I don't know if you read comments, but it would be nice if you made playlist for other videos besides your lectures on Romans. I really enjoy your lectures.
Mr Gore, could I ask a few questions? First, I should say that I've now watched all your lectures, and I've enjoyed them immensely. Thank you so much for posting them. Considering that Leibniz was a mathematician of great brilliance, I expect that I'm the one in the wrong. However, something kept bothering me. I would have thought that an infinite number of infinitely small items could not amount to anything larger than infinite smallness. Therefore, I couldn't wrap my head around the idea that reality could be composed of monads unless reality itself is infinitely small, which did not appear to cooperate with the idea that you are a monad or that the marker is a monad, for example. What am I missing here? If you are able to respond to this comment, I'd also really like to ask something about Barth. As you explained, he holds that the Bible cannot be the word of God, who is 'wholly other', because common ground is a prerequisite for communication in words. I remember here the Cartesian assertion that God is 'supremely intelligent' or, to use a phrase I understand to be orthodox in Christianity, 'infinite in knowledge'. I understand this to mean that God has knowledge of everything that exists, has existed, or will exist. If common ground for human communication is the result of a knowledge of human experiences, then either those human experiences do not exist or God has full knowledge of them. Thus, I would argue, God has sufficient common ground for communication. This, at least, is my attempt to rationalise these ideas. In the wake of this line of reasoning, I remember that you described Barth as a surprisingly orthodox Christian. Therefore, this is my question: Did Barth believe that God was infinite in knowledge? Or does he explain himself in a different way? Or have I missed something I shouldn't have? Many thanks again. You've been the highlight of my year so far.
So You mean , the lecturer doesnt exist in my phone but was predetermined and sent thru 1 and 0 by someweightless electromagnetic medium just to reapear as my individual perception. Its way more Leibnitz to discover I think
Probably because of focusing too much on the mind, and then all of what happened in the world is just something that happened in your mind, thus making objects like cars or music, an an illusion.
Thanks for a fascinating series of lectures. Not as good, I think, as your history of the church or bible in context lectures, perhaps because the subjects were dictated by syllabus rather than your own interests. But a great overview nonetheless. Thanks for posting it.
![[Desmos Midi Player] Devourer of Gods (Possible thanks to @sirparrot4087)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WAHfDKdY0mQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't know if you read comments, but it would be nice if you made playlist for other videos besides your lectures on Romans. I really enjoy your lectures.
Mr Gore, could I ask a few questions?
First, I should say that I've now watched all your lectures, and I've enjoyed them immensely. Thank you so much for posting them.
Considering that Leibniz was a mathematician of great brilliance, I expect that I'm the one in the wrong. However, something kept bothering me. I would have thought that an infinite number of infinitely small items could not amount to anything larger than infinite smallness. Therefore, I couldn't wrap my head around the idea that reality could be composed of monads unless reality itself is infinitely small, which did not appear to cooperate with the idea that you are a monad or that the marker is a monad, for example. What am I missing here?
If you are able to respond to this comment, I'd also really like to ask something about Barth. As you explained, he holds that the Bible cannot be the word of God, who is 'wholly other', because common ground is a prerequisite for communication in words. I remember here the Cartesian assertion that God is 'supremely intelligent' or, to use a phrase I understand to be orthodox in Christianity, 'infinite in knowledge'. I understand this to mean that God has knowledge of everything that exists, has existed, or will exist. If common ground for human communication is the result of a knowledge of human experiences, then either those human experiences do not exist or God has full knowledge of them. Thus, I would argue, God has sufficient common ground for communication. This, at least, is my attempt to rationalise these ideas. In the wake of this line of reasoning, I remember that you described Barth as a surprisingly orthodox Christian. Therefore, this is my question: Did Barth believe that God was infinite in knowledge? Or does he explain himself in a different way? Or have I missed something I shouldn't have?
Many thanks again. You've been the highlight of my year so far.
Any reference to the acoustic guitar at the beginning of your videos please? Thanks
Bach's "Inventions"
@@apologiacontra6992 very charming. Thanks for sharing
So You mean , the lecturer doesnt exist in my phone but was predetermined and sent thru 1 and 0 by someweightless electromagnetic medium just to reapear as my individual perception.
Its way more Leibnitz to discover I think
Missed out on Queen Anne ;)
Hello,
Can someone answer this question for me? How do you start with the mind and lost the world ultimately? Thank you
search in Descartes
Probably because of focusing too much on the mind, and then all of what happened in the world is just something that happened in your mind, thus making objects like cars or music, an an illusion.
Thanks for a fascinating series of lectures. Not as good, I think, as your history of the church or bible in context lectures, perhaps because the subjects were dictated by syllabus rather than your own interests. But a great overview nonetheless. Thanks for posting it.
👌🏻👌🏻Thanks you
Hell yeah! first