28:30 So, one thing to clarify about Mere Christianity; Lewis held to this idea in contrast to a view that a Christian should still seek to find a long-term home in a certain denomination(which he describes with the metaphor of mere Christianity being the hallway that the rooms representing denominations branch off from). I've noticed this tendency with Christian philosophers and apologists to seek the most minimal expression of Christianity in order to hold only that which is most easily defended. Anyway, I'm not saying this to judge Josh or say that he's simply being unclear, really I want to challenge people to think about what they really believe and encourage them to find a place in the Church that matches those core convictions. Where I do have a stronger pushback is the idea of universalism. The term 'AIÓNIOS' in the story of Jonah is used in his prayer; "I thought I was locked in this prison *forever*, but you saved me from the pit of death, Lord my God." So it's only referring to a hypothetical that didn't eventuate, which says nothing about the term being used here in a way that's not really meant as eternal. Besides, understanding the flow of Paul's thought and the context is how we exegete the meaning of a statement like 2 Thessalonians 1;9-10: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed." The problem with saying it is an age of suffering not an eternal punishment is that the exclusion from the Lord's presence is contrasted with the inclusion of those who have believed the Apostle's teaching of the gospel. So unless the presence in God's glory is temporary than the suffering of the damned can't be intended in that sense. I think annihilationist has a much easier time answering most of these texts because they can hold that the punishment and exclusion truly is eternal, it's just not an unending experience.
With respect to universal reconciliation, I think that a salient point worth keeping in mind may be that it is highly probable, I believe, that people do evil things because they think that they are good in some way. God alone is the highest good, and all of us seek the highest good. Therefore, if one rejects God, it is due to their ignorance. Would an all-knowing and all-loving God let flawed, limited beings suffer eternally? I think that there is something wrong with that view.
43:24 _"Actually producing conscious beings out of mindless non-conscious materials is this this might sound overly bold but I mean I'm convinced of it that it's actually worse than a con it's worse than a contradiction"_ Why would it be _"mindless non-conscious materials"_ ? If one is a non eliminativist materialist, then one thinks that matter can give rise to minds and consciousness right ? So when matter plays that role, then matter would not be _"mindless"_ nor _"non-conscious"_ right ? Are you just presupposing that matter is _"mindless and non-conscious"_ ? _-"This might be kind of my new favorite argument or maybe one of the strongest challenges to a purely kind of like Mindless first vision of reality"_ You seem to be presupposing that materialism be a _"mindless first vision of reality"..._ But one can be a transcendental idealist, and a materialist can one not ? If all objects are mental (idealism), in particular, if objects such as atoms, neurons etc are mental objects. And therefore all objects, since they would be mental, would be relevant to explain the mind, and consciousness. And all objects can also be material, because all mental objects can be material (atoms, neurons etc.)(see connectionism). There doesn't need to be a resolution of the question _"mindless first"_ or _"mind first",_ because one cannot account for one's mental faculties without using one's mental faculties. So if the mental (faculties) causes the material (faculties)(idealism), then the material (faculties) causes the mental (faculties)("mindless first"), because faculties cause faculties... No matter what they are... (see "neutral monism")
Right, good point. In my book on consciousness, I actually make this same point about a mind-first version of materialism (in line with G. Strawson's materialism).
@@WorldviewDesignChannel By the way, do you think _'proper functionalism"_ is circular ? Do you think my cognitive faculties need to _"function properly"_ in order for me to successfully argue for _"proper functionalism"_ ?
11:07 _"Even like mathematics you know two plus two equals four what's that you know you look inside of a brain there's all these chemical reactions going on and then ell there's also two plus two equals four how does that get in there"_ This is explained by connectionism. There is no mystery at all about how _"chemical reaction"_ can give rise to _"2+2=4"..._ I recommend the SEP article on "connectionism".
Regarding the part about _"Darwinian evolution"_ : I'm not sure I understood. He said he put the randomness in the environment, and not in the individuals ? If that is the case, how is that relevant for _"Darwinian evolution"_ ? What the theory of evolution explains, is precisely that species that don't have ways to adapt to their environment go extinct... In other words nature selected for species who evolve... Evolution doesn't only come from a changing environment, indeed the theory of evolution would predict that even if the environment doesn't change, we would still expect to see evolution, this is the case in examples of "evolutionary arms race", where the intra or extra specific competition itself brings about changes in allele frequencies...
How Reason Can Lead to God showed me 1) What being intellectually virtuous looks like, and 2) It’s okay to be confident in the tools of inquiry and the power of our faculty of reason. These are great powers to have and I owe a debt of gratitude to the author. But ironically those tools lead me away from God… not to make this all about me, but to serve potential viewers by showing them there are different journeys, different perspectives. William Rowe was a Christian who lost his faith through his philosophical journey. Felipe Leon is another (who has a debate book with Dr. Rasmussen!). Bart Ehrman is another Christian intellectual who lost his faith through his truthseeking efforts. Paul Draper, JL Schellenberg, and Graham Oppy, to name a few, come to mind as further examples of intelligent, well-informed, virtuous thinkers who take Christianity head on, squarely and soberly, and reject it. (Make no mistake, two can play at this game. There is a gamut of brilliant religious thinkers we can list off as well. Still, my point remains.) The mere existence of these seemingly intellectually virtuous non-Christians damaged my faith, which predicted that they cannot exist! All non-believers were either ignorant or non-virtuous, I thought. When Joe Schmid, an agnostic, argued for God’s existence better than any pastor could, that blew me away. As a Christian I decided the responsible thing for me to do was to add up the challenges to my belief and let the chips fall where they may. I discarded many of the challenges brought forth by online atheists because they were not challenging at all. I selected _only_ those challenges that spoke to me. I figured that if Christianity could meet these challenges, then Christianity is a strong worldview indeed. And if my faith falls, then I will have gained the treasure of truth, no matter how dark or painful that truth may be. I still stand by this: If Christians can answer these challenges then they will have earned a well-informed faith. But if these challenges prove too heavy, as they did for me, then it will become less mysterious as to how so many experts in philosophy and other disciplines could confidently embrace a secular worldview in the face of Biblical data. I will note that losing my faith was like a book having many of its pages ripped from its spine. It was agony. "My blue sky became gray”, as Dr. Rasmussen puts it 🙂 I still want God to exist and for there to be a grand story-for us to be kingly creatures. How could my desires be any different? I argue for pro-theism and consider it to be nearly trivially true. The following is a mere outline. It's a work in progress, and I have a long time before it's finished. I can’t wait to finish it and be able to say: Enjoy the journey 🥰 The Challenge to Christian Belief 1) From Methodology 2) From Virtue 3) From Evil 4) From the Bible 5) From Science 6) From Hell 7) From Heaven 8) From Metaethics 9) From Ethics 10) From Meaning 11) From the Trinity 12) From the Incarnation 13) From the Atonement
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of seeming facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron. Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself). The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted simultaneously with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed? Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion. Of course, the more INTELLIGENT theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense, and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term. Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I am planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals). Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself. Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth. The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to the Absolute as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the Ground of Being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristicss of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, you are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a a legitimate contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness. There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity): 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Cont...
@@gg2008yayo I am not a Christian any more, though I am pro-Christian in the sense that I want Christianity to be true, at least a version that makes sense to me (sending babies to hell does not make sense to me). Jesus says that those who do not accept Him reject Him (Luke 11:23). I don’t reject Jesus and I do accept Jesus on the condition He is the real deal. I would be ecstatic to receive a Road to Damascus experience, an angelic visit, etc. I think God might exist. Rasmussen’s argument from consciousness combined with his solution to the puzzle of existence is powerful. I think the atheist is forced to say everything is necessary, which may fail to explain things as far as we can, making theism an exciting theory. But then I remember the problem of evil and my excitement dissipates 😆
16:42 _"The problem though is that it can't explain its power without using power that's circular"_ Sure... How can one explain one's cognitive capacities, without using one's cognitive capacities ? How can one explain one's mental functions, without using one's mental functions ? Is "proper functionalism", the view that our doxastic states are produced by faculties that are likely to be true, _"circular"_ ? Do I need "proper functions" to argue for "proper functionalism" ?
18:30 _"The foundation has to at least have the power of the effect I think um in order to produce that effect"_ Ok. So god has to at least have the power to lie, the power to decay, the power to change, the power to cease to exist, the power to ignore, the power to sin... ?
42:25 _"One of the strongest Arguments for God because we have this conscience that tells us to do what's right and what's wrong so we have this knowledge of what we should do so the prescriptions that that can't be explained scientifically"_ I sure hope your interlocutor knows that there are scientific explanations for morality...
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Can you describe your cognitive faculties without using your cognitive faculties ? It seems you cannot. If that is the case, it means one can't say anything about one's cognitive faculties without giving a _"circular explanation"._ Does it mean that it is *"illogical",* like you say, to even try to describe one's cognitive faculties ?
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 *-"if you wanna describe your cognitive faculties you can then probably reach some foundation (hence, foundationalism )"* I don't understand this sentence. Is it a "if then" sentence ? If you want to describe your cognitive faculties Then you can reach a foundation ? Is that it ?
Well he ought not to apply any kind of reconciliation to angels. They literally can’t change. They are incapable of reconciliation. They have no bodies and do not experience time. They determined themselves at the moment of thier creation with a full understanding of everything thier decisions would entail. Satan would have known of any offer of redemption at the end of time and taken it into account in his decision to rebel. If he knew he would eventually accept salvation, why rebel in the first place? Furthermore, since he does not experience time, he would be experiencing both divine bliss and alienation from God at the same time, two things than which nothing can be more contradictory.
I am so happy that Dr. Rasmussen is perhaps more active (on TH-cam) now, Providing food for thought
Thank You
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
28:30 So, one thing to clarify about Mere Christianity; Lewis held to this idea in contrast to a view that a Christian should still seek to find a long-term home in a certain denomination(which he describes with the metaphor of mere Christianity being the hallway that the rooms representing denominations branch off from). I've noticed this tendency with Christian philosophers and apologists to seek the most minimal expression of Christianity in order to hold only that which is most easily defended. Anyway, I'm not saying this to judge Josh or say that he's simply being unclear, really I want to challenge people to think about what they really believe and encourage them to find a place in the Church that matches those core convictions.
Where I do have a stronger pushback is the idea of universalism.
The term 'AIÓNIOS' in the story of Jonah is used in his prayer; "I thought I was locked in this prison *forever*, but you saved me from the pit of death, Lord my God."
So it's only referring to a hypothetical that didn't eventuate, which says nothing about the term being used here in a way that's not really meant as eternal.
Besides, understanding the flow of Paul's thought and the context is how we exegete the meaning of a statement like 2 Thessalonians 1;9-10:
"They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed."
The problem with saying it is an age of suffering not an eternal punishment is that the exclusion from the Lord's presence is contrasted with the inclusion of those who have believed the Apostle's teaching of the gospel. So unless the presence in God's glory is temporary than the suffering of the damned can't be intended in that sense.
I think annihilationist has a much easier time answering most of these texts because they can hold that the punishment and exclusion truly is eternal, it's just not an unending experience.
With respect to universal reconciliation, I think that a salient point worth keeping in mind may be that it is highly probable, I believe, that people do evil things because they think that they are good in some way. God alone is the highest good, and all of us seek the highest good. Therefore, if one rejects God, it is due to their ignorance. Would an all-knowing and all-loving God let flawed, limited beings suffer eternally? I think that there is something wrong with that view.
Two videos in a single day let's goo
I'm going to tear you up on ANswersInAtheism
cool!
@@WorldviewDesignChannel I really want to have a conversation with you. I think it would help both of us.
43:24 _"Actually producing conscious beings out of mindless non-conscious materials is this this might sound overly bold but I mean I'm convinced of it that it's actually worse than a con it's worse than a contradiction"_
Why would it be _"mindless non-conscious materials"_ ?
If one is a non eliminativist materialist, then one thinks that matter can give rise to minds and consciousness right ? So when matter plays that role, then matter would not be _"mindless"_ nor _"non-conscious"_ right ?
Are you just presupposing that matter is _"mindless and non-conscious"_ ?
_-"This might be kind of my new favorite argument or maybe one of the strongest challenges to a purely kind of like Mindless first vision of reality"_
You seem to be presupposing that materialism be a _"mindless first vision of reality"..._
But one can be a transcendental idealist, and a materialist can one not ?
If all objects are mental (idealism), in particular, if objects such as atoms, neurons etc are mental objects. And therefore all objects, since they would be mental, would be relevant to explain the mind, and consciousness.
And all objects can also be material, because all mental objects can be material (atoms, neurons etc.)(see connectionism).
There doesn't need to be a resolution of the question _"mindless first"_ or _"mind first",_ because one cannot account for one's mental faculties without using one's mental faculties.
So if the mental (faculties) causes the material (faculties)(idealism), then the material (faculties) causes the mental (faculties)("mindless first"), because faculties cause faculties... No matter what they are... (see "neutral monism")
Right, good point. In my book on consciousness, I actually make this same point about a mind-first version of materialism (in line with G. Strawson's materialism).
@@WorldviewDesignChannel By the way, do you think _'proper functionalism"_ is circular ?
Do you think my cognitive faculties need to _"function properly"_ in order for me to successfully argue for _"proper functionalism"_ ?
11:07 _"Even like mathematics you know two plus two equals four what's that you know you look inside of a brain there's all these chemical reactions going on and then ell there's also two plus two equals four how does that get in there"_
This is explained by connectionism.
There is no mystery at all about how _"chemical reaction"_ can give rise to _"2+2=4"..._
I recommend the SEP article on "connectionism".
Regarding the part about _"Darwinian evolution"_ :
I'm not sure I understood. He said he put the randomness in the environment, and not in the individuals ?
If that is the case, how is that relevant for _"Darwinian evolution"_ ?
What the theory of evolution explains, is precisely that species that don't have ways to adapt to their environment go extinct... In other words nature selected for species who evolve...
Evolution doesn't only come from a changing environment, indeed the theory of evolution would predict that even if the environment doesn't change, we would still expect to see evolution, this is the case in examples of "evolutionary arms race", where the intra or extra specific competition itself brings about changes in allele frequencies...
How Reason Can Lead to God showed me 1) What being intellectually virtuous looks like, and 2) It’s okay to be confident in the tools of inquiry and the power of our faculty of reason. These are great powers to have and I owe a debt of gratitude to the author.
But ironically those tools lead me away from God… not to make this all about me, but to serve potential viewers by showing them there are different journeys, different perspectives. William Rowe was a Christian who lost his faith through his philosophical journey. Felipe Leon is another (who has a debate book with Dr. Rasmussen!). Bart Ehrman is another Christian intellectual who lost his faith through his truthseeking efforts. Paul Draper, JL Schellenberg, and Graham Oppy, to name a few, come to mind as further examples of intelligent, well-informed, virtuous thinkers who take Christianity head on, squarely and soberly, and reject it. (Make no mistake, two can play at this game. There is a gamut of brilliant religious thinkers we can list off as well. Still, my point remains.)
The mere existence of these seemingly intellectually virtuous non-Christians damaged my faith, which predicted that they cannot exist! All non-believers were either ignorant or non-virtuous, I thought. When Joe Schmid, an agnostic, argued for God’s existence better than any pastor could, that blew me away.
As a Christian I decided the responsible thing for me to do was to add up the challenges to my belief and let the chips fall where they may. I discarded many of the challenges brought forth by online atheists because they were not challenging at all. I selected _only_ those challenges that spoke to me. I figured that if Christianity could meet these challenges, then Christianity is a strong worldview indeed. And if my faith falls, then I will have gained the treasure of truth, no matter how dark or painful that truth may be. I still stand by this: If Christians can answer these challenges then they will have earned a well-informed faith.
But if these challenges prove too heavy, as they did for me, then it will become less mysterious as to how so many experts in philosophy and other disciplines could confidently embrace a secular worldview in the face of Biblical data.
I will note that losing my faith was like a book having many of its pages ripped from its spine. It was agony. "My blue sky became gray”, as Dr. Rasmussen puts it 🙂 I still want God to exist and for there to be a grand story-for us to be kingly creatures. How could my desires be any different? I argue for pro-theism and consider it to be nearly trivially true.
The following is a mere outline. It's a work in progress, and I have a long time before it's finished. I can’t wait to finish it and be able to say: Enjoy the journey 🥰
The Challenge to Christian Belief
1) From Methodology
2) From Virtue
3) From Evil
4) From the Bible
5) From Science
6) From Hell
7) From Heaven
8) From Metaethics
9) From Ethics
10) From Meaning
11) From the Trinity
12) From the Incarnation
13) From the Atonement
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of seeming facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron.
Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself).
The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted simultaneously with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed?
Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion.
Of course, the more INTELLIGENT theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense, and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term.
Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I am planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals).
Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself.
Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth.
The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to the Absolute as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the Ground of Being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristicss of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, you are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a a legitimate contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness.
There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity):
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
Cont...
I'm so glad for you sharing this here -- so graciously and beautifully expressed. Your story serves this audience. Thank you!
So are you not a Christiaan any more or do you hold to theism were you believe a God exists?
@@gg2008yayo I am not a Christian any more, though I am pro-Christian in the sense that I want Christianity to be true, at least a version that makes sense to me (sending babies to hell does not make sense to me). Jesus says that those who do not accept Him reject Him (Luke 11:23). I don’t reject Jesus and I do accept Jesus on the condition He is the real deal. I would be ecstatic to receive a Road to Damascus experience, an angelic visit, etc.
I think God might exist. Rasmussen’s argument from consciousness combined with his solution to the puzzle of existence is powerful. I think the atheist is forced to say everything is necessary, which may fail to explain things as far as we can, making theism an exciting theory.
But then I remember the problem of evil and my excitement dissipates 😆
@bds8715 Thanks for the reply! May i ask what is it that stopped your belief in God? And what would make you return to Christianity?
16:42 _"The problem though is that it can't explain its power without using power that's circular"_
Sure...
How can one explain one's cognitive capacities, without using one's cognitive capacities ?
How can one explain one's mental functions, without using one's mental functions ?
Is "proper functionalism", the view that our doxastic states are produced by faculties that are likely to be true, _"circular"_ ?
Do I need "proper functions" to argue for "proper functionalism" ?
Bro you have 5 kids.... wow! I have 2 and I'm capped lol
18:30 _"The foundation has to at least have the power of the effect I think um in order to produce that effect"_
Ok. So god has to at least have the power to lie, the power to decay, the power to change, the power to cease to exist, the power to ignore, the power to sin... ?
42:25 _"One of the strongest Arguments for God because we have this conscience that tells us to do what's right and what's wrong so we have this knowledge of what we should do so the prescriptions that that can't be explained scientifically"_
I sure hope your interlocutor knows that there are scientific explanations for morality...
Comment for traction
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
12:33 _"To avoid a circular explanation"_
Why would one want to avoid a circular explanation ?
It seems illogical
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Can you describe your cognitive faculties without using your cognitive faculties ?
It seems you cannot. If that is the case, it means one can't say anything about one's cognitive faculties without giving a _"circular explanation"._
Does it mean that it is *"illogical",* like you say, to even try to describe one's cognitive faculties ?
@@MrGustavierif you wanna describe your cognitive faculties you can then probably reach some foundation (hence, foundationalism )
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 *-"if you wanna describe your cognitive faculties you can then probably reach some foundation (hence, foundationalism )"*
I don't understand this sentence.
Is it a "if then" sentence ?
If you want to describe your cognitive faculties
Then you can reach a foundation ?
Is that it ?
@@MrGustavier you can take it as such if you’d like
Well he ought not to apply any kind of reconciliation to angels. They literally can’t change. They are incapable of reconciliation. They have no bodies and do not experience time. They determined themselves at the moment of thier creation with a full understanding of everything thier decisions would entail. Satan would have known of any offer of redemption at the end of time and taken it into account in his decision to rebel. If he knew he would eventually accept salvation, why rebel in the first place? Furthermore, since he does not experience time, he would be experiencing both divine bliss and alienation from God at the same time, two things than which nothing can be more contradictory.
40:51 UFO's as the manifestation of a "spiritual battle".