Thanks for the Q&A, Joe! Just one brief follow up on my one serious question about lexicographic orderings: Lexicographic orderings can be used to order tuples in a specific way. So we say (x1,y1) > (x2,y2) in the lexicographic order just in case x1 > x2 or x1 = x2 and y1 > y2. Less formally, the order defers to x, with y as a tie-breaker. The way some people talk about God, it almost sounds like they think God plays the role of x. i.e., A world with God is better than a world without God, regardless of the other contents of that world. You can rank two worlds with God or two worlds without God based on the other contents of those worlds (the ys), but there's no amount of non-divine beings that could be added to a world that would compensate for God being absent from that world. Without something like this, questions like "should we want God to exist" seem strikingly underspecified to me (at least if we think there's no best world). If we don't rank worlds lexicographically, then presumably there's some amount of valuable beings we could add to the world such that world + beings is on par with world + god. Then if someone asks me "do you want God to exist?" I don't really know how to answer. Even if the world as it is would be better if God were to exist in addition, the world could also be made just as good by adding a bunch of non-divine beings to it. If these axiological questions are just asking ceterus peribus questions, then I guess that's less problematic, but much less interesting to me. Maybe other things being equal a world with God is better than one without. But that's true of lot's of stuff when we're just tinkering at the margins like this (e.g., puppies, chocolate ice cream, etc.). It doesn't tell me much about the type of world I should hope for, all things considered. And it's those all-things-considered questions that seem most interesting to me.
If I were to correct Ryan on something it would be this: He should have said "Classical theists say that God has ONE unique attribute: timelessness, immutability, simplicity and impassibility. An open theist will deny all four of them" 🤣
Major thanks to both Joe, the mods and Dr. Mullins for entertaining my question this evening. You all have been a tremendous influence in my interest in philosophy. Great paper, and interview.
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
1:33:16 I think God will just use the fact that he is the best power point presenter to create a Powerpoint so good that it makes Hitler really see the kind of grave mistakes he made.
@@TheWorldTeacher I am a polytheist, and I have a number of reasons that ultimately convinced me of polytheism, but I don't think a TH-cam comment section is the best medium for such a discussion. Why do you ask?
@@Jareers-ef8hp Really depends, as my journey from apatheistic atheist to polytheist started with evaluating other issues (Mathematical Platonism, the Ontology of Holes which then lead into Mind-Body issues, Reid's Principle of Credulity and the mismatch in epistemic standards in life vs philosophy, etc.). So, if the question is about what got ME specifically to believe, then it would be much harder to give recommendations. If you are just looking for some generic readings on the topic, however, then: "A World Full of Gods" by John Michael Greer. "A Case for Polytheism" and "Pagan Portals - Polytheism: A Platonic Approach" by Steven Dillon. "Essays on a Polytheistic Philosophy of Religion" and "Essays on the Metaphysics of Polytheism in Proclus" by Edward Butler Read those 5 in that order, maybe sprinkle in some Ancient Greek philosophers' books, and you have a good introduction.
@@philosophicaljay3449, well, we all have our own particular BELIEFS, but ultimately, there exists objective truth, which is not subject to our misconceptions and misunderstandings. One who has transcended mundane relative truth is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. 😇
Haven’t watched all the way through yet but; As a panentheist I want to say that panentheism IS classical theism+. We hold that God is the greatest conceivable thing, so [God]>[creation], & [God + creation] can’t be greater than [God]. So creation HAS to be some kind of subset of God. Just like science progresses, I think Classical Theism has progressed to Panentheism.
I know this is a month old comment, but if you see this, as someone who leans towards classical theism I have a few questions. You say that God + creation would equal being greater than just God if God and creation were not identical in some sense, or of the same essence. It seems that in that case there would be more beings that contain some level of greatness, but it would not necessarily be “greater” as God possesses infinite greatness. Additionally, how can one say that it HAS to be the cases that it follows from the fact that [God+creation]=[God] in terms of greatness that God and creation must be identical? I think I’ve given a way that it could be the case otherwise, and even if my alternative doesn’t work, I still don’t think it follows necessarily. You’d have to explain more on that. Lastly, I think classical theists would be opposed to panentheism because it seems to apply that God has distinct metaphysical parts (divine simplicity) whereas panentheism seems to entail many parts in most forms of it. Perhaps you could hold as a panentheist that the things in the universe are not parts and are essential to God, but then it seems that it falls prey to the modal collapse argument. Idk, just a few thoughts that I had. Let me know what you think if you care to respond.
@@sneakysnake2330 To be clear, God & creation are not identical, just like my iPhone & my calculator app are not identical. The calculator app exists in my photo, but my phone is so much more than that app. Yet, [iPhone, calculator] is not referring to more things than [iPhone]. Or another example, [alphabet, vowels] is not a larger set than [alphabet]. Contrast this with an inventor & his invention. His invention is outside of himself, so the two together are more things than him alone. I do personally have a theory that creation is on the edge of God, between Being (which is God) & non-being (separation from God, Hell). It’s a world of becoming, where everything drifts from being to not being. “God created the universe when He put a limit on infinity” -Pythagoras In our world we see the simple God refracted into many parts, so we seem to be on the brink between. This is why evil can exist here. If we were just another attribute of God, we would have to be perfect. But then we would actually be God, & not a non-God entity. And in order for God’s love to be satisfied, He needs non-God entities to love.
Does understanding of the best possible world need to map onto the world as we experience it? It would if God created the best possible world, but if He didn't create it, but rather is creating it, the ability to improve our world (by say adding an electron) would be evidence that the best possible world is exactly what is in process.
1:19:50 who said theres two minds? Even the Assyrian Church of the East doesnt, and almost certainly even Nestorius himself didnt. At most we can say (like eg Swinburne) that the doctrine means having one mind that now has a different /expanded array of consciousnesness. That would mean God wasnt empathetic before the incarnation, but still. Tho on the other hand, we could take a Buddhist-like conception of empathy as some kind of disposition of benevolence (and compassion when applicable) that is intellectual and conative, but not emotional. Classical theist God could have that eternally.
Thanks for the convo guys. I wonder if empathy actually might count against God? My thought is that if God knows really well, perhaps knows exactly, just how overwhelmingly miserable major depression is, for example, wouldn't it count against him for creating situations in which that is the route through which to achieve some greater good? And just to head off a potential retort, I don't have much sympathy for claims to divine ignorance. Not being able to know for certain doesn't preclude being able to predict with great certainty and if there is a personal God capable of creating this wildly complex universe to get a specific type of creature they would have faculties that permit them to make very good predictions. It's also true that making good predictions cannot guarantee an outcome so you have to qualify God's attempts to achieve greater goods.
You do not have to read this if you do not want to, I am not forcing anyone, so if the only thing you are going to comment is TLDR, just dont even bother with your projection because you are too intellectually lazy to put any effort into researching potential. That comment is not the W you think it is. If you understand deeply what is going to be discussed you will know it is a L. Debate the person you are debating and find questions they avoid and DONT LET THEM AVOID THEM. If a person avoids answering a question do they know the answer they would give is wrong? - Mac Mac What if the reason they avoid the question is from shadow ego denying the question from conscious mind to honestly be considered? If this is the case, how can someone break through the denial to get the question to be slowly, consciously considered? As much as I understand how belief matters and effects your behavior, in the end is it not the behavior that happened that really matters? Instead of trying to explain this, would me showing this in practice by showing examples be a better way to possibly show others this understanding? Would you be willing to read some examples of me asking very simple questions that often get avoided, and when they dont the answers are nonsense that the person themselves cannot even explain? I think the whole conversation is very telling and I have had LOTS of conversations just like this. I have been using very basic questions that are just I think definitionally true and 97% of them avoid these simple moral questions about justice and forgiveness white it atheists and agnostics seem not to have problems with them. Sometimes people ask some good qualifier questions like are the criminals guilty showing remorse and those things. I have no problems answering the questions. I want to make a video 5 questions 97% of christians and muslims WONT answer. And if you dont believe me, you can try it for yourself. So these are the questions. There are 4 judges and 10 guilty criminals. Judge #1 orders punishment for all 10 criminals and does not forgive without punishment a single one. Judge #2 forgives without punishment all 10 criminals. Judge #3 forgives without punishment 9 of them and punishes 1 of them. Judge #4 punishes 9 of them and forgives without punishment 1 of them. 1 Which judge is the most/maximally just? 2 Which judge is the most/maximally forgiving? 3 Is judge #3 either most/maximally forgiving or most just? 4 Is judge #4 most/maximally forgiving or most just? 5 is it possible for any judge to be both most/maximally forgiving and most/maximally just? To me, and many other people these are very simple strait forward questions. Are these questions difficult for you all things being equal? So let me give an example of 1 of the thousands of conversations I have had about this just in youtube comment in theist apologist channels. I feel like that was the proper place to be doing this as well I do not like to give them echo chambers. That just helps keep this thing that is causing so much mental dissonance alive. They believe something CAN be most just and most forgiving, so the shadow denies the question from the conscious mind where it could be integrated or transmuted. Sometimes they project as well and say I am avoiding their questions and say they are answering mine. I think this shows the power of denial and projection the shadow has. Its why I say the mind is a powerful tool but it can be a most deceptive enemy. #1 Do we find order by trying to impose order, or does order come about by understanding disorder so we know what to look out for to keep disorder out and that is how order comes to fruition? #2 When a person avoids certain questions, is this showing us a disorder? #3 Why does jordan peterson seem to avoid the question does god exist? #4 Why when I ask MOST other theist if god exist they just say yes and look at me like I am stupid? #5 Why did jordan peterson get angry and try and stop that question from being asked again while still avoiding answering it by saying something so ridiculous it got memed? #6 Why do MOST other theists never have to ask what I mean by do and you and believe and god? #7 Do those not seem like very simple things that most people understand? #8 Does this show a cognitive dissonance in jordan peterson that he himself cannot see? #9 Have you ever noticed how many questions get avoided by politicians? #10 Do you think you yourself have avoided questions before? #11 If this is making some sense to you would you be willing to help me with being able to make as understandable as possible? #12 If this is not making any sense, can you think of any questions for me to show me where you are having issue to help me be able to explain this better? So this is just a brief clip of a conversation. I will try and post the full conversation in replies below. Christian: The explanation is moral obligation. There's no time you should not uphold moral obligations. Even in cases of rape the child has to be born and terminating it is murder. Any dilemma brought by abortion proponents also exist when dealing with people who are alive. Mac Mac: Could you really stand up to those parents and tell them their child who just got raped is not allowed to abort that child? Can you see how arrogant that is to think YOU have the moral obligation over their child and her own body because "The explanation is moral obligation. There's no time you should not uphold moral obligations. ""? Christian: I guess it boils down to beautiful Catholic Teachings and beliefs. The one in the womb is as equal as the one outside. The raped woman and her parents can't afford to take their anger out on the new person, they can't. I will not tell them to their faces because they are in the thick of it... but to you I say it so when the time comes you know it's not an option. This was another comment he made that really blew my mind. "If slavery was still on and I happened to be a master I would just be Catholic and treat my workers well. Slavery had reasons to exist back then and still now there's a gap it could occupy. " I know this seems like a troll. but how we got to that point, you would never have thought he would say those things. Its actually backwards because the conversations was about how traditional catholics are good people. Its funny how the shadow goes completely 180 sometimes. For example cross examined posting a short about brainwashing that they do not have the self awareness to see they checked every single box for brainwashing hard. This lead to me to series of questions that the implications that if you avoid the questions, you are brainwashed, and NO ONE has answered the brainwashing questions yet. Here is my post in response to the brainwashing video. #1 If you were brainwashed would you know it? #2 If someone said they had a test for brainwashing, would you want to take it? #3 If they then said, if you cannot answer these questions, that means your brainwashed, would you not be giving it 1000% effort to answer those questions? "Bite stand for control over behavior, information, thoughts and emotions. Destructive mind control is when the overall effect of these 4 components promotes dependency and obedience to some leader or cause." "Mind control becomes destructive when it undermines a persona ability to think and act independently."" A Does christianity/islam effect how you feel and act? B Is hell not something to fear, aka a fear tactic? C Does it tell you to listen to it and dont listen to others? D Does it promote dependency and obedience to a leader? E Does it undermine your ability to think? A. Yes a belief system is going to effect how you feel and act. B. Hell is the biggest fear tactic ever, its like the scariest thing imaginable. C. It says listen to it and dont listen to other, by calling atheists fools and other religions wrong. Galileo comes to mind as someone speaking the truth, and the church trying to shut down the truth as a perfect example of this. And today I would say evolution is the same thing still happening. D. Its core message is about obedience and dependency on god, the ultimate leader. E. Just like galileo being right and evolution being right, these are denied because the ability to think has been compromised. As well, the fact I can only get 3% of christians and muslims to answer these 5 simple questions while atheists and agnostics are at 100% speaks towards this as well. I will even call it that if christians/muslims respond to this, most will avoid the questions. I feel that confident that I can even say this and am sure this will still happen. watch. There are 4 judges and 10 guilty criminals. Judge #1 orders punishment for all 10 criminals and does not forgive without punishment a single one. Judge #2 forgives without punishment all 10 criminals. Judge #3 forgives without punishment 9 of them and punishes 1 of them. Judge #4 punishes 9 of them and forgives without punishment 1 of them. #4 Which judge is the most/maximally just? #5 Which judge is the most/maximally forgiving? #6 Is judge #3 either most/maximally forgiving or most just? #7 Is judge #4 most/maximally forgiving or most just? #8 is it possible for any judge to be both most/maximally forgiving and most/maximally just?
OK, this was about some traditional catholics having bad behavior sometimes. B: Not true. Trads talk about TLM, Ad Orientem and The Eucharist, not about Schmid or philosophy. What has Schmid got to do with The Eucharist or TLM? I don't believe him C: Have you met any Trads? B@C: I see them in forums and I know some from TH-cam. Tell me how Schmid got mingled with them, what topic?... he is making this up. C@B: Schmid was just commenting on my username, since I sent in a superchat. And I grew up Trad, so I can confirm that Schmid is NOT making that up haha Mac Mac: I have felt the hate myself just from asking simple questions. I will give you the questions and you tell me if I deserved to be called a holocaust denier because of these questions. ( I do not deny the holocaust) There are 4 judges and 10 guilty criminals. Judge #1 orders punishment for all 10 criminals and does not forgive without punishment a single one. Judge #2 forgives without punishment all 10 criminals. Judge #3 forgives without punishment 9 of them and punishes 1 of them. Judge #4 punishes 9 of them and forgives without punishment 1 of them. 1 Which judge is the most/maximally just? 2 Which judge is the most/maximally forgiving? 3 Is judge #3 either most/maximally forgiving or most just? 4 Is judge #4 most/maximally forgiving or most just? 5 is it possible for any judge to be both most/maximally forgiving and most/maximally just? B@Mac Mac what bad did he do as a tradcath, my bet is.. very minor bads. Mac@B >>what bad did he do as a tradcath, my bet is.. very minor bads"" Calling me a holocausts denier, did i not make this clear? This is just one of the many examples. Can i run that test on you and see if you can answer those questions. I bet you wont. I give you a 3% chance. B@Mac Mac what's the holocaust got to do with the TLM, Ad Orientem or The Eucharist? How's even the holocaust being debated deep in Catholic circles? That was a trad out of order. Mac Mac@B Was the point of this conversation not about the bad behavior of trads? Am i wrong to give examples of this bad behavior? Did you not see what I typed? I asked those judge questions, the response I got was I was a holocaust denying hitler lover, just for asking those questions. I am giving you an example of bad behavior. That was just 1 out of many. Camrons channel has some trads that are like this. If you want I am sure I can find you many examples. OH in fact I think there is a chat between a trad and a protestant in cross examined video right now as the video said something controversial. And did you want to run that test and see if you can answer those questions? B@Mac Mac those questions are tltr and understand. Anyone can be deceived into being a holocaust denier. Trads talk Catholic stuff they wouldn't cross paths with you if you didn't approach a topic they are passionate about Mac Mac@B Your kidding right? I have honestly never heard that excuse in the 2 years asking. watch how. 1.1 2.2 3. no 4.no 5. no. UMMM ya, but I am not. I am very hard to trick as I do my own research and form my own opinions and I ask so many questions people hate me. Is this some excuse? Ya I went to them and asked them these questions, so its ok to attack me then and say I love hitler? Just try again on the questions, atheists and agnostic are 100%, why are christians only 3% when these are moral questions about justice and forgiveness? Dont you think that seems a little backwards? B@Mac Mac you like these questions but not everyone likes them... and that shouldn't make you conclude anything. After looking at your question... God accepts guilty people. He might purify them but as long as they are back they are ok. Ans taken from the parable of the prodigal son. Mac Mac@BThey are super simple moral questions. Do you really find it hard to say the judge who punished all ten was most just? or the judge who forgave all 10 is most forgiving? I tested these on my 8 year old nephew and he got them. This does not seem odd to you that you cant do it? Does it not seem odd that I can make this same prediction with any christian and muslim and 97% of the time be right? NO, this is not an answer. There is no god in those questions and there is 5 questions. I know you might THINK you did just answer them, but look closely. I am not your enemy, I am trying to show you your own ego. Your ego is blocking these questions in the state of denial and projection but if you can see this consciously, you can integrate or transmute that part of your ego and become a better more consistent person. We can get into the discussion of god being most just and most forgiving if we can establish the base first. But you need to show me you can break your ego to understand that base. B@Mac Mac guilty or not guilty is a simple way to look at it. There's a more advanced way. Have you heard of vincible and invincible ignorance? How can you account for that in your questions? Mac Mac@B But that wont hit your beliefs to trigger your ego. That is the point of why these questions are bieng avoided. BUT. you might have given me an idea. Lets try it. Ok can you answer those questions if they are guilty and not guilty? I have not, going to go look that up right after I finish this. I will let you know what I think about it. I am going to have to find out what it is first, I can say without knowing. Very interesting, but not really needed for this discussion. If you want to apply it just define how you are applying it. So can you answer the questions now? B@Mac Mac maybe I get triggered because I think you may have a trap for me in the question. Not because I have an ego. I'll assume we are talking about human judges following the law. 1. Can't say 2. 2 3. Can't say 4. Can't say 5. Yes but hard Mac Mac@B That IS what is happening. That is the point. The ego is blocking it because its a belief you have and the ego cannot admit its wrong. This happens very fast, the subconscious is 40 billion bits a second, consciousness is 40. EVERYONE has an ego. It you had NO ego, you are not you anymore and you would not be able to tell the difference between you and the wall, in fact, you would not know where you end and the floor begins. Its the you that says this is me. ((There was a little bit of confusion here because he posted my answers first.)) But you did answer the questions now. This is really good. we have broken through. Less then 3% can, just to let you know how rare you are. Its a good sign that you actually have you ego under control. You can see how hard this is for yourself by asking other christians and muslims these questions and see this avoidance. Its also why JP can answer the questions does god exist.
justice reduces to the rule of the stronger, so all of the judges are as just as they are powerful (undefined in the thought experiment). obviously the judge who forgives the most is the most forgiving.
@@joshridinger3407 >>justice reduces to the rule of the stronger, so all of the judges are as just as they are powerful (undefined in the thought experiment). obviously the judge who forgives the most is the most forgiving."" So judge #2 is just as just as judge #2, but only judge #2 is most forgiving? How about just answer each question and think about it a little bit before you answer.
@@macmac1022 i can't answer which judge is most just without knowing how powerful they are. #2 is obviously the most forgiving, in this scenario, because he forgives the most people.
@@joshridinger3407 >>i can't answer which judge is most just without knowing how powerful they are."" So if the 4 different judges were doing these things, you would not be able to tell me what is the most just judge of the 4? They have the power that a judge has, they are all equal in power. Dont know what power has to do with being just, but whatever. >> #2 is obviously the most forgiving, in this scenario, because he forgives the most people."" But judge #1 that applied justice every time is not the most just?
Thanks for the Q&A, Joe! Just one brief follow up on my one serious question about lexicographic orderings:
Lexicographic orderings can be used to order tuples in a specific way. So we say (x1,y1) > (x2,y2) in the lexicographic order just in case x1 > x2 or x1 = x2 and y1 > y2. Less formally, the order defers to x, with y as a tie-breaker.
The way some people talk about God, it almost sounds like they think God plays the role of x. i.e., A world with God is better than a world without God, regardless of the other contents of that world. You can rank two worlds with God or two worlds without God based on the other contents of those worlds (the ys), but there's no amount of non-divine beings that could be added to a world that would compensate for God being absent from that world.
Without something like this, questions like "should we want God to exist" seem strikingly underspecified to me (at least if we think there's no best world). If we don't rank worlds lexicographically, then presumably there's some amount of valuable beings we could add to the world such that world + beings is on par with world + god. Then if someone asks me "do you want God to exist?" I don't really know how to answer. Even if the world as it is would be better if God were to exist in addition, the world could also be made just as good by adding a bunch of non-divine beings to it. If these axiological questions are just asking ceterus peribus questions, then I guess that's less problematic, but much less interesting to me. Maybe other things being equal a world with God is better than one without. But that's true of lot's of stuff when we're just tinkering at the margins like this (e.g., puppies, chocolate ice cream, etc.). It doesn't tell me much about the type of world I should hope for, all things considered. And it's those all-things-considered questions that seem most interesting to me.
If I were to correct Ryan on something it would be this: He should have said "Classical theists say that God has ONE unique attribute: timelessness, immutability, simplicity and impassibility. An open theist will deny all four of them" 🤣
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
lol
Ah, yes, all the messes you get into from divine simplicity being the attribute that says God has only attribute
Great video! Exploring the axiology of different models of God and generic theism vs atheism is extremely interesting. Thanks for posting.
Major thanks to both Joe, the mods and Dr. Mullins for entertaining my question this evening. You all have been a tremendous influence in my interest in philosophy. Great paper, and interview.
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
1:33:16 I think God will just use the fact that he is the best power point presenter to create a Powerpoint so good that it makes Hitler really see the kind of grave mistakes he made.
Thank you for asking my question even though it came in late! Was quite the interesting livestream.
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@TheWorldTeacher
I am a polytheist, and I have a number of reasons that ultimately convinced me of polytheism, but I don't think a TH-cam comment section is the best medium for such a discussion.
Why do you ask?
@@Jareers-ef8hp
Really depends, as my journey from apatheistic atheist to polytheist started with evaluating other issues (Mathematical Platonism, the Ontology of Holes which then lead into Mind-Body issues, Reid's Principle of Credulity and the mismatch in epistemic standards in life vs philosophy, etc.).
So, if the question is about what got ME specifically to believe, then it would be much harder to give recommendations. If you are just looking for some generic readings on the topic, however, then:
"A World Full of Gods" by John Michael Greer.
"A Case for Polytheism" and "Pagan Portals - Polytheism: A Platonic Approach" by Steven Dillon.
"Essays on a Polytheistic Philosophy of Religion" and "Essays on the Metaphysics of Polytheism in Proclus" by Edward Butler
Read those 5 in that order, maybe sprinkle in some Ancient Greek philosophers' books, and you have a good introduction.
@@philosophicaljay3449, well, we all have our own particular BELIEFS, but ultimately, there exists objective truth, which is not subject to our misconceptions and misunderstandings.
One who has transcended mundane relative truth is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. 😇
Haven’t watched all the way through yet but; As a panentheist I want to say that panentheism IS classical theism+. We hold that God is the greatest conceivable thing, so [God]>[creation], & [God + creation] can’t be greater than [God]. So creation HAS to be some kind of subset of God.
Just like science progresses, I think Classical Theism has progressed to Panentheism.
I know this is a month old comment, but if you see this, as someone who leans towards classical theism I have a few questions.
You say that God + creation would equal being greater than just God if God and creation were not identical in some sense, or of the same essence. It seems that in that case there would be more beings that contain some level of greatness, but it would not necessarily be “greater” as God possesses infinite greatness.
Additionally, how can one say that it HAS to be the cases that it follows from the fact that [God+creation]=[God] in terms of greatness that God and creation must be identical? I think I’ve given a way that it could be the case otherwise, and even if my alternative doesn’t work, I still don’t think it follows necessarily. You’d have to explain more on that.
Lastly, I think classical theists would be opposed to panentheism because it seems to apply that God has distinct metaphysical parts (divine simplicity) whereas panentheism seems to entail many parts in most forms of it. Perhaps you could hold as a panentheist that the things in the universe are not parts and are essential to God, but then it seems that it falls prey to the modal collapse argument.
Idk, just a few thoughts that I had. Let me know what you think if you care to respond.
@@sneakysnake2330 To be clear, God & creation are not identical, just like my iPhone & my calculator app are not identical. The calculator app exists in my photo, but my phone is so much more than that app. Yet, [iPhone, calculator] is not referring to more things than [iPhone]. Or another example, [alphabet, vowels] is not a larger set than [alphabet].
Contrast this with an inventor & his invention. His invention is outside of himself, so the two together are more things than him alone.
I do personally have a theory that creation is on the edge of God, between Being (which is God) & non-being (separation from God, Hell). It’s a world of becoming, where everything drifts from being to not being.
“God created the universe when He put a limit on infinity” -Pythagoras
In our world we see the simple God refracted into many parts, so we seem to be on the brink between. This is why evil can exist here. If we were just another attribute of God, we would have to be perfect. But then we would actually be God, & not a non-God entity. And in order for God’s love to be satisfied, He needs non-God entities to love.
Oh nice. I'm Palamite Panentheistic. (Palamism)
@@sneakysnake2330 I don’t think we differ on much, in this respect
Does understanding of the best possible world need to map onto the world as we experience it?
It would if God created the best possible world, but if He didn't create it, but rather is creating it, the ability to improve our world (by say adding an electron) would be evidence that the best possible world is exactly what is in process.
Nice haircut, Joe! 🙏🏽💯
See An Introduction To The Cognitive Science if Religion by Claire White
1:19:50 who said theres two minds? Even the Assyrian Church of the East doesnt, and almost certainly even Nestorius himself didnt. At most we can say (like eg Swinburne) that the doctrine means having one mind that now has a different /expanded array of consciousnesness. That would mean God wasnt empathetic before the incarnation, but still. Tho on the other hand, we could take a Buddhist-like conception of empathy as some kind of disposition of benevolence (and compassion when applicable) that is intellectual and conative, but not emotional. Classical theist God could have that eternally.
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
51:20 Perennial model of God? like.. the Taint model of God?... 🙃
Thanks for the convo guys.
I wonder if empathy actually might count against God? My thought is that if God knows really well, perhaps knows exactly, just how overwhelmingly miserable major depression is, for example, wouldn't it count against him for creating situations in which that is the route through which to achieve some greater good?
And just to head off a potential retort, I don't have much sympathy for claims to divine ignorance. Not being able to know for certain doesn't preclude being able to predict with great certainty and if there is a personal God capable of creating this wildly complex universe to get a specific type of creature they would have faculties that permit them to make very good predictions. It's also true that making good predictions cannot guarantee an outcome so you have to qualify God's attempts to achieve greater goods.
Tom Holland supports Arsenal these days?
Man City all the way
Let's say you cheated on your wife and unknown ro you she cheated on you.Very interesting how "justice' is worked out in an afterlife.
You do not have to read this if you do not want to, I am not forcing anyone, so if the only thing you are going to comment is TLDR, just dont even bother with your projection because you are too intellectually lazy to put any effort into researching potential. That comment is not the W you think it is. If you understand deeply what is going to be discussed you will know it is a L.
Debate the person you are debating and find questions they avoid and DONT LET THEM AVOID THEM.
If a person avoids answering a question do they know the answer they would give is wrong? - Mac Mac
What if the reason they avoid the question is from shadow ego denying the question from conscious mind to honestly be considered?
If this is the case, how can someone break through the denial to get the question to be slowly, consciously considered?
As much as I understand how belief matters and effects your behavior, in the end is it not the behavior that happened that really matters?
Instead of trying to explain this, would me showing this in practice by showing examples be a better way to possibly show others this understanding?
Would you be willing to read some examples of me asking very simple questions that often get avoided, and when they dont the answers are nonsense that the person themselves cannot even explain?
I think the whole conversation is very telling and I have had LOTS of conversations just like this. I have been using very basic questions that are just I think definitionally true and 97% of them avoid these simple moral questions about justice and forgiveness white it atheists and agnostics seem not to have problems with them. Sometimes people ask some good qualifier questions like are the criminals guilty showing remorse and those things. I have no problems answering the questions. I want to make a video 5 questions 97% of christians and muslims WONT answer. And if you dont believe me, you can try it for yourself. So these are the questions.
There are 4 judges and 10 guilty criminals. Judge #1 orders punishment for all 10 criminals and does not forgive without punishment a single one. Judge #2 forgives without punishment all 10 criminals. Judge #3 forgives without punishment 9 of them and punishes 1 of them. Judge #4 punishes 9 of them and forgives without punishment 1 of them.
1 Which judge is the most/maximally just?
2 Which judge is the most/maximally forgiving?
3 Is judge #3 either most/maximally forgiving or most just?
4 Is judge #4 most/maximally forgiving or most just?
5 is it possible for any judge to be both most/maximally forgiving and most/maximally just?
To me, and many other people these are very simple strait forward questions.
Are these questions difficult for you all things being equal?
So let me give an example of 1 of the thousands of conversations I have had about this just in youtube comment in theist apologist channels. I feel like that was the proper place to be doing this as well I do not like to give them echo chambers. That just helps keep this thing that is causing so much mental dissonance alive. They believe something CAN be most just and most forgiving, so the shadow denies the question from the conscious mind where it could be integrated or transmuted. Sometimes they project as well and say I am avoiding their questions and say they are answering mine. I think this shows the power of denial and projection the shadow has. Its why I say the mind is a powerful tool but it can be a most deceptive enemy.
#1 Do we find order by trying to impose order, or does order come about by understanding disorder so we know what to look out for to keep disorder out and that is how order comes to fruition?
#2 When a person avoids certain questions, is this showing us a disorder?
#3 Why does jordan peterson seem to avoid the question does god exist?
#4 Why when I ask MOST other theist if god exist they just say yes and look at me like I am stupid?
#5 Why did jordan peterson get angry and try and stop that question from being asked again while still avoiding answering it by saying something so ridiculous it got memed?
#6 Why do MOST other theists never have to ask what I mean by do and you and believe and god?
#7 Do those not seem like very simple things that most people understand?
#8 Does this show a cognitive dissonance in jordan peterson that he himself cannot see?
#9 Have you ever noticed how many questions get avoided by politicians?
#10 Do you think you yourself have avoided questions before?
#11 If this is making some sense to you would you be willing to help me with being able to make as understandable as possible?
#12 If this is not making any sense, can you think of any questions for me to show me where you are having issue to help me be able to explain this better?
So this is just a brief clip of a conversation. I will try and post the full conversation in replies below.
Christian: The explanation is moral obligation. There's no time you should not uphold moral obligations. Even in cases of rape the child has to be born and terminating it is murder.
Any dilemma brought by abortion proponents also exist when dealing with people who are alive.
Mac Mac: Could you really stand up to those parents and tell them their child who just got raped is not allowed to abort that child? Can you see how arrogant that is to think YOU have the moral obligation over their child and her own body because "The explanation is moral obligation. There's no time you should not uphold moral obligations. ""?
Christian: I guess it boils down to beautiful Catholic Teachings and beliefs.
The one in the womb is as equal as the one outside. The raped woman and her parents can't afford to take their anger out on the new person, they can't.
I will not tell them to their faces because they are in the thick of it... but to you I say it so when the time comes you know it's not an option.
This was another comment he made that really blew my mind.
"If slavery was still on and I happened to be a master I would just be Catholic and treat my workers well. Slavery had reasons to exist back then and still now there's a gap it could occupy. "
I know this seems like a troll. but how we got to that point, you would never have thought he would say those things. Its actually backwards because the conversations was about how traditional catholics are good people. Its funny how the shadow goes completely 180 sometimes. For example cross examined posting a short about brainwashing that they do not have the self awareness to see they checked every single box for brainwashing hard. This lead to me to series of questions that the implications that if you avoid the questions, you are brainwashed, and NO ONE has answered the brainwashing questions yet. Here is my post in response to the brainwashing video.
#1 If you were brainwashed would you know it?
#2 If someone said they had a test for brainwashing, would you want to take it?
#3 If they then said, if you cannot answer these questions, that means your brainwashed, would you not be giving it 1000% effort to answer those questions?
"Bite stand for control over behavior, information, thoughts and emotions. Destructive mind control is when the overall effect of these 4 components promotes dependency and obedience to some leader or cause."
"Mind control becomes destructive when it undermines a persona ability to think and act independently.""
A Does christianity/islam effect how you feel and act?
B Is hell not something to fear, aka a fear tactic?
C Does it tell you to listen to it and dont listen to others?
D Does it promote dependency and obedience to a leader?
E Does it undermine your ability to think?
A. Yes a belief system is going to effect how you feel and act.
B. Hell is the biggest fear tactic ever, its like the scariest thing imaginable.
C. It says listen to it and dont listen to other, by calling atheists fools and other religions wrong. Galileo comes to mind as someone speaking the truth, and the church trying to shut down the truth as a perfect example of this. And today I would say evolution is the same thing still happening.
D. Its core message is about obedience and dependency on god, the ultimate leader.
E. Just like galileo being right and evolution being right, these are denied because the ability to think has been compromised. As well, the fact I can only get 3% of christians and muslims to answer these 5 simple questions while atheists and agnostics are at 100% speaks towards this as well. I will even call it that if christians/muslims respond to this, most will avoid the questions. I feel that confident that I can even say this and am sure this will still happen. watch.
There are 4 judges and 10 guilty criminals. Judge #1 orders punishment for all 10 criminals and does not forgive without punishment a single one. Judge #2 forgives without punishment all 10 criminals. Judge #3 forgives without punishment 9 of them and punishes 1 of them. Judge #4 punishes 9 of them and forgives without punishment 1 of them.
#4 Which judge is the most/maximally just?
#5 Which judge is the most/maximally forgiving?
#6 Is judge #3 either most/maximally forgiving or most just?
#7 Is judge #4 most/maximally forgiving or most just?
#8 is it possible for any judge to be both most/maximally forgiving and most/maximally just?
OK, this was about some traditional catholics having bad behavior sometimes.
B: Not true.
Trads talk about TLM, Ad Orientem and The Eucharist, not about Schmid or philosophy.
What has Schmid got to do with The Eucharist or TLM? I don't believe him
C: Have you met any Trads?
B@C: I see them in forums and I know some from TH-cam.
Tell me how Schmid got mingled with them, what topic?... he is making this up.
C@B: Schmid was just commenting on my username, since I sent in a superchat. And I grew up Trad, so I can confirm that Schmid is NOT making that up haha
Mac Mac: I have felt the hate myself just from asking simple questions. I will give you the questions and you tell me if I deserved to be called a holocaust denier because of these questions. ( I do not deny the holocaust)
There are 4 judges and 10 guilty criminals. Judge #1 orders punishment for all 10 criminals and does not forgive without punishment a single one. Judge #2 forgives without punishment all 10 criminals. Judge #3 forgives without punishment 9 of them and punishes 1 of them. Judge #4 punishes 9 of them and forgives without punishment 1 of them.
1 Which judge is the most/maximally just?
2 Which judge is the most/maximally forgiving?
3 Is judge #3 either most/maximally forgiving or most just?
4 Is judge #4 most/maximally forgiving or most just?
5 is it possible for any judge to be both most/maximally forgiving and most/maximally just?
B@Mac Mac what bad did he do as a tradcath, my bet is.. very minor bads.
Mac@B >>what bad did he do as a tradcath, my bet is.. very minor bads""
Calling me a holocausts denier, did i not make this clear? This is just one of the many examples. Can i run that test on you and see if you can answer those questions. I bet you wont. I give you a 3% chance.
B@Mac Mac what's the holocaust got to do with the TLM, Ad Orientem or The Eucharist?
How's even the holocaust being debated deep in Catholic circles?
That was a trad out of order.
Mac Mac@B Was the point of this conversation not about the bad behavior of trads? Am i wrong to give examples of this bad behavior?
Did you not see what I typed? I asked those judge questions, the response I got was I was a holocaust denying hitler lover, just for asking those questions. I am giving you an example of bad behavior.
That was just 1 out of many. Camrons channel has some trads that are like this. If you want I am sure I can find you many examples. OH in fact I think there is a chat between a trad and a protestant in cross examined video right now as the video said something controversial.
And did you want to run that test and see if you can answer those questions?
B@Mac Mac those questions are tltr and understand.
Anyone can be deceived into being a holocaust denier.
Trads talk Catholic stuff they wouldn't cross paths with you if you didn't approach a topic they are passionate about
Mac Mac@B Your kidding right? I have honestly never heard that excuse in the 2 years asking. watch how.
1.1
2.2
3. no
4.no
5. no.
UMMM ya, but I am not. I am very hard to trick as I do my own research and form my own opinions and I ask so many questions people hate me.
Is this some excuse? Ya I went to them and asked them these questions, so its ok to attack me then and say I love hitler?
Just try again on the questions, atheists and agnostic are 100%, why are christians only 3% when these are moral questions about justice and forgiveness? Dont you think that seems a little backwards?
B@Mac Mac you like these questions but not everyone likes them... and that shouldn't make you conclude anything.
After looking at your question... God accepts guilty people. He might purify them but as long as they are back they are ok. Ans taken from the parable of the prodigal son.
Mac Mac@BThey are super simple moral questions. Do you really find it hard to say the judge who punished all ten was most just? or the judge who forgave all 10 is most forgiving? I tested these on my 8 year old nephew and he got them. This does not seem odd to you that you cant do it? Does it not seem odd that I can make this same prediction with any christian and muslim and 97% of the time be right?
NO, this is not an answer. There is no god in those questions and there is 5 questions. I know you might THINK you did just answer them, but look closely. I am not your enemy, I am trying to show you your own ego. Your ego is blocking these questions in the state of denial and projection but if you can see this consciously, you can integrate or transmute that part of your ego and become a better more consistent person.
We can get into the discussion of god being most just and most forgiving if we can establish the base first. But you need to show me you can break your ego to understand that base.
B@Mac Mac guilty or not guilty is a simple way to look at it. There's a more advanced way. Have you heard of vincible and invincible ignorance? How can you account for that in your questions?
Mac Mac@B But that wont hit your beliefs to trigger your ego. That is the point of why these questions are bieng avoided. BUT. you might have given me an idea. Lets try it. Ok can you answer those questions if they are guilty and not guilty?
I have not, going to go look that up right after I finish this. I will let you know what I think about it.
I am going to have to find out what it is first, I can say without knowing.
Very interesting, but not really needed for this discussion. If you want to apply it just define how you are applying it. So can you answer the questions now?
B@Mac Mac maybe I get triggered because I think you may have a trap for me in the question. Not because I have an ego.
I'll assume we are talking about human judges following the law.
1. Can't say
2. 2
3. Can't say
4. Can't say
5. Yes but hard
Mac Mac@B That IS what is happening. That is the point. The ego is blocking it because its a belief you have and the ego cannot admit its wrong. This happens very fast, the subconscious is 40 billion bits a second, consciousness is 40. EVERYONE has an ego. It you had NO ego, you are not you anymore and you would not be able to tell the difference between you and the wall, in fact, you would not know where you end and the floor begins. Its the you that says this is me.
((There was a little bit of confusion here because he posted my answers first.))
But you did answer the questions now. This is really good. we have broken through. Less then 3% can, just to let you know how rare you are. Its a good sign that you actually have you ego under control. You can see how hard this is for yourself by asking other christians and muslims these questions and see this avoidance. Its also why JP can answer the questions does god exist.
justice reduces to the rule of the stronger, so all of the judges are as just as they are powerful (undefined in the thought experiment). obviously the judge who forgives the most is the most forgiving.
@@joshridinger3407 >>justice reduces to the rule of the stronger, so all of the judges are as just as they are powerful (undefined in the thought experiment). obviously the judge who forgives the most is the most forgiving.""
So judge #2 is just as just as judge #2, but only judge #2 is most forgiving? How about just answer each question and think about it a little bit before you answer.
@@macmac1022 i can't answer which judge is most just without knowing how powerful they are. #2 is obviously the most forgiving, in this scenario, because he forgives the most people.
@@joshridinger3407 >>i can't answer which judge is most just without knowing how powerful they are.""
So if the 4 different judges were doing these things, you would not be able to tell me what is the most just judge of the 4? They have the power that a judge has, they are all equal in power. Dont know what power has to do with being just, but whatever.
>> #2 is obviously the most forgiving, in this scenario, because he forgives the most people.""
But judge #1 that applied justice every time is not the most just?