![Philosophy Visualised](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- Видео 5
- Просмотров 5 267
Philosophy Visualised
Добавлен 27 май 2018
Joshua Rasmussen | Describing God, Existence, Ultimate Foundations
0:00 Introduction
3:56 Who is God?
10:42 Is God even Conceivable?
19:08 God and Contradictions
26:00 Mystics
34:54 God's Non-Propositional Knowledge
37:14 What does it mean to exist?
42:42 Self-Referential Paradoxes
3:56 Who is God?
10:42 Is God even Conceivable?
19:08 God and Contradictions
26:00 Mystics
34:54 God's Non-Propositional Knowledge
37:14 What does it mean to exist?
42:42 Self-Referential Paradoxes
Просмотров: 597
Видео
Digital Gnosis | Theism, Philosophical Enquiry, Religious Life
Просмотров 6968 месяцев назад
@DigitalGnosis Friends, another day another dollar. Great conversation: I certainly enjoyed it. Thanks again Nathan!
Graham Oppy | Negative Theology, Theistic Idealism, Comparing Worldviews
Просмотров 3 тыс.9 месяцев назад
Folks I am very happy to be joined today by Graham Oppy. Graham is professor of philosophy at Monash University specializing in the philosophy of religion. Link to Oppy's books on Amazon: www.amazon.com.au/s?i=digital-text&rh=p_27:Graham Oppy&s=relevancerank&text=Graham Oppy&ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1 Chapters: 0:00 Intro 0:43 Oppy's Main Argument Against Theism 3:24 Negative Theology & God's Na...
Lance Bush | Metaethics, Evolutionary Debunking, Analytic Philosophy
Просмотров 47310 месяцев назад
Lance Bush | Metaethics, Evolutionary Debunking, Analytic Philosophy
Dale Allison | The Resurrection of Jesus, Peer Disagreement, Negative Theology
Просмотров 53410 месяцев назад
Hello friends I am extremely excited to be joined today by Dale Allison. Dale Allison is an american new testament scholar and historian of early christianity. Allison is currently the Richard J. Dearborn Professor of New Testament Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary. You can find his books here: www.amazon.com.au/s?i=digital-text&rh=p_27:Dale C. Allison, Jr.&s=relevancerank&text=Dale C. ...
It's great that Oppy is willing to engage not only with other professional philosophers but also young interviewers just starting out. He's never condescending or arrogant, and shows great respect when challenged. Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins are not the only path to atheism.
nope, god doesn't exist
great questions! (and answers)
2:00:00 I never really understood this "I lean theism over naturalism because I hope there's an afterlife" mindset. There is nothing inherent to the god hypothesis that implies an afterlife at all. Like, at all. If anything, I would say that I assign a significantly higher prior probability to the existence of god than to the existence of an afterlife, and if it turned out the former were true, that wouldn't move my conditional posterior of the latter much at all.
Lance uses a lot of words like "strange" or "weird" when he faces views that are not in line with his own, which is a fine example of bias of judgement. He conveys a certain sense of dismissal implying that these views are somehow abnormal. I think Lance does a terrible job of in terms of accurately reflecting their worthiness of consideration. How about focusing on more objective evaluation and decriptions of those views instead of loading the topic with emotionally charged dissmisive or derogatory type of language?? After all, Lance is a type of guy that thinks that psychology can be equated with hard sciences in term of thinking that we have anything remote to comprehensive account of mind or psyche. His view of practical agency and non instrumentalist goals and values is in my opinion not only strange or weird, but totally false.
Next time, could you record it with the volume up a little higher. My 59 year old ears can barely hear it.
Yes! I recorded over FaceTime instead of Zoom, my mistake!
I can barely hear it either 😂
2:08:22 I’ve just recently thought about this as well. It’s very illuminating to see that all of these theodicies are not mutually exclusive. I think Peter Van Inwagen’s theodicy about how there is no non arbitrary lower limit to evil is my favorite so far. I wonder if there could possibly be a cumulative case made against the problem of evil utilizing all of the various theodicies in conjunction with one another. Overall, this was a very nice conversation and I think Dr Rasmussen showcases how complicated philosophy of religion can be. It really does require a vast range of knowledge of all sorts of subjects
Joshua Rasmussen is a gem. 😍
I want oppy to explain where his necessary initial item of reality goes after t=0.
Are you serious? Do you know what necessity means in philosophy?
@@cogitoergosum3433 yes you brain let that’s my point. If it’s necessary at t=0 it would still be necessary at t=1 for example if you believe god is the necessary initial item. For oppys view it’s perfectly reasonable to ask where did this necessary stuff go?
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Well not quite, though I see your reasoning. However, the reasoning Oppy uses is very different and hard to refute if you’re a theist (which is why he is not convinced by theism) and made more difficult by virtue of the creation ex nihilo. You will recall that Craig (and Loke) argue for creation ex nihilo, that is creation from absolutely no thing at all. However, both theist and atheist agree and accept that nothing can come from nothing, Craig’s supports this with his ‘nothing can come from nothing, nothing has no potentiality, etc’. (Accepting that there is no logical contradiction entailed in creation from nothing by nothing and Alexander Vilenkin shows this is possible by no cause using the known laws of physics). There are two problems theists often gloss over. Neither physicists or cosmologists agree that was ever a state of nothing at all. What is absolutely known is that the universe that the stuff of the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state. Not only does this mean there is no creation from absolute nothing known (the evidence shows otherwise), but that this state would also be timeless, spaceless and contain an immense amount of potential energy (what Craig calls powerful) and we know that energy does not require anything, not even a mind to actuate an event. So, what can we conclude? 1. There is never (insofar as is known) a state of no thing at all. 2. If there is never a state of no thing then it must necessarily contain everything that becomes the universe, including fine tuning etc. 3. If follows logically and necessarily from the above that as the universe cannot be created from nothing, then the stuff of the universe must, by axiomatic definition, exist necessarily. In the past both Craig and Loke in debate with Graham Oppy have tried to assert that the necessary state of the universe is proceeded by a further necessary state, i.e god. Of course, this is absurd as this is in effect arguing that an explanation of the explanandum is needed (which both argue is absurd when god is reasoned to be necessary, but oddly when god is not implicated they demand an explanation, much in the way an atheist may ask what is the explanation of god. One of the few times I’ve seen Oppy annoyed is when Loke tries to pull this trick and Loke misquotes Oppy’s argument. So you can see that neither Craig or Oppy can provide a valid and sound argument that can unseat Oppy or even give him the slightest cause to reconsider his position, even if we assume creatio ex nihilo, as on the theists own argument nothing comes from nothing. But even if we accept Vilenkins argument, oddly Craig doesn’t cite Vilenkin when he does not conclude the god possibility, then the laws of physics show god is not necessary for anything. Craig and Loke both know this, but never make explicit the implications of Oppy’s valid and sound argument, which not only philosophically robust, but is supported by evidence. So, to conclude, as you do, that the necessary condition is god, is to deny the arguments of Craig and Oppy on grounds of logic, physics and, more importantly, Christian doctrine and theology. I hope I have made clear the way theists claims are formed, means that Oppy is perfectly and rationally justified to reject theist claims. In other words claiming that the stuff of the universe not only did exist, but necessarily had to exist (it could not not existed) with all the potentials to do what’s happened. And all this follows from theist / atheist agreement that from nothing, nothing comes. The atheist clause for this to be true something had to necessarily true. And if so, the theists claim of ex nihilo creation is self refuting. But as I showed even if creatio ex nihilo is possible, Vilenkin is able to show that at the very least, based on the known evidence and laws of physics, god is unnecessary, and can be dispensed with by the use of Occabd razor (as citing god is a wheel in the cog that performs no function in the argument). Peace.
@@cogitoergosum3433 I had to skim over your wall of text because I am busy and don't really have time to get in a deep philosophical debate in a youtube comment section man. Why would you assume I agree with Loke or Craig? I think God is temporal. You sound pretty limited on which theists you follow. I suggest looking into Ryan Mullins more. Most contemporary physicists currently do HOLD that the initial conditions are contingent. I'm not arguing for the kalam here. But putting all that aside I do believe Kenny Pearce in the debate book with Oppy pointed out flaws in his thinking and that Oppy needs to explain how his version aligns with current science.
@@cogitoergosum3433 Josh Siwuade has a paper countering Oppy naturalism and when you analyze first autonomous fact that attributes fit God more. Also if you are thomistic you are arguing initial items essence=existence. Which attributes that fit God more than some natural item.
I actually like Josh’s blog post where he disputes it. He believes theism explains more of the data such as consciousness.
Im not sure exactly where i stand yet either. but I'm fairly sure whatever i decide will be somewhere under the moral anti-realist umbrella. interesting conversation. the topic deserves a lot more attention.
I wonder who Graham supports in the AFL. If he's like the other smart people, it would have to be Carlton.
Surely not!
Watching this as a theist, I think you did an amazing job as an interviewer. You really squeezed a lot of philosophical knowledge out of Oppy with your questions. Personally, I love to listen to Dr Oppy even though I am a theist because he really brings some good challenges to the theistic position and it’s great to know the pros and cons of different philosophical worldviews. I’ll be looking forward to more good content from your channel
Lol it's pretty cool that a RUclips channel with sixty-one subscribers has managed to get Graham Oppy on for an interview. I suppose philosophy of religion is pretty niche, but it's cool to see that he was willing to come on for two hours. Also, I'm glad to see someone asking him questions besides 'What is the proper definition of 'atheism'?' and 'What is the best argument for the existence of God?'
Very much in tune with what Nathan said about intellectual honesty and allowing yourself to follow your thoughts in the face of the immensity of philosophical positions and problems. That following where thoughts go is something I’ve been doing for a good couple years now. In the last maybe two and a half years or so I’ve jumped from “being” a materialist, to an objective idealist, to an anti-realist, to small stints in classical theism and apophatic theisms, to pluralism, to pantheism, and further-spending time in each as if I was holding that position and seeing what it provoked in my personal thoughts and interests. It’s by nature very episodic and fluid, so I’m sure not for everyone, but I find it quite rewarding. And if I want I can hop back in to a view and see things differently, or oppose two views by playing devils advocate on myself. It’s fun, but you just gotta be able to track yourself lol
What do you think about transcendental argument? Are you familiar with Jay Dyer?
I am not familiar with Jay Dyer unfortunately. Neither have I looked into transcendental arguments yet.
Great interview!. Love Dr. Allison.
Hey are you on discord.
Yes. @jason1234567yubhjnklkm
Antony Flew
Conversations like this are infuriating. Two people who care about rationality and reason contemplating whether they should entertain something completely devoid of either. Religion has one thing to offer. False hope for the weak minded.
Idk man I think it’s fine to hope for the truth of theism. Especially since I think the evidence is counterbalanced, why not wager for a position that offers an afterlife? As opposed to rotting in the ground? I recognise that this applies uniquely to me. It sounds like you’re pretty settled on the issue. I can only ask that you recognise that others are not as convinced as you are; surely that counts for something in your book.
It was talked about in the video, and shown again in your reply (which I appreciate you taking the time to make) that your reasons are emotional rather than logical. Which is why it is so frustrating to someone convinced that theism is not only untrue but irrational. I respect that everyone views the world differently but I think you are allowing your fear of death to sit on the same side of the scale as the evidence for theism, and only for that reason does it even raise the atheist side off the ground. If I may ask you a question, you seem to desire an afterlife and it appears that you assume that afterlife will be a good one. What percentage chance of an eternity in hell would you be willing to take the gamble on before non-existence becomes preferable? For me if there was even a one in a billion chance that I go to hell and the rest of the time I go to eternal bliss, or I could opt out and just stop existing, there is no way I would take that gamble. The risk is far too high.
@@betadecay6503thx for the response! I probably didn’t talk much about the reasons why I find the evidence to be counterbalanced in this video simply because (1) I’m still learning philosophy (2) I’ve heard Nathan talk about these arguments a lot and didn’t want to have him repeat a lot of what he’s already said; however, I haven’t heard much of his thoughts on negative theology and fideism. As for hell…I think at this point one’s theology will come into play. For my part, I think there are overwhelming reasons to be a universalist in this respect. On that view, there is (ultimately) eternal bliss for everyone. Perhaps if hell was required I would not lean toward theism anymore. The overarching theme of the conversation was what should I do if (1) I think the philosophical and scientific evidence is ambiguous with respect to Gods existence and (2) I have a strong emotional pull toward theism for the reasons discussed (fear of death; desire for ultimate justice, purpose; etc.). Should I ignore it? Should I act on it in the form of attending church, mosque, etc.? Are there philosophical and theological perspectives that allow for uncertainty or lack of complete knowledge (e.g. negative theology)? U gotta remember I’m only 18 so this all so new 😂.
@@PhilosophyVisualised I understand why someone would hear you say: "Perhaps if hell was required I would not lean toward theism anymore" and think you're just engaging in motivated reasoning. However, eternal hell is a debilitating intellectual problem for perfect being theism and so regardless of emotional motivations it's a strong reason to reject a theistic worldview which includes it. If you are completely on the fence between two positions, it's fine in my view to allow pragmatic considerations to determine which way you lean. Additionally, all this talk about being "weak-minded" and we haven't heard an argument as to why that's bad! Why should we care if we're being "weak-minded" in practicing a religion or hoping that God exists if it improves our lives? I legitimately have never heard a developed justification for why that's bad apart from appeals to negative consequences from believing other false things. What is the *specific* harm just from maintaining religious belief itself, and why think that it outweighs the benefits? To the atheist reader: Picture a religious believer who shares all your views on politics, economics, and social life. They believe in God and practice a religion which inspires them to engage in pro-social behavior you approve of. What exactly is bad about them being "weak-minded" and believing something false? I am personally not convinced that believing something false is intrinsically harmful or that any harm it presents cannot be outweighed by other considerations. These considerations can be subject-dependent and not generalizable to the hard-nosed, stoic, atheist ubermenschen who walk among us. You can change my talk of harm to general "badness" if you reject the harm principle. My skepticism over these sorts of arguments is not confined to any specific metaethical view.
@@PhilosophyVisualised it's great that you're questioning and at such a young age you're doing well. Most people never worry themselves too much with whether their beliefs are true. With regards to ultimate justice, this is another problem I have with theism. You rightly acknowledge that it is an emotional line of reasoning and I can completely understand that desire. The problem I see is that it reduces the burden on us, as people, to seek justice here and now. People can do horrible things and get away with it because the universe is completely apathetic towards our ideas and values. With no ultimate arbiter it falls to us to do the best we can rather than leave it to a God that might not be there. Theism, I feel, is the lesser framework for seeking justice, and by extension, the less moral position.
Oppy cussing was everything I've ever needed
Probably not.
I just want to say that the interviewer did a great job and this was a brilliant interview
Folks if you enjoyed that please feel free to leave a like and don’t forget to subscribe!
Omg😢😢
Dr.Oppy My name is Dawn Marx, I’m a fan of your work in philosophy of religion. I was wondering if you’d be interested in joining a “philhoes” server. We’d love to have you. Thanks bunches, Dawn Marx
Oppy does frequent discord servers from time to time. He can’t see your comment here but if you shoot him an email I’m sure he’ll respond!
I heard dawn is a sophist :) Hey buddy
@@jmike2039 oh yeah?! Let’s formalize it, the prop is “Dawn is a sophist”, you can take the affirmative 😎
W us
Dad?
We just tripled viewership from one discord 😂
W
Added to my watch list, thanks Lance.
Hope you enjoy it!
Lance sent me here. :)
Thanks for having me on! If you have questions for me, you can ask me here!
Thanks for taking the time!
Hey, Lance! Someone named @user-kt5gm6wq7x recently commented in this video saying he thinks you're not evaluating the topic in an impartial way. It would interesting be read your thoughts in response to that.