วีดีโอ

This podcast is fantastic. I've been wondering how modal logic worked, and this video explained it to me. Thank you!

There is an entire podcast called Do You Believe In Fairies?. 😊

😂Thank you for sharing ✌🏽💖🤟🏼✨️🧚‍♂️

I have a bit of a long question: humans are said to have human nature, and because of our sharing of this human nature there is a distinct ‘humanness’ shared by us all that is expressed uniquely in each individual human. But, surely we identify the nature ‘human’ based on the common properties that we all share. But, if this is the case, I fail to see why we don’t have a bipedal nature, and a two eyes nature, and a hair nature, and whatever else. Do we say that we only have one nature, human, and how do we distinguish between natures and common ways in which a nature is expressed (i.e., some humans have red hair so it is not common to all humans, but could it not just as well be the case that there is a red-hair nature that is uniquely expressed in each individual with red hair)?

Hall Nancy Martinez Jennifer Robinson Barbara

+

Nathan Jacobs might be the most clear and articulate philosopher I've come across. He deserves a much wider audience. This episode in particular is extremely broad and yet manages a number of fascinating insights into our contemporary spiritual condition.

The hardcore nominalist believes that truth is theirs to make up. Conversely, the hardcore realist has an awful lot of faith in God.

Access to higher tiers of conversation require a rehabilitation of levels of knowing beyond the propositional.

Please do an episode on the problem of evil

I'm loving this but I'm almost an hour and a half into this and I don't think he's mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas, the guy who synthesized all Realism in the high middle ages. William of Ockham's Nominalism was primarily a reaction against St. Thomas Aquinas. Other than this huge omission, this is outstanding. Thank you.

As far as ethics go, I’d be interested to see how you answer the trolley problem.

Thank you for this video Dr. Jacob’s. In light of your argument Could you please help me understand this scripture from Jeremiah? It seems to say God knew him before he was a “thing” so to speak. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” Also I would love to hear more about this topic especially how it relates to how other peoples free will affects our own, and how free will related to the creation of more humans.

Harris Michelle Moore Margaret Walker Sarah

Rodriguez Maria Martinez Laura Allen Shirley

Jackson Nancy Robinson Shirley Allen Larry

This is very good !

Martinez Karen Hernandez Donald Anderson Scott

Martin Dorothy Smith Jennifer Davis Deborah

God did not make anything. Stop the word-salad! Religion is science for dummies and the ones too lazy to go outside.

Jones Angela Brown Sandra Lee Paul

Walker Timothy Walker Ronald Clark Gary

Gonzalez Thomas Williams Ruth Thompson Anna

Scientistic is the better word. And just so you know, watching the host monologue while the guest has to sit there and just eventually say 'sure' is pretty boring.

This is excellent Nathan. Brilliant letter. Have similar suspicions (emphasis on suspicion) about your controversial comment at the end. It is hard to reconcile the ability for a soul to be in heaven/paradise and be happy knowing that some of your earthly loved ones chose wrong and are simultaneously experiencing eternal conscious torment. Who knows if some final offer is made to the damned. I do know that God is good. Peace brother.

I would appreciate if you sourced what you said instead of just offering conjecture

Do you really think Jordan Peterson is a political figure? I would suggest Peterson is the balanced, analytical version on the psychological side as you, Dr Jacobs are on the philosophical side.....open to exploratory reasons for different beliefs, articulating the interconnected beliefs and ideas of the tradition yet willing to ground judgment in suggesting poor or ill-formed thinking regarding what went wrong or astray with certain forms of thinking. Peterson is anything but a political figure.

Wow ... if this reading is for a 15 year old ... I'm blown away. I'm reading more and more about Eastern Orthodox thinking and it puts me to shame, and yet it's elevating my mind/soul . I've been wrong about God. God forgive me. I believe but help me in my unbelief. I'm done pushing back. Grace to Agatha and her thoughtfull question.

Logic can tell us if an argument is valid, but can logic tell us if an argument is sound?

This question is a good example of why theology, church philosophy, Christian culture shouldn't be taught as simple and black and white. I think large hurdle for churches are their philosophies and cultures remove nuance to reach more people, which promotes simplistic understanding. Simplistic understanding is destroyed by nuance and complexity, which disheartens those seeking understanding. I think Christian Culture reducing itself to reach more people ends up creating a "brain drain" along with" black and white" thinkers. This opens up the church culture to group think and extremism through lack of self critique, rejection to change

not gonna lie, this video not only answered a question of be stirring recently, but also provided much need perspective.

"Philosophy of religion must end because there is no truth to religion. Religion must end because it isn’t based on evidence, but rather on faith. Faith must end because it is the antithesis of an intellectual virtue. Faith has no objective method and solves no problems. Faith-based belief processes are unreliable. Faith cannot tell us anything about matters of fact like the nature of nature, its workings, or even its origins. If faith is trust then there is no reason to trust faith." Loftus, John. Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End (p. 13). Pitchstone Publishing. Kindle Edition.

It seems like this view struggles on a couple of points. First, it seems odd to say God must make someone real before having knowledge of them. As humans, we are able to picture hypotheticals and predict things with some degree of accuracy. To limit God from this practice seems quite odd. Especially since this seems to imply God is creating randomly with no inclination as to what effect the creation will have or what it will be like, which kind of just seems incoherent to me. Maybe this comes down to your view of free will, maybe God can’t predict what choice someone makes even knowing everything about what type of person they are (I don’t really understand how this could be possible, but I suppose it’s an out). Second, it’s said that God is doing everything he can to bring people to him despite their freedom. But that seems to not be the case. Divine hiddenness arguments state that there are people open to God who nonetheless don’t believe in him because there really isn’t any good evidence for belief. If that’s the case, then either God isn’t trying his best or otherwise isn’t all powerful. Your best chance at refuting that is probably some idea like God knowing you wouldn’t accept regardless of evidence, or that God has created the world maximally suited to save the most people and we just can’t see it properly (I think both of those are weak, but people take those lines). However, we’ve already ruled out God making decisions based upon how people will act, so neither of those even work.

I appreciate your video, I’ve been wondering about your view on this. Given the classical view of free will, that freedom is acting in accord with our teleology rather than freedom in modernity being something like the ability to act arbitrarily, I wonder how you view the patristic universalist tradition (Origen, St. Isaac, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus, etc.). Sin is slavery, and Christ wasn’t less free for not being capable of sin. Do you believe that it is possible that if one were able to grasp the summum bonum, our teleological end, they could in theory decide not to choose it? Or that the eschatological reality of God being all in all could leave out part of the creaturely Sophia, the body of Christ?

I believe all will make it

Nathan, would you watch this video where they talk about the same topic a little differently and give your opinion please? - "The illusion of modern political. Conversation with Jonathan Pageau."

As my teenage sons would say when they think something is cool. Bruhhhh.

I find it interesting that Luther was Nominalistic but earlier than this Wycliffe was the most staunchly realist Medieval scholastic in his time and contemptuous in his critique of Scotus and Ockham. A lot of his arguments and critiques are grounded in the decades he spent as a metaphysician.

Would you let someone lick the top of your head? Serious question

Good catch from a couple of commenters! Dr. Jacobs misspeaks at 7:30. It should be “All things that are purple are immortal. Pigs are purple. Therefore pigs are immortal,” which he correctly restates at 8:50.

Would love to see you and Jordan Hall have a conversation together!

Would love to see you and Jordan Hall have a conversation together!

I really appreciate your content. I’ve been circling around converting to Christianity for some time now after deconstructing 11 years ago. After listening to your podcast I’ve become convinced that Christianity is the best way forward. Cheers.

Clark Deborah Clark Margaret Davis Laura

I get the intent of calling for a useful application of AI, but would be good if you gone a little deeper and explore the technology if it actually functions for this, on what basis and at what scope. Otherwise it comes out just like wishful thinking, stemming only on the hype around the idea of what it could do, and not based on the actual capability of the machine learning methods.

7:30 Sounds like affirming the consequent. Not a valid argument. (Also, all pigs are invalid arguments. Therefore, all pigs affirm the consequent.😉)

Thank you very much for starting this work. In this episode, I very much appreciate your nuanced understanding of the Reformers and the Reformation. Often, while those from older traditions will lump "Protestants" into one group, at the same time they say Protestants are very individualistic. The story isn't so simple. I will suggest, consider that Luther was not as "nominalist" as many make him out to be. They point to his writing against the Scholastics, which he certainly has done, as evidence for this. However, he was aware of the later Scholastics: Biel, Ockham, Scotus. It isnt clear that he understood much of Aquinas at all. Matthew Barrett describes this quite well in his book, The Reformation as Renewal. Jordan Cooper, on TH-cam, also walks through this.

Is like somebody to disprove this: all food of different categories combined is a salad. Salad is the base set for all food. The difference comes down to entropy.

That sandwich chart is perfection hahaha. I think I'm a True Neutral.

Here after Jonathan Pageau, but what is this? A meaningless words salad and my time wasted in this boring monologue.