วีดีโอ

Are u going to respond to deen? He made a video refuting ur video abt uthman

what's worse about Descartes (the biggest dead end of western philosophy in like, forever) is that he was bling to the fact that he reach a point of circular reasoning, rather than some deep insight. Quite an embarrassment, actually. The very grammar of "I think therefore I am" means nothing else but "I exist and my thinking exist, therefore I exist, as so does my thinking." That "ergo" is completely superfluous , it's a tautology. Of course he felt panic and began constructing superfluous entities: a Demiurge that does not deceive for some reason (and what if he did, what difference would it make)? If his brain wasn't so rigid, he might've recognized that reasoning must start somewhere, from what could be termed axioms. And sins one cannot get past the circular reasoning of existence and thinking, cogitation (and, most importantly, an AWARENESS of the same), these must serve as axioms and an entire edifice of philosophy might be erected on this foundation, saving us from all the garbage that followed.

The Holy Trinity is found when Jesus Christ revealed it in the our Father, and when the Lord and Savior was baptized by St John the Baptist.

Lies he didnt refuted atheism! Because God does not acts how i want!!!

Explain hell!😢

Agreed!!!

In the parts of the video where you say Hume's view leads to absurdity, it seems you are mistaking his epistemology for a metaphysics. His point is simply, if you hold metaphysical views that claim knowledge of external realities, the past, causality, etc., you do so not based on 'experience + reason', but on something else. That 'something else' is most often just supposition. We 'suppose' our experiences tell us of a public world that we all can perceive and share knowledge of. No real harm befalls us, but we have to remember Hume's lesson (most all philosophers do) that what explains our experiences might be an external world of physical object (as scientists suppose), but it might instead be God's mind (as Berkeley urged), or, more recently, a computer program (as Nick Bostrom argues is at least possible... tho that view seems to require one or the other prior options).

The Bible is the book that is filled with filth.

Give a Scholastic response to Kant's first critique.

Very informative. I have been considering Christianity and this is a major issue

Your basis in using the premise of Hagar & Abraham to justify the instruction of Mohammad on how to treat the female prisoners of war is fallacious. Hagar was a maid not a prisoner of war, who would have agreed emotionally to the advances of Abraham without any emotional trauma. But for the female prisoners of war whose husbands have been killed by the jihadists to be forced as sexual toys is an aberration by Mohammed. Stop using "what about you" fallacy to justify the randy nature of Mohammad. Thomas Aquinas is correct

😂ha""

Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic succeeds where Hume's skepticism fails.

Jesus Christ is the living god ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

👍

Muhammad got history wrong, even saying in his book, that Haman the Persian was in Egypt with Pharaoh.

Calling islam heresy 😂 your st.paul even never meet jesus and self proclaim that jesus is a god.. What a joke..

Muslims in shambles 🤣

So do you agree with Rationalism

hadith does not came from God but from the envious pedophile Muhammad. Qur'an is just a copied version of Bible that focuses on old testament. all in all Islam is a religion of revenge and death and not as they claim as religion of peace.

Remember people with brain power and critical thinking may become an atheist if they are not religious. But people without brain power and critical thinking become muslim

Insane arguments and video. Sick minds whoever made this. Muhammad (PBUH) is the actual last prophet of God. Anyone who reads the Quran just once can’t deny it’s one of God’s most sacred gifts to humanity.

This channel is running on fake proofs and nothing more 😂😂

The controversy over the trinity might be the proof of christianity. We are talking about GOD. If it was easy id be suspicious...

🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄

I love how we can have such a long conversation about how logic is logical

4:02 funny when the quran calls allah the “great deceiver”.

Allah didnt say in quran that he decieved jews , allah saved jesus then jews were decieved .. may be by satan or whoever .. quran didnt state who decieved jews We love jesus .. we dont hate christians .. The witness thing is just funny

Can you refute Francisco Suarez' Metaphysical Disputations?

Is the Holy Spirit God? Are you 100% sure? “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” (Prov. 25:2) This is what the Spirit says if you have the eyes to see and the ears to listen: Both the Spirit and I have heard many sermons of popular pastors, theologians and so many others who claim to be world renowned “Bible scholars” say and believe that the Holy Spirit came down and manifested in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ (I’ve heard Joel Osteen, Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, John McArthur, catholic priests and so many others say this in sermons). Do you believe this too? Is this really true? Is that what really happened? Is this Bible truth or fabled tradition of men and their church dogma? Before we go to the source of all truth, the Bible, and what is clearly written about this event, let’s understand the basic rules and fundamentals of 2nd grade grammar. Do you remember this: Relation between the Subject and Predicate: Every complete sentence contains two parts: a subject and a predicate. The subject is what (or whom) the sentence is about, while the predicate tells SOMETHING ABOUT what the subject does. A predicate is the grammatical term for the words in a sentence or clause that DESCRIBES the ACTION BUT IS NOT THE SUBJECT. In other words, the predicate EXPLAINS what the subject DOES. Examples: • The sun (subject) / was shining brightly (predicate). • My younger brother (subject) / serves in the army (predicate). • He saw the Spirit of God (subject) / descending like a dove (predicate). Go back and read all the gospel accounts: Matthew 3:16 (Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32) And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.” As we read the scripture, let’s focus on the last sentence as this verse is what is known as a compound sentence. Note: A compound sentence is a sentence that connects two independent clauses, typically with a coordinating conjunction like AND or BUT. They're best for combining two or more self-sufficient and related sentences into a single, unified one. Do you remember this from grammar school? “and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him”. So what was seen? The Spirit of God (subject). How did the Spirit of God descend? “Like a dove” (predicate). The predicate is NOT the subject, it only describes what the subject does. Most people fail in reading and comprehension miserably and use their human wisdom to their own spiritual detriment. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirit was a dove or even looks like a dove for that matter, but sadly so many in the world believe it. Look and look and still can’t, see? If Bible scholars and popular pastors with Ph.D.’s failed basic reading and comprehension in these gospel accounts, one could only ask, "What else in the Bible did they get wrong?" And what about you? What else have you misread or interpreted? Do you know, the apostle John tells us if you actually have the Spirit of God in you, you don’t need anyone to teach you (1 John 2:26-27). How so many miss the mark and the truth of God’s word! If one says, “These jeans fit like a glove”. Are the jeans gloves? Clearly, the jeans aren’t gloves. “Jeans” is the subject (what the sentence is about). “Like a glove” is the predicate (describes something about the subject). Again, the subject is NOT the predicate. Now, in Luke 3:22 does it say “in the bodily form of a dove”? Nope! Skewed reading and comprehension as well as graven images depicting the baptism of Christ with a dove over His head has deceptively engrained and ruined the image of the Holy Spirit (just like images of Christ) for so many. The Holy Spirit of God transformed into an animal? Really? Sadly, it’s mythology created by the eisegesis of men. So what does the “bodily form” of the Spirit look like? Let’s read from the Bible on what happened on the Day of Pentecost when the believers received the Holy Spirit and see the actual description of what the Holy Spirit looked like and how he is described. Let the Bible interpret itself and let’s go to the Book of Acts for it is written: “Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent WIND came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be TONGUES OF FIRE that separated and CAME TO REST ON EACH OF THEM.” (Acts 2:2-3) Let’s look at another description of the “bodily” form of the Spirit for it is written: “But about the angels God said, “God makes his angels WINDS, and his servants FLAMES OF FIRE.” (Heb 1:7 GNT). “Who makes HIS ANGELS SPIRITS, HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.” (Psalm 104:22) “What are the ANGELS, then? They ARE SPIRITS WHO SERVE GOD and are SENT by him to HELP THOSE WHO ARE TO RECEIVE SALVATION.” (Heb. 1:14 GNT) And there is the identity of the Helper that Christ said He would send! The Holy Spirit! Spirit of God! Spirit of the Lord! So plain yet the world is so blind to see it by believing in man-made myths and traditions (dogma) of their religious denominations instead of the true word of God. The Holy Spirit are angels of God. Now go back to Acts for it is written: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to SPEAK WITH OTHER TOUNGES, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:4) Paul confirms the identity of the Holy Spirit again as it is written: “Though I speak with the tongues of men AND OF ANGELS,” (1 Cor. 13:1) “For he who SPEAKS IN A TOUNGE DOES NOT SPEAK TO MEN, BUT TO GOD, FOR NO ONE UNDERSTANDS HIM; however, in the SPIRIT he speaks mysteries.” (1 Cor 14:2) Now that it has been established that the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, is an angel of the Lord (and not of Satan-Rev. 12:7), what else does God say about the relationship between the angels and Christ for it is written: “But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “LET ALL THE ANGELS of God WORSHIP HIM.” (Heb. 1:6). A holy spirit must worship Christ as the Spirit is not God. Even the Holy Spirit knows he is not to be worshiped as he told John in Revelation not once, but twice (Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9). Now if the Holy Spirit warned John not to worship him; are we any different? Absolutely not! The doctrine of the trinity is an epic failure as angles/the Spirit of God are not to be worshiped. Throughout scripture Christ tells us who the Holy Spirit is over and over, but the world can't see it as it is written: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the ANGELS WHICH ARE IN HEAVEN, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 KJV) Note: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. "If you are ashamed of me and of my teaching, then the Son of Man will be ashamed of you when he comes in HIS GLORY and in the GLORY OF THE Father AND of the HOLY ANGELS." (Luke 9:26) Note: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. …..”In the presence of my FATHER and of HIS ANGELS I will declare openly that they belong to ME.” (Rev 3:5) Note: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. "And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter, you shall see heaven open, and the ANGELS of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” (John 1:51). Just like He read out of the Book of Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me." (Luke 4:18). “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven THEIR ANGELS always see the face of My Father who is in heaven." (Matt 18:10 NKJV). This shows ownership of the redeemed, the gift of grace, the Holy Spirit. Paul echoes the Lord’s teaching as its written: "In the presence of GOD of CHRIST JESUS and of the HOLY ANGELS I solemnly call upon you to obey these instructions without showing any prejudice or favor to anyone in anything you do”. (1 Timothy 5:21) Note: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Clearly, there wasn’t a flock of doves over the heads of believers at Pentecost according to the Bible. As you just read, the Holy Spirit are angels of God. Believe what John the Baptist said about Christ for it is written: “He will baptize you will the Holy Spirit and fire”. (Matt. 3:11) - wind and flames of fire. “So the prophecy of Isaiah applies to them: ‘This people will listen and listen, but not understand; they will look and look, but not see,” (Matt. 13:14) The truth can only do one thing for us, it will “set you free" (Joh 8:32)

Lies, Lies ! That's what you Christians are really good at. Mohammed couldn't read or write

Islam is antichrist

قَالَ إِنِّى عَبْدُ ٱللَّهِ ءَاتَىٰنِىَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَجَعَلَنِى نَبِيًّۭا ٣٠وَجَعَلَنِى مُبَارَكًا أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُ وَأَوْصَـٰنِى بِٱلصَّلَوٰةِ وَٱلزَّكَوٰةِ مَا دُمْتُ حَيًّۭا ٣١وَبَرًّۢا بِوَٰلِدَتِى وَلَمْ يَجْعَلْنِى جَبَّارًۭا شَقِيًّۭا ٣٢وَٱلسَّلَـٰمُ عَلَىَّ يَوْمَ وُلِدتُّ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ أُبْعَثُ حَيًّۭا ٣٣

Islam: ignore the eye witnesses, come to a self proclaimed prophet of God that lived 500 years after facts

I have no Idea what's going on, but I fw this intellectual v

I want to talk with a person with Down Syndrome. Are you reading and you have Down Syndrome? If you understand you are infinitely important. Do you know what is God?, God is the intelligent creator of the universe. Does the creator of the universe exists?, was the universe created by something incredibly powerful and intelligent?. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning or a misunderstanding of reality. Are you capable of understanding the atheist logical fallacy? If you understand the atheist logical fallacy you are more intelligent than all those fools who pretend they are more intelligent than you. Attention! I believe in you, I think you can understand God exists. Bear in mind God is a miracle impossible to understand for everyone because nobody can understand infinitude. God existed always!, God existed always before!. Listen carefully please. Creation is what has a beginning of existence, like for example you. Did you exist or live forever?, of course not!. You have a beginning of existence, you didn't exist before you were born. Where did you come from? To understand God exists you have to understand from nothing can not be created something. If you understand from something that doesn't exist can not be created something you can understand God exists. Anyone who understands from nothing can not be created something can understand God exists. Nothing is absence of existence. If it exists it is something, if it doesn't exist it is nothing. Reality comes from reality. God is the first reality that created what has a beginning of existence!. God exists because not all reality can be created. I challenge you to understand why the most emblematic remark of atheism is "who created god?" that means "who created what is not created?". You came from your parents, and your parents came from your grandparents and so on so forth, but the sequence can not be infinite!. Your understanding is your salvation, so think rationally to arrive to the truth. Either the universe or creation is eternal or what created the universe is eternal. Either what has a beginning of existence is eternal or God is eternal. You choose, whoever you are you choose your life, whoever you are you choose what is the truth. My truth is logical it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. God created the universe after existing forever, and i know it is impossible to understand. My truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. God exists and the intelligent creator of the universe is not what atheists call "sky daddy". To understand God exists you have to understand the kalam cosmological argument: what has a beginning of existence has a cause because from nothing can not be created something. Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that created what has a beginning of existence exists. To abandon atheism you have to understand atheists lie to protect religion. Spinoza tried to end religion with reason and failed because of atheists, I know that's also impossible to understand. Emergency! To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Humanity censor the knowledge that saves your own life. To overcome a censorship the information that is prohibited has to be shared to be known. I need your help, I need you, you are powerful. You have to share this loving poem to help me. Did you understand?. Thank you.

Islam is a violent and intolerant theology that has to be enforced because Islam can't stand on it's own merit. A religion written by a man for men.

6:08 only four wives !!

Islam - Is Egyptian goddess and Lam meaning Egyptian Moon God hahaha 😂😂😂

Despite the mistakes that Descartes made in his method, starting from Pyrrhonian, global skepticism, this is only one minor mistake in Descartes' magnificent oeuvre. In suma teologica, exempli gratia in question 75. Aquinas offers a nebulous solution to the problem of mind and body. Therefore, if Aquinas is really ingenious as you say, then he himself must have seen the impossibility of any kind of realism, and if he wanted to maintain a realistic position, he would have to accept that God is the link between these two opposing spheres, thus accepting Descartes' position. Materialism and realism are wrong and unfounded, idealism is the correct answer.

I think the most strongest arguments against atheism today is the discovery of genetic code information in our DNA.

Could you give a reference to that fellow at 8:17. I tried to use subtitles to figure out his name but I only got gibberish. And when I tried to google that quote I just got Thomas Sowell and Emily Dickinson for some reason. And you only have Hume in your sources.

Christianity cannot be followed its an impossible religion morally, logically and practically when you try to follow it. - Turn your left cheek (no self defense) - Lot Slept with his 2 daughter is OK, no consequences - Jesus: "Father > I" but still Christians worship Jesus. - Its ok to lie to lead people to Christianity according to Paul. - After 3 centuries, Christianity cannot even agree on Jesus divinity until the council of Nicea. Imagine 3 centuries cant even have a concession of a core value.

Denying the principle of sufficient reason is not self-contradictory. The fact that one can have a justification for denying that the PSR is true (or even to deny that it is truth-apt, since one might claim the the principle is too vague to even merit questioning its validity) does not imply that the PSR is true. For one thing the argument conflates an epistemological justification for denying the truth of a proposition with the "sufficient reason" for why that proposition isn't true. The supposed "sufficient reason" is mind-independent, it is an objective explanandum for why something is the case, whereas an epistemological justification is mind-dependent, it is a man-made explanation for "why I do not believe this proposition to be true", which is not the same as an objective reason for "why P is not true". Second, even if we were to grant that by having a (personal) justification for denying the PSR, we affirm that there is a sufficient reason for why the PSR is not true (it isn't the case but let's assume it for the sake of the argument), this would in no way lead to the conclusion that all propositions must have a sufficient reason for why they are true (or false). It would only show that one accepts that there is at least one instance of a proposition for which such a sufficient reason exists.

Can you do a video on the Hypostatic union of Christ in detail. Also I’ve had a hard time with this question: the Hypostatic union (to my knowledge correct me if I’m wrong) means that the two natures of Christ is inseparable so how did Jesus’ human nature die on the cross if you can’t separate it from his divine nature, further what does “Jesus died on the cross” metaphysically mean?

Yea oook 😂

1:23 A little nit-picky here, but rationalism does not have to posit innate knowledge. You can be a rationalist, which means that only true certain knowledge must be obtained through reason at its foundation rather than empiricist, without logically accepting innatism , which is corellated and other tied to rationalism, is what you are referring to. Hume still rejects it and rationalist do often accept it, but we should be careful to recognize that rationalist only tends to posit innatism, though it’s not always the case. To demonstrate this you could believe that reason alone is how one comes to acquire knowledge, but you develope this knowledge. You don’t have it before hand. What you have before hand is the organs of reason so to speak which are not the same as having knowledge. Innate knowledge is like finding an object in a dark room. A priori knowledge is like lightning a match you already ahead to create a new flame.

The man wielding the knife objection isn’t a good representation of Hume’s argument. While Hume might say, we could never be absolutely certain the knife killed the person, Hume would argue that it was reasonable for the murderer to expect that the knife would cause the person’s death, given they had prior knowledge of death and stabbing and could know through experience and custom that death proceeds stabbing.

You know I’ve become more wary of the use of reductive ad absurdum. It obviously works when it demonstrates a self-contradiction or a false conclusion. But it has wrapped up inside of its phrase a proof by absurdity. I feel like this leads people to fallaciously suppose that if a conclusion is absurd, which could easily mean anything from weird to astounding, then it must be wrong. I feel like people should specify what kind of reduction as absurdum they use to avoid confusion and that tempting fallacy. Edit: Btw this is not a criticism of Sanctus since I don’t think he did anything of the bad logic I mentioned up top.

Joseph Ratzinger rejected scholasticism.