What a gem. Thank you for sharing.

Copleston: the paradigm of the intellectual Jesuit. Deeply impressive. Bravo,

Pueden pasarlo en español??.

Lee Frank Wilson Kimberly Taylor Margaret

I have been an atheist for a long time

The debate can be found on Spotify for free as well. NO ANNOYING ADS!! And with TRANSCRIPT OR CAPTION.

"Everyone ought to do what Newman did [convert to the RCC], no matter his temperment, and no matter the moment in history." When Rome opens ALL the sacraments to ALL the baptized (ordination---all 3 orders---regardless of gender, marriage to same-sex, as well as opposite sex couples), I could _think_ about converting. Until then, I'll remain a happy (and, God willing, _holy_ ) Episcopalian, thanks! 😇 Left unsaid above, re BOTH Newman and Knox: *they were men who loved men* (if only chastely; I make no speculation about their sex lives). As such, they stood out like sore thumbs in the CofE. In the Roman priesthood, _they fit right in!_ 😉

Imaginary things can't be debated into existence. 😳

I admire Russell's patience and elegance in dealing with the rhetoric attempts - trying to load concepts with alien meanings in order to try to establish his cause-actor argument Copleston had concocted to try to defend the existence of supernatural beings.

The way bertrand Russell is disgusting.. It's as if his logical shittalk haa completely consumed him

I admire Copleston's patience of this fool

They each knew great leaders of the 19th and 20th centuries. I cant understand why Bertrand rejects God (and so accepts tyrants). Man is therefore destined to be ruled by savages.

Copleston: “Here are the rules of the game to which we will play”. Russell: “I can’t play the game because your rules don’t make any sense and therefore don’t have any meaning”.

Dear Beuno, What a thrilling debate. Thanks. The essential psychical or rather psychodynamical error in the masculine pontificating minds of these patriarchal abrahamic monotheists (such as Father Frederick Copleston, SJ) is that they are always lusting after absolute certainty. Iron deductions from iron and indubitable premises, blah blah, blah. Who gives a damn about "absolute certainty"? Firstly, no such objective state of affairs possessing the property of absolute indubitability exists. Not even our richest most immediate phenomenological sensuous and erotic and heaven-inflaming feelings have that guarantee. Or put it like this, none has ever been observed, and there is no basis for supposing it ever will be discovered or ever has existed. There are not even those much touted analytical truths, says daring Dr Andrea. The "ne plus ultra" case of trivial analytical truth, eg [A=A] presupposes so-called laws of non-contradiction, and in particular no objective paradoxes. But both those claims are far from obviously true, and might indeed be false. We might indeed inhabit a thrillingly but rather frighteningly objectively contradictory world. Secondly. the world runs on female pragmatism, not silly boyish demands for certainty. How often have exasperated mothers heard sulky boys declare, "I'm not moving until I know exactly where we are going!" To which the motherly answer is "I know exactly where you are going! To bed, with no supper!" Sticking with real world and substantial problems, we can be very confident that 100 millions of people are starving, and have inadequate shelter and medicine. We know with all necessary confidence that men injure, rape and kill millions of women every year. We can see before our womanly eyes that patriarchal-capitalism and patriarchal-imperialism are slaughtering 100,000s people right now in Palestine and The Ukraine, in despicable CIA games. It all amounts to a ridiculous and tedious infantile masculine "neurotic unease" with the contingent but nonetheless delicious, sensuous-embodied, erotic, messy, lactating, sweating, menstruating, labial and vaginally secretory, sticky, aromatic , voluptuous "womanly materiality" of the world. This essentially patriarchal contempt for the "inadequate contingency" of world allows men to build vomit-inducing horrors such as nuclear weapons, so they can thereby threaten all the phalanxes of tyrannical mother-figures, with whom they are irreconcilably, unalterably and unendingly discontent. Or entertain schizophrenic nonsense such as hells full of scheming and torturing demons. Where of course the boyish-men would love their enemies to burn in agony ad infinitum, whilst masturbating with delight at that vile thought. On the other hand, three cheers and lots of embraces and kisses for the witty and teasing and dextrous and often gently mocking Bertie Russell. Genius co-author with A.N. Whitehead of "Principia Mathematica". One of my life-long heroines (!), ever since I read "The Problems of Philosophy" aged 9, being a clever rather precocious girl, and discussed it for days with my even cleverer and beautiful and subtle mother, and several of her equally entrancing lady lovers! I used to sit on the floor in one corner of the Camden Public Library on Euston Road, reading the three volume autobiography of Bertie, then everything on the philosophy shelves. Until the smiling librarians politely chucked me out at closing time. Love andrea

As a translator myself, I do so agree with his comments.

I don't understand one bit but enjoy it immensely!!

76 years later, and they still use the same debunked garbage arguments. 😂

It was disappointing that Coplestone didn't press further against Russell's argument that the idea of a "cause of the universe" involves a fallacy of composition. Someone defending cosmological arguments should object that there is a fallacy here. I think this can be done, but Coplestone didn't do so, so they were left at a total impasse, and then moved to arguments for God that aren't particularly good.

Atheist Russel lost this Debate on the Existence of God'

I feel like I'm listening to a debate between occam and aquinas. Nouns refer to objects i can point to. We can talk about unicorns, etc but we know we cannot point to a real unicorn. A unicorn is a metaphysical concept. It is in the same category as Santa Claus, elves, Satan, and other literary fictions. Empiricism destroyed metaphysics early in the 20th century. We can still have ethics and other branches of philosophy without reifying non- existent nouns.

For anyone coming to this after me, and scrolling deep enough in the comments: the best way to enjoy any philosophy is to come at it willing to be wrong I tell this to myself as I begin the video. I hold myself not to pause it and insert my own thoughts to comprehend, and to follow each person's logic in good faith without letting my preconceptions interfere with my consumption of this media.

Marvelous and eloquent, as one brilliant mind seeks to describe another.

Amazing recording! Monsignor Knox's translation is a masterwork. A delight to Brits and a wonderful study for North Americans. Based on the Latin Vulgate, it is faithful to Saint Jerome's prior masterwork - a reliable source for faith and morals. It is amazing to hear his voice. Of note: Monsignor Knox had an aversion to quotation marks.

There must be respectable space for human beings to say 'i do not know' or 'i am not sure'.

Dawkins. Harris Ehrman. Etc could never discuss this subject as fully and respectfully. We need this today civility. Knowledge about the subject you’re debating. ✝️☮️

Ah, the gentleman scholar. Glad he didn't have to look at the NAB. His translation is sound, honest, engaging and sometimes eccentric. He did a wonderful job.

The question is what would God be? Not whether God exists or not. To answer this question it is necessary that we ask what is our measure, the measure of us who answer the question, in relation to the size of existence. Considering that the visible Universe is around 13 billion years old, knowing that we only know the short existence of humans and nothing about other thinking living beings in the universe, we can say that our measurement is very small. But, disregarding a subjective experience of God that some put forward as proof of the existence of God, we can wonder why many primitive cultures posit the existence of a God. They placed it due to the natural observation of how extraordinary existence and the universe are in their laws. Therefore, the primitive God is the Universe itself, but whether there is something superior that gave rise to the universe, we cannot answer. But we can justify that it is impossible for existence to have existed, and calling this impossible existence God, we can say that something extraordinary that is existence exists, that it is impossible and its essence is wonderful, because it contains so many predictions and because of its reality accidental to be extraordinary.

How did Copleston miss the following: Empirical Proof of God's Existence: (1) The word 'true' entails a cognitive presence; (2) The laws of the universe were true before they were discovered by corporeal life; therefore... (3) The laws of the universe were true before corporeal life existed, identifying the existence of a non-corporeal entity that knew the laws were true. The proof that this pre-corporeal cognitive entity is God: The cognitive entity necessarily always knew the laws of the universe were true, where, therefore, thinking about the laws' integrity is absent, thereby identifying the omniscient being called God that does not think, it knows. The proof that there can be only one omniscient being: The concept of two, or more, omniscient beings is an oxymoron, since omniscience requires exclusivity...only one can be all-knowing; it's an oxymoron to have two or more who are all-knowing.

Scientists don't "find out the truth" they find out the facts based upon observation and testing of the apparent mechanistic material universe. Facts can be true or false, only truth is always true and truth is the domain of the philosopher, not of the scientist. To say "scientists find out the truth" is to misunderstand what science is and what it does.

I should like to say that I am completely lost.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:01 📜 *Agreement on the Definition of God* - The speakers agree on a provisional definition of God as a supreme personal being distinct from the world and creator of the world. - Conversation around the existence of God and whether this can be proven philosophically, and the classification of the speaker's perspective as agnostic. 02:07 🌍 *The Metaphysical Argument* - Introduction of the metaphysical argument centered on Leibniz's argument from contingency as the main philosophical explanation. - The argument states that the state of the world is contingent on a necessary being, whose existence is self-explanatory. 04:13 🔁 *Debate on the Concept of Necessary Being* - The speakers engage in an intricate debate over the concept of a necessary being. - The argument revolves around whether a necessary being, whose existence is self-explanatory, is logical or possible. - The notion of propositions, their nature, and their importance in Leibniz's argument are considered. 07:25 🚫 *Rejection of the Terms 'Necessary' and 'Contingent'* - The speaker declares his rejection of the terms necessary and contingent, stating they do not carry significance within his logical framework. - The speakers delve into the concept of modern logic, its varying systems, and its relevance to metaphysics and the problem of God. 10:09 💫 *The Ontological Argument* - The conversation shifts to the ontological argument that suggests the existence of a being whose essence necessitates its existence. - A philosophical disagreement related to the application of the terms 'necessary' and 'existence' to a being. 15:16 ❔ *Question of Sufficient Reason* - The concept of sufficient reason is discussed, with the speaker arguing that they believe the universe is without explanation and that the concept of cause does not apply to the universe as a whole. - The opposition argues the contrary, asserting that the search for a reason or cause for the universe's existence is necessary. 18:58 🔄 *Argument about the Causality of Objects and Universe* - The conversation revolves around the argument about the causality of individual objects versus the causality of 'universe' or the entirety of objects. - A philosophical back-and-forth ensues about the existence and causes of the universe and their relationship with the concept of necessary being. 21:56 *🧪 Quantum Theory and the Concept of Cause* - The conversation progresses to quantum theory and physicist's assertions that individual quantum transitions have no cause, emphasizing that the concept of cause can be philosophically flexible. 22:37 🧠 *Metaphysics, Reason and Causality* - Discussion about the role of metaphysics and reason in ultimate causality. - Debate about the assumptions scientists make about causality, and their implications. - Disagreement about whether the search for causes in nature assumes order and intelligibility. 24:36 🔬 *Scientific Assumptions about the Universe* - Conversation about the assumptions scientists make while conducting experiments. - Discussion about the potential for finding truth through experimental research. - Disagreement over the existence of an ordered and intelligible universe and its implications for scientific research. 26:52 🚫 *Rejecting the Legitimacy of Causality Questions* - Debate about the legitimacy of questioning the cause of the universe. - Disagreement over whether the question itself has meaning. - Decision to shift the conversation to the topic of religious experience. 27:06 🛐 *Religious Experience and Existence of God* - Introduction of religious experience as evidence for the existence of God. - Explanation about the nature of religious experiences and their impact on the experiencer. - Debate about the degree to which religious experiences can be defined or conceptualized. 29:52 😇 *Influence of Imagined Characters * - Discussion about the influence of imagined characters. - Argument about the existence of objects of love that are not real or existing. - Agreement that although people can be influenced by non-existing characters, the situations of an ordinary person and a mystic are different. 32:16 👹 *Equivalency between Mystical Experiences of God and Satan* - Challenge to the logic of equating mystical experiences of God and Satan. - Rejection of presumed equivalency between alleged experiences of Satan and mystical experiences of God. - Argument about the different nature of experiences involving the transcendent object caused by God and Satan. 36:12 ❤️ *Love as a Reflection of God* - Proposal that love is a reflection of God and that all goodness proceeds from Him. - Counterargument about the difficulty of proving the existence of God based on the presence of goodness. - Agreement that the character of a man's life can be evidence of the mystic's veracity and sanity, but not proof of the truth of his beliefs. 40:10 🧭 *Discussion on Objective Morality* - Direct questioning about the existence of an objective morality. - Discussion about the subjective and emotional aspect of distinguishing between good and bad. - Position that despite differences in moral judgments, there could exist a universal moral law. 43:41 🗣️ *Discussion about the Concept of "Ought"* - Conversation proceeds on the difficult subject of 'ought', suggesting it can't simply be defined. - Suggestion that 'ought' is linked with morality, which cannot be fully understood without the concept of God. 46:03 ⚖️ *Debating the Existence of an Objective Moral Law * - Conversation turns to the subject of morality, with the question whether there might be an objective moral law. - Argument that moral obligation itself implies an objective moral law, which in turn suggests the existence of a lawgiver - God. 49:15 🤔 *Experiencing the 'Ought' * - Participants exchange thoughts on how we experience the 'ought'. - Discussion on how different theories on moral judgments might align with people's spontaneous feelings, with skepticism on whether moral obligation can be explained just by feeling. 52:01 💡 *Summary and Clarification * - Participants summarize their stances, with a focus on the existence of God. - Disagreement persists on the nuance of contingency and in what context things could be seen as contingent. - Clarification provided regarding the connection between logic and philosophy. 54:47 🔄 *Continuation of Previous Themes * - Conversation circles back to earlier topics, reiterating some points. - For instance, further elaboration on the place of logic in philosophy, and the understanding of morality vis-à-vis culture and history. Made with HARPA AI

Christ >

The origin of the emotion and moral tenant called "goodness" comes from the simple Law of Synergy which governs all life on Earth. The totality of life is dependant on and a consequence of synergy. Symbiosis is a well known aspect of synergy. It is from this intrinsic fundamental process upon which all life evolves that humans experience goodness or kindness. They are human interpretations and experience of this Law of Synergy. It is a necessary condition or Law for life to propagate through time. Sunlight or simple pure energy is involved and drives the experience of goodness , which can can be attached to sunlight. To attribute a being as the cause of this process is an unprovable supposition. It is only a supposition, not a fact.

Thanks

Copleston sounds like George the pink hippo from Rainbow 🌈

This lively exchange constitutes a helpful alternative to the tedious speeches William Lane Craig and his opponents give to each other.

Sophisticated or simple, Theists are always wrong and it shows. Look at the first argument he chose, it is completely nonsensical. He then tries to gaslight Russell with more nonsense. He keeps on spouting nonsense from beginning to end. His closing statement sounds... like tons of nonsense

Who cares, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows there is no such thing as God. If you haven't figured that much out yet, after 2023 years, you are in need of a reality check. Take the time to analyze yourself and the weakness of your own mind to be able to be manipulated so easily.

Even if God exists, he need not behave like a human to favour believers and show displeasure over non believers, regardless of their righteousness. Can a good CEO be displeased with you and disregard your talents just because you do not know his name? If God only favour believers regardless of their righteousness, then he needs to have an egoistic and nepotic character like worldly tyrants and corrupt politicians. The idea that one can go heaven without cultivating himself to higher spiritual standard is as silly as cramming unrefined squatters into premium residential estate and still expect it to remain a premium property. Anyone claiming their religion is the only true religion needs to first prove that only their believers were continuously blessed by God since antiquity. Cheers. Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter. So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.

Copelstone’s argument for Gods existence is just nonsense, academic nonsense. The universe doesn’t need a reason to exist, and humans similarly don’t need a reason to exist beyond evolution.

It's quite funny when you listen to 5:52 and after and imagine he's talking about the NRSV and ESV or others of the sort, especially since the 1953 date suggests the RSV likely was one of those "revised editions" he had in mind. If he were alive today, my guess is Msgr. Knox would not be amused by the existence of the NKJV, NRSV, ESV, RSV-2CE, and the like. He'd probably have much kinder words to say about the Jerusalem Bible and translations like the NLT, NET, and CSB.

Where did you find the image on the right? Is that really Knox’s typed manuscript?

I don't quite understand what people are on about in the comments. Copleston was not even in the debate. He was clearly arguing points he presumed before the debate started and did not adequately engage russels arguments. The feeble attempt to describe Russel as dogmatic showed a lack of reflective capacity. Coplestons argument was literally God exists because it necessarily has to be so, and as with most religious arguments he presupposed this existence and used fancy yet ultimately circular reasoning to support his dogma.

This would have been a really great listen if it wasn't riddled with so many ads. 😑

Thank you so much for posting this. It's deeply thoughtful.

One thing is certain ; people were more articulate, respectful and civilized at this time. At least the intellectual class, that is.

Regarding whether Christianity or another religion is the true one, the answer is...I am a muslim cos my surroundings were muslim where i wss born..and I am a christian cos my surroundings were christian where i was born. ERGO there is no true religion. Religion is propaganda based. zand it gives huge power to those who appropriate it for their own ends. Its a man made scam

Such a shame that this wonderful debate is filled with ads. Makes it impossible to listen while doing dishes

Damn, two really smart guys articulately describing their position. You don't get that out of radio or today's podcasts. It'd be awesome to see a political debate like this

Debate doesn't really change what's true in the first place. It is a cute attempt to discover what is true though.