Видео

Very insightful

Thankyou sir. Do more ethics topic pls

sweet

Your voice sounds just like Schrader from Breaking Bad 😂

6:40 Obviously not only human animals are capable of being "autonomous" and/or "rational", but I suppose those words are being used loosely

Thank you you help me .

Hello sir! Thank you for sharing your thoughts about Philosophy. Hope you will continue to do more videos.

Sir can you create more philo terms videos.

Instead of believing that the brain generates the experience we can say that we are experiencing sight with our eyes. We see with our eyes, not our brains. There’s no processing to create an experience within the brain. Our brains limit the eyes perceptual ability through focus and attention. The brain activity that occurs while we see things is the way the eyes communicate with the rest of the body. Every perception presents us with a perspective of the environment in order to organize our potential actions. So the eyes need to communicate with the rest of the body so we can respond to whatever might be happening around us. The brain is more like the communication center, helping us prioritize which actions should be taken when according to our perceptions and memory.

such a concise explanation.loved it

Epistemology; the study of knowledge, comes from two words: Epistēmē, which is Greek for knowledge. And Ology, which is Latin for... knowledge. I cannot conceive another word that better describes the beauty and lunacy of the English language.

Vv cool king

Thank you for the lecture!

great video thanks so much

You’re a great lecturer , & much underrated. Please , keep up a good work and upload more on this . Thank you and God bless you

beautiful videos

Very lucidly explained 👌

Great video!!!

17242 1804

1:43 - I don't think that metaphysics requires us to adopt an externalist framework, does it? "Out there in the real world?" Or else internalists would be incapable of even holding their own position. They can't be internalists because metaphysics is the study of the real, external world, right?

Very helpful. Thank you.

Thanks for this simply explanation

I enjoyed this, it was cut off. Enjoyed his voice and delivery.

This video is pretty good. Thank you so much.

I wonder whether Kant was claiming to himself that he was a rationalist or empiricist?

loved it... it helped alot in my project.. ❤️

Great content

Great video! Doing a philosophy course at university and this helped me understand a bit about this concept (the texts my teacher provided were very vague and the assignment was tough with the little information provided). Greetings from Argentina!

I really like the 2nd formulation. As a society, we have become so self-obsessed to the point where it's almost become "universal" to use people as a means to our selfish ends.

Had to listen on 1.5x speed but it was good

Great video!

I can percieve a Chilegon if i use reason to count the points

The Holy Spirit of the Lord will give you knowledge and wisdom beyond human capabilities

This video is so underated. Thank you so much this video really helped me in studying the subject.

Playback speed 1.5x 👍

You shouldnt call him a c word

conjunction

gr8 vid bro goes hard aye?

This video basically helped me with my take-home exam. Thanks! Although admittingly, the narration is quite boring, it actually helped a lot.

Wow, great video!

I signed up for philosophy 101 for college, so far I learned how stupid and unprepared I was. The subject of philosophy is like a flock or birds to me, it all flies over my head. I will say this video did help me more than my text book did. So I thank you Don Ashe.

this is extremely helpful! thank you so much!

so informative

The problem of evil is most powerful amidst religious theology. It is intended as an internal critique, yet something that I've noticed is most religious apologists will nearly always address the argument from the philosophical perspective of certain atheist or an imagined atheist. Lewis is guilty of this too, which is probably why that way to try to address the argument is so popular. It totally misses the point, though. Take Christianity, for example. It is Christian theology that tells us that pain and suffering is a bad thing. According to conventional Christian doctrine, pain and suffering are the hallmarks of a fallen state of how God intended things. We see this when we contrast the world we inhabit with the fantasies of Eden and the new Heaven and the new Earth. The issue of bone cancer in children and eye burrowing insects (to use Stephen Fry's examples) is virtually never addressed, usually the excuses made for the existence of evil focus on our supposed free will. God is often said to not want robots worshipping him, but rather people who choose him freely. And so, where there is freedom, there is the freedom to sin; to fall short of God's glory. The great conundrum comes with the concept of the supposed age to come with the new Heaven and the new Earth. This is an everlasting state where pain and suffering are said to be no more. Of course, the question is what then about free will? And it would seem that there is no space for free will any longer. The reasonable conclusion is that the occupants are righteous automatons worshipping God into eternity. So, we come back to the point of our current state of existence, and ask 'what then _is_ the point of pain and suffering?' The most rational conclusion would seem to be that fantasies of gods, creation and hereafter were never intended to be thought through critically, but rather to be accepted by faith. Hense why numerous religions are a patchwork of "God works in mysterious ways;" code for 'even though is it completely nonsensical believe it anyway so that the story holds together.'

We are saying that gods _specifically defined_ as omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent are demonstrably incompatible with the existence of evil, and therefore they don’t exist. We aren’t saying that evil demonstrates that no gods of no kinds exist. Yes, omnipotence absolutely precludes suffering. It absolutely does. Human doctors can’t preclude pain. For human doctors with limited power, there is such a thing as necessary suffering. They can’t help but to cut people open and cause them pain and leave them with permanent scars and possible side effects. They have no choice. It’s not within their power to perform their tasks completely free of pain and suffering. But omnipotent gods _are_ able to perform their tasks completely free of pain and suffering. They are omnipotent; that’s the point. That’s the definition we’re responding to. An omnipotent god could absolutely perform even the most complicated operation; no cuts, no scars, no pain, no suffering, no far, just snap the fingers, and boom, the illness is gone. If that patient was left with as much as hiccup after that operation perform by a god, it would by definition be unnecessary. For omnipotent beings, there is no such thing as “necessary suffering”. Nothing is necessary. “Necessary” implies boundaries and limitations. Omnipotent beings don’t have that. They are omnipotent; they have no boundaries or limits to what they can do. Omnipotence renders any amount of suffering unnecessary. Simply by asking “Couldn’t this omnipotent being have done it _without_ that suffering, to which the answer would always necessarily be yes. This is of course provided that the god character in question is also motivated to not cause unnecessary suffering. There could exist a god out there that is able to prevent any suffering what so ever, but he just loves the sight of blood and the smell of burning flesh so damn much that he can’t get enough of it. Such a god may exist out there. We aren’t saying it can’t. We are making a response to a specific kind of god often believed in and often defined by believers of several religions; a god that is both omnipotent (able to stop suffering) and omniscient (aware of existing suffering and aware of a way to use his omnipotence to stop it or prevent it) and omnibenevolent (motivated to not cause any suffering). Such a being _is_ in fact incompatible with the real world. And it’s self-contradictory in its definition alone, as it is also incompatible with several of the stories they define into its being too, about this god performing horrible acts of mass genocide, flooding the entire planet, sending people to suffer in a lake of fire, hardening the heart of an Egyptian king to show off some more plagues, asking people to slaughter animals to show this omniscient being where not to enter when he is killing innocent children to prove a point to a man whose hears he had hardened, etc etc etc. Such a being is logically impossible as defined. You’re free to adjust your definition and remove one or more parts. And there’s no problem, other than the fact that there’s not no evidence to indicate that it’s real. But it would no longer be logically self-contradictory or incompatible with the real world.

Don Ashe, EdD is entirely correct in defining the Atheism that he is discussing as being the belief in the non-existence of God. Someone might say that it would be better described as the belief that no gods exist, but that would not be addressing his point. He is not addressing the social distinction that whose members are called Atheists. He said that he is discussing the subject of Atheism in the philosophy of religion. There is no reason to believe that he is discussing the social distinction, he said that he intended to be discussing the theological position of Atheism. To be recognized as a theological position, a philosophical proposition must reflect on the possible existence of God, and by embracing that proposition the individual's search for an answer to the question of God's existence must be brought to a close. Only three philosophical propositions have ever met the definitional criteria to be recognized as theological positions. The first two of those three positions are named Atheism and Theism, the third, which was identified thousands of years later, is produced by Agnosticism. All three of those positions are antithetical to the others, one cannot embrace any one of those positions and be able to embrace either of the other two at the same time. Many people do not occupy any of the three theological positions, they may embrace a proposition that counts as reflecting on the possible existence of God but does not inevitably lead to the closing of the question. Of course, it is possible that people may choose not to embrace any position at all regarding theology. Theism is the proposition that God does exist. That does reflect on the possible existence of God, and embracing that proposition does bring to a close the individual's search for an answer to the question of God's existence. So, this is clearly one of the three recognized theological positions. Atheism is the proposition that no gods exist, That does reflect on the possible existence of God, and by embracing that proposition the individual will bring their search for an answer to the question of God's existence to a close. So, this is also clearly one of the three recognized theological positions. Agnosticism is an ideology and its proposition requires a little more explanation than the exquisitely uncomplicated propositions of the other two. The original precept of the ideology was that scientific reasoning and principals can yield useful results when applied to other things in life besides science, including theology. This included the extension of the epistemic responsibility found in science to the consideration of theology and thus extending the responsibility it entailed to be towards the whole of society. Soon, the theological proposition's phrasing was changed to explicitly state the epistemic responsibility and leave the application of scientific standards implicit. This can be phrased as, _it is ethically wrong to develop beliefs in, or claim to know, things which cannot be justified scientifically to others._ If the possible existence of God is examined under this proposition it will be found that there is not sufficient justification for developing a belief that there is a God, nor that there is not one. Through a lens of scientific reasoning, each avenue of exploration can be examined and exhausted, thus leaving the Agnostic without sufficient grounds to draw any firm conclusion. Not having found sufficient reason to draw a conclusion does not count as bringing the question to a close, even if the individual has exhausted all avenues of exploration and has no expectation of changes in those circumstances or results. Others have worked their way through all of those very same challenges and eventually did arrive at a conclusion. In order for not drawing a firm conclusion on the grounds of insufficient justification to count as a conclusion, the individual would have to demonstrate that all of the others that did come to a conclusion were wrong, which should be impossible without having sufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion. To prove that one conclusion was wrong, one would have to prove a conflicting positive claim, proving such conflicting positive claim would prove that the other conclusion was right. For those reasons, those that simply have not found sufficient reason to draw a firm conclusion regarding the possible existence of God are correctly regarded as belonging to the broad category called "seekers", a category into which everyone that has considered the issue but has not yet drawn a conclusion is sorted. However, the Agnostic has arrived at that point because of ethical considerations, and by the ethical standards of Agnosticism the Agnostic can demonstrate that it was ethically wrong _'of'_ those others to have drawn a firm conclusion at that point. So, the proposition of Agnosticism, if embraced, causes the individual to refuse to draw a firm conclusion regarding the possible existence of God, based on ethical considerations that indite those that have drawn a firm conclusion, and therefore has brought that individual's search for an answer to the question of God's possible existence to a close. It is thus that Agnosticism produces a third recognized theological position.

No. Atheism is essentially nothing more than saying "I don't believe you" when people claim the gods exist. It does not have to be, although it could be, an assertion that no gods exist. They are two different positions.

hmmm

the last part is cut off. Would you be able to extend it? This has been very helpful and insightful. Thank you.

Here's why these arguments will never be evidence for a god/s because even when you accept the conclusion, you are still no closer to proving any particular God exists. *Cosmological Argument's conclusion* : _"the universe has a cause"_ *Flaw* : Nothing about that conclusion identifies the cause. *Teleological Argument"s conclusion* : _"The universe is too specific not to be designed"_ *Flaw* : That does nothing but support a deistic God not any specific God/s *Ontological argument's conclusion* : _"Because it is possible for a God to exist...a God must exist."_ *Flaw* : This argument could be used for anything you want. "Because it is possible for a Unicorn to exist...a Unicorn must exist." *Contingency Argument's conclusion* : _"what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time."_ *Flaw* : Just like the Cosmological argument the conclusion does not identify the cause. *Moral Arguement's conclusion* : _"Objective moral values and duties do exist, therefore God exists."_ *Flaw* : That does nothing but support a deistic God not any specific God/s