วีดีโอ

Big feels

God withdrawing to make place for us to exists is called Tzimtzum in the Kabbalah Great video, first time learning of her 🤟

What you're describing is autism. You're describing an autistic child that comes from just about enough money for the autism to express itself into eccentricity.

Stoic philosophy is not wrong but it might hinder your work with christ. The word of God is complete with everything you need and is not compatible with any other practising philosophy because Jesus wants you to be like him, he wants to remold you in his own image, which is more complex than you think. You see humans have things that make us who we are, our ego, personality, philosophy, things from our childhood, the way we see the world, christ wants to take everything that makes us, us and make us in his image.

Thank you so much for this. I’ll definitely come back to this video. I was thinking about this last night and it helps tremendously. Once again thank you. You just gain a new subscriber. God bless you, brother.

Very nice comparison. Haven't seen people compare them before thanks.

So basically he was delusional and stupid.

Hume's main objection to the cosmological argument is also untenable. Objection:"In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts." Responses: "Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go, there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots. But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there being any robots at all? That question has not been answered. In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings." (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas") "Moreover, it is simply false to suppose (as Hume does) that when, for each individual contingent thing, we’ve identified some further contingent thing as its immediate cause, then we’ve explained everything that there is to explain. To borrow an example from Leibniz, suppose there were an infinite series of geometry books, each one of which was copied from a preexisting one. We would have an immediate cause for each book, but obviously we would not have explained everything. For example, why does the series of books have the specific content that it has rather than some other content? Why is it that geometry is the subject matter of each of them? Why isn’t it instead a book of Shakespeare plays, or a coloring book, or an automotive repair manual, that gets copied and recopied infinitely? By the same token, even if we suppose that the series of contingent things that make up our universe in one way or other extends backward infinitely, we still have not explained everything. For example, why does the series consist of just the specific kinds of contingent things it does, rather than some other kinds? Why is it stones, trees, dogs, human beings, planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and so forth, that make up the infinite series of contingent things that we actually have? Why not some other sorts of contingent things entirely? Why is our infinitely old universe (supposing that it is infinitely old), or the infinite series of universes (if we suppose instead that there is such a series), or the multiverse (if we suppose that that is the correct scenario), governed by exactly the laws of nature which do in fact govern it, rather than some other laws? To answer such questions, we need to appeal to something over and above the series of contingent things, even if we suppose the series to regress infinitely. " (Edward Feser "Five Proofs Of The Existence Of God") "Hume's objection has force only if he is correct to suppose that the parts of any whole none of which exist necessarily in and of themselves can each and all be fully explained in terms of other members of that same whole. This supposition may be doubted. The causal explanations of the parts of any such whole in terms of other parts cannot add up to a causal explanation of the whole, if the items mentioned as causes are items whose own existence stands in need of a causal explanation. The fatal flaw in Hume's supposition has been well put by James Sadowsky. He asks, how any member [of any such causal series] can do any causing unless it first exists. B cannot cause A until D brings it into existence. What is true of D is equally true of E and F without end. Since each condition for the existence of A requires the fulfilment of a prior condition, it follows that none of them can ever be fulfilled. In each case what is offered as part of the solution turns out instead to be part of the problem." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

Another religionist dipping his toes in atheist water and finding it too cold. Swim in it for a while pastor, you will find it rich in nutrients

Hume criticized the cosmological and teleological argument for the existence of God. However, many of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (1) :"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" Responses: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (2) :"[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (3) :"But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain." Responses: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "By tracing the origin of the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "Hume's objection seems to involve two distinct principles. First, he assumes that we can infer from an observed A to an observed B only when we frequently see As and Bs together, and we can infer to a B only when we have actually seen other Bs. Such an assumption is simply false. Scientists often infer theoretical entities (electrons or quarks) which have never been seen and which may not be possible to see (e.g., a magnetic field). When observed As have a relation R to Bs, it is often reasonable to postulate that observed A *s similar to As have the same relation to observed and unobserved B*s similar to Bs." For example, the pressure of colorless gases varies with the temperature of those gases, and on this basis, one could infer that a change in pressure of a colored gaseous substance would likewise vary with the temperature regardless of the fact that he had never seen a substance of this sort. Second, Hume seems to assume that the universe is unique and conclusions cannot be reached about unique objects by analogy. But this is false as well. Astronomers reach conclusions all the time about the origin of the universe and this is unique. Furthermore, all events are unique in some sense, but no one would want to say that arguments by analogy do not apply to any objects whatever. The fact that the universe or some other object is unique does not rule out the possibility that it has properties in common with some other object, including some of its parts. For example, there may be only one object which satisfies the description "the tallest man in Maryland," but one could still compare this object with other objects and make judgments about the origination of the object. If one accepted Hume's principle it would seem to rule out the possibility of discovering a new culture and inferring that an utterly new and unique object in that culture was designed. But such an inference seems to be quite possible. " (J.P Moreland "Scaling The Secular City")

I was possessed by demons. Not in that performative sense either that I often see people describe, which upsets me because it pollutes the well. I saw shadow people often, had night terrors, could see things out of the corner of my eye and feel sark presences with me. I would often feel a gripping in my chest like they were trying to kill me, and they were in my head hijacking my internal monologue and screaming blasphemies and violence about God. Things I will not repeat. I was beating myself up violently trying to make it to stop. No church would help me, insisting it was psychiatric but it didn't present until I was 30 and started reading the bible. I was a drug addict then, and had many sexual partners. There's a lot more dark phenomenon but some I will keep back. I was in my basement praying to Jesus and I heard a voice say "Don't listen to them" out loud. and then I felt a surge of strength in me, and confidence that God was with me. Love and fire poured out in my breast. It was surreal, I don't know how to describe it well. The phenomenon abated after that too, proving it wasn't some psychiatric phenomenon that needed meds. My mind returned to me and I was free of addiction too from that day on. But demons are horrifying if you don't have God, and they hate us in ways that the word doesn't fully capture. But Jesus is beautiful, and so very real. Sorry for the long post. I always feel moved to tell people what Jesus did for me when I see this topic discussed. So far this channel is quite interesting so I'll probably watch some of these while I lift today. God bless you and anybody reading this.

I've only read Fear and Trembling but it was so good. Eventually I'll get the rest of his works.

I've fought everyday with my faith and I've been angry for such an miserable life and faith has made things honestly even harder so i decided to give up all my hopes and dreams and expect nothing i must daily remind myself that im burried already.

Please talk more about this guy 😂

This video brought many great questions to my attention, and I love the fact that different Christian perspectives are compared. But I’ve left with more questions than I had come with, & I’m not even sure if the title question was answered either 😂.

Just because a gay person identifies as Christian doesn't mean they can't still accept that they're gay. Sadly, most gay Christians believe otherwise

Was Hume insane?

18 Minutes much too short for Hume. But this YTuber did his best

Nicely done. The glasses reflection and the unfocussed portions were minor distractions. Ignore the snobs and trolls. Your potential here is obvious to those able to hold two opposing thoughts simultaneously. 😊.

This could've been a blog post - with bullet points. Great content though!

great vid but the green screen was a bit of a misstep

Usually people amplify meanings with hand gesture. But you, you confuse, dissolve and distract from any coherent messages you are trying to pass on. Still, its not as annoying as your teenager wannabe hat style.

Do you have private playlists for people to have discussions on?

ohhh this was good!

Not a "tam o' shanter," but a turban. Are speaking of Ramsay's portrait that you show in your video? Why didn't you research this? Why do you insist on poking we kind viewers in the eyes with your unstable hands? Are you intending to drive us away? You remind me of a boxer punching us in the face with your hands. Maybe if you just were completely honest, made fists, and then punched as close as you could to the lens, over and over. I know it would make you breathe hard, but I think you would get your point across better and truly beat us into submission, indeed perhaps unconsciousness.

Empirically speaking, that was one ugly hat.

Excessive hand gesturing. Too annoying to watch. Blocked.

W

Regarding his surprising popularity in Parisian salons, it is not unusual to express a different personality when speaking a second language.

A Scotsman with a puckish sense of humour. The Billy Connolly of his age.

The philosophy of speaking about the past, in the present tense, is a mystery to me, as is the need to wear a baseball cap back-to-front. I'll pass, thanks.

It is not "Edinburg." It is "Edinboro"

I think Hume drove more people away from common religion than Nietzsche ever dreamed! Brilliant and likeable, who knew?

Wonderful, splendid first great job. Thank you for this great very useful summary. You must be a terrific pastor regarding God and evil. My response is that if God is all good, and his creation is all good then evil is simply a relative absence of good. In other wordslife is calibrated by a standard of goodness and love. It’s relative absence or minimal presence is evil.

Mic volume too low 😢

Plato is kinda unclear. Tbh. The more you delve into him. But Socrates framed questions by juxtaposing illusion and belief as opposites. (Do the gods love justice because it is good? Or is justice good because it is loved by the gods? -Euthphyro) In the framework of a subject predicate (Aristotle antecedent consequent) statement. I mean you see this opposites framework pop up ALL OF THE TIME in Plato's dialouges. 😊 Republic, Symposium, Phaedo, Crito, Meno, Euthphyro, except Timaeus. I didn't realky see any opposites juxtaposition going on in Timaeus too much. But by that time Plato is probably over the whole thing. Because Timaeus was meant to written as a follow up sequel to the Republic. As he states that the conversations in Timaeus take place the next day after the events in Republic. Anyways what does Plato do with Socrates's questioning style? Or more to the point what did Aristotle do with Plato's stories about Socrates's questioning style? 🤣 Back to Plato. Here's my take. The 4th quater of Book VI of Plato's Republic. Where he outlines Simile of the Sun and analogy of the Divided Line. Which sets up Allegory of the Cave at the very beginning of Republic Book VII. Here we get the "order of operations" (not unlike a reverse P,E,DM/AS of Algebra) Ekisia Pistis Dianoa Noesis. i.e. Imagination Belief Thought Understanding. To Plato's construction of how ideas work. And where I think most of the confusion and debate over Plato stems from. Because while everyone including Plato says that the dividing line seperates the physical from the abstract world. The physical and abstract are divided porportionaly into 2 sub categories each. Illusion and Opinion in the Physical realm. And Thought and Understanding in the Abstract Realm. And this where things get murky. Because the 3rd step of the Abstract Realm "Dianoa" or Thought step. Involves physical evidence of the 5 senses, an observation of a strictly empirical action. Such as piolting a ship, crafting a statue, training horses. But being Plato... Wanting everthing simplified in the simplest goddamned geometrical way possible!? Plato sort of fudges the 3rd step of seeking out evidence to support your imagination and beliefs as being Abstract or Intelligible. When CLEARLY when you read what Plato says vs his tidy little preceint need to simpfly things as much as possible. The 3rd step is more of a TRANSITION from the objects of the phyical realm into objects of thought into the Intelligible realm. According to his analogy of the ≠ divided line cut again into = porportions. Which effectively makes both acute and obtuse Isosceles triangles if you do the geometry yourself with a compass, ruler, pencil and paper. (Think i mentioned something earlier on another video about Isosceles triangles) Whatever. Divided Line is not an actual Divided Line. It's a thought experiment in how to make an Isosceles triangle. Fight Me!!! 🤣🤣 loljk! Besides. It literally makes no sense. Why Plato would be obsessed with boring divided lines all of a sudden. When later on in Timaeus. Plato is freaking out about tetrahedrons, cubes, dodecahedrons, icosohedrans etc etc "Platonic Solids." ....... Anyways FEEL Aristotle's PAIN when trying to figure out Plato!! I mean it makes COMPLETE sense why Aristotle would be like F it! All Men are Mortal. Socrates is a Man. ∴ Socrates is Mortal! Antecedent Consequent. Modus Ponens Tollens! Get Plato's autism out of my head! Arrrrrrrgh... lol JK Hahaha!! Plato? Screw that guy! I'm a married man with kids! Plato, my teacher wants to strip my kids away from me and my wife and put them into a State run orphanage. To make his crazy ass Gaurdians. Dude is crazy!!! I'm gonna save western civilization from this guy's ideas by disagreeing and taking apart everthing he says! 😆😆😆 Anyways Plato & Aristotle. Man those two must have HAD EPIC DEBATES! Lol! Omg. On the one hand you can sympathize with Plato. Athens killing his teacher with forced suicide of all things. Which was a HUGE NO NO in Greek religion. Two things you don't do. Prosecute your parents or commit suicide. Those are like the top two unforgivable sins according to the Greeks. I mean that must have PISSED PLATO OFF. You can see it too. Upon a close readings of Euthphyro Apology and Phaedo. Also in Symposium as well. Like 99.9999% of people think Plato is being charitable to Aristophanes in the Symposium dialouge. When in reality of Aristophanes The Clouds? I mean you gotta read Aristophanes The Clouds. To really understand the context of what Plato is saying about Aristophanes in Symposium..... WOOOOOOOW. Plato's Symposium is not an amicable love letter to Athen's Aristocratic class. Like eveyone is lead on to believe it is. I think Symposium is the EXACT OPPOSITE. Plato is out for blood. Again. What i am saying makes absolutely no srnse unless you read Aristophanes The Clouds to put Symposium into its proper context. Symposium Plato is calling out Aristophanes as a preacher of sexual abominations. With that single headed two gendered thing he says Aristophanes believes in. Plato NEVER endulges OPPOSITES like that EVER or anywhere in any of his other writings. Why? Because in The Clouds Aristophanes HUMILATES Plato's teacher Socrates with the OPPOSITES of JUST & UN-JUST SPEECH. But you know. No one ever reads The Clouds when they read Symposium. But they should. Because you'll see Symposium in the most opposite of lights if you do. Plato's Socrates in Symposium is essentially defending midwives, oracles, women, childbirth. While calling Athens ruling class a bunch of gay pedophiles, effeminite drunk cuckolds who can'thold thier liquor, and believers in natural abominations. Like conjoined babies that die upon birth or are stillborn. Plato's imagery is BRUTAL. I mean read inbetween the lines people. Plato doesn't just go from Aristophanes (who horrendously insulted Socrates in The Clouds) to him advocating boys and girls being joined at the head. To talking about childbirth, midwifery, and reality checking the character of Socrates from the perspective of a female oracle named Ditoma. As bieng analogous to immortality of the soul, life & death, philosophy and the true nature of Love. Anyways... I've clearly read too much Plato! I mean to me. Plato is a revolutionary hell bent on punishing Athens for its sins. Some of his ideas. Are just waaay too cold, methodical, and just not normal. I.e. The "myth of the metals" Noble Lie. The Gaurdian program. Where the Gold Logos class of propertyless philosopher Queens & Kings. Mate by lot. And turn thier kids over to a state orphanage? That's not a man on a mission to let bygones be bygones. That's a man on a mission for pathological cold blooded revolutionary revenge. Plato is a man that's been traumatized by the events in his life. And it SHOWS. Contrast that with what Aristotle has to say. Aristotle is waaay more dowk to Earth and reasonable than Plato. Plato is out to make all the stupid people go blind from staring at the Sun. (See how Plato reverses his stance on the Republic. From what he says about the Sun in Phaedo) Whereas Aristotle makes the Sun go around the Earth so that ppl don't worship it as some kind of god. As Plato would have them do. I mean.... Plato DNGAF. People need to respect Plato more. He's not some pushover. Plato's Republic is about molding "stargazing good for nothing philosophers" into super soldiers ready to do violence on behalf of "Kalipolis." Just like the hopolites down the rode in the city state of Sparta. Plato maybe the most important western philosopher to have ever lived. But he's also like the first dystopia science fiction author. George Orwell echoes Plato's Gaurdian program at the end of 1984 when O'Brien is torturing Winston. And gives that speech about collective solipsism. Absolute Power. As pure hatred for all beings that do not unconditionally love Big Brother. To imagine all emotion all removed accept for the intoxicating emotion of brutally bludgeoning the face of humanity out forever with your own boot. I mean Plato's ideas made it into frikken Orwell! Anyways! Sorry for the long ass post. Cheers! ✌️

Hume is 99.9% correct about the is ought problem. With one exception. The idea of equality. You cannot define what is unequal without first knowing at least 2 examples of equal... Yeah! No really. Talk about deriving an ought from an is? Just TRRRRRY derving one example of ≠ from one example of =. Can't be done. (Plato snd Euclid had lot to say about this) (Don't believe me? Try defining an Isosceles triangle without knowledge of what an Equilateral and Scalene triangles are. 😆☺️) Saying you cannot derive a moral ought from what is the case. Is like trying to find a thing in empirical reality that is Opposite To Itself. But in purley imaginitive and rationalist terms? You can imagine things opposite to themselves all day long. Imagination being the operative word here. Hume laid this idea out clearly with the "Black Swan" hypothesis. Which is simply a restatement empirically speaking. Of Socrates saying nothing can be opposite to itself in the Phaedo dialouge. (Sorry I've probably studied more than the acedemically recommended dose of Plato.)

Top content, keep it up. You might like the channel Unsolicited advice if you've not already heard of it.

The future is under no obligation to follow the past

Dear Dr Jordan Vale: In the bit about Hume's "Bundle theory of self" you very briefly mentioned Buddhism. I think it is curious that the historical Buddha also had a similar view of the self about 2500 years ago. Indeed, the idea predates Buddhism and is Vedic. The no-self view of the self is one of the core ideas of Buddhism, the other being the idea of impermanence and the idea of emptiness (shunyata). In passing, may I recommend "The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Friendship That Shaped Modern Thought (Princeton University Press, 2017)". As an economist, the two towering figures of my discipline are Hume and Smith. Thank you. Atanu Dey

Three weird pronunciations in the first 45 seconds. Bodes ill.

I really Appreciate your honesty in presenting this and acknowledging parts that are difficult and against your own belief are still rational thoughts and deserve being listened to and thought upon. I think your the first pastor I've ever listened to who has done this. You're an honorable man and an intellectual. We need more men like yourself.

Great account. Seeing as you are a pastor and kept out personal bias is great! Also Hume might have been autistic or something of the sort given his social activities lol

Your glasses are interfaring with you green screen and it's hard to focus.

Thank you🥚

Party boy goes born again and wants the world to suffer for his sins. He's got a lot to answer for.

So if I understand this correctly, God condemns most people to hell simply because they didn’t get picked? This is awful.

Very Clear... and I will view again and again until I fully grasp it. Thanks