Stephen Law: Could God Be Evil? (The Evil God Challenge)

Ғылым және технология

Stephen Law is a Philosopher and Author. Currently director of Philosophy and Course Director of the Certificate of Higher Education at the Department of Continuing Education at Oxford University, he was formerly Reader in Philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. He attained his BSc in Philosophy at City University in London, a BPhil at Trinity College, Oxford, and was for three years Junior Research Fellow at The Queen’s College, Oxford, where he obtained his PhD. He researches primarily in the fields of philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and essentialism. His popular books include The Philosophy Gym (2003), The Complete Philosophy Files (2000), and Believing Bullshit (2011). He is also editor of Think, the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal.
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Introduction
0:22 - The Mind-Body Problem & Consciousness
6:13 - Free Will
10:34 - Belief in the Supernatural
15:56 - Arguments for and against God's existence
22:57 - The Evil God Challenge explained
32:14 - Skeptical Theism
42:49 - The use of Analogies to counter Cognitive Dissonances
52:00 - What made Stephen question God?
56:10 - Stephen's book recommendations for those questioning God
1:01:11 - Philosophy of Science & Armchair Philosophy
1:07:13 - What is currently on Stephen's mind? (Wittgenstein & Illusionism)
1:18:04 - Conclusion
EPISODE LINKS:
- Stephen's Work: tinyurl.com/4ukc9xut
- Stephen's Blog: tinyurl.com/4zvw852b
- Stephen's Twitter: x.com/stephenlaw60
- Stephen's Books: tinyurl.com/yc7xy7vw
- Stephen's Publications: tinyurl.com/y73cf5am
CONNECT:
- Website: tevinnaidu.com/
- Podcast: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
- Twitter: / drtevinnaidu
- Facebook: / drtevinnaidu
- Instagram: / drtevinnaidu
- LinkedIn: / drtevinnaidu
=============================
Disclaimer: The information provided on this channel is for educational purposes only. The content is shared in the spirit of open discourse and does not constitute, nor does it substitute, professional or medical advice. We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of listening/watching any of our contents. You acknowledge that you use the information provided at your own risk. Listeners/viewers are advised to conduct their own research and consult with their own experts in the respective fields.
#StephenLaw #God #Good #Evil

Пікірлер: 19

  • @drtevinnaidu
    @drtevinnaidu22 күн бұрын

    FYI: This podcast was recorded towards the end of last year - prior to my 6 month hiatus from the podcast. After a refreshing break, I'm excited to get back to tackling the "Big Questions" and "Hard Problems" in science, philosophy, and beyond! Lots of great thinkers and world leading experts lined up for the channel! If you enjoy the show, please like, subscribe, and join me on this quest to conquer the mind-body problem and take one step closer to the mind-body solution!

  • @TheWorldTeacher

    @TheWorldTeacher

    22 күн бұрын

    Have you actually read Bob's book? It seems not. 🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: INTRODUCTORY PREMISE: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. STANDARD DEFINITIONS: Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is rather misleading, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know. So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! FREEDOM OF CHOICE: The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph). ACADEMIC STUDIES: University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE: If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!! Cont...

  • @philonew

    @philonew

    21 күн бұрын

    I (and other philosophers) have refuted Law's fallacious argument. The so-called challenge has been met. There is no further challenge. I'll be glad to present my study. Feel free to contact me.

  • @drtevinnaidu

    @drtevinnaidu

    21 күн бұрын

    Hey Carlo. Thanks for reaching out. I actually read some of your papers refuting the challenge (when preparing for my interview with Stephen) and would love to chat with you about it! I'll send you an email shortly.

  • @andystewart9701
    @andystewart970118 күн бұрын

    Great interview! Interesting he is leaning towards illusionism!

  • @drtevinnaidu

    @drtevinnaidu

    18 күн бұрын

    Thanks Andy!

  • @HarryNicNicholas
    @HarryNicNicholas17 күн бұрын

    check out the gospel of judas, the bible was edited (it doesn't specify how many books it should contain) it's an interesting read.

  • @coolumesque
    @coolumesque22 күн бұрын

    God frequently takes me out of my body & I find that I am still fully conscious & every atom or spec of my being is fully conscious & can see in all directions at the same time. It's like I am a conscious form that is not in any way limited by the usual material senses. I can see all the different levels of the heavens or universe at the same time & see God or the creator. Then God slowly places me back into my body & I experience my vast universal consciousness being squeezed into a vessel made from senses & my consciousness can only perceive through those senses. It's like if you place a light bulb that is shining in every direction into a box with a few small holes in it & the light then can only shine out through those small holes & is limited in that way. Coming back into the body & experiencing my consciousness being forced to perceive only what the material senses allow me to perceive is like being squeezed into a highly restrictive suit, complete with a helmet that only permits extreme tunnel vision, that restricts all my movements & my life perceptions & thoughts in an absolutely crippling way. It's like an eagle that is living a free life in the sky suddenly being turned into a microbe living under a rock at the bottom of a deep dark hole. So when a fully conscious soul is placed into a material body it is absolutely restrained by that body & its senses & can only perceive what the body & senses allow it to perceive. So if you do something to the body or brain it directly effects the consciousness of the soul inside of it. This would lead scientists to assume that the consciousness is simply a part of the material body & can be controlled by controlling the material body. There is a lot more to it than that from what God has demonstrated to me, but that is just one point I wanted to make as I have just started watching your video. *** PS Also God shows me my future every day & it all comes true within a matter of hours. This shows me the life events that are going to take place & gives me the freedom to avoid getting caught up in those events when they happen. It's like if God tells me there is going to be a bus crash that day then I can choose not to take that bus & when it crashes I am not onboard because God warned me beforehand. So while it may appear that there is no free will in life & we all act according to various material influences that affect us, knowing God & being able to listen to God gives you free will to step outside of that set system of action everyone else is caught up in. So it appears that people do not have free will, while you do because you are in full contact with God who shows you the exact course of life events that are going to take place in the future; & that gives you the freedom to make choices that you would not normally make. So knowing God gives you free will! That's what I have experienced in my life

  • @richarddelconnor

    @richarddelconnor

    21 күн бұрын

    God is not evil. He just doesn’t care.

  • @HarryNicNicholas

    @HarryNicNicholas

    17 күн бұрын

    you're mistaken, lots of people are mistaken, there is no god.

  • @julianholman7379
    @julianholman737922 күн бұрын

    wikipedia says atheism is illegal in Indonesia

  • @HarryNicNicholas

    @HarryNicNicholas

    17 күн бұрын

    lol, love to know how they police that.

  • @ALavin-en1kr
    @ALavin-en1kr20 күн бұрын

    Good and evil are dual. God, or Cosmic Consciousness, in order to be God has to be Unity,; One, Transcendent. God as the supreme good can manifest duality in which both good and evil play a part. In order to have something manifest it has to be dual as the Transcendent does not manifest. The Eastern view that what manifests is God’s dream is the most realistic perspective. Now modern physics sees the apparently real as more of a mirage or a dream having no substance, more a play of ideas on substance, All being consciousness and mind dividing consciousness into the magnetism, electromagnetism, electricity, forces, and elements that make up the macro elements, the micro elements, and forms.

  • @HarryNicNicholas

    @HarryNicNicholas

    17 күн бұрын

    there is no god, you're doing something wrong if you think there is.

  • @ALavin-en1kr

    @ALavin-en1kr

    17 күн бұрын

    @@HarryNicNicholas

  • @ALavin-en1kr

    @ALavin-en1kr

    17 күн бұрын

    @@HarryNicNicholas Since you are so sure of that, could we take it for granted that you can explain what has been referred to as ‘the hard problem of consciousness’, exactly what it is, is it fundamental or not? Also mind, is it the case that it emerges with quantum events?

  • @johnatchason6506
    @johnatchason650619 күн бұрын

    God likes to make a mole hill out of a mountain. Awww, your sun went supernova? NBD, there's a trillion other suns out there. I'm sure the right sun will come along when you're ready, champ!

Келесі