This guy is one of the best teachers I've ever heard.

I wish I had John Hamer as my lecturer at Uni, perhaps I would have listened a bit more closely! I Thoroughly enjoyed watching this, and also the lecture of Untangling Greek and Roman Myths, absolutely fascinating!

What do you do with witches? - Burn them! - And what do you burn, apart from witches? - More witches! - Wood! - So why do witches burn? - 'Cause they're made of wood? - Good! - How do we tell if she is made of wood? - Build a bridge out of her. - But can you not also make bridges out of stone? - Oh, yeah. - Does wood sink in water? - No, it floats. - Throw her into the pond! - What also floats in water? - Bread. - Apples. - Very small rocks. - Cider! Great gravy. - Cherries. Mud. - Churches. - Lead. - A duck! - Exactly. - So, logically-- - If she weighs the same as a duck... - she's made of wood. - And therefore? - A witch! Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

In the day & age of everything convenient/instant....this entire talk was equal to a fine meal taking hours if not days to prepare..a complete seven course meal ...& tasty to the last crumb! Very nice job. ✌😎✌

It would not be a good idea to watch this video without the goodness of the idea of coffee or tea manifested on earth in the form of a beverage.

Have you read the His Dark Materials trilogy, by Phillip Pullman? There is an Oblation Board in the story. A "sacrifice" is a shared meal one makes Holy -- nowadays we just say Grace. An "offering" is something given to God. Oblation is something so offered. Like one's first born...

That was a long and roundabout walk. I like it.

Fantastic lectures. Where can I donate towards a mute button for the attention-needy interrupters? 😂

Occam's blade has been waylaid, not enough sun too long in the shade,it seems however ,the game is perpetually played,the search for the arc of perfection, honed for falsehood reflection,this life is a game,let it be played, Occam's razor blade

@jeffwalther3935

2 жыл бұрын

I said what you commented here above in different words. The cutting of the "blade" was "waylaid", here too, mistakenly; the Razor separates science and religion, faith and reason. But, I think the two can be restored by making religion exclusively scientific and reasonable and then, it IS real, at least, kept true, honest and good, completely correct(ly) the BEST way we know how to do things. (It's Religious Naturalism, I'm its founder/author/advocate/inventor, circa 1991.)

Even scientists abandon Occams razor whenever the mood strikes. For example, there is no way "infinite parallel universes" that are created every nanosecond with every waveform interaction, is absolutely NOT a "simple" solution. But it is the most popular current theory.

@jtzoltan

2 жыл бұрын

What do you think about this theory? Is it plausible or does it seem absurd to you?

@Rannsack

2 жыл бұрын

@@jtzoltan I think it is absurd and unscientific. If the Universe splits into three universes 1, 2 and 3, but there is no way to know which one we went into, and no way to ever detect or know anything about the other two, then the theory is entirely meaningless. It provides no value or information.

@jtzoltan

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rannsack I assume it fits best with some mathematical representations of their current set of integrated theorems that collectively constitute what many experts may think is our best understanding of fundamental physics. But yeah, I'd agree with your answer before thinking they've actually nailed down something like what you wrote or where I guessed it might come from

@Rannsack

2 жыл бұрын

@@jtzoltan "fits best" is really a stretch, the reason it is a preferred theory is because the wave function can collapse one way or the other way. But there is no way to predict which way it will collapse (Schrodinger cat), so the theory is that it does BOTH, thus creating two spit universes. One universe where the cat is alive, and one where it is dead. Since we cant predict which will happen it "fits best" to imagine both happen. So yeah, maybe there are infinite universes where every possibility exists, or maybe sometimes a cat just dies. I know which theory fits Occam's razor better.

@jtzoltan

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rannsack interesting, thanks for explaining. I always suspected they needed a multiverse to explain why, without a creator, our universe happened to exist with the "fundamental physics" setup just right to make life possible, like the relative values of 15 parameters that determine the qualities of our universe and how it behaves (it's something I'm probably misremembering from a Physicist friend I had).

I normally love your channel, but I'm going to have to watch this one instead of listening. I need the slides. I got Chaucer, Thomas Aquinas, Socrates, something about forms and if they are internal or external to God, and he had four scribes.

What would be the opposite of Ocham's Razor?

We can hear the questions and interruptions just fine without the microphone. There's no need to prolong the interruption.

Could someone communicate this to the teachers teaching common core math?

The art of rhetorical deduction based on presumption and coercion leads to a convenient collective consensus despite Ockhams theorem.

@MendTheWorld

2 жыл бұрын

The collective consensus of a Ptolemaic cosmology requires epicycles to describe the motions of the planets. Is not the Copernican system more parsimonious? By what alternative criteria could Galileo have persuaded the Church that the Copernican cosmology is the more valid?

@tomfreemanorourke1519

2 жыл бұрын

@@MendTheWorld So long as the 70%, or above, of any population, have been indoctrinated and coerced into the consensus trance by all means necessary, all assumptions from anyone, be they aged or young, state-educated or self-educated, those who dare to speak out, have always been ignored, incarcerated, murdered or tolerated by all, be they corrupt or not. The global collective innocently ignorant, that is what you and I and all sentient beings belong to, are perpetually incomplete, perpetually indeterminate, perpetually uncertain in perpetual motion. The conjecture and perpetual tolerance of the global innocent collective ignorance are unbeginning unending beginnings and endings. There are no answers only clues. Love always

I'll quickly say my piece: I think destroying, in this example, John Hamer, entirely would not necessitate the destruction of all of "humanness" because of the destruction of the "humanness" within the form of Hamer but I do think that it would necessitate at that point a redefinition of what possessing the quality of "humanness" means as a portion of what "humanness" was has been obliterated and thusly needs a new scope. My two cents.

The problem with this exposition of history is not taking seriously why Socrates was so threatening and therefore to Athens political oligarchy. The irrational and arbitrary rule by the pantheon of gods is why the prisoners in the cave were prisoners. Not because of some abstract non threatening academic and abstract “forms.” Plato was attempting to effect a revolution against the continued tragic misrule by the oligarchy and indeed attempted to create a “republic” in Syracuse. Evading the political challenge to the oligarchical model, which Aristotle defended to the contrary, misses the Forrest for the trees.

How can you attribute the pyramids to primitive technology when we could not recreate them?

38:08 uncomfortable…

@DeletedProgramming

Жыл бұрын

😅

One thing the compatriots of Platon certainly didn't have: The perception that the molesting of children could be wrong.

If God is love, how come men suppose to know the mind of God? The heart is true, the mind deceitful. Why was it not found that people can be touched by the heart of God? Why claim knowledge of this mystery (God’s mind) without revelation?

But you have incorrectly stated occams razor: All other factors being equal, the simplest answer is (usually) the best. In any situation where occams razor is incorrect like the cause of WW2 example, you will find "all other factors" not being equal. ...I put the "usually" in parentheses because it is included in the definition but I personally feel it is extraneous

@brotherjongrey9375

2 жыл бұрын

As soon as we correct for "all other factors" this becomes a logic truth. A "Law" by any definition that any other would fit ...which is why Aristotle included this idea

@samiam3297

2 жыл бұрын

Possible unconscious transference on my part but im fairly certain he included it. Might want to re-listen. Peace.

@spiritualanarchist8162

2 жыл бұрын

I think the problem is that historical questions like 'the cause of WW2 ' aren't - supposed to be solved by 'Ockhams razor ' to begin with, because it implicates that there is just one cause for WW2. (or WW1 ,etc)

@samiam3297

2 жыл бұрын

@@spiritualanarchist8162The abductive heuristic bit which categorizes it as a tool & not a logical "rule" or law helps with the application in matters of ww1-ww2. I had to re-listen my self to jar my noodle. Bar this inclusion, yes, it would cause logical fallacy galore!!! (On a side note fully enjoyed your yt-content - FUNNY STUFF!)...Peace.

@spiritualanarchist8162

2 жыл бұрын

@@samiam3297 Very creative responds . My head is till spinning ! Anyway, thank you ..I guess ;)

Starting from the propositions that God is omnipotent and omniscient, one can make logical deductions about the nature of God, to the point where things get absurd, but the true believer will not go back and adjust the starting propositions to see if the absurdities can be eliminated. . If God does not have idea, and just knows everything, straight off, without any effort, then logically he is not a thinker, he has no need of thinking. Not sure if this is a watertight demonstration of absurdity, but it is something that occurred to me. . Stephen Wolfram's experiments with cellular automata showed that there are some rules (for transitioning to the next discrete time step) that lead to complex patterns that cannot be predicted by some short-circuiting method. The only way to determine an outcome is to perform the steps. So if you want to know the state of a cell at the trillionth step, you have to step the automata a trillion times. . This problem does not occur if one sums a series such as 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 etc, where we can determine, by a shortcut, that the sum is 2. That's great, and a lot of science and math depends on such shortcuts. But the automata problem is not susceptible to such shortcuts, at least not in some cases. . The implication is that, somewhere in the lower depths of God's machinery, some time in his dim and distant past, he would have had to work out and note down all the step of every possible automaton, to be able to instantly know their 'trillionth step'. If God claims he simply 'knows', he is being disingenuous. There is no way to simply 'know' without having done the work. . This has implications for (a) God's omniscience and (b) his use of his omnipotence. He cannot create the world in 7 days with full knowledge of consequent outcomes because he would have had to simulate it in advance in order to know. So therein lies a question for us: Are we the real thing, or are we just a simulation he is running to figure out ultimate outcomes before he runs the real thing? Does he do this over and over again, varying the starting conditions each time, till he finds an outcome that he likes? Does this hint at the existence of the Multiverse? Does it explain the need for the convenient excuse of 'free will' getting in his way so that he can't be blamed when stuff goes wrong? . Logical assumptions about God can lead to absurdities. They are too simple. Better assumptions would be based on a more sophisticated model of God. We can then re-run our assumptions and see if things work out. If not, we can tweak the model and re-run. Until we get a God we like. Given the foregoing, does this sound familiar?

@brucewilliam8973

2 жыл бұрын

Why must one start with the assumption that a god exists?

@dakrontu

2 жыл бұрын

@@brucewilliam8973 Why indeed start with the assumption that God exists. I was just trying to demonstrate what happens when you make that Assumption and extrapolate from it and you always end up with something completely absurd

@brucewilliam8973

2 жыл бұрын

@@dakrontu fair enough 👌

@lepidoptera9337

2 жыл бұрын

@@brucewilliam8973 Because logic can only make statements about things that exist. That's the reason why all logical statements about god have to fail. He doesn't exist.

@MendTheWorld

2 жыл бұрын

“Given the foregoing, does this sound familiar?” May we conclude, then, that God actually _does_ throw dice?

Theology is the study of the null set.

@JackPullen-Paradox

6 ай бұрын

The null set is contained in all sets.

OMG! How can anyone talk about Hebrews 4:12 for an hour and a half. And then I learned William of Ockham didn't even say the words "Occam's razor". I was hoping to find out more about the ancients who knew we live in a binary system. Onward Christian soldiers!

Thks ........But let tools be purely/no-more-than means towards desires or away-from dreads. Then the worst tools tend to be end-in-themselves, endlessly complex, expensive, etc & thus are to be avoided (ex: pragmatism aka Occam's razor). I enjoy religion. However this type of pragmatism exist univerisally for all living beings (even for theologians).

56:17

Occam's Razor is, itself, an Argument from Simplicity fallacy.

@arthurwieczorek4894

3 ай бұрын

Could it possibly be that your argument, that Ocham's Razor is an Argument from Simplicity fallacy, is itself an Argument from Simplicity fallacy? If Ocham's Razor IS a fallacy, then its opposite must not be a fallacy. So what is a principle that is the opposite of Ocham's Razor? For that matter, what is the opposite of an Argument from Simplicity fallacy? Would it be an argument, a description of the complexity of primary counter balancing factors?

@MrGreensweightHist

3 ай бұрын

@@arthurwieczorek4894 Ockham's razor assert that the simplest answer is most often the correct one. the problem is, the veracity of a claim has no relation to whether or not it is simple. If all things that are correct were simple, there would be no fields like theoretical physics. Also, how "simple" an explanation is depends completely on the experience of the observer. Algebra is simple to the advance mathematicians, but highly complex to the 5th grader. So what would the opposite be, you ask? it would be people arguing that something is true due to complexity. For example, the people who argue creationism because humans are "Just too complex to occur naturally" As for, "Could it possibly be that your argument, that Ocham's Razor is an Argument from Simplicity fallacy, is itself an Argument from Simplicity fallacy?" No it is not. Did I say Ockham's razor was right because it was simple? No. Did I say t was wrong because it was simple? No. I merely point out that it is not, inherently, a valid argument to the claim of a position being correct nor incorrect. An argument must be based on actual evidence to be validated. Given the choice of explain stars you have the following two options... a: Stars are massive, naturally occurring reactors that are constantly fusing lower elements of the periodic table to yield higher elements b: Stars are hole poked in a giant canopy over the Earth. B is simpler, but certainly not correct.

@arthurwieczorek4894

3 ай бұрын

@@MrGreensweightHist The purpose of Ocham's Razor is not for establishing truth as such. Its area of applicability is for choosing which of two or more competing explanations, each of which adequately explains a phenomenon, the one more likely to be true. 'Ocham's Razor is not a valid argument to the claim of a position being correct or incorrect.' Is that to say 'Ocham's Razor is not a valid argument to the claim of a given position being preferable or not preferable where competing claims are presented of equal explanatory competence, one being simpler and another being more complex'? About stars. Your 'A' is a longer statement that uses elements already known in its explanation. Your statement 'B', though shorter, posits a canopy (Where does it rest on the Earth?) but not the source of the star light that comes through. So another demention of the Ocham's Razor assessment is Are the elements of one explanation more familiar to you than the elements of the other, again assuming equal explanatory power. Certainly an area where Ocham's Razor can be a double edged sword. In any case, Ocham's Razor is not A shorter explanation is to be prefered over a longer one.

@arthurwieczorek4894

3 ай бұрын

@@MrGreensweightHist I wrote out an answer to your 'Ockam's razor....' post last night and did not hit send. I contend that Ocham's Razor does not assert that the simplest answer is more often the correct one. I contend that Ocham's Razor assets that the simplest answer is most often the correct one (ie., is preferable) when choosing among competing answers that are equally plausible. What about this as a Razor. Given competing answers that are equally plausible, the one to be preferred is the one couched in the language and explanatory elements that one is most familiar with. Pseudo-Ocham's Razor? Semi-Ocham's Razor? Quasi-Ocham's Razor? I agree with you that when stated as 'Ocham's Razor assets that the simplest answer is most often the correct one', it is an Argument from Simplicity fallacy. You demonstrate that I was wrong in asserting that if Ocham's Razor was a fallacy the opposite of it must not be a fallacy. You show that the opposite is fallacy of a different kind.

@MrGreensweightHist

3 ай бұрын

@@arthurwieczorek4894 Except Ockham's razor does not actually help determine anything. In my example, while a canopy is wrong, the idea of a canopy is FAR simpler than the idea of understanding fusion reactions. This is why the idea of a canopy was adopted first, because the simpler ideas tend to occur with less understanding, only to be replaced by more complex ideas when we have better understanding. At this point you are just being argumentative for the sake of argument. Good bye

Meat of it starts at 1:08:24

@MendTheWorld

2 жыл бұрын

Potatoes are good as well.

I saw a snail move across my razor.

I want to make a few comments, the speakers mention previous philosophers and familiarity with their literature. But I would state the problem that Occam delved into was more profound. We have to imagine that orthodoxy created as its core theism was a trinitarian silencer, you believe certain things S = G, F= G and HS = G but S not F not HS. From that point how does one define how to prove that god exists. At the time there came to be many convoluted proofs of gods existence which were superficially covered in the presentation. So Occam runs into trouble because he believes that the teachings of Jesus on accumulating wealth trump the churches impression of wealth in the ecclesiastical sense. The Franciscan and Papal opinions differed for obvious political and economic reasons. But semantics and philosophy are not the same, even if we try to make them same. I can go back 5000 years in the literature and demonstrate that the notion of god and loyalty thereof had a dependency on what people believe was in the best interest of the state and to a lessor degree major actors (priest, lugal). This notion of goodness, truthfulness and wisdom was tied up within identities and belief systems. The Hebrews began out of the same belief system but gradually formulated an omnipotent/omniscient god. The Christian god is a formulation of the contradictory writings in lieu of other contradictory ideas. So the Christian god as we can see in the trinity is based in a formulation. It is form. Second the idea of the god is basically something that evolved from Paul to John, and then sorting out all the contradictions. The truth of the god is faith. The wisdom of the god is doctrine. I need to disclose that I believe in the “sliver of thinness” between the skeptic and the atheist. So let’s talk about the ideas. First truth, I really did not understand what truth was until I needed to apply statistics to observations, but also observations of perspective. A mathematical number ascribing something is not false only works as truth once many perspectives have been explored. An example if I measure distance I can say New York City is 1700 miles from here, and then I walk 1700 miles therefore if I am in a city it must be New York. But then with a critique I learn that there is no strait line I can walk to NYC. So then I ascribe a path of a perfectly curved line from where I am at 1700 miles. The next critic points out that I must supply a reference position and a collection of directions and ascribing the semicircular path. I then provide that. Finally the last critique ascribes that the earth is imperfectly round and therefore the path is not semicircular. When I make all the corrections I find that I am in New Jersey and not New York. But I could have been in Los Angeles, depending on how many criteria I used. What is Good? Ghenghis Khan makes a rather illuminating commentary on what is good. There has to be a certain rationality to goodness or it is meaningless. It’s meaningless to say that goodness is a profound property a god. Is there an idea behind good, yes. The idea of good is that it is a polemic with bad and creates a esoteric pejorative. The good/bad dichotomy is the basis of prejudice or vice versa. Pejorative are a emotive consequence of sentiency as it has evolved in humans over the last few million years. The expression of goodness reflects that which a given cliche has positive or uplifting feelings about. More or less saying that I have prejudice, but I have this idea of goodness that hides the prejudice by ignoring what one thinks is negative, but on what is positive. Either members of my cliche also believe the same or I need to exert effort to convince them. God is good, god is love, god is omnipotent, god is omniscient. Who doesn’t like love, who doesn’t want an omnipotent god or an all knowing god. People don’t argue God is has indifferent feelings, God is weak, a God knows nothing. But once upon a time a good god had a limited set of powers and the god was intertwined with devotion of the faithful and the devotion of the god to the given city(s). As oneupsmanship occurred in the post Babylonian period gods began accumulation more powers and this was “good”. There are some that believe there is goodness that exists outside of human sentiency. For example the universe is an example of god’s goodness. God created the universe and it was good. What is the universe, is it the creation defined in any ancient text? All ancient texts are ignorant of what the universe is, so how could they define it as good. Creation gods are always chasing gaps. I do not believe in any god that is proclaimed to be a creator, not because it cannot be true, but because those who assert such things are either ignorant, sophists or dishonest and it is wise not follow their belief in any deity. Having whittled down good, is Ockham right about good, only god can know what is good. Possibly, but since god does not disclose the profound structure of good so that it is a useful guide, the definition of good is useless. Secondarily, what if god neither has a criteria of good or has the polemic. What if the good of god is simply another logos that humans have applied to god? What do we learn about god from philosophy. The better question is what do we learn about belief from history and how to understand the evolution of belief from scholarship. I do not know what the god of Jesus is, I can only tell you from the most broadly attested teachings is that he had a dichotomous view of God as both the Law and the coming order. He aggressively believed that a time of ending was coming, and he preached an esoteric mysticism. As part of this esoteric belief he preached a partially ascetic philosophy in which denial of wealth was a means of reaching a higher degree of spirituality, also called the Holy Spirit or inner light. He called others to spread this belief as an alternative to establishment Judaism. As far as I am concerned his words are his god. So back to the fundamental problem, is god the god of ideas and was the basis of the critique or was the critique about sophistry applied to the proofs of god. To have an overarching idea of truth or good, there has to be an example of how this god demonstrates that he knows what the best of truth is. In response to Job 38-40, yes we do know where the sun comes from and goes to in the morning and evening. We know many truths now, but those truths or a better system of truths are not revealed in the Bible, therefore we must conclude that if god has an idea of truth he does not or cannot reveal it. Consequently both the idea and the truths themselves are not identities of god. The idea of good are the same thing. The god of creation, again the same thing. Since god has no observable power to be good, show truth, or create . . .there is no argument to be made, since proving god through these aspects is easily falsifiable.

@jhake67

2 жыл бұрын

Wow!

@samiam3297

2 жыл бұрын

.....go back and re study history. The State paid clergy a full salary and then stopped. Why how where when etc....all in inconsequential. Next...so many tangents to make what point? Lastly rib eyes are still a savoury dish while mango a la flambe is still a savory staple. Pop tarts equal junk food and my point.....some foods nourished the body others the soul but even Genghis Khan got constipated. Jesus too for that matter.....meh i could go on but this mind needs coffee and the bliss of bliss only she can provide. Happy studies.

@jhake67

2 жыл бұрын

@@samiam3297 😁

@Darisiabgal7573

2 жыл бұрын

@@samiam3297 what is a soul and why are pop tarts “good” for it. And if pop tarts are good for the soul why do ascetics say that denial is good for the soul. Are they the same soul or two different souls. And what kind of soul does ghenkhis Khan have, many more people converted to his cause in his lifetime than Yeshua’s cause in his lifetime. Who is the judge of souls, and is this who good or bad? There is nothing that binds the soul to earth of heaven, the spirit is bound to the spirit, all else comes from dust and goes to dust. That which is bad or good, high or low, rich or poor has the same fate. There is nothing else if it is not understood, and even once understood only strides between heaven and earth, and can only fathom the faintness of nothing.

@samiam3297

2 жыл бұрын

@@Darisiabgal7573 Smells akin to Semantics with a side of nihilism. I keep everything simple & even for my self i dumb it down. Part A - To know nothing is the goal. I KNOW absolutely nothing. Part B - Since I KNOW nothing and already accepted that with every last particle of my being ... honestly I could care less. Just keeping it simple. Brass tacks. Happy Study's.

To the guy saying philosophers are interested only in philosophy itself and not the practical applications, how to change the world, I quote Marx: "Heretofore, philosophers have only sought to describe the world. The point, however, is to change it."

Some will make and some will show u how 2 use .

I am here for the duration, but I think you have misrepresented Occam at minute 4:00. There is 50-minute Royal Insititute video with an historian of science I base my objection upon. I have not read any texts beyond this, but this Senior Science Historian talking through the Royal Insititue suggests that the razor was to do with experimental design, not solutions!!! When asking questions extraneous variables that add needless complexity to questions i.e., asking the Pope permission to track the rotation of the heavens does not help with said tracking but adds needless variables, intrusive variables, which produce bad answers. I am big fan of your work but today I listen skeptically

Well done. If everything is good. Nothing is good. The term is meaningless. Baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. The razor as nuclear option.

Why are these philosophers, thinkers and church men STILL given so much CREDIT, INFLATED HONOR and GLORY? They jump thru hoops and do mental gymnastics only to arrive at the TAO TE CHING! GLORY HALLESTUPID!

.

@MV-bj1yk

2 жыл бұрын

A live presentation with a 4 day old comment?

@herbsnthings4life

2 жыл бұрын

@@MV-bj1yk LOL

He needs to use it on his head.

Not sure why the lecture went from the basic idea of Occam to the navel gazing of Aquinas. Truly unbearable, and that's after I skipped through 10 minutes to see if there was going to be some kind of point.

Quarry/cut/move/set a stone every 2 minutes for 20 years. Take it from a stonemason not an easy task just saying

Not only Occams Razor but also common sense tells us that earth exists on a flat stationary plane.

@samiam3297

2 жыл бұрын

You must mean a time factor plane...that would make sense otherwise the elliptical shadow on the moon does emerge...🌞🌝🌚🌑🌒🌓🌔🌕🌖🌗🌘🌜🌛🌙🌍🌎🌏😜

@RestoringReality

2 жыл бұрын

@@samiam3297 Did you know that in unicorn world, unicorns eat corn? It's a fact. You can't refute it.

@samiam3297

2 жыл бұрын

@@RestoringReality I could care less who what where when why how & if they eat..not my field not my concern. Now on the off chance I ever come across one, at your guidance, I'll keep a can of corn handy just so it is properly fed. I'll even save some candy corn for dessert & corn flakes for breakfast to boot.

@danielpaulson8838

2 жыл бұрын

How is it in a seemingly infinite cosmos with trillions upon trillions of astral bodies coalescing into round, 3D spheres, we ended up on the only pancake?

@RestoringReality

2 жыл бұрын

@@danielpaulson8838 I don't know and have never met anybody who believes that sillyness, at all. How is it that we were ever led to believe that we live on the exterior surface of a spinning sphere of mostly water is beyond me though because no man, woman or child in recorded history has ever seen or caused water to form to the inverse shape of it's container because if it were possible by means of gravity it'd be reproducible, which is a fundamental tenet of science to begin with but it's not possible because it's an idiotic assertion. The things people can be led to believe used to be shocking to me. Not anymore.

All I'm seeing is that if you preassume that gods exist, then you have to allow for a bunch of other planes of existence. None of The Summa Theologiae is relevant in the observed universe. I'm SO glad the Enlightenment came about. I only wish Humanity wouldn't have spun its wheels so long on exploring the god fantasy.

Do any of these ancient philosophers, in contemplating arguments akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ever consider the existence of mathematical truths? The key thing about mathematical truths is that they do not owe allegiance to God. He cannot contradict them. 2+2=4 no matter what God might prefer. On that basis, they have an 'existence' that is independent of God. They exist whether there is one god, multiple gods, or no gods. They exist whether there is one universe, multiple universes, or no universes. So if things are supposed to only exist because of God, then mathematics is a spanner in the works that disproves this, and all arguments that rely on the supposition being true will need to be re-evaluated.

@technomage6736

2 жыл бұрын

Because of how God is defined, there is no such thing as disproving it. Hence math cannot help us there.

@dakrontu

2 жыл бұрын

@@technomage6736 Defining something does not make it exist

@technomage6736

2 жыл бұрын

@@dakrontu I agree. I'm just saying it's unprovable. While the existence of something can often be proven (not taking "I think, therefore I am" to it's extreme), there is no such thing as proving non-existence, because you'd have to know all of existence to show that something isn't there. This is an easy response to "Prove God doesn't exist"; try proving anything at all doesn't exist.

@technomage6736

2 жыл бұрын

@@dakrontu But really my main point was that they usually define God as existing outside of space and time, so it's too easy for them to then just suppose God made math and all that 🤷‍♂️

@lepidoptera9337

2 жыл бұрын

@@technomage6736 Math can't, but common sense can. If a single fool believes in something, it's almost certainly false. If a billion fools believe in something, it's guaranteed to be false.

Well that destroyed Occam's razor for me.