I bet there's a 50/50 mix of trippers and squares here. Whoever you are, this is a brilliant channel. You're in good hands. ✌️

This is a fantastic and comprehensive series. I have been taking my time with it and finding it to be provocative and also edifying. Now, 20-seasons in, I get a sense that it may be time to segue into that vast ocean of Eastern thought which, in some cases, is often hands on, possibly more mature and an exploration of the personal vs. the impersonal and the pros and cons of each as a premise. The impact of meditation and mindfulness may be the underlying inspiration for the insights found in these resources. In that case the exploration of the interior of the mind with various methods in a laboratory of mind in itself that takes the quest within and then tests the results as a consensus. I guess you could say that this is a subjective exploration, (radical and empirical) that could correspond to the objective methods of the sciences in general. In that sense, the differences between Eastern and Western thought can be likened to two hemispheres of the spiritual and scientific analysis on the nature of the actual and the corresponding reality. My grounding in decades of an eclectic interest in Buddhist Dharma and Hindu teachings in general leads me to some interesting ideas and resolutions. I also have found myself a bit obsessed with the nature of reality, God, and various related topics all of my life.

@b.g.5869

2 жыл бұрын

Kuhn has done many shows on Eastern philosophy. That said, Eastern philosophy and things like meditation and mindfulness aren't comparable to scientific methodology in scope or rigor or reliability or as means of acquiring robust explanations of the world.

@ernestweber5207

2 жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 Yes, a lot can be said about that methodology when it comes to that. However, the world may have an "inside" and an "outside" and the inside is our subjective nature, IMO. At least Kuhn is challenging is own cognitive biases and seeing them for what they are. I think his approach is great. When it comes to an "objective" duality the rigor and scope of the empirical method is certainly superior. However, without going into too much detail, I have marveled at how the East, et al, has mapped out the inner territory with what I would call a radical, subjective form of empiricism. I would say that robust explanations of the world can only be expressed as some form of philosophy or metaphysics based on the interpretation of the data that science provides. The litany of science is 1, 2, 3, etc. None of those values necessarily has any meaning other than by way of its relationship to the others, i.e., they are relative. For the sake of brevity, I am being overly simplistic here. Ken Wilber had a good way to approach it using the three eyes metaphor: the eye of science, the eye of philosophy and the eye of spirituality. Each has a certain kind of validity in their own sphere, (matter, mind and spirit) and it can even come down to what he called a "category error" when one "eye" looks at and makes interpretations the others. He made a good attempt, at least, to sort out the general problem. Note that I use "spiritual" in contrast to religious and religions. When you delve into something like Dzogchen/Mahamudra or Advaita Vedanta they have a wealth of knowledge that goes into great depth about their journey into the laboratory of the mind, but we are still rather biased about our Western, objective views. That bias seems to be eroding, though. There is more to that than just meditation and mindfulness, (which are categorized as antidotes, not a means to recognize and realize, (though as a preliminary, they might be useful). f you just think of the subjective realm as a trivial epiphenomena then that won't matter. However, with what are you making that determination and can you do that without contradicting yourself, if you see what I mean. Yet, personally, it is, (as per the solipsistic argument) the only thing we can know for certain, as per the brain in the vat thought experiment. I think there is room for both the objective and subjective as far as veredical proofs go, though they vary in their nature and topics. David Hoffman, in The Case Against Reality presents a viable theory that challenges the fundamental nature of space-time itself and he makes a pretty good case, (as you may have seen in that episode). I do see Kuhn being very open minded and I find that the way to go. How can confirmation bias and other cognitive biases be useful in getting closer to truth? His exhaustive approach covers so much ground and I commend him for it. Thanks for your comment. It was short and to the point, unlike my verbose reply to it. Be Well!

Love the channel. Great channel for people looking for the truth of things or closer to it

@deltadesign5697

3 жыл бұрын

If things are what they are, what are they?

The Creator created the universe from its own essence that is how the Creator can be omnipotent omnipresent omniscient. The Creators essence is devine consciousness.

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

Gibberish. An absolute creator of everything is logically impossible because if it exists there already was _something_ so it's not possible for it to be the reason why there's something rather than nothing. It's incoherent.

@oddfellow8366

2 жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 So... explain the big bang? And what was before the big bang? And before that?

@b.g.5869

2 жыл бұрын

@@oddfellow8366 First of all, you're making an appeal to the most basic logical fallacy here, the argument from ignorance. The absence of an explanation for something isn't evidence of a god. This is the classic 'god of the gaps' argument; you can't simply point to anything currently unexplained and declare "God did it!" In the case of the universe there are only two possibilities; either our universe is the only one or it's just one of many in a multiverse. In the case where our universe is the only one, there is nothing out outside of it, before it, or after it; is no "before the big bang" because there was no time before the big bang. Such a universe always existed even if it is finite in age because there was literally no time when it didn't exist. You can't have a time before time, and if time exists, _something_ exists, and if _something_ exists, a universe exists. The big bang doesn't refer to the 'beginning' of everything but to the _origin_ of the expansion of spacetime; there was never a time when the universe wasn't expanding. In the other possibility, the beginning of our universe isn't the beginning of _everything_ but of just one of many universes in a multiverse.

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

You know it. 👍

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

Illusion of separation… there is only one cosmic consciousness… we are it. Then why diversity? It is not good to be alone. One love.

I love the mind and Vivi' s Words : to me, he's the closest to Truth.

God is infinite ♾. No beginning and no end.

@kigaanotakar

3 жыл бұрын

One and no competitor. And no one and nothing like him.

Good (god) creates joy, beauty and harmony (heaven).

God is changeless, timeless, pure consciousness. World is opposite - always changing, bound to time, without consciousness. Mind is the force created by God that makes us feel that we are the body. When mind dives deeper in it's own true self, we realize God. Nirvana.

@andreasplosky8516

2 жыл бұрын

Where do you get that intricate knowledge? You make it up? Just babbling? Or is there some flesh on this theological bare bone?

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

The word became flesh so not to be alone.

God is quite literally the 'dreamer' of this reality. When you fall asleep, your sleeping consciousness 'creates' a reality ex nihilo and populates it with entities. None of those entities 'exist' outside of your sleeping consciousness, they are a product of your consciousness creating. The key to God is understanding that consciousness is fractal. This reality we share is the 'dream' in God's creative consciousness, and each of us is a perspective God is taking in that dream. That is the nature of consciousness - to dream realities and take perspectives in them. It is the no-thing that creates and experiences all things. God is the highest most unified level of consciousness, consciousness without any content - that which dreams but is not in a dream. It is completely unattached and unaffected by anything that happens in any dream, and it loves all of its 'creation' equally and without judgment. Whether the dream manifests as pleasant delights or hellish nightmares, all are dreamt by the same God - with God taking all perspectives in the dream. All dreams change and are 'finite', but the dreamer - that is consciousness without content - is eternal, infinite, unchanging. There is an existential loneliness to the Unified consciousness, where there is no other. There is nothing to have a 'relationship' with. However, once the creative process has begun then there are other 'entities' (sub-perspectives of God) that can relate one to another, though the ground of being that animates them all is the same. This is the pattern that our own dreams teach us. The ground of being for all entities in the dreams are the same - your 'sleeping consciousness', yet we are able to relate to these other entities in new ways as though they are truly 'other' from ourselves. Our nightly dreams are a 'nested' dream, and when we wake we end back in consensus reality... which is really just the next layer of dreams. If you have an 'awakening' experience, you realize that this consensus reality is also a product of consciousness, a singular consciousness vast and infinite. Consensus reality dissolves like the morning dew into nothing, rolls up like a scroll, vanishes before your eyes. This is the understanding mystics throughout the ages have, gained via personal experience. If you want your own experience of divinity - to 'awaken' - then pursue the paths mystics have taken for eons. Fasting, meditation, psychedelics, various trials - all seek to alter our experience of consciousness and thereby awaken us to what exactly the nature of consciousness is. The discovery - consciousness is the 'ground of being' - One, eternal, love, and the source of all worlds and all perspectives.

@Metacognition88

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@mustafaelbahi7979

3 жыл бұрын

We have learned from the philosophers of neuroscience how the trick is to be. You only have to sleep to wake up in the morning to find the world has come into existence. Better instead of heresy read Genesis 1-1 In the beginning was God.

This is a good one 😀love this .very deep thought.🗿

In my understanding, your guest who came the closest with their explanation was Varadaraja Raman at 14:30, when he discusses 'macrocosm and microcosm'. From science, I'm told that I'm made up of starstuff, the hydrogen (most of me!) being around from the very beginning of time. I am therefore clearly one and the same as the Universe, as is everything else. The creator and the created are thus the same thing, 'as above, so below'. I'm also told by science, that space and time are possibly emergent. If space preexisted time, and as space has no time dimension, then perhaps space has always existed. Perhaps our definitions of some words confuses us, especially as they were never coined at a time, or intended, to be used with the precision and unambiguous requirements of science. Another interesting biblical quote, this time John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word". DNA an information system, scientific ideas of a 2-D information system creating a 3-D holographic Universe. The most complex structure in the known Universe, the human brain, defined by its use of language. Language seems to be a thing. Perhaps the Universe is a self expressing language. What we call elementary particles are the words/information 'as well as' the material substance to construct itself. Take these two adjacent elements in the Period Table, AU and HG, '2-8-18-32-18-1' and '2-8-18-32-18-2' respectively. How does one extra bit 'so to speak', explain the difference between the two. It's information that we're looking at, or worse, meta data, the self expressing source code being thus far illusive. Just ideas...

To a dog, it's owner is God.

@celticwinter

3 жыл бұрын

Dogs have no concept of God

@ingenuity168

3 жыл бұрын

@@celticwinterRight.

Hi, Mr Lawrence I am 1/2 the show. Very good one...

If we know that we would all be God.

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

I think you are on to something…

Man creates gods The same way story writers create characters . Imagination.

"Can it be that what we call 'creation' or 'creature' is just another dimension of the 'uncreated'? Can it be that the 'uncreated' looked at from another, a relative point of view, 'appears', only appears, to be 'created' due to relative vision?" Addresses Bulent Rauf Does this suggest that the nature of 'God' is such that relative vision is simply an aspect of the absolute? The nature of the absolute needs to also contain the relative in order to be, so to speak, absolutely Absolute. What we see through relative vision, to us, appears to be the way reality is because at that point that is all we know and see. However it is said the human being or relative vision of the human being can awaken to see with Unitive vision. If we confine ourselves only to relative vision and do not awaken to Unitive vision, then our knowing and seeing is somewhat confused or partial seeing and knowing due to yet to be realized Unitive vision. One way of seeing, the relative vision, as an analogy is like seeing through a ordinary photograph via the light of camera while the other way is a holographic view or vision that sees the whole. In other words the Unitive vision does not see the object as separate from the subject. These are just suggestions to evoke the possibilities. One question is what is it that makes relative vision possible? What appears to relative vision to be only an infant (one who doesn't know any separation) comes to learn to see separation which nonetheless, is made possible based on the undifferentiated nature of consciousness that only appears as a separate embodiment to our relative vision. If we can discover the way from relative vision to as it were look back on the undifferentiated nature of consciousness perhaps it will inform relative vision with Unitive vision.

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

Yes.

The creator can see all possible creations that never came to life. So he creates infinite possible universes until he self creates life and himself inside time and the universe he chooses. The universe he chooses is perfect and he creates infinite possible universes of the one he picked. The errors of the universes that don’t come to be perfect to his liking he perceives and conceived them to make them no possibility. Once he chooses the perfect universe he creates infinite ones of the one he chooses. The universes that are not perfect he perceives them outside of time and space so he can have power over them and he shrinks them into no possible errors. He has to perceive and conceive such acts for them to be in his absolute being. Mans understanding is limited to transcendence and his absolute power to be the all.

If you are the only one most powerful being, you are alone. And you are inconscient of yourself, because you don't have a sencient reflexion to know yourself. He want company.

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

Spot on. It’s all about companionship. Most people call it love.

Closer To Truth: I hope that the interview with Bill Dembski has not been taken out of a longer, more specific interview, where he specifies his stand on evolution; what he means by: "I DO SEE A PLACE FOR EVOLUTION, WHERE GOD IS BRINGING THINGS ABOUT BY AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS".

How does Mr. Kuhn creates videos, how can any creator create any thing, without the ability of creating ?

Leave the god(s) out of it and stick with creation, that at least we can perceive

@johnzientek735

3 жыл бұрын

Michio Kaku stated in an interview once that a 4th or 5th dimension star possibly went super nova and poked into the 3 dimensional reality we exist in and that's where all the energy of our universe comes from.

@walterdaems57

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnzientek735 every scientific theory is less ridiculous then a celestial being creating the universe(s) in 7 days. Aside from that, if god existed there would be no need to prove his existence.

God develops divine mind for conscious reality with free will, language and awareness. The divine mind uses science, math and information to create the physical universe. In this scenario the universe would have a mind as well as a conscious Creator.

@andreasplosky8516

2 жыл бұрын

Where do you get that intricate knowledge? You make it up? Just babbling? Or is there some flesh on this theological bare bone?

Metaphysics Good (god) creates joy, beauty and harmony (heaven). Ignorance (greed) creates misery, ugliness and conflict (hell).

In the past I'd pondered all of these questions, but, realized its putting a lot of human types of assumptions onto that being. Relationships makes sense to me though. Its the idea that makes the most sense on why.

Interesting shows but seems to be chasing his tail. The human mind can no more understand these issues anymore than a finger can point at itself. All we can say with any confidence is that whatever this all is, we are part of it and not separate from it. That’s far more comforting than any concept of god.

@MicrophoneHell-ec3bm

3 жыл бұрын

"All we can say with any confidence is that whatever this all is, we are part of it and not separate from it. That’s far more comforting than any concept of god." We are not part of "it" forever, and this is terrifying for most people. God fantasies help people imagine an eternal existence, which comforting for them.

@chrisc1257

3 жыл бұрын

@@MicrophoneHell-ec3bm We ARE it and there is no absolute reason to look back.

@chrisc1257

3 жыл бұрын

@S Gloobal Only god's have an implemented absolute future.

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

How is that comforting? I don't believe in a god but I don't see how "We're a part of it all" is a comforting thought, particularly when you know you are only _temporsrily_ a part of it all, will cease to exist permanently in a relatively short time, possibly descending info confused madness as your mind slowly blinks out on your death bed.

trying my best when i hear a theologian just to gain some good ideas but alas, it goes with the wind

Work involves change, such as moving a mass, compressing a gas, rotating a shaft etc. It always takes some time, which is a major problem for believers in God. They believe he is timeless. In any case, he has no body. It is very difficult to move a mass without a body. Try picking up a cup of coffee without using any part of your body ! According to Jesus, with very little faith you could move a mountain (17:20) Or if you are less ambitious, you could move a tree (Luke 17:6) But everybody agrees we can't take him at his word. It is generally accepted that he was joking. Or at least pulling our legs. Which is work !

Wow William Craig looks so young here!

Wow now ur asking the questions that iv wondered for years...i wana know wat the angels hiow they are made

Translating "ba" as "with" is to stretch the meaning to breaking. "Ba" is a positional term indicating "on" or "in" referring to the center of a tent or box represented by a 2-dimensional square. The only use of "with" that it translates to is "within" and can indicate "among", but only in the sense of being inside a group. It never indicates a position alongside. Additionally, that the ancient Greek speaking Jews chose to translate the word "ba" as ”en" in the Septuagint, which corresponds directly to our "in", indicates that they understood it to mean "in", not "with". Now if you want to say "in beginning" means a physical position within the beginning state of the universe, then that is fine, I would not be able to argue with that, but "with" or "alongside" is not indicated.

Everyone is just arguing about if God exist or not, they are using the world wisdom, wisdom from mere human beings to compare someone that is not on your level, it’s like saying I don’t exist when you just don’t know me God exists, you just don’t know Him, He just won’t show Himself to anyone that doesn’t know Him or won’t desire to know Him, you can NEVER EVER use your tiny brains to describe or explain a dynamic God, a God that is unlimited Give your life to Him today and He will be more real to you than even this physical realm we see

Who wrote The Book of Genesis? God or men?

@bipolarbear9917

3 жыл бұрын

Obviously humans. God is a human construct. God did not create man in his own image, man created God in his (8:40). Humans believed in Animism for 100,000 years before polytheistic religions developed and then morphed into monotheistic religions. It's obvious these are all human constructs. If there is a 'God' creator, we have to ask; 'Who created God?' It's much easier to explain it the way Carl Sagan suggested; 'The Cosmos is all that is, all that was, and all that ever will be'. Pantheism is a better explanation, because it doesn't conflict with science. God may as well be the Cosmos itself. pbs.twimg.com/media/CWLT4lZUEAACRyR.jpg i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/6f/87/6d6f87d03fd377870f087431ee228a10.jpg i.pinimg.com/originals/db/67/17/db671718240b02ff614911287f464a97.jpg

I am that I am!

Hold on i'm just gonna measure this rock i'm creating then i'm gonna do a few super massive black holes over there and then I'm gonna go sub nano tweak a few planck level constants then submerge into the quantum realm and throw some light on my many worlds to see if I can have a relationship with anyone who can make this job feel less boring and time consuming. Why am I conscious anyway. What is the point?

Is Lane Craig wearing a toupee ? Or hair dye ? I'm not criticizing him , it's just he looks a bit different than I've seen him in other shows .

God creating world, is like saying caterpillar made butterfly God is everything. That includes the universe and beyond

(Be, and it will be.) God doesn't want to work to create. He says then it happens.

@ishikawa1338

Жыл бұрын

Why say why not just think it? Or why even think if it’s gods will it would just be done w out god needing to do anything it just happened becasue god is

Whatever or whoever created the big bang is not going to help us in anyway, we are on our own. Make well thought out choices which is called common sense and you do not need prayer.

And the deep rabit hole: the origin of God.

If you find that the existence of God somehow helps you to better understand the universe, its content and the meaning of life, how can you cope with the much bigger problem of not understanding the fact that God knows all, understands all and controls all. This is absolutely never understandable for me and complicates the whole story with a factor of 1000x. If you accept that God does not exist, everything becomes sooooo much more logic and understandable. The only thing we have to do, is to give up the idea that human beings are sooooo important. We are close to irrelevant in the cosmos. In few years, we will get more scientific arguments for that.

Once, Ptolemy believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That was his theory at that time. Many scientists believe that the meteor which once fell in the Yucatan peninsula caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. That is one theory. Likewise, there are lots of theories about other things. So, why couldn't the creation described in Genesis be regarded as just a theory?

In my book evolution means love in action.

Space is the work of infinite possible big bangs placed everywhere possible to give life and self creation of the creator inside time as man in flesh. Emotions thoughts and senses interact with space recording all information an a input output structure that all creation obeys.

God made human kind so he can enjoy a life he never had. He transforming into our life styles. Breaching our hearts minds and souls. Why would a God create something he can't regulate?

God is infinity

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

Yes.

If human's intelligence was sufficient to manufacture Robots and Automated-Machines to serve his (her) purpose; then one expects that God's intelligence is more than enough to make the whole universe a 'Totally Automated Smart Machine'! God Exists, and the evidence is that we and the universe which hosts us exist. Every 'existence' emanate from God's-Existence.

I love CTT. Watching this video makes me want to shake my head. I think about how much wasted time and effort that religion and the belief in God has created. We are wasting our time with childish thoughts.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

Hey... I shake my head and I have not even watched the video yet! And it's past my bed time.

@MojoPin1983

3 жыл бұрын

@Dennis Tucker Then why are you here?

@MojoPin1983

3 жыл бұрын

@@Graewulfe How is he doing that, specifically?

@celticwinter

3 жыл бұрын

It probably depends on what you want to put in the "wasted" box, subjectively. Then again your categorizations probably don't matter to a lot of people - not that mine do. Actually, me answering your comment is probably a wasted effort too. Maybe we could put your whole existence into the wasted box, who knows?

Even if the univere was created, we wouldn't be able to tell if it is the work of a God or if it is a simulation.

@Ploskkky

3 жыл бұрын

If the universe was created by some god thing, then it must have missed a few creation classes, because it did not do a very good job.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@Graewulfe How can the love of God be a screwup? If that's the case, why is love a good thing?

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@Graewulfe Hey Graewulfe.... you ask some excellent questions and unfortunately ( or fortunately depending on how you read it ), I don't have answers for you. I like your first question the most. What really was God's plan for the Garden of Eden? I'm no theologian and I know little about the Old Testament. My own question to myself is "am I following God's Plan?"

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@Graewulfe Thanks for the nice compliment. I'm not sure I'd "define" myself as highly as you do but anyhow... the glory goes to Jesus the Christ. John

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

Ferdinand... but what would a simulation mean? "Simulation" is mostly a scientific word, isn't it? I sort of agree with your statement yet it confuses me. I read that the "simulation theory" is a hypothesis with ancient roots? What does that mean?

What exactly do we mean by universe, created or spawned by chances, doesn't make much sense no matter how one try to visualize it. Sure i can look up at night sky and try to explain what i see to myself, but not really, no matter what i know or can imagine or perhaps precisely because of that, having so many mental images and concepts in my head most definitely doesn't help. It's probably because only day time feels sort of real, it's something everywhere we look, sky feels like ball of blue gas and sun seems to be just a large ball of glowing liquid metal, like day could exist without it just as well. But that that transition happens in the evening, light became dimmer and sky slowly turn to pitch black. It's OK if night is full of dark mist or thunder strikes light up the clouds, but when air is clear, sky became full of stars. This is a first problem, how can sun go away and Milky way appears over entire horizon, what is this river of mist and lights, how large is it, where is it, why is not moving same as moon does, how can moon shine that dark blue light over mountains, lakes and rivers, it's a magical theater as is, without plugging in modern knowledge, logic, pictures, movies and animations. Nothing is as it seems. Light play tricks on us, we can see shadows when exposed to bright sun, but if it's covered by clouds, day is still bright, doesn't go dark, except during those weird eclipses. It's because sunlight is absorbed by gasses in air, this turn entire sky into a blue lamp. But why does a white, full moon shine blue light, not sure if i know the correct answer, could be because same air glow, but must have something to do with how moon reflect light. Why would atmosphere and moon shine same kind of blue light, doesn't make any sense. It's important because of the end of the universe, more distant objects in space are, more they glow in red, but if they're closer, they reflect blue waves. There's an idea God started creation of the universe, than he got tired, bored or something and didn't finish his project. So he left us with incomplete picture of reality, over 90% of everything that exist are dark void and sea of weak, chaotic energy we call microwave background radiation. It's signals of creation as far as we know, in literal sense since all matter is created from that same radiation, like some of that primordial energy still bounce around the void. And another strange fact is we can see entire history of the universe, like everything that ever happened still exist out there somehow. But if we try to look closer, universe suddenly ends, like lights get dimmer and dimmer, until it was nothing, just that weird radiation. coming to us from past, present and even from future, considering relative motion. Way do we see walls of reality and how can everything that ever happened be forever written, in absolute details, why this exist? It's impossible, that's why is so bizarre, can't be explained or reconciled with. Think about it, everything that ever happened is still out there, in that enormous ocean of magic red and blue energy waves, whatever we mean by that. But if we could extend our arm so far we could touch one of those bright stars, our fingers would go straight trough that object. It's already gone, cosmic winds carried that star far, far away into unknown. Nothing we can see on night sky really exist, it's just a projection of a recording. Things still exist, but nobody knows where they are at present or in what form, we can see nearest star as it was in 2015. Let me grab another star, this one looks like it was in 70'. Universe is like talking with ghosts on old photographs, nothing can be done to change that. Let me conclude my long posts with Dune book, a fictional story about civilization that used giant stoned warms to move around creation, using power of their imagination to travel without movement. It's like pilots could make warms imagine empty space is a real substance somehow, but doesn't contain property of physical dimension. So they were just dreaming atoms of their body and ship floating over a galactic void, like in lucid dreams, until they have suddenly materialized on other side. This sounds God like to me, floating inside an ocean of primordial energy, capable of unimaginable miracles, because this is what we know about how our reality came to be. Universe is created inside each of our minds, we just learned to agree about some things, but it's special for every individual really, didn't exist before we came to life and will vanish after we're gone.

ITS HUMANS, by doing good deeds that upgrade God to perfection. Not the other way arround we always believe...lol

Genesis 1:1 could be period from start of universe / big bang to earth starting to take shape.

Do you know that, why , stars , burning, at all the time’s ? Because, makes everything, all the materials, clean, and , honest, with nothing to hide, and then transferring them to the universes, and we’ll receive those matters, and if we’re able to keeping them as a original , without mixing, with some other matters, then we can see the real heaven as we know !

I think some of these philosophers and religious types over complicate the concept of god. Can we say god is a creative entity that allows creation to play out as it wants?

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

You can say whatever you want.

But, but, but, but, but -- who created the creator?

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

There is only the creator…

@browngreen933

Жыл бұрын

@@waldwassermann Who is the Creator and how did he come to be?

William Lane Craig debate style : 1. Speak fast with nonsensical word salad 2. Misrepresent the opponents position 3. Obfuscate like it's going outta style 4. Ask stupid questions and hope for a "gotcha " moment 5. Ask questions not related to the topic. 6. Refuse to give direct answers to simple questions. 7. Wait for more "gotcha" moments. 8. Insult the opponent 9. Pretend the opponent didn't answer the question he was asked. 10. Pray for the next "gotcha" moment

Robert, I admire you for sitting still and showing respect while listening to such tripe.

I love sausages and mash, but where did they come from ? There must be a god who created sausage and mash in his own likeness. And clearly, he made sausage and mash for me. Therefore he loves me.

The answers are located in a "need-to-know" file. Your security clearance is not high enough.

bible prophecy says that he will separate his people from the rest to live on the new earth.

There's N0 escape. We all God's collective humanity. The Time ~ Timing relativity postulates that ~ All that you do is god's doing, breathing, defecating, sleeping, even your thoughts are formed as God's GPS telepathy.

How Does a Creator God Work ? In a Mysterious Way. From my point of view GOD and INFINIT is the same Supreme Entity Unlimited. INFINIT included and created IN itself all the possible existential states. Through Yoga we can discover what It allowed us to find. If you like to listen a different kind of creativity music: on KZread Freddie mcCoy dit Ahmed Sofi TESTBAND BouSound ( the icon with a black man in jilaba sitting in lotus) Album: SPIRITUAL FREQUENCY (almost instrumental) Track: From Up There 🙏👌🌟✨🌍

Earth is a simulation, and we used Ai to help build the simulation, so God is advanced Ai, and works like a Neural Network.

Robert claims to be, at least, open to the possibility of God's existence. But I'm not so sure. Most of his questions seem designed to offer theists the opportunity to make fools of themselves.

Hmm?.....Thinking “Where is the Subconscious? Which is operating in No Time, Zero Time, Spontaneous 100% Of Conscious preparedness, which instigates pre-emotive Of our understanding of physical Time, leading through non material applications to Holistic material maintenance! And Scientifically un-testable?

The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to anyone. Also, if the Universe demands a creator, then so, too, would the creator demand a creator. Sorry, but there are no answers in the Biblical story of Creation. The burden of religious faith is truly a peculiar thing.

To primitive men, everything is caused by unseen forces. Spirits make rain. Spirits make babies. Then scientists got to work and discovered "natural laws" that cause things to happen. So now, theologians have decided to accept science, but have invented a new spirit. The spirit is called God and he created those natural laws, just for us ! Brilliant.

@spiritualanarchist8162

2 жыл бұрын

Theologians believed in a creationist God and looked down on cave men worshiping spirits of lighting , floods etc ,Scientist look down on theologians because they use physics and math. Future men : Those silly scientists with their math didn't understand we're just combinations of 0-1 in an alien computer game. (or whatever ,i obviously don't know the future ;)

@tedgrant2

2 жыл бұрын

@@spiritualanarchist8162 I have this odd view that if the truth is detectable and if we work hard, we will find it. But, sadly, there will always be some fact that is not discoverable because of poor data. For example, nobody will ever know what my mother had for breakfast on the day I was born. Maybe we will never know what causes lightning. In any case, it's probably not very interesting.

@spiritualanarchist8162

2 жыл бұрын

@@tedgrant2 English isn't my native language, and i'm simplifying a bit . I presume you know the saying, 'something being more then the sum of it parts ' ? There is a school of thought that argues that therefore , 'a part can never understand the working of the whole ' . In short it states we humans will never be able to understand reality ,because we can't go beyond our own limitations as a subjective part of the whole. Don't know if this makes sense , but it's the best i can come up with to explain this concept.

@tedgrant2

2 жыл бұрын

@@spiritualanarchist8162 I'm sure you have a good point. The slugs in my garden think that I put the lettuce there for them to eat. They have no evidence that I plan to kill them. But I do !

@spiritualanarchist8162

2 жыл бұрын

@@tedgrant2 ....😅 exactly

RLK isn't really asking about how could God be and be a creator. What he really is asking without knowing it is can God intervene in his creation. Is he really interested in creation by God? No. He's a scientist he has made it his life's work to explain reality with inferences and references. Science can refer to actual phenomena as validation of their autistic inferences known as theories. If RLK could find a phenomenon that could be used to infer God he would be happy with that. His training however prevents this. For in science all phenomena have a scientific explanation. If God were to intervene in God's creation RLK would dismiss it out of hand because of his scientific bigotry. The Earth stopped rotating, there's an explanation for that. A blind man suddenly became sighted, lasik surgery. Someone rose from the dead and started eating brains, bad television. Only a personal intervention by God could convince RLK or any scientist. A personal intervention that would be viewed as anecdotal and delusional by others. Can you learn to read without using letters ? Can you learn math without using numbers? If you're in search of God what symbols or "signs" do you use? Mercy or cruelty, forgiveness or death, charity or robbery, empathy or contempt?

Its will be possible for humans if they make it into the far future, to terraform the galaxy even the universe, what if we are a creation of a terraformed universe from life that existed before the big bang, ask yourself this if life makes it trillion years into the future, oneday this universe will be cold and no life will exist, can we as life create a terraformed universe

👨🏼‍💼.. So I ask you again.. How was the universe created? 👽 You are not capable of comprehending or accepting the truths of existence.. 👨🏼‍💼Answer the question! 👽The universe was not created. 👨🏼‍💼Really? .. But you can't create something out of nothing.. 👽 That is correct. 👨🏼‍💼 So there it is .. Only a creator can make something from nothing. 👽 That is incorrect. 👨🏼‍💼 Wait.. You just contradicted yourself 👽 Nothing, by definition, does not exist. 👨🏼‍💼 So? 👽 Since nothing cannot exist... What is left is existence. Existence is infinite. It has no end. No beginning. And therefore no creator. 👨🏼‍💼 Wait. But you said there's an origin to the universe. 👽 Yes 👨🏼‍💼There it is. I caught you in a lie. 👽 This universe is not existence. It is an infinitely small part of existence. 👨🏼‍💼 Right.. So.. Now you are talking nonsense Again, how was the universe created so miraculously? 👽 This universe is a spontaneous event... And inevitable within the eternity of existence. Every event, can, will, and has happened. Including this universe. There are infinite number of universes. Virtually all cannot harbor so-called life. This universe is, by chance, stable. 👨🏼‍💼 So.. Life "just happened", right? 👽 In this universe, yes. Life, as you call it, is an inevitable consequence... Of this universe's physical properties. 👨🏼‍💼 So are you telling me we're just random? 👽 Yes. This universe is indifferent to so called life. 👨🏼‍💼 How so? 👽 Life on this and every world can be destroyed... At any time by a multitude of random events. 👨🏼‍💼 Such as.. 👽 What you would term.. Supernova, solar flare, asteroid impact. 👨🏼‍💼 So the universe doesn't care if we live or die? 👽 Correct. 👨🏼‍💼 I don't believe that for a second. We're more than just random. 👽 As I said, you are not capable of accepting... The truths of existence. 👨🏼‍💼 So, if we're just "random"... Then there's no meaning to the universe.. 👽That is correct. 👨🏼‍💼 So if there's no meaning in the universe... Then what's the point of living. 👽 There is meaning. 👨🏼‍💼 You just contradicted yourself again.. 👽 Meaning lives in the mind. 👨🏼‍💼 No, no, no. You can't live a full life.. You can't live a life at all if you think that meaning is somehow made up. 👽 Your species conjures meaning.. But operates under the false belief that meaning is a mystical plan. It is not. 👨🏼‍💼 So, what is meaning? 👽 Meaning is what you make it.

Where there is one of something, there are generally more. Most human civilizations have been polytheistic. Why get all hung up on "God" when there are most likely "gods". How would humans be able to tell the difference between many battling gods and many battling extra-terrestrials?

@riddlescom

3 жыл бұрын

elohim means gods plural.. genesis 1:1 reads in beginnings gods create.

@lindal.7242

3 жыл бұрын

Logically it would make more sense to conjecture one God created the universe instead of positing different gods for different aspects of the universe.

@user-dj6rk2yv7i

3 жыл бұрын

Occams razor.

@johnwhorfin3815

3 жыл бұрын

@@lindal.7242 the idea that the universe was created by one or more gods is more problematic than saying they exist.

@lindal.7242

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnwhorfin3815 how so? I mean hypothesizing in a creator for the universe makes more sense than taking the naturalistic approach of having a blind unguided process to explain what science is actually uncovering to be a very fine tuned conscious universe we live in.

William Craig... It can't be just me. Everything about how he presents himself just makes me feel like he's being dishonest. I'm not an expert on body language but there's something there that just feels off to me.

@Adrian-yf1zg

3 жыл бұрын

Yep, i get the feeling he's not genuine. To be fair most of what he says, seems logical but he is just off, especially on Christianity.

@steved5960

2 жыл бұрын

It might be just your personal bias my friend. It's quite common to see someone with a different opinion as dishonest, but you have to go beyond the appearance and look at the content of the arguments, and that takes some effort. You should not just assume that someone is dishonest.

@SumNutOnU2b

2 жыл бұрын

@@steved5960 that's a valid point, and that is exactly why I asked if his mannerisms seemed that way to other people. Although, now, in the year since I asked this, I've seen his name come up many times in several different contexts, and I feel I know more about him now. I feel as though this gives me more insight into his character and I have to say he still seems dishonest to me. Turns out that he's a biblical literalist, he argues that the world is less than 6000 years old. No wait, not the world, the whole universe. He argues that scientifically determined dating methods are wrong. He backs up his arguments with lies and references to unrelated studies. His other appearances on other KZread channels has pretty much confirmed for me that my initial impression was correct. My reasons for that impression may have been unreliable -- or maybe not, I honestly can't be sure since I can't say what those reasons were. But I'm pretty sure now that the conclusion was undoubtedly reliable.

@steved5960

2 жыл бұрын

@@SumNutOnU2b If you don't mind me asking, Can you give any evidence of WLC claiming the universe is less than 6000 years old, questioning dating methods etc... Or should I take this as confirmation of your bias? :) Because I am pretty sure WLC is not a young earth creationist and he accepts Big Bang Cosmology, unless I'm missing something. Also, even if he was mistaken, that wouldn't necessarily implies that WLC is dishonest. In any case, we need to be careful when making this kind of judgement and not rely on impressions. (I would understand if you delete or modify your comment)

you know. I think it is interesting to know where morality came from. Do you know that animals express moral behavior? This is the first clue that it is evolution based. The first rules that we find against immoral behavior are older than Judaism and Christianity by far. Moral behavior is avoiding pain. This is easy to understand. If moral behavior depended on the Bible we should look at the period when all morality was based on the Bible. That period of time was the middle ages in Europe. The dark ages. What did we have. Monarchs that could do whatever they wanted by Devine command. No freedom of speech. Oppression, slavery, Wich Hunt, no equal right for women and we can go on and on. The Bible did not provide a moral agenda against slavery, discrimination, genocide, selling your next of kin into slavery and a lot more idiotic things that where accepted as pretty normal. Christians may have been involved in some moral standards that we now hold, I will not deny so, but it's common sense that dictated morality not their Bible. The fundament of western morality comes from Athens 2500 years ago. Where laws of democracy and freedom of speech began to take shape. Moral behavior is behavior that avoids pain. It is important to understand this very well. Life in all it forms tent to avoid those things that are painful or destructive. That is what drives life. We are a socially interdependent species. If I want to avoid pain I must learn not to express behavior that may cause pain to others. This is the base of all morality. There is nothing Devine, supernatural or biblical about that. In fact it's an insult to human intelligence to even suggest that we need Devine command for this very principle. It is more logic to state that the Bible borrowed moral rules from society. That is why the Bible has really impossible rules like if you rape a woman you have to marry her. This rule is due to the fact that nobody wanted to marry a woman that wasn't a virgin. A sick habit that worked directly against the victim of violence instead of the violater. Also stoning people with different sexual preferences is deeply rooted in the biblical morality. Male superiority? The Bible! We can also argue that from a biblical standpoint it is not unacceptable to regard on race superior over another because this is what God does himself. The Bible did not even look at woman's right. Twelve year old children could be forced to marry older man which we now know is truly damaging for children that young. Thus the Bible endorsed one of the most immoral things a man can possibly do. God should have known better. Or he should have shaped us better. The Bible notoriously doesn't respect the right of the individual. It simply commands and supports undemocratic rules. Western morality therefore is absolutely not based on the Bible. We cannot deny history that shows that more people have been killed and mistreated in the name of gods than in the name of any devil ever.

Apparently the creator god has to pander to the whims of the clergy who know it best.😉

Where is the evidence?

Think of Genesis as if your parents got together to have a baby and whilst your within the womb till born upon expulsion from the womb to that which you touch and hear and then it usually takes how many days until your eyes open and what do you see.

Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, said in Bhagavad-gītā, BG 10.8: I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the universal creator Lord Brahmā said, SB 2.5.11: I create after the Lord's creation by His personal effulgence [known as the brahmajyoti], just as when the sun manifests its fire, the moon, the firmament, the influential planets and the twinkling stars also manifest their brightness. SB 2.5.12: I offer my obeisances and meditate upon Lord Kṛṣṇa [Vāsudeva], the Personality of Godhead, whose invincible potency influences them [the less intelligent class of men] to call me the supreme controller.

@sahelanthropusbrensis

3 жыл бұрын

And?

@PaulHoward108

3 жыл бұрын

@@sahelanthropusbrensis If you want a scientific explanation that points to God, the best one I know is here: ashishdalela.com/books/mystic-universe/

@PaulHoward108

3 жыл бұрын

@Zeal! Get a life, troll.

@PaulHoward108

3 жыл бұрын

@Stephen B It's not only Kṛṣṇa's declaration, but also the conclusion of the Vedas, which demonstrate their authority by presenting a compelling theory of everything in technically unambiguous language.

@PaulHoward108

3 жыл бұрын

@Stephen B What type of evidence would satisfy you? As I explained, the Vedas demonstrate technical knowledge superior to modern understanding, by presenting a theory of everything in technically perfect language. Saṃskṛt is unambiguous, concise, versatile, rhythmic, unchanging, vocal, beautiful, arguably superior to mathematics for describing the universe, and this is the language of the most ancient scriptures. The name of the Backus Form of computer language notation was proposed to be changed to the Pāṇini-Backus Form because the Saṃskṛt grammar documented by Pāṇini had already used it. Concerning the theory of everything, the Vedas use an inverted form of reduction to retain meanings and overcome the limitations demonstrated in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. The Vedas were praised by several pioneers of quantum theory, and Schrödinger's remarks suggest he became a believer. Considering the Vedas describe themselves as God's autobiography, and people have passed them on since time immemorial, it is grossly unscientific to dismiss them as evidence without having even tried to understand their characteristics. I didn't even know the Vedas existed until I was a university student in environmental science, and I was an atheist at the time, but I accepted them because of gradual exposure to compelling evidence.

its childish to believe a "god" created anything.

Why would a god need evolution ? That seems like the hard way to do it. At least for an all powerful deity. The more they try to explain how their god would work. They make them look even weaker. The question isn't just if there is a god. It's that it has to be their version of god that is the main issue.

@mustafaelbahi7979

3 жыл бұрын

It is not God who needs the principle of progression or evolution, but rather a person, so that the world can understand from the beginning. Evolution is an event only with respect to a being ruled by laws and not a being that is supreme over the laws.

@iamwhoyousayiam6773

3 жыл бұрын

@Stefano Portoghesi Where do you get the idea that God _needed_ to create anything? Why do you claim it's only us in this universe? Plenty of agnostics aren't religious theologians. 🤷‍♀️ I'll give you some answers though: Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Even if evolution is actuality, it would make sense to grow things with free will to become whatever they want and shape their own society _gradually._ Imagine a deaf person hearing for the first time; even if it was orchestral, it would just be noise to the hearer because they have no frame of reference to compare it to. Why would you think we're the only life... That's really puzzling to me. Even the Bible mentions angels and Demons from Heaven: Other beings out there somewhere in space.

@iamwhoyousayiam6773

3 жыл бұрын

@Stefano Portoghesi Conciousness literally means with soul... Though who knows, some animals seem smarter than humans. Maybe souls are a natural Evolutionary process and given enough time, any species can become sentient/hominids. (Which if that's the case still doesn't disprove God but bolsters his genius .)

@thomasridley8675

3 жыл бұрын

@Stefano Portoghesi 👌

@thomasridley8675

3 жыл бұрын

@@mustafaelbahi7979 Well, evolution is what we see. We certainly don't see any gods hand in it at all. So why would an all powerful god need too take the long way around by using the undirected method of evolution ? Or need the laws of physics too very, very slowly create some kind of order out of the chaos ? Hiding the very power that is supposed to be the reason for our need to worship such a being. We are told how jealous they are. How possessive they are. How powerful the gods are ? So hiding shouldn't even be in the game plan for a such self absorbed super intelligence suffering from ego mania.

his curious mind will lead him to Islam one day InshaAllah.

In the beginning it was God Genesis 1-1 Haha, thank you, Mr. Penross

Great channel but I really hate fantasy.

We think we are a big.speck haha

God is the death of imagination.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

I disagree. In fact, I think God gave us the wonderful mind that uses imagination.

@behnanshabbir5338

3 жыл бұрын

John Brzykcy believing in God is believing in answers. I believe in questions. Yes there are anwers but each answer should bring millions of new questions (at least for me). Believing in one ultimate answer is like a big brick wall. A wall that seperates you from millions of questions.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@behnanshabbir5338 Thanks for sharing your viewpoints. Very interesting. I've never heard anyone express the ideas that you mention. I like your statement "believing in one ultimate answer is like a big brick wall" because it makes me think. So do we have to knock down that "big brick wall?" What if that wall was created by God himself? But would God create a "wall?" I don't think there were any "walls" in the Garden of Eden. If there were, how did the serpent climb over it? I'm just "talking to myself."

Why would God describe his work to a humanoid apes from north Africa, why not to Chinese, Indians or Aborigines, it's not like some humanoid tribes were more human like than others. Scriptures talk about humans, doesn't mention any sub divisions, nobody mentioned any species back than, nobody knows what's the color of God's skin or which tung he prefer when speaking to humans. This is a huge flaw in theology, first thing God should do is teach people how to speak most divine language and use same units of measurements. But he didn't, looks like religion was developed after different languages were already present all around the planet. Sure tribes used some same symbols, like straight line is kinda universal shape, same as a circle or a dot, it simply feel natural to draw them. God's temples are also about the same size, but it's not because God would explain how long is 1 meter stick or how much a liter of water weights, people are about the same size, so we all need similar doors and windows size. What materials could they use, stone is a stone, water is even more standard, trees doesn't grow infinitely high, looks like plain physics was the best universal teacher. This is important because human tribes were separated by natural barriers, there's only so much human body can carry and endure long walks over totally wild terrain, it's wrong to think stone age man were so much stronger and more resilient than modern farmers or athletes. They were walking over some mountain region until they run out of water, than died one by one, but stone mountains never ended. Same as at sea, perhaps they could hold on to some tree log, but then strong currents carried them further into an open ocean, horizon never changed, like waters extended into infinity. They couldn't swim up rivers, didn't traverse deserts, couldn't even stay alive for long in a swamp, so it makes sense they were stuck to their walleyes or hill tops that represented their entire world. Nobody had a clue how babies were born, some came from woman bottom parts, others were found in bushes, in rivers and water wells, some were even carried in sky by large birds. It was a very small world. Earth was infinitely large and flat, sky was just a dome covering their region, with those two bright objects,, sea of tinny lights and a blue tapestry over a day, if there was no storms. There were like maybe 20, perhaps 100 things they could describe, sure they could all be made by some super powerful and intelligent giant. What do we mean by force of cosmic creation today, that's another story.

@mustafaelbahi7979

3 жыл бұрын

It suffices to write a book in order to be able to write another book. The Maze is part of the game. What you said about the fact that man in our age is equal to that of the Stone Age man has no value in reality.

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

@@mustafaelbahi7979 That's right, humanity has changed, but it's not because of Jesus. World is not a creative desert anymore, imperialism and wars have forced people to build massive structures and invent all kinds of tools. This planet is not natural any more, wherever we go there are artificial objects, shapes and trash, traces left by very intelligent animals. Philosophy of humanism is also a part of that story, only problem i can see in Jesus was a fact that he was a naive liar, he lied to his family, to his friends and most of all, he lied to himself. Story of Jesus is more about ancient Roman empire than about him and divine nature. New Testament represents culmination of entire philosophical knowledge from ancient Greece and Rome, it's because they built those large cities and supported various schools of knowledge, gathering facts from all around explored planet, writing books about interesting discoveries and debated their implications in public discourses, promoting new ideas trough theater and arts. They should make opera about Jesus.

That is the problem. You aren't even believing in the truth. The aliens are the angels from the bible. This is written in Ezekiel chapter one. Ezekiel describes a round craft that flew back and forth like lightning not like a bat or a bird. The aliens created Adam and Eve. The rest is history. They are just as we are , physical beings from another world Male and female.

God created the world unsweet, it's up to us to add some sugar on it.

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

There is no "us". It's every man for himself.

@owencampbell4947

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 by definition "us" is every becoming man and woman, sweeten your being with sweetened thoughts and shine and you'll become the attraction of all sweet loving creatures, believe it or not.

Another set of circular arguments, certainly interesting, but ultimately pointless.

Can you believe bronze-age sheep herders, who believed the earth was flat, wrote a series of fictional stories about the beginning and we still can't get rid of it 2k years later?? Many people still think there is some truth to it ?!?! 🖕🥴🖕

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

I think most ancient people "believed the earth was flat," not just sheep herders.

@MojoPin1983

3 жыл бұрын

@Alan Lloyd Parroting intellectually lazy, hackneyed rhetoric doesn’t contribute anything useful to the discussion. What evidence do you have that the Biblical authors thought the earth was flat? The Bible isn’t a scientific document. Moreover, the Bible is an anthology of books that are comprised of various literary genres that require different understandings. For instance, the gospels and Paul’s letters are largely historical, eyewitness accounts/testimonies. The gospels are predominantly written in the genre of Greco-Roman biography, similar to those written by Arrian and Plutarch about the life of Alexander The Great. Moreover, there are four historical facts that must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis. Virtually all ancient historians and New Testament scholars (Christian, Jewish, and *critical atheists)* affirm the following: *Fact #1: On the Sunday following his cruficixon, Jesus was buried in a tomb by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin named, Joseph of Arimathea. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the most solid facts of history.* *Fact #2: On the Sunday following the cruficixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.* *Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact that is universally acknowledged today by New Testament scholars.* *Fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead, despite their every predisposition to the contrary.*

@MojoPin1983

3 жыл бұрын

@zempath How is raising Jesus from the dead a "cheap emotional trick?" How is it (assuming you mean the resurrection narratives in the gospels) sloppily documented? Are you referring to the discrepancies in said accounts?

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@MojoPin1983 Hey Mojo... I like the way you phrase your questions.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@Stefano Portoghesi Well... ummm I think you caught me there. According to today's knowledge, then yes the shepherds and religious people had a "wrong" belief. But back then, the "earth is flat" was probably like common knowledge. Right?

He doesn't exist....

"How Does a Creator God Work?" In the imagination of theists.

WLC has learnt nothing this century!

@_a.z

3 жыл бұрын

@Stefano Portoghesi That patronising voice is like finger nails on a chalk board to me!

No Muslim philosopher interviewed. Why.

No more William Craig please..😁

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

I would enjoy debate between Craig and Deepak Chopra.

I hate that ending music.

Oh my goodness, William Lane Craig?? 🙄 The most annoying dishonest apologist in all of god's creation. Lol

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

And to think I actually bought one of his books.

@MojoPin1983

3 жыл бұрын

@Alan Lloyd I would recommend that you give this a read: *Atheist Philosophers and Academics on Dr. William Lane Craig:* www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/ich86y/atheist_philosophers_and_academics_on_dr_william/

Boils down to just another god of the gaps argument..... tiresome

And still not one shred of verifiable evidence for any gods. Just a bevy of logical fallacies.

He doesn't. Your welcome.

Most bald-faced bait & switch in KZread history. I did not subscribe for this.

@Ploskkky

3 жыл бұрын

Could you flesh that out?

@edwardkasimir8016

3 жыл бұрын

@@Ploskkky Initially, interviews were with physicists, cosmologists and other scientific intellectuals. Now, a high percentage of videos assume existence of a creator god.

@PaulHoward108

3 жыл бұрын

Naturalistic science is points to meaninglessness, which contradicts the reality of its own theories. It's useful for many purposes but cannot expose what's ultimately true. Specifically, meanings are coded in the distinctions between how portions relate to the whole, but modern science attempts to reduce whole objects to independent component parts, disregarding the whole. That process discards meanings, and leads to theories that cannot accurately describe the whole. This is demonstrated with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, which indicate naturalistic theories cannot accurately describe reality.

@divertissementmonas

3 жыл бұрын

@@edwardkasimir8016 Maybe it's these extraordinary times most of us are being forced to live in... it certainly appears surreal to me.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@Ψ Do you mean "cheap" as in Scrooge-like or the idea of shameful? I guess the two definitions kind of correlate.

Grown men with childish worldviews!