The Ontological Impossibility of Naturalism 

In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the Strong Nuclear Force. 2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the Strong Nuclear Force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.

Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.

[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.

@@ready1fire1aim1 Excellent! Thank you so much for sharing! You have made me into a Leibniz reader, I promise.

@@MilliePlateau Heck yeah! We're all taught Newton and his way of thinking about the universe but all that changed about a year ago with the Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement and that the universe is "not locally real". NASA's mirror universe theory is a leading theory now and Leibniz is our leading theorist. So friggin cool 😎. Also, 0D Ether theory > 2D Gravity theory Also, also open-system ectropy > closed-system entropy (since everything 1D, 2D, 3D is created at the quantum and destroyed at the cosmological). The Monad has an event horizon at the quantum scale and black holes have an event horizon at the cosmological scale. The zero-of you has an event horizon that only your soul/quarks (0D mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts) can pass through. Nerdgasm haha. Two years ago if you said "if the 1D, 2D, 3D is removed from a person then what is left?" the answer was nothing. Now, nothing is the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the strongest force in the known universe i.e. the Strong Nuclear Force is 6000 trillion trillion trillion (36 zeroes after 6k) times stronger than the force of gravity (which is a failed theory and wasn't a force ever). So happy we built that Large Hadron Collider to get the strong force to let go of the quarks to measure them.

Bigotted comments getting likes from creator. Again theism derives not from the intellect, but from the heart, which is mired in pig ignorant hatred.

Because God is an omni-potent, mechanized map of all that exists and doesn't in relation to himself. His legend desires mystery only to decide itself how one should react, because obviously there are predictable causes and effects, but there's a reason we still use aphorisms like "complex system" to relate ideas which have no concurrent human systems of analysis. The alternative is deference to the painfully obvious meaning embedded in our human existence.

It’s not entirely accurate that God is only “spirit”. This is most evident in the incarnate Jesus. More than that, God created heaven and earth, not just earth. What you’re calling “spirit” is something God also created.

You could take an Idealist route and say that everything is fundamentally mental

So, what are your thoughts after this video?

@@JudgeGideon823 I wasn't impressed. I've heard all these arguments many times before, and he seems to be pandering to people who already find them convincing rather than providing insights for people who don't. A lot of unexplained assumptions.

@@elik4325well I hear plenty of unexplained assumptions from naturalists, very naive to think humans know everything when we can’t even see a full range of colors or perceive non linear time. Best they come up with is random weird arguments like multiverses

@@elik4325 "A lot of unexplained assumptions." - name one

​@@user-ws8lf6it1y Sure, here are some things he didn't explain: 1) Why there is "no reality in the brain that is experience" or why the law of identity proves the irreducibility of experience to natural processes. We observe that physically altering a person's brain correspondingly alters the conscious experience of that person, including incapacitating their rational faculties while maintaining other aspects such as sight or touch. This to me shows that natural processes constitute conscious experience. 2) Why reason requires "Self-Reflexivity" to be valid. I don't see why the context from which the act of reasoning emerges refutes it's validity. Reasoning is reasoning no matter why it's happening. 3) Why the self-actualized first giver is "God" as opposed to anything else.

I’m not an expert so I might not be able to answer other questions but I’m pretty sure the answer to this is that, the reason that it becomes the Christian God and not others is because through Christianity epistemology, it becomes the most linear and logically plausible stance under these logical circumstances. For example: many other religions including monotheistic ones such as Islam, detach the understanding or knowledge that we have if the Universe with the mind of God, and if God made the Universe through Himself, how can we understand the Universe if there is not the relation between man and God as there is in the Christian dogma.(man was made in the image if God) spiritually/logically. Also the fact of infinite Universes doesn’t negate anything of there being a God or not. The point of the beginning of those still stands. It isn’t against our dogma to theorize infinite Universes either but again we can’t prove it definitively either.

@@B4RT0Lomei I'm no expert either so no worries! I understand your point, but I guess my point is there seems to be a transition from cold, hard deductive logic of proving ontological impossibility, to a more intentional and idealistic logic of these ideas best fit the facts (basically it feels better). I am not coming from an atheist position, and perhaps this video is more aimed at getting people who have convinced themselves the is the only logical consistent position to think again. But I do find it troubling that that people would use this argument to then try and prove their dogmatic image of God and reality. I think understanding religion symbolically and ritualistic gets around these issues of dogmatism, but I still think it is wrong for people to claim that their religion emerges out of these ontological claims in a logically consistent way, there is at least a switch from deductive to inductive logic that I think is not as clean as they would like to imagine

@@mayonnaisenin2198 well the guy who posts this is Orthodox so of course the deist positions he holds is Christian, but I see your point as well. I think that perhaps this video is aimed not so much about being why Orthodoxy is right but why theism is.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 bro basically said there is no God but at the same time we are God because we created everything 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@XooxyBoo which bro do you mean? Him or me? Be that as it may, what you said is pretty much how Kojeve interprets Hegel and how Buddhism understands reality

I see what you could be getting at. But I am failing to understand it completely. For example, how could our consciousness create the universe? I am not well versed in philosophy (forgive me), but there seems to be no epistemic evidence that our consciousness creates the universe.

@@jacobandrus2705 this position is not shared among all philosophers, only the ones of the more idealistic or metaphysical (if not to say mystical) bent. It is also quite difficult to demonstrate rigorously (and to half-ass it would be to trash it completely). I'll try to do a drive-by version: You've probably learned by now from different popular science sources that we cannot talk about properties of a particle (position, momentum, etc), until a measurement is made. We can take this one step further: until we learn something about the world (that is, until our interaction produced a change in our consciousness and vice versa, our consciousness guided our interaction), we can't say anything about it. Not even if it's there, if this or that element of the world exist. Moreover, before we can interact with something we must carve it out of the undifferentiated whole. Before we can interact with this elephant, we need to agree on it being separate from the background, from the savannah. Who decides, where savannah ends and elephant begins? Where does this boundary lie other than in our consciousness? You can be the most hardcore materialist and yet there are no electrons, protons or quarks marked "elephant" vs. "savannah". So if you take these notions to an extreme you can kind of get at the extreme idealistic position. German Idealism FTW! (Still, that was the most haphazard, ramshackle explanation ever, sorry)

@@mentalitydesignvideo no worriest whatsoever! I appreciate the response and clarity. And you are saying that this corresponds to how Buddhists (or maybe even hinduists) may view reality? Where have you made this connection? I am curious If I am not mistaken, this sort of epistemology may not be too far from some Orthodox consensus. The elephant and the savannah are nevertheless mankinds naming of these animals, because mankind has named them as Adam did in Eden. The cosmos is given to man as a gift and he is to bless it and give it back to God There may be some shared belief, even if its small, among both sides? I am not sure. Forgive me if I am misguided, I am young and uninformed but am needing some more philosophical discussion

​@@telosbound how does this soul\matter interface works? Something that influences and its influenced by physical processes must also be physical.

​@@telosbound Also, why can something immaterial create matter, but matter can't create something immaterial?

@@gabri41200 You have never observed a pure physical process outside of mind and what you call sensations is but a feeling appearing in your mind/conciousness, a mind can easily imagine stuff just look at your dreams at night where you feel all kinds of sensations and still there is no pure physical object in your dream, only mind dreaming stuff up, matter can't create anything because it has no telos or purpose or mind even, but mind can imagine and dream etc and has purposes and telos, so if we go by the normal view of matter, it would be a bigger leap to jump from a mindless purposeless non living thing to produce dreams, imagination, feelings etc, then the other way around.

@@adamq8216 how can you assert that matter has no mind?

@@adamq8216 dreaming is just the neurons recreating and mixing previous neurological events. This is why dreams (my dreams at least) look very similar to AI art.

I would say that correlation does not always equate to causation, especially as its applied to the problem of mind and matter, which is part of a classic philosophical problem related to the issue of the one and the many, which can be applied to this argument as well. When you assume the mind, its contents and abstract objects in general exist WITHIN physical processes ONLY, then not only does this necessarily assume that these abstract categories are themselves physical (if we are being logically consistent) ,but more specifically, it assumes that there really is no such thing as abstractions of any kind at all, as physical process can only give birth to physical processes in the same way that dogs can give birth to other dogs and not cats, because of the huge ontological difference and function between the two. The problem with this type of materialist worldview is that it is self negating, as we rely on these very abstractions to be able to even hold a worldview at all. The self, time/space, meaning, universal law (like the laws of logic), freewill are just a few examples of these very abstract categories, which resemble nothing like material things whatsoever, nor do they function like them. These categories are nonempirical, and yet without them, empiricism is not possible, thus, they must exist because of the literal impossibility of the contrary. To argue against abstract categories is to utilize them simultaneously. Even matter itself relies on abstract categories. So even though the 2 are linked together, they really are ontologically distinct/different from one another as well and play different roles. Distinction does not entail division/separation , and this is exactly applied to god himself too. So the transcendental argument for god does not hinge on the idea that mind is separate from matter and/or nature in any way, thats a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The argument entails that only a divine mind has explanatory power and justificatory force for why we have minds/personhood, logic and abstract ideas etc, at all. Some impersonal force of nature being posited as the source of persons/ living beings is logically inconsistent because the impersonal can never really know anything, it cannot intend or think creatively about anything, it has no life within itself, no ability to relate, to think, act freely using freewill etc. Personhood transcends the impersonal for these very reasons just described.

@@myfavoritesongs12345 Abstract concepts can certainly exist within physical confines only. A great example of this phenomenon is the chair thought experiment, where you are asked to take away atoms from an object that is obviously a chair and to find the point where it stops being a chair. This point is hard to find or even define, as chairs are an abstract concept, even though they, like the mind are entirely physical. "Abstractions" are little more then simplified labels for complex phenomena. Waves (of water) are collections of water, salt, biotic, and other such material flowing in patters of alternating amplitude. A videogame is a program on a computer, made of transistors and electrical signals that displays an interactive environment. The mind is the process of a brain, consisting of the senses and several complex internal processes. Just because it would be too exhasting to explain each minute physical detail does not mean the abstractions do not exist, rather abstractions are emergent structures made by and through physical systems. Additionally, a lack of understanding does not necessitate the existence of a divine/non-physical component. That is a god of the gaps fallacy. Unfortunately, we humans did not evolve to understand things at the base atomic/quantum levels. Our world is to complex for that, and the very survival of all animals depends on the ability to process complicated physical signals into mentally digestible abstractions .

@@maxwellsimon4538 Theres a fundamental flaw with your argument, and that is the assumption that abstracts, like the mind are entirely physical, which is an oxymoron. abstractions by their very definition are nonphysical, they wouldnt be abstractions if they were physical. Secondly, abstract objects are nothing like physical objects in their mode of being, and to better illustrate this point, ill use the mind as an example, as abstractions are ultimately contained in a mind anyway. The minds mode of being is completely different from a material object. A dog is a dog, and a cat is a cat, one does not come from the other because they exist within different family trees, same applied to mind and matter. The mind has to capacity to have meaningful experiences, personal relationships, seek truth, use logic based on the laws of logic, hold a worldview, be ethical, conscious decision making (freewill) etc. The material world does not posses such qualities and is continuously stuck in a monotonous existence that is absolutely unlike the characteristics of a mind whatsoever. Again two different "family trees". In fact, such qualities of mind are not subject to any form of empiricism, you will never find the laws of logic under a microscope, because these categories are nonempirical by nature. At the same time, these qualities serve as preconditions for the possibility of knowledge and experience. Even the material world itself relys on abstract categories to justify its own existence, because matter would not make any sense otherwise. Empirical investigations are not possible without the existence of these preconditions as well, so they exist because its impossible for them not to, otherwise we cant even think logically. To consistently posit that impersonal forces gives rise to personal life, is to undermine personal life and reduce it back into the impersonal. It renders ones own worldview nonsensical and self defeating.

@@maxwellsimon4538 I dont recall saying a lack of understanding necessitate the existence of divine mind, quite the opposite is actually what i mean to say if i havent clarified already. Understanding doesnt make sense in a paradigm full of dead matter that does not even know what that means.

@@myfavoritesongs12345 Apologies for misinterpreting your argument. However, I still don't think you understand where abstract objects come from, or what exactly I mean by abstract objects. Almost all things in some way are technically abstract, as they are compounds of simpler things. For the sake of argument, lets say that the simplest pieces of physical matter are quarks and electrons and whatever. In that scenario, even atoms are abstract object, composed of simple objects, yet still entirely physical. We have just placed another definition upon the collection as it is convenient for further categorization. The same goes for the mind, since it can only exist and only be facilitated through physical matter, it too can be considered part of the physical world. To try and separate the mind and brain as not both being derived from matter is like forgetting that dogs and cats are both mammals. Also the very idea that there even exists a "personal life" beyond the "impersonal forces" is to ignore the fundamental truth of reality and give in to the illusion of separation. There is no nonsense if you work to truly understand that all is one.

What "multitude of criticisms numerous people have made it against it over the years" would that be---idiocy like the "multiverse"?

@@johncharleson8733 I’ve never heard of an argument against this millennia old argument for god that did involve the multiverse. But anyway, there have been arguments made against these for millennia since they were first made, including many made by religious people themselves. It is not hard to google and find many arguments of all kinds against every argument for god. They may even be among the most common of all philosophical arguments. I found it very odd that this ages old argument for god was made and not a single of the many criticisms made against it was mentioned, as if none have been ever made. If you’re sincerely interested in discovering the truth about the value of arguments for and against god, look them up.

Yes highly naive and narrowly sighted view.

Functionalism and physicalism doesn't explain consciousness. Consciousness is irreducible. Everything we do assumes consciousness, so it is entirely absurd to suggest that consciousness can somehow be reducible to something else. I don't regard Daniel Dennett as a serious philosopher of mind. Anyone who tries to explain away consciousness and free will instead of actually attempting to seriously explain these things has denied himself the right to be called as such. I could also ask you to do the same by telling you to read David Chalmers.

Sure, but as a 'conventional theist', you can argue against the deist position

​@@mathfrom0to96 Deism is belief in a personal and usually moral God who just doesn't intervene in the universe after creating it. Usually, deism also claims that this God gave humans reason, that reason is able to prove deism, and that God gave humans reason so they could prove the existence of a deistic God. Naturalistic atheism doesn't claim any of those claims of deism. What naturalistic atheism claims is that reason gives us no good argument that there is any personal and moral God, whether theistic or deistic. Something beyond nature must have presumably created nature, but we have no evidence that whatever presumably gave rise to nature is anything but impersonal and non-moral. If something beyond nature gave rise to nature, but that utterly alien, indescribably bizarre cause of nature was impersonal and non-moral, then that would be as incompatible with deism as it would be incompatible with theism. We have no reason to think that isn't the case. Given that, claims about a personal God, including the Deistic claims, are pretty clearly just abstractions projecting our own image onto the unknowably vast, inhuman universe and whatever may have given rise to it. Shouldn't we feel embarrassed when contemplating that theism generally involves claiming that an unknowable and alien, omniscient being is obsessed with bizarre minutia such as whether or not a particular group of clever primates eats oysters or fish (Judaism), the proper way for you to cut your toenails and how often (Islam), or when and where it is important to ban women from speaking (Corinthians 14:34-35)? All of those concerns sound like what they are: human, all too human. At least the deists have a sense of embarrassment and choose to at least make far-fetched claims in hopes of elevating some genuinely amazing and beautiful phenomena like human life and human reason. Theism generally has more gall in what it chooses to elevate.

No responses?

Even your framing of naturalistic atheism runs into problems. If nature is entirely impersonal and non-moral, where does subjectivity come from? Where does something as personal as consciousness come from? In fact where does mind come from? Reality must ultimately be personal. For one, this explains where our consciousness comes from. For another, since reality is essentially the Universal Mind, you don't also have to explain how does the subjective arise from the objective - to try to explain this is impossible. A subject is also an object but an object is not necessarily a subject.

Yeah I would say that's a pretty big mistake he makes.

it's a very commonly used term in philosophy. can't really get mad at him for it

@@barnaclejones822 I honestly can't think of anyone else who uses the word "naturalism" to mean "materialism". Naturalism is the study of nature. If he thinks there is a conflict between naturalism and theism then he must be one of those "reality is a simulation" people or something.

@@Formscapes google, wikepedia, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, etc

@@Formscapes literally the first results for "naturalism" on google are philosophy btw it was actually harder for me to find mentions of the word that aren't related to philosophy

How do you know time has a beginning or an end? Things within time have these attributes, but time itself does not necessarily need to. Time is simply the flow of one moment to another, a boundless dimension that can only move in one direction.

The eternal is a mystery to us, where human comprehension falls short and any attempt to explain it in words and concepts become contradictory.

@@johnnytass2111 I agree, to me it's obvious, yet here is Mr. Lunot making all of these claims in the video. To me theism comes down to people wanting complete certainty, which we all can relate to, instead of just being satisfied with being able to explain some things. That need for certainty is so strong it can drive us into all manner of self deceptions. I'm sympathetic to this, but I'm not sympathetic to lies and deception.

Thats a laughably false and fallacious claim.

@@justchilling704 prove it.

@@ubermensch0072 You made the claim prove my judgement wrong.

@@justchilling704 'God of the gaps'

@@ubermensch0072 What does that have to do with this convo?

he isn't

the video is titled "The Ontological Impossibility of Naturalism" his point is merely that naturalism is false, he's not trying to assert that Christianity is true. if you're looking for that, he has many other videos regarding Christian theology, more specifically Orthodox.

It seems like you need this to be untrue. That's because, no matter what, everybody assumes their prepositions to be true. This goes for atheists or theists and everybody else.

>makes a statement that is proven false by the video >doesn't elaborate

@@telosbound I mean its just a sad attempt at rhetoric at this point. It's like the only thing these people know is rhetoric. Or all they know are mediocre arguments. To assume that only naturalism follows science is dishonest. There already are versions of idealism that are, if anything, more scientific than naturalism. In fact idealism is more scientific since it does not assume that anything that exists must be spatially bound. Already I can think of Bernardo Kastrup's analytic idealism. Or Chris Langan's CTMU. Or Whitehead's pan-experientialism.

@@telosbound Also btw: recently I'm convinced that the cosmological argument is invalid and the price that one will have to pay if he uses it is too high. The cosmological argument kind of implicitly assumes a mechanistic universe. Christopher Langan put forth what I think is a superior argument for God that does not require one to assume a mechanistic universe. It is as follows: - There can be nothing outside reality. Reality (we have not said what this is, so don't assume anything first) must contain everything that is real. So any cause of change that is real enough to affect reality would be within reality. - Any definition of reality must be within reality. Therefore, reality must define itself. - The mind and reality have an intricate kinship. What is real must be what is intelligible (the core of Platonic metaphysics). If reality were not intelligible, you and I could not be talking about it in the first place, since reality would just become unintelligible noise. However, if the mind and reality have a close kinship, then reality must also be mind-like. - So reality must define itself and is mind-like. This suggests that reality is self-conscious. Additionally, this shows that everything that exists are simply thoughts of Nous. So this has proven a "being" that is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

@@telosbound Should also note that Christopher Langan may call this "pantheism", but it is not really the same as how we understand the term. For one, he calls it "holopantheism". Secondly, the mere sum of creatures do not constitute intelligible reality (God in the sense of the Platonic Nous for Langan). Intelligible reality is greater than all of the parts that He contains ("He" is appropriate because this is the Universal Consciousness). The Universal Consciousness has structure and relations that link these parts and the parts cannot be abstracted away from the structure and vice versa. This is much more akin to panentheism than pantheism.

Kid named science

I LOVE YOUR COMMENT

This is a common modern interpretation but this is not really how they believed in other gods. Aside from that, not really sure how he used "gods of the gaps". In regards to our beginning You either posit "God", as in, the first cause/unmoved mover or fall into infinite regress.

@@drooskie9525 I literally explained it to you. We all know there must have been a beginning at some point however that does not imply god did it. That’s what god of the gaps is and it’s what he used.

@@pennygirl015 By necessity, it has to be. There's nothing fallacious about it. There has to be something outside of the "system". If the Big Bang was caused by something mechanistic, there would still have to be something beyond that... unless you want to propose the universe is eternal I guess?

@drooskie9525 No, that's not what I'm saying. Yes, we don't understand what caused the big bang, but too posit that it has to be god is copium. There is just about as much evidence for that as if I said Barney made the universe. You're strawmanning scientists here they never once said everything's infinite. If science does not understand something, it does not mean an all-powerful entity needs to exist.

cope

Seethe

Quit being rude.

Lol, the fact you can't argue it yourself is telling of your supposed logic. Aron Ra uses some of the worst philosophical arguments for atheism.

@@fromthesouthofafrica6815 i'm more of a historian and ui's insulting to suppose that I need to defend questions, rather than the person who states claims without justification. As to Aaron Ra - what is wrong with him? He's a well educated man mostly in areas of evolution and anthropology. If you want more philosophical stuff - those 2 guys i recommended later are great in this case.

Well it ought to work for all religions considering that this argument is for theism and not Orthodoxy in specific, you don't talk to a hardcore naturalist in terms of ones own specific belief system when there's no grounding between your viewpoints, instead an argument of substance upon the nature of reality to explain the basis for theism is necessary. Anything else would just be wasted. Out of curiosity, how exactly would someone with your viewpoint account for the inherent subjectivity of consciousness?

recommending Aron Ra is the atheist equivalent to a creatonist recommending a megachurch apologist

he isn't trying to "prove" Orthodox Christianity, only trying to disprove naturalism, hence the title of the video being "The Ontological Impossibility of Naturalism." his point is that naturalism is ontologically impossible and is self-refuting. he has other videos about Christian theology specifically, this is still theology, but the purpose of the video is not to assert that Orthodoxy is the truth- only that naturalism isn't.