Dear Prof. Thorsby, I am exercising to wait for part 2, part3...of your ProSocratic series. Could you advise how many part of video in this Ancient Greek Philosophy series and the releasing schedule of the video? Your philosophy lectures are so useful and always be the supplementary information on my current philosophy study. Thank you
Hi Mark Thorsby, I'm glad to see that you're back. As Oxford mathematician, philosopher, and Christian apologist Dr. John C. Lennox points out, natural explanations can account for what forces divided the Red Sea, but cannot explain who or what put these conditions into motion. Dr. Lennox uses Sir Peter Medawar, a philosopher of science, to make a point, one which I will paraphrase here: science (Dr. Clifton Richard Dawkins agrees on this one) can answer how queries, but cannot address why questions, which are best confronted by literature and metaphysics, for to do so would be "scientism" (the philosophy that all of our knowledge should be tested strictly by using the scientific method). Dr. John Tamayo had an excellent lecture on the web not to long ago on the web about Sir Karl Popper, a skeptic himself, and noted that Popper, unlike some of the logical positivists in the Vienna Circle, did not brand subjects which could not be tested by science and verified (or, according to Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery") as meaningless. Metaphysical and theological aspects could very well be meaningful in Popper's view; yet, Popper held that it is beyond the scope of science to field such issues. Theologian and epistemologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen also points out a key difference between evidentialism, which includes skepticism, and presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalists, according to Bahnsen, always evaluate data from a given worldview, where evidentialists deny a worldview in the spirit of clinging to objectivism. The irony, though, is that evidentalists, or a decision to start with just the evidence, constitutes a presupposition--epistemology must be argued based strictly upon material evidence. It should be apparent now that presuppositions can never follow evidence, as is apparent from the word's etymology: "pre," a prefix meaning before, "suppose," or an educated guess, and "ion," a suffix which signals that this word is an abstract noun. Although my worldview is Christian, I am eager to listen to how others formulate an epistemic understanding of the world, even if I do not agree with it completely. However, I do think, along with Dr. Bahnsen, that a skeptic and an absolutist will interpret the world differently, even if their arguments for their camps are impeccable. This is not to say that evidentialist philosophers, such as Dr. Alvin Plantinga and Dr. William Lane Craig, cannot provide strong proof which rejects moral relativism. (Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, a lawyer and an evidentialist, offers strong evidence supporting the existence of moral absolutes.) The better approach, though, is to borrow from Karl's "Logic," and eliminate that which he have observed to be untrue in the universe. As Dr. Lennox points out, the big bang's "self-creation," a concept argued by theoretical physicist Dr. Stephen W. Hawking, constitutes a logical contradiction, and was earlier refuted by Louis Pasteur's falsification of fruit fly experiments. Pasteur's experiments are a disproof of spontaneous generation (i.e., something can arrive from nothing). The Miller-Urey experiments, too, disproved what they set out to assert: life can come from nonlife. Triple doctorate, noted lecturer, and oft-published Organic chemist Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith noted that, in order for amino acids to continue living, they must be part of a chain which is a fully left-handed mixture. Dr. Wilder-Smith's experiments point out, though, that the mixture was fifty percent left-handed, and fifty-percent right-handed, and, since any right-handed amino acid will kill an organic left-handed inorganic chain if it mixes with it, life cannot come from nonlife. Our only other alternative is to accept that an Intelligent Designer sculpted our universe, which, by the way, means accepting that universals exists. Many creationists and people who believe in absolutes feel this is important, simply because (I'm borrowing from Jonathan D. Sarfati's "The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution," if there are no absolutes, then how is one supposed to trust that assertion? All things cannot be relative, and when we try to reduce every aspect of life to nature, a concept called naturalism, we run into problems. Regardless of our difference in opinion, though, I'm glad your teaching philosophy, as it is important to weigh the pros and cons of every argument before disproving those which dissent with your own, while simultaneously, building a powerful assertion upon available evidence. Take care, and I look forward to you uploading more videos! Best Wishes, QuotidianPerfection
Dear Prof. Thorsby, I am exercising to wait for part 2, part3...of your ProSocratic series. Could you advise how many part of video in this Ancient Greek Philosophy series and the releasing schedule of the video? Your philosophy lectures are so useful and always be the supplementary information on my current philosophy study. Thank you
Thank you for this. I'm looking forward to hearing more.
Hi Mark Thorsby, I'm glad to see that you're back. As Oxford mathematician, philosopher, and Christian apologist Dr. John C. Lennox points out, natural explanations can account for what forces divided the Red Sea, but cannot explain who or what put these conditions into motion. Dr. Lennox uses Sir Peter Medawar, a philosopher of science, to make a point, one which I will paraphrase here: science (Dr. Clifton Richard Dawkins agrees on this one) can answer how queries, but cannot address why questions, which are best confronted by literature and metaphysics, for to do so would be "scientism" (the philosophy that all of our knowledge should be tested strictly by using the scientific method). Dr. John Tamayo had an excellent lecture on the web not to long ago on the web about Sir Karl Popper, a skeptic himself, and noted that Popper, unlike some of the logical positivists in the Vienna Circle, did not brand subjects which could not be tested by science and verified (or, according to Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery") as meaningless. Metaphysical and theological aspects could very well be meaningful in Popper's view; yet, Popper held that it is beyond the scope of science to field such issues. Theologian and epistemologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen also points out a key difference between evidentialism, which includes skepticism, and presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalists, according to Bahnsen, always evaluate data from a given worldview, where evidentialists deny a worldview in the spirit of clinging to objectivism. The irony, though, is that evidentalists, or a decision to start with just the evidence, constitutes a presupposition--epistemology must be argued based strictly upon material evidence. It should be apparent now that presuppositions can never follow evidence, as is apparent from the word's etymology: "pre," a prefix meaning before, "suppose," or an educated guess, and "ion," a suffix which signals that this word is an abstract noun. Although my worldview is Christian, I am eager to listen to how others formulate an epistemic understanding of the world, even if I do not agree with it completely. However, I do think, along with Dr. Bahnsen, that a skeptic and an absolutist will interpret the world differently, even if their arguments for their camps are impeccable. This is not to say that evidentialist philosophers, such as Dr. Alvin Plantinga and Dr. William Lane Craig, cannot provide strong proof which rejects moral relativism. (Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, a lawyer and an evidentialist, offers strong evidence supporting the existence of moral absolutes.) The better approach, though, is to borrow from Karl's "Logic," and eliminate that which he have observed to be untrue in the universe. As Dr. Lennox points out, the big bang's "self-creation," a concept argued by theoretical physicist Dr. Stephen W. Hawking, constitutes a logical contradiction, and was earlier refuted by Louis Pasteur's falsification of fruit fly experiments. Pasteur's experiments are a disproof of spontaneous generation (i.e., something can arrive from nothing). The Miller-Urey experiments, too, disproved what they set out to assert: life can come from nonlife. Triple doctorate, noted lecturer, and oft-published Organic chemist Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith noted that, in order for amino acids to continue living, they must be part of a chain which is a fully left-handed mixture. Dr. Wilder-Smith's experiments point out, though, that the mixture was fifty percent left-handed, and fifty-percent right-handed, and, since any right-handed amino acid will kill an organic left-handed inorganic chain if it mixes with it, life cannot come from nonlife. Our only other alternative is to accept that an Intelligent Designer sculpted our universe, which, by the way, means accepting that universals exists. Many creationists and people who believe in absolutes feel this is important, simply because (I'm borrowing from Jonathan D. Sarfati's "The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution," if there are no absolutes, then how is one supposed to trust that assertion? All things cannot be relative, and when we try to reduce every aspect of life to nature, a concept called naturalism, we run into problems. Regardless of our difference in opinion, though, I'm glad your teaching philosophy, as it is important to weigh the pros and cons of every argument before disproving those which dissent with your own, while simultaneously, building a powerful assertion upon available evidence. Take care, and I look forward to you uploading more videos! Best Wishes, QuotidianPerfection
You are a Excellent lecturer!
Thanks very Much!
thank you so much.
A whole bunch of different Zenos)))