gonna have to watch this one more than once....

@sergeantslaughter5695

6 жыл бұрын

LOL I know, right!

I’m a grad student currently taking a course with van Inwagen. I feel very lucky and honored. 🤓

I think he got that last argument from me, when I proposed it to him. Or we independently came to the same idea.

@RadicOmega

4 жыл бұрын

Ψ Dr. Joshua Rasmussen a PHD in Philosophy and one of the leading Philosophers of Religion alive today.....

@RadicOmega

4 жыл бұрын

Ψ I would definitely recommend you check out his work. He’s changing the dynamic fs

@gamislatte5470

4 жыл бұрын

no he stole it from Mr. David Lewis haha..

Thank you for uploading these, truly amazing

Agree or disagree, van Inwagen is incredibly logic and clear minded. Impressive.

I love this channel

It's easier to get when you see it written down and follow it slowly...

Ironic that on the discussion question Why not nothing? he brings up legitimate questions in regards to something else.

In five minutes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, this man summarised everything I was taught in my first term of philosophy 101.

Unparalleled logical gymnastics. He breezes through various logical iterations at a rapid clip, making it a bit difficult to follow..

It would be great to get an update into how Robert Kunn is progressing in his biological attempt to end his confussion....or does he have a good idea of the truth now and needs the extra cash? Best stuff on interest...great series

"Why am I me?" is a similar kind of question, or if it makes it less circular: "Why do I have the experiences I have and not some other set of experiences?" On the one hand, the experiences I have seem contingent as I easily imagine having other ones, but on the other hand seem necessary because I couldn't have not been me (who has the experiences me has). One approach is to give up the necessary/contingent distinction as a human myth.

@stanh24

2 жыл бұрын

I personally don’t spend much time on necessary vs contingent beings, etc. I have tentatively embraced the Many Worlds Hypothesis; that all physically possible worlds exist. Does that belief change my everyday experience? Yes, somewhat, but not greatly. My morning coffee still tastes the same as yesterday’s.

If I make it to heaven, I'll be sure to ask God this lol.

What would you rather get nothing or something?

@Vitamin.Z

4 жыл бұрын

Depends on what the something is

That van inwagen's Modal collapse Argument

The conclusion is ridiculous. The assertion that something exists in some world does not instantiate the necessitation of any being, contingent or necessary. So how he then comes to the conclusion that a necessary being exists in the world in which something exists is wild.

@YassenChapkanov

4 күн бұрын

The necessity is for an explanation. If the explanation is contingent you just add it to the allencompasing proposition that the universe exists. You still need an explanation for that and it can't be contingent. What I don't understand is why he assumes the necessary cause is sentient. I would argue the necessary cause of reality is that when reality doesn't exist there are no rules preventing something coming from nothing

🤯

There's no such thing as nothing.

Can someone summarise this?

@chrism6315

2 жыл бұрын

Very smart man tries to rationalise his belief in magical sky wizards, fails.

@darkknightsds

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrism6315 That is not what this is about at all, and to this very smart man, God does not belong to the same category of beings as sky wizards. Sky wizards are contingent beings. God is the uncreated.

@chrism6315

2 жыл бұрын

@@darkknightsds god is uncreated? Cool, prove it. Rather than waste time explaining it to me though, just go straight to the Swedish academy and collect your Nobel prize Edit: I appreciate you not wasting my time and not replying, thanks for that 👍

@sledzeppelin

Жыл бұрын

I have not watched the video yet, but I will make a predictive summary: “God exists because I really want him to.” How close was I?

neccesity isnt neccesary

Didn't this comment not exist before I posted it? It must have been in nothingness, unless there is a place somewhere in somethingness whereby all the comments that could ever be are waiting around somewhere, somehow, waiting to be posted by some means. Kind of like quantum mechanics with their "probability waves" hanging around somewhere waiting to be observed by some observer. Are all the comments that could ever be just hanging around waiting for some commentor to comment them? Or are some people in QM full of BS? And if I observe them full of BS, then wouldn't they be full of BS in actually reality? Or maybe they would be in some sort of superposition, full and simultaneously not full of BS, and maybe all states of filling up with BS too? Where is the NSA when you need them to hack into the realm of all concepts to access all the comments that haven't even been posted yet? Or, did the NSA even know beforehand this comment before even I did and before I posted it? Or maybe I am the NSA posting my own comment that I observed in the realm of all concepts from comments that have never ever been posted yet? Maybe just to post this comment to give it a more fuller existence? Maybe even to show myself, "I comment, therefore I am." (For those who remember, "Kilroy was here." In essence, am I "Kilroy"?) So, did this comment come from nothingness? If so, then nothingness actually exists as the place from where this comment came from. Of which though, would be somethingness and not nothingness. All comments that could ever be are somewhere in somethingness. If nothingness does not actually exist, then how could it not be any other way? And consider this: If the entire English language with all it's symbologies were put into a huge data base and rearranged in all the possible ways that they could ever be, all the wisdom that could ever be expressed by the English language would be in there. There would be massive amounts of junk in there too, so proper discernment would be needed. Likewise, all the best and most moving speeches would be in there too, just waiting to come out and be expressed. There would also be massive amounts of junk speeches in there too, so proper discernment would be needed. But just ponder all the wisdom and great speeches in there just waiting to be discerned. And the English language is not the only language in existence either. I think I will end this comment now and go back to nothingness from whence I came, or did I come from an actual eternal somethingness? Am I actually the eternal somethingness expressing my comments to myself? Time for another drink to ponder it all.

@srb20012001

6 жыл бұрын

sounds like an exercise in Boolean epistemology to me. Fun with sets! but not seriously ontological.

@CrazyFanaticMan

5 жыл бұрын

Theres no way your comment came from nothing It came from you You are something Theres no way you came from nothing Nothingness does not exist Quite simple and, hopefully my premises support my argument, loved reading your comment even though it was a tad long and really bouncy to read :)

The alleged necessity of god to prevent an infinite regress tells you nothing about that god. You still have all the work ahead of you to get to a particular religious doctrine. And if we’re allowed to just invent the answer to the question of infinite regress, then I’ll call mine Philip. Philip is the uncaused cause. Done! No more thinking or researching necessary.

One of the things that annoy about this channel is that the conversation goes from God to Christian God biblical without a buy your leave. Let's say, it smakes of a lack of even handedness.

@stanh24

2 жыл бұрын

It’s obviously part of Mr Kuhn’s upbringing, but to be fair, he does raise the following question with this same philosopher in a different episode entitled “Do Major Religions Worship the Same God?

So....Nothing is impossible.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

5 жыл бұрын

Rephrase that as "non-being is impossible" or "the absence of ANY existence is impossible."

@tcl5853

2 жыл бұрын

You might be right about that, it’s absurd to think that “nothing “ can in some real way exist. However, it’s as equally absurd to say that “something” exists without some explanation for it to exist. Either way, it requires faith, not science, to believe either proposition. There isn’t an explanation that can satisfy either question. At bottom both views require letting go of reason, and consequently adopting a non reasonable unexplainable view point.

God did it

I wouldn"t bet against there being something and nothing at the same time, nor a single entity sharing multiple states in the same moment.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

5 жыл бұрын

"there being...nothing" is a self-refuting statement. "There" and "being" both imply existence whereas "nothing" in this context means "non-being" or "non-existence." So your sentence tells us that *non-existence* exists (which is an incoherent combination of words), or that existence simultaneously exists and doesn't exist (again, this is incoherent). Unless you're using a Kraussian version of "nothing," there's really no way to make sense of your proposal.

huh

Why not throw out all this "necessary" and "contingent" decorations and just admit that something exists? Why weaken the principle of sufficient reason? If your goal is to keep it then why not just admit it's an your fundamental belief? If that's not the goal, then there is no reason to keep such a principle when it produces absurd results.

this guy keeps asking that fkn question.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, because it's a good question. Only a profound lack of curiosity and a profound lack of awe at existence could explain your apparent indifference... it's actually a goddamn fascinating and frustrating question. Do you not agree?

@yuriluskov

4 жыл бұрын

:))))))))))

I'm always uncomfortable with the "why not nothing?" voicing of the Big Question, I prefer "Why is there anything?" It seems like many of these arguments end up treating nothing as a kind of something. The question of the existence of anything, on the other hand, adroitly avoids putting nothing as the primary question, and and puts the focus of the question squarely where it belongs, on Being. But being is always duality, always some kind of being-with-something-else. I think the closest we can get with mortal minds is to think of Being as the serial running-through of possibilities inherent in nothing. Neither possibility nor nothing are things (they're not forms of Being). If there's nothing, then there is possibility, one of those possibilities is the possibility of the discovery of what's possible when there's nothing, and that's where we live, in the universe where the possibility of serial unfoldment of possibilities inherent in nothing, in the form of duality, is the possibility that's actual. Another way of saying this is that while Monism is very tempting, it makes more sense to think of the universe as nothing (hence the question "why does nothing exist?" doesn't arise), a nothing which manifests in contrary pairs that cancel out - and that's Being (again, always being-with, always duality). The universe is either/both 0 and/or 2, either nothing or duality (dualities that cancel out to nothing 1 + (-1) = 0). Its monistic unity is more like a Magic Eye illusion, or an imaginary fixed point; and we don't get anywhere by treating it as any kind of reality. IOW the unity of the universe is like the centre of gravity, or the existence of the self - real in one sense, in the sense that you can work with it in calculation, not real in another sense, in the sense that it's not experienceable (since all experience is duality).

@intension1744

6 жыл бұрын

Sounds like Hegel

“Intellectual development of theism” is an oxymoron.

Arguing the question from the point of Christian theism is wrong because Christianity-Islam, and Hebrew religions do not respond to theism which is hylozoism or hylolsychism, that is the substance is live and it has a soul, ύλοζωή, and, ύλοψυχισμός, as Thales asserts. These religions are technical and inhuman on the side of humanism.

Why do people tend to pretend that theology has anything by to offer in answering big questions when they it relies on so many presuppositionalmasmption. Theological answers have added nothing to progress on this area. For millennia theology has actively hindered progress when it comes to the big questions.

@HolyPoopLongUsername

7 жыл бұрын

My OpenMind progress? Toward what end? Why are we asking questions? what do you want? I think at the end of the day we want meaning and theology is very useful. Also every avenue of thinking always relies on assumptions because there are things that can't be justified. For example, we assume that Logic gets us closer to metaphysical truths.

@matthewmcclure8799

5 жыл бұрын

van Inwagen is a philosopher, not a theologian

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

5 жыл бұрын

First, he is a philosopher who specializes in philosophy of religion, science, and mathematical/abstract objects. He actually knows what he's talking about, even if he's mistaken. Second, the "theological" part isn't assumed; it's deduced. From reasoning about the nature of contingency and the contingency of nature, one can make some interesting arguments for *necessary existence* and from there one can offer arguments for certain qualities that, together, start to look (admittedly vaguely) theological. Please get a copy of the 2009 Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (see especially Pruss' contributions) and Feser's 2017 book "Five Proofs." (btw, Feser disagrees with WLC's kalam argument...). Feser and Pruss have offered some interesting contributions to the debate on why anything at all exists. I am not some Bible thumper and I don't even believe in God. I'm agnostic, almost perfectly 50/50. But the philosophical arguments are worthy of being taken seriously.

@sledzeppelin

Жыл бұрын

@@HolyPoopLongUsername What is “meaning” when it comes to life? I truly don’t understand what you’re all talking about, let alone how believing one guy rose from the dead would give it to you.

@sledzeppelin

Жыл бұрын

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns It seems you might not know what “agnostic” means. It means you accept it’s something you can’t know, not that you’re unsure between two (of many) possibilities.

It is a perennial embarrassment for philosophy that it is so often misused to rationalise people's emotional pre-commitments to religious dogma. That is what distinguishes philosophy proper from sophistry.

The necessary being is the empty set.

If God is a necessary being than he necessarily brings out the human like agents in order to verify his own identity it is vain glorious, narcissistic and capricious endeavour to stamp his authority, simply he can't bear to his own existence alone, uneventful uninspirational unexhilarating and so on...

What a load of nonsense from this Theist...we invent Gods and Religions silly

@YassenChapkanov

4 күн бұрын

But his argument is mostly very strong. The only logical jump is from a just necessary cause to a sentient one

Religious people have no idea what this statement means, "Man was created in the image of God". Man and God are the same exact thing so once you understand what that one thing is, then all the prophecies in the Bible can be understood.

@Drigger95

6 жыл бұрын

Brad Holkesvig look into Ibn Arabi and Islamic views on this. It's perfectly understandable what this means. It means within human beings is the unique quality of the potentiality of mirroring in a limited manner the attributes of God, of greatness, goodness, love, strength, justice... Ad infinitum.