Arguing God from Being | Episode 807 | Closer To Truth 

I also heard a great sage once say 'hey pass me that bong"

​@@redpillpusherbong?

Lately I've been watching some RU-vid videos by Bernardo Kastrup. I don't understand it all but his views are quite interesting. He talks a lot about consciousness.

lol. Except there's no evidence for consciousness without the physical.

It seems to me you use god as a metaphor.

Isn't this a somewhat old episode? Kuhn mentions a book he's working on but I believe that book came out in 2013.

Hi John! That just reinforces my concerns, because Kuhn *still* hasn’t taken the steps to go deeper. Have you read Feser’s review of Kuhn’s book? Don’t get me wrong; Kuhn is very intelligent and curious, but he often presents himself as someone who’s looked at and dealt with all the relevant literature, and yet he still (to this day) raises objections and questions that he’d know the answers to if he were as knowledgeable as he insinuates. Kuhn rightly mocks the anselmian onto argument, but he shows little awareness of Rasmussen and Pruss’s modal contingency arguments (no, I don’t mean Plantinga’s modal onto; the modal contingency arguments are different); or Feser’s version of the arguments from potential-actualization, abstract realism, or PSR (Feser’s PSR chapter in “Five Proofs” is probably the most persuasive discussion on the topic); etc. Kuhn mocked Braude’s views without asking for the details on a single case. He came across as either smugly closed minded or afraid of the research. I would bet ten paychecks that Kuhn wouldn’t be able to comment on the kakie sittings, the GP sittings, the recent replicated (albeit way less impressive) triple blind studies, etc. Kuhn probably doesn’t even know the names Alan Gauld, Michael Sudduth, etc... although the Braude work alone is worth discussion in detail-the actual cases therein, and not merely in fuzzy abstract terms. I like Kuhn. A lot. But he seems to deliberately shy away from the strongest arguments for certain positions he seems predisposed to rejecting.

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Hi there... yes... you would think by now Mr Kuhn would have come to some decisions regarding beliefs, especially a belief in a god. He seems very intelligent and highly educated. I myself am not familiar with those names you mention. I have to look up info on those names you mention. Have you read any of Kuhn's books? To be honest, I'm not sure now if I have a desire to read his books. You'll have to give me a break because I know very little about those arguments that you mention. Are you in philosophy or academia? What books do you recommend?

You know, I kind of agree with you, there are topics that really need to be discussed moore indeptly for sure, but he kind of just shrugs them off for whatever reason. Sometimes I think he is not an agnostic at all, but a believer who loves to have conversation. There just is no way he can come so close to what seem like conclusions and them end, or move laterally in the discussion.

A video on the existence of morality and whether it is something that would/could exist without religion, and what that would look like, is a video I'd watch.

KY Mountain Man I think thats a somewhat separate question but would be another interesting angle.

reddit moment

Thank you for this completely serious, very helpful, and not at all ridiculous contribution to the conversation.

Hi Jamie, It appears that you replied to me, but I cannot seem to view the reply. No, I don’t think a pop song about something else entirely is an adequate reply to or description of the content of this channel. And, I don’t think that is merely a result of my intellectual shortcomings (however prevalent they may be).

@@joshheter1517 anytime my man, but you know that you can't be serious when you're watching a circus act, right? Sic God on me if you think I'm wrong, I dare you 😘

@@joshheter1517 hey its your funeral my man. Tears for Fears would agree.

There are many people who have nothing, who endured so much of life's hardship and tragedies, and yet they end up realizing the true meaning of their existence. Instead of bitterness, they are thankful; instead of sadness, they are happy; instead of desperation they are hopeful, instead of greed, they keep giving. They become who they truly are--a light in this darkness. And they are spreading their light wherever they can, whatever hardship comes along there way. They realized their purest selves--like God. Light is only revealed in the darkness.

@@123pripri Good prose. Good message. 5starsfromme.

Spot on. The more they talk about god the more it becomes a metaphor like it is only metaphorically true but literally false.

Reminds me of the verse in the Bible: The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God.

Speak for yourself. 🙂

@@jamessmith989 I always do, because i am who i am.

Hhh 😂 does it hurt does well hearing the harsh reality kinda sucks for you

I like your observations. Very interesting. You said belief in God does not stem from words. How do you view our subjective experience of reading words, for example, from a book such as the Bible?

John, it depends. People can have peak experiences from all manner of stimuli - natural phenomena, patting animals, playing music, meditating, drugs, love, sport, whatever. People from all religions have reported having peak experiences after reading whatever text they consider holy. IMO experience is what matters in this arena rather than the manner in which it has been induced.

@@AlmostEthical Thanks. I agree with your statements 100%. What makes me wonder though, can some types of objective things ( words ) induce subjective experiences ( a "peak experience" ) which leads one to awareness of other objective things? Or is it all "subjective" after that "peak experience" occurs?

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I don't know. During a peak experience one can have a sense of "dimensions" (not as per scientific definitions) of consciousness. It can seem as if our human and animal consciousnesses emanate from a larger, less particular consciousness, a bit like how our microbial communities are agents of us. How "true" that impression may be or not, I can't say.

It’s more science of the gaps.

@@onestepaway3232 That's a nonsensical reply. I'm not sure if you thought about what you were replying. It seems you merely replied for the sake of replying

AndreH I think you need to educate yourself on what science of the gaps is. Essentially, It is the limits of science, which is the study of physical reality. To be or not to be is not a scientific question.

@@onestepaway3232 I understand it perfectly well. You have used it out of context of this video. The context is; since science can't explain it therefore God did it. Unless it's the personal incredulity fallacy. Oh, I don't know! therefore it must be some invisible deity

AndreH he never said that. He simply said science cannot answer the reality of existence, which is true. Why, because it is not a scientific question. There are many questions to life science cannot answer. That is why we have philosophy to work through those questions with logic and reason which God has blessed us with

@activelink activdisc atheism is not very common since 90% of people throughout history and even now are religious, most of them monotheists. Neither it is sense, since you can`t verify God`s non-existence with your senses. But you`re right not every religion is right. Only one can be true.

@activelink activdisc Thanks for sharing your observations. I do think one possible pointer to the true God is a god who loves his creation and knows what love is because He lives in a relationship of love called "father, son and holy spirit." I do respect other religions and worldviews.

@@McRingil and which religion is that. The one you are born into or the one you convert to

@@kootdirker2448 the one which is true

@@McRingil Atheism is very ancient (ancient indian and greek schools of thought) but unfortunately it has always been oppressed. Another important fact is that the majority of intellectuals (scientists, philosophers) are atheists. I wouldn't appeal to common people because common people believe all sorts of bs.

Didn't Russell have a deathbed conversion?

you can't coherently concieve of something greater than that which there is no greater

"Existence is perfection" - empty words.

Ale martinez Rojas: do you see or discern the distinction of these two premises 1_God exists 2_God is great....

Certainly not from illogical arguments. This whole show exposes how philosophy is a joke, not just religion

You mean if I sit quietly in a quiet place god will introduce itself.

@@andrebrown8969 Perhaps he meant if you seat very quietly and not think about anything, he might not notice you.

@@xspotbox4400 It is the thinking part ahhhh

@@andrebrown8969 yes the source of thoughts is God

This might not be an accurate summation of Van Inwagen’s point.

Embarrassing...

@@Graewulfe Thanks

O would love to know true greatness in this mad universe, must be something ridiculously insane.

I don’t hear atheists state how time and space started then, coming from nothing is bs including quantum particles, because you will always have the question what came before everything, only God can be the answer

I thought that dude was excellent! And Kuhn looked very engaged.

The god/s who made this Universe is/are not exactly good.

I agree this argument is meaningless

" a perfectly evil being" is contradictory because evil is a privation, a failure to fulfil some moral standard. But, perfection is the opposite; it is the fulfilment of some end to be more completed and actual. So, something that it perfect, cannot be evil.

... You mean paradox.

Yeah yeah bro say that if you calms you down

Actually 0 is the only number that can be divided by 0, it's just not well defined problem, but not a nonsense either.

The problem of philosophy is that you can make up anything you want (as long as it is logically consistent with your premises) and there is no objective criteria to tell apart "good" philosophy from "bad" philosophy (other than personal taste).

@@ferdinandkraft857 there are sound arguments for God's existence. But there are not sound arguments against God's existence.

fully bullshit 🤣

You obviously are misunderstanding the argument. Moreover your own argument makes no sense

All those gods would have the exact same properties so due to the principle of indiscernibility of identicals they would be one being only, hence one God.

@@Jemoh66 Think again, argument doesn't need to apply to a single ideal.

@@astrol4b Yes, this is what i say, he is them.

@@xspotbox4400 no you said something completely different, you say that there could be many different things, I say that if two things have the exact same properties they are actually one thing only.

even the greeks and egyptians recognized that their pantheons were all different aspects of the same one being. all separation is illusion...

That's why theists often accuse other theists of adoring false gods.... 🤦‍♀️

@@alexsclewis Agreed. It can be a scary thing, on a certain level, to more acutely experience the 'blended Oneness' without your ego.

@@stephenpack2202 And where did your mind come from? God is a strange loop, an oxymoron. How do you know what is visible without the invisible? No, there are many feelings I have which are not thoughts. The connection to the presence is a feeling, not a thought. Belief? That's just ego talk.

@@Seanus32 I am sorry your god cannot speak for itself.

You ever heard that God is immaterial? That`s for a reason monotheists hold that. Immaterial, meaning has no parts, doesn`t depend on spacetime in modern jargon. If He is perfect, He must be an uncondtioned reality, can`t be dependent even on the flow of time or the spatial arrangement of his body. Bravo, you discovered that God is immaterial. Along with Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas. You`re in good company.

@@McRingil 1. Yes, of course He is immaterial, (almost anyone knows that): He created matter. I gave the example above just to easily give an immediate idea (He could maybe show Himself in an human form). But the same principle perfectly holds even when He is immaterial and He must take actions in our world, you can imagine your own example. (Of course He has no body, no spatial arrangements of it.) 2. He is not in our spacetime continuum, I never stated that. He is situated in a past BEFORE our spacetime continuum was created by Him, He never entered it. 3. Don't agree, He is dependent on time: HIS OWN TIME. There was a time when He needed to make decisions and AFTER that there was no need to do it anymore. No FLOW of time, but still a succession of events: AFTER making a decision, that work was not needed anymore. In other words things DID CHANGE in God's life.

@@claudiozanella256 you stumbled upon a very old line of reasoning which was a matter of discussion among philosophers. here`s Aquinas` take on it: www.newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm Requires some background in act and potency distinction, which is Aristotle`s analysis of how objects change

@@claudiozanella256 also the next question is very relevant www.newadvent.org/summa/1010.htm#article4

and this: www.newadvent.org/summa/1105.htm basically it is possible to bring out certain effects (especially, create something ex nihilo) without changing

"space is the act of a creator..." well there's the claim now provide sufficient evidence.

There are many people who have nothing, who endured so much of life's hardship and tragedies, and yet they end up realizing the true meaning of their existence. Instead of bitterness, they are thankful; instead of sadness, they are happy; instead of desperation they are hopeful, instead of greed, they keep giving. They become who they truly are--a light in this darkness. And they are spreading their light wherever they can, whatever hardship comes along there way. They realized their purest selves--like God. Light is only revealed in the darkness, and a candle may never know it's self if it is under the Sun.

One idea is that if God gave us free will, this creates a limitation for God. True omnipotence is to have such power that one can even limit unlimited power. A good example is with free will. God cannot do whatever God wants if we truly possess free will. God has to get permission from us to act, and even then, it has to coincide with every other variable, such ad another's will to do, which may desire an opposing force to the desire which was from the individual who willed for God to act in their life. This would make us incredibly valuable to God, as free willing agents would be one of the only vastly rewarding limiters to have. And if there were a goal such as desiring these free agents to willfully come into harmony with God, that would also be very rewarding.

Then stop watching

The parts of the series that are about proving an invisible magical god-daddy-friend exists are doomed to run in circles forever. That's theology for you. Theology = fallacy spouting.

Kinda the point. The show must go on.

@@Ploskkky You can see a circular design in most if not all of creation. That's why the atheist keeps dividing 0. 🙂

A great deal of this series is very good and thought-provoking. When Dr Kuhn gets to the "woo" in religious philosophy, it indeed goes in circles.

I like your observations. I am dissatisfied with my life ( for various reasons ) but I try to not blame God for my failures. I have to take some responsibility for my own behaviors.

@@johnbrzykcy3076 But why should a human-constructed concept of "god" even enter into the equation? There are many other highly intelligent animals in nature like octopi, dolphins and orangutans; when they are attacked or threatened by other predators, do they invent a "god" to blame for their misfortune or offer a way out of the situation? Here's an old poem of mine that adresses it: Tired and Retired Gods. Is there some run-down terminus in a corner of the universe where old forgotten gods sit; Nursing their cups of mead and goblets of ambrosia while wondering what happened to their fame? Do they wait, midst rusting swords and unstrung bows, alert to any intrusion… Perhaps a message from their agents in the solid world. "Hey! Brush off your robes! Freshen your makeup! It looks like we may have a gig!” Only to be let down once more. Do Zeus, Ra, Mantis, Jupiter, Ishtar, Thor, Xmucane and Xpiacoc, slouched in a paint-flaking diner, dream of the old days as they disconsolately push their plates of half-eaten wild boar and peacock eggs around, to deep sighs and glances into the far distance, Sifting through memories of ancient glories, when they were called on from battlefields, hunts, thrones and death beds to intervene in destiny's unwavering passage. Or have they dissolved into nano-particles of still vibrating energy drifting through the cosmos in iridescent misty clouds, eternally waiting for the achingly intense cry which, as it pierces the dreaming essence, magnetically coalesces it all once more into the blinding magnificence of former glory? Oh God! Help me!

@@robertdevos7 Wow... you are talented with ideas and words. I used to write poems myself but they were pretty simple ones. Anyhow... I still battle with the idea that all concepts of "god" are human constructed. You mention animals but, unlike humans, they don't seem to have any underlying concept of a god. So does that make humans special? Do our concepts of blame or guilt point to a thing that is yet unspecified?

@@johnbrzykcy3076 We like to think we are "special" ... it gives us an excuse to do whatever we want. Blame the Bible ... Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” This is the "God" that people use as a reason to kill other people, cattle, chickens etc etc to keep the braindead in fast food.

@@robertdevos7 I sort of agree with some of your comments. But when you mention "This is the 'God' that people use...." it brings to mind the idea that "mankind is fallen." I think we were created as special humans but somehow we turned away from God and we wanted to do "our own thing."

I would say metaphysics in general and epistemology, but yes I agree.

@DOC TOR ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OYHHIBIZF8o.html you don't dare to watch this whole vid..

The word "something" itself can mean a thing that is unspecified or unknown. Until that "something" becomes specified or known, understanding is impossible.

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Why this insatiable need to know, when there is no data to base a decision on? Learning goes on forever.

@@paulweston2267 Well.. I think it's part of humanity although many people don't seem to have that "insatiable need to know." I agree with you 100% that "learning goes on forever." Well... at least during our earthly life.

@@johnbrzykcy3076 There is magic in the words "I do not know". It allows one to sit back and observe the cosmos as it goes by. Even Einstein believed in the God of Spinoza.

@@paulweston2267 I agree with you 100%. I think we need to be more open to the philosophical reality of "I do not know." Thanks for sharing.

Paul Brocklehurst That essential objection has been addressed for centuries. That’s what TMM does. He just ignores the already offered answers to his questions in order to make snarky atheistic content. But, ya know... LOL!

@@joshheter1517 *That essential objection has been addressed for centuries.* > Not well. *That’s what TMM does.* > His objections are perfectly justified. *He just ignores the already offered answers to his questions in order to make snarky atheistic content.* > What you claim is simply _snarky atheistic content_ is merely whining about anybody who reveals the flaws in the ontological arguement. *But, ya know... LOL!* > No I don't know - can _you_ defend the ontological arguement? It doesn't sound like it therefore you simply complain when people point out that it *is* indefensible.

Paul Brocklehurst “>Not well”. Oh? You know philosophers that address the objection in question? Please, by all means... which replies to TMM’s unicorn objection do you think fail to give an adequate reply? How do they fail? Please be very specific.

@@joshheter1517 No I don't know any philosopher who can address TMMs objection to the ontological argument. Can you spot any shortcomings in it? I can't.

Paul Brocklehurst So when you claimed that the historical replies to TMM’s unicorn objection, were all “not well”... you were just talking out of your ***? You were pretending to know what you were talking about?

The Goat Apathy towards something does not make that something not real. See? That game is easy.

Josh Heter I have apathy towards the god of christianity, islam and the multiple gods of hindism and greek mythology and every other religion purporting some kind of gods or goddesses. so tell me does my apathy towards all these "somethings" (i.e. religions) not make these somethings not real. so now how do you tell which is really the real one or are they all real? yah you're right this "game" ...as you put it ...is easy. Your move. the original comment regarding longing is a valid and sound argument your apathy argument however is fallacious and goes against basic rational logic and is disingenuous.

ian philip You investigate the claims of each of the religions you mentioned for their inherent plausibility and their consistency with the available evidence and you use that to come to an informed conclusion.

The Goat ...you are absolutely correct 👍🏽

Josh Heter .."inhérent plausibility"???? no such thing. how can you automatically award plausibility to the very something you're trying to prove. plausibility also needs to be supported by evidence or at the least a valid and sound argument. At any rate back to your apathy argument do you agree that it is a fallacious line of reasoning? you have not acknowledged my refutation.

It's possible that a MPU (Maximally Pink Unicorn) exists. If a MPU exists, it exists in a PW (Possible World). If it exists in a PW, then it exists in all PWs. If it exists in all PWs, then it exists in actual world. Therefore, MPU exists. Thus, if the existence of a MPU is even a logical possibility, then by definition, that implies its actuality, because if a MPU is logically possible, then it follows that it must exist.

@@ferdinandkraft857 Aha,... no, this parody does't work and I invite you to study the argument better as to not make a full of yourself.

@@les2997 I invite you to study logic, fool.

@@ferdinandkraft857 No, you are the fool who doesn't understand logic, not me. Kurt Godel, possibly the greatest logician in history, thought that argument is sound.

@@les2997 Your lame OP has no relation with Gödel's Ontological Proof. I invite you to study not only logic, but history of philosophy and orthography.

Do you bleed?

@@xspotbox4400 In my human form, yes..

haha ...👍🏽 I bet all these shysters were more than glad to spew their bullshit with no one to refute them.

So what or why can't we plurulise the concept of Deity (since nothing accountable their existence) including Gods..

@@suatustel746 It is reasonable there are Gods too.

@@bruceylwang I'm referring sky Gods, not a mythologic ones, let me explain to you'Abrahamic God we know, doesn't matter weather he is material immaterial spiritual or more esoteric albeit possess a structure, in other word he must be made of component parts since he's acting agent on the matter and execute plans therefore he exudes entity a being but nothing can create himself (including Gods) and the question begs if the composite parts unified a God like being why not same principle apply other occasions, therefore he must also be intrigue why not other God's made in the same fashion.. Do you get my drift???

@@suatustel746 Do you believe in Abrahamic God?

@@bruceylwang look Bruce, every one of us have a belief system, weather it lends us the absolute truth is questionable, Concept of God (yahweh, jehovah) must not rest upon the belief systems otherwise you'll have to accept the honesty of non_believers, perfectly legitimate claim he concept of where there come from? I'm asking you a simple question`if you were in God shoes (eternal) be satisfied and contend throughout the cycles of the universe only one occasion agent like us. Emerge . and respond their creator, and the creator deemed to concern their affairs, deeds and misdeeds, trials and tribulations, no he must be churn out numerous times involve subordinate beings like us in order to pique his interest how do we respond a supreme being if that's is the case if Your God necessarily exists then he necessarily bring about humans to gratify his self absortment.... Caprices, and vanity etc..

WHEN YOU ELIMINATE JESUS FROM BEING GOD/YHWH, YOU DON'T HAVE GOD AT ALL!.. SO FUNNY & IRONIC , ATHEIST & ISLM ARE LOOKING/BELIEVING IN GOD OF NOWHERE/NOTHING! BOTH HAVE SAME ROOT, FROM SATAN MIND/IDEA, TO REJECT JESUS=THE TRUE GOD WITH US, IAM IMMANUEL AMEN! 😇🙏 .. 1. JESUS IS REAL, JESUS IS GOD! THAT'S WHY GOD IS NOT OPTIONAL/PROBABILITY/POSSIBILITY! CHRISTIANITY/BIBLE IS TRUE, BECAUSE JESUS IS GOD IN REALITY! 2. IF YOU LIVE IN ISRAEL IN HIS TIME, YOU CANNOT DENY JESUS EXISTANCE & GOD POWERFUL BEING THAT REVEALED IN HIM! GOD let His People WITNESSING HIM & His Miracles, written as BIBLE/EVIDENT OF GOD/JESUS! so everybody can feel Living with HIS PRESENCE, like you are really living around Him now, see/know Him with your own eyes! 3. conclution: GOD MUST BE EXIST, SINCE JESUS MUST BE GOD. JESUS HIMSELF SAID WHO HE IS. SO THERE'S NO DOUBT, & NO OTHER EXPLAINATION/POSSIBILITY ABOUT GOD EXISTANCE SINCE GOD/YHWH/JESUS REALLY CAME TO EARTH & REVEALED WHO HE IS & PROVE HIS EXISTANCE & POWER! 4. So ALL HUMAN are responsible to give ANSWER/EXPLAINATION ABOUT WHO IS JESUS!.. IF you deny JESUS THE TRUE GOD, you're ignorant rebellious SATAN'S CHILDREN From Hell!.. IF you admit that JESUS IS GOD, you're CHILDREN OF GOD & welcomed to live forever in HIS Blissful Heaven Amen! 😇🙏 .. BTW SO USELESS, WHEN ATHEIST TRY TO DENY WHAT&WHO ALREADY EXIST! GOD IS REAL & REALITY, HE IS NOT PROBABILITY. 3 FACTS THAT NEED GOD TO BE EXIST : DEATH/EVIL, ATHEISM/SATAN, & ISRAEL/BIBLE! ✌ .. WHEN YOU ARGUE ABOUT NECESSARY OF GOD-EXISTANCE, YOU EXACLTY ACT LIKE GOD! FROM HIS MIND/PERSPECTIVE/BIBLE: 1. YES, GOD EXIST IN HIS OWN MIND, BEING & DIMENSION/ETERNITY, BUT HE WANT TO DO/CREATE REASONING WHY SHOULD HE LET HUMAN & ALL CREATION BE EXIST, WHILE HE DOESN'T NEED ANYTHING? 2. GOD SATISFIED ONLY WITH HIMSELF! SO EASY TO DESTROY ANYTHING. SO HE GAVE HUMAN A MIND TO MAKE REASON FOR HIM. ATHEIST/SATAN CHALLENGE & MOCK GOD. IT GIVES REASON FOR GOD TO BE EXIST IN THIS WORLD, IT DRIVE HIM TO KILL SATAN & DEVIL HUMAN FOREVER IN HELL. BUT ALSO TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE WHO NEED HIM! 3. GOD IS NECESSARY FOR HIMSELF, & YOU ARE NOT NECESSARY TO HIM. YOU/HUMAN ARE PROBABILITIES, TO BE EXIST WITH HIM IN ETERNITY, OR TO BE DENIED/IGNORED/ABANDONED IN HELL, THE SAME WAY YOU DENY/REJECT HIS EXISTANCE! SURPRISED? 😅 4. SO BE CAREFUL. GOD HAS PUT HIS SWORD/SHARP MIND IN YOU, WHAT WILL YOU DO? TO KILL HIM OR TO SERVE HIM? LATER, HE WILL TAKE IT FROM YOU & USE THE SWORD LIKE YOU DID TO HIM! YOU SHOULD ASK, HOW BAD HAVE YOU BEEN TO HIM ALONG THIS TIME? HOW CAN YOU ESCAPE FROM HIS/YOUR OWN SWORD?! 😰