Biola university .. where the conclusion is accepted before an argument is made.

I'm SO grateful to this channel.I can listen great minds while I'm at home.

J P's analysis is unconvincing because it is nothing more than a string of unfounded assertions.

@Bill..N

3 жыл бұрын

Unfounded assertions based on FAULTY assumptions..!

I get that my comments are more about the existence of objective morality rather than the existence of a god from "morality", but I'll continue: As fucked up as exterminating any group of people is, I don't see it as categorically wrong (objectively wrong), but rather a "wrong" that most people tend to agree on; it's not as though there exists a book that tells us all what the "right" thing to do in every possible situation. Just because walking up to a random child and butchering them with a million weapons is quite a shitty thing to do doesn't make it objectively "wrong", it just makes it generally wrong; there does exist psycho/socio-paths. I get that most "normal" humans tend to agree on such things simply due to emotional response, but this doesn't make it "objective" unless we either redefine "objective" to mean "how we tend to feel emotionally" or accept that the creation of morality is a function of our emotional response and thus an aftereffect of our emotional reaction. It's not that it's "objectively wrong" but it's the case that "most people tend to react emotionally negatively to that stimulus, thus it's 'wrong'. " To me, these are different things. 17:05 - 17:34 No, "basic moral truths" are not necessary. Maybe people want them to be due to emotional reactions, but they're not necessary. There are "moral" reasons to lie (a generally "immoral" behavior). It just breaks down. I don't see the structure. I think there are more issues that are created when humans think that there is indeed a general moral "truth" rather than if they accepted a subjective, agreed-upon "truth". 20:38 - 20:44 I agree with him here, specifically, but I disagree when he alludes to our collective evolution being a source of moral guidance. Just because something serves a purpose doesn't make it, again, "morally this or that", but rather it reaps such and such a benefit so...it's good for that reason. That's not objective. It's subjective. Philosphers don't seem to like to talk about subjective rights-and-wrongs and I'm not sure why other than that they're desperate to mathematicize the process of morality as quantification is always easier than qualification. If we just fessed up and accepted that all "right and wrong" is collectively subjective, we wouldn't need to worry about the need for objective morality which in turn bleeds into the idea of a god (in my view). Listen carefully when you hear people talk about it (like at 8:18 - 8:34), as you'll hear people use the word "he" to describe a god. We all know the bullshit that that implies. To me that's confused at best and disingenous or already religious at worst. I see no evidence of "objective morality". Please help me see things differently if you disagree with me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. I do that all the time. Let's say that a god exists that "wrote a book" that the god doesn't actually agree with. That the process of struggling with what it is to be human is what it's more interested in rather than blindingly agreeing with "whatever is written in the book". I'm agnostic, by the way. Peace.

Morality means goodness, and goodness is the only upward path. Of course we may choose to go round and round or to slide down.

I'm an atheist but this series has made me look at the concept of god in a very different way. This series makes it suddenly not seem so ridiculous. Maybe I should be agnostic.

@S3RAVA3LM

3 жыл бұрын

Are you an atheists because of religion, or do you choose to deny Light, as that is what God is -- photon. The ineffable quality, thus there is vibration, sound, electromagnetism, generation, transformation, manifestation, cosmos, existence, life, nature. How can you deny what is and is happening right before and within you?

@The0versun1

3 жыл бұрын

Well you could be an atheist towards a certain kind of religion claims and you would need to give reasons for it ( justifications), but when it comes to explaining what is reality ontologically speaking (and you can't or don't know) you would have to be agnostic.

@iseriver3982

3 жыл бұрын

Shouldn't you actually ask for evidence of a god, and start atheist until there is some. That would be the rational thing to do, instead of pretending to believe in the think that can't exist.

@S3RAVA3LM

3 жыл бұрын

@@iseriver3982 we're inside of God. Such a question is in a standpoint thinking that God is outside and/or some sky daddy. Everything is God. Where is the evidence proving that light doesn't exist? God is light

@ar-4775

3 жыл бұрын

@@iseriver3982 this would be the irrational thing to do if you define an atheist as someone who doesnt believe in the existence of God and you define a theist as one who does believe in the existence of God. Both are dogmatic because they make an non-neutral ontological claim about God. An agnostic would be a rational position because you aren't making any claim.

In brief, I do think morality is found in a objective measure among all human beings, however, I could not say it is a cosmic truth as I don't know like everyone else. I would think because of underdeveloped feelings among the entire planet of human beings and I have no doubt they are not equal among us and they will slowly improve generationally. Likewise, some other issues that disrupt the thought processes that affect the feelings of the human beings where most are unable to defend themselves consciously to a sea of disruption in thoughts and feelings from those whom are also troubled... and all of this which respond in a likewise manner to these thoughts in the world and there are also many that would not be able to identify this within themselves if not most. Only because of an underdevelopment here of these common feelings within humans, no matter where the intellect is of the individual personality from any patterns learned in life, but that is not some law or rule, but just a common premise among the masses that I see happening. This is so complex that charting all of the possibilities known to myself does not give an accurate depiction of what is morality and how it relates to the well being of humanity and where this will end up throughout all time within the individual personalities inner growth. Which however, cannot be given by any other personality or reading... it must be worked on like your discipline in life and continually I might add, because it can fail very quickly when striving for wealth, power, etc. Unless this value does not matter to your inner nature of being and you are confident in the materialistic view of no consequences to damaging your own well being internally, also known as suffering from a causation of your own thinking disruptions... and redundantly, you probably will not be able to identify it within your own being at this point, however maybe you are able too.

Very well produced. Additionally, nice 997 Turbo!

@Bill..N

3 жыл бұрын

I was happy to see it WASN'T fire engine red..

25:58 well there you have it folks, we will never get closer to truth, shut the channel down. It's over.

Imagine there's only one human in the world. Would you say that rape, murder and thief is absolutely objectively wrong? I think morality is inevitable consequence of a society where two sentient and self conscious beings or more relate to each other and where everyone has the capacity to put themselves into someone else shoes resulting to empathy.

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, good point, but of course you dont know how you will deal with things until you know them. But there is also an inner morality that makes your deal with yourself too, and the actions "against" yourself (addictions of every kind for example) . And there the moral part even supersede the survival part.

@williamesselman3102

3 жыл бұрын

We can only draw from reality things that exist.

@OngoGablogian185

Жыл бұрын

It's not a consequence of society when we find rudimentary morality in other species. It's an evolved phenomena.

Can anyone help me? Is this a excepted theory for morality? Imho basic morality is a consequence of empathy. The ability to simulate how someone is feeling in certain situations defines for us what is wrong and what is right. I don't do things to other people because I know how they or someone else would feel.

God is not necessary from morality and if the reason for creation is an in-depth examination, from a 'random start', then this could also be a stipulation made during Creation. This in part being a piece of 'The Great WHY', then it still moves towards evolved morality. If a human defines the end of the journey as God, and believes that there exists an end to the journey the you have a person who believes in God. Humans have an internal mechanism to define God then decide if He exists or not. Atheists define God then they decide that such a thing does not exist. But for every Religion and any given individual Faith, it is the human with a self diagnosed/derived definition and a decision whether that definition does or does not exist. I think anyway. Also, for me, Faith is "what we believe," and Religion is "how we put that faith into action."

There is no creator in buddhism yet there is morality. What does this show? That these delusions of some infantile God is not needed for morality to occur.

@williamesselman3102

3 жыл бұрын

Do somthing about your slave camps.

No argument proves God. But without a spiritual/non material aspect to reality, then nothing is immoral. Kant makes the best argument for morality proving God.

People tend to look at morality as a judgment about something being right or wrong. In reality ( talking Ultimate Truth here) there is no such thing as right or wrong in our human physical lives - there is only that which serves us. This is different from evil which does exist. The soul doesn't care about right or wrong experiences - it's experience (period) that it's after. IF this is true (and it is) , it would be a strong indicator that there is a soul and therefore a God and an afterlife. Since I KNOW that God exists (from personal experience), I am really seeing this reasoning in a sort of backdoor way. It doesn't change anything though. Morality is what serves us. Morality can be modified from culture to culture. PS: to avoid evil serves everybody.

For morality to be absolute, for it to have objective existence, something must exist in addition to the mechanical system of physical processes. But that doesn't tell us what the additional something is. It's not mandatory that it be God.

@trevorwongsam8178

3 жыл бұрын

JDC Your comment is one of the very few so far expressed on this comment section that is worth a second thought and I think it's an essential insight into the nature of morality. People often overlook the completel definition of the meaning of the word "objective". We can look past the first superficial meaning which is "independent of human opinion" and extend it to its root "based upon an object" In other words for the religious the object is God. The atheist on the other hand has no object as you have said. It may be worth considering what the possible candidates for such an alternative objects are. There cannot be many. I have my own ideas but what do you think?

@georgedoyle7971

3 жыл бұрын

“It’s not mandatory that it be God” I suppose it depends on what you mean by “God”. According to Baruch Spinoza “the mind of God is all the mentality that is scattered over space and time, the diffused consciousness that animates the world” (Baruch Spinoza). Similarly, Anselmo d’Aosta defines this ultimate being/essence as “that of which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselmo d’Aosta). Equally, the question of empirical “proof” for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism is viewed as a classical category error by scholars as theists don’t believe that “God” is just another being that exists in the universe but is being and existence itself including mind and consciousness itself. This assumption that this is a materialistic question is also the (crackers in the pantry fallacy). Because some materialists/atheists assume that the belief in the fundamental and irreducible nature of mind and consciousness/theism is a materialistic factual question, and should be answered in the same way as any other factual questions regarding “physical” reality. The assumption that all existence claims are questions about the “physical” world, matters of materialistic fact, the assumption that all of these are answered in exactly the same way is not only over simplified and misleading it is completely mistaken. The existence, factuality or reality of different kinds of things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case. For example in order to “prove” (Is there a box of crackers in the pantry) we all obviously know how to answer that question. Just look in the pantry!. But that is completely different from the way we go about answering questions determining the reality of for example atoms, quarks or probability waves that are invisible, unmeasurable, bi locational/non local, superpositional and timeless. Not to mention the difficulties in measuring the qualitative subjective experience of mind and consciousness, galaxies outside our visual field, gravitational attraction, the laws of physics, radio activity, concepts related to reality and existence such as time, being, identity, ontology, teleology, the abstract world of mathematics/numbers, history’ past events, categories, future, contingencies, laws of thought, individual identity over time, causation, memories or even love, altruism, beauty or bravery. It is very rational to believe that all these things are real and yet one does not simply (walk into the pantry and look inside for evidence of crackers) in these scenarios. There are numerous questions related to existence but they are not at all answered in the same way in each case. Nevertheless, according to the father of analytical psychology the fact is that what we all share is an hierarchy of values wether we are atheists, theists, deists or agnostics. And what ever is at the top of that hierarchy of values serves the function of “God” for you. It may be a supreme human (Humanism) or a supreme consciousness/being or God. Or even a God that you don’t believe in or a God that you can’t define or name but it is irrelevant. Because the fact is that what ever you think about your “God” at the the top of your hierarchy of values has very little impact on how your “God” is acting in you. We are all driven by meaning, bio logus, explanation, or what ever term we prefer, that is something to sustain us through loss, bereavement, disappointment, that is someone or something to sustain us through something that we will all face at some point in our lives, tragedy. This is why I think it’s important to try to build bridges and show respect, understanding, compassion and empathy instead of ignorance and intolerance of different metaphysical beliefs especially during a pandemic. Life is sacred to everyone. ❤️

@briendoyle4680

3 жыл бұрын

@@georgedoyle7971 Life is not 'sacred' as that would imply gods - and we know that there are no gods...

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

i like the secular idea of agreeing on a subjective morality, like wellbeing, and then developing objective tests for it.

@jdc7923

3 жыл бұрын

@@trevorwongsam8178 Looking at history, we would have to say, that at the very least, the idea of God has been a potent catalyst for a lot of the thinking done about morality. I haven't read a great deal of the writings of the Greeks, but I believe the Stoics derived their moral standards without reference to a monotheistic God. Plato in one of his dialogues asked (paraphrase): Is an act wrong because God says so, or does God say so, because it's wrong? (The Greeks are a little slippery when they speak of God with a capital "G", so I don't know what Plato's conception of God was.) It does seem hard to get away from some sort of intelligence linked in some way to the reality of morality. In one of my favorite movies, Gladiator, the Roman General Maximus says to his cavalry before leading them in an attack: "Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity".

That you don't need moral sensibilities for altruistic behavior is demonstrated by social insects, which sacrifice themselves instinctively for the good of the collective--no moral reasoning or conscience required. Therefore, altruistic behavior among human beings does not explain their perception of norms of morality. Moreover, would any events have a moral character in a universe entirely devoid of consciousness and/or sentience? Hard to say they would. So morality (1) cannot be explined by reference to any kind of behavior and (2) partakes of all the mystery attending consciousness. This is not a geometric-style proof of God, but we have to ask ourselves, In which kind of universe does this inexplicable inner prodding fit more easily? A purely material one devoid of God? Or one dependent on a God whose nature is somewhat mysteriously reflected in our moral sense?

The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma that was put to rest long ago. Morality was neither created nor discovered by God. Instead, morality is grounded in God's very nature. And because His nature is absolute and unchanging, morality is absolute and unchanging.

@trumpbellend6717

2 жыл бұрын

And how do you determine gods "nature" exactly ? Perhaps its from the LAWS that he made for us to follow. Like _"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"_ 🤮🤮🤮🤮 If that's an example of the morality that's "grounded in gods nature" you can stick it where the sun don't shine

@jeremyg7261

Жыл бұрын

His nature is absolute and unchanging? So morality is absolute and unchanging? But his nature is immoral. Now what?

@Eric-en9hk

Жыл бұрын

@@jeremyg7261 It is immoral by what standard?

People will be kicking themselves in few weeks if they miss the opportunity to buy and invest in bitcoin

@Omarali-yb3qu

3 жыл бұрын

I wanted to trade crypto but got confused by the fluctuations in price

@crypt0yoda..1-70

3 жыл бұрын

@@Omarali-yb3qu That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like Mr George hendricks

@jerryhills2145

3 жыл бұрын

I heard his strategies are really good

@donaldpat357

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah My first Investment with Mr George Hendricks aim me profits of over $24,320 US dollars and ever since then he has Been delivering

@jasonpizzino7084

3 жыл бұрын

He has really made a good name for himself

Is it morally good because god commanded it? Or is it morally good regardless of whether god commanded it?

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

i think the question is more "we were given that choice by evolution randomness or by a basic consciousness to improve ourselves (or at least to be different one from another ...) ?"

The fact that we are even able to argue the existence of God shows that there's a problem.

@tomorrowmaynevercome3171

3 жыл бұрын

Why is it a problem to know?

Many theists say that animals don’t have souls. If this is true they couldn’t argue that torturing kittens for fun is wrong 🤔

8:35: Is it just me or does the piano playing in the background sound way out of tune?

What is meant by morality? Would help to understand what is meant by morality, then whether it can argue for God.

@sharonmarsh3728

Жыл бұрын

Morality is being Good. Compared to being immoral which is being bad. Read the whole book of Leviticus to see God's Wisdom for us to live by . . .

Perhaps we should first consider - who or what is god assuming there is one - there’s the religious god , a ancient ‘artificial Intelligence god’, advanced beings we call god ....... we could go on and on - so is there an authority that is managing humanity ... not necessarily supernatural, could be natural surely.

We have no choice, but to consider God from a standpoint in a creation of which we are a part. We look for God as though God is emergent from creation. We cannot conceive of what existence was before the universe emerged from it. To conceive of a creator that existed before there was an existence preceding the emergence of the universe (big bang or the Roger Penrose variety) is not in our deck of cause-and-effect cards. We reasonably assume there was a creator before there became a creation. So just what and where does a creator emerge from nothing? This is reductio ad Absurdum in its grandest form and it seems to me to be a dead end. I believe this is why as creatures of large consciousness, man created myths enacted through rituals to achieve transcendence, i.e., transcendence away from the dead end described above. No self-respecting scientist would look to solve a mystery as majestic as the one I am discussing, in any other way than by cause-and-effect. Nevertheless, we are spiritual creatures, too, and some of us experience transcendence. We must not let our physicality keep us from experiencing through our conscious minds transcendence or create a false morality forbidding us to do so. Our minds are our own and for us to use. Through our minds we do achieve access to other worlds and behold intelligent entities who share their knowledge with us. Knowledge gained in this way is experiential knowledge and it should be as valued in the world of the scientist as knowledge gained through cause and effect. We must not impede our journey through a life that is mysterious and steeped in mystery by developing a false morality. All our experiences are significant and we may find that significance is none other than the God we seek.

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

we do have a choice. calling it a creation is poisoning the well. we don't reasonably assume there was a creator, we reasonably assume we don't know. your whole post is just one assertion after another and mostly waffle.

Isn't "morality" just a function of evolution to keep the species alive?

@georgedoyle7971

3 жыл бұрын

“Isn’t morality just a function of evolution to keep the species alive” You could argue that this is the case but it’s self refuting because if it is “true” that morality is nothing more than the random motion of atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities (random evolution), it means that everything is just nothing more than the function of evolution and “matter” so it undercuts all claims to knowledge and “truth” rendering everything arbitrary, illusory and ad hoc even logic and empiricism. Because it means that even logic and empiricism including your “rational” observation is just the by product of the heuristic purposes of “selfish genes” and evolution. So if the whole of reality and existence is nothing more than mindless, meaningless, purposeless “matter” it is rational to doubt that your mental faculties are providing consistently accurate information about the “truth” of reality and existence, particularly under a strict materialism. Which is why Thomas Nagel pointed out that under the materialistic paradigm “evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.” (Thomas Nagel). Interestingly, Nagel even goes as far as to argue that materialism and Darwinism must be false for this reason and argues that consciousness is the biggest challenge to materialism as a complete theory of reality. The fact is that we know at the very least that realities such as mind and consciousness emerge greater than the sum of their assumed component parts but these beliefs are based on metaphysical presuppositions such as identity over time, logic, empiricism and “truth” but “truth” is a philosophical claim and “truth” including logic, empiricism and values such as morals and ethics are metaphysical presuppositions that is transcendental categories that can not be justified or grounded in the materialistic paradigm as materialism excludes metaphysical realities. Equally, the belief that mind and consciousness just emerges from (Strong emergence) leaves an enormous explanatory gap which is why prominent idealists and experts on mind and consciousness view the belief that consciousness just emerges from “matter” as synonymous with the belief in magic. Hence the common term among experts on mind and consciousness “The hard problem of consciousness”. Equally, prominent idealists such as Bernardo Kastrup have pointed out that materialists are completely blind to the elephant in the room because the fact is that no one has ever empirically “observed matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.” (Bernardo Kastrup). So you could argue that claiming that reality, existence and consciousness including values such as morals and ethics must be caused by “matter”, despite the fact this is an unproven hypothesis, is the (materialism and scientism of the Gaps fallacy). And pointing this out inevitably stirs up a wasps nest on most KZread channels as materialists need as much certainty as everyone else. Which is why prominent public intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins make 10 million a year selling certainty to materialists/atheists. This is why both idealists and theists view the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism as just a default position a (non belief) in materialism/atheism until materialists can prove that reality and existence is nothing more than “matter” not mind and consciousness No offence intended all the best ❤️.

@briendoyle4680

3 жыл бұрын

@@georgedoyle7971 Since there are no gods....

@Bill..N

3 жыл бұрын

In short, yes..

@briendoyle4680

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bill..N All Hominin type Animalia have all show a sense of 'morality' or behaviour rules... always subject to changes...

@jgobroho

3 жыл бұрын

@@georgedoyle7971 I tried reading all that but holy fuck mate....

Originally aired: 2008

I like swinburn he argues strongly and is highly intelligent 👌

Arguing god from evidence? Never going to happen.

@soldieroftruth77

3 жыл бұрын

Objective Morality would be evidence. That’s the point of all these debates.

@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, exactly.

@kokotvole2565

3 жыл бұрын

@@soldieroftruth77 There is no objective morality. Not in the Bible, not in the world around.

@soldieroftruth77

3 жыл бұрын

@@kokotvole2565 That would be your argument. Which is fine. But you’re making a objective claim about the truth. That is not easily done.

@S3RAVA3LM

3 жыл бұрын

What about the cosmos? Who's going to tell you that the cosmos isn't the evidence of God. If anyone denies this than their understanding of God is foolishness.

My consciousness is hell, I hope there isn’t another one beyond the grave

Morality does not need, or proves God. Morality results from laws which evolved in Us evolutionarily, because of our "herd nature", laws created partly by fear, partly because of the will to survive, laws that allowed our species to be sustained. People, who do not believe, or even know the concept of God, whether for environmental-cultural reasons, or age reasons (babies), usually behave in accordance with these laws, in a way that is purely natural, not learned, instilled. I also strongly believe, that animals also have their morality. It may just be hard for some to see, understand it, just as it is hard to understand their awareness, consciousness. However, its also hard for me to say, that morality should be an argument for the non-existence of God, especially if you consider all of Its non-classical forms. Excuse my English.

@PatrickSS351

3 жыл бұрын

That's what I'm saying, we just exhibited a more complicated version of evolutionary morality than other animals and people are confusing it with the power of God.

@fortynine3225

3 жыл бұрын

There is no morality in nature so how can you claim it comes from evolution? In the human world group/state morality is destructive so it would be a evolutionairy bad move anyway. So i think your claims are nonsense.

@PatrickSS351

3 жыл бұрын

@@fortynine3225 yeah im saying YOU are calling it morality when it is really just evolutionary behavior to keep the species thriving.

@PatrickSS351

3 жыл бұрын

@@fortynine3225 I should have put quotes around morality, I think its something else

@fortynine3225

3 жыл бұрын

@@PatrickSS351 That is just nonsense. Where is that morality? In all these countries rulers make up stuff and call it morality..that is not morality.. that is nonsense. There is reality based morality and it was never popular...so their goes your claim.

First of all prove that there is really any such thing as objective morality. There may be such things as moral values held by the vast majority of the population or even universal morality but I think you will be hard pressed to try and prove the existence of objective morality unless you can somehow manage to tie it to something else that is a lot more mundane. But you still have to be very careful not to stray away from the original definition of what objective morality really means at the deepest source of the meaning of such a hypothetical thing.

Morality business must be good, nice car.

David Baggett!

Michael Tooley. Just as you assume that there can be a possible world where atheism is true and morality is objective, I can believe that there is a possible world where a necessary God exists, and then we can conclude that if there is a necessary being in 1 possible world then He has to exist in ALL possible world and therefore there is no possible world where atheism is true.

@GuessWhoAsks

2 жыл бұрын

As long as your god is not the immoral Christian God.

@trumpbellend6717

2 жыл бұрын

Hey you can "believe" in pink unicorns if you want cupcake. Just dont tell me I need to live my life according to your subjective perception of the whims of said pink unicorn. 😜

@dubbelkastrull

2 жыл бұрын

@@trumpbellend6717 And will you avoid telling me that your fluffy cupcake pancake atheism is objectively true?

@jeremyg7261

Жыл бұрын

The fact that you can just imagine a necessary God exists; but can’t provide any evidence for that being true or based in reality in anyway - who cares? Also, since there is no necessary being; in all worlds atheism is true; we don’t know of any reality where your Christian god exists; nor the thousands of others humans have made up - with just as much faith in them. Is there any evidence the universe needs a god? This one didn’t.

@dubbelkastrull

Жыл бұрын

@@jeremyg7261 You presuppose atheism and that there is no evidence for God. Yeah there is evidence that this universe needs a necessary being. 0+0+0+0+0 = 0. Nothing comes from nothing.

Perhaps in the beginning there was only god. And in that same instant god would have a bleak awareness that all possibilities are known absolutely. There is no future or past. There would be no originality, companionship, or surprise. That would give reason to explode into a universe of quantum randomness, entropy, and time. Perhaps then, if there is such a thing as morality, it's because everything is still in some part god, as everything is still loosely connected. Any immoral actions are simply a form of self harm. Gravity, particles coming in and out of existence, spooky action at a distance, entropy, are all parts of an intentionally created randomness to break an infinite monotony. I'm agnostic. I find this particular thought experiment more plausible than any "religious" ideas I've come across. IMO, this concept can coexist with quantum physics quite nicely. I'm not suggesting I believe it, but it's fun to ponder.

@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695

3 жыл бұрын

You are right, but not exactly. We are not part of God. Rather we are His creations. God does not have parts.

@VIDEOAC3D

3 жыл бұрын

@@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695 Suggesting I'm wrong shows you didn't understand that I offered this as a thought experiment.... I'm not stating anything as a fact or truth. There is no right or wrong here. It's just a mental exercise or "brain teaser". Also, I didn't use the word "parts" to describe material things or objects, but separate actions or concepts in the thought experiment. Lastly, it's clear you have a religious objective stating your beliefs as fact. You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not convincing anyone by making blanket statements with no factual substance.

@jeremyg7261

Жыл бұрын

I mean, just remove the idea of god; the universe doesn’t need him. And neither does anyone else.

@VIDEOAC3D

Жыл бұрын

@@jeremyg7261 Very true. I think speaking like that helps "god" believers think about the idea of god differently... simply as a way to define "all things in the beginning." Perhaps the universe came from nothing at all... Another thought experiment... what if, in the beginning, there were originally two planes, one of positive energy and one of nothing (negative or anti-energy). If they collided it would create a reaction. Positive magnetic energy fields repelling against negative nothingness. A reaction of "to exist or not to exist." Negative energy is the force of entropy,, and scatters everything to create empty space...ever pushing towards nothingness. Positive energy (magnetic fields- also seen as energy, then matter etc.) draw together to create quantum particles, then atoms, then gas clouds, then stars, etc. Opposite of entropy, it draws together. Meanwhile nothingness is trying to force those relationships apart so the universe expands towards entropy. Things are coming together while simultaneously flying apart. Furthermore, as polar opposites, perhaps there are anti-particle relationships there. Seen through negative and positive fields. I think it's possible that atomic spins are simply that energy entering and exiting through the two planes. The quantum particles are drawn through one plane, can't reach escape velocity, and yoyo back through the other plane, where the same motion happens again.

❤️

The whole debate is idiotic.

@S3RAVA3LM

3 жыл бұрын

Who do they think they're kidding?

@iseriver3982

3 жыл бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM Christians

@S3RAVA3LM

3 жыл бұрын

@@iseriver3982 really? They think getting their heads dipped in a bathtub at a church has them saved. You can't fool stupid.

Atheists don’t need god to be moral!

@trumpbellend6717

2 жыл бұрын

But we are regardless,

@scienceexplains302

Жыл бұрын

@@trumpbellend6717 Most of us

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

Theists are the most immoral humans on the planet

Disappointing he didn’t cover moral nihilism

Morgan, Francis...🤦‍♂️

All moral values and duties are highly relativistic. One calls something good because it serves his purpose and not because it's given by some higher Supernatural Authority.

Swinburne made the best point

Swinburne is wrong I think that necessary truths can not stand in relationships of explanatory priority or even dependence.

Wait a second did he just gave us a conclusion This is a first

Not possible

I do not find the correlation between morality and transcendental reality (if it exists), i consider morality, for the most, a consequence of evolution and natural selection and survival of species

Robert, you can be sooo opened minded that your brains 🧠fall out. You need to decide that God Exists 😉

Could morality be a part of God, similar to other non-physical existence?

@r9nger

3 жыл бұрын

It could be. But is it?

@jamesruscheinski8602

3 жыл бұрын

@@r9nger good question

@thomasridley8675

3 жыл бұрын

Or just a function of creating a socially dependent species.

@jamesruscheinski8602

3 жыл бұрын

@@thomasridley8675 how so?

@thomasridley8675

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesruscheinski8602 Society creates the rules. Not the gods. Morality is way too much of an obviously human construct. A basic agreement on what can be accepted. And still have a functioning society. Is pretty much a nessestity.

This one's easy, boss: Since there are no moral facts, we don't need to explain them. Ordinary moral claims presuppose that there are objective moral values, but there are no such things. Hence, the practice of morality is founded upon a metaphysical error. Moral language contains too many simplifications, just for the sake of convenience, resulting in a situation where shorthand expressions like "boiling live puppies is morally wrong" are taken to be factual statements about objective moral facts. It's just so inconvenient to have to say things like: "Hey you, stop boiling puppies - my mirror neurons are triggered, making me experience severe anxiety - and also, I don't want to be around people who show no consideration for the suffering of others - and also... etc, etc." There are many reasons why we have evolved a strong sense of justice and compassion, just as we have evolved an ability to taste certain molecules. There is nothing inherently "salty" about sodium chloride; that's just a qualia we experience when we come into contact with the substance. It's "adaptive" in the biological sense, to experience these complex qualia. But just as the saltiness of salt, the moral wrongness of boiling puppies is just imaginary.

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

no

@morganandreason

3 жыл бұрын

What an eloquent refutation.

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

@@morganandreason It's incredible the amount of justification a materialist have to find to justify the existence of things that are obvious for the 99.99% of people.

@morganandreason

3 жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 I'm not trying to justify the existence of things. I'm saying moral facts don't exist. It's called "error theory".

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

@@morganandreason moral facts exist because the observer is a key component in our universe. So the moral facts of this observer are part of the way the universe/life will unfold in front of him. For all his existence ( short or eternal..whatsoever) . So we will live all our time totally influenced by our moral part. It's a totally relevant thing, no matter the philosophy behind it....

francis collins gives mother therasa as someone to be admired, i wouldn't, not from what i've read.

@KM-leons

3 жыл бұрын

She was way better than whatever hero you have.

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

@@KM-leons i don't have heroes, only people with low self esteem have heroes. she was a complete asshole. she and her cronies gave life threatening advice to sick people, only treated those who converted, and lied about her so called miracles. yeah, she was a real saint.

@Bill..N

3 жыл бұрын

It was reported by Christopher Hitchens that Mother Teresa would barrel down the streets of Calcutta shoving peasants as she went..She was rumored to have been generally rude..

@KM-leons

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bill..N Reported by Christopher Hutchins! Funny.

You know what? That piece of paper can have something very important on it. The value of that paper alone isn't much but ideas can be written that may never be thought of again. Those ideas may lead humanity to the stars... That is more important than your small family. The needs of the many out weigh the means of the few. The end result has more value than this instant. A single knowledgeable being compared to a billion beings.... That one being can have more potential and more knowledge than any other. Most humans don't have anything to offer other than being a follower, their value is less than the knowledgeable one. But, It does go the other way too. What is the knowledgeable being's worth without his/her followers to do the work?

lol “Morality” is the Substance of G-d.

How isn't eternity absolute, a God that's eternal? Because how else do you get an absolute morality? AB'SOLUTE, a. [L. absolutus. See Absolve.] 1. Literally, in a general sense, free, independent of any thing extraneous. Hence, 2. Complete in itself; positive; as an absolute declaration. 3. Unconditional, as an absolute promise. 4. Existing independent of any other cause, as God is absolute. 5. Unlimited by extraneous power or control, as an absolute government or prince. 6. Not relative, as absolute space. In grammar, the case absolute, is when a word or member of a sentence is not immediately dependent on the other parts of the sentence in government. Absolute equation, in astronomy, is the aggregate of the optic and eccentric equations. The apparent inequality of a planet's motion in its orbit, arising from is unequal distances from the earth at different times, is called its optic equation; the eccentric inequality is caused by the uniformity of the planet's motion, in an elliptical orbit, which, for that reason, appears not to be uniform. Absolute numbers, in algebra, are such as have no letters annexed, as 2a+36=48. the two latter numbers are absolute or pure. Absolute space, in physics, is space considered without relation to any other object. Absolute gravity, in philosophy, is that property in bodies by which they are said to weigh so much, without regard to circumstances of modification, and this is always as the quantity of matter they contain.

Many won't believe in absolute morality until they are the ones being harmed or done wrong. Absolute morality allows for humanity to maintain its inherent and self evident worth. When that standard is not upheld we look to someone who will do justice on our behalf. With Who or where did this inherent dignity originate? It's almost as if an all good, all loving, and never changing being is necessary in order for humans to perpetually maintain their dignity. We need such a being to also administer true justice on our behalf. Imagine our world without court systems, justice systems, or mediation. Having these entities, although corruptible, allows for the truth that humans have inherent worth to be fought for as a standard. Otherwise there would be no need to preserve human life other than on subjective level. But we in fact live in consensus and even absolutely that we as humans have this inherent worth. I don't see how moral absolutes exist apart from a being or beings to embody such absolutes. Sure we can also have subjective morality but not all things on a subjective level allow for the flourishing and preservation of human life. It seems it is necessary to have moral absolutes as standards societies use to cohesively function and preserve human life. I believe the only way we would truthfully know that morality is absolute is if there was a human that embodied the truth without even the ability to deviate from the truth. The only candidate I know of and can think of that fits that reality is Christ. The embodiment of truth. In other words, The Truth.

@trumpbellend6717

2 жыл бұрын

You lambast secular morality as being _"only subjective"_ whilst simultaneously being unable or unwilling to accept that YOUR morality is entirely a subjective matter. Its predicated upon the SUBJECTIVE ASSERTION that YOUR specific God that we should all adhere to. Yet you fail to recognise that a vast array of conflicting and contradictory moral conclusions are derived from christianity even assuming that the christian God exists is the only "God" and is moral. If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion* That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? ) Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality* *CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ?? Please note if you are unwilling or unable to answer this basic question, then at least have the honesty to recognise the hypocrisy of your position.

@jeremyg7261

Жыл бұрын

^ this

Been following this channel a lot. Great stuff. But this one? Please just skip this weird introduction with view over Manhattan S and a german fancy car, Why??? It¨s perfectly fine just talking, even being kind of intellectual, I think. But maybe this is - I actually think so - just the american way?

lol, J.P. Moreland gave Mother Teresa as a person we should admire ! Robert's favorite skeptic is Shermer OMG!

Sorry, my man. It's not a moral law, it's a logical one. If a Creator exists, the fact you are seeing more of the 17% of existant matters it a proof, and all of us are his Children I think as I see where the news paths of awareness are showing more interesting things to be informed of...no one cannot be differentiated...we are all equals

@fr3d42

3 жыл бұрын

God exist because we can see things?

God gave us morality ? Not a chance !!! It's not like the morality we had 50,000 yrs ago would be the same as today. They change as society changes. We are a social species. And have too work together too survive. Therefore rules would be built over time.

@emmanuelpil

3 жыл бұрын

How has God morality himself? If he is MORALLY PERFECT, meaning GOOD, HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, TRUE, LOVING, WRATHFUL why did he create PHYSICAL PAIN? I am in no way totally perfect, but I would never create something like pain.

@robbyrockets1

2 жыл бұрын

@@emmanuelpil Pain helps you understand what things to avoid. How is that something you wouldn't want?

@emmanuelpil

2 жыл бұрын

@@robbyrockets1 I am glad for you, that you clearly didn't suffer real pain.

@dragilxcom4176

2 жыл бұрын

So what stops cannibalisms being practiced like those in some ancient tribal warfare? War is still happening even today, but why don't we eat the fallen enemy?

@thomasridley8675

2 жыл бұрын

@@dragilxcom4176 Now what took you down that road ?

00:53 - “Torturing babies is wrong.” Most people will agree. Few will agree bringing babies into existence is wrong. A view called #Antinatalism . “A charmed life is so rare that for every one such life there are millions of wretched lives. Some know that their baby will be among the unfortunate. Nobody knows, however, that their baby will be one of the allegedly lucky few. Great suffering could await any person that is brought into existence. Even the most privileged people could give birth to a child that will suffer unbearably, be raped, assaulted, or be murdered brutally. The optimist surely bears the burden of justifying this procreational Russian roulette. Given that there are no real advantages over never existing for those who are brought into existence, it is hard to see how the significant risk of serious harm could be justified. If we count not only the unusually severe harms that anybody could endure, but also the quite routine ones of ordinary human life, then we find that matters are still worse for cheery procreators. It shows that they play Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun-aimed, of course, not at their own heads, but at those of their future offspring.” -- David Benatar, _Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence_

@ScratchedWinter

3 жыл бұрын

Of course most people never consider themselves having off-spiring as being the prime instigator for a million generations of suffering that continues in and on into the infinite future, so many philosophers and thinkers begin from the assumption the human condition is somehow good and does not need justifying, yet we farm and exploit our own race like they are animals. I've posited this to futurists before and they accused me of lying about the nature of life to them or something, they said they did not believe any one alive today is suffering so badly as a result of the choices of previous generations, because if they were, they would kill themselves. They are very smart apparently.

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

there are 10 antinatalist in the world ...are all here ? Why they are so interested in a "living" debate ??

@ScratchedWinter

3 жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 Why would an anti-natalist not be "living" when it's about not reproducing? It's fun to have debates, I especially like how it challenges and intimidates people who don't want to hear about it... they just want to pretend they are making the world a better place by reproducing themselves, but usually it's for vain, egotistical anthropocentric reasons. TBF I'm not a hardcore anti-natalist, but I always start from the philosophical position that life is suffering, and all action will eventually prove unfortunate. I feel our value is given to us by our capacity to suffer, and this is ultimately tragic and our whole endeavour, whether it last 100 more years or 100 million, will be for nothing as the universe cools into oblivion and entropic decay wipes us out. God seems irrelevant in this state of affairs.

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

@@ScratchedWinter the problem is that one. Anti-natalist are basically not existent and yet you find a few who are in desperate need to be heard, like every good nihilist. But i concede you that if really one thinks that: he have no real consciousness, no free will, that is all just hard determinism, that all can be explained with materialism... Then yes anti-natalism would be a good option. Hard to live as walking artichokes.

@ScratchedWinter

3 жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 "Anti-natalist are basically not existent" obviously not. Lots of people only have one child now or none instead of many, because they see no value in reproducing. "like every good nihilist" I could just as easily argue nihilists are the ones throwing babies into an arena governed by entropic decay and suffering, because it makes them feel nice to be a father or a mother. I am no nihilist, I will harm no living creatures if I can help it and avoid doing so because I don't want them to suffer. If it helps for you to call me that, fine I won't argue further but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. "he have no real consciousness, no free will, that is all just hard determinism," I have no idea if we have free will or not. I assume we do (because that's how we live) and make choices based on what will follow. I think humans make choices in the present and the chaotic future seems unknowable to them, they just follow their mammalian drives to do what they did for millions of years. But it is not objectively moral to reproduce, so it's a debate worth having even if all it does is drive us to use caution. Even if there was only ONE anti-natalist in the world, it would not mean they were wrong. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy rooted in an appeal to majority. There was a time when few people would say space time was curved, or that the world was spherical in nature, or that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. Were they wrong?

Robert, you should invite Dr Michael Sugrue for this question. From his popular courses in Western Philosophy, I understand that morality (or ethics in the language of philosophy) has been the subject of philosophers from both Athens and Jerusalem traditions; there have been times when what is good vs evil is not the same as our modern sensibilities, for example Nietzsche championed "will to power" which is pre-Socratic morality, where might is right and it is not evident that each person is equal in value, dignity, and thus universal individual rights follow. The latter is given thru Jerusalem (the biblical tradition) and what we take for granted today as "self-evident" and "result of evolution". The latter conclusion is FALSE. And so, morality, just like any other ideas, have many school of thoughts, and they compete for our conscience in the free marketplace of ideas. How do we move from this to prove God's existence? If one believes in the superiority or "rightness" of the universal rights of man, then one can trace it back to the Judeo-Christian God and no other religious traditions or naturalistic explanation, because that belief is CONTINGENT to the biblical revelation.

Conclusive proof: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qKKmppqnldW_eJc.html

Morals are ideas of value we abstract and extract from things/stuff in the universe. Those ideas of value are given to the form of the object or subject. Since no stuff is able to provide its own form, and the ability to extract the value derives from our rational ability to understand forms or essences, both the ability to understand the forms and the power to give existence to essences depends must depend on some external force. This force and cause must be able to conceive all the forms and give them existence and possess the intellect to think-imagine them, this must an Intelligente Supernatural Cause.

@jeremyg7261

Жыл бұрын

Wrong and stupid.

The first guy is so sure of himself lol, what a doof

God maybe is not necessary for morality but consciousness over matter yes ...

@iseriver3982

3 жыл бұрын

Why? What is so special about consciousness that it has to be magic?

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

@@iseriver3982 Hard to explain if you haven't found it yet ... You deal with it all day. IF you haven't found it special then the problem is yours.

@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695

3 жыл бұрын

@@iseriver3982 By giving a million years to the earth, the earth did not become conscious. Then how it produced creatures in it that become conscious?

@fr3d42

3 жыл бұрын

@@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695 Obviously not, I don't know how you could think this is a valid reasoning. A brain is needed for consciousness isn't that obvious?

@iseriver3982

3 жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 oh, god of the gaps. Just because you personally don't understand how something works doesnt mean the experts are so confused.

Crazy that I see the show after witnessing a double murder in Chicago a few days ago only not by humans but by birds of the same species not sure what kind. but one bird swooped down to two other birds on the ground and just literally killed both And seconds . feathers flying everywhere , these birds are all the same species but it really struck me when the bird after he killed the other two birds just stood there and I wonder why “?” and does this bird have any morals or regrets . this event shocked me . because it wasn’t a normal National Geographic moment where one animal kills another for food. Will this bird face god ? Life is life no matter what form it is. Isn’t it?

Pessary for trucks. Classy. If you can arrive at the Pearly gates with it, God could well be impressed. But is it morally right? God might forget about that since it seems that he's a bloke... Rob, your 4 wheels pessary looks the right ticket for Heaven. 😉

If everything works mechanically there is no morality. The good part is the natural process brought us in a state where we tent to respect each other although recently this tendency seemed to diminish.

@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695

3 жыл бұрын

If natural process made our moral laws then why now there is in increase of crimes? People does not even care for other people dying infront of him!

@a.lucius4459

3 жыл бұрын

@@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695 Crimes have actually plummeted, same for wars, same for the number of victims in wars. I recommend reading The Better Angels of Our Nature by Stephen Pinker.

@stefanjakubowski8222

3 жыл бұрын

Problem is most people dont seem to get is there is squishy in the mechanics

@stefanjakubowski8222

3 жыл бұрын

@@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695 um how come there has been a constant decrease in crimes till recently FBI data shows crime has been dropping as people move away from religion Now it is increasing Because a certain group has lead by example that crime is good

@fr3d42

3 жыл бұрын

@@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695 Empathy is beneficial

Again, no evidence, just attempting to argue god into existence.

@iseriver3982

3 жыл бұрын

Funny how it's never vishnu! Always gawd.

@flyingphoenix113

3 жыл бұрын

Well, what kind of evidence do you expect for a metaphysical entity OTHER than arguments and probability theorems? If you expect physical evidence for a metaphysical entity, you will always find yourself unconvinced (while, simultaneously, maintaining a completely unjustifiable epistemological standard of belief).

@iseriver3982

3 жыл бұрын

@@flyingphoenix113 prove its metaphysical.

@andrebrown8969

3 жыл бұрын

@@flyingphoenix113 So ghosts then?

@flyingphoenix113

3 жыл бұрын

@@iseriver3982, prove that God metaphysically exists? Or, prove that God is categorically metaphysical? They are different requests. While you asked the latter, most people mean to ask the former.

I always hate this opening sequence where he's strutting through all the plebs like some self-indulgent twat, pretending to solve the most complex mysteries of the universe, lol.

There’s no morality without God.

@stefanjakubowski8222

3 жыл бұрын

Wonder what Jepthath's daughter would say

@tomorrowmaynevercome3171

3 жыл бұрын

@@stefanjakubowski8222 I wonder what the Quran says?

@stefanjakubowski8222

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomorrowmaynevercome3171 who cares,

@tomorrowmaynevercome3171

3 жыл бұрын

@@stefanjakubowski8222 why did you answer my comment if you didn’t care?or maybe you do prefer the Bible because it helps your stupid argument?

@liveforbucketlist248

2 жыл бұрын

@@tomorrowmaynevercome3171 god maybe exists, but just because one book says something, belive that is truth? that is so illogical

Religion has nothing to do with morality.

Sir, you sound to be very afraid of death. Looking for a safe place after death good luck.

Morality can say - "Thou shalt not kill", and it can also say "After the war is over, kill all the children after you murder their fathers, so they don't grow up to murder you." Morality can say "Shoot an abortion doctor to save unborn children" and it can also say "I won't judge others choices if I don't want others to judge mine." Morality can say "Spare the rod, spoil the child" and morality can say "Children must be taught without physical pain" Morality can say "Eating animals is violence" and morality can say "Mistreating animals under your stewardship is wrong, but killing humanely and eating them is a part of the circle of life."

I am starting to recognize two categories of answers that people give on these interviews: rehearsed and practiced and certain, vs. contemplative and inquisitive and improvised. I think I have a bias towards one of those approaches, but I will try to suppress that and stay fair.

"God" is created by humans in their survival journey.

@HussainFahmy

3 жыл бұрын

*_Did Humans create themselves out of nothing?_*

@williamesselman3102

3 жыл бұрын

@@HussainFahmy no, Karl Marx, Frederick Nietzsche, and Charles Darwin molded us from Bourgeoisie dust from past civilizations, on the Galapagos Islands.

@williamesselman3102

3 жыл бұрын

Now we are all Bitcoin operated.

*_The truth about God's existence will emerge to human beings at the time they take their last breath_*

@briendoyle4680

3 жыл бұрын

Hahaha = pure stupidity - to make threats based on fake gods...! hahaha

@jeremyg7261

Жыл бұрын

You are gonna be pretty disappointed

@graemegeorgeharrison2468

6 ай бұрын

How so?

So selfishness morally right? Cuz I still see a lot of that going on. So in other words what I'm hearing you guys say is survival of the fittest is morally right so to only take care of yourself and not others is how we got the moral law? I think that's the way that we get away from the moral law by taking advantage and trying to have power over others.

@briendoyle4680

3 жыл бұрын

That showed a level of ignorance that should be insulting even to you...

@jeremycrofutt7322

3 жыл бұрын

@@briendoyle4680 sorry I can see straight to the point so it's not ignorance.

@jeremycrofutt7322

3 жыл бұрын

@@briendoyle4680 yeah I have not completely understanding and knowing what they're implying what their meaning asking them questions to define themselves if this is what they're saying yeah I'm not knowing what they're trying to say. Cuz it makes no sense to me. Jesus Christ makes way more sense than that ludicrous nonsense.

@briendoyle4680

3 жыл бұрын

@@jeremycrofutt7322 survival of the fittest also included the group which helped each other to survive - Try an education b4 you make nonsense rants!!!

@briendoyle4680

3 жыл бұрын

@@jeremycrofutt7322 since no gods are proven - your gay hippy is just plain dead!!!

Isn’t morality derived from social pressures?

🌚☄️❤️💫

God is not required to explain morality. What IS required is an understanding of the relationship between personality and culture. Morality, simply put, is that which makes cultures healthy. Healthy cultures are those that hold truth in high regard. Renaissance Europe could not have happened without Christianity. Not so much because Renaissance Europeans worshipped God, but because they valued the truth and the morality that made them cultures worth living in. This is a generalization that applies not just to humans on earth, but to every other advanced culture throughout the cosmos. No God required.

This man is old 77-78, he Know the end in near, its scary.

Btw animals are equally important to humans, for me.......maybe more.........maybe surely more

i need translation from scottish to english lol

I just wanted to comment on Michael schurmer's explanation. It sounds pretty good, but it falls apart at a certain point. When he talks about religion getting in the way in terms of war you have to look at the religion a little closely. That particular religion that is referring to states that anyone who is not Muslim is an infidel in should be put to death. This is however quite different from a Christian or Judaism standpoint.

@trumpbellend6717

2 жыл бұрын

2 Chronicles 15 : 12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, *should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.*

@BrianThomas

2 жыл бұрын

@@trumpbellend6717 You know the news media does the same thing. They take sound bites of people's conversation and interviews and paints a picture. You really need to look at the whole text instead of grabbing a verse and holding on to it. It's very difficult to go through a theology lesson on KZread comments, if you were to rest here without any further context. One would conclude Michael is right, but if one did the homework you'd clearly see that things don't appear as they are. I do want to make one point clear. That is it doesn't matter if it's Michael who's speaking or a pastor on the pulpit or the guy on the street or your best friend. If someone says something about God or the Bible or Christianity I would hear what they had to say but also back it up through what the actual written text says. If it doesn't line up and what they're saying is in contradiction to what the text ( all of scripture) is actually meaning and actually saying then there's a problem.

@trumpbellend6717

2 жыл бұрын

@@BrianThomas I just love how Christians fall back on this "context" excuse, but hey let's look at one simple verse shall we, then maybe you could give me the "context" that makes it moral ??? *Exodus 21 : 21* 👇👇👇 _"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"_ _"There is to be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"_ You see I think its inferring it's ok to own and beat a fellow human as long as they dont die for a day or 2. In the same way that if our government were to make a law saying, *"if you beat a black man and he does not die for a couple of days there is to be no punishment"* That would sort of infer to me it's considered ok to beat black people. Infact personaly I think that would be kinda endorsing racism and the beating of black people, dont you ? 🤔🤔

@trumpbellend6717

2 жыл бұрын

Incidentally Brian I'm not seeing your comment in the thread , only in notifications 🤔🤔🤔

@BrianThomas

2 жыл бұрын

@@trumpbellend6717 Friend, you seem like a very well educated person. You've certainly laid down some really heavy topics that are not easy to explain. Unfortunately biblical knowledge isn't a strong point with most Americans. I'm not saying that you lack it, but most Americans do. What you've laid down before everyone that isn't very well versed on biblical knowledge would be like asking a baby to chew steak or to balance a check book. There are a few things that one must know and understand beforehand in order to fully comprehend what's being said in the passages that you've laid out. Now, I get a sense that you're not giving me these passages from scripture in order to gain an understanding but more to prove a point. If I'm wrong then I'm very sorry, but I'm not going to botch an explanation of what you're referring to. Check out this great KZread video that explains what you're talking about. It's quick. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Yql2082TXdCZiKw.html If you don't have time just know that slavery in the Tora (old testament) is not the same as slavery from what we know today in America. American slave masters knew this and this is why slave Bibles were edited. Before 1831 American slaves were not allowed to read. After that time the books that they were given were not the same as everyone else. Slave masters knew if they know the truth about what the Bible teaches they'd have a problem. Look what I'm saying is there if people want to know the truth. You have the truth but only a portion of it. Keep digging. My mission isn't to prove you wrong. I hope this finds you well.

Judeo Christianity is the only faith based on the absolute and the probability of One. Prophesies foretold years in advance and fulfilled to the letter.

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

what prophesies were fulfilled?

I believe that defining God as anthropomorphic, or as a he. Really marginalize the full power and effectiveness of God.

JP Moreland is a factory of fallacies and unsupported assertions.

Stupid discussion, I am unsubscribing.

All white straight middle class men from western mainly christian societies talking about morality for everyone in every society,. We already know how that works out.

How is God being the base of the moral law not logical? The measure you take is the measure that you are held to. You reap what you sow. It's called being held accountable. How is there accountability if there is no judge? You make your bed and lay down in it or you don't or you let somebody prepare a place for you to lie down in to have rest and refuge and eternal life.

@trumpbellend6717

2 жыл бұрын

Lol @ _"acountabilty"_ imagine a girl gets raped, they catch the rapist and he gets found guilty in court. The judge sentences him to life, but then says to him "dont worry I will serve your sentence for you" Has the rapist recieved JUSTICE ??? Has the raped girl received JUSTICE ??? Of course not yet that is precisely what happens under the Christian vicarious redemption (scapegoating) Nonsense ideology 🤬🤬 Infact it's an actual Tennant of christianity that even a child murder can be forgiven and go to heaven, if they but repent and believe. 🤮🤮 Your god CANNOT be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. Mercy is by definition a suspension of justice.

@jeremycrofutt7322

2 жыл бұрын

@@trumpbellend6717 the only way you are saved is if you truly repent. So not a right example or understanding.

@jeremycrofutt7322

2 жыл бұрын

@@trumpbellend6717 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Romans 3:23‭-‬25 KJV

@jeremycrofutt7322

2 жыл бұрын

@@trumpbellend6717 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance: and it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance. Numbers 15:25‭-‬26 KJV

@jeremycrofutt7322

2 жыл бұрын

@@trumpbellend6717 you are leaving out mercy and grace. Just means exactly fair, a person of their word.

God is absolutely good and that's why he allows all sorts of things, including what we call evil,to happen.

God never wanted to see what's time for human

You have changed the format of your interviews !!! This is the 1st time I hear you saying two things: "I conclude" and "that's the closest you will get to truth" !!!!!!! Furthermore, It appears that morality leads to god when we analize conscious agents (or Energy Gestalts)

First realize God before arguing for God.

@briendoyle4680

3 жыл бұрын

hhhaaaa haha Prove a god before anything .... hahahaha

Yes Sir. Morality is not absolute but only relative. But basically since humans are created with the sixth sense, we must say that we are given the capacity to decide btw. rights & wrongs thru our conscience. GOD is involved in the 6th sense, perhaps. MeenaC

Robert Kuhn is so afraid of accepting existence of God. It is only because he wants to play safe and doesnot wanna take risk. Sometimes you have to take risk and make a fool of yourself to see the greater picture.

@stefanjakubowski8222

3 жыл бұрын

Which god, the evil one from the middle east?

@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695

3 жыл бұрын

@@stefanjakubowski8222 What do you mean by which God? Do you think there are other gods than one True God? He is the One and the Only One, There is no deity other than him. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. He is the First, The Last, The Ever living. He is the knower of the unseen.The All-Hearing, All-Seeing, All-Knowing , All-Wise. He neither begets nor is born. He is The Creator, The Originator, The Fashioner, The most Holy and The Pure One. Whenever He wants to create something, He just say, Be, and it is there, created. There is none equivalent to him. He is The Lord, The most High, The Most Merciful, The Almighty. He does not depend on anybody but everybody and everything depend on Him. Whatever is in the heavens and in the earth is exalting Him. He is the Judge of the day of judgement. He is the King of his own Kingdom. Now what do you think of the attributes of God I have given? Does it make sense?

@stefanjakubowski8222

3 жыл бұрын

@@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695 yes, because the god of the bibel has some issues

@stefanjakubowski8222

3 жыл бұрын

@@secretsofdivine.qatotruth.6695 all claims without proof

Evolution gave us a dark side? Think we gave ourselves the dark side. That is trying to evolve our way, away from God. God separated the light in the dark gave us discernment and gave us the hope of the new heaven and the new Earth to where that darkness is going to be totally gone and separated away from us. So therefore regression instead of progression.