Is Theism Coherent? | Episode 713 | Closer To Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 окт 2020
- Theism is the belief in God. But atheists claim that theism is not coherent, meaning that God as a concept is riddled with conflicts, Inconsistencies and contradictions. Theists respond. Featuring interviews with Richard Swinburne, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Quentin Smith.
Season 7, Episode 13 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Philosophy #Religion
Given Professor Kuhn has access to such excellent production values, for example this series of videos . . . i couldn't have said it better myself. Many thanks.
Might help to discuss specific incoherences and inconsistencies. What are the main incoherencies of theism and theology?
For the supernaturalist there is the known, the unknown and the unknowable. For naturalist there is the known and the unknown. How does the supernaturalist distinguish between the unknown and the unknowable? OR I have it wrong. The supernatural is just a natural thing---'supernatural'---not at all unknownable.
Within the first five minutes, one of the inconsistencies mentioned is omnipotence and the paradox of the stone.
Awesome as usual!!
I'd like to see episodes on process theology.
As long as there is no evidence of God, there is no reason to worry about coherence or not. No evidence, No God.
@Fernando Scasioso Yeah, like what? Tell us
I really don’t see why god has to be the way people want or made it up to be. Take the problem of evil. The most obvious solution is that god is not that good. And that does in no way make god less divine.
We have very rudimentary understanding of a lot of things in our world, like quantum gravity or brains. Isn’t it a bit presumptuous to think we can know anything about something like a god that exists beyond our observable physical existence ?
Do please demonstrate your claim ! that god is the most powerful ! BTW first of all you have to demonstrate why your god of the 30 odd thousand is the ONLY one
@@gowdsake7103
You’d probably be better off taking the energy that goes into aggressively asking the questions and putting it into thinking through some of the philosophical assumptions behind your questions and (well....) asking better questions.
@@gowdsake7103 , sorry, I cannot demonstrate anything about my god.
@Donald McCarthy
How do you know?
@Donald McCarthy , that is of course an even more obvious solution :)
I think that every religion, every faith, every spiritual tradition that has a "god" figure can only be a part of the picture, probably a very small part. If there is a god I submit that such a being is virtually unlike any deity imagined by humans throughout history. If I had to pick an existing description that seems most likely to be actual, I'd probably look to Brahma, although that doesn't mean I think Hinduism itself is 100% true. Or that any religion is true, necessarily. I feel like it's very constraining to investigate a single definition of god, say the Christian creator god, and interrogate that definition without also looking into alternative conceptions. But then finding a coherent description of a deitiy becomes harder, because one's contemplating more possibilities.
The universe doesn't need a creator, however. If there is an entity that could be a god or godlike I believe that entity would be, like all of us, a part of this universe. Or a part of the hypothetical multiverse.
You're far ahead of this class.
@@danielpaulson8838 I realize most people want to ask and answer "is my religion right? Is someone else's?" and I get that but also it'd be cool to ask if any of them need to be true.
@@femmedracula6857 I like the words “we find these truths to be self evident”. Though they work for the founding of a nation, they don’t seem to apply to a religion.
I’m with you. I believe Brahma or, “the sum of the cosmos”, is a much easier to comprehend description of what we would call a god.
The need for god to be something we have a personal relationship with as in Abrahamic descended traditions is a rather childlike look at existence.
The god of Abraham as the god exclusively referred to in this channel is quite a sticking point. It’s a very closed viewpoint.
The term god has taken on incredible baggage. And Christian and Islamic theists are the worst minds to be open.
Your ideas and reasoning sound clear, logical, and humble.
@@danielpaulson8838 The argument against theology is just that if we had a theory of everything than we would discover that the Cosmos is God
Actually, after taking just a short trip through the comment thread, more than ever the answer is emphatically "NO".
Have you noticed how much theists argue their case by only saying that apposing ideology is wrong?
If just one of them would show up with a god, we might have something. Till then, it's like arguing with mist. There's nothing there.
“Theists only argue for theism by arguing that atheism is false.”
Breathtaking.
Good to discuss theism to help make coherent. Theologians keep talking about to update their understanding and for better starting point.
pretty much every argument against theism is directed at exoteric teachings of the abrahamic religions. once one enters the esoteric philosophy of pretty much every religion in the world, it becomes pretty much impossible to disprove them. but the exoteric is much more emotionally compelling than the esoteric. it is much easier, more powerful to throw oneself into something which we feel. all this doesn't mean you have to believe in a theistic system, but it's just choose to or not, there is no way to prove or disprove either position.
How to get thomas j watson fellowship grant?
It's a good title.
Maybe I could look.
I enjoy this show and know this episode is a repeat. BUT ARE THERE NO NEW VOICES??????
We need not define or even attempt to understand our God. My reason, we have finite human minds. God is beyond our grasp of understanding. Therefore, we may see inconsistencies but in fact at the knowledge of Gods leavel, there are no inconsistencies. Simply, we just don't get it at this point in time....and probably never will.
To find the real God one has to create and develop an image of God by force of internal faith. A unique protective power just for you.
For me God's existence or non existence is truly irrelevant. How I show up in the world, the choices I make is where relevance lies. After all this is where I exist right now. That makes compassion and respect for all that is very relevant. I believe that this is an evolving Universe of which we are an integral part.
I have come to a similar conclusion. Let’s take something well known. Like gravity, maybe there is no curvature of space time causing what we call or perceive as gravity. Maybe it is just gods will. But if it is his will is remarkably consistent, so much so that we can make mathematical models to predict it with great accuracy. And at that point it ceases to matter (to me). If it is attraction between bodies as Newton said or gods will really does not matter when it appears to be an understandable and predictable natural phenomenon. And this goes for most things around us, it the gods acted in the world things would behave much more strangely. When they don’t that is a good indication that no gods are active in the world.
For me Quantum mechanics, Quantum physics and consciousness, tie in nicely together. I feel this when I meditate.@@mockupguy3577
@x86 taha , a lot of things are conceivable and can be reasonably coherent.
I would say that for all intents and purposes the “laws of nature” exists and we humans are discovering them and creating mathematical models and approximations to describe them.
Another possibility is that no laws of nature exists and something divine is driving everything and if that divine walked away it would just stop. Maybe the divine put gravity in place and the planets would still orbit the sun if the divine disappeared. But maybe the divine is actively moving them, like a child pushing a toy car, and they would just stop if the divine went away.
And then if we venture into the dark alleys of philosophy we have the idea that nothing exists except consciousness and that everything else is some kind of dream.
@x86 taha This reality that is being experienced is guided by a force of Light. It's difficult to put into words as this experience is perceived as duality. So saying that I am experiencing this reality and are therefore separate from the Light is an illusion albeit a necessary one. All is the Light experienced in various forms. In the multidimensional, multiverses I guess the experiences are different. Who knows? This is the reality being experienced. And in true duality language, I am more concerned with how I experience and evolve in this world.
@@mockupguy3577 Sorry Rickard, I didn't mean to attribute my perceptions to you. I grew up in the 60's 70's so no technology.
Very nice! Excellent series!
It is my considered opinion that a literal virgin birth of Jesus is incoherent with the notion of a compassionate God cuz, why not every couple hundred years? Abandoning the notion of miracles generally compels the question of why Christianity got popular in the first place: this is a very productive question. I think the Barabbas/Christ dychotomy is a figurative construct from a gnostic meditative experience. I think Judas "the twin" started Christianity.
*why not every couple hundred years?*
Why do we need one every couple hundred years?
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn Just to clear up any ambiguity from the previous. I mean, if you're inclined to think we had one in the first place.
Consciousness, creator and sustainer indicate God has time?
If it's not contradictory to existent objective reality then it is coherent.
I agree. Only things that exist in 4 dimensional reality can be shown to be "true" with varying certainty. If something exists in 4 dimensional reality then it is possibly true because we can test it for consistency. Metaphysically something possible may be true even if we cant test it, because anything true is also possible.
If something is impossible its wave function cannot collapse into 4 dimensional reality so it must be false. Coherence is great to this point, because we can figure out what is not true based on possibility. But the problem is unless a wave function has collapsed into 4 dimensional reality we cannot know if something possible is true. But I believe 4 dimensional reality does exists, and to me that's enough to believe that truth does exist. But thats on me. This is why logical coherence is so fun to think about.
From the dawn of man we have been hardwired to know that we have a source, a "creator". Throughout history we have created different religions to try to provide a conduit to said creator. From these man made organizations sprung various dogma and "truths" which different communities would profess through faith. The problem is that none of these religions have demonstrated any special knowledge or revelation that is unassailable. The fact is that all of the attributes assigned to God are created by man. While I strongly believe that we do have a Creator and that such belief is coherent, we have no ability to know the true nature of such an entity. We don't even know the true nature of our reality.
Beautifully written. Thank you for sharing.
Bollocks ! Belief and feeling is not evidence
If you cannot KNOW the nature of something then you HAVE to assume it does not exist
@@gowdsake7103 Have you ever been in love? If yes, can you provide any evidence?
Meanwhile, we certainly cannot know the nature of the Universe, at best, we can only get very limited glimpses of its functioning. Should we then have to assume that the Universe does not exist?
@@gowdsake7103 I did not say "feelings and belief", I said man is hardwired to "know" he has a creator. Also as I pointed out we don't know the true nature of the reality we exist in. We don't know the genesis of life, hell we don't even know why we sleep. Following your logic we'll have to assume none of those things exist. What is sad is that you could have a revelation and doubt it.
So who created the Creator?
I'm afraid it is
I would ask the two smartest people in the world what their views are Marilyn vos Savant is 1 and 2 is Christopher Michael Langdon
At best He allows us some play which is the so called scientific advancement
His structure is such as. to make living beings evolve to His perspective and it is not tautology .Bodies are expressions of our desire may not be His
We are made like Him but remotely or completely dissimilar
As long as long science cannot overcome birth,death,old age and disease we are not on His dimensions at all
Why is it people keep insisting that god must be perfect in every sense? In case there even is a god, how would we ever know? It seems people are starting from the conclusion they want (that god is perfect) and then try to work back from there.
The reason theism is not coherent is because “believing” is not “knowing.”
If theists and atheists knew, rather than simply believed or didn’t believe; then there would be no conflicts, inconsistencies or contradictions. In other words, there would be no need for speculation.
To explain God means to explain the universe; and this is no easy task.
Much of the confusion stems from the use of the word; “exist/s.”
How real God or the universe is, depends on the precision and perspective of your description. In fact all matter only simulates reality, because all matter is being created due to motion. All matter is crystallic. If motion could stop, there would be no universe. It is also important to remember that we don’t live in a created universe, but a constantly created and creating one.
The most scientific answer is that the only substance that exists is light. Light is the only real thing that exists. All matter which makes up the universe are conditions of light. God is Still White Light. This fulcrum of stillness is the still centre of gravity which balances and centres all bodies. Without matter there would be no God, and vice versa.
L. Dove
Arbiter - Universal Law
What do you mean by "Light is the only real thing that exists"?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Thanks for the question, John. Light is the one and only substance of the universe. Periodic effects, or states of motion are registered in light. This is what we call “matter.”
What we call the “elements of matter” do not vary in substance. They vary only in their states of motion.
I am happy to answer questions, but it is a huge topic. If you wanted to email me at LDove@ozemail.com.au. I would enjoy discussing it in more detail, and can recommend books, etc.
@@user-de5cl8vg8m Okay thanks. If I decide to email you, my email will be Tinmancafe@aol.com
Have a great day John in Florida
You started well!!! By the time you got to the end, you were spouting absolute drivel.
@@donritchfield1407 Very hard to sum up electric wave dynamics in a couple of paragraphs, Don.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn need to talk with Sadhguru. I would like to see Robert's reaction after or maybe he can't react at all. :)
You think Sadhguru is deep?
@@roybecker492 I want to see how it goes on conversations with Robert and Sadhguru or any enlightened mystics for that matter. I had enough with those orthodox theists and western philosophers insights on this matter.
Has sadgura seen a god, these people are shysters my friend, looking for things that are not there.
@@ericdumont610 God is within. You should look to the inside
Is Theism Coherent? In my 61 years of experience, it has never ever been. Thank you CTT.
For many, Christianity will only be coherent when faith is no longer needed. All creation will see the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. But then it will be too late to confess him as Savior and Lord by faith. After that is eternity - apart from the God they rejected.
@@timcox9650 "Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company."
@@ferdinandkraft857 If misery loves company , then yes, hell will have plenty.
What exactly is the contradiction in theism *itself* that you’ve been experiencing for 61 years (whatever that means)?
@Stefano Portoghesi
None of those are contradictions.
Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God.
But, science is now attempting to do this. Science, is becoming more political now.
God is the same, today, yesterday and always. HE perfect, perfectly suited for every situation
It has been held by all major religious thinkers in the Western tradition that God cannot do something which is inherently self-contradictory. Ultimately, this is because any such hypothetical act dissolves into gibberish. Lewis Carroll wrote a nonsense poem titled Jabberwocky in 1871 which contained the following section: "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe..." Can an omnipotent God (if he exists) make some "slithy toves", gyre and gimble in the wabe? No, because it's just nonsense phrasing that's structured to sound like it's talking about some actual possibility. That is what self-contradictory acts are.
It's a certainty there are many hypotheticals left about possible states of or actions in our universe which are self-contradictory without us (yet) realizing that fact. Finding contradictions between data and theory is a huge part of what science does.This does not make the idea of an omnipotent God incoherent.
Alice, after reading the "Jabberwocky":
"It seems very pretty," she said when she had finished it, "but it's rather hard to understand!" (You see she didn't like to confess, even to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) "Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas-only I don't exactly know what they are! However, somebody killed something: that's clear, at any rate." [Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There]
So, she seems to be able to find some sense in nonsense phrasing". Sounds familiar...
Is believing without evidence coherent? Is believing despite evidence coherent? Is drinking the Kool-Aid coherent? Like Mulder, “I Want to Believe”, but … (Thank you for another awesome video!)
I don’t know why any of this is relevant here, but yes all of those things are coherent.
How much ego does it take too believe your god is the right version of a god. Apparently one hell of a lot.
The gods seem to be quite powerless. Even Jesus could only do small miracles. They all need the hands of man too do anything at all in the material world. 🙄
@@thomasridley8675
Thank you for sharing your feelings.
@@joshheter1517 ✔️😎
I don’t think you’re using the word coherent the same way he is. Coherent just means that the concept makes logical sense. Like that it actually expresses an idea that isn’t inconsistent with itself.
your "god" is time .. the watcher of all things - primordial & primeval yet the ever present ruler of the temporal and temporary . It rules over all of us no matter how long our sentience no matter the courage of our convictions. we are all subject to time. the only constant is change. time has a past time has a future & yet is ever present & rules over all .. or does it? can anyone or anything stand the test of time?
Time is God ha ha ha ha
Time is also the best teacher, but it kills all of its students.
@SongOfCelestia- Yes, Saturn & El & Cronus are all representations of time ("Be fruitful & multiply" multiplication = Times Table = X) i am not really sure why you say it’s my god though. they say that time is relative but he’s no relative of mine. :) Seriously though the point is it rules over all temporal things whether we like it or not. Regardless of whether some swear some kind of allegiance to it or not, time just marches on .. Saturn was said to have taught man the secrets of agriculture & commerce & early man learnt by observing the seasons & the cycles of time etc The Romans built a temple to Saturn on Capitoline Hill - hmm… “Capitol Hill”. sounds vaguely familiar, where have i heard that name before? But “time” is a cruel & uncaring “god” - you can pray to it all you like .. you can even sacrifice things but in the long run it won’t help you one little bit. hence it was said that he starts out benevolent (see youngsters lust for life) but turns increasingly cruel (see old age) finally going mad & consuming his own children and his own creation. Capitalists who like to say “time is money” & put the economy ahead of individual human lives & the common good could be said to be Satanists (whether knowingly or not). This is one of the many reasons why i very much suspect that Christianity at it’s base is actually a Gnostic religion - the clue is in the words “Knossos, Genesis & Gnosis but that’s for another discussion.
Having said all that though - although our bodies are subject to age & decay - there is a part of us deep within that remains untouched by any of that - i am sure you are aware of that part deep within yourself, that has been there all along & is not subject to age or decay & never can be.
Where it gets worrying for us here in the 21st Century is if Saturn is symbolically the god of time & agriculture. the farmer always being the former - WHO controls crop cycles? And who have our current crop of corrupt politicians sold their souls to? Big Pharma!
Where God composite parts come from (no one nothing accountable their existence) he's acting agent upon the matter and he's interact with human affairs and had encountered with moses involve in a dialogue he must have some kind of template?
Yes, "God" does have a "template." It's The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.
@@traverseinfinity8854 you can't occupy three different person simultaneously!
You can't. I can't. The creator can. He doesn't actually "occupy," but rather took on different forms.
@Swoosh Swish Why is it dumb for God to have a son? If he created man in his likeness and imagine, and man can bring forth a son, then why shouldn't God "beget?"
@Swoosh Swish So male humans, are not the sons of God?
The argument in my mind come down to belief or not in the supernatural. Any other attempt at analysis seems pointless. God can’t be analyzed with logic, by definition there can’t be any rules. These attempts at logical arguments is like the old trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
So, your god is illogical?
Just go one step further and admit "god" is made up. It's not hard and it won't hurt..
...unless you're a member of islam 😅👍
No, God is not illogical. We simply cannot understand a God who is interminable and infinite with our limited human minds. It's really that simple to explain and put to rest. This is why we need faith. Faith will always be an enormous part of the equation because regarding "God", that's about as "close to truth" as we are going to get. 🙂
To say we just can’t understand is a cop out. We can’t understand quantum mechanics but there is a mountain of evidence that it exists. There is zero evidence for a supernatural being. We either accept the world we can see or all bets are off. Zombies, vampires, etc. can all be real according to that thinking.
@@chrise438 faith isn't a path to truth or the correct answer. Faith is a blindfold. Faith stops education. Faith stops you at 'god' and keeps you there. If someone doesn't believe or stops believing, they get told they didn't have enough Faith. How can you believe something to be true when your only way of finding the truth is Faith, which isn't a reliable path to truth.
If God cannot abdicate then abdication is something he cannot do. If he needs to abdicate in order to avoid the need to do something of which he is not capable then that "something" is something he cannot do. In either case he cannot be omnipotent.
I don't want to be a theist _or_ an atheist. I don't want to _be_ at all.
Agnostic
@Donald McCarthy I don't want to be in a physical world or in a metaphysical world either. I don't want to be in any kind of a world. I don't want to be anywhere.
@@tomashull9805 I don't want to be an agnostic either.
@@somethingyousaid5059 It's not something you choose...Try to think about it this way: If we are a product of special design, then there is gotta be a reason why we are here; a purpose...
Wouldn't you agree?
@Donald McCarthy yeah, here I am. Against my will.
I think of coherence, and adherence then consider the words meant to contain God.
Showing that the concept of God is not incoherent is a pretty low bar to set for theists seeking to prove his existence. The concept of Santa Claus is not, so far as I can tell, incoherent but, so far as I can tell, he does not exist.
There are theological positions that accept the so-called "imperfection" of God as an evolutionary process. Whitehead's idea of God is an entity that sets forth the conditions for other entities to participate in the possible forms of its objects - but also it's an entity that is actively participating in its own creative process. So there is definitely a kind of cosmological recycling or ecosystem between God and its objects. There are no singular causal explanations, so it would be absurd to ask if there were an original, first mover distinct from creation. Entities in the micro-level generate a nexus of communities that can have multiple causes by a series of experiential and relational "prehensions". The forms these entities participate organically "choose" what information is beneficial for them as they prehend and eventually become "satisfied" in their form. They are identified by us as meaningful objects due to our symbolic intuitions. So the concept of a "rock" is a community of entities that are satisfied in the form of a rock. This kind of metaphysics ends up as pan-experientialism, in which all things, animate and inanimate, are in some sense sentient and are "aware" of each other, and furthermore, human-level symbolic thinking is just one level, albeit advanced, kind of awareness. It's an interesting commentary on how our symbolic thinking and perception could have metaphysical import, which, to my view, would be compatible with an evolutionary explanation.
I personally like Whitehead's interpretation because it seems to show that the concept of "God" could be a neurological phenomenon.
Believe or not to believe are both flawed. Best approach is seek within.
Kingdom of God is within you
truth lies within?
No
The question as posed is too vague to answer IMHO. The reason being that "Theism" isn't defined.
I can personally imagine a "God" that is coherent with everything we know. However, that "God" may not have the attributes that are commonly given to "God". Especially attributes that arise from the Abrahamic, or Biblical narrative of God.
When it comes to the arguments made by Swinburne, I don't have a lot of objections other than if he thinks he can apply his methods to Christian Theology he's got to be kidding himself. In fact, this is where the question changes dramatically. If the question is, "Is Christian Theism Coherent", then my answer to that question is a profound, "No, it's not self-coherent". We don't even need any science of physics here. As far as I'm concerned the behaviors, actions, and the commandments and directives of the Biblical God reveal that mythology to be clearly a self-incoherent and self-contradictory mythology. And there are no arguments that Swinburne could make that could save it. It's too late, the stories have already been written.
I also don't feel that Swinburne made a compelling argument for the coherent existence of a non-material person or mind. All he's doing is assuming the properties that we know exist in material minds could somehow magically exist in a non-material mind. But that's already starting with an incoherent postulate. So his argument is incoherent before he even begins. Anything he says after that point is already based on an incoherent premise.
Hey Mystic... It's me again. John in Florida. I agree with you that "Theism" should be defined first before we try to answer the question "Is Theism coherent."
Regarding "Christian Theism." I believe I've mentioned to you before that I prefer to look at Christianity through the New Testament stories and Jesus' example. However regarding the stories of the Old Testament, I understand what you mean by the "behaviors, actions, and the commandments and directives..." seemingly support a "self-incoherent and self-contradictory mythology." But could all those ancient behaviors and directives actually be from the cultural environment of the ancient Near East peoples and not from the Biblical God? The people back then believed in different kinds of "warrior gods." If we accept that assumption, then the only question is why do those "behaviors, actions..." appear in the Bible ? Why would a god allow such primitive beliefs of the ancient Near East to contradict the actual reality of God's love? Or am I missing something?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 " But could all those ancient behaviors and directives actually be from the cultural environment of the ancient Near East peoples and not from the Biblical God?"
The problem I have with this approach is that if we reject the Old Testament claims about God, then why continue to refer to God as "The Biblical God"?
I think it should be obvious that if we are going to reject what the Bible claims about God then it's kind of senseless to continue to refer to God as "The Biblical God".
Also, where we find any information about this non-Biblical God? We could hardly point to the Bible as a trustworthy source of information about God at that point.
You say, "Regarding "Christian Theism." I believe I've mentioned to you before that I prefer to look at Christianity through the New Testament stories and Jesus' example."
I understand that approach too. In fact, that's the approach the church I grew up in took. I just personally feel that this approach is also incoherent.
Why should it be necessary that anyone has to "die" to pay for sins?
Also, if someone did die to pay for sins and returned from the dead a mere three days later, wouldn't the be equivalent to a bounced check?
Also, didn't Jesus send mixed messages? He said that the righteous will go the way of eternal life, while the unrighteous will go the way of everlasting punishment.
If that's the case then how could Jesus be a "savior" for anyone?
He wouldn't need to be savior for the righteous as they have earned their own right to eternal life.
And if he's offering the unrighteous free amnesty for being unrighteous that results in a myriad of contradictions. Especially after the God of Bible was quite happy with just drowning unrighteous people.
Also, is an unrighteous person has a change of heart and is truly sorry for their past behavior and wants to be righteous from this point forward, why wouldn't that be good enough to earn them salvation?
Why should they have to condone having Jesus crucified on their behalf to pay for their sins? It seems to me that to be willing to do that requires that they continue to be unrighteous. Surely no righteous person would condone having Jesus crucified as their scapegoat?
In fact, that's my answer to the Christian God. If the Christian God demands that I must condone having Jesus crucified to pay for my sins, then I reject the offer and accept death as my punishment instead.
The Christian God is basically demanding that the only way I can be saved is to commit the most unrighteous act possible (i.e. condoning having Jesus crucified to pay for my sins).
In fact, I would suggest that any actual omniscient God would have known from the very beginning of time that I would never accept such a hideous offer.
Therefore Christian theology is totally incoherent as far as I'm concerned. The Christian God is demanding that I must commit the greatest act of unrighteousness possible in order to be saved. That's an oxymoron for a God who is supposed to favor righteousness over unrighteousness,
A truly righteous God would be absolutely thrilled that I would refuse to accept Jesus as my sacrificial scapegoat. But Christian theology has their God doing just the opposite.
@@Mystic0Dreamer Your thoughts are very interesting and since I'm no theologian I only can offer my own feelings/assumptions.
Personally I don't think God "demands" that we condone having Jesus sacrificed. Even the apostles who followed Jesus did not want Him to die and probably, like us, did not understand why He would die for them.
I like to see the salvation Jesus brings as a "gift" to us. Exactly why Jesus HAD to die, I'm not sure. I believe He was crucified for us of His own free will. I would not want anyone to die for me BUT if such would happen, I would wonder in my heart why would someone freely die for me, a miserable hypocrite? It makes me think of the soldiers who courageously died for their fellow soldiers on the battlefields. The real heroes died! The real heroes deserve the medals. But Jesus doesn't want any "medals." He just wants us to accept his offer to live with Him. How can we refuse?
I personally don't think anyone is righteous. We all carry a "stain" or "mistake" or whatever you call it ( sin ). We can never be perfect and show perfect love on our own. Don't you agree?
Anyhow... I understand what you mean in most of your statements. Some things are a mystery when it comes to God.
@Stefano Portoghesi I agree with you 100% about the children who are dying. Something is wrong somewhere but I can't pinpoint what is the problem. I don't think Jesus' words are just "empty words." There is a truth in His words, even if they seem hidden to us. I guess we have to do more and be more compassionate. Thanks for sharing your feelings.
@Stefano Portoghesi Hey there... I like your question and comments about Jesus and His "walking on water." I had never heard anyone give an observation like you regarding the gospel writers telling a story "if they had known that the force of gravity existed back then in the first century AD." That's a great observation. It makes one think.
Although the ancient people did not know about gravity, I'm sure they knew that someone "walking" on water is impossible and such a person would probably drown. So I think people still knew that "walking on water" was really weird yet they did mention that happening to Jesus. Recall that Peter also tried to walk on water and he did indeed start to sink and he cried for help. So that tells us that something strange was indeed going on here. Right?
So you don't believe in any possibility of a miracle? I agree, if miracles are not possible, then there is indeed "inconsistency" here. But Jesus was reported to do all kinds of other miracles. So... in fact, if such miracles can happen, I see no inconsistency at all!
Thanks for sharing. You help me to think. Is that good?
Take off your tie please!
Short answer? No.
Long answer?? Nooooooooo.
And from my precious innocence retain God?
The problem with Atheists like Robert Lawrence Kuhn, is that they attribute God to have a human traits.
I also wonder why RLK avoids talking to an Eastern philosophers and mystics regarding this topic.
Why do you see a god who might have attributes similar to humans as a problem? I don't see any difficulties with a god who can have such traits, especially if we were created "in God's image."
Lol, there you have it. Theists confirming what they believe, that humans were created in god's image and you thinking that this is a problem for atheism🤦♀️.
Yet another theist, who criticeses atheism but has no idea what theism is or what it claims.
@@Renato404 What does "Theism" mean to you?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 the belief in a personnal god. The claim that one has a personnal relationship with the ultimate nature of reality.
@@Renato404 Atheist like you are mostly from the West who are heavily influenced by exoteric view of a God who is an old man with a beard. lol that's the first problem. 2nd problem, atheist like you doesn't know the distinction with Esoteric belief and Exoteric belief of a God. Now do your research first to resolve that problem lol
You can continue to struggle with this as long as you choose to, or you can simply take that step of faith which is the only way to move forward. Or. . . . You can continue to struggle with wanting to believe. I personally hope for the former in your life. You may be surprised by the peace you find.
Faith is not a reliable path to truth.
@@harshfodo7970 I think a different way to put that is faith is not a reliable path to fact. Truth on the other hand, is a different matter. If truth is only something provable by scientific method, we may have to rethink several accepted notions as nothing more than conjecture.
Faith the acceptance of an idea without evidence ! WOW what an incomprehensibly STUPID way to base your life. Basically your peace is brought on by your utter failure to address your inability to actually think
@@gowdsake7103 I see . . . . So you don't accept anything you can't "prove". And by what means do you prove your accepted truth, if you don't mind me asking.
@@TBROWN423 I'm a bit confused so, could you provide me with your definition of faith and truth please.
I find this series problematic. On the one hand, important questions are asked and interesting people are interviewed. On the other hand, it seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous, in that Robert has such a bias that rather than seeking to know the truth, it seems he really wants to affirm the correctness of his beliefs; to reassure himself that he is somehow "safe". And so the whole series seems to take on the flavour of an evangelistic effort to "demystify humanity".
And I am uncomfortable with "the blind leading the blind". I suspect that most atheists, Robert included, have not properly examined he extent to which they have an aversion to the possibility of God. Taken as a serious question, outside the framework of a religion, the possibility is somewhat terrifying and the consequences of the reality, do seem very problematic.
Thus there is an aversion, and a built in cognitive bias to the question, except to people "conditioned" through some religious "faith". Because of this aversion, one asks if there is any reason why one should be compelled to accept a terrifying possibility, and seeks the aid of very intelligent atheists to banish the gloomy ghosts of uncertainty and allay one's fears;, to find reassurance that there is no reason to entertain such thoughts.
I admit the idea that God exists can be a difficult and terrifying idea. But given our aversions as granted I suggest that instead of seeking a "proof" that God exists,
(although I am entirely sympathetic here; having myself required proof), it might be more fruitful to intellectually explore the consequences of assuming that (some sort of) God does indeed exist. If the premise were illogical, then surely this would be the way to discover the contradiction.
So assuming God exists then, what then? Can we know anything else as a logical consequence? I don't know. I know the premise seems to raise questions about the possible merit of the pursuit of science to discover fundamental laws governing our world and to provide a rational framework through which we can come to understand our world. Obviously, to me anyway, we should like to continue the goal of constructing a rational framework through and with which we can interpret the world. But, although we can recognize the danger that the apprehension of an existent God might cause us, for example, to abandon science, it seems in no way clear that such an abandonment need be necessary.
We might, for example, want to keep the "laws of physics" handy, because they help predict what happens the 99.999% of the time that an all powerful being does not "induce a horizontal shift through reality space". Could we know what God thought or wanted? I don't see how we possibly could.
Yes, we might turn to various religions for insight, because they each had the "God exists" part right, but of course partial correctness in way imparts total corectness. So the important questions here include: if we could somehow know that God exists, to what extent and by what means, could we hold on to our rationality and reliance on logic and scientific inquiry?
In "ancient times", apparently thinkers faced no significant impediment under " the God hypotheses" ... well this is arguable, certainly " because God made it so" may have provided sufficient explanatory power as to delay development of a more scientific explanation ( with greater predictive utility ).
( today's analog of the "because God made it so" is the " we just happen to exist in a world where this happens, instead of one where it does not"). Still, the "ancient" scientists, mathematicians, logicians and philosophers, proceeded to develop the very foundations of " modern thought", apparently with the attitude that they were discovering and appreciating the " genius and handiwork of God". Sir Issac Newton was deeply theistic, and is a prime example, to the point that an apprehension of God's existence need not render one effete or intellectually impotent.
Still, the " internalization" of the premise of an existent God, seems to carry with it significant ramification to the general character of one's psychological "posture". Let's explore this a little here. One might expect ( if one had a deeply held conviction of God's reality, and perhaps also a "constant" sense of the "presence" of God) to be somewhat more cautious, perhaps more fearful, perhaps more cowed, less certain, more modest, less egotistical, less self-centered, and more humble. Somewhat alternatively, one might also become much more worry free, with some deep feeling that everything is going to turn out to be joyfully wonderful, in the end
I think it important to note that, such an "exploration" , even if , for some reason or another, one became convinced of God's reality , or perhaps simply "liked the inner peace" or something,
I'm saying, even if one "never goes back", then, please note, this does not mean that one should or need go "all in" with any religious faith, lose interest in scientific inquiry, lose one's rationality or become a religious zealot or fanatic.
One does however, risk a clear sense of purpose or personal objectives, and perhaps also a well defined personal identity, - If one feels, for example, they are somehow intimately connected with every living thing. There is even some chance of madness, one may feel they have become God. ( remember, if you happen to find yourself overwhelmed with a sense of oneness with God, that doesn't mean you are God, you are still a very tiny very fragile human being) So this journey must also be taken with some caution. Do not despair. Remember and know that you are not alone and that you are loved and, I say, if you find that you have become so corrupted that you no longer trust your own nature, then entrust yourself to those powers aligned with mercy and compassion including the merciful Lord Christ, ( it was He who brought me from torment to grace) who is servant to that which He also loves and serves and represents, and may grace find you and secure you to the light that will not be quenched, and to life everlasting. There, you shall find me and know me, and I will share everything with you, and you will know joy. ( um, sorry that's not the stupid, fragile, flesh and blood part of me talking, that's the part of my psyche that got cozy with God talking. Its like a part of me, or my spirit, or something, already made it up tto heaven, even though my fleshy part, its former body, isn't ready to call it a day. Hmm. Well, it is what it is I suppose. Cheers people )
why should be "demystify humanity" ??
@@francesco5581 Hi. Generally speaking, to demystify something, or someone about something, is to "clear the air", and remove some confusion, (so as to clarify, illuminate etc), and so can be regarded as a good thing (and noble aim).
However, I meant the term, when I used it, in a slightly sarcastic sense ( sorry, for me at least, communication is a non trivial challenge), because some atheists (apparently), are so convinced of the correctness of their understanding that no God exists, that some (seem to) feel it is their "moral obligation" to free humanity of religious belief and thus rid humanity of dangerous and counterproductive irrational belief.
They are not entirely wrong here, but, since I (believe I) know God does exist
(although I don't know much more than that, e.g. I don't know what God wants or expects, or any list of do's and don'ts, or if any parts of the bible say, can give insights into such questions), even though , I think they correctly point out, the irrationality of much of religious belief, I think they remain mistaken in their own beliefs.
And some atheists go so far to claim that religious belief is due solely to, or in itself constitutes or is definitive evidence of , mental illness, for which pharmaceutical treatment, and possibly sterilization, ought to be sought. Such "militant atheists" are, in my opinion , sociopathic and highly dangerous individuals, who exhibit thoroughly unwarranted desires to ensure conformity and to control and limit the minds and potential of others.
So no, I do not believe the "evangelical atheist initiative" of "helping rid humanity of religious (and therefore, irrational) belief through the spreading of atheism" is in fact , demystify. Yes, people have a lot of funny ideas about the nature of God. They also have a lot of funny ideas about the nature of the universe.
And surely we can find common ground, with for example, the radical Islamist, without claiming we that know something we do not (that no God exists, or that belief in such is irrational or is rationally untenable). To find common ground, one doesn't seek to dismantle deeply internalized beliefs, one builds on pre-existing shared appreciations and values.
Sorry, I go on far too long. Evidently I really need to write a book (that maybe no one will read).
("footnote": quotes on "moral obligation " above because what is here meant by the term "moral" would need some clarification, as atheism precludes the existence of "objective", or non-relative (to cultural or sociological circumstances) "good" and "evil" ( or "bad" )... In practice the distinction isn't generally clear, and the settlement of disputes devolves to the judgement of "magistrates", for example, a man might suppose that it is good to torture kittens, while others will feel such is bad, ..., but, in principal, (although the actual utility of this is entirely dubious) the theist can define good and evil roughly as what is, and what is not, in accordance with God's will, or rather, the theist can dodge the question, by saying that "ultimately, it is up to God to judge, what is good and what is evil", and that he (the human theist) does not know, but can maybe offer his opinion. ... (this in contrast to the "devoutly religious man" who likely direct you too "the scriptures" or expound at length on what he learned .) The whole practical matter, and issue, of deciding what should be regarded as good or bad, in other words, what is moral and what is immoral, seems to be the primary concern of the various religions. Now of course we largely forego the luxury of philosophical debate, and rely on "the law", be it one or more of civil, common, municipal, state or provincial, federal, constitutional, or international law, - where here the pretense of being "in accordance with the infinite wisdom of God" is generally abandoned (except in theocratically governed nations), and so "what is moral" devolves to "what is in accordance to the law" ( of the land, of the empire, I.e. U.S. law, or whatever), and carries with it some implicit understanding of "locality" (e.g. one may be charged with being in violation of the law of, e.g. the laws and statutes of the State of Delaware or U.S. federal law, etc.
) as well as a "flavour of the month" (temporallity) sort of arbitrariness admitting gualifiers. And so we have "moral relativism". To complicate the issue, mainly amongst atheists, we have Nihilsts,
basically, "nothing means anything, everything is meaningless", and postmodernists, basically, "truth is only whatever narrative is being pushed by the poweeful". ... Atheist like Sam Haris, seem to believe that law and culture should somehow strive to conform with some kind of "externally", or indpendenntly defined morality, which he supposes ought to be rationally deducible and unsurprisingly he struggles to find. Anyway, philosophically speaking, theists are able to understand "good", without actually knowing what is, or is not, good, (although by "searching one's heart", one can discover what is personally most dear and precious) essentially as something to be revealed. Anyway, yeah, one needed "law" and a "code of conduct", which was to be taught and either enforced by "police" and "punishment", or "encouraged" through religious indoctrination, where the prospect of punishment by God, together with an attempt to demonstrate or persuade people of the correctness of "the law" was provided. "Because Ceaser said so" was either inadequate or unavailabl, men needed justifications and to back their views with persuasive arguments. Where reason alone did not suffice, religions claimed their moral laws where backed by the authority of a supreme, all powerful God. Anyway, there is generally supposed to be some sort of moral basis for law, rather than supposing that the law itself defines morality. To me it seems that to a significant degree, the God found in various religions was , or is, an invented entity used to provide the "authority" backing up a cannon or moral code. I suppose here it is the attributes assigned to God, to fit the role of "divine punisher" which I believe are mostly nonsense. I'm a theist, but that does not mean i believe in the biblical conception of God. Certainly the conception of God as induced from the old testament has very little correspondence to what I understand of the nature of my God, who is the merciful God, in whose presence one feels joy and gratitude, whose presence is somehow healing and helpful, and perfecting. Ok, I'm finally done. )
@@tommackling I appreciate a lot that you took so much of your time to explain me your point of view . I dont know if religion give a better morality or not ... Atheists for example regard animals better that many religious people i know ... And being atheist does not automatically mean become materialists ... Spirituality is a word that embrace a lot more the future in my opinion . The real danger are the "science is a God" lovers/the nihilists materialists ... People who remove from life every meaning , the fundamentalists of nothingness. Those are a danger for society even more than religion fundamentalists because they have no vision except the "nothing".
@@francesco5581 Hey, thanks. I don't suppose religion necessarily provides better morality either, although personally, I think the Christian : "judge not, lest ye also .be judged", and "love God with all your heart, and others as you love. yourself" might be wholly adequate.
Laws, then (in my opinion) (apart from these "commandments" or "admonitions") such as whether or not public littering, nudity, sex or defication, or the owning of certain animals as pets, or the spreading of pig manure within a given distance from the town center, etc, should, I think, be decided, (on a community basis, as much as possible, for the sake of diversity) by non violent reasoned argument and popular agreement, such as routinely occurs in rural municipal governments all over the world, and as we imagine took place in the early Greek democratic forums.
Yeah, I think ideological intollerance, and not wanting to allow people to think differently, and "closed mindedness" in general is undesirable and should probably be combatted via public schooling and or government/official "propaganda"/messaging (we're constantly being "instructed"/"programmed" already). Some of the greatest social benefits of theism, I think, are that a recognition that we are all part of a greater oneness, promotes empathy and humility, and that it dispels Nihilism and postmodernism, and materialism etc. Actually, I do think a great many of the world's ills stem from a lack of morality, which would be rectified if people come to be able to actually perceive the reality of God, or simply the existence of a consciousness which subsumes that of every individual. What does it matter whether or not such would be the "god of all gods" or the "creator of the cosmos"? Simply the apprehension that one's own mental reality is subsumed and held within the framework of a much greater consciousness, is enough for the great social benefits of empathy, humility, as were just mentioned. I think maybe people have been socially conditioned to accept atheism, and not be able to cognitively perceive the consciousness of which they are but a part,..., perhaps because such a perception leads to social solidarity, which makes people harder to manipulate and exploit?
It's funny. One the main arguments for atheism seems to be the prevalence of evil. But by "evil" they presumably only mean cruelty, brutality and suffering and the like. I used to want to rid myself of my irrational religiosity and subconscious "moral guard dog" and sense of guilt etc. I leaned heavily on the idea of trying to be wholly rational, and then, notions of morality, such as "good" and bad" had to be relativized to an objective. Spending the afternoon fishing, instead of studying for an exam, was good, if your objective was to catch fish, and bad if your objective was to pass the course, for example. But if you ever actually encounter good, for example, you gain a qualitatively different sense what that word means...like something that ties good to God, (like Christ's "Only God is good"). And I think one doesn't properly understand what evil is until one actually encounters and recognizes it, at which point, whether or not one flees it to seek out instead the good, (and e.g. hopes to somehow become a helpful healing and benevolent spirit on one's death, and not a dark and malevolent plague of disfiguring disease and death), or one lingers with the spirits who dwell and suffer in darkness, I suspect one soon becomes aware of the reality
of God. And of course once one knows God exists, words like "I have faith in God", or "I believe in God" take on an entirely different meaning, compared to when the word "faith" basically meant something more like "unjustified belief" (and "I believe in you" takes on the sense when you might say this to your child). Anyway, lol, I have too much of this stuff "on my chest", all bottled up... got to write that novel I guess. All the best.
@@tommackling Regarding good and evil , ive always saw it as light and darkness, there is no light without a darkness in background, there is no good with the possibility that evil exist. And i think this is the main goal of living . Learning things as the difference between good and evil. You can understand what is good if you saw the evil. You can only accept eternity if you tasted death. fact is that we are between the greatest of good (living forever, eternal love and knowledge , and having a meaning ) and the greatest of evil (become nothing , without a meaning,). Fact, if we all accepted that we are just "things" we should scream in terror every second of every day . We dont , not even at 90 , and that mean something .... Love is a too big thing to be the product of ...chance .
Also, if god doesn't need anything or anyone, and god is 100% self-sustaining, then why did it create the Universe? A being that only needs itself would have no reason to create anything.
Beings create because they need something that they cannot internally produce, and so, they need to extract it from the environment.
Consequently, if god created everything that exists, then god cannot possibly be self-sustaining.
There is no THINKING without problem solving or without problems.
A world with problems, or better, a REALITY with problems, is, MUST BE, one which escapes the definition of the traditional Abrahamic God.
On this light God CANNOT be a person.
It is not the problem of Evil that concerns me most. I don't see a point in living in an all perfect world as cravings and necessity's are the substance of future satisfaction and relief or pleasure. A perfect world in the traditional sense is a blunt sterile world without VALUE.
My problem with God is not about believing there is a NECESSARY ORDER in the world, in fact, most of the attributes traditionally ascribed to God are just fine by me. The biggest think one can conceive off, the ground of all Being the omnipresence, the omni information "knowledge", the UNITY of everything. None of this bothers me.
The Kind of "God" I believe in is a much more abstract and complex entity. One without personality but that grounds the possibility of persons in the world. One without the need of thoughts but that grounds the phenomenology of thinking in its Set. A God that is a "Rock" because Past, Present and Future are not excluded from all its encompassing presence. In fact, my vision of a Logical God is far greater than the traditional smaller Anthropomorphised approach.
Finally yet again another word regarding professional biased Philosophy. It is bad and compromises the integrity of intellectual honesty. I have yet to see a professional Philosopher come around on a major idea he previously believed in. It is without a doubt career suicide and a straight shot in evolving intellectual inquiry.
Again only the TRUE "Amateur" is capable and willing to process data that is capable of break down with the past over time and create new avenues of intellectual progress.
A comparison with the structure of big economical companies and start ups come to mind. Usually the big companies create very little novelty and destroy start ups that may provide innovation and market disruption. So it happens with knowledge and with Religion.
This is not to say that formal institutions are bad or unnecessary but that one must be aware of their limitations.
Theism is the belief of biogenesis therefore it is coherent since that is what we see and observe.
talk about eccentric, his tie was tied by a blind person with no arms.
Come to think of it. I'm very open up to the existence of god that is rooted in nature. But not the god of the bible. 🙂
Currently there are 33,000 different Christian denominations.
Does that sound coherent to you?
Theism =/= the sum total of all of the teachings of every Christian denomination.
Not coherent. Same for atheism.
Exactly! Look at the Evolution of Religions, it's obvious that belief systems are a by-product of the intelligent sentient mind. All belief systems are human constructs. If one needs a belief system at all, 'Pantheism' is at least consistent with science and nature.
pbs.twimg.com/media/CWLT4lZUEAACRyR.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/2d/39/c62d39fe96fc59417e235332d98f373f.png
i.pinimg.com/originals/43/74/31/43743102e5d8cdbac2faa9444246b11e.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/6f/87/6d6f87d03fd377870f087431ee228a10.jpg
@@bipolarbear9917
“It’s obvious”
@@joshheter1517 What is obvious?
From the very way this begin, it's not about God. It's about the truth of the Bible.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe omniscience and the other omnis are extra biblical. Their rational being What most be true is true IE what is regarded as true is true.
This is absurd. God makes universes. Why are u discussing him being able to lift stones ?
yes like Hawking very silly theory about the not existence of God (he cant exist because before the big bang there was no time and space), If God IS God then time and space have really little relevance for "him"
If man can completely comprehend God, then that man is God.
All this argumentation leaves out concepts of God' s notion of truth has to be different from our notion otherwise why is He God.
His body and our body have to be in different dimensions.
This is totally arrogant and silly argumentation
I completely agree with your statement "If man can completely comprehend God, then that man is God."
@Donald McCarthy What you said about leprechauns is basically what Ravi is saying. Knowing lots about God will not make us god. God knows everything about Himself. So I agree with both you and Ravi.
@Donald McCarthy I like "hobbits" the best. Did you ever see any of the LORD OF THE RINGS movies ?
As for theism and deities, remember how Hume pointed out long ago that this universe could just as likely be created by a child deity, as a pastime, then abandoned. That fits the facts far better than the traditional Abrahamic religions or Eastern philosophical mush and silly speculations and imaginings which bedazzle. Ask yourself, what do theologians actually do? All theologians do, at bottom, is build build imaginings upon imaginings. That is all they do. Yet appear and are accepted by some as wise or profound. In truth, factually, they are nothing more than novelists in formal wear, convincing themselves and others. Old fashioned storytellers around the campfire.
God is beyond human conception. Therefore God is not within the frame of human mind and its logic.
''Is Theism Coherent?''
With its logic, yes
It's purely philosophical conjecture in its logic. Absolutely nothing empirical utilizing the actual Scientific Method.
@@DeaderEyeland_1983
Empirical?
I love how they use the God premise of Christianity pertaining to their talks about God while they're nonbelievers -- i believe that's illogical.
Why I say this is because what makes you think that you could possibly understand the Universe: Sun, light, geometry, form, balance, energy, manifestation, laws.
It's so tedious to say, "well if God is all loving & all knowing why is their evil"
You do this apon yourselves. You want God power in haarp, cern, eugenics without taking the responsibility or accountability, EVER. Im a researcher -- i know.
We have this thing called the computer -- everything is known, tracked, found; brought into the light and acknowledged.
God may be all loving & all knowing. Why do you feel he should be nice to you? You have no faith.
Good example of incoherence
Umm a computer is only as good as the programmer !
@@gowdsake7103 , that’s debatable. Self-learning systems can be much better at certain tasks than classic algorithmic systems and we don’t know in detail how they produce such good results. The programmer ‘only’ needs to know how to implement deep-learning.
@Al Garnier Not having faith requires faith... just in case you didn't know...
@Al Garnier I didn't have to answer your previous contradictory comment. You've shown what an imbecile you are here... Your example is the definition of blind faith... Ciao stupidisimo!
Christianity being incoherent does not mean that theism is incoherent and that atheists are right about what they claim to be the truth.
Nietzsche said (something like): "If bed bugs could contemplate the infinite, infinity would smell of bed bugs". Something similar can be said of humans: what make us feel that we have sufficient intellect (or whatever the necessary ability) to resolve the question of God? Just as we have greater intellect than the ape, could not there be, someday, beings to whom we would seem apelike in our abilities?
what is "God" ?
Probably, especially in your case!
Simple answer : not a chance
and what probability have the reality to have arisen from nothingness by chance ? zero .
@@francesco5581
What it's all about ? We may never know the answer too that question. What ever is going on. It doesn't seem too rotate around our exsitence.
Our entire species exsitence will be just a blink in cosmic time.
@@thomasridley8675 Once they asked 1000 people what weighted more in their existence , if the entire Universe or their consciousness ...95% answered the consciousness . So yes , everything is about us , because the universe is observed from between our eyes . Without a consciousness observing it there will be no reality .
@@francesco5581
True !! If we were not here it wouldn't matter at all. But we are here. What that means to the bigger picture is the question no one can answer.
@@thomasridley8675 so lets hope that the answer will please both ;)
Bunk. How the H did I get subscribed to this. Undone.
What about it is bunk?
As far as I can tell, literally 100% of the people in this comments section who are claiming that theism is not coherent know neither what theism nor coherence is.
@Stefano Portoghesi
There are plenty of things about God that I don’t understand. But of course, if there were such a being powerful to create the universe, would you really expect that you could fully comprehend such a being when you have only a finite brain / mind?
I’ve thought a lot about theism, and I’ve yet to find an internal contradiction. So, it seems reasonable to conclude that it has no internal inconsistencies.
Could you provide me with even one *non-question-begging* example of an internal contradiction (i.e. a conjunction of any sentence and it’s negation) in the concept of theism?
That’s what’s needed to demonstrate that theism is not coherent.
I’ll wait.
@Stefano Portoghesi
I asked two very simple questions.
You answered neither of them.
So Josh, what is your ‘correct’ definition of theism?
@@mockupguy3577
Why do you ask?
@@joshheter1517 , First answer: I’m sure our limited minds cannot understand god, at all. Which is why I find all theories and teachings about god futile and presumptuous. We have no clue.
If everyone believed as did Stephen Hawking before he died, that in one form or another the universe always existed, there wouldn't be any stories based on creation.
Plotinous believed the universe was eternal and he believed in God, so i don't think that will make theism irrelevant
@@pedrogonzalez9934 If the universal was eternal, as in always existing, it could not have been created.
@@pedrogonzalez9934 It seems that at least some men of ancient times agreed with Stephen Hawking’s theory that the universe always existed … and never was created.
From the book … 2000 Years of Disbelief … author … James A. Haugt … “None of the gods has formed the world, nor has any man; it has always been.”-Empedocles (495-435 B.C.E.), Greek philosopher and statesman (Noyes) … “The universe has been made neither by gods nor by men, but it has been, and is, and will be eternally.”-Heraclitus (Noyes) “The nature of the universe has by no means been made through divine power, seeing how great are the flaws that mar it”-Lucretius, ibid.
@@junevandermark952 Sure the no creation of the world make be tough to monotheistic religion, but it will not disprove God, amd that is by the fact that also people of ancient times as you name also hold that believe, like Aristoteles, The Neo-platonist's and other Greeks theist philosophres, in fact they hold that despite the universe was eternal, was because always make it eternal, and that's why it have the characteristic's of combination and the laws of nature and the panentheost that view that the universe is part of God and that's why it is always eternal
@@pedrogonzalez9934 If you believe that the universe always existed, you can't also believe that the universe was created. That is my point.
Our God must be unique and no one is like Him
OUR god ? does that mean your personal cherry picked version of one of the 30 odd thousand ? 29999 of which you would reject for the same reason I reject your version
@@gowdsake7103 Try to convince yourself with this answer before telling someone else if there is only one religion, then freedom and responsibility are not present, and with it the result.
Just unbelievable how theist will make illogical arguments to try and protect their dogma and beliefs
Just unbelievable how atheists will make illogical arguments to try and protect their dogma and beliefs.
See how easy that is?
@Stefano Portoghesi
I’m using the term “atheism” ( / “atheist”) in the sense that professional, academic philosophy uses it: that it is the idea that God does not exist. If you want to use the term(s) in some other way, that’s fine.
That said, even if we used your definition, it’s not as if people who would then count as “atheists” don’t have beliefs (or biases). Everyone - in virtue of being human - has these things.
@Stefano Portoghesi
Again, you can use the term that way if you want, but you’re not talking about the same thing I am (or people in academia are) when we use the term.
Also, to think that any particular “atheist” (as you use the term) has achieved the virtue of being free from any biases is... silly.
@Stefano Portoghesi
Is English your first language?
@Stefano Portoghesi
😕
Cannot discuss God with a frog in the well perspective
Can't discuss god with a logical perspective either, or have an evidence based discussion. Better off discussing something else completely different. Something REAL 😉👍
Go on then provide demonstrable repeatable testable evidence ! waits for the echo and no reply
What would that sort of evidence look like? What would convince you that God exists?
Please be very specific “demonstrable”, “repeatable”, and “testable” are all particularly vague. They could mean very different things in very different contexts.
@-
People have provided evidence. It’s a matter of debate how strong that evidence is. I think what you mean to say is that if God’s existence could be unquestionably demonstrated... then that would be worthy of a Nobel Prize.
@@joshheter1517 Argument from contingency, argument from motion... Reading Aquinas made me a theist (former agnostic here). Thanks to Ed Feser, I finally understood Aquinas work.
"waits for the echo and no reply"
Might living in an echo chamber be the reason of that?
Man creates gods.
That second guy (Walther) is not very well informed. Everything he says can be answered by entry level apologetics
Oh come on, the next guy is even worse.
What a joke 😆
God is unlike anything you know - He is beyond our understanding. Hence there is a need for faith.
If you don't understand god then how can you conclude that he is good
@@Aguijon1982 You have the power to believe. So, all you need to do is believe. You believe that your mother is good, well, at least to you. So, it should be easy to believe that the One Who made your mother for you must be even better than your mother. Easy! :)
@@syedhasan8181
And you also have the power to grow up and let go your imaginary friend which you call god and be finally mature enough to accept the reality as it is.
@@Aguijon1982 I am actually a grown-up man of 56 years and I have 3 degrees from 3 different continents. But, thanks for the advice anyway :)
@@syedhasan8181
Physically 56 sure. Emotionally not, if you still need a comforting imaginary friend to cope with reality as crude as it may be.
Armstrong's position is that Judeo-Christian theism is logically consistent but incoherent, ie., it presents problems such the question of evil. I find Smith's objections superficial in the sense that he seems starts with the bias of naturalism, or takes as his a priori axiom reductive naturalism. Swinburne is familiar with all these objections and is able to mount a sound rebuttal. No wonder Khun affirms Swinburne's argument without going all the way to theism. Good discussion!
Started watching this channel because of science, now all you do is god. Guess I'll switch to a science channel, this is a waste, the two are NOT interrelated at all.
How do you know?
@@joshheter1517 Science is where you test and evaluate, god is where you lose all sensibility and take everything, no matter how implausible on faith only. That's how I know.
@@jlsc4125
By “God” I assume you mean religion or theology... but whatever you mean, that is a fairly obvious, silly straw man.
In all of these videos talking about religion / God... all they are doing is questioning / arguing / giving arguments to back up their positions.
Maybe you should watch more closely.
@@joshheter1517 Until you can prove a god exists, then they are useless. Yes, I agree, I shouldn't be watching the videos any more, I assumed they were all based on science. I was wrong and I'm correcting my mistake. You can't have an argument to back up religion until you prove a god is even plausible, so it's a waste of my time.
@@jlsc4125
I’m not sure what it would mean to *prove* that something is *plausible*, but this is just a dodge.
Your original argument (I think you now even admit) is built on a straw man of theology / religion.
But now you’ve shifted the goal posts because... it’s not worth talking about God... even to attempt to prove that he exists... until you... prove that he exists(?)
You’re right, maybe a this channel isn’t for you.
Maybe try...
ruclips.net/user/WhizKid8881
No.
As usual, Robert sets himself up with the self-conflicting arguments, so that he
can emerge victorious at the end of the episode... In other words, Robert's
main purpose to get closer to truth is defeated at the outset; "not too close to
truth Robert or you are going to get burnt..."
God doesn't have to be logical, God doesn't have to be good, God doesn't have to care.
If at any moment He is any of those things, you should be thankful.
You missed one out God doesnt have to exist !
@@gowdsake7103 Nothing had to exist, but God was lonely.
@@gowdsake7103 Those who think God doesn't need to exist, thinks there doesn't need to be laws. Until the chaos comes, and then you wish you had some rule to rely upon.
@@KyleJKidd As a believer in the "Trinity" ( Father, Son Jesus Christ and Spirit ), I don't see that God was lonely because He has always been in a relationship of love with the "three persons" of the Godhead. But I do think God wanted to share that experience of love so He created the Cosmos and mankind.
Internally coherent but not congruent with reality.
There is not one theistic religion that stand up to scrutiny.
Assertions! Yay! 😃
Theism is mostly a guessing game. Want answers? The esoteric realms of religion have them.
Critiquing theism is mostly a guessing game. Want answers? The esoteric realms of atheists have them.
See how easy that is?
Really ? give one
@@gowdsake7103
I think you’ve missed the point of my comment here.
@@joshheter1517 He was replying to the comment, not your reply.
@@joshheter1517 What are the answers?
In Argentina a few years ago a 40 year old woman was rescued from the basement of a home; at 10 y/o her father tied her to a bed and raped her every night (in his own words) for thirty years. 6-7 skeletons of babies were found burried in the garden (a similar case happened in Belgium a few years latter). God is omnipresent, omniscient, and all loving; but for some reason "He" didn't rescue her. Maybe she would like to know what was that reason - without a long-winded speech, and giving the explanation as if talking to her, not to me.
“Give me a solution to the problem of evil!
No... not *that* solution.
No... not *that* solution *either*!
Ugh, why don’t you get it?!”
@Donald McCarthy Agree.
Many bad things happen in the world, and not one is by the will of God ...what would have been the meaning of life if, from time to time, God arrived to save the day ? What would have been the triggering threshold for him to act ?
@@francesco5581 To your question "...What would have been the meaning of life... if God arrived to save the day?" is embarrassingly absurd, god knew such event was going to happen since he is omniscient, he knew that when creating man with free will he was also creating rapists, torturers, enslavers, abusers; the raped, the tortured, the slaves have no free will to choose. Plus the answer from a woman raped for 30 years by her own father would be different than yours; but according to you, the reason why god didn't rescue this woman has to do with "the meaning of life". Would you tell her (you can go visit her, she is in a psychiatric institution) that she wasn't rescued because otherwise such rescue would be meaningless? What is wrong with you? Don't you have any decency?
"...I (god) make peace, and create Evil..." Isaiah 45:7
Regarding your second question, "What would have been the triggering threshold for him to act?": "Samaria must bear their guilt...their little ones will have their heads dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open..." Osea 13:16. What's the "triggering threshold for him to act"? Be courageous enough to reason and think on your OWN, without repeating the absurdities that others implanted in your head when you were a kid. Now you are an adult: think with your own mind, and have some principles.
@@Elaphe472 if you start with the ancient testament's God you will never go far away . That was the whole meaning of the arrival of Jesus ... Btw... There is only the way of free will and until exist a free will that will be FREE to not follow the good then there will be always evil in the universe . If there was no evil , there was no meaning , no weight , for the good. It's the dark that make possible to see the light (since in all light you will see nothing) . So , unfortunately , it's the possibility of evil that make the good shine and learned .
Yeah, God's totally omnibenevolent. That's why my 5-year-old cousin was shot in the head by a sniper & my 22-year-old neighbor has terminal cancer. 😞
I see my GOD every day. The light of the world. GOd's one and only sun who every day as it burns away it is giving of its life so that we, on earth might live.
Sun worship. Perhaps the oldest religion. Makes more sense than most...
Shallow. God made the universe and every sun and every form of life.
@@easyeagle2 you are delusional. that was drilled into your head when you were a vulnerable and impressionable child. You know like santa claus? remember how real he used to be? it's the same thing.
There are over 1000 Gods created by man that are no longer believed in. You just got one more to go.
We are just hairless monkies who inherited technology from some smarter monkies that came before us. So enjoy your brief moment in the sun.
Theism is a belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, or the First Cause. Atheism is a belief system that is desperately trying to avoid the unavoidable inference…
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It isn't trying to avoid anything.
@@robotaholic So atheism is actually agnosticism, since there is no evidence that God doesn't exist...
@@tomashull9805 if thats true then we have to live as if every single hypothesized creature exists and we both know of they don't so how about we suspend belief in those that break the laws of nature that are invisible like angela and demons... that's a good start
@@robotaholic I don't quite understand your point... but I belive that the search for meaning is man's primary motivation in life... Otherwise...what's the point?
My God! (pun intended)...this is the "best" these experts can come up with to describe the incoherence of the attributes of God? Sorry, but these are insipid arguments, at best. If you want to deepen your feeling that God must likely exist, just watch this episode of CTT a few times...
@A Pharmacy Student I don't see how the concept of God differs much from the concept of an unembodied mind...unless one argues an unembodied mind can have no effect on anything outside itself
Listening to these philosophical descriptions of god makes me wonder how society made it this far. This is nothing but religious gobbledygook wrapped up the facade of academic respectability.
Reading this comment makes me wonder how society made it this far. This is nothing but atheistic gobbledygook wrapped up in the facade of intellectualism.
See how easy that is?
The argument for god should have been over with Leibnitz. Although he was unquestionably a gifted philosopher, mathematician and scientist, his proposed solution for the problem of suffering has plagued philosophy for more than 4 centuries. First, there was Schopenhauer, then Hegel, and then Marx with others in between. We are still stuck with a terrible and intransigent pessimism in philosophy. Philosophy and theism are incompatible. Faith highjacked Leibnitz' mind. Philosophy is still paying the price. No wonder why people have such a distrust for philosophy. I wonder how much progress we missed in moral philosophy as a result. Without Marxism, would we have had no authoritarian regimes and "death by governments.?" Unfortunately, good philosophy is assumed to be unimportant all over the globe. Perhaps there will be a return to reason in philosophy in this, the twenty first century, CE.
“Philosophy and theism are incompatible.”
Where is the contradiction between philosophy and theism?
Please be very specific.
@@joshheter1517 Good philosophy opens itself up for disagreement and argument; bad philosophy rejects dissent. Good philosophy is about realism; bad philosophy is about idealism or perfection. Good philosophy is about reason; not unreason (like Wittgenstein). Good philosophy requires a theory of epistemology; not the claim that knowledge is relative, a duality, or not possible (Marxism). The idea that god, being perfect, could have only created "the best of all possible worlds" is an example of bad philosophy (Leibnitz) because the claim is easily variable. Schopenhauer followed up with the idea that we live in "the worst of all possible worlds" is an example. Bad philosophy supports bad science. Bad philosophy is self-destructive. (Wittgenstein). Many argue that there is no need for philosophy (Wittgenstein). The current ascendance of Marxism in the West may make that claim of non-necessity of philosophy true. Cultural relativism is a great destroyer of progress.
@@patmoran5339
Theism is a philosophical claim. All philosophical claims are a matter of debate, and all philosophical claims are open to being interpreted differently and to (at least minor) revision.
There is no contradiction between philosophy and theism.
@@joshheter1517 Theology is based on the ideas that all knowledge already exists and that further attempts to gain knowledge about the world are either dangerous or useless and that the world is inexplicable. Philosophy is based on the idea that new knowledge is both desirable and achievable. I think that anyone could play with the definitions of both theology and philosophy to try to make a point. And my opinions can easily be dismissed. However, if I was the one who decided what does belong in philosophy I would exclude theology. I prefer to believe in humanity not deity or anything in the supernatural. And I am certain that theists prefer to stay associated with philosophy. Also, when you make the claim 'there is no contradiction between philosophy and theism, you, also are claiming that there is no contradiction between science and theism.
@@patmoran5339
The topic at hand was “theism”, not “theology”.
That said... that is the most ridiculous straw man of theology I have ever heard. Some of the most important scientific minds in modernity and the 20th century were also theologians. We wouldn’t have (for instance) Big Bang cosmology without the Jesuits, and their are countless more examples like this.
Is theism coherent?
No.
God is everything or nothing.
God literally created everything, therefore created evil, therefore can't be all good. Not even mentioning the baby killing lol....... I don't know about you but I feel like you'd have to be pretty bored to create your own enemy. Lol I just can't believe people don't realize how silly this concept is.
Theist want to have their cake and eat it too!!!
@ 0:40 "...the more majestic it appears." Robert thinks his subjective projection is proof of something he would like to be true. Oh, the humanity...
Why does God need to be logical?
He could commit suicide and then re-create himself from nothing.
Logic is a constraint of the laws of the universe, which do not apply to God.
There is no such thing as "nothing." The very existence of the universe clearly establishes that fact.
Lol. NO
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a while. I won’t be worshiping any such god.
@Stefano Portoghesi Well I believe God is always learning, even if He knows the future, He is always trying to make things better for humans as we have been the first to commune with Him. God sets rules that he believes are the best for that time. Could He change the past? Yes, but it could introduce problems He is not aware of. He is aware of all that is, but not all that is possible. At least from my own humble understanding.
@Stefano Portoghesi God creates rules, as He is the sovereign ruler of the universe. Why is there suffering? We all must suffer to know His grace at some time. Is everything on this universe perfectly fair? No, but He takes all things into account in His final judgement.
It’s totally incoherent...
Utter nonsense
What did you expect?
How so? Where in lies the internal contradiction?
Completely agree. 100% incoherent.
Baffles me how any supposedly intelligent person can be so naive to believe in God.
@@DavidElstob73
Where in lies the internal contradiction with theism itself?
Please be very specific.
@@DavidElstob73 if you find some people believe, phantoms, pixies, ghosts, aliens, than you expect sonoone believe the Mysterious stranger in sky...
Theism is not coherent and fine-tuning is an argument from ignorance.
What contradiction is entailed by theism *itself*?
Please be very specific.
actually the fine-tuning exist and is embraced by all bigger physics ... The explanation of it is another matter ...
This is easy, NO.
In what way is theism not internally consistent?
Please be very specific.
@@joshheter1517 please reread the title. There is a difference between consistent and coherent.
@@jlsc4125
Um... no. They are essentially synonyms.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coherent
@@joshheter1517 You need to buy a new dictionary, they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
@@jlsc4125
How would you define coherence (such that it has “nothing to do” with logical consistency)?
And, what are you basing that on?
Or (let’s be honest), are you making this up as you’re going along?
No.
God cannot be fully understood because He requires Faith.
Even faith requires logic... exept the atheistic one...
@@badjohnnyisbad I think you are talking about multiverse; i.e. an atheistic, baseless excuse for obvious inference of fine-tuning in the universe...