J.P. Moreland - Are There Things Not Material?

Is the natural, material, physical world all there is? Or is there something more-a supernatural, nonmaterial, nonphysical existence? Can everything can be explained in terms of fundamental fields, forces and particles? If fundamental forces can’t account for everything, what other explanation is there?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the metaphysics of consciousness: bit.ly/41BiMRN
James Porter Moreland is an American philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. He currently serves as a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

Пікірлер: 392

  • @jackrigsby6017
    @jackrigsby6017 Жыл бұрын

    Brave man, I was actually shocked when he said he believed in God the way he started the video. Cheers to you!

  • @paulo.8899

    @paulo.8899

    Жыл бұрын

    If God exists, unicorns, Thanos and Superman exist too. What the fuck is brave about saying that the sky is blue if in fact it is?

  • @jackrigsby6017

    @jackrigsby6017

    Жыл бұрын

    @@paulo.8899 it wouldn't do any good to discuss this with you. You are uncivil even in this response and are obviously unhinged and angry as well. God is real, you will meet him one day.

  • @CriticalThinker02
    @CriticalThinker02 Жыл бұрын

    Robert is such a good listener. I find I have to constantly pause & rewind to actually grasp what’s being said during many of these discussions.

  • @wmpx34

    @wmpx34

    Жыл бұрын

    He really is. Most interviewers are kinda cringe, but his enthusiasm for exploring all these topics is contagious.

  • @ronaldgomez456

    @ronaldgomez456

    Жыл бұрын

    Robert tends to not let someone finish what they are saying a bit.

  • @stevefaure415
    @stevefaure415 Жыл бұрын

    I think the only incorrect answer to this question is when you answer it like you actually know the answer, even if you acknowledge that your answer is necessarily your own belief rather than something that can be proved. This guy gives me the willies a little bit.

  • @MrStevos

    @MrStevos

    Жыл бұрын

    + Not a single question from Kuhn, like "why do you believe this?" 😳

  • @psterud

    @psterud

    Жыл бұрын

    I'm with you on that one, Steve. I didn't watch the whole thing, but he struck me as an old-fashioned materialist. Comparing the number two to a unicorn was odd.

  • @pikiwiki

    @pikiwiki

    Жыл бұрын

    Similar to a person who "knows what's best for you"

  • @DiggitySlice

    @DiggitySlice

    Жыл бұрын

    The gospel is historical fact. When someone comes back to life from the dead and ascends into heaven, you believe what they say.

  • @psterud

    @psterud

    Жыл бұрын

    @@DiggitySlice So, you're saying if anyone writes something it automatically becomes historical fact? I'm not sure that's how it works.

  • @potheadphysics
    @potheadphysics Жыл бұрын

    how the heck does he think angels and demons are real, but unicorns aren't!?

  • @Thekeninger

    @Thekeninger

    Жыл бұрын

    Unicors are real, they are horses with Horn without body

  • @ItsEverythingElse
    @ItsEverythingElse Жыл бұрын

    "Considerable evidence" for angels and demons. So sick of people making statements like that and never backing them up. I tend to believe in them too, for various personal and normal "wanting to believe" reasons. Do I have evidence for them? Of course I don't, and neither does he or anyone else. Belief is not evidence.

  • @paulo.8899

    @paulo.8899

    Жыл бұрын

    It is evidence if you belive it hard enough, tho.... Or if you're an idiot 🤷

  • @kalewintermute28
    @kalewintermute28 Жыл бұрын

    Was with the guy all the way up to the 'angels and demons exist' bit...

  • @quantumkath

    @quantumkath

    Жыл бұрын

    I was going to say the same thing!!! lol

  • @bigol7169

    @bigol7169

    Жыл бұрын

    Same. Except I then thought, after positing abstract and immaterial concrete objects, are angels and demons that much of a stretch ?

  • @patricksmith3376

    @patricksmith3376

    Жыл бұрын

    Right? Many years ago I watched a lecture on ancient alien intervention. For over an hour the lecturer made tremendous point after tremendous point. He really had me thinking and then it happened...he started going in on how Sasquatch's are real and remained hidden in the Pacific northwest to this very day. I turned it off immediately

  • @quantumkath

    @quantumkath

    Жыл бұрын

    @@bigol7169 angel on my right shoulder and the demon on my left. They both look like me...the younger me.

  • @davidfabe8185

    @davidfabe8185

    Жыл бұрын

    ​@@patricksmith3376 Have you ever investigated Sasquatch?

  • @Homo_sAPEien
    @Homo_sAPEien Жыл бұрын

    I mean, what does it mean for something to be immaterial? That it’s not made out of matter, energy, space, or time? If that’s what it means, then there could be but there’s currently no evidence that there is. And, I don’t see the relevance of the question.

  • @PaulBeney
    @PaulBeney Жыл бұрын

    Imagination is a wonderful thing - as long as you remember it's imagination.

  • @S3RAVA3LM

    @S3RAVA3LM

    Жыл бұрын

    Can you show us as in explication mode what isn't imagination? Because I was to make fun of you.

  • @Ed-quadF

    @Ed-quadF

    Жыл бұрын

    @@S3RAVA3LM The Schrodinger equation, maybe, for starters.

  • @jezah8142

    @jezah8142

    Жыл бұрын

    ​@@Ed-quadF nice👍

  • @christophercousins184

    @christophercousins184

    Жыл бұрын

    Exactly. Neat, lively and interesting SPECULATION.

  • @emilgabl9069

    @emilgabl9069

    Жыл бұрын

    He is actually low-key dangerous.

  • @sanjivgupta1418
    @sanjivgupta1418 Жыл бұрын

    Beauty of argument for the sake of argument is that you need not to submit a proof.

  • @RichardLaurence
    @RichardLaurence Жыл бұрын

    Interesting until exactly the same time that I suspect a lot of other people stopped watching…

  • @paulo.8899

    @paulo.8899

    Жыл бұрын

    😂 "Angels and demons" Uhhh do you mean aliens, my guy??

  • @winnumber101

    @winnumber101

    4 ай бұрын

    @@paulo.8899 how does aliens make this more of a realistic conversation

  • @brendangreeves3775
    @brendangreeves3775 Жыл бұрын

    What we call nature is essentially a manifestation of purely abstract relations. It is about process and energy transfer ( higher frequency to lower frequency and vice versa), or interactions and not material things. The interaction is the reality. An event is essentially a multiplicity of energy transfers. What seems to be overlooked is that, for fundamental reasons, the absolute is impossible.This is crucial. The context of the relational determines the "reality". E.g. particle or wave. What is a number? Fundamentally it concerns relative magnitude.

  • @abduazirhi2678
    @abduazirhi2678 Жыл бұрын

    Is it just me who wanted this talk to go forever?...Looking forward to another talk/video with Prof Moreland.

  • @bierdlll
    @bierdlll Жыл бұрын

    What do you exactly mean by the word "material"? What exactly is "matter"? Physicists don't even know what matter is at a fundamental level. The correct question to ask is - Are there really things that are "material", that fit our unquestioned ideas of what "material" and "physical" mean?

  • @LuigiSimoncini

    @LuigiSimoncini

    Жыл бұрын

    Lawrence keeps playing around with malformed questions, luckily for us sometimes the interviewees decide to answer a different question and something of value is conveyed in the video. Obviously not the case for this funny guy today

  • @kos-mos1127

    @kos-mos1127

    Жыл бұрын

    Material is what something is made of. Matter is what something consist of. Physical means that applies a force over an area of space.

  • @bierdlll

    @bierdlll

    Жыл бұрын

    @@kos-mos1127 "Material is what something is made of. Matter is what something consist of." - These are circular definitions.

  • @simonhibbs887

    @simonhibbs887

    Жыл бұрын

    Physical objects such as electrons, photons and such are objects that can interact with and affect other physical objects. For something to be physical it must participate in the network of interactions by which the processes we observe in the world play out. Putting aside solipsism for now, as with all theories you start with axiomatic statements about things you take as starting points that you assume are physical, such as particular physical objects, chemicals, etc. The physicality of anything else can then be determined by whether it can affect or be affected, perhaps indirectly, by these things you take to be physical. So step by step science expands the scope of what we consider to be physical as we follow the evidence.

  • @kos-mos1127

    @kos-mos1127

    Жыл бұрын

    @@bierdlll The world for matter and material are derived from the Latin term materia which means stuff, real and reality. So by definition matter always references itself. Everything we see, touch, taste and hear are different layers of matter.

  • @reaganwiles_art
    @reaganwiles_art Жыл бұрын

    Chomsky, every time he talks, observes that there has not been a theory of matter for several hundred years. When he talks about the mind-body problem, Chomsky says the mind was never eradicated but the body was. He says there is no mind-body problem because there is no theory of body. He says the mechanical theory was abolished by Newton and with it any theory of body.

  • @5piles

    @5piles

    Жыл бұрын

    yes, the mechanical view of the world was gone as stated by newton much to the dismay of everyone during that period, and was never recovered. but whats much worse still is chomskys explanation that modern philosophers and intellectuals have horribly degenerated and lost contact with the true meaning of the knowledge surrounding the enlightenment period.

  • @Berke-Khan

    @Berke-Khan

    Жыл бұрын

    any source where he mentioned that

  • @pnf197

    @pnf197

    Жыл бұрын

    Chomsky is correct -- since Descartes no one has seriously looked at the mind-body problem. As a student of Philosophy decades ago, Descartes really shook me as he grappled with the mind-body problem, and Chomsky picks up the lost tangent. Today we are again at the doorstep of this mystery again and cannot walk away from it. From Donald Hoffman's ideas, QM vs Relativity and the closer we get to scientifically and philosophically comprehending consciousness we are banging at the door of the self and how it perceives and acts in this world.

  • @znariznotsj6533
    @znariznotsj6533 Жыл бұрын

    Non-material angels - really? Consciousness is the product of metabolism, which is exactly the reason every conscious being is obsessed by the hunt for energy. No metabolism, no mind.

  • @chrisa-95

    @chrisa-95

    2 ай бұрын

    Wow… you have clearly read absolutely nothing on philosophy of mind.

  • @scotchhollow
    @scotchhollow11 ай бұрын

    I think the question should be, “is our conscious experience a representation of base reality”. Which our scientific knowledge is contained within.

  • @playpaltalk
    @playpaltalk Жыл бұрын

    Great talk.

  • @stoyanfurdzhev
    @stoyanfurdzhev Жыл бұрын

    It couldn't be more faraway from truth.

  • @mesanto1977
    @mesanto19778 ай бұрын

    Great interview. Looks like many materialists on this thread. Can you hold your thoughts? Can you see your thoughts? Fact is thoughts exist. There you have it.

  • @Monkeybrain3721
    @Monkeybrain3721 Жыл бұрын

    He was making it up as he was being questioned!

  • @newby783
    @newby783 Жыл бұрын

    Lost me at God, Angels and Deamons, but still interesting to hear his point of view.

  • @Billybobble1
    @Billybobble110 ай бұрын

    Politely, I disagree with a tremendous amount of what this guy says, but to listen and hear his views and thoughts is so important on how differing opinions does not make us enemies. It's okay to agree to disagree.

  • @richardleetbluesharmonicac7192
    @richardleetbluesharmonicac7192 Жыл бұрын

    Another huge problem right now is the scale of matter, is infinite from the macro to the micro with the big bang in a finite set of idiomatic scientific principles, precludes that

  • @5piles

    @5piles

    Жыл бұрын

    no, matter has a limit on the micro scale. its like 10^32 or something and the energy required to produce it collapses it into a black hole. the micro scale to spacetime is quite coarse.

  • @DannyWitmer
    @DannyWitmer Жыл бұрын

    This guy is off his rocker.

  • @johndewey8316
    @johndewey8316 Жыл бұрын

    Definitely the most entertaining video I've watched on this channel! Thank you!!

  • @B.S...
    @B.S... Жыл бұрын

    If it is necessary for god’s will to sustain creation and god knows the future then I would say that in fact creation exists within the mind of god and therefore >> god is a solipsist… and therefore >> a psychotic.

  • @MrStevos
    @MrStevos Жыл бұрын

    Robert has FAILED US ! After J. P. saying "God, Angels & Demons, & the immortal souls, exist & can have a real effect on reality" How about even one single question ? Perhaps: " What leads you to believe this is true ?"

  • @OM-PeaceE
    @OM-PeaceE Жыл бұрын

    True nature of reality is nothing independently exist, everything is interdependent. Dependent origination heart of Buddha Teaching 🌼🌼🌼 Spread Love, Happiness & Compassion, Free Tibet

  • @Ed-quadF
    @Ed-quadF Жыл бұрын

    I like invisible guys that create the universe, but can't un-create the universe, too!

  • @neffetSnnamremmiZ
    @neffetSnnamremmiZ Жыл бұрын

    We can not answer that. But the real living entity and subject of knowledge is always bigger than anything you can see and show and reach, it's like invisible, the uncatchable living entity! Thats the difficulty with the self recognition, that it is exactly about the in principal invisible. Mind comes to itself to the same extent that it recognizes what in principle is never reachable by any theory and any empiricism.

  • @reginaldwinsor2759
    @reginaldwinsor2759 Жыл бұрын

    I find this discussion to be narrow in scope. I am always perplexed when these experts point out that God is He. Does God have a gender? Given our limited understanding of the metaphysical, we must go forward with an open mind & explore all possibilities. We must be mindful to seeking the absolute truth free of the chains of indoctrination.

  • @brianalan4955
    @brianalan4955 Жыл бұрын

    Like my grandfather used to say, "Words are confusing, And people are funny."

  • @alexatedw
    @alexatedw Жыл бұрын

    So unicorns exist …

  • @streamofconsciousness5826

    @streamofconsciousness5826

    Жыл бұрын

    As much as Australia if you have never been there.

  • @Bassotronics

    @Bassotronics

    Жыл бұрын

    Unicorns and Multicorns

  • @TurinTuramber
    @TurinTuramber Жыл бұрын

    Just imagine how many important questions I could answer if all I had to do is babble unsupported nonsense. Easiest job in the world.

  • @bobs182

    @bobs182

    Жыл бұрын

    The job of religion is to give you answers to meaningless questions.

  • @TurinTuramber

    @TurinTuramber

    Жыл бұрын

    @@bobs182 Religion pretends to do all the thinking so you won't have to any.

  • @CarlosElio82
    @CarlosElio82 Жыл бұрын

    Is there a basic set of human feelings like sexual desire, compassion, hate, etc.? Each feeling is unique, even within the same individual. Each number is also unique, two apples is different than two oranges, but the twoness is the same. My love for my wife is strictly different from the love for my son, but it is love anyhow. If the set of basic human feelings is a denumerable set, its members are the angels and demon JP is talking about. Not individuals like us, but fields of sentiments where our existence vibrates while alive. We all have a good idea of the people around us, the ensemble of basic human feelings that characterizes them.

  • @Nothingmonkey

    @Nothingmonkey

    Жыл бұрын

    Are the emotions bigger than the self that experience them? Where we not taught what it means to be angry, happy, sad or any of the other emotions before we had the capacity to fully express and understand these emotions through cognition and introspection. The values and limits of which emotions and how they can be expressed are reinforced by cultural norms lifetimes older than we are. This combined with aspects epigenic evolution and the emotions we experience would have been expressed for longer than we could be defined as human beings. When your sense of self and rational thinking is overwhelmed by an emotional state are we not in way being possessed by something larger than ourselves, hence their power. As human beings it seems we have a tendency to attribute qualities like good and evil to the way the different emotional states are expressed in action and sentiment. I cannot see where the emotions have any agency of their own until we give them power to the point they take over. When we are out of control or overwhelmed by an emotional state is it in control?

  • @5piles

    @5piles

    Жыл бұрын

    if love were essences or fields, you would need to perceive all individual such instance before you could know love. on the other hand, if love were a particular such as the love for your wife, then you would not be able to love your son since that particular differs to the original. dont worry, noone has figured out set theory, except dignaga and dharmakirti.

  • @CarlosElio82

    @CarlosElio82

    Жыл бұрын

    @@5piles "if love were essences or fields, you would need to perceive all individual such instance before you could know love." What would be the mathematical representation of such a statement? It would necessarily be a wave function with the particle representing how you feel at this instance, and the wave representing all the possible states. Corollary: the particle DOES NOT need to be everywhere at once, it suffices to know that the particle could be anywhere. Same with feelings. You do not need to feel ALL of them at once, only that you are capable of such feelings. I fail to grasp your disputation.

  • @5piles

    @5piles

    Жыл бұрын

    @@CarlosElio82 you are saying that one particular whether in 19th century physics or as one in a collapsed wave function is love, then any other particular of either type cannot be love since it is other than that given particular which is love. on the other hand, if we assert that it is the collection of all 19th century instances or all collapsed functions instances that are love, then we necessarily must perceive each of them before we could understand what love is.

  • @streamofconsciousness5826
    @streamofconsciousness5826 Жыл бұрын

    I don't think He is maintaining it, He set it in motion and is watching it stir if that's what's going on. There was always a theory/belief we are all just different aspects of Him and were here to view the Universe for God, when the deep space images were using light/radiation we can not normally see I thought "it was like viewing the Universe through the eyes of God". I think he has a solid theory, not sure about being a disembodied spirit until the resurrection, if time is constant that would seem as long as it would waiting here. Everyone gets purgatory, Caesar has been waiting 2000 years.Alaxander longer.

  • @soundofpast
    @soundofpast Жыл бұрын

    Mathematics and logic are all about arbitrary convenitions. Numbers have the properties they have jsut because they are defined this way. There are alternative arithmetics, logics and geometries. This shows that mathematical objects are only in our minds, they do not exist in some abstract realm of being.

  • @bobs182

    @bobs182

    Жыл бұрын

    As I like to say the universe functions without humans measuring and counting it.

  • @quantumkath
    @quantumkath Жыл бұрын

    Just because you can think it doesn't mean it's necessarily real.

  • @S3RAVA3LM

    @S3RAVA3LM

    Жыл бұрын

    Just because you can't think of it doesn't preclude it from possibility. Indirectly, you make known that you believe things give themselves there own form and 'being'. Human beings often think first, and then manifests. Building a bridge is always first thought over in the mind, and then on paper, with physics and math, acknowledging the laws only to a small degree, and then manifest. Why should we believe otherwise concerning GOD? I think you're afraid to be true to yourself.

  • @quantumkath

    @quantumkath

    Жыл бұрын

    @S3RAVA3LM *NAPOLEON HILL said, "Thoughts are things". That's logical. I won't argue that. Thanks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn @ 10:39 "I can conceive of there being no God [angels and demons], but I cannot conceive of there being no numbers". I agree that abstract thoughts are real. But, as devil's advocate, tell me the purpose of these so-called "angels and demons" J.P. Moreland speaks of. Those are thoughts that sound cool but aren't necessarily real.

  • @S3RAVA3LM

    @S3RAVA3LM

    Жыл бұрын

    ​@Kathy ok, I see. Yeah. Example: what the Philosopher's term as 'Intellect', the Theologians acknowledge as the 'Word' or Christ. Intellect or course being Light, the very light within man, and too, that which is all things. They are only modes. I've realized that whether it's feild theory, metaphysics or mysticism, ultimately we are discussing the same thing only in different modes and approaches. Mysticism being a personal modes, contemplation, thus truly is 'Mimesis' or union or self realization. Metaphysics of course acknowledging the Principles, that which is, opposed to that of samsara or birth, life, death, cycle. What is real. It surely can not be that which is ephemeral, transient. We could call all this real, and then, what would we call that which is beyond samsara?

  • @tedgrant2
    @tedgrant28 ай бұрын

    Many things are non-material. Take for example "venerableness", which is a noun (a thing). Clearly, venerableness is not a material thing. It's a "quality".

  • @waldwassermann
    @waldwassermann Жыл бұрын

    Also... it is not that past and future are not real but that the purpose of the Real is Companionship which is why there is Reality.

  • @claudiozanella256
    @claudiozanella256 Жыл бұрын

    Software for example?

  • @CesarClouds
    @CesarClouds Жыл бұрын

    3:55 An allusion to Tarski's definition of truth?

  • @dfmc001
    @dfmc001 Жыл бұрын

    Interesting conversation, but I wish Mr. Moreland would have given some examples of his statement that he sees evidence for God, angels and demons. I have not seen such evidence yet for me to think they actually exist. It still just sounds like a product of faith not what is "actual" in the universe in which we find ourselves. But as always, a great chat on this channel.

  • @davenchop

    @davenchop

    Жыл бұрын

    some people equate arguments with evidence... usually religious ones

  • @christophercousins184
    @christophercousins184 Жыл бұрын

    The ways in which we MEASURE the world will generate different MEASUREMENTS. It seems to me, measurements don't have inherit attributes as they are the subjective creations of beings who can measure things and their attributes are given to them by those measuring beings. The number two is a measurement that we use to organize things, but there's zero evidence that it has "inherent properties," just that it's a concept that is useful for doing stuff. It seems that, after Aquinas, almost all speculations about how to measure things that can't be seen all too often arrive at the notion of "properties." Then, once the initial speculation is assumed, one talks about properties as if they were things one can measure. Isn't that begging the question or just plain old fashioned circular reasoning? Prof. Moreland, who is clearly a smart, interesting and moral person (I seriously enjoyed him and his enthusiasm), is just speculating about things we think are "reasonable" because they have been assumed for so long. That fact that we are used to the idea of a nonmaterial world is not evidence of anything except that we have become comfortable with this particular unsupported speculation... I don't see how we can get evidence of the nonmaterial, so this will never properly answered perhaps, but I would welcome some new approaches or some compelling arguments for these speculations. This conversation, though interesting and lively, was just made up of the same old arguments I used to have with the Jesuits in school.

  • @benwherlock9869
    @benwherlock9869 Жыл бұрын

    Are we talking about the metaphorical Number 2?

  • @ptgannon1
    @ptgannon1 Жыл бұрын

    Where is the discussion about how souls and other immaterial things interact with the material world? QFT (quantum field theory) tells us what we are made of (mostly quarks and electrons) and how and what those things interact with, and there are no god, devil, soul, ghost or spirit forces, fields or particles (vibrating fields) interacting with the stuff we and our natural world are made of. Until he can at least propose a mechanism by which that happens, it's silly to believe souls exist and interact with us.

  • @AtheistCook
    @AtheistCook Жыл бұрын

    I guess his theory has no space for the observer creating his own reality

  • @leighedwards
    @leighedwards Жыл бұрын

    I believe in... I believe in... I believe in... says it all really but not a jot of proof! Angels and demons are finite but we very special humans have immortal souls - sadly just wishful thinking. Some people with synesthesia experience colours with associated tastes just due cross wiring in their brains! This man is just spouting opinions. Robert is ever so patient not to trash this man's beliefs.

  • @fancee_shmancee
    @fancee_shmancee Жыл бұрын

    You can touch a horse. You can't touch a unicorn despite it having properties. You can't touch a number. This did not make sense to me. Makes more sense to me that numbers are properties and properties are states of things that exist but not separate things. They are conceptual. Robert hit it on the head at the start when he brought up the distinction about conceptual things and physical things.

  • @gavaniacono
    @gavaniacono Жыл бұрын

    Wow ... i think the host walked into the wrong building!

  • @AlexB3h3m0th
    @AlexB3h3m0th Жыл бұрын

    what's the difference between prepositions "snow is white" and the "idea" of demons and angels and gods, etc. ? He is right prepositions exists, as ideas.

  • @kos-mos1127

    @kos-mos1127

    Жыл бұрын

    The preposition that snow is white comes from observations. The idea of demons, angels and god come from imagination of elite people in politics during the near eastern Iron Age.

  • @josedavilatraavieso4327
    @josedavilatraavieso4327 Жыл бұрын

    do you believe in peripatetic?

  • @TV20
    @TV20 Жыл бұрын

    Material itself isn't Material, its just super compact energy

  • @5piles

    @5piles

    Жыл бұрын

    energy being something of unknown nature.

  • @_ilincic
    @_ilincic Жыл бұрын

    "That's a sudo task!"

  • @bobcabot
    @bobcabot Жыл бұрын

    information is not and it seems to be the last thing we can reduce to...

  • @richblacklock
    @richblacklock Жыл бұрын

    I’m reminded of the punchline to a joke about something the devil cannot do: Catch that fart and paint it red.

  • @adamtabl
    @adamtabl Жыл бұрын

    This is a pretty wacky interview.....how is a unicorn different than an angel or demon in this guys thinking? they exist just becuase he says so?

  • @mut8inG
    @mut8inG Жыл бұрын

    “You create Your reality,” you, creator, you.🌸🤪

  • @Ed-quadF

    @Ed-quadF

    Жыл бұрын

    @@dfmc001 The catch is "Your" reality.

  • @mut8inG

    @mut8inG

    Жыл бұрын

    @@dfmc001 Who are YOU, by the way-I am YOU and YOU are I. Ah. So. Grasshopper. WE are ONE wearing SOUL of EARTHLOVE. If YOU have seen ONE, YOU have seen ALL. NOW, Whatyagonnado?🙊🙈🙉

  • @outsidethepyramid

    @outsidethepyramid

    Жыл бұрын

    @@mut8inG Who am-I

  • @prof3gamer988
    @prof3gamer988 Жыл бұрын

    For ppl arguing JPM Is crazy, check the mathematical defense for math platonism.

  • @Bill..N
    @Bill..N Жыл бұрын

    After a credible and believable start this Gentleman quickly decays to a state of illogical superstitious thinking..

  • @TheLuminousOne
    @TheLuminousOne Жыл бұрын

    oh dear

  • @pazitor
    @pazitor Жыл бұрын

    The immaterial is only in conceptual space, not physical space. Santa's there, so is Uncle Bob, both of whom exist in our culture, but not in physical reality. Unsurprisingly, fanatics confuse the two. And sadly, so does this gentleman.

  • @neth77
    @neth77 Жыл бұрын

    The physical world may not be real, the local universe isn't, quantum mechanics is interesting and the fact that the universe can alter the past depending on observations of the current is astounding. Then we have the double slit experiment and the possibility of the universe not rendering things until observed, meaning saving data or processing power, simulation?

  • @judemorales4U
    @judemorales4U Жыл бұрын

    I actually got him. I enjoyed this one. Opened my mind a bit.

  • @Renaultforum
    @Renaultforum Жыл бұрын

    I have listened to many a much more than hundred of your talks with scholars on the topic consciousness. And all of them have notions, observations, glimpses or aspects, facets of experiences like the five blind feeling different parts of an elephant. I have not come much closer to the truth than before. They´re all fumbling in their books with overplenty of words. Almost every book on the topic repeats in the larger part of the book what others have already said. And many of your intervjuees stray aside form the question talking about someting else. I´ve come to the conclution I formed when I was fourteen of age, the brain cannot understand the brain unless it´s a bigger brain understanding our brain. Anyhow consciousness is of course elucive. How can it be otherwise. A trick played on an other trick. But shurely hallucinations are involved as the brian cannot do without hallucinations as mental constructions. Otherwise we would be unable to percice the world. Julian Jaynes has given me a lot.

  • @buddharuci2701
    @buddharuci2701 Жыл бұрын

    I find the discussion a bit silly. Just live well. That means, just be kind. All beliefs and arguments are sad seconds to that. Doing what we can to alleviate suffering, we find ourselves in the right place. IMHO.

  • @nobodynobody4389

    @nobodynobody4389

    Жыл бұрын

    But i like hurting others

  • @streamofconsciousness5826

    @streamofconsciousness5826

    Жыл бұрын

    You are correct, you can be good and still look for meaning in life. It is fascinating even if it is futile. Its a search for immortality, that is the final question in all of them, what does it mean for us when the physical body stops functioning. Does our "Soul" go into a gut maggot and eat the body or to "Heaven" or is it immediately put in another machine and memories are almost wiped clean. Are memories the only part of our identity/personality that is external and "we can't take it with us" to paraphrase a famous quote. Are they imbedded in the Body and when the electricity goes off they disappear for ever.

  • @FalkFlak
    @FalkFlak Жыл бұрын

    yeah, but what's about demonic unicorns..?

  • @MusingsFromTheJohn00
    @MusingsFromTheJohn00 Жыл бұрын

    I disagree with what he is saying in the sense that for a unicorn to exist that an actual physical creature with the attributes of being a unicorn exist. This is because immaterial things exist and we know this for an objective fact. This is because information exists. Now, information does require physical reality to exist and any physical reality has information within it, but, for example, the information of a computer software program can exist within many different physical formats that contain it. So, we can have an idea which is real in the sense that it is information and that information has its roots dependent upon the physical reality creating that pattern of information, but the information itself may or may not relate to something true or something which is physically real. I think there are things we label as gods, spirits, angels, demons and such but that they are informational patterns whose existence of their informational pattern is 100% dependent upon the physical system that gives rise to them. But, as informational systems, what they represent may not represent actual reality and thus only exist within the imagination. But, perhaps more intriguing than that is that there informational systems that form from and between the subconscious minds of humans which form a subconscious swarm mind that can have incredible influence over the conscious minds of the individual humans giving rise to them and that these real seemingly immaterial beings can be mistake by humans as something they ARE NOT. This is where we get many people believing in supernatural things that are not true, not real. Not only do the individual humans make this mistake but so do the subconscious swarm intelligences forming the real subconscious collective minds that are real and they think they are Gods, angels, demons, spirits and such yet in truth even though they are real they are NOT Gods, angels, demons, spirits and such.

  • @simonhibbs887

    @simonhibbs887

    Жыл бұрын

    I think I agree with your world view overall, but you’re using the term exist in two different ways. Yes descriptions are physical things. The descriptions unicorn and horse both exist in our memories, as text, etc. However some descriptions correspond to things that physically exist, and some do not. Unicorns do not exist in the same sense that horses exist though. The former description does not correspond to anything in the physical world, while the latter does. I think therefore it is reasonable to say that unicorns do not exist, understood in the sense that the description does not correspond to anything real that fits that description. When you say abstract objects exist, that’s a different use of the term exist. We can only really say that about abstract object descriptions that have been encoded in matter. The description exists, but the description may or may not correspond to anything. There are infinite potential abstract objects, such as books and computer programs that will never be written, ideas that will never be thought. These are all abstract objects, they are possible concepts in the ‘realm’ of the abstract, but they will never be imagined or thought. Does it make and sense to say that these exist in any real sense?

  • @MusingsFromTheJohn00

    @MusingsFromTheJohn00

    Жыл бұрын

    @@simonhibbs887 Yes, I was using exist in two different ways, which I was trying to explain, but I am not sure I did a good job. Note, to make it easy /shorter to write I am equating (self-aware conscious mind) = (pilot). The thing is, our pilot's perception of actual reality is an abstract illusion, a virtual reality, presented to us by parts of our whole swarm mind which are subconscious to our pilot selves. This virtual reality has two layers of real existence (1) the actual real matter/energy system which contains the information and (2) the informational abstract meaning of the the information itself like the qualia of what the color red looks like or the qualia of the taste of chocolate or the meaning and qualia of socially caring for someone. So, the virtual reality which is an abstract pattern of information dependent upon and directly tied to the actual matter/energy existence is real and has a type of immaterial reality very different from the actual matter/energy existence from which it is emergent from. The illusion is what we experience our lives through it while it is strongly related to the actual reality we live in... it does not need to be. This can create some difficult to grasp situations. How do we know what immaterial illusory patterns of information really reflect the actual reality we exist in and which do not? Right now we can test this to some extent by seeing what things we can find that we can experience which remain the same between virtually all people regardless of their beliefs. Through that we can and have built a strong relatively common view of what the actual matter/energy world is, but part of that has also showed us that many things core to our experiences are purely abstract subjective relative patterns of information NOT directly representing the actual matter/energy existence we live in, but is part of a built in programmed pattern common to virtually all humans. We also know that, unless we cease to exist first, it is only a matter of time before we can build supportive structures within which we can move whole human minds into and out of and inside which we can design and run our own virtual realities that those who are inside them will not be able to distinguish them from actual reality or not. This gets into another point of the reality of the immaterial part of patterns of information. Everything clearly indicates that even within our existing biological minds, our mental patterns of information move around inside our brains. This means that the informational patterns of our minds, while 100% dependent upon and tied to the physical structures giving rise to them, there is no reason they cannot move between supportive matter/energy structures. Thus, our minds are immaterial patterns of information that really exist. Then, when we realize our minds and all other minds are "Swarm Intelligences" and subconscious swarm intelligences form between groups of humans whose subconscious minds give rise to collective subconscious minds... these subconscious collective minds which appear immaterial and in ways are immaterial which our pilot selves are unconscious of originating, they can appear to our pilot selves as spirits, Gods, demons and such with real powers over those who strongly believe in them and those collective subconscious minds can believe themselves to be spirits, Gods, demons and such. Of course they are not, but they are real immaterial patterns of information which while 100% dependent upon the physical matter/energy brains giving rise to them, they can move between humans to grow and shrink and last potentially across many generations of humans. The kinds of real power they do have is not supernatural, but the power a subconscious mind can have over a human individual who strongly believes in it.

  • @AdamRTNewman
    @AdamRTNewman3 ай бұрын

    The thesis that the past and future aren't real, but only the present is real, is heresy. If he'd said that the present is real as that which is manifest, the past is real as that which was manifest, and the future is real as that which will manifest, this would have been compatible with the basic Christian worldview. At the cross, was it unreal sins that Jesus was bearing? In our memory of the resurrection, is it an unreality that we are remembering?

  • @fortynine3225
    @fortynine3225 Жыл бұрын

    The main point of non material is that it is beyond what science can explore..it cannot be observed or tested... and because of that science has nothing to say about it. So basically all statements non material are subjective or subjective experience related. So one should be careful with making all sorts of assumptions in that regard. There are exceptions. For instance a universe from nothing would strongly suggests that there was outside, non material, interference. So scientific data could point towards non material existence.

  • @elarakamai

    @elarakamai

    Жыл бұрын

    I'm still waiting to learn what is dark matter and dark energy that comprise the bulk of the universe and "reality".

  • @bobs182

    @bobs182

    Жыл бұрын

    Most theoretical physicists when questioned will say they don't know what was before or outside the big bang. The idea of something from nothing is a product of the way the human mind works as we think in terms of events with beginnings and ends but when you add up all of our packets of time, they aren't an event.

  • @kos-mos1127

    @kos-mos1127

    Жыл бұрын

    Science does not say the universe came from nothing.

  • @bobs182

    @bobs182

    Жыл бұрын

    Proving the supernatural with the natural world is an oxymoron.

  • @javiej

    @javiej

    Жыл бұрын

    Science doesn't care about what you "believe". By definition.

  • @treasurepoem
    @treasurepoem Жыл бұрын

    11:13 That's been my viewpoint also. I'm pretty sure that numbers exist in heaven. Colossians 1:16-20 King James Version 16 For by him were all things created, *that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,* whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Revelation 7:9 King James Version 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, *a great multitude, which no man could number,* of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

  • @paulo.8899

    @paulo.8899

    Жыл бұрын

    God exists becase a book says he does? No evidence required? How about Superman?

  • @treasurepoem

    @treasurepoem

    Жыл бұрын

    The laws of physics exists because a book says it does? No evidence required? How about Superman? Consciousness exists because a book says it does? No evidence required? How about Superman? The bible in layman terms is about faith and not about science or theory, so no evidence is needed. faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians" h Similar: trust belief confidence conviction credence reliance dependence optimism hopefulness hope expectation h Opposite: mistrust 2. *strong belief in God* or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "bereaved people who have shown supreme faith" h Similar: religion church sect denomination

  • @joecanis484
    @joecanis484 Жыл бұрын

    He made a statement that if god did not exist we would not exist. Prove it. I have read Aristotle, Thomas Aquinus, and others who offer arguments (proofs) that god exists. But in order to achieve their conclusions they make, in my mind, unallowable assumptions are claimed to launch their arguments as a prelude to their proof. So nice to allow oneself such latitude and freedom. With enough of an assumption begging an argument for something, just about anything can be "proven".

  • @waldwassermann
    @waldwassermann Жыл бұрын

    Could it be so that there is only the Real?

  • @user-ry2qs7xf9k
    @user-ry2qs7xf9k Жыл бұрын

    *Consciousness, but it's so evident that people can't see it.*

  • @allauddin732
    @allauddin732 Жыл бұрын

    The ONE is the only true reality. You want the top prize during the test. It's not fair to the very nature of to be examined.

  • @deanodebo
    @deanodebo Жыл бұрын

    Seems like he’s got a well-developed, coherent, and consistent worldview. This, in contrast to most people commenting

  • @bobs182

    @bobs182

    Жыл бұрын

    He seems like he has an incoherent and inconsistent worldview.

  • @deanodebo

    @deanodebo

    Жыл бұрын

    @@bobs182 I’m curious. In what way?

  • @bobs182

    @bobs182

    Жыл бұрын

    @@deanodebo He asserts the supernatural as other than being a product of the mind.

  • @deanodebo

    @deanodebo

    Жыл бұрын

    @@bobs182 What is that inconsistent with or how is it incoherent?

  • @bobs182

    @bobs182

    Жыл бұрын

    @@deanodebo It is inconsistent with what we know about the world and the human mind. It is only coherent if you first believe in the supernatural. To believe in the supernatural you must first believe in a natural world to determine what is unnatural. And if you believe everything is unnatural, you have made the term meaningless.

  • @alexatedw
    @alexatedw Жыл бұрын

    Nah this guy is lost

  • @TurinTuramber

    @TurinTuramber

    Жыл бұрын

    Most people are I am afraid. Thing is they don't want to be woken up.

  • @alexatedw

    @alexatedw

    Жыл бұрын

    @@TurinTuramber they are just playing there game, getting lost in all this.

  • @waldwassermann

    @waldwassermann

    Жыл бұрын

    No body is ever lost although it may appear so.

  • @S3RAVA3LM

    @S3RAVA3LM

    Жыл бұрын

    ​@@TurinTuramber 500+ comments and you haven't once displayed erudition. There's no way you're a real person.

  • @ladyzincognito3182
    @ladyzincognito3182 Жыл бұрын

    The Ground State of Blue. That's real

  • @Morgana7262
    @Morgana7262 Жыл бұрын

    "god creates abstract objects, not in a sense that he brings them in existence, but that he sustains them in existence, God holds abstract objects in existence by his will... " - Just completely made up, top to bottom. Just... made it up!

  • @tedgrant2
    @tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын

    I could easily make a list of non-material things. But what would be the point of making a non-material list ? Nobody is interested.

  • @mohannadislaieh3009
    @mohannadislaieh3009 Жыл бұрын

    Dude was going alright, until he started talking about god. That made the first “abstract” existence in things sound absurd.

  • @CesarClouds
    @CesarClouds Жыл бұрын

    I read his book Scaling the Secular City nearly thirty years ago, and I was never convinced by that standard anti-science, Christian apologetics.

  • @mahnazqaiser3371
    @mahnazqaiser3371 Жыл бұрын

    Evidence for angels and demons???

  • @paulo.8899

    @paulo.8899

    Жыл бұрын

    Trust me bro

  • @jameshudson169
    @jameshudson169 Жыл бұрын

    Unicorns aren't material or aren't real? Is Charlie Brown real?

  • @bobs182

    @bobs182

    Жыл бұрын

    Snoopy is real because I saw him in the image on a window that many people thought looked like the virgin Mary.

  • @Anime.Openings
    @Anime.Openings Жыл бұрын

    He got me ungil angels and demons

  • @PaulHoward108
    @PaulHoward108 Жыл бұрын

    Nouns are not material. Only adjectives and verbs can be material.

  • @tonyatkinson2210

    @tonyatkinson2210

    Жыл бұрын

    Is running material ? 🏃‍♂️

  • @PaulHoward108

    @PaulHoward108

    Жыл бұрын

    @@tonyatkinson2210 Whether running is material or spiritual depends on the runner's intentions.

  • @tonyatkinson2210

    @tonyatkinson2210

    Жыл бұрын

    @@PaulHoward108 “spiritual “ is definitely not material . It’s a feeling /state of mind .

  • @JohnQPublic11
    @JohnQPublic11 Жыл бұрын

    Krauss is struggling.

  • @browngreen933
    @browngreen933 Жыл бұрын

    The "spirits without bodies" exist within brain chemistry. I know, because after 3 totally sleepless nights this winter one was trying to invade my body. It's called lunacy.

  • @whitefiddle

    @whitefiddle

    Жыл бұрын

    Did it bring a bottle of wine like a proper guest? 🤣

  • @bobs182

    @bobs182

    Жыл бұрын

    The human mind, the final frontier. We have little awareness of our subconscious that dictates much of our decisions. The supernatural comes from our subconscious.

  • @browngreen933

    @browngreen933

    Жыл бұрын

    @@whitefiddle No, it was an evil spirit and brought fear to the point where I shouted, "Go away! Go away!" It gave me a new appreciation for both demonic spiritual possession and religious ecstasy. At the same time I was observing myself and knew it was brain chemistry doing it -- not actual spirit beings. But it sure felt like it.

  • @whitefiddle

    @whitefiddle

    Жыл бұрын

    @@bobs182 We have _incomplete_ awareness of our own subconscious and we have precious little knowledge of the unknown/spiritual/subliminal/paranormal, etc. Hearing two blowhards like this talk about these things is just comical. They are not talking sense, they are merely trying to harmonize their presuppositions and prejudices. Then to make things even more preposterous they try to do it using the vocabulary of science. It's funny to watch, but extremely unenlightening. Maybe in another 13.7 billion years they will get their first clue. Here's hoping. 🍷

  • @captiongeeza
    @captiongeeza Жыл бұрын

    This guy completely contradicted his own argument when he entered into the 'Gods and Demons' realm 🤔😵‍💫

  • @fred_2021
    @fred_202110 ай бұрын

    One man's collection of beliefs, opinions, and superstitions. Thus does the human mind, with its limited resources, vainly strive to make sense of existence. Small wonder that the picture often resembles a Picasso or a Dali.

  • @doring4579
    @doring457928 күн бұрын

    🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️

  • @jamesconner8275
    @jamesconner8275 Жыл бұрын

    JPM is the guy that had a personal experience with 'God.' I think he is also a member of the Flat Earth Society. I don't know why RLK gives such nutters a platform to spew their nonsense.

  • @LuigiSimoncini

    @LuigiSimoncini

    Жыл бұрын

    I really really really hope he does it to make fun of them exposing their delusions

  • @kos-mos1127

    @kos-mos1127

    Жыл бұрын

    I think RLK does this to expose their delusion.

  • @pnf197
    @pnf197 Жыл бұрын

    The Cogito alone would suggest that the non-material defines the material; without the non-material, the material has no subjectivity and cannot be objective either. Abstractions (whatever they are) is consciousness at work building the emergent information for any act of realization.

  • @MegaDonaldification
    @MegaDonaldification Жыл бұрын

    Kuhn, I don't blame you. If only you knew about the invincible words like the royals and wizards/native doctors do.

  • @user-yv6gm6qv9i
    @user-yv6gm6qv9i Жыл бұрын

    Nothing can exist outside of existence and even for existence to exist, it would have to be aware of its existence. So the existence of the mind and the entire universe could not have been possible without self-awareness which is God which is us.

  • @clemsonalum98
    @clemsonalum98 Жыл бұрын

    Interesting guy I like him and find him compelling. He's 100% right about the two types of cultures, we see the western cultures including the US slowly decaying in direct connection with the shift in culture. Europe as well, probably a little bit ahead of the US.

  • @kos-mos1127

    @kos-mos1127

    Жыл бұрын

    Then you have middle eastern cultures that are stagnant and dead.

  • @longcastle4863
    @longcastle4863 Жыл бұрын

    This guy accuses people of not living in reality. And then claims angels and demons are real. The kind of idiocy in thinking that can only arise out of religion.

  • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
    @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Жыл бұрын

    Existence is any level of *information* that can be communicated. If it can be conceived and actuated based on its information, then it can exist. *Example:* A square-circle can be articulated, discussed, and even a definition attached to it, but it cannot exist. It can't because the actual information associated with it cannot be actuated (communicated).

  • @SamoaVsEverybody814

    @SamoaVsEverybody814

    Жыл бұрын

    Precisely. Only coherently communicable things are real. Conceivability is infinite. It's a thin line between the 2 when you factor in logic & mathematics, and the ever-evolving nature of knowledge.

  • @Mageblood

    @Mageblood

    Жыл бұрын

    Pseudo-intellectual ramble 👍

  • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

    @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

    Жыл бұрын

    @@SamoaVsEverybody814 *"Conceivability is infinite."* ... Negative. You cannot conceive a square-circle. That demonstrates a limitation to conceivability. End of story.

  • @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

    @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Mageblood *"Pseudo-intellectual ramble"* ... Then educate me, please.

  • @kos-mos1127

    @kos-mos1127

    Жыл бұрын

    @@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC. The problem of a square circle is not that it is not conceivable. The circle by definition is 360 degrees where all point are equal distance from the center. A square is made up two horizontal and vertical lines at 90 degree angels. That has to do more with the meaning of symbol then conceivability.

  • @djdhdhfsshheid3441
    @djdhdhfsshheid3441 Жыл бұрын

    I'm really kind of shocked (or at least don't comprehend) that you would interview someone with ideas held on such weak intellectual scaffolding! It dilutes your otherwise brilliant channel, being a nexus of such diverse "intelligent" engaging acedemics, disciplines, and schools of thought! Hopefully L Ron Hubard isn't next... (kidding of course) Thank you for your normally amazing content!

  • @etienne7774
    @etienne7774 Жыл бұрын

    Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. This gentleman speaks the truth. View Brian Melvin testimony and Bill Wiese about hell. If you're born again of the Spirit of God these things are so easy to understand. God also has a perfect Word, the holy KJB, but you need the Holy Ghost to understand it.

  • @kos-mos1127

    @kos-mos1127

    Жыл бұрын

    The contrary is the Cosmos is still here and everything in the world is the same.

  • @etienne7774

    @etienne7774

    Жыл бұрын

    @@kos-mos1127 Writing non sense or don't you understand the argument in question?

  • @kos-mos1127

    @kos-mos1127

    Жыл бұрын

    @@etienne7774 It’s nonsense to think a God designed the universe where we do not have an example of a universe that God designed. Also there is none evidence for God so everything people believe about God is based on assertions made by people in authority.

  • @etienne7774

    @etienne7774

    Жыл бұрын

    @@kos-mos1127 The universe you live in is proof of God's design, but for those who choose to subject the truth in unrighteousness, they won't believe.