions and variants of this argument, some make stronger cases, some weaker. Most recently I was reading Ibrahim Dagers "Expanding William Hasker's Transcendental Refutation of Determinism". I have heard essentially a few objections: internalism and circularity. Kane B has a video on the general genre of this argument (global debunking) and covers much of the argument and proposed objections. I wanted to ask what your thoughts on this argument are. Thanks for the recent videos :)

Rickabaugh's book is fantastic, and excellent video as usual.

Amazing video. I really appreciated your self critique in the second half of the video. It legitimises your stance and helps people be more critical of this view if they want to adopt it themselves.

ruclips.net/video/K8rDUQCF79Y/видео.html

They used the Greek Septuagint. So, why would they write in Hebrew? And why would it matter?

Yeeeeesssssss. Been looking forward to this one

Physicalism can be stated as the position that the human body is a physical system acting the way physical systems act. So the human body is made of the same fundamental particles acting according to the physical laws they are observed to act according to in all known cases. If humans are normal physical stuff acting in a normal physical way, then physicalism is true. The anti-physicalist must hold that the human body is not merely normal physical stuff acting in a normal physical way. If so, then a careful study of the human body should reveal either non-normal stuff or normal stuff acting non-normally. These would totally overturn our current physics, and would amount to small miracles happening all the time. If the "soul" has no way of interacting with the body so that the body doesn't just do what a physical system acting in the normal physical way, then the body would simply act in the normal physical way, making physicalism true. But we can be highly confident that no small frequent miracles are happening in the human body (why only human?), and so physicalism is extremely plausibly true. Let me know when you have some evidence that the human body isn't just physical stuff acting in the usual way physical stuff acts. Find some miracles happening in the brain or accept that you are not a tiny god temporarily trapped inside an animal body. It's just too obvious that the dualists simply want to find some way to retain the absurdly outdated idea of a human soul. Maybe spiders and trees and pigs and also have these immortal souls, why not? Anthropocentrism and supernaturalism had a baby and it was the cute but ridiculous idea of an immortal soul.

The ghost in my machine liked this video! 🤖👻

It’s about time! Was getting a little concerned 😅

Excited for this and future videos, been meaning to look into this topic but didn't know where to start, thank you!

THE GOAT THE GOAT THE GOAT IS BACKKKKK

The Buddhists solved this completely over a thousand years ago Why are you still exploring this in Abrahamic terms? “As long as you’re willing to believe in magic/a soul, what I have to say makes sense…” Buddy. No. If you believe in Star Wars, I’ve got a bunch of stuff about the force to tell you. It’s in instantly self defeating proposition

Based Substance Dualist 😎

Haha it’s a fairytale You’re too old to believe in Santa

What do 'physical' and 'material' mean here? Are they synonymous with 'composite'? Or are they suggesting some kind of deterministic mechanism? It's confusing because if the mind exists it must be a real object that can interact with matter.

Lemme defend Copan & Flannagan rq: 1) Why doesn't God (a Perfect judge) have the authority to alter the course of someone's life (and come home to Him, their ultimate reason for living, early)? If you take barah in Genesis to refer to function-assigning rather than mere creation, this will extend into the ethical domain (e.g., father-child relation). So, for every other child, God has planned their life with goods in this life that we don't have the right (in some non-double effect context), to take. But since God has the divine moral authority to change the course and normative path of their life (as the vast majority of theists are committed to), you can't really argue (a) God has violated Perfect Love by using the Israelites as a means to bring children home or (b) this entails we have the right to kill those prior to the age of accountability--as we don't have such an authority. 2) If you trust the intelligence agencies of CIA, FBI, MI6, Mossad, etc, in eliminating terrorists (even if that means there'll be children casualties), why wouldn't you trust the intelligence of God (infallible in power, knowledge, goodness) to take life? 3) If God is the *ultimate & infallible source* of The Gift of Life (ensoulment & purpose-giving), He is under no duty to ensure anyone is on this earth for some specified interval. 4) Parents, adults, and capable human beings-more generally have duties (God assigned or however else you wanna account for it) to not either, ensure the welfare or, minimally, not harm other human beings *relative to their capabilites, sovereignty, and control over their earthly context.* But since God is capable, sovereign, and also facilitates control, function-assignment & life-planning, and perfect judgment over non-earthly domains, His duties are much broader and not as restricted as ours (e.g., hence why He can allow defeasible earthly horrors we have duties to prevent & stop or decide the right time to bring children to Him).

Nice breakdowns. Think about putting some background music in occasionally.

Where would a hylemorphic theory more like Aristotle (And Plotinus) fall. If I remember correctly Plotinus has the soul as the form of the body, AND as the independent individually existent thing. The body in that case is an accident. Under Aristotle’s categories this wouldn’t be substance dualism because the body is an accident, not a substance, but I think the way the terms are being used probably shifted over time so it means something different when you use it.

the GOAT is back

We’re so back

He's back! 🗿

How does anything in this video suggest papi was reliable???

Can we call him papi?

Don’t your arguments show that papius is unreliable? At best in your arguments he is using techniques that show he isn’t a recorder of history but more a polemicist

But still. There is no Hebrew sources previously written before Greek source we read. You can't argue that.

This is incredible and deserves more attention. Unfortunately I am not educated enough on this side of Bible history to be able to understand much😭🙏 but then again I’m also listening to this while at work. I’ll give it another shot in the future! But again, from what I could understand this is incredible and certainly has given me confidence. God bless you.

Either your volume is low or the speakers in the response video talk really loud. It was so annoying to listen to the loud whiney lady yelling like a 6 year old. Is there a way to adjust the volume?

Good video. I think the Augustinean interpretation is more likely, but that conclusion is based on comparisons where I assume that Luke, being the better writer, is able to hide conflation effectively.

Really enjoyed this video a few months back - wondering if you're alright since you haven't posted in a while? Really miss your content, but want to make sure you're okay above anything.

Just finished all videos. What a great thorough treatment of arguments for Matthean priority! Thanks. I’m quite surprised how good this case is and how weak the scholarly consensus actually is. Christian scholars should abandon Markan priority since it leads to so much unhelpful and erroneous ideas about the gospels and the development of early Christianity.

At 6:31 Papias writes a long sentence where the Disciple John is named, and then within the same sentence is the presbyter John. Since John most certainly died at or before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD, this most likely is the younger John Eleaser or Lazarus. He became quiet the celebrated one later.

@41:40 can you PLEASE CLARIFY, or at least provide a link to your video on this?????

My 3 Related Arguments for Moral Realism and God Let: * G = A transcendent, intelligent, and creative God * S = A body of developing human souls with free will * P = The purpose of creation, which is a birthing place for S (souls) * MR = Moral realism * MS = Moral subjectivism Argument 1: If G, S, and P exist, then MR must follow as true. 1. Premise 1: G, S, and P exist. * God (G) created the universe with an intentional purpose (P), which is the development and moral maturation of free-willed human souls (S). This establishes the idea that creation is not arbitrary but purposeful, with the goal of nurturing souls. 2. Premise 2: For souls to develop, there must be a moral framework. * To achieve their purpose (P), souls (S) must be guided by an objective moral framework. This is necessary because free will entails the capacity to make meaningful choices. Without an objective standard of right and wrong, moral development would lack direction, making it impossible for souls to grow in a meaningful way. An arbitrary or purely subjective framework would not provide a consistent basis for moral growth. 3. Conclusion: If G, S, and P exist, MR must follow. * Given the existence of God (G), souls (S), and a purposeful creation (P), moral realism (MR) must follow. The existence of these conditions logically implies the presence of objective moral truths that guide souls toward their intended moral and spiritual growth. These moral truths are not contingent on personal opinion or social convention; they are aligned with God’s will and the purpose of creation. Argument 2: If MR is true, then G, S, and P can or must be inferred. 1. Premise 1: MR is true. * If we accept that objective moral truths (MR) exist, we must account for their origin. Objective moral truths, by definition, are true regardless of human opinion, cultural background, or individual preferences. Therefore, their source must be independent of human subjectivity. 2. Premise 2: Moral realism requires a foundation. * Objective moral truths need a transcendent foundation because they are universal and unchanging. If moral truths are objective, they cannot be the product of fluctuating human perspectives. Instead, they must be grounded in something that transcends individual experience-something that is itself unchanging, intelligent, and capable of determining what is morally right or wrong. This is where the need for a higher, transcendent source, such as God (G), comes into play. 3. Why God? God is posited as the best candidate for this foundation because: * Universality: As a transcendent being, God provides a universally applicable source for moral truths that transcends cultures and contexts. * Objectivity: God’s unchanging nature ensures that these truths remain stable over time, offering a firm foundation for moral guidance. * Authority: If God is the creator, His moral laws carry binding authority, providing a reason why these truths should guide human behavior. 4. Conclusion: If MR is true, then G, S, and P must be inferred. * If we accept moral realism, it implies the existence of a transcendent source (G), morally significant agents (S), and a purposeful universe (P) in which these moral truths guide the development of human souls. The existence of G, S, and P can thus be inferred from the acceptance of MR, as objective moral truths would not exist in a purposeless, unguided universe. Christian Argument Against Moral Subjectivism (MS): 1. Premise 1: MS leads to self-contradiction and destruction. * Moral subjectivism (MS) asserts that morality is based on individual or cultural preference, leading to conflicting moral views without a universal standard to resolve them. This results in practical and philosophical contradictions. If all moral perspectives are equally valid, then we have no basis for resolving disputes, punishing crimes, or establishing justice. This leads to societal confusion and eventual breakdown. 2. Premise 2: MS is unworkable in societies. * The social, physical, and legal consequences of moral subjectivism reveal its impracticality. Without an objective framework, societies struggle to establish consistent laws or enforce justice. Individuals and groups may hold conflicting moral views, but subjectivism provides no way to mediate these differences. This leads to societal disorder, as no coherent moral framework exists to guide behavior or resolve moral conflicts. 3. Conclusion: Therefore, MR must be true. * Given that MS results in self-contradictory and destructive consequences, MR must be true, as it offers the only workable and coherent alternative. Moral realism provides the stable foundation needed for societies to function effectively and for souls to develop morally. From this, we can infer the existence of G (as the transcendent source of morality), S (as morally significant beings), and P (as the purpose behind creation and moral growth). Response to Criticisms: * Why must morality have a foundation? Objective morality requires a foundation to avoid becoming arbitrary or subjective. If there is no foundation, then moral truths are reduced to personal or cultural preferences, which leads to moral relativism. An objective foundation-like God-ensures that moral truths are universally binding and unchanging. * Why must God be the foundation? God is posited as the most plausible foundation because He provides universality, objectivity, and authority to moral truths. These are essential qualities for moral laws to be valid across time and space, independent of human opinion. While other transcendent sources could theoretically be proposed, God, as a transcendent, intelligent, and creative being, best fits the role of grounding objective moral truths.

I am starting to believe this synoptic puzzle is on purpose. Our human brains can't figure this out because it was all inspired by God. Just like we can't comprehend the Trinity, we won't comprehend this puzzle. I love it.

These videos are incredible. Well done!

Papias is wrong John Mark (Mark) knew Jesus and the Apostles since the last supper was at his mother's house and he witnessed Jesus being arrested. He was too young to have followed Jesus around like the Apostles. His father was Greek and mother Jewish from so being a translator to Peter makes sense.

Probability is the boundary of Free Will between God and humanity. Thre is a element of the human psyche that is unavailbale to the mind of God until we die or we open the door to the Holy Spirit. Jesus''s practice of not explaining things directly is His defense of the integrity of Free Will.

I just finished a video that covered this. I wish I had found this BEFORE making my video, haha.

I may not be convinced yet that Marcan priority isn’t true, but I will say that your critics have a snide tone and clearly didn’t take the time to listen to your entire argument. I do think you made a compelling case against some common explanations for Marcan priority and a compelling case for Mark as a conflation of Matthew and Luke based on certain passages, but there are still certain things which keep me from abandoning Marcan priority.

Can you make a video comparing the Olivet Discourse in the Synoptics (Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 17&21)? I find it to be the passage which best supports Marcan priority. Mark’s Olivet Discourse is the shortest and primarily focuses on the 70 AD destruction of the Jerusalem temple, while Matthew’s Olivet Discourse is significantly expanded and focuses on both the destruction of Jerusalem and the “end of the age” judgement (also specifically having the disciples ask about the two separate events rather than one event). It makes more sense to me that Matthew would expand and “clear up” Mark’s passage rather than Mark shortening and muddying up Matthew’s passage, though I’d love to be proven wrong. Additionally, Luke’s version of the eschatological statements are parsed out differently than Matthew and Mark’s and a few key phrases are changed.

How is Mark’s gospel a conflation of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels if Mark’s gospel is also a record of Peter’s preaching in Rome? Is Mark conflating Matthew and Luke by only including what he remembered Peter preached and leaving out anything Peter didn’t mention?