I think the only incorrect answer to this question is when you answer it like you actually know the answer, even if you acknowledge that your answer is necessarily your own belief rather than something that can be proved. This guy gives me the willies a little bit.
I'm with you on that one, Steve. I didn't watch the whole thing, but he struck me as an old-fashioned materialist. Comparing the number two to a unicorn was odd.
@@paulo.8899 it wouldn't do any good to discuss this with you. You are uncivil even in this response and are obviously unhinged and angry as well. God is real, you will meet him one day.
"Considerable evidence" for angels and demons. So sick of people making statements like that and never backing them up. I tend to believe in them too, for various personal and normal "wanting to believe" reasons. Do I have evidence for them? Of course I don't, and neither does he or anyone else. Belief is not evidence.
What do you exactly mean by the word "material"? What exactly is "matter"? Physicists don't even know what matter is at a fundamental level. The correct question to ask is - Are there really things that are "material", that fit our unquestioned ideas of what "material" and "physical" mean?
Lawrence keeps playing around with malformed questions, luckily for us sometimes the interviewees decide to answer a different question and something of value is conveyed in the video. Obviously not the case for this funny guy today
Physical objects such as electrons, photons and such are objects that can interact with and affect other physical objects. For something to be physical it must participate in the network of interactions by which the processes we observe in the world play out. Putting aside solipsism for now, as with all theories you start with axiomatic statements about things you take as starting points that you assume are physical, such as particular physical objects, chemicals, etc. The physicality of anything else can then be determined by whether it can affect or be affected, perhaps indirectly, by these things you take to be physical. So step by step science expands the scope of what we consider to be physical as we follow the evidence.
@@bierdlll The world for matter and material are derived from the Latin term materia which means stuff, real and reality. So by definition matter always references itself. Everything we see, touch, taste and hear are different layers of matter.
Right? Many years ago I watched a lecture on ancient alien intervention. For over an hour the lecturer made tremendous point after tremendous point. He really had me thinking and then it happened...he started going in on how Sasquatch's are real and remained hidden in the Pacific northwest to this very day. I turned it off immediately
What we call nature is essentially a manifestation of purely abstract relations. It is about process and energy transfer ( higher frequency to lower frequency and vice versa), or interactions and not material things. The interaction is the reality. An event is essentially a multiplicity of energy transfers. What seems to be overlooked is that, for fundamental reasons, the absolute is impossible.This is crucial. The context of the relational determines the "reality". E.g. particle or wave. What is a number? Fundamentally it concerns relative magnitude.
Great interview. Looks like many materialists on this thread. Can you hold your thoughts? Can you see your thoughts? Fact is thoughts exist. There you have it.
Chomsky, every time he talks, observes that there has not been a theory of matter for several hundred years. When he talks about the mind-body problem, Chomsky says the mind was never eradicated but the body was. He says there is no mind-body problem because there is no theory of body. He says the mechanical theory was abolished by Newton and with it any theory of body.
yes, the mechanical view of the world was gone as stated by newton much to the dismay of everyone during that period, and was never recovered. but whats much worse still is chomskys explanation that modern philosophers and intellectuals have horribly degenerated and lost contact with the true meaning of the knowledge surrounding the enlightenment period.
Chomsky is correct -- since Descartes no one has seriously looked at the mind-body problem. As a student of Philosophy decades ago, Descartes really shook me as he grappled with the mind-body problem, and Chomsky picks up the lost tangent. Today we are again at the doorstep of this mystery again and cannot walk away from it. From Donald Hoffman's ideas, QM vs Relativity and the closer we get to scientifically and philosophically comprehending consciousness we are banging at the door of the self and how it perceives and acts in this world.
Robert has FAILED US ! After J. P. saying "God, Angels & Demons, & the immortal souls, exist & can have a real effect on reality" How about even one single question ? Perhaps: " What leads you to believe this is true ?"
Non-material angels - really? Consciousness is the product of metabolism, which is exactly the reason every conscious being is obsessed by the hunt for energy. No metabolism, no mind.
I believe in... I believe in... I believe in... says it all really but not a jot of proof! Angels and demons are finite but we very special humans have immortal souls - sadly just wishful thinking. Some people with synesthesia experience colours with associated tastes just due cross wiring in their brains! This man is just spouting opinions. Robert is ever so patient not to trash this man's beliefs.
Politely, I disagree with a tremendous amount of what this guy says, but to listen and hear his views and thoughts is so important on how differing opinions does not make us enemies. It's okay to agree to disagree.
He made a statement that if god did not exist we would not exist. Prove it. I have read Aristotle, Thomas Aquinus, and others who offer arguments (proofs) that god exists. But in order to achieve their conclusions they make, in my mind, unallowable assumptions are claimed to launch their arguments as a prelude to their proof. So nice to allow oneself such latitude and freedom. With enough of an assumption begging an argument for something, just about anything can be "proven".
If it is necessary for god’s will to sustain creation and god knows the future then I would say that in fact creation exists within the mind of god and therefore >> god is a solipsist… and therefore >> a psychotic.
Many things are non-material. Take for example "venerableness", which is a noun (a thing). Clearly, venerableness is not a material thing. It's a "quality".
Another huge problem right now is the scale of matter, is infinite from the macro to the micro with the big bang in a finite set of idiomatic scientific principles, precludes that
no, matter has a limit on the micro scale. its like 10^32 or something and the energy required to produce it collapses it into a black hole. the micro scale to spacetime is quite coarse.
Is there a basic set of human feelings like sexual desire, compassion, hate, etc.? Each feeling is unique, even within the same individual. Each number is also unique, two apples is different than two oranges, but the twoness is the same. My love for my wife is strictly different from the love for my son, but it is love anyhow. If the set of basic human feelings is a denumerable set, its members are the angels and demon JP is talking about. Not individuals like us, but fields of sentiments where our existence vibrates while alive. We all have a good idea of the people around us, the ensemble of basic human feelings that characterizes them.
Are the emotions bigger than the self that experience them? Where we not taught what it means to be angry, happy, sad or any of the other emotions before we had the capacity to fully express and understand these emotions through cognition and introspection. The values and limits of which emotions and how they can be expressed are reinforced by cultural norms lifetimes older than we are. This combined with aspects epigenic evolution and the emotions we experience would have been expressed for longer than we could be defined as human beings. When your sense of self and rational thinking is overwhelmed by an emotional state are we not in way being possessed by something larger than ourselves, hence their power. As human beings it seems we have a tendency to attribute qualities like good and evil to the way the different emotional states are expressed in action and sentiment. I cannot see where the emotions have any agency of their own until we give them power to the point they take over. When we are out of control or overwhelmed by an emotional state is it in control?
if love were essences or fields, you would need to perceive all individual such instance before you could know love. on the other hand, if love were a particular such as the love for your wife, then you would not be able to love your son since that particular differs to the original. dont worry, noone has figured out set theory, except dignaga and dharmakirti.
@@5piles "if love were essences or fields, you would need to perceive all individual such instance before you could know love." What would be the mathematical representation of such a statement? It would necessarily be a wave function with the particle representing how you feel at this instance, and the wave representing all the possible states. Corollary: the particle DOES NOT need to be everywhere at once, it suffices to know that the particle could be anywhere. Same with feelings. You do not need to feel ALL of them at once, only that you are capable of such feelings. I fail to grasp your disputation.
@@CarlosElio82 you are saying that one particular whether in 19th century physics or as one in a collapsed wave function is love, then any other particular of either type cannot be love since it is other than that given particular which is love. on the other hand, if we assert that it is the collection of all 19th century instances or all collapsed functions instances that are love, then we necessarily must perceive each of them before we could understand what love is.
what's the difference between prepositions "snow is white" and the "idea" of demons and angels and gods, etc. ? He is right prepositions exists, as ideas.
The preposition that snow is white comes from observations. The idea of demons, angels and god come from imagination of elite people in politics during the near eastern Iron Age.
True nature of reality is nothing independently exist, everything is interdependent. Dependent origination heart of Buddha Teaching 🌼🌼🌼 Spread Love, Happiness & Compassion, Free Tibet
I find this discussion to be narrow in scope. I am always perplexed when these experts point out that God is He. Does God have a gender? Given our limited understanding of the metaphysical, we must go forward with an open mind & explore all possibilities. We must be mindful to seeking the absolute truth free of the chains of indoctrination.
Mathematics and logic are all about arbitrary convenitions. Numbers have the properties they have jsut because they are defined this way. There are alternative arithmetics, logics and geometries. This shows that mathematical objects are only in our minds, they do not exist in some abstract realm of being.
Just because you can't think of it doesn't preclude it from possibility. Indirectly, you make known that you believe things give themselves there own form and 'being'. Human beings often think first, and then manifests. Building a bridge is always first thought over in the mind, and then on paper, with physics and math, acknowledging the laws only to a small degree, and then manifest. Why should we believe otherwise concerning GOD? I think you're afraid to be true to yourself.
@S3RAVA3LM *NAPOLEON HILL said, "Thoughts are things". That's logical. I won't argue that. Thanks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn @ 10:39 "I can conceive of there being no God [angels and demons], but I cannot conceive of there being no numbers". I agree that abstract thoughts are real. But, as devil's advocate, tell me the purpose of these so-called "angels and demons" J.P. Moreland speaks of. Those are thoughts that sound cool but aren't necessarily real.
@Kathy ok, I see. Yeah. Example: what the Philosopher's term as 'Intellect', the Theologians acknowledge as the 'Word' or Christ. Intellect or course being Light, the very light within man, and too, that which is all things. They are only modes. I've realized that whether it's feild theory, metaphysics or mysticism, ultimately we are discussing the same thing only in different modes and approaches. Mysticism being a personal modes, contemplation, thus truly is 'Mimesis' or union or self realization. Metaphysics of course acknowledging the Principles, that which is, opposed to that of samsara or birth, life, death, cycle. What is real. It surely can not be that which is ephemeral, transient. We could call all this real, and then, what would we call that which is beyond samsara?
Where is the discussion about how souls and other immaterial things interact with the material world? QFT (quantum field theory) tells us what we are made of (mostly quarks and electrons) and how and what those things interact with, and there are no god, devil, soul, ghost or spirit forces, fields or particles (vibrating fields) interacting with the stuff we and our natural world are made of. Until he can at least propose a mechanism by which that happens, it's silly to believe souls exist and interact with us.
I don't think He is maintaining it, He set it in motion and is watching it stir if that's what's going on. There was always a theory/belief we are all just different aspects of Him and were here to view the Universe for God, when the deep space images were using light/radiation we can not normally see I thought "it was like viewing the Universe through the eyes of God". I think he has a solid theory, not sure about being a disembodied spirit until the resurrection, if time is constant that would seem as long as it would waiting here. Everyone gets purgatory, Caesar has been waiting 2000 years.Alaxander longer.
The ways in which we MEASURE the world will generate different MEASUREMENTS. It seems to me, measurements don't have inherit attributes as they are the subjective creations of beings who can measure things and their attributes are given to them by those measuring beings. The number two is a measurement that we use to organize things, but there's zero evidence that it has "inherent properties," just that it's a concept that is useful for doing stuff. It seems that, after Aquinas, almost all speculations about how to measure things that can't be seen all too often arrive at the notion of "properties." Then, once the initial speculation is assumed, one talks about properties as if they were things one can measure. Isn't that begging the question or just plain old fashioned circular reasoning? Prof. Moreland, who is clearly a smart, interesting and moral person (I seriously enjoyed him and his enthusiasm), is just speculating about things we think are "reasonable" because they have been assumed for so long. That fact that we are used to the idea of a nonmaterial world is not evidence of anything except that we have become comfortable with this particular unsupported speculation... I don't see how we can get evidence of the nonmaterial, so this will never properly answered perhaps, but I would welcome some new approaches or some compelling arguments for these speculations. This conversation, though interesting and lively, was just made up of the same old arguments I used to have with the Jesuits in school.
We can not answer that. But the real living entity and subject of knowledge is always bigger than anything you can see and show and reach, it's like invisible, the uncatchable living entity! Thats the difficulty with the self recognition, that it is exactly about the in principal invisible. Mind comes to itself to the same extent that it recognizes what in principle is never reachable by any theory and any empiricism.
This guy accuses people of not living in reality. And then claims angels and demons are real. The kind of idiocy in thinking that can only arise out of religion.
"god creates abstract objects, not in a sense that he brings them in existence, but that he sustains them in existence, God holds abstract objects in existence by his will... " - Just completely made up, top to bottom. Just... made it up!
Interesting conversation, but I wish Mr. Moreland would have given some examples of his statement that he sees evidence for God, angels and demons. I have not seen such evidence yet for me to think they actually exist. It still just sounds like a product of faith not what is "actual" in the universe in which we find ourselves. But as always, a great chat on this channel.
I find the discussion a bit silly. Just live well. That means, just be kind. All beliefs and arguments are sad seconds to that. Doing what we can to alleviate suffering, we find ourselves in the right place. IMHO.
You are correct, you can be good and still look for meaning in life. It is fascinating even if it is futile. Its a search for immortality, that is the final question in all of them, what does it mean for us when the physical body stops functioning. Does our "Soul" go into a gut maggot and eat the body or to "Heaven" or is it immediately put in another machine and memories are almost wiped clean. Are memories the only part of our identity/personality that is external and "we can't take it with us" to paraphrase a famous quote. Are they imbedded in the Body and when the electricity goes off they disappear for ever.
The immaterial is only in conceptual space, not physical space. Santa's there, so is Uncle Bob, both of whom exist in our culture, but not in physical reality. Unsurprisingly, fanatics confuse the two. And sadly, so does this gentleman.
You can touch a horse. You can't touch a unicorn despite it having properties. You can't touch a number. This did not make sense to me. Makes more sense to me that numbers are properties and properties are states of things that exist but not separate things. They are conceptual. Robert hit it on the head at the start when he brought up the distinction about conceptual things and physical things.
As soon as he mentioned angels and demons my bullshit bulb lit, and my interested bulb extinguished. Jeez, to think, people actually believe this nonsense.
The thesis that the past and future aren't real, but only the present is real, is heresy. If he'd said that the present is real as that which is manifest, the past is real as that which was manifest, and the future is real as that which will manifest, this would have been compatible with the basic Christian worldview. At the cross, was it unreal sins that Jesus was bearing? In our memory of the resurrection, is it an unreality that we are remembering?
11:13 That's been my viewpoint also. I'm pretty sure that numbers exist in heaven. Colossians 1:16-20 King James Version 16 For by him were all things created, *that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,* whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Revelation 7:9 King James Version 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, *a great multitude, which no man could number,* of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
The laws of physics exists because a book says it does? No evidence required? How about Superman? Consciousness exists because a book says it does? No evidence required? How about Superman? The bible in layman terms is about faith and not about science or theory, so no evidence is needed. faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians" h Similar: trust belief confidence conviction credence reliance dependence optimism hopefulness hope expectation h Opposite: mistrust 2. *strong belief in God* or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "bereaved people who have shown supreme faith" h Similar: religion church sect denomination
The "spirits without bodies" exist within brain chemistry. I know, because after 3 totally sleepless nights this winter one was trying to invade my body. It's called lunacy.
The human mind, the final frontier. We have little awareness of our subconscious that dictates much of our decisions. The supernatural comes from our subconscious.
@@whitefiddle No, it was an evil spirit and brought fear to the point where I shouted, "Go away! Go away!" It gave me a new appreciation for both demonic spiritual possession and religious ecstasy. At the same time I was observing myself and knew it was brain chemistry doing it -- not actual spirit beings. But it sure felt like it.
@@bobs182 We have _incomplete_ awareness of our own subconscious and we have precious little knowledge of the unknown/spiritual/subliminal/paranormal, etc. Hearing two blowhards like this talk about these things is just comical. They are not talking sense, they are merely trying to harmonize their presuppositions and prejudices. Then to make things even more preposterous they try to do it using the vocabulary of science. It's funny to watch, but extremely unenlightening. Maybe in another 13.7 billion years they will get their first clue. Here's hoping. 🍷
The physical world may not be real, the local universe isn't, quantum mechanics is interesting and the fact that the universe can alter the past depending on observations of the current is astounding. Then we have the double slit experiment and the possibility of the universe not rendering things until observed, meaning saving data or processing power, simulation?
@@dfmc001 Who are YOU, by the way-I am YOU and YOU are I. Ah. So. Grasshopper. WE are ONE wearing SOUL of EARTHLOVE. If YOU have seen ONE, YOU have seen ALL. NOW, Whatyagonnado?🙊🙈🙉
But there are no souls after death without a body! In religions its about a resurrection by God the Life, that (in far far future) will be able to wake you up after you slept for a very very long time, because Life then will have the capability to reconstruct you. Then you should get something like a "light body". But it's a "body"!
JPM is the guy that had a personal experience with 'God.' I think he is also a member of the Flat Earth Society. I don't know why RLK gives such nutters a platform to spew their nonsense.
...Mr. Moreland I have been trying to ponder a thought. GOD resides in Heaven, of the Heavens, of our Heavens/Observable universe. Also, the Angels by the River Chebar, when they moved/travel, they did not turn, get up, to go. The Angels just went. We are restricted by the Turbulent Flow of Time/Space, and that 2nd Heaven just blows me away. Thank you, keep up your wonderful thinking, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
I have listened to many a much more than hundred of your talks with scholars on the topic consciousness. And all of them have notions, observations, glimpses or aspects, facets of experiences like the five blind feeling different parts of an elephant. I have not come much closer to the truth than before. They´re all fumbling in their books with overplenty of words. Almost every book on the topic repeats in the larger part of the book what others have already said. And many of your intervjuees stray aside form the question talking about someting else. I´ve come to the conclution I formed when I was fourteen of age, the brain cannot understand the brain unless it´s a bigger brain understanding our brain. Anyhow consciousness is of course elucive. How can it be otherwise. A trick played on an other trick. But shurely hallucinations are involved as the brian cannot do without hallucinations as mental constructions. Otherwise we would be unable to percice the world. Julian Jaynes has given me a lot.
The Cogito alone would suggest that the non-material defines the material; without the non-material, the material has no subjectivity and cannot be objective either. Abstractions (whatever they are) is consciousness at work building the emergent information for any act of realization.
Interesting guy I like him and find him compelling. He's 100% right about the two types of cultures, we see the western cultures including the US slowly decaying in direct connection with the shift in culture. Europe as well, probably a little bit ahead of the US.
Existence is any level of *information* that can be communicated. If it can be conceived and actuated based on its information, then it can exist. *Example:* A square-circle can be articulated, discussed, and even a definition attached to it, but it cannot exist. It can't because the actual information associated with it cannot be actuated (communicated).
@SamoaVsEverybody_814 *"Conceivability is infinite."* ... Negative. You cannot conceive a square-circle. That demonstrates a limitation to conceivability. End of story.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC. The problem of a square circle is not that it is not conceivable. The circle by definition is 360 degrees where all point are equal distance from the center. A square is made up two horizontal and vertical lines at 90 degree angels. That has to do more with the meaning of symbol then conceivability.
@@kos-mos1127 *"The problem of a square circle is not that it is not conceivable. The circle by definition is 360 degrees where all point are equal distance from the center. A square is made up two horizontal and vertical lines at 90 degree angels. That has to do more with the meaning of symbol then conceivability."* ... *DOOR:* _"a hinged, sliding, or revolving barrier at the entrance to a building, room, or vehicle, or in the framework of a cupboard."_ *HANDLE:* _"the part by which a thing is held, carried, or controlled."_ *End Result:* A "door handle" is absolutely conceivable and absolutely exists despite the two different definitions. Unfortunately the same doesn't work with a "square-circle." ... Why not?
One man's collection of beliefs, opinions, and superstitions. Thus does the human mind, with its limited resources, vainly strive to make sense of existence. Small wonder that the picture often resembles a Picasso or a Dali.
(4:10) *JPM: **_"I believe there is considerable evidence for the existence of angels and demons."_* ... Angels and demons are indeed "conceivable," so they absolutely abide by the *1st Law of Existence.* However, for any angel or demon to exist, the information associated with them must be able to be actuated through an evolutionary process moving from simplicity to complexity as per the *2nd Law of Existence.* If your angel or demon has "always existed" or somehow achieved maximum complexity without ever experiencing an evolutionary progression from simplicity to complexity, ... then your angel or demon cannot exist. Sorry to the many theists and atheists, but the same applies to God and the Multiverse, respectively.
@@anteodedi8937 *"You know, some theists would play the divine simplicity thesis, but that doesn't make much sense. I would say it is incoherent."* ... And that would be an appropriate argument to make based on a theistic understanding of existence. But if the rules for existence require that there be a beginning point that demonstrates an evolutionary movement from simplicity to complexity, then theism's God would not meet that criterion. "Omnipotence" posits the possession of "all power" form the start and not an "evolution of power" moving from simplicity to complexity (as per the 2nd Law of Existence). So, what's science's argument for The Multiverse having no origin point (like theism's God)? Science needs to answer the question: *_"How can something exist without moving into existence?"_* just like the theists do.
The Cosmos is defined as all encompassing and embracing all causes so the origin of the Cosmos is the Cosmos. The inflation model posits that the Cosmos started off as a flat cold empty space and a bubble of true vacuum arose to create curved spacetime that we see today. The problem with the standard model is everything is contrived.
@@kos-mos1127 *"The inflation model posits that the Cosmos started off as a flat cold empty space and a bubble of true vacuum arose to create curved spacetime that we see today."* ... You sound like Lawrence Krauss whipping up a batch of _witch's brew_ in his supposed "empty space" caldron. WTF is a "bubble of true vacuum?" How can a "nothing" (a void of any and all properties) have an attribute such as a bubble? ... or a temperature? ... or be flat? ... or have anything within this empty void suddenly "rise?" *How many attributes* are you intellectually willing to assign to "nothing" before you realize that you're fallaciously turning a "nothing" into a "something" just to make a model seem plausible?
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Robert is such a good listener. I find I have to constantly pause & rewind to actually grasp what’s being said during many of these discussions.
He really is. Most interviewers are kinda cringe, but his enthusiasm for exploring all these topics is contagious.
Robert tends to not let someone finish what they are saying a bit.
I think the only incorrect answer to this question is when you answer it like you actually know the answer, even if you acknowledge that your answer is necessarily your own belief rather than something that can be proved. This guy gives me the willies a little bit.
+ Not a single question from Kuhn, like "why do you believe this?" 😳
I'm with you on that one, Steve. I didn't watch the whole thing, but he struck me as an old-fashioned materialist. Comparing the number two to a unicorn was odd.
Similar to a person who "knows what's best for you"
The gospel is historical fact. When someone comes back to life from the dead and ascends into heaven, you believe what they say.
@@DiggitySlice So, you're saying if anyone writes something it automatically becomes historical fact? I'm not sure that's how it works.
Brave man, I was actually shocked when he said he believed in God the way he started the video. Cheers to you!
If God exists, unicorns, Thanos and Superman exist too.
What the fuck is brave about saying that the sky is blue if in fact it is?
@@paulo.8899 it wouldn't do any good to discuss this with you. You are uncivil even in this response and are obviously unhinged and angry as well. God is real, you will meet him one day.
Me too
"Considerable evidence" for angels and demons. So sick of people making statements like that and never backing them up. I tend to believe in them too, for various personal and normal "wanting to believe" reasons. Do I have evidence for them? Of course I don't, and neither does he or anyone else.
Belief is not evidence.
It is evidence if you belive it hard enough, tho.... Or if you're an idiot
🤷
What do you exactly mean by the word "material"? What exactly is "matter"? Physicists don't even know what matter is at a fundamental level.
The correct question to ask is - Are there really things that are "material", that fit our unquestioned ideas of what "material" and "physical" mean?
Lawrence keeps playing around with malformed questions, luckily for us sometimes the interviewees decide to answer a different question and something of value is conveyed in the video.
Obviously not the case for this funny guy today
Material is what something is made of. Matter is what something consist of. Physical means that applies a force over an area of space.
@@kos-mos1127 "Material is what something is made of. Matter is what something consist of." - These are circular definitions.
Physical objects such as electrons, photons and such are objects that can interact with and affect other physical objects. For something to be physical it must participate in the network of interactions by which the processes we observe in the world play out. Putting aside solipsism for now, as with all theories you start with axiomatic statements about things you take as starting points that you assume are physical, such as particular physical objects, chemicals, etc. The physicality of anything else can then be determined by whether it can affect or be affected, perhaps indirectly, by these things you take to be physical. So step by step science expands the scope of what we consider to be physical as we follow the evidence.
@@bierdlll The world for matter and material are derived from the Latin term materia which means stuff, real and reality. So by definition matter always references itself. Everything we see, touch, taste and hear are different layers of matter.
how the heck does he think angels and demons are real, but unicorns aren't!?
Unicors are real, they are horses with Horn without body
Imagination is a wonderful thing - as long as you remember it's imagination.
Can you show us as in explication mode what isn't imagination?
Because I was to make fun of you.
@@S3RAVA3LM The Schrodinger equation, maybe, for starters.
@@Ed-quadF nice👍
Exactly. Neat, lively and interesting SPECULATION.
He is actually low-key dangerous.
Was with the guy all the way up to the 'angels and demons exist' bit...
I was going to say the same thing!!! lol
Same. Except I then thought, after positing abstract and immaterial concrete objects, are angels and demons that much of a stretch ?
Right? Many years ago I watched a lecture on ancient alien intervention. For over an hour the lecturer made tremendous point after tremendous point. He really had me thinking and then it happened...he started going in on how Sasquatch's are real and remained hidden in the Pacific northwest to this very day. I turned it off immediately
@@bigol7169 angel on my right shoulder and the demon on my left. They both look like me...the younger me.
@@patricksmith3376 Have you ever investigated Sasquatch?
What we call nature is essentially a manifestation of purely abstract relations. It is about process and energy transfer ( higher frequency to lower frequency and vice versa), or interactions and not material things.
The interaction is the reality. An event is essentially a multiplicity of energy transfers.
What seems to be overlooked is that, for fundamental reasons, the absolute is impossible.This is crucial.
The context of the relational determines the "reality". E.g. particle or wave.
What is a number? Fundamentally it concerns relative magnitude.
Beauty of argument for the sake of argument is that you need not to submit a proof.
Great interview. Looks like many materialists on this thread. Can you hold your thoughts? Can you see your thoughts? Fact is thoughts exist. There you have it.
I think the question should be, “is our conscious experience a representation of base reality”. Which our scientific knowledge is contained within.
Is it just me who wanted this talk to go forever?...Looking forward to another talk/video with Prof Moreland.
Interesting until exactly the same time that I suspect a lot of other people stopped watching…
😂
"Angels and demons"
Uhhh do you mean aliens, my guy??
@@paulo.8899 how does aliens make this more of a realistic conversation
He was making it up as he was being questioned!
Chomsky, every time he talks, observes that there has not been a theory of matter for several hundred years. When he talks about the mind-body problem, Chomsky says the mind was never eradicated but the body was. He says there is no mind-body problem because there is no theory of body. He says the mechanical theory was abolished by Newton and with it any theory of body.
yes, the mechanical view of the world was gone as stated by newton much to the dismay of everyone during that period, and was never recovered. but whats much worse still is chomskys explanation that modern philosophers and intellectuals have horribly degenerated and lost contact with the true meaning of the knowledge surrounding the enlightenment period.
any source where he mentioned that
Chomsky is correct -- since Descartes no one has seriously looked at the mind-body problem. As a student of Philosophy decades ago, Descartes really shook me as he grappled with the mind-body problem, and Chomsky picks up the lost tangent. Today we are again at the doorstep of this mystery again and cannot walk away from it. From Donald Hoffman's ideas, QM vs Relativity and the closer we get to scientifically and philosophically comprehending consciousness we are banging at the door of the self and how it perceives and acts in this world.
Robert has FAILED US ! After J. P. saying "God, Angels & Demons, & the immortal souls, exist & can have a real effect on reality" How about even one single question ? Perhaps: " What leads you to believe this is true ?"
Non-material angels - really? Consciousness is the product of metabolism, which is exactly the reason every conscious being is obsessed by the hunt for energy. No metabolism, no mind.
Wow… you have clearly read absolutely nothing on philosophy of mind.
This guy is off his rocker.
I believe in... I believe in... I believe in... says it all really but not a jot of proof! Angels and demons are finite but we very special humans have immortal souls - sadly just wishful thinking. Some people with synesthesia experience colours with associated tastes just due cross wiring in their brains! This man is just spouting opinions. Robert is ever so patient not to trash this man's beliefs.
Politely, I disagree with a tremendous amount of what this guy says, but to listen and hear his views and thoughts is so important on how differing opinions does not make us enemies. It's okay to agree to disagree.
He made a statement that if god did not exist we would not exist. Prove it. I have read Aristotle, Thomas Aquinus, and others who offer arguments (proofs) that god exists. But in order to achieve their conclusions they make, in my mind, unallowable assumptions are claimed to launch their arguments as a prelude to their proof. So nice to allow oneself such latitude and freedom. With enough of an assumption begging an argument for something, just about anything can be "proven".
Software for example?
If it is necessary for god’s will to sustain creation and god knows the future then I would say that in fact creation exists within the mind of god and therefore >> god is a solipsist… and therefore >> a psychotic.
This is a pretty wacky interview.....how is a unicorn different than an angel or demon in this guys thinking? they exist just becuase he says so?
Wow ... i think the host walked into the wrong building!
It couldn't be more faraway from truth.
Lost me at God, Angels and Deamons, but still interesting to hear his point of view.
I read his book Scaling the Secular City nearly thirty years ago, and I was never convinced by that standard anti-science, Christian apologetics.
Great talk.
Just imagine how many important questions I could answer if all I had to do is babble unsupported nonsense. Easiest job in the world.
The job of religion is to give you answers to meaningless questions.
@@bobs182 Religion pretends to do all the thinking so you won't have to any.
Many things are non-material.
Take for example "venerableness", which is a noun (a thing).
Clearly, venerableness is not a material thing. It's a "quality".
Another huge problem right now is the scale of matter, is infinite from the macro to the micro with the big bang in a finite set of idiomatic scientific principles, precludes that
no, matter has a limit on the micro scale. its like 10^32 or something and the energy required to produce it collapses it into a black hole. the micro scale to spacetime is quite coarse.
I like invisible guys that create the universe, but can't un-create the universe, too!
Are we talking about the metaphorical Number 2?
Is there a basic set of human feelings like sexual desire, compassion, hate, etc.? Each feeling is unique, even within the same individual. Each number is also unique, two apples is different than two oranges, but the twoness is the same. My love for my wife is strictly different from the love for my son, but it is love anyhow. If the set of basic human feelings is a denumerable set, its members are the angels and demon JP is talking about. Not individuals like us, but fields of sentiments where our existence vibrates while alive. We all have a good idea of the people around us, the ensemble of basic human feelings that characterizes them.
Are the emotions bigger than the self that experience them? Where we not taught what it means to be angry, happy, sad or any of the other emotions before we had the capacity to fully express and understand these emotions through cognition and introspection. The values and limits of which emotions and how they can be expressed are reinforced by cultural norms lifetimes older than we are. This combined with aspects epigenic evolution and the emotions we experience would have been expressed for longer than we could be defined as human beings. When your sense of self and rational thinking is overwhelmed by an emotional state are we not in way being possessed by something larger than ourselves, hence their power. As human beings it seems we have a tendency to attribute qualities like good and evil to the way the different emotional states are expressed in action and sentiment. I cannot see where the emotions have any agency of their own until we give them power to the point they take over. When we are out of control or overwhelmed by an emotional state is it in control?
if love were essences or fields, you would need to perceive all individual such instance before you could know love.
on the other hand, if love were a particular such as the love for your wife, then you would not be able to love your son since that particular differs to the original.
dont worry, noone has figured out set theory, except dignaga and dharmakirti.
@@5piles "if love were essences or fields, you would need to perceive all individual such instance before you could know love." What would be the mathematical representation of such a statement? It would necessarily be a wave function with the particle representing how you feel at this instance, and the wave representing all the possible states. Corollary: the particle DOES NOT need to be everywhere at once, it suffices to know that the particle could be anywhere. Same with feelings. You do not need to feel ALL of them at once, only that you are capable of such feelings. I fail to grasp your disputation.
@@CarlosElio82 you are saying that one particular whether in 19th century physics or as one in a collapsed wave function is love, then any other particular of either type cannot be love since it is other than that given particular which is love.
on the other hand, if we assert that it is the collection of all 19th century instances or all collapsed functions instances that are love, then we necessarily must perceive each of them before we could understand what love is.
do you believe in peripatetic?
I actually got him. I enjoyed this one. Opened my mind a bit.
what's the difference between prepositions "snow is white" and the "idea" of demons and angels and gods, etc. ?
He is right prepositions exists, as ideas.
The preposition that snow is white comes from observations. The idea of demons, angels and god come from imagination of elite people in politics during the near eastern Iron Age.
True nature of reality is nothing independently exist, everything is interdependent. Dependent origination heart of Buddha Teaching 🌼🌼🌼 Spread Love, Happiness & Compassion, Free Tibet
I find this discussion to be narrow in scope. I am always perplexed when these experts point out that God is He. Does God have a gender? Given our limited understanding of the metaphysical, we must go forward with an open mind & explore all possibilities. We must be mindful to seeking the absolute truth free of the chains of indoctrination.
Mathematics and logic are all about arbitrary convenitions. Numbers have the properties they have jsut because they are defined this way. There are alternative arithmetics, logics and geometries. This shows that mathematical objects are only in our minds, they do not exist in some abstract realm of being.
As I like to say the universe functions without humans measuring and counting it.
Like my grandfather used to say, "Words are confusing, And people are funny."
Just because you can think it doesn't mean it's necessarily real.
Just because you can't think of it doesn't preclude it from possibility.
Indirectly, you make known that you believe things give themselves there own form and 'being'.
Human beings often think first, and then manifests.
Building a bridge is always first thought over in the mind, and then on paper, with physics and math, acknowledging the laws only to a small degree, and then manifest. Why should we believe otherwise concerning GOD?
I think you're afraid to be true to yourself.
@S3RAVA3LM *NAPOLEON HILL said, "Thoughts are things". That's logical. I won't argue that. Thanks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn @ 10:39 "I can conceive of there being no God [angels and demons], but I cannot conceive of there being no numbers". I agree that abstract thoughts are real. But, as devil's advocate, tell me the purpose of these so-called "angels and demons" J.P. Moreland speaks of. Those are thoughts that sound cool but aren't necessarily real.
@Kathy ok, I see. Yeah. Example: what the Philosopher's term as 'Intellect', the Theologians acknowledge as the 'Word' or Christ. Intellect or course being Light, the very light within man, and too, that which is all things.
They are only modes. I've realized that whether it's feild theory, metaphysics or mysticism, ultimately we are discussing the same thing only in different modes and approaches. Mysticism being a personal modes, contemplation, thus truly is 'Mimesis' or union or self realization.
Metaphysics of course acknowledging the Principles, that which is, opposed to that of samsara or birth, life, death, cycle.
What is real. It surely can not be that which is ephemeral, transient. We could call all this real, and then, what would we call that which is beyond samsara?
Where is the discussion about how souls and other immaterial things interact with the material world? QFT (quantum field theory) tells us what we are made of (mostly quarks and electrons) and how and what those things interact with, and there are no god, devil, soul, ghost or spirit forces, fields or particles (vibrating fields) interacting with the stuff we and our natural world are made of. Until he can at least propose a mechanism by which that happens, it's silly to believe souls exist and interact with us.
I don't think He is maintaining it, He set it in motion and is watching it stir if that's what's going on.
There was always a theory/belief we are all just different aspects of Him and were here to view the Universe for God, when the deep space images were using light/radiation we can not normally see I thought "it was like viewing the Universe through the eyes of God".
I think he has a solid theory, not sure about being a disembodied spirit until the resurrection, if time is constant that would seem as long as it would waiting here. Everyone gets purgatory, Caesar has been waiting 2000 years.Alaxander longer.
The ways in which we MEASURE the world will generate different MEASUREMENTS. It seems to me, measurements don't have inherit attributes as they are the subjective creations of beings who can measure things and their attributes are given to them by those measuring beings. The number two is a measurement that we use to organize things, but there's zero evidence that it has "inherent properties," just that it's a concept that is useful for doing stuff.
It seems that, after Aquinas, almost all speculations about how to measure things that can't be seen all too often arrive at the notion of "properties." Then, once the initial speculation is assumed, one talks about properties as if they were things one can measure. Isn't that begging the question or just plain old fashioned circular reasoning?
Prof. Moreland, who is clearly a smart, interesting and moral person (I seriously enjoyed him and his enthusiasm), is just speculating about things we think are "reasonable" because they have been assumed for so long. That fact that we are used to the idea of a nonmaterial world is not evidence of anything except that we have become comfortable with this particular unsupported speculation...
I don't see how we can get evidence of the nonmaterial, so this will never properly answered perhaps, but I would welcome some new approaches or some compelling arguments for these speculations. This conversation, though interesting and lively, was just made up of the same old arguments I used to have with the Jesuits in school.
We can not answer that. But the real living entity and subject of knowledge is always bigger than anything you can see and show and reach, it's like invisible, the uncatchable living entity! Thats the difficulty with the self recognition, that it is exactly about the in principal invisible. Mind comes to itself to the same extent that it recognizes what in principle is never reachable by any theory and any empiricism.
Also... it is not that past and future are not real but that the purpose of the Real is Companionship which is why there is Reality.
This guy accuses people of not living in reality. And then claims angels and demons are real. The kind of idiocy in thinking that can only arise out of religion.
Dude was going alright, until he started talking about god. That made the first “abstract” existence in things sound absurd.
"god creates abstract objects, not in a sense that he brings them in existence, but that he sustains them in existence, God holds abstract objects in existence by his will... " - Just completely made up, top to bottom. Just... made it up!
Interesting conversation, but I wish Mr. Moreland would have given some examples of his statement that he sees evidence for God, angels and demons. I have not seen such evidence yet for me to think they actually exist. It still just sounds like a product of faith not what is "actual" in the universe in which we find ourselves. But as always, a great chat on this channel.
some people equate arguments with evidence... usually religious ones
Material itself isn't Material, its just super compact energy
energy being something of unknown nature.
After a credible and believable start this Gentleman quickly decays to a state of illogical superstitious thinking..
I find the discussion a bit silly. Just live well. That means, just be kind. All beliefs and arguments are sad seconds to that. Doing what we can to alleviate suffering, we find ourselves in the right place. IMHO.
But i like hurting others
You are correct, you can be good and still look for meaning in life. It is fascinating even if it is futile. Its a search for immortality, that is the final question in all of them, what does it mean for us when the physical body stops functioning. Does our "Soul" go into a gut maggot and eat the body or to "Heaven" or is it immediately put in another machine and memories are almost wiped clean.
Are memories the only part of our identity/personality that is external and "we can't take it with us" to paraphrase a famous quote. Are they imbedded in the Body and when the electricity goes off they disappear for ever.
3:55 An allusion to Tarski's definition of truth?
The immaterial is only in conceptual space, not physical space. Santa's there, so is Uncle Bob, both of whom exist in our culture, but not in physical reality. Unsurprisingly, fanatics confuse the two. And sadly, so does this gentleman.
I guess his theory has no space for the observer creating his own reality
yeah, but what's about demonic unicorns..?
This guy completely contradicted his own argument when he entered into the 'Gods and Demons' realm 🤔😵💫
I could easily make a list of non-material things.
But what would be the point of making a non-material list ?
Nobody is interested.
probably the most useless interview ever
You can touch a horse. You can't touch a unicorn despite it having properties. You can't touch a number. This did not make sense to me. Makes more sense to me that numbers are properties and properties are states of things that exist but not separate things. They are conceptual. Robert hit it on the head at the start when he brought up the distinction about conceptual things and physical things.
As soon as he mentioned angels and demons my bullshit bulb lit, and my interested bulb extinguished. Jeez, to think, people actually believe this nonsense.
I’m reminded of the punchline to a joke about something the devil cannot do: Catch that fart and paint it red.
*Consciousness, but it's so evident that people can't see it.*
The thesis that the past and future aren't real, but only the present is real, is heresy.
If he'd said that the present is real as that which is manifest, the past is real as that which was manifest, and the future is real as that which will manifest, this would have been compatible with the basic Christian worldview.
At the cross, was it unreal sins that Jesus was bearing?
In our memory of the resurrection, is it an unreality that we are remembering?
So unicorns exist …
As much as Australia if you have never been there.
Unicorns and Multicorns
11:13 That's been my viewpoint also. I'm pretty sure that numbers exist in heaven.
Colossians 1:16-20
King James Version
16 For by him were all things created, *that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,* whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Revelation 7:9
King James Version
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, *a great multitude, which no man could number,* of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
God exists becase a book says he does? No evidence required? How about Superman?
The laws of physics exists because a book says it does? No evidence required? How about Superman?
Consciousness exists because a book says it does? No evidence required? How about Superman?
The bible in layman terms is about faith and not about science or theory, so no evidence is needed.
faith:
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
h
Similar:
trust
belief
confidence
conviction
credence
reliance
dependence
optimism
hopefulness
hope
expectation
h
Opposite:
mistrust
2.
*strong belief in God* or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
h
Similar:
religion
church
sect
denomination
The "spirits without bodies" exist within brain chemistry. I know, because after 3 totally sleepless nights this winter one was trying to invade my body. It's called lunacy.
Did it bring a bottle of wine like a proper guest? 🤣
The human mind, the final frontier. We have little awareness of our subconscious that dictates much of our decisions. The supernatural comes from our subconscious.
@@whitefiddle
No, it was an evil spirit and brought fear to the point where I shouted, "Go away! Go away!" It gave me a new appreciation for both demonic spiritual possession and religious ecstasy. At the same time I was observing myself and knew it was brain chemistry doing it -- not actual spirit beings. But it sure felt like it.
@@bobs182 We have _incomplete_ awareness of our own subconscious and we have precious little knowledge of the unknown/spiritual/subliminal/paranormal, etc. Hearing two blowhards like this talk about these things is just comical. They are not talking sense, they are merely trying to harmonize their presuppositions and prejudices. Then to make things even more preposterous they try to do it using the vocabulary of science.
It's funny to watch, but extremely unenlightening.
Maybe in another 13.7 billion years they will get their first clue. Here's hoping. 🍷
For ppl arguing JPM Is crazy, check the mathematical defense for math platonism.
The physical world may not be real, the local universe isn't, quantum mechanics is interesting and the fact that the universe can alter the past depending on observations of the current is astounding.
Then we have the double slit experiment and the possibility of the universe not rendering things until observed, meaning saving data or processing power, simulation?
Evidence for angels and demons???
Trust me bro
“You create Your reality,” you, creator, you.🌸🤪
@@dfmc001 The catch is "Your" reality.
@@dfmc001 Who are YOU, by the way-I am YOU and YOU are I. Ah. So. Grasshopper. WE are ONE wearing SOUL of EARTHLOVE. If YOU have seen ONE, YOU have seen ALL. NOW, Whatyagonnado?🙊🙈🙉
@@mut8inG Who am-I
But there are no souls after death without a body! In religions its about a resurrection by God the Life, that (in far far future) will be able to wake you up after you slept for a very very long time, because Life then will have the capability to reconstruct you. Then you should get something like a "light body". But it's a "body"!
the definition of a soul is the essential nature of you which is independent of your mind and body.
Nouns are not material. Only adjectives and verbs can be material.
Is running material ? 🏃♂️
@@tonyatkinson2210 Whether running is material or spiritual depends on the runner's intentions.
@@PaulHoward108 “spiritual “ is definitely not material . It’s a feeling /state of mind .
JPM is the guy that had a personal experience with 'God.' I think he is also a member of the Flat Earth Society. I don't know why RLK gives such nutters a platform to spew their nonsense.
I really really really hope he does it to make fun of them exposing their delusions
I think RLK does this to expose their delusion.
...Mr. Moreland I have been trying to ponder a thought. GOD resides in Heaven, of the Heavens, of our Heavens/Observable universe. Also, the Angels by the River Chebar, when they moved/travel, they did not turn, get up, to go. The Angels just went. We are restricted by the Turbulent Flow of Time/Space, and that 2nd Heaven just blows me away. Thank you, keep up your wonderful thinking, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
oh dear
Definitely the most entertaining video I've watched on this channel! Thank you!!
information is not and it seems to be the last thing we can reduce to...
Nah this guy is lost
Most people are I am afraid. Thing is they don't want to be woken up.
@@TurinTuramber they are just playing there game, getting lost in all this.
No body is ever lost although it may appear so.
@@TurinTuramber 500+ comments and you haven't once displayed erudition. There's no way you're a real person.
"Only the present exists."
ie. History doesn't exist, therefore slavery didn't happen.
Seems legit.
I have listened to many a much more than hundred of your talks with scholars on the topic consciousness. And all of them have notions, observations, glimpses or aspects, facets of experiences like the five blind feeling different parts of an elephant. I have not come much closer to the truth than before. They´re all fumbling in their books with overplenty of words. Almost every book on the topic repeats in the larger part of the book what others have already said. And many of your intervjuees stray aside form the question talking about someting else. I´ve come to the conclution I formed when I was fourteen of age, the brain cannot understand the brain unless it´s a bigger brain understanding our brain. Anyhow consciousness is of course elucive. How can it be otherwise. A trick played on an other trick. But shurely hallucinations are involved as the brian cannot do without hallucinations as mental constructions. Otherwise we would be unable to percice the world. Julian Jaynes has given me a lot.
Krauss is struggling.
The Cogito alone would suggest that the non-material defines the material; without the non-material, the material has no subjectivity and cannot be objective either. Abstractions (whatever they are) is consciousness at work building the emergent information for any act of realization.
Interesting guy I like him and find him compelling. He's 100% right about the two types of cultures, we see the western cultures including the US slowly decaying in direct connection with the shift in culture. Europe as well, probably a little bit ahead of the US.
Then you have middle eastern cultures that are stagnant and dead.
The Ground State of Blue.
That's real
Existence is any level of *information* that can be communicated. If it can be conceived and actuated based on its information, then it can exist. *Example:* A square-circle can be articulated, discussed, and even a definition attached to it, but it cannot exist. It can't because the actual information associated with it cannot be actuated (communicated).
Pseudo-intellectual ramble 👍
@SamoaVsEverybody_814 *"Conceivability is infinite."*
... Negative. You cannot conceive a square-circle. That demonstrates a limitation to conceivability. End of story.
@@Mageblood *"Pseudo-intellectual ramble"*
... Then educate me, please.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC. The problem of a square circle is not that it is not conceivable. The circle by definition is 360 degrees where all point are equal distance from the center. A square is made up two horizontal and vertical lines at 90 degree angels. That has to do more with the meaning of symbol then conceivability.
@@kos-mos1127 *"The problem of a square circle is not that it is not conceivable. The circle by definition is 360 degrees where all point are equal distance from the center. A square is made up two horizontal and vertical lines at 90 degree angels. That has to do more with the meaning of symbol then conceivability."*
... *DOOR:* _"a hinged, sliding, or revolving barrier at the entrance to a building, room, or vehicle, or in the framework of a cupboard."_
*HANDLE:* _"the part by which a thing is held, carried, or controlled."_
*End Result:* A "door handle" is absolutely conceivable and absolutely exists despite the two different definitions. Unfortunately the same doesn't work with a "square-circle." ... Why not?
"That's a sudo task!"
One man's collection of beliefs, opinions, and superstitions. Thus does the human mind, with its limited resources, vainly strive to make sense of existence. Small wonder that the picture often resembles a Picasso or a Dali.
Could it be so that there is only the Real?
Unicorns aren't material or aren't real? Is Charlie Brown real?
Snoopy is real because I saw him in the image on a window that many people thought looked like the virgin Mary.
The ONE is the only true reality. You want the top prize during the test. It's not fair to the very nature of to be examined.
He got me ungil angels and demons
(4:10) *JPM: **_"I believe there is considerable evidence for the existence of angels and demons."_* ... Angels and demons are indeed "conceivable," so they absolutely abide by the *1st Law of Existence.* However, for any angel or demon to exist, the information associated with them must be able to be actuated through an evolutionary process moving from simplicity to complexity as per the *2nd Law of Existence.*
If your angel or demon has "always existed" or somehow achieved maximum complexity without ever experiencing an evolutionary progression from simplicity to complexity, ... then your angel or demon cannot exist.
Sorry to the many theists and atheists, but the same applies to God and the Multiverse, respectively.
You know, some theists would play the divine simplicity thesis, but that doesn't make much sense. I would say it is incoherent.
@@anteodedi8937 *"You know, some theists would play the divine simplicity thesis, but that doesn't make much sense. I would say it is incoherent."*
... And that would be an appropriate argument to make based on a theistic understanding of existence. But if the rules for existence require that there be a beginning point that demonstrates an evolutionary movement from simplicity to complexity, then theism's God would not meet that criterion. "Omnipotence" posits the possession of "all power" form the start and not an "evolution of power" moving from simplicity to complexity (as per the 2nd Law of Existence).
So, what's science's argument for The Multiverse having no origin point (like theism's God)? Science needs to answer the question: *_"How can something exist without moving into existence?"_* just like the theists do.
The Cosmos is defined as all encompassing and embracing all causes so the origin of the Cosmos is the Cosmos.
The inflation model posits that the Cosmos started off as a flat cold empty space and a bubble of true vacuum arose to create curved spacetime that we see today. The problem with the standard model is everything is contrived.
@@kos-mos1127 *"The inflation model posits that the Cosmos started off as a flat cold empty space and a bubble of true vacuum arose to create curved spacetime that we see today."*
... You sound like Lawrence Krauss whipping up a batch of _witch's brew_ in his supposed "empty space" caldron. WTF is a "bubble of true vacuum?" How can a "nothing" (a void of any and all properties) have an attribute such as a bubble? ... or a temperature? ... or be flat? ... or have anything within this empty void suddenly "rise?"
*How many attributes* are you intellectually willing to assign to "nothing" before you realize that you're fallaciously turning a "nothing" into a "something" just to make a model seem plausible?
Wow. It's like watching the Hindenburg catastrophe reenacted in a living room. 🤣
"and there it goes, what a marvel!
Oooh, Noo..!" 😂
@@FalkFlak We'll call this CTT's Lakehurst Episode. Or maybe a Fireside Chat. 🔥
What are real in the core creeds of Christianity? Absolutely nothing.
Kuhn, I don't blame you. If only you knew about the invincible words like the royals and wizards/native doctors do.