Видео

I fall on the Hume side of the debate, but no, Descartes didn't say that, at all. How did you fuck that up?

His idea of God's existence is insipid

There are days when I'm not even sure I exist.

Aquinas was able to say a whole lot about the nature of God, based on the simple observation that everything physical has a cause. Working backwards from that he was able to show that God must exist and that His essence is existence. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Kant!

How to quickly define existence…& or reality…drop into a lions den, the rest won’t matter

Appreciate these videos taking on this very difficult prospect of explaining historical western philosophical positions. One suspects that had Hume been able to know the Teleological (“fine tuning”) argument, he may have had a different response with respect to meeting his synthetic criteria. BTW, the apparent disdain for the Cartesian position at 0:50 is a bit off-putting (perhaps I am being over-sensitive).

Aquinas's answer is utterly _ludicrous_ because his five ways all fail miserably.... 1. The unmoved mover is a Special Pleading fallacy since it breaks the very rule it states must be taken seriously. 2. The argument from efficient cause is yet more Special Pleading because if the universe must need a cause then why doesn't God & if God doesn't need a cause then why must the universe? You can't have it _both_ ways! 3. The argument for a necessary being is perhaps the most ludicrous argument of all because it's a baseless assertion just like asserting that something called a _Realicorn_ must exist because it's the same as a unicorn but real by _definition._ Any fool can claim something is real _by definition_ can't they? 4. The argument from goodness also fails because just because we can judge something as good doesn't necessitate the existence of something as _ultimately_ good any more than we can tell that something smells doesn't mean there has to be something that's ultimately _smelly_ does it? 5. The argument from design was once the most respectable argument before Darwin proved that Natural Selection is clearly not a process any intelligent designer would employ because so much in life formed in completely illogical ways like our backward facing retinas causing unnecessary blind spots the size of six full moons - a 'design fault' abcent from invertebrate creatures like the squid & octopus - of did God think invertebrates deserved better eyes than _humans_ did?! L.O.L!

The important thing is that it makes no difference if God exists. Since the noumena cannot be experienced, and experience exhausts all possibilities for phenomenal humans, when we become men (or ladies) we should put away childish things. Be a brain! Your brain!

Saying we can't _know_ whether a god exists is evading the issue of whether there's any good reason to believe claims that one _does_ exist. Even though we can't see radio waves for what they are we still have extremely good reasons to believe they clearly do e.g. Listening to the sound of radio broadcasts translated into sound waves by radios which anyone tuned to the same radio frequency can confirm was broadcast as well. The same cannot be said with regard to any god claimed to exist which is why humanity believes in so many different gods none of which can be shown to be 'broadcasting' anything at all so they all have to be believed in on the basis of faith & absolutely _any_ claim at all can be believed on the basis of faith so why take any god claim very seriously just because nobody can know that a god _isn't_ there? We also can't know that mermaids aren't somewhere under the sea either but that's not a good reason to believe that claim is true either is it now? We should only believe claims if somebody can come up with a good reason to believe it but when it comes to god claims nobody ever has when their claims are carefully considered because there's *always* a significant assumption being smuggled in somewhere & that is _not_ an insignificant shortcoming of such claims.

Humans have been here for hundreds of thousands of years. Anyone’s idea of a god has nothing to do with anything. We’ve built up this idea over long long periods of time . Staring at the sky 200,000 years ago is the same as this question. They didn’t know anything about the natural world or science.

Kant had to perhaps give this kind of answer to point to the validity of the question itself , given the fact that we had been told many times by many teachers and prophets that God exists . The better question to ask, but maybe not to a philosopher in general , would be "How does anyonec find or get to know God ?".

Kan't answer that

Reading Kant's blathering and verbal diarrhea is always extremely annoying. He contemplates belly-button lint, and discusses it in voluminous, arcane, tongue-twisting terms, to promote bullsh*t conclusions. It is nice that he at least rejects the ridiculous "ontological argument" for God's existence, but his own baloney is not much better. It is widely felt that Kant was hostile to religion, but it is difficult to tell whether he is trying to offer critique, or kissing up in cowardly fashion, so as not to bring down the full wrath of the Christian Taliban of his time. Anyone who cannot see what a load that the concept of "God" is seems more like a grifting pseudo-intellectual, like Jordan Peterson.

When i get off my bike after a long ride ,one thing i know for sure is sometimes my ass hurts 🧐

Thus, then, the antiquity and universality of a belief should be regarded, contrary to all science and all logic, as sufficient and unimpeachable proof of its truth. Why? Bakunin

The closing words here, sort of evaluating Kant's view of God, I find neat: "A really interesting MOVE on the question…" It's like God is a chess-game, and Kant leads off with a stupendous gambit…

I disagree with Humes fork. You can use the power of *induction* to reason something that is neither analytic or synthetic. “The sun will rise tomorrow” - is not analytic by definition nor synthetic by observation, because you can’t see tomorrow. However, because the sun has risen every day for millennia, we can conclude, by induction, that it will rise again tomorrow.

GOD will return before this clown says he exist

God in the Christian concept of the trinity is in fact noumenal is the aspect of the father but phenomenal in the aspect of Christ.

I have the same camera! What lenses do you use (if any) and what model is the lave mic? Love your videos !

The argument assumes existence in another category, so Kant is adding attribute/characteristic to God, and for that, God needs to exist, so it's presupposed.

History shows when this new god came about. It did not exist 2200 years ago. Monotheism also did not exist before akenatens religion 4000 years ago. Another point is over 100 creation stories. Take off the Christian centric glasses.

What's the frequency Kenneth 😂

there was no great god in greek paganism. This argument DOES NOT COME FROM EPICURUS.

your agrue is weak how mom and dad is that powerful and this loving you so wrong

R u hungry?

For the religious zealots this doesn’t mean their God exists and we just can’t perceive him, Their God most certainly does not exist.

Kant's position is worst than a "definite maybe". If God exists, then you cannot know him because of his quality of being "Noumenal". If God does not exist, then you cannot know because we gave God the quality of being "Noumenal".

Not True! We know he came. God is man and man is God

TO THINK someone thought so deeply on an abstract level 220 years ago that is relevant today. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, applied to computers, suggests that our understanding of tech is shaped by how we perceive and think about it, but we can’t fully grasp the true essence of its inner workings.

This is not fair. He is avoiding the subject. This sensus divinitatis can be a physiological response, self-delusion, etc. So why then God gives this sense to some and not to others?

How much knowledge human want god will give us U C thousands of research is made by mistake it's not mistake its knowledge given by God human

There r so many things given in holy scriptures now we knw after thousand of year

Yes God exists 100 %there is no dough you wants proof I ll give you u read Qur'an Bible Tora injil in Quran God says o humans u can't khow my power u r humans only what God says we think about it exp Univers is expending how 1400 years back who knows now due to habul telescope we knw it's correct

Really bad summary. Kant addressed a very precise concept of God, he gave very precise reasons why knowledge doesn't work for this concept, and then he provided (what he took as) purely practical reasons to believe in God as a supreme moral being.

Descartes proof is way oversimplified, which makes it sound dumb, but it's actually not.

It’s an incoherent question if taken seriously and independent from the coloring of social/cultural influence, but if by this you mean do any of the manmade god characters exist, then the answer is quite obviously no.

There is only one requirement to know that God exists and that is "Be still and know that I am God" so Kant got that wrong, so Kant know is definitely Can know because God says so! If he had just spent some time being still.

This is an incredibly well made video 👌

From simple teacher to drug kingpin just as walt said in season 1, "chemistry is the study of CHANGE"

The "i liked it" at the final hit very hard best video that i ever seen about BB

The assertion by Hume that there is no evidence for God is bogus .He will only believe if he sees God which suggests that only what is in our purview can be thought analytic. Not according to Augustine when dealing with the same problem said there are many things we accept that are not seen.

If x is analytic then by definition it is true! That sounds like it's trivially true! For, if x is defined by y (x and y are arbitrary) then the very definition would make it to be true. Am I missing something?

So it seems clear that according to Kant 'God' is not phenomenal. Is 'God' noumenal? If so then, like your example of the radio waves (that we can not hear or see but, their existence c a n be ascertained by some observable apparatus' signals) one may at least expect 'God' to leave some observable signals (at least a sequence of numbers like ''01101010101001011101001...'' or, something like that) in some apparatus or others for all to observe and/or experience (like 'noumenal' things, say, a radio wave, could do that any one could ascertain).

Extra dimension is depth to Cartesian 2d thinking.And the other dimension is divergence and convergence to infinity and dot,the other dimension is matter and energy as conscious force and conscious energy.All in Veda esoteric thinking.Such as good conceptualization of consciousness by Sri Aurobindo

PhD philosopher timothy McGrew destroyed Hume's argument

There’s no reason or good evidence that points to the existence of ANY gods let alone the god character in the Old Testament or New Testament of the bible. I don’t give a shit how smart or philosophical you think you are.

A god(s) as described in religious cult’s handbooks for example in the bible or quran? There’s is no reason or good evidence to believe the claims in aforementioned books. Therefore, I do not believe ANY gods exist from ANY claim from ANY culture in recorded human history.

I’d like to point out that God gave humans free will

If God is noumenal, can God make itself phenomenal if it wanted to?