Yujin Nagasawa - Can Philosophy of Religion Find God?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 май 2023
- Philosophy of Religion asks all the key questions about God: does God exist and if so, how? But does this bring us any closer to the deity?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on how philosophy informs religion: rb.gy/281o7
Yujin Nagasawa is a Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion in the School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, 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.
In a word.
No.
Mike in San Diego.🌞🎸🚀🖖
yeah..
Right to the point 😂
Loaded question.
more yujin
Oh please ! You can't find something that doesn't exist.
Thousands of failed gods later and people can still convince themselves that they have the right answer...this time.
conscious infinite(simal) time develops mathematical abstraction for thought and logic, and mental energy for free will and emotion, and physical universe(s)?
Sweeping generalizations? Anyone?
In order to have religious experience (some mutual relation with God), one should try to believe in God without having "ultimate logical arguments" (we cannot have them) and develop friendly relations with God, and wait for God's response. Maybe God will say something to one or show him or her something, and this will be the first religious experience. ❤
just sharing a video "The mathematics behind the relationship between human and god @Jeffrey Lang which might be useful to us..ever heard of beautiful names@attribute of god...peace be upon us all
In the search for God; God tends to overlook itself.
4:50 The ontological argument, described here as by accepting god is the greatest possible being the existence of god can be derived, is circular, isn't it? Moreover, nothing is said about the limit of human knowledge. It is no doubt that human beings cannot know everything and can never be self-prove to be right all the time; therefore, there is no substance to the claim that god exists.
I’ve no interest in the question of whether or not god “exists”; I am, however, greatly interested in how and why others believe. Philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and so on, contribute to our examination of religion and how it works. IMHO
Others believe because it's proven that the Buddha was wrong.
A Creator exists because based on what we know , the universe had a beginning like a baby came from a mother. Infinity doesn't compute.
Everything under the law of karma , law of cause and effect. There is a cause , the initiator of the Big Bang, the one who ignited the first spark , Let their be Light.
it is only logical that there is a Creator God because the reality that we know is derived from our knowledge of karmic laws, in other words, the Law of cause and effect.
Nothing can come from Nothing.
There has to be the First Cause , the UNmoved Mover, the Prime Mover, the Initiator of the Big Bang, the Ultimate Observer who collapses the wave function , the programmer of our Simulated universe, etc.
.
The forces are created . Every physical force is contingent on what is not contingent . You can't have an infinite regress of contingent physical forces .
.
1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4. This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5. This necessary being is God. (Creator, Designer, Programmer, Initiato of the Big Bang, First Cause, Unmoved Mover)
.
2:25 so what are some definitions of God and what are some of these attributes. 2:27 ... ... 2:46 and those other characteistics are what you describe it's secondary they're not primary. 2:54 That's right. 3:04 and you're not necessarily certain whether those other attributes apply you may have to to test, 3:09 yeah here ... 3:16 yeah and you have very some very obvious ones like God is all-powerful omnipotence all knowing omniscience present everywhere omnipresent morally perfect but you also have some stranger like God can't change or God is simple and these are complicating argument and the way you would have to get into that is through very technical analysis. 3:40 Thal's right. 4:13 not only that but if I had that experience at least the way I feel now without having had it I wouldn't trust it maybe I had bad coffee or something like that I don't know what would have caused it so once we've defined God let's go to the next step and how can we determine wheter that God exists no just as a potential or something nice or something to hope for but in reality. 4:34 there you have to develop an argument for existence of God so the clearest example is the ontological argument because the ontological argument starts with the definition of God as the greatest possosible the ontological argument starts with the definition of God as the greatest possible being and this argument says that by accepting this definition yeah you can derive the existence of God. 4:55 Now this is very controversial people say it doesn't work it's a sort of a trick of words you if you assume such God is exists and then allow that God to exist in one possible world then ha hase to be in all warys you 6:00 ... some of them might succeed but they make a lot of very contentious metaphysical or moral assumptions so I'm not entirely endorsing these arguments but ❤I think that the ontological argument is argument is very promising 6:10 so looking at philosophy of religion in general how do you see its importance not just as an academic discipline but as really determining for everyone what God is and does that God exist? Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Mt10.28 6:23 6:43 so philosophers tend to focus on very subtle issues they like subtle technical details and forget about these big questions the existence of God the origin of the universe and the meaning of life and so I love philosophy religion because there we talk about we directly address these big questions. [BTS pp says] God is self-evident existence according to Bible, therefore, the definition of God in Bible, e.g. Exodus 3:13~15, Deteronomy 6:4~5, Genesis 1 & 2, Isaiah 41.4; 44.6; Rev 1.8, 21.6, 22.13.
I like when he says I don't think i would want a religious experience... I've had one and thought the same some years after the experience a religious experience. what ever happened in that experience totally left me dumb founded, it was like a switch come on and boom gone for 1min or so then back to to where I was 1min before.. truly a moment in my live I would never forget.. this world is full of mystery...
Dear sir, would you kindly elaborate a bit on the kind of experience you had? 🙏
It is not understood that when God knows the actual future He just says "so be it" and leaves.
_"Some people_ would say it's a trick of words [...] I know that argument, and it's kinda cute..."
😂 😂 😂 "Some people", eh? I love when interviewers use "some people" to half-politely inject their own criticisms lol. But then the "kinda cute" comment! We don't usually get that much sass from Robert 🤣
To be fair he uses the "some people say" line in a lot, maybe even most of his interviews. It's just a device to put forward a contrary argument without making the interview confrontational.
@@simonhibbs887 No for sure, and I do respect that though I also lament its usefulness. I think it'd be ideal if people could simply say what they thought without it being "confrontational" or upsetting. Ah well 🤷
One more thing: would not searching for the “existence” of god as a “being” point our noses in the wrong direction, ie, away from god? Read Milton. Have fun. Be kind. I have spoken.
ja to wait for Godot!
As Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, said in Bhagavad-gītā 11.54, bhaktyā tv ananyayā śakya, He can only be known by undivided devotional service, free from mental speculation or fruitive activities.
'Christ will come like a thief in the night'
- Bible corroberates
Long as the lower minds faculty is active, trying to make sense of things from the conditioned mode, a man on guard awaiting the thief, during the night, Christ's advent never takes place. Christ's kingdom is not oberseved.
- corroberates with your excerpt
There is absolutely no need to follow words thousands of years and even if god exists it is just another step in between than helping in solving the problem of something out of nothing.
@ManiBalajiC sometimes we have to follow, before we can lead.
@@ManiBalajiC Undivided devotional service is not only the way to know God; it's also an expression of the ultimate goal of pure love.
Hindus regurgitating their dogma all over the place are funny as hell...
Huh? Begging the question?
5:08 That is kinda cute, is the best thing that can be said about it.
Religious people want to know too! Science is what the bible refers to when it says we will stamp on the serpent's head with our heal. Quantum Physics DNA and Beyond, Before the big bang... All these things that are apparently only Scientific will serve to enrich the belief in a Creator
Nagasawa persuasively asserts that the ontological argument is best. It also fails. Hence, no more timewasting with all the other pervasive silliness. This is philosophy at maximal utility.
I presume he meant the Ontological Argument is the strongest argument for people like him who haven't had a "religious" experience.
@@brothermine2292 A 'religious experience' is evidence of exactly nothing
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y : I believe you're correct, but try convincing people who've had a religious experience that it doesn't imply what they believe it implies. I assume part of the experience involves a stimulation of the part of the brain that causes a feeling of certitude.
@@brothermine2292 definitely agree
Mythology is thinking 2.0.
God’s, is what ever exists!
Then God is no different from the Cosmos.
Interesting answer.
It's better not to have a religious experience. Do study the philosophies of different religions.
exist exists
preparatory to it not existing
this conundrum
has no answer
If someone says God is simple, why don't you ask them for the proof of their claim? How could God be simple and at the same time be the Almighty and the wisest? How could the source of the entire cosmos be simple? The evidence belies this assertion. Many who claim to be religious say a lot of things about God for which they have no proof.
God is simple.
God is an UNNATURAL intelligence ... with a mind ... freewill, nature, & consciousness ... and able to make, operate, improve, maintain & fine tune Abstract & Physical Functions ... for a purpose/reason.
Man is a NATURAL intelligence ... with a Mind ... freewill, nature, & consciousness ... and able to make, operate, improve, maintain & fine tune Abstract & physical Functions ... for a reason/purpose.
There is zero evidence Nature & natural processes .. can make & operate the simplest EVERY physical function 13.7 or 4 billion hears ago ...or ... made by Man today.
And everything in the Universe ... is a Function ... interacting with Functions, processing Functions and/or being processed by Functions.
Space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy ... are Functions ... with clear purpose, form, properties, processes & design (structure/order).
And again. An Intelligence ... has freewill ... & ..... nature ... to think, say & do whatever he/she wants ... with everything being a function.
Is the nature of Man ... pure & good ... or .... corrupt & evil?
So either God (Unnatural Intelligence) ... made Man with a CORRUPT Nature because God has a corrupt nature ..... or ... made Man with a pure Nature ... but freewill ... to obey or break ... God's Law.
A good & just Intelligence ... must punish anybody who breaks the Law.
And Man has clearly murdered, raped, destroyed, & pillage ... breaking all MORAL laws .. and yet has not been punished ... because Man has freewill & is able to PROCREATE Man ... and was made for a reason by God ... who is also loving, merciful .. but must punish law breakers in the end.
Science completely supports God ... being an Unnatural Intelligence ... with freewill ... & ... a pure, good, loving, merciful, patient ... but Just ... Nature. And Man's nature is corrupt and was inherited from a common Ancestor(s).
I know, it's a bit jarring when he lists all these superlative, fantabulous qualities like omnipotence, omnipresence, timeless, etc and then throws in 'simple'.
@@simonhibbs887 But it is simple.
God is ... simply ... an UNNATURAL intelligence with a mind, freewill, nature, memory, thoughts, senses, feelings & consciousness ... free to do good or evil, love or hate, created or destroy, be just or unjust ... and .. make, operate, improve, maintain & fine tune ... abstract & physical Functions.
Man is ... simply ... a NATURAL intelligence with a mind, freewill, nature, memory ... etc.
Only an intelligence ... makes & enforces law .... for a reason/purpose.
Only an intelligence makes Functions .. for a reason/purpose.
Everything in the Universe .. including the body of Man .... is a Function ... with purpose, form, properties, processes, & design.
Quantum particles, fields & forces ... and the space, TIME, laws of NATURE, matter & energy of the Universe ... are Functions .... mad by an intelligence for a reason or purpose.
The entire natural System (Universe) ... with time, & Laws of Nature ... is a Function composed of Functions ... and MUST have been made by an UNNATURAL intelligence in an UNNATURAL timeless & infinite System.
God is simply ... an UNNATURAL intelligence of an UNNATURAL System.
And Man .. is a NATURAL Intelligence of a NATURAL system, which has time & laws of nature.
There is nothing remotely complex about the origin of the Universe & Life ... because they are simply Functions ... that can only be mad by an Intelligence.
But an Intelligence ... has freewill & nature ... to think, believe, say & do whatever he/she wants ... everything being a Function with purpose, form, processes, properties & design.
It's very intriguing how the Universe resembles a brain and the neurons
The two do appear similar, when you look at them side by side. But the similarities don’t mean what you think it means
But actually, there's another reason why the cosmic web and the brain cells look so alike: it's because the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
Might as well say a wall it looks like a brain
@@tonyatkinson2210 Maybe, but if we do go along with quantum physics and the multiple dimensions, we could be in the lower dimension of a being.
@@tonyatkinson2210 Sabina hossenfelder dives into this subject a little bit on how it's not likely there's no evidence for it and currently we can't really test these ideas but current understanding of quantum physics and dimensional Theory doesn't contradict the possibility
How does the universe look like a brain..?
The universe is (mostly) vacuum space....which is “Deadly” to living cells/creatures...
Brains are filled with rich nutrient liquid that is perfect for (any) cell growth...
The fundamental misunderstanding that people have is that humans can conquer interstellar space and time...
Which is dangerous Sci-Fi propaganda garbage...!
the universe is just another brain then
When God becomes an object to philosophize the subject automatically has a separate omni path. On the other side, when God is a living belief He may not immediately be objectified because He is orchestrating or conspiring with us.
Can Philosophy of Religion Find God?
God is beyond any Philosophy of any Religion ...
You will never know god if you don,t know your relation to god,if want really want to know god you should stop believing...believing looks for a god outside the body/mind, he is inside the body and outside the body...if you truly want to know god,then i would love to do an interview, but it will be a multidimensional timeless godly spiritual conversation...robert becomes god and i,ll take the nobel prize...😅 to make it a bit more clear ...not just spiritual talk but also science talk ... i will merge both...it,s basically already scientificly proven that we are special beings...but a scientist isn,t of the spirit....and can,t translate it findings...
Never heard Robert so closed minded oh yeah PBS
(1:50) *YN: **_"You have to start with the concept of God; you have to analyze the concept of God, and define exactly what God is."_* ... God's only self-definition as stated in the Bible is "I AM" ... which in all fairness, I find very intriguing! God was later defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent entity. So, I have a question for those who believe in God:
*Preface:* The universe technically represents "all power" (omnipotence) as all of the available energy is contained within it. It's also found everywhere (omnipresence), and all of the information ever conceived is contained within the universe (omniscience). Now, add to this the fact that the universe "IS."
So, here's my question:
Let's say that God was actually the combined evolution of every particle interaction, every point of emergence, every instance of mathematics, every evolutionary moment from Big Bang's singularity up until the writing of this comment along with everything Jesus Christ professed (or Mohamad if you are Islamic) along with the information produced by every other person who ever strived for righteousness, (omnibenevolence) ... and this was all presented to you as a single, combined, eternally-existing "I AM" type of structure upon your demise, ... but _this version_ of God had to go through all of this "evolution" to get there - just like you did ...
*Q: **_Would you be disappointed?_*
I AM, that's it. There is nothing else. No where to go, nothing to achieve or evolve into. Only I AM.
@@TheAlpineAddict *"I AM, that's it. There is nothing else. No where to go, nothing to achieve or evolve into. Only I AM."*
... That's not an answer to the question. Why not a direct response?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I don't know, why would I be disappointed?
@@TheAlpineAddict *"I don't know, why would I be disappointed?"*
... Because the God I described was not "all-knowing" or "all-powerful" from the very start. It wasn't "all-good," either. This God had to learn everything via evolution. As a result, this version of God would have been responsible for every "evil deed" and "act of selflessness" that has occurred since the onset of mankind because it had no frame of reference for what was "good" or "bad" until we defined the two constructs.
This version of God had no concept of "love" and "hate" until every act of both was executed by billions and billions of humans over time.
And lastly, Jesus Christ would not have been something that was prophesized centuries before his arrival nor would he be the 'son of God" in Biblical terms. Jesus would have been a man who dedicated his life to defining what the true nature of man should be ... through sacrificing of oneself for the sake of all mankind (within his own perspective) thus setting the standard that people aspire to emulate.
This version of God requires that you accept a far more evolutionary version of God rather than the infinitely existing, all-powerful God described in Biblical / Hebrew texts.
So, are you still on board? ... or are you disappointed in this version of God?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I find it hard to be disappointed in a hypothetical, but I don't think I would be. Though it would spawn some questions. How did God begin evolving? If God is evolvning it must mean God is in time. If God is evolving in time, God must have come into being at some point to begin this process. How? Was there something before? Or did God come from nothing? Nothing becoming something is not logical.
But these questions are not necessary, because God is ridiculously simple. Refering back to my first comment: *I AM, that's it. There is nothing else. No where to go, nothing to achieve or evolve into. Only I AM.*
Ponder the true implications of the statement "I am". Might bring about a so called "religious experience".
Is wishful thinking ever going to end? Nietzsche nailed this whole area 140 years ago in just saying that even if a god of any kind exists, it's not something we're capable of knowing it anyway, so we might as well just operate as if there isn't one. And why do we ascribe all too human characterisitics to it also? As usual, our navel gazing just gets extended into this area.
Gods invisible qualities are clearly seen in that which is made so there is no excuse. I believe these words are true.
Nietzsche was a syphilis-ridden curmudgeon who expressed his cynicism about life cleverly and creatively. But that’s about all. The blond beasts? Please 😆
Agree.If there is a God,and we are just part of it's creation,we are nothing more than pieces on a big board game.We have no say in anything.
@@dennisbailey6067 What if God came to us in human form and told us what we should do
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 How would you know it's God??
I love your approach!!!
Experiences are so subjective…🤦♂️
Faith has to be logical, otherwise might as well believe in Santa.
Faith can't be logical per se but it has to be responsive to metaphysics at least.
Like if you believe in God based on pascal's wager or fine tuning or Kalam's cosmological argument, etc... It provides you with an assumption of possibility nor the probability.
@@Alan-shore- aren’t those based on logic? 🤔
Stop speaking for God/gods. This is the age of the internet. They are capable of IM'ing each and everyone of us, without going thru middlemen.
Imagine a god greater than any real god could be. (Ontological arguments are fun!)
North of North .
Where is up in the universe?
Which came first, chicken or egg ?
What's the beginning of the beginning?
What came before the big bang?
When is the beginning of eternity?
.
Gödel
Godel incomplete theorems
The Man who broke Math .
Every mathematical system will have some statements that can never be proven.
His incompleteness theorems destroyed the search for a mathematical theory of everything. Nearly a century later, we’re still coming to grips with the consequences.
.
In 1931, mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel proved that any effectively generated theory capable of proving basic arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In other words, a mathematically sound theory lacks the means to prove itself. An analogous statement has been used to show that humans are subject to the same limits as machines.
…
3x+1 Collatz Conjecture
The Simplest Math Problem No One Can Solve
The Collatz Conjecture is the simplest math problem no one can solve - it is easy enough for almost anyone to understand but notoriously difficult to solve.
…
a.x³ + bx? + cx + d = 0
Cubic Equation
How Imaginary Numbers Were Invented (ie. negative numbers and infinite numbers)
A general solution to the cubic equation was long considered impossible, until we gave up the requirement that math reflect reality.
…
Banach-Tarski and the Paradox of Infinite Cloning
By MAX G. LEVY
August 26, 2021
One of the strangest results in mathematics explains how it’s possible to turn one sphere into two identical spheres .
.
Why 1 = 2 ?
WHY CAN'T YOU DIVIDE BY ZERO?
In the world of math, many strange results are possible when we change the rules. But there's one rule that most of us have been warned not to break: don't divide by zero. How can the simple combination of an everyday number and a basic operation cause such problems?
Lesson by TED-Ed, animation by Nick Hilditch.
That would mean that God couldn't exist.
But then that immediately disqualifies him from being great as the greatest God is one that necessarily exists.
Interesting thought, but ultimately turns on itself much like the statement "truth doesnt exist" turns on itself.
@@somechristianguy5810 : "Necessary existence" is just a word salad product of playing games with the meanings of possibility and existence. Only *abstractions* can be summoned into a kind of existence by defining them. Existence in the realm of abstraction isn't the kind of existence that most people have in mind in a serious discussion about whether God "really" exists.
@@brothermine2292
Word salad huh.
Well, that explains the deficit in your first comment. You dont even know what a word salad is.
Cheers for demonstrating your capacity early.
@@somechristianguy5810 : Nice trolling in that reply, but it simply shows you had nothing meaningful to say. Bottom line: The Ontological Argument is uncompelling, because abstractions aren't in the existence category we care about.
🥴🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🥴
God is the ultimate absentee parent - Uncaring, emotionless and narcissistic. If god exists then there could be no greater negligence and disrespect for creation than hiddenness. If god exists he has made our lives gratuitous. What theists call sanctification is just the madness that accompanies unresolved guilt and feelings of inferiority.
Karl Barth: "Let God be God."
They call "God" a "being" and posit that "God is" and "God exists", yet they avoid the most fundamental and important question:--
If God "exists" then what is he made of? What does his being consist of? What is his is-ness?
Why is that never asked or spoken of? What are they afraid of?
nothing other than an idea in our heads
@@JoshuaRockyLizardi and why should we believe what they say ? What is the process that can show what is true and what is not ? Without it it's all just trying to be convincing, it has nothing to do with searching for truth.
@@k0lpA yow no complex questions to any god believers..
Don't ask those questions
-every priest/pastor
As a quick follow-up, I will just clarify that to ask what God is "made of" is a bad question according classical theology. According to people like Thomas Aquinas, God exists a se (from Himself) - He is being itself. He is not composed of any substance more fundamental than Himself.
It’s not possible to find God without the direction of God.
Oh look you're back with more irrelevant nonsense.
The best way to know God is to listen to God Himself through the three holy books of monotheism ancient Testament the new Testament and the Quran mainly the Quran his last word to mankind.
No
1) It is possible that a maximally malevolent being exists.
2) If it is possible that maximally malevolent being exists, then it exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally malevolent being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally malevolent being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally malevolent being exists in the actual world, then a maximally malevolent being exists.
6) Therefore, a maximally malevolent being exists.
7) If a maximally malevolent being exist, it could pretend to be a good deity to mislead humans.
8) Any choice of deity to worship could inadvertently be worship of this maximally malevolent being in disguise.
9) Therefore it is best not to worship any deity.
Too bad the concept of a maximally malevolent being isn’t coherent to begin with 😆 Read Nagasawa’s book where he deals with parody objections to the modal ontological argument.
@@heartfeltteaching This is not a parody. Additionally if claiming something to be a parody falsifies it, then I can claim Nagasawa's argument to be a parody of mine, therefore now his argument is false.
@@Niatnuom_Esiotrot 😂😂😂
@@heartfeltteaching
What about it specifically isn't coherent? Is it because malevolence destroys and benevolence (what God is said to perfectly embody) creates? Possibly including the destruction of itself (whether it wants to destroy itself or not)?
@@heartfeltteaching The concept of a maximally malevolent being is coherent. just as the concept of a maximally benevolent being they just are not real.
1 - If GOD exists; everything in the world has reason and logic.(makes sense )
2 - But if there is no GOD; everything never ever has reason nor logic ..(no sense , ..only possible, if we are out of our minds) .
3 - No great scientist or a small little one can ever make sense in contradiction to existence of GOD...ask them all if anyone can ?!!!
Defy them all to find another complete solution rather than the existence of almighty GOD
(Note : Pls don't ask a drunk one.).
The true state of affairs just is, it makes sense or it doesn't, whether you would prefer it to be otherwise isn't the issue. But to your first point the physical universe seems to be entirely consistent and persistent, with a reliable process of cause and effect. Things don't appear to happen without a cause, and we can reason about physical processes so they do make sense in those respects. That's a solid start.
Beyond that, I'm guessing you really mean reason and logic, and making sense on a moral or ethical level. If you haven't talked to many actual humanists or atheists, but only religious people, you may have heard a lot of misinformation about rational humanist an atheist ethics and been told that these don't exist. These are real systems of morality and ethics though, such as Consequentialism, Freethought and Secular Humanism. These have been hugely influential ethical systems that have influenced society, culture, politics and even legal systems for hundreds of years. This includes influencing religious societies and theologians, because the rational arguments in these ethical systems aren't contradictory to the existence of god, they just don't depend on religion either.
No.!
...Because God doesn’t exist....
...atleast Not the God of Abraham ...
...Not an Interfering God that listens to your prayers and Cares...
God was a primitive discrete machine. The simplest possible being. Not the best.
That's not how god is defined in academic circles. Providing vague definitions or redefining god in a way you strip from it all the attributes usually thought essential to it, you arrive at a point where the difference between your view and atheism is just verbal, not substantial. Only the word "god" is left there, lol.
@@anteodedi8937 god is law giver and the first reason. Logical reason. Building block of universe. Academic god? Are you joking???
Atheism is nothing more but blind denial. Lol. Not very clever blind denial.
Was? A machine, normally machines have a purpose? What was the machines purpose?
@@blijebij purpose is execution
@@matterasmachine xD
Without human consciousness, there remains no idea of God. Without human brain, there remains no human consciousness. Without human being, there is no existence of human brain. Without life, there is no existence of human being. Without Earth, there is no existence of life. Without matter, there remains no existence of earth. So, matter is the fundamental among all.
I thought it was funny early on when he puts down science as 'only' being interested in what is actually real, while philosophy is 'more fundamental' because it's about imaginary stories we make up. Well, I paraphrase, but only slightly. ruclips.net/video/bclp2LDASOg/видео.html
I'm not really saying there's no value to philosophy, it's an important enterprise, but ideas about things are just descriptions. Some are true descriptions, some are false descriptions, some are in between but they're just information. They're not fundamental. Physical reality is fundamental.
Where, isn't, GOD?
GOD, is too close to be seen; yet, to far to be found.
GOD, is too subtle to be Known; and, too vast to be grasped
GOD, there in the many, ultimately ONE.
GOD, the very grace that is Light, the nourishment that is the sea, the prosperity that is Earth; Heart of ALL.
You watch the Olympics, you see athletes win a Gold medal. You, ask them for their Gold medal, and they grant you this boon. To you, it's just a valuable substances; to the athletes, it's the reflection of decades of training, commitment, Self sacrifice( the only sacrifice approved by GOD), a reminder of the good times and bad, the connotation of 'never give up', the times youve fallen down and it was you who pick yourself up again and again.
This ^
Asking people questions about whatever, is just substance with no reciprocal within thyself that can contain it.
GOD isn't objective.
How can anyone spend so much time asking a question about a the existence of a mythical being? What would even be the point of asking such a question? Define god, then ask if that god exists. The god of any of the world religions most likely does not exist. They're all to anthropomorphic. A god that cares? Robert just wants or thinks he wants to live forever. Not really desirable if you seriously consider it.
Sorry you never had the chance to experience God and his power or maybe you have to understand and feel the power of Satan first.