วีดีโอ

Fabuleux !!! Ca me fait penser à Friedrich Nietzsche.

I greatly respect author Dr. Walton’s brilliance and creativity, but his proposed solution to the question of Origins, in "Lost World" only leads to a more serious set of problems. Still, this controversial book still has merit worth considering. Here me out; To be blunt, Walton's philosophical approach is a rather dangerous way of looking at the world. The history of the church includes well-meaning scholars who introduce ideas that undermine Biblical authority. This is the case with the gifted Old Testament professor Dr. John Walton. I was required to read this book for my Master's degree class. While his approach was indeed 'innovative' many of my fellow students were upset over his conclusions and complained to the Professor of the class that it seemed Walton was casting doubt on the infallible authority of Scripture. He introduced some bizarre terms like 'function over form' meaning creation was not so material as it was functional, which made absolutely no sense to most of the class members! For example, Dr. Walton asserted that ancient Near Eastern people focused more on how things functioned than their material nature. This meant that when Genesis 1 describes God forming land, sea, and animals over a series of days, it is not referring to material substances like dirt, water, and flesh appearing at specific times and places. Rather, it reveals the function of these things within the ‘cosmic temple’ of the world. This unusual construction enabled Dr. Walton to conclude that Genesis 1 “was never intended to be an account of material origins. Rather it was intended as an account of functional origins…. If the Bible does not offer an account of material origins, we are free to consider contemporary origins on their own merits, as long as God is seen as ultimately responsible.” Since then, Dr. Walton has continued to apply his ‘lost world’ methodology to other parts of the Bible. In additional books, he redefines the nature of Biblical revelation, that Adam and Eve were ‘archetypes’ instead of the first biological humans, and that the Genesis flood was an unidentifiable local event hyperbolically described as a global catastrophe. Dr. Walton reminds me of the third-century theologian Origen to whom he sometimes refers. Origen had one of the most creative theological minds in the early church. Nevertheless, his creativity led him to advocate views that were rejected as dangerous to Christian theology. These statements reveal a modern form of Gnosticism. By ‘Gnosticism,’ I’m referring to a philosophical view of the world that thinks special, hidden knowledge is necessary to understand what is true. For Dr. Walton, this knowledge is found in his ‘lost world’; it can only be recovered by scholars like himself. Such knowledge provides true insight into reality. According to Dr. Walton, Biblical truth is not dependent on real history. Instead, “truth is found in the narrator’s interpretation, which we accept by faith, regardless of whether or not we can reconstruct the events. His interests are not concentrated on human history but on God’s plans and purposes.” This is the goal of gnostic thinking: the separation of human history from God’s plans and purposes. Gnosticism consistently seeks to substitute Biblical history with its own history. In the early church, it looked to the religions of Persia and the philosophies of Greece to provide a spiritual history of the world. In the modern era, it looks to the religion of evolutionary science and the philosophies of the Enlightenment to create a materialist history of the universe. At its heart, however, Gnosticism is at war with God’s real actions in history. It is a heresy that stands in opposition to the Biblical view that teaches a direct connection between God’s original acts of creation and His absolute control of every event in time. Dr. Walton’s gnostic interpretation of the Bible inserts a gulf between events and the interpretation of those events. He must do this, however, to replace Biblical revelation concerning origins with the contemporary evolutionary history. Authority is therefore taken out of the event and placed only in the interpretation. If events such as the creation of animals or the flood actually happened as the narratives describe them, an evolutionary history of the world is impossible. Dr. Walton may deny this sort of historical substitution is his intent, but the structure of his books, the repetitive comments within them, and his professional associations tell a different story. He has published an extensive corpus of material that provides clear insight into his views. The result of accepting Dr. Walton’s gnostic worldview is the slow destruction of the historical foundation upon which Christianity is based. Although he believes he is providing a solution to the origins debate by disconnecting the Biblical text from real history, he is simply falling into the errors that have beset Gnosticism since the first century. Yet Dr. Walton is a professor at one of the most respected evangelical colleges in the world. Such a position gives him remarkable credibility to spread his “new analysis of the meaning of Genesis” to Christians everywhere. As a result, some will be swayed by his methods to adopt his modern form of Gnosticism. The solution is only found in the Christian worldview. To accept it, however, means the rejection of the neo-Kantian view of reality. It also means the rejection of Dr. Walton’s division of physical and metaphysical as he defines them. That is concerning indeed. I suspect something similar is going on with Dr. Walton. He clearly is a brilliant man and an exceptionally creative thinker. He has developed a unique interpretive structure to solve a particular problem, one he brings up over and over again in his books: the “perceived origins conflict between the Bible and science….” The goal of his work seems to be to solve that difficult problem. The problem becomes a tsunami in the making when one goes to metaphysical philosophy with a non-Christian worldview like that of Kant, that John Walton seems to be drifting to as we speak. "The Lost World" is a book one should read with an open Bible at hand. We live in a day and time when even the most celebrated intellectuals, especially among the academy, are not neccesarily the most beneficial for our faith and walk with God. Discernment has never been needed more than today. Make doubly sure you ask for it when you read "Lost World." You may discover, as many before you, that the only thing which is truly "lost" is the desperate attempt to spin biblical theology of the creation accounts in a way that depresses rather than impresses the average reader.

i like this but didn't ibn sina say that the necessary being must be one or it had to differ from other necessary being or beings which make it contingent because of it has parts

The intrinsic state of the Godhead is ineffable, it can only be spoken of in an apophatic manner however the extrinsic/immanent nature of God may spoken of in some positive respects such as providence, grace, etc.

Is there a way to read this paper from Professor Timalsina? Thank you

Hello I visited your TH-cam channel ''Logic & Religion'' and found it needs a lot of updates. First of all your channel video SEO is very weak due to which your channel video views are not increasing. If you do SEO then your video will come first in the search list and your video views and subscribers will increase. I am waiting for your reply. Please let me know if you need my service. Thank you

The problem with Chalcedon it is makes it sound like Jesus did miracles by his own attributes of deity. But Scripture does not bear this out. The book of John illustrates many times that Jesus did miracles by the Father dwelling in him in the power of the Holy Spirit. This is why Jesus did no miracles in his childhood, or early adult life. It was after the Holy Spirit came upon him that the miracles started. Scripture teaches is that Jesus was the Logos made flesh. His Logos spirit was made into a man's spirit, so his identity did not change so he was deity. He did not glorify himself by having attributes of deity. He did not have two natures, which makes no sense, anyway. If he did have partial knowledge and yet omniscience, wouldn't the omniscience obliterate the partial knowledge?

I have difficulty with the blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty used by theists when invoking divine ineffability. Theists depict, in excruciating detail, the demands of their deity. But when asked to provide the tiniest bit of objective confirmation on the nature or existence of said deity, it suddenly becomes an ineffable divine mystery.

God cannot create what WE call disorder, as God never ceases to be in control of all things, even atoms, so they are how and where God wants them to be. We must be careful at attributing God human attributes.

Really good comparison

Shoutout to the other 73 people on earth who are interested in Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (sad to see this is the only video about him on TH-cam that exists, we need to translate his "Entwurf des Systems der Philosophie" to english)

Bertato’s system is interesting, but I find it too weak. The definition of omnipotence he gives seems insufficient: if I understand it correctly, it doesn’t mean that an omnipotent being has all powers, only that its powers are perfectly effective. I’m not sure if the formalism is sufficiently powerful to get the notion of possible powers, given the lack of modality. It would also be interesting to add a new definition of another divine attribute: providence. We could say that x is provident if, and only if, for any good situation p, x is willing p. And then, to be divine, x must also be provident. I don’t know if the logical problem of evil can hold with this new attribute and the new characterization of omnipotence.

When something does not exist there is not much that can be said about it.

It is easy to explain the Hindu idea of so-called GOD by STEM filed definitions. For example Using SET Theory and computer science Jargons are much more better explaining Hindu ideas of GOD. I did my Ph.D. in Neuromorphic computing. I would love to join your discussions.

Sankhayas don’t believe in creation, speaker is stupid

Thanks! Will the workshops from INDIAN RELIGIONS & THE CONCEPT OF GOD also be available?

Congratulations for this iniciative. Thank you for the post.

At 5:30 "Criticism of religion is primarily concerned with TRUTH, religion primarily with a preservation of HOPE and ... consolation and... salvation". That seems to be a false contrast. Jesus said "I am the way, the TRUTH, the life" (John 14,6). Jesus in John 8,31.32: "To the Jews who had believed in him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the TRUTH, and the truth will set you free."" Jesus and the apostles did not find truth unimportant at all, it was central. In 1 Peter 3,15 says Christians should give REASONS for the hope that they have. Real hope must be based on truth, or it cannot stand. The same with salvation. (If God does not exist, if Christ was not the messiah, if he did not rise from the dead, then Christianity can not offer salvation). So one does not get around examining whether or not the claims are true or not. Truth makes all the difference here. One would not be rational to hold to a set of statements just for pragmatic reasoning (if it would be possible at all - doxastic voluntarism only goes so far. People cannot really force themselves to believe sonething that they do not actually hold to be true.) In John 16,13, Jesus says: "But when he, the Spirit of TRUTH, comes, he will guide you into all the TRUTH." He did not say "When the Spirit comes, he will console you with baseless nonfactual statements that are wishful thinking but practically quite helpful and useful at times."

the question is, is it possible for an almighty God to become absolutely ignorant and are do we have an example of such an avatar

so good . very informative 1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that . Amazing historical events are taking place there . Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Magnificent aletheia .

This series is priceless! Much appreciated!

so good . very informative 1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that . Amazing historical events are taking place there . Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Magnificent aletheia .

An active debate on what Ramakrishna taught is like people debating what Jesus taught.it will be any one’s opinion because Ramakrishna isn’t here to clear it up.

I’m 😅o Ramakrishna was established in Brahman which means complete ego dissolution and the dissolution of the conditioned personal identity .from this state of consciousness who is devoted to who.? To have a Bhakti nature and have the highest realization is not understood by most vaishnavas who still think they are separate from god in order to worship him . They forget hanuman who said he plays the role of servant ,devotee and one with RamA depending on his mood and situation..

“. The bliss of loving Krishna is far surpassed than the bliss of knowers of Brahmin “ the swami quoted here and swami Medhananda have no knowledge of the deep Bhakti of Ramana Maharishi, the great advaitan. Nor do the remember the great love of shankara for divine mother. In fact after he was fully realized and a brahmajnani he wrote his mystical devotional poem the soundari lahari

Superb lecture. Thank you all.

“ the unlimited mind can never be comprehended by the limited mind” Mata Amritananda Mayi Devi

Thank you for this series of lectures. One point to be considered is something being formless is also an attribute. When words are involved to describe a substrate, it can't be Nirguna

Two things we all know about God is that his memory is perfect and his knowledge is perfect. So he can remember the suffering he caused of every creature that died in the flood. But just to make sure he didn't forget, he created the rainbow (Genesis 9:11-17).

To propose an alternate angle of inferring "God is joy", perhaps it might worth toying around with the different possible meanings / interpretations of the phrase (or perhaps even the entire verse) in its original Saṃskṛta form?

Thank you Dr. Malinar for your talk. I appreciate and second your push towards adopting Indian philosophical terminology when studying / debating in these contexts. In addition, I would also stress on the importance of pronunciation, particularly of the "schwa", which I find to be the single most mispronounced syllable, these days also by many Indians! A way to do this is through a more thorough dissemination of the IAST / ISO-15919 standards of transliteration.

The speaker has little idea of Hinduism in detail.

Why an abrupt end to this lively discussion?

Madhavadeva, the disciple of Srimanta Sankaradeva, the propagator of the teaching of Eka Sarana to Krsna, writes in his primary work, the Nama Ghosa, that it's only because Hari (the Lord) is without any *material* form (prakrta akara varjita) that he is called "nirakara" (formless); meaning that he is with a transcendental (nonmaterial, spiritual), almost ineffable form. Both Sankaradeva and Madhavadeva, following the Bhagavata, held that God is with form even at the very highest level of nirguna brahman. And both have described this most beautiful, supremely captivating form of the Lord in their writings. 🙏

Excellent discussion. I really enjoyed this one. Edwin Bryant touched upon the "rupa" (form) of God (Isvara, Bhagavan) in the Bhagavata Purana and other scholars weighed in with fine comments and questions.

I ml phd in hindi

Good morning mam

Great lecture. Always great to see Dr. Graham Oppy. Would personally like to see more Atheists involved in these projects too.

Hi again I realy like what you doing here. Sincères GOD

Please upload all of these in 1080p if you can

1:48 This guy is Brazilian, right? It's nice to listen someone speaking english in a familiar accent for once.

Prakriti means nature not matter No Indian or to be exact bramanical philosophy says brahma created humans and divided them into casts. Brahmin came out of his mouth, kshyatriyas from some other body parts, vaishya from somewhere and dalits from feet Evil is not discussed because it embraces and morality is according to needs of the gods. If god (powerful person) does it then it is ok Equality was never part of brahmanical philosophy There are many discrepancies and wrong info, invite person from science journey channel he will explain the facts

Great discussion . Anselm on existence was rejected by Aquinas for essence . Descartes revives Anselm .

My favorite. Reason for the existence of God is the fact that we started at a point some 2000 years ago where a group of believers followed this man called Jesus who was put to death and so were slot of the people who would not give up their belief, and they built placed to worship this God , and continued to do until today . Unless all theses people throughout history were duped, which seems not likely, I would say it’s more probably true given the evidence than fault , IMHO

Very interesting discussion..

Underrated show. Great job.

Idea of Creation Create Idea Of Creator.

There is only one argument for atheism. The complete and total absence of any evidence for any god.