Why I Don't Debate Atheists (Dr. Ed Feser)

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 288

  • @newglof9558
    @newglof9558 วันที่ผ่านมา +51

    People drastically overstate debate's capacity to intellectually edify.
    They're spectacles and entertainment products. You show up to a debate to be a cheerleader. If you want edification, you study. Not watch debates.

    • @BigStack-vg6ku
      @BigStack-vg6ku วันที่ผ่านมา

      You must have accidentally skipped lines in your comment???

    • @newglof9558
      @newglof9558 วันที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@BigStack-vg6kuno?

    • @wisemansocrates
      @wisemansocrates วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@newglof9558 guess you've never heard of Socrates

    • @lisleigfried4660
      @lisleigfried4660 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      I disagree. Most of Plato is series of debates.

    • @VACatholic
      @VACatholic วันที่ผ่านมา +4

      This is more a comment on the audience/yourself than in general.
      Debates can be used as a starting point to get the most basic arguments/responses of either side, which is often useful when coming to something you haven't read about, as it, done well, gives you a reasonable view of both sides, whereas a paper is often going to be one view and require going to another source to find another view. This can obviously and should obviously be done, but if you know nothing of the topic, the shorthand is sometimes helpful in finding the relevant parties in the dispute..

  • @olacogumelo3789
    @olacogumelo3789 วันที่ผ่านมา +76

    I don’t really understand atheists, or internet atheists more specifically. They argue their position of non-belief so hard. It’s like me sitting a comment section of Santa clause believers and spending a lot of time telling them he doesn’t exist. I just don’t see why they waste their time.

    • @jonah9861
      @jonah9861 วันที่ผ่านมา +15

      Let the teenagers be teenagers.

    • @charlesbetz9475
      @charlesbetz9475 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@olacogumelo3789 Atheists believe that Christian beliefs lead to immorality. Common problems atheists would have with Christians is that some believe you can do whatever you want and as long as you pray about it it's fine. Or they see some Christians harsh treatment of their children as immoral. Or they see things like circumcision as immoral. Or anything that forces someone to do something. Etc.

    • @Digganob590
      @Digganob590 วันที่ผ่านมา

      It's because their negative view against supernaturalism, is, contrary to their "just one less god than you!" line, an opinion contrary to almost every human being through history.
      It's like if most of the other kids in math class all got some positive number, but the atheists got 0. Clearly, the atheists are doing their math very differently from everyone else. They didn't just leave the answer blank, they positively stated the answer is nothing.

    • @bfmdsm2020
      @bfmdsm2020 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Because they know that Christianity isn't as obviously false as they'd like to claim, and also because it restricts their liberty to do what Christians consider immoral

    • @CJFCarlsson
      @CJFCarlsson วันที่ผ่านมา +17

      They will tell you they love science but when you check they have only seen science on a postcard.

  • @vtaylor21
    @vtaylor21 วันที่ผ่านมา +18

    The title should be Why doesn't Ed Feser doesn't debate NEW Atheist.
    I like his discussion with Graham Oppy. Two huge brains going at it.

  • @tomgreene1843
    @tomgreene1843 วันที่ผ่านมา +19

    He has debated Graham Oppy....but Oppy is a league beyond the horsemen!

    • @elmortbo
      @elmortbo วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      He mentions that...

    • @bradleymarshall5489
      @bradleymarshall5489 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      wasn't just about Aristotle's argument from motion though? It would be a different story if they debated the PSR. When Oppy was confronted about that all he seemed to offer was some word salad

    • @tacticaltemplar875
      @tacticaltemplar875 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ​@@bradleymarshall5489What's the PSR?

    • @bradleymarshall5489
      @bradleymarshall5489 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@tacticaltemplar875 principle of sufficient reason; Leibniz' proof for God Feser implicitly refers to throughout this clip

    • @tacticaltemplar875
      @tacticaltemplar875 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@bradleymarshall5489 Thanks!

  • @TheTradDadShow
    @TheTradDadShow วันที่ผ่านมา +22

    Right now, the debate isn't between Religion and Atheists. I think the debate is what vision of life will fulfill me because most young people are lost. They don't have fathers. They don't have history. They don't have virtue. They don't have religion. Young people are looking for something to ground them more then ever. I think most will try to adopt some religion just to ground themselves.

    • @AS-np3yq
      @AS-np3yq วันที่ผ่านมา

      It is about christian religion and atheists. They are lost, because they lost everything meaningfull. They have no fathers, god is a father. divorce is not allowed to catholic christians - which implies that the male and the female think about their journey in live. And it is very important that the young people ground themself in our holy catholic christianity because it is the only thing that really deeply ground yourself in life and frees you from materialism. And yes, you have to eat god.

    • @Wmeester1971
      @Wmeester1971 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      You seem to live in another world... Nobody up here is remotely attrackted to religious beliefs... most churches are closed here.

    • @justinhartnell6779
      @justinhartnell6779 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      ​@@Wmeester1971whatchoo talkin' about Willis?

    • @justinhartnell6779
      @justinhartnell6779 วันที่ผ่านมา

      What's your point?

    • @Wmeester1971
      @Wmeester1971 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@justinhartnell6779 Grow up.

  • @charles13773
    @charles13773 9 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Ed Feser's discussion with Greham Oppy was really good.

  • @BigStack-vg6ku
    @BigStack-vg6ku วันที่ผ่านมา +4

    Sadly, from what I’ve seen about debates with atheists many times on SFT and no one’s ever changed their mind…

  • @jayv3264
    @jayv3264 วันที่ผ่านมา +8

    Alex O’Connor is only interested in the Aristotelian material *in as far as* it props up atheism. He already knows the material, he’s gone back & forth with others on it already. How can someone who has read the literature and then talked about it with others (including academics) still be interested in it? It’s like a college scholar being interested in plumbing the depths of Dr. Seuss, lol. I’m surprised the guest here goes hard on Dawkins et al. and then pulls back with O’Connor. Everyone pulls back with O’Connor-why? He’s as obstinate as the rest on this subject matter. Is it his youth? Is it his mild-mannered delivery? At the end of the day, he’s an atheist stubbornly refusing to acknowledge theism whose entire career is continuing to undermine the Faith and pull people away from God.

    • @orca_noob896
      @orca_noob896 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      This is exactly the thought I was having today. O'Connor operates under the guise of someone who is open-minded and fair, but is really just in stubborn rebellion like the rest of them. And ultimately, what does it matter if any atheist seems open-minded, if the essence of their career is essentially a hatred of God which could very possibly be leading thousands to hell? Why should we hold them in any sort of esteem?

    • @MidnightIsolde
      @MidnightIsolde วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      Personally, I find Alex one of the more ponderous and hard to listen to. He is, for me, the definition of the stereotype of someone able be make nothing sound complex and intellectual. Like an undergrad student in love with his own intellectual, and therefore prone to being too verbose and pompous. That's not to say he is not intelligent. But, like many young clever people, imo he wants to impress upon you his intellect and wide reading too much. But real maturity and substance? It is not really there. Imo he is well read but not wise.

    • @anthonyzav3769
      @anthonyzav3769 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +3

      Very ironic post - you’re stubbornly refusing to acknowledge atheism. Why are you so obstinate?

    • @AmosChoo
      @AmosChoo 14 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      spot on, people are getting fooled because he's not that kind of raging internet atheist

    • @kevinkelly2162
      @kevinkelly2162 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Asking for proof of something is not denying it. If your god was so obvious you would have no problem providing evidence. Ball is in your court.

  • @evrebop
    @evrebop 21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2

    I went to see Dawkins recently and it was interesting 🤷🏻‍♀️ I brought my dad because my dad really likes him. My dad is an atheist. I am Roman Catholic. We are clashing a teeny bit over what will happen when he passes. He wants no church, no mass, no burial. He wants a humanist ceremony and cremation. Of course I will respect his wishes. But I worry that when I die, we won’t end up in the same place. Has anyone any advice? It’s a worry. I’m 40s, my dad is 70s. I’ve offered to arrange everything and have blessings that he might like but I can’t disrespect him. My mum is asking for the same type of funeral. So is my husband. What do I do

    • @njhoepner
      @njhoepner 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      If your religion is true, then none of that will matter. Where one ends up, according to all christian traditions, is supposed to be determined solely by the grace of god expressed through christ, and whether or not the person accepted that grace. The ceremonies can't help a person who did not make that acceptance.
      I'm in the opposite position...I'm an atheist (former christian), my wife is still a believer who insists on the "once saved always saved" idea. Either way, it's out of her hands. Honestly, it's out of yours too...if your god exists, then it's up to him, not you, and if your god does not exist, that it doesn't matter. In your position, and if I were still a believer, I'd honor their wishes and pray.

    • @elperinasoswa6772
      @elperinasoswa6772 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      Pray for them. Ask for the Blessed Mother's intercession. You need divine intervention.

    • @VeljaPopov
      @VeljaPopov 15 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      See that's just one of the problems of religion. It got you believing in a story, without any proof, and now it creates fear in this particular situation that you won't end up in the same place as your father. How does anyone know for certain that there is any place that we go to. So it makes you think you will go to heaven and if someone doesn't believe the same will go to hell or whatever. Just because someone told you so and you took it for granted. And this is just one of the many problems that religion has created. That's why I think it's important that we stop with all this dark age superstitions.

    • @kevinkelly2162
      @kevinkelly2162 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@VeljaPopov What I noticed is the lady is worried because her relatives do not share her fears, not that they are going to hell or something like that. Religion makes people so self obsessed.

  • @josephsarto689
    @josephsarto689 วันที่ผ่านมา +7

    Cosmic skeptic isn’t actually a skeptic. He’s not skeptical of any of his presuppositions. Like how he thinks it’s wrong to eat meat

    • @llamahguy7229
      @llamahguy7229 12 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      I agree with your overaching point, but I'm just letting you know that he's not a vegan anymore.

  • @metatron4890
    @metatron4890 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    Feser had a debate with arif ahmed.

  • @LaustibiChriste33
    @LaustibiChriste33 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    I love modern debates because the guy I want to win has always with 100% certainty won. The other guy gets owned and makes no points whatsoever.

    • @pintswithaquinas
      @pintswithaquinas  วันที่ผ่านมา +5

      I see a lot of people writing things like this “my guy won!” Comments under debates and I get the joke, and more, how our biases influence our reception of what someone is saying. I still find it sad and cynical. I think these debates really can help people.

    • @newglof9558
      @newglof9558 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      The person who says "my guy won" has lost everything in life

    • @LaustibiChriste33
      @LaustibiChriste33 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      @@pintswithaquinas
      Hey Matt-
      I agree that debates, when done well between qualified individuals, are often helpful. The problem I see, and to which my sarcasm was directed, is the tendency for underqualified interlocutors engaging in logical fallacy after logical fallacy while being cheered on by 14 year olds in the comments. Unfortunately too many "debates" that take place on YT fall into this category. I guess that's the problem when anybody with a microphone and internet connection can reach millions of people instantly.
      Love your show.

  • @rolandwatts3218
    @rolandwatts3218 วันที่ผ่านมา

    I much prefer discussions to debates. In discussions parties can get into debate but both parties will (or should) try to limit the debate and get back to discussion. In discussions, neither side is challenged to win. I think you title is click bait. The associated picture shows Dawkins, O'Connor, and Oppy. I cannot imagine Feser not debating those two, particularly given that he acknowledges their genuineness in the interview.

  • @Tomonaroma1221
    @Tomonaroma1221 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    One of Alex’ biggest hangups on Christianity is his “moral outrage” regarding the death of animals in the OT, which he frequently says is a hangup for him. He is a former Vegan who now eats fish, so his moral outrage on the killing of animals is hypocritical. Also, his moral outrage is merely a subjective opinion if there is no God. Therefore his moral outrage actually proves there is a God who has created an objective moral standard. Lastly, animals do not have souls because they were not made in the image of God as humans were, and God commanded humans to subdue the earth and have dominion over all other creatures. So, killing animals is not anti-Biblical whatsoever, in fact we are commanded to have dominion over them, and they were created for man.
    Alex’ former vegan sensibilities and his emotional feelings get in the way of thinking rationally about an all powerful GOD. Alex has a narrow-minded idea of reality and the Bible which is based on his own subjective moral standard and emotional feelings which come from the flesh, not from God. All while claiming he sees no evidence of God yet he claims to know the difference between objective right and wrong or objective good and evil which, without a God, would only be his relative and subjective opinion.

    • @kevinkelly2162
      @kevinkelly2162 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Sacrifice is a human invention found all over the world as a way to placate the gods. Yahweh is just another invention of men no different than all those other blood thirsty gods of old.

  • @jockyoung4491
    @jockyoung4491 4 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

    Insulting atheists is a form of debating.

  • @kyleenzler94
    @kyleenzler94 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Id love to see Dr. Feser defend Aquinas against. . .oh say OrthodoxKyle. But it might not be a civil debate

    • @newglof9558
      @newglof9558 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      OrthodoxKyle is a lightweight.

  • @RedeemedMusicanOfGod
    @RedeemedMusicanOfGod วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    I love how everybody just invariably has good things to say about Alex. Hopefully he comes to no Christ, but until then he is my favourite atheist.

  • @peskyfervid6515
    @peskyfervid6515 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    There really isn't anything to debate. Theism is the belief in a god. Atheism is the belief no god exists. God is, by definition, supernatural, and the supernatural is not open to proof or disproof.
    However, it is useful to remember that most theists only believe in their favourite god. Hindus don't believe in Jesus, Christians don't bellieve in Odin, The Greeks believed in a number of gods, none of which show up in either Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam.
    So there is a substantial difference between most theists and atheists. Atheists say, "I don't believe in any god", while most theists say, "I believe in some gods, but not all."

    • @Danielbannie
      @Danielbannie วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      That's irrelevant, you can come to the truth through argumentation and reasoning. Not sure who's definition you are using when you say "by definition"

    • @TheBusttheboss
      @TheBusttheboss 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      The supernatural is open to proof. It is not open to scientific experimentation since that presupposes just natural laws without input from God. So you are mixing things up here. Also the argument you implicitly making is silly. That is like a murderer saying to the co it t “You disbelieve in everyone else being a murderer! I just go one step further!”

    • @peskyfervid6515
      @peskyfervid6515 21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@Danielbannie Supernatural means outside of nature. Nature is that part of the universe that, while we may not know or understand it, is knowable, and understandable. God is not knowable or understandable. That is often said by apologists.
      If God is neither knowable nor understandable, it is by definition, outside of nature. As such God is neither provable, nor disprovable.
      To give an example, if I told you the universe was created 5 minutes ago, how would you disprove it (or prove it, for that matter)?

    • @danielweaver3361
      @danielweaver3361 3 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      @@TheBusttheboss curious what you would consider "proof of the supernatural"?

  • @micheldevries7975
    @micheldevries7975 11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    02:27 cat videos! 😊

  • @ImagoDigest
    @ImagoDigest วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    I love Alex O’Connor! Christ have mercy on him!

  • @jonah9861
    @jonah9861 วันที่ผ่านมา +5

    We, Christians, were defeated not properly by atheism, but by the Frankfurt School.

    • @newglof9558
      @newglof9558 วันที่ผ่านมา

      How dare you bring up the conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism*
      *only declared a conspiracy theory in 2018. Prior to that, it wasn't one apparently

    • @jrk1666
      @jrk1666 วันที่ผ่านมา

      For real, you will even see this modern notion that miracles are anti natural events, as if the Creator would violate his own creation, taken as a given by most Christians

    • @mb123tdt
      @mb123tdt วันที่ผ่านมา

      Yes, and big capital as well as pseudoscience. Nothing scientific in the sexual ethics of Foucault, Freud, Hirschfeld and Kinsey etc

    • @justinhartnell6779
      @justinhartnell6779 วันที่ผ่านมา

      You go girl!

    • @grantbartley483
      @grantbartley483 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      Not a defeat, a temporary setback. Ultimately, relativism's time is limited to the longevity of the stupidity of those who believe that it is true that there is no truth.

  • @-Viva-Cristo-Rey
    @-Viva-Cristo-Rey วันที่ผ่านมา +4

    Atheism is not the knowledge that God does not exist, but only the wish that He did not, in order that one could sin without reproach or exalt one's ego without challenge. The pillars upon which atheism mounts are sensuality and pride.
    Bl. Fulton Sheen.

    • @njhoepner
      @njhoepner 20 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      Thus revealing that you have not one clue what atheism is about. Which makes you a normal christian.

    • @kevinkelly2162
      @kevinkelly2162 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      A catholic bishop would know about sensuality and pride. Not so much about self awareness.

  • @nathaniel5261
    @nathaniel5261 วันที่ผ่านมา +7

    I mean to be fair he shouldnt have to. If god is all loving and wants everyone to follow him, it logically follows that he should just show himself to the 8 billion people in the world and explain things himself in a way thats clear to them. Theres no valid excuse not to, especially when its claimed that eternity is at stake over it

    • @zacharynelson5731
      @zacharynelson5731 วันที่ผ่านมา

      He did and does; atheists refuse to accept it and actively suppress the fact of his existence.
      The same way that people refuse to accept the fact that human life begins at conception and support abortion.

    • @daviddabrowski01
      @daviddabrowski01 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      If God showed up tomorrow and said, “I’m God, here’s all the information you need (which we can assume is basically all of scripture) and says, who’s coming with me?”
      Would we say yes? And also what form would God take? Because He came as a man and some believed some didn’t.
      Would it just be a booming voice? Would He ride in on a cloud? Also, what would He have to say and do for us to believe that He is who He says He is and that it’s not some mass hallucination, or a government experiment, or ufos (basically anything to debunk His arrival)
      Would He have to start moving mountains to show His omnipotence? And if that’s the case, are we now still free to believe or are we just scared out of our wits?

    • @johnhammond6423
      @johnhammond6423 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

      @@daviddabrowski01
      If there is a God then he would know what would convince any atheist including me.
      So far he has not done so. Therefore God is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.
      [And yes, I am open minded and I have heard all the Christon apologists arguments so far]

    • @daviddabrowski01
      @daviddabrowski01 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @ do you believe in free will?

    • @joel2628
      @joel2628 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

      Richard Dawkins has flat out said that he would think he's hallucinating if that were to happen. Aside from that, why should God reveal himself the way *you* stipulate? I am not so arrogant that I think I could be entitled enough to make such demands.

  • @MeditationsofanOldSoul
    @MeditationsofanOldSoul วันที่ผ่านมา

    Its pretty hard to convince someone that God exists when they don't go in with an open mind. This isn't really a topic that is appropriate for debates in most circumstances. In my opinion, people should do their own research and develop their own understanding of metaphysics before making a decision; even after doing so, we should keep an open mind in both directions. After all, this is potentially the most important topic possible

    • @johnhammond6423
      @johnhammond6423 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

      I am an atheist with an open mind. Try to convince me that a God exists.

    • @Wmeester1971
      @Wmeester1971 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Its pretty hard to convince someone that there is no evidence for the existence of a God when they don't go in with an open mind.
      The problem is that the open mind is not open anymore when an indoctrinated child grows up.

    • @-Viva-Cristo-Rey
      @-Viva-Cristo-Rey วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Atheism is not the knowledge that God does not exist, but only the wish that He did not, in order that one could sin without reproach or exalt one's ego without challenge. The pillars upon which atheism mounts are sensuality and pride.
      Bl. Fulton Sheen.

    • @nathaniel5261
      @nathaniel5261 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      Pretty easy for an omniscient and infinitely powerful god to do though… if he were real at least…

    • @newglof9558
      @newglof9558 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      ​@@johnhammond6423proof of your claim that you have an open mind?

  • @dynamic9016
    @dynamic9016 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Thanks much for this video.

  • @sacerdotusTV
    @sacerdotusTV วันที่ผ่านมา

    We at Sacedotus debate them.

  •  2 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    I think Mel Gibson said something along the lines like... If God doesn't exist then I am late to the game of world domination. I always remembered that because if the world is all there is and there is only subjective moral relativism then why not conquer everyone and everything lol.

    • @Maksie0
      @Maksie0 57 นาทีที่ผ่านมา +1

      Because that's a harmful thing to do.

  • @Move_I_Got_This-b3v
    @Move_I_Got_This-b3v 18 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    I

  • @jacktracy8356
    @jacktracy8356 21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    Isaiah 29:13 KJV "Wherefore the LORD said,
    Forasmuch as this people draw near ME with their mouth, and with their lips do honor ME, but have removed their heart far from ME, and their fear toward ME is taught by the precept of men"
    Note: Precept of men are traditions and pope declarations.

  • @KRGruner
    @KRGruner วันที่ผ่านมา +8

    ... Because I'd rather feel comfortable in my echo chamber... LOL...

    • @elmortbo
      @elmortbo วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      Why would you rather feel comfortable in your echo chamber?

    • @connorb6703
      @connorb6703 วันที่ผ่านมา +9

      And if you look to your right you will see someone who completely missed the point.

    • @justinhartnell6779
      @justinhartnell6779 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Yeah baby!

    • @KRGruner
      @KRGruner วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@elmortbo Good question. Ask him! Methinks it's because he is an intellectual coward, though.

    • @elmortbo
      @elmortbo วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      @@KRGruner It's like you didn't watch the video....

  • @generichuman_
    @generichuman_ วันที่ผ่านมา

    Philosophy does not have the ability to find out what's true, beyond the entities created within that framework, it's the same with math. There are philosophical and mathematical proofs, but there are no proofs in the real world. Unfortunately for Ed, if he wants to find out what's true in relation to God, and God isn't simply some entity he is defining, he must contend with the real world which we can only discover through empiricism. If you haven't kept up with the past hundred years of scientific progress (which Feser hasn't) applying archaic philosophical principles will get you into a heap of trouble. A very simple example, which shows how even a law of logic can fail when misapplied to a real phenomenon, would be to imagine an electron. If you didn't understand quantum mechanics you might apply the law of excluded middle to it and say "an electron can be in point A or not at point A". The actual answer is that it's neither. The electron is represented by a wave function, and squaring this gives you a probability that the electron will be at point A. So it's not the case that electron is at point A and it's also not the case that it's not at point A, as counter intuitive as that is. This isn't to say that the laws of logic are invalid, it's just that our lack of knowledge about a phenomenon causes up to misapply it.
    Ed Feser is great at philosophy, but unfortunately that's all he's good at. His errors are 100% due to his misapplication of philosophical principles to real world phenomenon he doesn't understand. This seems to be a blind spot that he either doesn't see, or doesn't care to correct. If God were just a concept like the square root of negative one, he could happily play in his world of pure philosophy, but if he thinks that God actually exists, and created the world around us, this just doesn't fly...

    • @toeknee5565
      @toeknee5565 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      God's existence is entirely a philosophical question....

    • @TheBusttheboss
      @TheBusttheboss 23 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      lol you would not be able to make an argument without philosophy and logic.

    • @rootberg
      @rootberg 17 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      You literally made a bunch of philosophical statements that can’t be verified by empirical observation yourself… And mixed it with a wikipedia interpretation of quantum mechanics. Not impressed.

    • @VeljaPopov
      @VeljaPopov 8 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

      ​​@@rootberg science is the only thing that's actually useful for us, on the other hand believing in god doesn't really do anything for us. Philosophy is of course also important but blind belief means nothing. I always like to ask believers this, why do you have to believe in god? What is the purpose of that belief? Would you like to answer that and have a civilised discussion?

    • @LogosDIA
      @LogosDIA 18 นาทีที่ผ่านมา

      Your comment presupposed empiricism and rationalism which is epistemology which is....philosophy.
      You are aware that the scientific method is itself a philosophical system for finding truths about the natural world right?
      Like don't get me wrong, i think most of Fesers moral and ontological arguments are laughable due to so many ontological objections being possible (in the case of morality there is like 20 fundamental axioms which can easily be objected to) and in the case of ontology only necessitates a type of deistic God, but you need to actually understand what you're talking about first dude no offense.