วีดีโอ

@@themagickite No, those houses are not more expensive than other single family homes. It is only a matter of the design ;)

Baubotanik might be an even better, though highly experimental, example of partially organic building.

I am afraid, not

no, it was an efficiency argument: the built area of the house will be given back twice to the "world": 1.) rooftop, 2) space under building

why do you think they cannot be understood by that ?

@@SebastianvonThaden Thank you for your reply. What I think John Lennox (JL) is saying is that there are different types of understanding. One example he gives is that Henry Ford and engineering are different ways of understanding the existence of the motor car. A better example, again from JL, , is that trying to understand a person by examining an MRI scan of their brain isn't going to work even though the MRI scan can be very useful medically. Incidentally, while I believe Sebastian is a person, I can always doubt his existence. Perhaps he's a made up persona for TH-cam or some AI generated voice, text intended to encourage clicks.

@@johnpritchard8946 thank you for this, but tbh, I still don't understand why the existence of "god" (or anything else) should not be able to be examined by logic? if not, then how would anyone decide what to "believe"?

@SebastianvonThaden Logic is a wonderful thing but it's conclusions depend on the axioms (fundamental truths) that are accepted as a starting point. And on the acceptance of the logical procedure itself. For example in Euclidean geometry the internal angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. But this depends on the five postulates. Change those and the conclusions (truths derived through logic) change too. So on a spherical, rather than flat (Euclidean) surface, the internal angled of a triangle sum to more than 180 degrees. In Propositional Logic there's an explicit rule called modus ponens that states if the statement, "If P then Q" is true and "P" is true you can conclude that "Q" is also true. Obvious but it needs stating. Back to JL... You can start by accepting mass/energy as the foundation (basic axiom) of your cosmology and derive consciousness. Or you can start with consciousness (God) and derive mass/energy; God 'speaks' the universe into existence. JL argues that using the first you can't actually derive consciousness. His view is that the second is better because consciousness is given and the laws of nature (like the law of gravity) are guaranteed to be consistent across time and space by the law giver. Logically consistency in nature isn't guaranteed at all. Just because all past futures have been like all past pasts it doesn't follow logically that all future futures will be like all future pasts. The conclusion is that you can't prove or disprove the existence of God through logic because God isn't derived. He is (or isn't) part of the very foundation of your ontology. Of course JL says God isn't a proposition but a person who you can get to know. But that's a different discussion altogether.

God could have easily created us without the inclination to do evil things, while retaining our free will - this is presumably the state that souls in heaven are experiencing, with free will intact but no desire to do evil acts. Why not just create that? If the point is that we need evil because evil creates suffering and suffering is vital for meaning, then why wouldn’t God have created a type of meaning that doesn’t require suffering? After all, a sense of meaning and purpose presumably exists in heaven, but suffering is absent. So why not just create that?

@@umeshbellimuthan2419 💯 spot on

You haven't proved that there is a creation. There is existence, but that is not the same thing. If life only comes from life, then how did the first life get here? Not having clear answers to these things does not equal proof of a god.

@@RonRobertson-lafrance Does creation exist? Is existence not a creation?

Everything you wrote is logically false. Of course, there doesn't have to be a creator or design, just causality. It's actually the opposite. We are the complexity emerging from simplicity (check entropy). That life comes from life does not necessary mean it comes from intelligent life.

@@OndrejMalota "It's actually the opposite. We are the complexity emerging from simplicity (check entropy). " Do you really expect me to believe that? My question is: Where is the proof that complex life like humans evolved from single cell organisms (simplicity) like an amoeba? THERE IS NO PROOF. This is faith NOT science.

yes, right !

yes, I love them too !

yes, I read it it doesn't say anything about if god is real

@@SebastianvonThaden You can't read the Bible as an unsaved man and fully understand any of it. And don't try telling me you are smart and can do that. Having denied God you can NEVER understand anything until such time as you receive God into your heart. 1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV), "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.". Jeremiah 10:10-13 "But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king". John 3:33 "He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true". 1 John 5:20 "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life". Romans 3:4 "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged".

Reading a bible is not proof of god. The bible is proof that people once thought slavery was acceptable, though.

@@SebastianvonThaden Silliest reply ever!

@@bendrake1748 I don't think so

There are other options besides a god. Not knowing something is not proof of god.

@@RonRobertson-lafrance It's about it's being an abductive argument i.e., one to the best explanation. Try this for best fit: 1. Something can't come from (truly) nothing i.e., no thing whatsoever. 2. Infinite regresses are philosophically impossible. (Research The Argument from Contingency.) 3. There are immaterial entities (e.g., information, personhood, love and morality) and the material cannot produce them. 4. The universe had a beginning and, taking note of the previous points, this initiator of the universe was not something material. 5. QED... In any case, can you provide a better explanation for reality than God or are you going to run?

@@Mowasnotaprophet "Best" argument according to who? If you limit yourself to only subjective arguments, choosing the "best" of them is not getting one an understanding of the nature of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then it'd follow that if there were a god it had a beginning too. Information, personhood, love, and morality as you're using them are concepts. Concepts are based on observations. Those concepts are "produced" by entities. But in any case, does not prove your view of existence. In this world, we produce everything based upon observations. Observations are based upon the fact that "existence exists". It is an axiom and cannot be reduced further. Everything produced is based on existence and our observations of it, no god required, needed, nor desired. Everything has a nature, and our observation and understanding of that nature enables us to produce. So, we have Metaphysics that is based upon the axiom of "existence exists", we have the law of identity that we observe in working with what exists, and we have epistemology that is concerned with how we know what we know. Saying there's a god does nothing whatsoever in understanding existence. You can believe in gods, and design a computer chip. But it's not your belief in god that enables you to do that design. It's the use of one's mind, correctly perceiving existence, understanding at least to some degree its nature, that enables one to create these things. Not one bit of that requires a god. If it did, atheists couldn't create or design anything, and very obviously they do. Your proposal is that god is required for existence. There is no proof for a god, not understanding everything about existence is not proof of god. Ignorance of nature is not a proof of god. You believe in god based on faith, believing in something not based on knowledge of reality, but because you want to, or fear not to, which amounts to the same thing, but it definitely not based on any objective proof.

@@RonRobertson-lafrance 1. "Best" argument according to who?” Response: Abductive arguments are a kind of “middle ground” between inductive and deductive reasoning. By “best” I mean attempting to account for all the available evidence and proposing an answer which would rationally be the more secure fit for those data. We use abductive argument throughout the day, though of course we’re not usually formally aware of doing so. Crossing the road at a zebra crossing is perhaps a good example of this type of reasoning in practical action; it neither involves a formal logical syllogism nor a scientific practice: does the non-presence of cars guarantees my safety if I cross now? There is a massive collection of philosophical literature on the subject now available. 2. “If you limit yourself to only subjective arguments” Response: Abduction isn’t so much a subjective exercise as one that tries to rationally decide between alternative coherent explanations by weighing up what seems to account for the phenomenon in a more wholistic manner i.e., less question begging, less special pleading, less loose ends, outlawing intellectual suicide. For example, Hinduism says that all is maya, illusion, as though we’re all being deceived by the appearances. Plato also argued this, but he offered a somewhat more nuanced explanation of the illusion. However, I would argue that not only neither adequately explained why the delusion originally came into existence, I would submit both were inferior to their competitors because these other explanations did not have to rely on some sort of mass deception. In other words, an Ockham Razor undercutting defeater as well as taking the evidence more seriously. Cartesian evil boogy men just don’t cut the mustard! 3. “choosing the "best" of them is not getting one an understanding of the nature of the universe.” Response: I think you are implying that science, i.e., induction, is the best equipped tool to provide an answer to the universe’s origin. If so, tell me how a human can (i) observe the beginning of time and space, (ii) repeat the singularity, and (iii) create an experiment in a lab which would faithfully replicate this singularity despite no way of being able to check to see if it does match the one-off event. 4. “If the universe had a beginning, then it'd follow that if there were a god it had a beginning too.” Response: My short reply is, How so? My long answer is for you to research, say, William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument to understand why your “answer” creates not just a logically false argument but ultimately a nonsense universe in which we living today do not exist. 5. “Information, personhood, love, and morality as you're using them are concepts.” Response: I remember in my first year at university - I went on to major in, inter alia, Philosophy - that a young undergrad said that information is just a concept that we’ve invented. I was much, much older than he - I still would be after all these years - and the really funny thing was that even the thoroughly post-modernist professor smirked at his claim. Look, it would take far too much of my time to explain why you’re wrong, not only conceptually so, but also the ethical and epistemological ramifications for thinking in this manner. If you really think ‘love’ is an invented concept and, notwithstanding its “abstraction”, isn’t an ontological something, I plead with you - as I do when anyone claims this - do NOT tell your (conceptual) lover or, far more importantly, your children this. It will destroy them. I draw your attention to the following quote: “Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this will not survive one day.” (Norbert Wiener) I’ll continue at a later time.

I don’t think that it’s obvious that something *can’t* come from nothing. Say that every day a few hundred atoms appear at random points on the planet spontaneously, from nothing. What are the odds that we would ever detect that? It’s not as if we’re out here keeping track of the number of atoms and noticing that there’s one more atom on Mount Everest than there was yesterday.

The god issue requires proof. Start there. So far no one has gotten beyond that stage.

Whatever can be proved in terms of science, concernes the material world. God is not part of it though. It's like you 've lived all your life in a sealed room and yet you're certain there's nobody outside. Not even the maker of the room.

I didn't say he can't I just said that would contradict science.

Very weak case against Christianity. He just rambles on and on making statements as if they are true without pointing out anything to back up his false claims.

@@SebastianvonThaden Science exists because there is a creation! Why should science prevent God from anything? He created it.

You contradict yourself. You say there is only the catholic church but then say "somehow they provide a gotcha argument about God." EXPLAIN. I am a Christian. Are you Catholic or atheistic?

​@@I_renounce_satan I think the second sentence refers to critics of Christianity, correct me if I'm wrong though

​@@I_renounce_satan Did you spend 5 seconds reflecting about the meaning of what I wrote or did you start banging on the keyboard instantly?

@@TomTabaczynski Wrong answer.

@@TomTabaczynski Gee Tom, so let me understand you. 1. You are dismissive to all the Christian churches in favor of the catholic made-up cult. 2. You somehow, after declaring an obvious soul-stealing cult the only church decided to badmouth ​ @I_renounce_satan. Tom, please leave that catholic cult, find a Fundamental Baptist Church and get saved as quick as possible. The catholic cult has denied the Bible is complete, even though God said it was. They say they have advanced revelation, which is impossible since God said it was closed. They say the shed blood of Christ wasn't enough to cleanse your sins, even though Jesus said it was and said nothing else was required for salvation. Christ personally said, "Call no man on this earth Father". In Acts, it clearly states you MUST accept Jesus as your personal Saviour BEFORE you get baptized. And the list goes on for a week. You are clearly in a cult Tom. Get out before it's too late

What is your stance on the existence of God? Do you believe in a Creator?

@@I_renounce_satan For all questions you can imagine, the most reasonable answer doesn’t require the existence of a supernatural being.

@@MatthewQuigley Does life come from non-life?

@@I_renounce_satan at which point in evolution is self-replicating molecules considered life?

@@MatthewQuigley Please clarify your question.

He completely misses the point of prayer. It is build communion between Creator and creature; for sharing one's life with one's maker, for understanding oneself and one's motives with increasing clarity and wisdom. It is not for dialing up favors as though it were witchcraft. Nor is it for 'overturning 'science'' No need to scientists overturn it themselves every generation or so. 'Science' is a practice, not a conclusion. In fact, modern science is built on the intellectual foundation of Christianity with the expectation of a rational universe that is explicable and can be expressed propositionally with meaningful creation of knowledge. Naturalism provides no basis for science, let alone reliable relationships between mind, sense perception and the physical reality.

I for one am not a fan. He's a typical Canadian. I don't understand why people say that Canadians are polite. Verbally aggressive, similar to another ethnicity. I try to avoid people who love the sound of their own voice.

@@dagwould Science predates christianity. Aristotle laid out basic scientific principles, and some basic scientific ideas have existed since long before that. The first person to farm anything successfully was applying scientific principles. And I would not go so far as to posit that Christianity has a foundation of the expectation of a rational universe. It's just another faith-based religion. It tries to explain existence, in a very primitive way, just like all religions attempt to do, but the explanations are, at best, primitive and of limited utility. And most religions hit upon some logical truths, but that does not mean that everything they say is true.

yes, can

I hope so.. !

maybe an order of the universe? ;- )

yes, the "psychology of bauhaus" is an interesting topic. I think it is not so easy to answer, and complex. I don't know if there are many works about it

@@SebastianvonThaden Well, I'm reading the EM Jones's book and I'm also looking into Heidegger's essay "questioning technology" which is philosophically involved, but whose essential idea seems to be that modern technology is characterised by the idea that everything is 'enframed' as 'standing in reseve'. One example is that forest, which becomes mere lumber for the timber industry. He says that 'human resources' is the same idea, and that in schools and tourism, humans are merely there for fill up the classrooms, etc. I can relate to this on two grounds: First, I lived in China and Chinese cities are not really cities but rather human warehouses. Second, I was a teacher there and basically schools are run by administrators with spreadsheets and each year I received the same number of identical looking studens. It was all by spreadsheed. Here in Australia, mass immigration is an industry filling up the place with humans, no one knows what for exactly, but here are calls for building highrises to 'house' people. Another interesting source if Ted Kaczynski's manifesto. It seems to me that Bauhaus is just part of this general movement in society, and the 'reasons' are just post hoc rationalisations.

Peterson is a second rate intellectual, but he's not as bad as either Dawkins or Harris. I rank Harris as at the bottom of the pile.

@ can you ellaborate?

@@89itis Well, Peterson has some understanding of the limits of empirical methods, and that they don't work that well in the humanities. Dawkins seems to be clueless about this. Harris is just a nutcase and confuses people with tone, never heard a cogent argument out of him.

at least all three here mentioned individuals managed to make their way up to the top level of intellectual debates. I am currently working on a comment of a statement of John Lennox - his stances are even more full of "holes"

@@TomTabaczynski wow, ok…

Your statement is false. Viruses have been observed using an electron microscope. I believe the first observed was the tobacco mosaic virus. And I do not believe there are valid arguments against objectivity in science, either, quite the opposite.

Yes, I agree !

@@SebastianvonThaden You agree with what, exactly? All of it? I do not agree with the assertion that viruses are purely theoretical, nor are they unobserved where there are actually images of them thanks to electron microscopes, and in working with plants I've seen plenty of damage caused by plant viruses, where its presence is reflected in plant foliage. I replied before, reasonably, yet inexplicably my reply has been removed, which at best seems bizarre.

@@RonRobertson-lafrance Think you've seen that assuming the cause. But that's circular. The pictures are assumed by consensus to show v's. But that's not how science works. There are videos of experts in virology admitting that you can't actually isolate v's.

@@TomTabaczynski It is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) that explains something that is happening and exists. Tobacco Mosaic Virus creates the same problem in many affected plants. At this point it's pretty well documented, consistent, and replicable. So, absent some serious proof to the contrary, the sensible thing is to accept that the virus exists as that is the best known explanation and you deal with the plants accordingly (in most cases, you must eliminate them to prevent spread). You could naysay something similar concerning just about every theory But, we have practical things that work based on these theories, including that there are viruses. That the theory might change based on more knowledge later on is not the same thing as saying science is not objective.

yes, you are right. yet, Art Nouveau was also inspiried by Japanese paintings, wasn't it ?

@@SebastianvonThaden I was not aware of the inspiration by Japanese paintings but now you mention it, it's very possible, see Alphonse Mucha. Thanks for bringing this up :-) The style of Art Nouveau in paintings and graphical arts is recognisable not only by the use of nature for the decorative elements but also by a certain style (more cartoonish) with the use of a subset of colors probably as used in Japanese art of that time.

so poetic.. !

I don't think so

Usually I am very good in presenting in front of "real people", while I am very bad at talking to a blank screen, as in this online lecture

Yes, the architecture around 1800 was kind of more "developed" and wise compared to the slightly overload fin-de-siecle

quite many have :- )

that is the "tale" of modernists. don't believe all stories you get told! look for example in the videos where I show my own projects, there are a suggestion how to combine a "timeless grammar of architecture" with modern elements. (at least it is an attempt ;)

We may apply the basic principles of traditional architecture. and it may change by regions. It wouldn't always be great to have GrecoRoman like Buildings everywhere. Geography/Environment and materials used also play a part. For example, buildings in deserts are made to keep places cooler. have certain kinds of materials used.. but making such buildings elsewhere in regions like Scandinavia wouldn't be a great idea. We have developed styles based on our environment. So it must change accordingly. I also think the way artists and commoners perceive beauty has a big gap today. The designs we create must resonate with people better. Must be easier to understand. Simple but without stripping away the identity/details. It's a hard task. but that's why we adore the works.

@@slavman1945 yes, right !

what ?

@ 12000 years of arch history in 50 mins? It’s a ridiculous statement to even make. Or Is it the Philomena Cunk version ?