One thought about the divine conceptualism defended by Redeemed Zoomer that I forgot to mention at the end: On divine conceptualism, propositions are identical to God’s thoughts. For humans, propositions are the contents of our thoughts-they’re what our truth-apt thoughts and sentences and beliefs are about. But how can God’s thoughts be ‘about’ anything? His thoughts are supposedly identical with the propositions in question! It’s unclear how God could think about propositions, or anything, which would mean God’s mind lacks intentionality entirely. He can’t think about any proposition, mathematical or otherwise, because his thoughts are the propositions. If he can’t think about anything, then in what sense does God have thoughts at all? How can he have beliefs if his mind lacks intentionality? If God’s ‘thoughts’ don’t have contents because they are the contents, does it even make sense to say God has thoughts? First, this calls into question the coherence of divine conceptualism. Second, God’s lack of intentionality seems to be a prima facie problem for his omniscience, since he can have no beliefs about propositions or have any thoughts about propositions.
Hi @EmersonGreen I'm not understanding that part you said about realism being "desirable". Like, desirable _for what?_ Under what circumstances would the realism/non-realism debate make a difference to a normal person's desires? It sounds as weird as saying "it's desirable for the mass of the neutrino to be non-zero" or something.
Here meshpaca There's a very big difference between Religion and true scripture.. Example, Father's name is not only 4 power WORDs YHUH aka YHWH, it is also represented in his sigNATURE 🔯, sign in nature, the star tetYAHedron. It's mathematical, tonal, and cymatic, allow us to know how all things are KINnected on the material plain. YaHU'aH the 4|For power WORDs = tetYHUHgrammarten, in the shortest definition is; SOVEREIGN ETERNAL SUPREME IMMORTAL POTENTATE, and via sonic implosion creates light 🔯, the Star TetYHUHhedron 🔯, YaHs sigNATURE aka sign in nature.. his glory the lilly 🌷 Note sigNATURE of YaH🔯👆 In Geometry 🔯⚛️ 2 Esdras 5:24 “And of all lands of the whole world thou hast chosen thee one pit: and of all the flowers thereof, one Lillie🔯.” MatithYahu 6:28-29 Gift of YaHU'aH🔯 28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. As in the many flowers of the field, the Lilly, Iris, tulip and mulberry, peppers, and many more. All display, Father's Great sigNATURE🔯, in flower form. Psalms 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: YaHU'aHs🔯TRUTH shall be thy shield and buckler. As King David did, {rather ∆au∆}, placed YaHs sign, on his shield🔯, buckler🔯, & breastplate🔯 Ayob 38:2 words with knowledge As with all beautiful words spoKIN, even eternity, TRUTH, Harmony, Love, and Joy, so each Mandelbrot forms🔯around this sigNATURE🔯 cymatic tone. And no matter how many times, each word is written or spoken, the cymatic image of each, tho unique, still remain in the same form🔯. See Dr. Emoto Masuro & Prof. Luc Montagnier. Ayob 38:22 “Hast thou entered into the treasures of the SNOW ❄️? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail❄️? As the tears, (RAIN}, of the heavenly hosts fall, through the cold & snowflakes ❄️ are formed, in accordance to their praises, HalleluYah 🔯💜 Yashayahu 55:10-11 Genesis 2:7 And YaHU'aH AllahAYnu formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life🔯......YaH🔯 SPEAKS; EL yoU Cee, EL oM into MoLeCule's, & formation of seMaN! WE Swim to the womb, as Atoms ⚛️ form as 2 SowEL's collide, into DNA 🧬 , by which all cells are made & multiply! Having united, 2 married in2, 1 new sowel, for the making of a zygote, new NaMes, in human form. And the cymatic heartbeat of a FetUS🔯639 hertz, another sown Eloheim, 2 be born, as 1, a marriage & unbreakable bond! Marriage = baby🍼! YeremiYahu 1:5 As in the Ancient Covenant Elders Yahu∆ah, which are called by YaH🔯's Great name. Yahu∆ah = YaHU'aHs🔯,🔺 ∆oor, of IMMORTALITY. The π🔯mi∆! Sonic implosion creates the star tetYAHedron🔯 when speaKING: YaHUaHs Great NAME. In all the above, what do we see? Fathers sigNATURE🔯 is how everything is KINnected 💜, tested, known & proven! Go Look, know & see! Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of YaHU'aH🔯⚛️ is revealed from heaven against all unYaHliness and unrighteousness of men, WHO HOLD THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS; 19 Because that which may be known of YaHUaH is manifest in them, {Molecules & Atoms⚛️}; for YaHUaH🔯 hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power⚛️ and YaHhead🔯; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew YaHU'aH, they glorified him not as AllahAYnu, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the GLORY 🔯 of the uncorruptible YaHU'aH🔯 into an image made like to corruptible man (J.C.✝️), and to birds, ( 🦅,eagle) and four footed beasts, ( 🐂bull), and creeping things, ( 🐍snake- don't tread on me).
The symbolic structure we use to communicate mathematical concepts, is only in our minds. But, the reality that those symbols represent, is objective. There i fixed it.
Both invented and discovered. The symbolic formalism and analytical methods (like integration) are invented, but the quantitative relations and relata are discovered as synthetic a priori features of the world and are what the formalisms and analyses were invented to describe.
It is interesting that William Lane Craig is no longer a divine conceptualist. He now holds to an anti-realist position about math that he calls "neutralism".
Craig is a dipshit, his cope to try and wedge even a vaguely coherent philosophical framework to his theological interpretation of the Biblical narrative is a joke. That goes for most classical theists though, but I digress. 🤷🏿♂️
I’m surprised he didn’t dispute the nonsense point about how math contains infinite information and about how it automatically contains every letter and every book in existence within it.
Probably a seldom opinion under Christians, but I think Math is invented. Also invented vs. discovered is a false dichotomy. Many things are both. Eg game rules are often invented, but we’re also often discovered in a process of trying many different rule sets.
I really enjoyed this. I think RZ was essentially gish-galloping through a bunch of unsubstantiated points. 1) Things that only exist in our mind.... that's what we typically call: *not* existing, not supernatural. Math doesn't need to exist to be important. Just as you can say false things about fictional characters, I think we can have mathematical statements that are true without any grounding in reality. 2) Math doesn't control the universe; the universe does stuff, and we use math-language to describe it because it's the most convenient. 3) Sure math has potentially infinite information, but that in no way implies omniscience; even if I grant that it has to be a mind, having infinite knowledge is not the same as having _all_ the knowledge. An infinite hard-drive that stored all infinitely many even numbers doesn't necessarily contain _all_ numbers.
As far as St. Francis Xavier goes-- Think about pasteurization of milk. It is possible to heat something to a high enough temperature to kill off the bacteria that would decompose it without burning it. If you did that to a body and then placed it in an environment that was very hot and dry, like severe hot weather in an arid or desert environment or an extremely heated room until it was completely dehydrated, then you could keep it preserved indefinitely as long as you kept it in very dry air. You can bet that the church keeping that body is turning up the heat whenever the weather turns rainy and humid. I used to collect deerskins from the dump during hunting season to make into buckskin. I would stretch them on a frame and dry them out. I could keep them for years, indefinitely, without them decomposing just as long as I kept them dry. Mummification is actually just dehydration. In ancient Egypt they used to add spices or other substances to the mummies. These were toxic anti-microbial substances. There is a church in Mexico where they have a whole hallway of dried out priests hung up on the wall. I think it's in an extremely dry desert area.
22:25 I need to remember Mandelbrot Set for my next edible session. Also, apparently infinitely recursive algorithms are proof of a designer. Who knew?
13:37 it’s neither. The prospect of math failing to describe the details of the world is not a coherent option, and math itself is how we reason about arbitrary structures, which all starts with definitions thereof, which are also arbitrary. Whenever a matching structure is found, it is unavoidable fact that the abstract conclusions against the model are reflected in the thing being modeled, as far as that match is accurate. It is not a coincidence, not a miracle nor necessarily entirely planned, especially when chaotic systems are involved. I would say we develop math, which by necessity converges along lines wherever it appears useful.
RZ loves his "well, by definition, x..." arguments. That is to say, he's assuming the conclusion in his argumentation. Which is funny when he says "by definition, science doesn't explore the supernatural" and then later says "there's scientific evidence for near-death-experiences etc..."
Since math contains an infinite number of formulas and equations, then isn't the Mandelbrot set just one of those infinite possibilities graphed out? It doesn't mean that someone intentionally "designed" it.
The main issue here is that no one can explain from where everything came from, including math. Whatever there's a creator or not, we can't explain how it all came to be and we have no idea about it's origin.
Math doesn't explain, we use it to describe the world. When i say the 2 balls + 2 ball = 4 balls, the numbers are just labels for the quantitative aspect of experience. When i say a that the gravitational constant is X and objects fall wuth Y velocity, i'm not explaining why they fall, but describing how
It’s so very wierd that apparently the Christian apologist brain can’t handle the fact that reasoning is necessarily a deterministic process, where the conclusions one soundly comes to are a matter of brute fact, no further agency required, and once you get there you also know retroactively there’s no way a contrary conclusion could have been reached, even though that information did not exist until it was determined.
@@anomos1611 in case you haven’t figured by now, I’m not a platonist. The whole point of my comment, in fact was a rejection of Platonism. I can in fact prove that knowledge is not recollection. It goes like this: sound reasoning can be simulated on a computer. At no point does a reasoning algorithm need to retrieve its conclusions from memory, for they aren’t in memory. The way it actually works is that intermediate conclusions are synthesized based on the pattern of previous premises. When a new conclusion is written, it really is new. The exact same logic applies to humans, running the exact same algorithm. Therefore humans are not retrieving memory when they reason soundly unless they have followed part of an argument already.
We’re all confused on the definition of science tbh. I’d say this guy had a definition of science based on a strict understanding of the scientific method which does rule out supernatural or conscious agency. That is to say if science requires repeatable physical demonstrations then it cannot detect anything supernatural. If we observed a repeating pattern in the natural world that would not be evidence for anything supernatural or conscious. The evidence must be events beyond human control and not predictable based on any events in the natural world. Thats what makes it supernatural, that an event in the natural world proceeds from causes which cannot be observed in the natural world. The discovery institute uses a more liberal interpretation by which forensic science can also be science. It really is just a matter of how you define the word and what sort of evidence you consider authoritative.
The language used for math is invented (so we can understand it) but math is pretty much eternal and universal; Does math prove god though? I have no idea but it certainly does not disprove any existence of A god.
math IS the language we use to model and measure reality, so mathematics is just a product of us. unless you also consider everything to be science, not just a method of explaining things
Redeemed Zoomer should define "supernatural" because he assumes that God is real. If mathematical Platonism is true, physicalism is false. When you deny physicalism, you imply that at least one object is nonphysical. But atheism, may still be true. I'm a Thomist with a philosophy degree. Still, I didn't hear anything Thomistic in Redeemed Zoomer's video.
The bell curve of IQ will always keep these discussions to low hanging fruit. It’s a small percentage of plus 135 IQ that believes in god in a general sense and an even smaller number within the major organized religions.
Saints don't decompose? That suggests that a saint is his corpse. But if you know much about Thomistic metaphysics, you know what a substantial change is. When a thing changes substantially, it becomes something else. A cigarette changes substantially when a flame turns it into a pile of ashes. After that happens, there's no way to rebuild the destroyed cigarette. When I die, my body will become a corpse because my soul will leave it. Read St. Those Aquinas's book On Being and Essence. It'll tell you that Thomas is a corruptionist. A corruptionist believes that although a person stops existing when he dies, his soul survives. Thomas teaches that each human person is composed of a human body and an immaterial human soul. So, what gets corrupted? The composite. My body and my immortal soul are parts of me. I'm neither of them. I wonder whether one of the ex-traditionalist Catholics in the video oversimplified what he learned about who would go hell. Malpass seems ignored a clear difference between at least seeming fine tuning and what caused it. I'm a traditionalist Catholic who attends a chapel the Society of St. Pius X runs. That's why the video's "tract" comments sounded superficial, especially when I heard the word "cult." Naturally, I don't expect much intellectual depth from such a casual, superficial conversation. By the way, "Our Lady of Lords" is not a title Virgin Mary goes by. But we call her "Our Lady of Lourdes." Since "Lourdes" is a French name, don't pronounce the "s" in it.
Mathematical objects are not entities, but they can describe or map onto entities. We pick the mathematical objects to describe the entities. But the math we can do with that object is irrelevant if that mathematical object doesn't well describe the entities. Math is just the logic of quantity. There are quantifiable entities, so math can apply to the world. No God needed. Theistic argument, from anything interesting or cool to God, because God somehow gets credit for any good or cool thing. The good or cool thing would evidently not be there if not for God. And somehow God "explains" it, He just does, ok?
We have the world of reality. We also have the world of imagination. It is possible to try to think separately about those worlds. We can enjoy art by this method, but if we want to control others, the mixing of reality and fantasy is necessary. Religion is very common way to rule or control people. If I had a need to prove God by mathematics, it would be by imaginary numbers.
Broooooooooooo math is definitely invented. Completely and entirely invented. The Greeks invented logic, and the rest is just our choice of axioms. That doesn’t mean we don’t “discover” the logical implications of the axioms. That’s the entire point of a proof. Things are implied by axiomatic assumptions which are counterintuitive, indicating that the implications were discovered using the laws of logic.
Lets see if your claim about math holds up shall we. A small cell has 41 million protein molecules. Origin of life scientists say, that a minimum of 206 different types of proteins are needed for our first ancestor. Now, some of those protein molecules are 1000 amino acids long, and need anywhere from 10 to 500 thousand copies of themselves depending on there location in the cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, any probability greater than or equal to 1 Chance in 10 to the 50th power would constitute a Miracle. Well, just one small protein, of 150 amino acids long--the chance of it coming together by chance in Darwin's little pond, is 1 Chance in 10 to the 77th power. Now a small cell needs 41 million protein molecules, 206 different types, upto 1000 amino acids long, and upto 500 thousand copies all at the same time.. Now throw in 400 Million lines of DNA to program those proteins, and then both a replication, and translation system BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION AND MINE (and getting more complicated by the day) AND YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES if you think that could happen by CHANCE in this universe in Darwin's Little Pond even in a trillion, trillion 10 to the 18 power seconds (13.6 billion years). AND THAT IS JUST THE MATH WE KNOW SO FAR. THANK GOD.
Literally 5 seconds in and there's a problem with the theists monologue. It's not that "science explains everything", it's that "god" explains nothing, except to those who are satisfied with the answer: "magic did it" and need nothing more. If you have a more reasonable level of expectation from explanations, science is the ONLY way we know that provides accurate answers.
No. If some branch of math doesn't relate to anything in the world, then it is a branch of math that doesn't relate to anything in the world. Math isn't obliged to take any test posed by the world. Roger Penrose has an interesting tribulation of reality into the natural world, math and consciousness as independent but interactive domains. I am also inclined to say that math is discovered rather than invented. The basic philosophy is called mathematical platonism. I have never heard a single mathematical platonist call math supernatural, and certainly not in the sense that ghosts and gods are supernatural. The things we do clearly have control over is which mathematical domains to study, which problems to tackle and things like that. Humans and sometimes specific humans can be said to have developed a given field or cracked a specific problem - through discovery, not invention.
@johnrichardson7629 I have to politely disagree. Just because we don't know what a mathematical equation is describing, doesn't mean it isn't describing something in nature, or something that could possibly exist in nature. Math equations can fail because they don't follow the rules laid out in math. Numbers and letters are just place holders that describe reality. Once established, math can be used like our imaginations and create concepts and theories using languages.
@@dustinellerbe4125 Yes, there is a long history of some bit of advanced math being discovered and an application found only years, decades or even centuries later. My point is that finding an application isn't what validates the math. The math validates itself and if no application is ever found, that validation isn't rescinded.
@johnrichardson7629 that's bc the math is conceptual. Just like using words, the math replaces the words used to describe such an object, real or conceptual. You can use words in a manner, as well as numbers to create a coherent non contradictory description of something and not know if such a thing exists or not. Just replace the words with numbers to describe location in space, size, function, features, etc. Math is a language just as English is a language. It can describe real and conceptual things. A unicorn isn't real, but words and numbers can be used to describe it. The same with any coherent mathematical formulation. As long as it's non contradictory, it can be used to describe something real or conceptual, but the numerical system was based on real things as placeholders. Same with words. Words are placeholders and have been used to create concepts as well as describe reality.
@@dustinellerbe4125 Yes, mathematical investigations no doubt began in mundane matters but very early on, people figured out that it is its own vast continent worthy of and amenable to exploration in its own right. The negative numbers, irrational numbers and imaginary numbers were discovered during the investigation of purely mathematical problems. The origins of mathematical inquiry are interesting but the ultimate destinations are vastly more so.
@ummalucoaew3802he’s obviously joking. If it was valid and sound in his opinion, he couldn’t be an atheist. Also, I have the exact same question to him.
@ummalucoaew3802 I've only read a bit about it in an apologetics book by John Frame. It always comes across as sophistry to me, I find it to be a very confusing way to convince people they're right to believe a guy 2000 years ago rose from the dead etc etc. Maybe I'm just too dumb to get it though.
Isnt science studies the natural analytic. Wierd claim that science studies can study the supernatural. Math doesnt prove god but you are practically begging the question against the platonist by talking about mathematical causation
@@martin2289 obviously not, to an ego, which can only see its degree of its microcosmic context The profound mathematics equations I can do by counting my fingers alone, “proves” “god” So does calculus and algebra and quantum physics, and art, and everything else And it depends on what you mean by “proves” or what you mean by “god” (let me cook, Jordan Peterson mode) 👨🏾🍳 If “proof” must meet your ego’s criteria of its petty logic And if god must still be the meme of the sky daddy to you, Then perhaps you, who would tacitly claim to have already transcended such a fundamentalist and obsolete notion Would be obliviously and near-arrogantly naive in your unconsciousness to the: Self, The elusively Obvious Oneness of All, and the Self-Evident Love Nature of the All/Nothing You make your easy rebuttal from a vantage point of intellectual immaturity and spiritual adolescence You are “god” himself, yet you’d deny it to yourself What you deny to “god” will be denied to your ego, and be a metaphysical condition of its instantiation But what you accept of “god” will be given unto you in the totality you can accept, for its already yours, if you’re willing to see it Or you can just keep going ego mode, for I, or shall I say, WE, permit all things, with love
@@martin2289 I have finished doing my analysis, you are free to believe it because you are an atheist, my concern is objectivism and thanks to that I did not see that he really objected. Already the very idea of the existence of mathematics as an IMMATERIAL entity is impossible in a naturalistic and material world, the same for logic, morality, truth, your thinking, your dreams, your consciousness... The basis.
@@Pirroli "Argument from incredulity: ...is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." Sorry, but you are wrong, I did not use this sophism, you did not answer me ad rem, so you too have no argument, only your opinion. And I invite you to review what I wrote, because there is only knowledge and facts in it, not beliefs or common sense. Are you able to touch the truth? To feel evil?... pfff
@@masterxofficiel I advise to read what you first read. You said that thoughts, dreams, logic... etc, are impossible to be immaterial under a naturalistic point of view. This argument is invalid because it pre-supposes that thoughts, logic, consciousness are immaterial entities to begin with. They are not. We do have a natural explanations for the dreams, thoughts, logic, consciousness (though we don't have a definitive answer to coinsciousness, we figured out much of it, and all of it was natural). I won't go into details about thise explanations here, but the short answer is that they are a product of the brain. Again, if you pre-suppose that naturalism can't explain entities X or Y, of course it won't be able to explain them; you already pre-supposed that it can't! As for the argument from incredulity part, I am not wrong about it. Let me show you why The argument from incredulity is asserting that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine. You did exactly that. You claim that under a naturalistic point of view, dreams, logic... etc, cannot be explained under that view, since they're immaterial. You imply that naturalism is false by saying that in your comment. The reason why you think naturalism is no reason other than that you think and ecpect those phenomena (dreams, logic... etc) to be immaterial and non explainable under naturalism. The definition of an argument from incredulity applies to your case. This is why I accused you of it.
May certainly be wrong, but I think most naturalists just don’t see why they should believe in god, not that it doesn’t exist. Tho if someone claims to ur face that god exists and It’s done this, wants this and will do this, then saying nuh uh is perfectly reasonable. Unjustifiable assertion countering unjustifiable assertion. Please tell us how what u assert in ur comment happens, whether cute or not
What do you mean by "god"? A desitic concept of god or the "biblical god"? The bible is a man made book with man made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man made fallacies : + light wasn't there before the sun + the earth wasn't there before the sun + Adam and Eve didn't exist + insects have six legs not four legs + the value of Pi isn't 3 + homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary sense + the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world + the moon doesn't produce visible light + etc etc If the bible would be inspired by god it would be without fallacies, but it isn't.
And the universe in my hypotheses is spatially finite and time is also enclosed. It does not have a begining it does not have an end. Hard to grasp but should resolve any unjustified shit.
There has been a paper from.the university of ulm about it. Anton Petrov made a video on that. Even though it might not make sense too you on the first sight. Basically space is geometrically smooth but topographicly curved and enclosed within the new 4D coordinate system with time added in an visually not representable way.
The bible is a man made book with man made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man made fallacies : + light wasn't there before the sun + the earth wasn't there before the sun + Adam and Eve didn't exist + insects have six legs not four legs + the value of Pi isn't 3 + homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary sense + the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world + the moon doesn't produce visible light + etc etc If the bible would be inspired by god it would be without fallacies, but it isn't. As easy as that.
Fine Tuning demonstrates God's necessary existence, as does Physical beginnings/Contingent existence. You atheists fail to engage anything substantively.
Hey brother, it sounds like you are thinking factionally rather than rationally. The video being responded to here is really quite poor, and Emerson provides here a very critical but very fairly critical appraisal of it, in my opinion. I think if you watch it charitably you may also find that to be the case. Cheers
@@pauljackson9413 Then maybe you can pinpoint where he has anything of relevance to the Argument for God from Moral Ontology. Which specific premise does he defeat and specifically how? Clue: He doesn't.
@@JimCastleberry Sorry? I don’t think at any point in the video was an argument from moral ontology even mentioned. It’s unreasonable to expect complete objections to a theistic argument which the video has nothing to do with. Also, are you talking about Craig’s deductive moral argument or something similar? If so I highly recommend the channel ‘The analytic Christian’ which has some videos critiquing it.
One thought about the divine conceptualism defended by Redeemed Zoomer that I forgot to mention at the end:
On divine conceptualism, propositions are identical to God’s thoughts. For humans, propositions are the contents of our thoughts-they’re what our truth-apt thoughts and sentences and beliefs are about. But how can God’s thoughts be ‘about’ anything? His thoughts are supposedly identical with the propositions in question! It’s unclear how God could think about propositions, or anything, which would mean God’s mind lacks intentionality entirely. He can’t think about any proposition, mathematical or otherwise, because his thoughts are the propositions. If he can’t think about anything, then in what sense does God have thoughts at all? How can he have beliefs if his mind lacks intentionality? If God’s ‘thoughts’ don’t have contents because they are the contents, does it even make sense to say God has thoughts?
First, this calls into question the coherence of divine conceptualism. Second, God’s lack of intentionality seems to be a prima facie problem for his omniscience, since he can have no beliefs about propositions or have any thoughts about propositions.
Why do you hide when challenged on your BS?
Hi @EmersonGreen
I'm not understanding that part you said about realism being "desirable". Like, desirable _for what?_ Under what circumstances would the realism/non-realism debate make a difference to a normal person's desires?
It sounds as weird as saying "it's desirable for the mass of the neutrino to be non-zero" or something.
just define the word "universe" with god. and you are saved. god bless you my friend.
We do not know that the universe is (spatially) finite, but the theorie has gained a lot of momentum
Here meshpaca
There's a very big difference between Religion and true scripture..
Example, Father's name is not only 4 power WORDs YHUH aka YHWH, it is also represented in his sigNATURE 🔯, sign in nature, the star tetYAHedron. It's mathematical, tonal, and cymatic, allow us to know how all things are KINnected on the material plain.
YaHU'aH the 4|For power WORDs = tetYHUHgrammarten, in the shortest definition is; SOVEREIGN ETERNAL SUPREME IMMORTAL POTENTATE, and via sonic implosion creates light 🔯, the Star TetYHUHhedron 🔯, YaHs sigNATURE aka sign in nature.. his glory the lilly 🌷
Note sigNATURE of YaH🔯👆
In Geometry 🔯⚛️
2 Esdras 5:24
“And of all lands of the whole world thou hast chosen thee one pit: and of all the flowers thereof, one Lillie🔯.”
MatithYahu 6:28-29 Gift of YaHU'aH🔯
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
As in the many flowers of the field, the Lilly, Iris, tulip and mulberry, peppers, and many more. All display, Father's Great sigNATURE🔯, in flower form.
Psalms 91:4
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: YaHU'aHs🔯TRUTH shall be thy shield and buckler. As King David did, {rather ∆au∆}, placed YaHs sign, on his shield🔯, buckler🔯, & breastplate🔯
Ayob 38:2 words with knowledge
As with all beautiful words spoKIN, even eternity, TRUTH, Harmony, Love, and Joy, so each Mandelbrot forms🔯around this sigNATURE🔯 cymatic tone. And no matter how many times, each word is written or spoken, the cymatic image of each, tho unique, still remain in the same form🔯. See Dr. Emoto Masuro & Prof. Luc Montagnier.
Ayob 38:22
“Hast thou entered into the treasures of the SNOW ❄️? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail❄️? As the tears, (RAIN}, of the heavenly hosts fall, through the cold & snowflakes ❄️ are formed, in accordance to their praises, HalleluYah 🔯💜 Yashayahu 55:10-11
Genesis 2:7
And YaHU'aH AllahAYnu formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life🔯......YaH🔯 SPEAKS; EL yoU Cee, EL oM into MoLeCule's, & formation of seMaN! WE Swim to the womb, as Atoms ⚛️ form as 2 SowEL's collide, into DNA 🧬 , by which all cells are made & multiply! Having united, 2 married in2, 1 new sowel, for the making of a zygote, new NaMes, in human form. And the cymatic heartbeat of a FetUS🔯639 hertz, another sown Eloheim, 2 be born, as 1, a marriage & unbreakable bond!
Marriage = baby🍼! YeremiYahu 1:5
As in the Ancient Covenant Elders Yahu∆ah, which are called by YaH🔯's Great name. Yahu∆ah = YaHU'aHs🔯,🔺 ∆oor, of IMMORTALITY. The π🔯mi∆!
Sonic implosion creates the star tetYAHedron🔯 when speaKING: YaHUaHs Great NAME.
In all the above, what do we see? Fathers sigNATURE🔯 is how everything is KINnected 💜, tested, known & proven!
Go Look, know & see!
Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of YaHU'aH🔯⚛️ is revealed from heaven against all unYaHliness and unrighteousness of men, WHO HOLD THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS;
19 Because that which may be known of YaHUaH is manifest in them, {Molecules & Atoms⚛️}; for YaHUaH🔯 hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power⚛️ and YaHhead🔯; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew YaHU'aH, they glorified him not as AllahAYnu, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the GLORY 🔯 of the uncorruptible YaHU'aH🔯 into an image made like to corruptible man (J.C.✝️), and to birds, ( 🦅,eagle) and four footed beasts, ( 🐂bull), and creeping things, ( 🐍snake- don't tread on me).
Hey, math totally controls the universe. I said 2+2=5 recently and the Math Police showed up and beat me senseless.
Thanks for having me on there at the end! Its always fun chatting about how crazy the Trad Catholic world is!
Bruh, why did you look like Mohammed Hijab at first?!
@@Pirroli look, all I'm saying is nobody has ever seen me and Mohammed Hijab in the same room at the same time.
😂😂😂😂@@Kevigen
Presbyterian Minecraft TH-camr, now that would be an interesting sect. "Our Lord the Enderdragon is risen!"
To the dragon, I would like to say, “Hi Risen, my name is Bophades!”
The symbolic structure we use to communicate mathematical concepts, is only in our minds.
But, the reality that those symbols represent, is objective.
There i fixed it.
Correct; When we show math it is a math language.
hey, i know someone who wrote a book with chapter addressing this very argument!
You are a beast.
Both invented and discovered. The symbolic formalism and analytical methods (like integration) are invented, but the quantitative relations and relata are discovered as synthetic a priori features of the world and are what the formalisms and analyses were invented to describe.
It is interesting that William Lane Craig is no longer a divine conceptualist. He now holds to an anti-realist position about math that he calls "neutralism".
Craig is a dipshit, his cope to try and wedge even a vaguely coherent philosophical framework to his theological interpretation of the Biblical narrative is a joke. That goes for most classical theists though, but I digress. 🤷🏿♂️
I’m surprised he didn’t dispute the nonsense point about how math contains infinite information and about how it automatically contains every letter and every book in existence within it.
I think by that point his BS meter was so pegged that he didn't even notice anymore.
@@EarnestApostate true, could be.
Trigger Warning: Mandelbrot Set 🤣
Probably a seldom opinion under Christians, but I think Math is invented. Also invented vs. discovered is a false dichotomy. Many things are both. Eg game rules are often invented, but we’re also often discovered in a process of trying many different rule sets.
I really enjoyed this. I think RZ was essentially gish-galloping through a bunch of unsubstantiated points.
1) Things that only exist in our mind.... that's what we typically call: *not* existing, not supernatural. Math doesn't need to exist to be important. Just as you can say false things about fictional characters, I think we can have mathematical statements that are true without any grounding in reality.
2) Math doesn't control the universe; the universe does stuff, and we use math-language to describe it because it's the most convenient.
3) Sure math has potentially infinite information, but that in no way implies omniscience; even if I grant that it has to be a mind, having infinite knowledge is not the same as having _all_ the knowledge. An infinite hard-drive that stored all infinitely many even numbers doesn't necessarily contain _all_ numbers.
By reasoning 3, God is also full of bullshit and stupidity lmfao
Reformed Zoomy Boi is the next Duane Gish lol.
I would really love to see "supernatural" and "God" defined in a way that isn't contradictory.
As far as St. Francis Xavier goes-- Think about pasteurization of milk. It is possible to heat something to a high enough temperature to kill off the bacteria that would decompose it without burning it. If you did that to a body and then placed it in an environment that was very hot and dry, like severe hot weather in an arid or desert environment or an extremely heated room until it was completely dehydrated, then you could keep it preserved indefinitely as long as you kept it in very dry air. You can bet that the church keeping that body is turning up the heat whenever the weather turns rainy and humid. I used to collect deerskins from the dump during hunting season to make into buckskin. I would stretch them on a frame and dry them out. I could keep them for years, indefinitely, without them decomposing just as long as I kept them dry. Mummification is actually just dehydration. In ancient Egypt they used to add spices or other substances to the mummies. These were toxic anti-microbial substances. There is a church in Mexico where they have a whole hallway of dried out priests hung up on the wall. I think it's in an extremely dry desert area.
22:25 I need to remember Mandelbrot Set for my next edible session. Also, apparently infinitely recursive algorithms are proof of a designer. Who knew?
I enjoyed listening to this while eating some sushi.
13:37 it’s neither. The prospect of math failing to describe the details of the world is not a coherent option, and math itself is how we reason about arbitrary structures, which all starts with definitions thereof, which are also arbitrary. Whenever a matching structure is found, it is unavoidable fact that the abstract conclusions against the model are reflected in the thing being modeled, as far as that match is accurate. It is not a coincidence, not a miracle nor necessarily entirely planned, especially when chaotic systems are involved. I would say we develop math, which by necessity converges along lines wherever it appears useful.
RZ loves his "well, by definition, x..." arguments. That is to say, he's assuming the conclusion in his argumentation.
Which is funny when he says "by definition, science doesn't explore the supernatural" and then later says "there's scientific evidence for near-death-experiences etc..."
Turek does something similar, if evil exists then good and exists and by definition good means god, who gave him that authority? Himself
Since math contains an infinite number of formulas and equations, then isn't the Mandelbrot set just one of those infinite possibilities graphed out? It doesn't mean that someone intentionally "designed" it.
The main issue here is that no one can explain from where everything came from, including math. Whatever there's a creator or not, we can't explain how it all came to be and we have no idea about it's origin.
I regard the universe as a brute fact to be honest.
Just as Bertrand Russell beautifully put it:
"The universe just is."
If God is all powerful would it be able to create an infinite universe. 🤔
yup
Math doesn't explain, we use it to describe the world. When i say the 2 balls + 2 ball = 4 balls, the numbers are just labels for the quantitative aspect of experience. When i say a that the gravitational constant is X and objects fall wuth Y velocity, i'm not explaining why they fall, but describing how
It’s so very wierd that apparently the Christian apologist brain can’t handle the fact that reasoning is necessarily a deterministic process, where the conclusions one soundly comes to are a matter of brute fact, no further agency required, and once you get there you also know retroactively there’s no way a contrary conclusion could have been reached, even though that information did not exist until it was determined.
not true
@@anomos1611 what exactly are you disputing?
@@jaredgreen2363 do you believe knowledge is recollection?
@@anomos1611 helvet no.
@@anomos1611 in case you haven’t figured by now, I’m not a platonist. The whole point of my comment, in fact was a rejection of Platonism. I can in fact prove that knowledge is not recollection. It goes like this: sound reasoning can be simulated on a computer. At no point does a reasoning algorithm need to retrieve its conclusions from memory, for they aren’t in memory. The way it actually works is that intermediate conclusions are synthesized based on the pattern of previous premises. When a new conclusion is written, it really is new. The exact same logic applies to humans, running the exact same algorithm. Therefore humans are not retrieving memory when they reason soundly unless they have followed part of an argument already.
We’re all confused on the definition of science tbh. I’d say this guy had a definition of science based on a strict understanding of the scientific method which does rule out supernatural or conscious agency. That is to say if science requires repeatable physical demonstrations then it cannot detect anything supernatural. If we observed a repeating pattern in the natural world that would not be evidence for anything supernatural or conscious. The evidence must be events beyond human control and not predictable based on any events in the natural world. Thats what makes it supernatural, that an event in the natural world proceeds from causes which cannot be observed in the natural world.
The discovery institute uses a more liberal interpretation by which forensic science can also be science. It really is just a matter of how you define the word and what sort of evidence you consider authoritative.
If someone is looking for fruit that is higher in reach they could possibly dissect the Samkhya school...
Great video, math doesnt control, math explains
The language used for math is invented (so we can understand it) but math is pretty much eternal and universal; Does math prove god though? I have no idea but it certainly does not disprove any existence of A god.
math IS the language we use to model and measure reality, so mathematics is just a product of us. unless you also consider everything to be science, not just a method of explaining things
19:39 can't we construct different mathematical systems? I think we can
There's not really anything to respond to lmao. There's no actual argument, just a bunch of disconnected assertions.
Redeemed Zoomer should define "supernatural" because he assumes that God is real. If mathematical Platonism is true, physicalism is false. When you deny physicalism, you imply that at least one object is nonphysical. But atheism, may still be true.
I'm a Thomist with a philosophy degree. Still, I didn't hear anything Thomistic in Redeemed Zoomer's video.
Because Thomism is part of Molinism which to a Calvinist like Redeemed Zoomer is probably not his area of interest.
The bell curve of IQ will always keep these discussions to low hanging fruit.
It’s a small percentage of plus 135 IQ that believes in god in a general sense and an even smaller number within the major organized religions.
“People who brag about their IQ are losers” -Steven Hawking
Saints don't decompose? That suggests that a saint is his corpse. But if you know much about Thomistic metaphysics, you know what a substantial change is. When a thing changes substantially, it becomes something else. A cigarette changes substantially when a flame turns it into a pile of ashes. After that happens, there's no way to rebuild the destroyed cigarette. When I die, my body will become a corpse because my soul will leave it.
Read St. Those Aquinas's book On Being and Essence. It'll tell you that Thomas is a corruptionist. A corruptionist believes that although a person stops existing when he dies, his soul survives. Thomas teaches that each human person is composed of a human body and an immaterial human soul. So, what gets corrupted? The composite. My body and my immortal soul are parts of me. I'm neither of them.
I wonder whether one of the ex-traditionalist Catholics in the video oversimplified what he learned about who would go hell.
Malpass seems ignored a clear difference between at least seeming fine tuning and what caused it.
I'm a traditionalist Catholic who attends a chapel the Society of St. Pius X runs. That's why the video's "tract" comments sounded superficial, especially when I heard the word "cult." Naturally, I don't expect much intellectual depth from such a casual, superficial conversation.
By the way, "Our Lady of Lords" is not a title Virgin Mary goes by. But we call her "Our Lady of Lourdes." Since "Lourdes" is a French name, don't pronounce the "s" in it.
Mathematical objects are not entities, but they can describe or map onto entities. We pick the mathematical objects to describe the entities. But the math we can do with that object is irrelevant if that mathematical object doesn't well describe the entities. Math is just the logic of quantity. There are quantifiable entities, so math can apply to the world. No God needed. Theistic argument, from anything interesting or cool to God, because God somehow gets credit for any good or cool thing. The good or cool thing would evidently not be there if not for God. And somehow God "explains" it, He just does, ok?
science could incorporate gods. Look at the SCP foundation. I love SCP
Btw for everyone its a well known fact that you can not disprove the existance of a concept "god" its useless to debate.
Well for the love of God please sir, reveal your discovery to the whole world so we can stop all this foolishness lmao
We have the world of reality. We also have the world of imagination.
It is possible to try to think separately about those worlds.
We can enjoy art by this method, but if we want to control others, the mixing of reality and fantasy is necessary.
Religion is very common way to rule or control people.
If I had a need to prove God by mathematics, it would be by imaginary numbers.
he said a lie about the M set so obvious that you lost all your credibility by not calling him out.
Mandelbrot set * is* scary. Proves the Devil's real! 😮
Broooooooooooo math is definitely invented. Completely and entirely invented. The Greeks invented logic, and the rest is just our choice of axioms. That doesn’t mean we don’t “discover” the logical implications of the axioms. That’s the entire point of a proof. Things are implied by axiomatic assumptions which are counterintuitive, indicating that the implications were discovered using the laws of logic.
Thoughts on transcendental arguments and jay dyer?
Lets see if your claim about math holds up shall we. A small cell has 41 million protein molecules. Origin of life scientists say, that a minimum of 206 different types of proteins are needed for our first ancestor. Now, some of those protein molecules are 1000 amino acids long, and need anywhere from 10 to 500 thousand copies of themselves depending on there location in the cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, any probability greater than or equal to 1 Chance in 10 to the 50th power would constitute a Miracle. Well, just one small protein, of 150 amino acids long--the chance of it coming together by chance in Darwin's little pond, is 1 Chance in 10 to the 77th power. Now a small cell needs 41 million protein molecules, 206 different types, upto 1000 amino acids long, and upto 500 thousand copies all at the same time..
Now throw in 400 Million lines of DNA to program those proteins, and then both a replication, and translation system BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION AND MINE (and getting more complicated by the day) AND YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES if you think that could happen by CHANCE in this universe in Darwin's Little Pond even in a trillion, trillion 10 to the 18 power seconds (13.6 billion years). AND THAT IS JUST THE MATH WE KNOW SO FAR. THANK GOD.
Literally 5 seconds in and there's a problem with the theists monologue. It's not that "science explains everything", it's that "god" explains nothing, except to those who are satisfied with the answer: "magic did it" and need nothing more. If you have a more reasonable level of expectation from explanations, science is the ONLY way we know that provides accurate answers.
This guy (the theist one) made his argument by piling equivocations.
Edit: and neoplatonism
Math is a language used to describe reality my friend. If math doesn't comport to reality, then it fails.
Good show though
No. If some branch of math doesn't relate to anything in the world, then it is a branch of math that doesn't relate to anything in the world. Math isn't obliged to take any test posed by the world.
Roger Penrose has an interesting tribulation of reality into the natural world, math and consciousness as independent but interactive domains.
I am also inclined to say that math is discovered rather than invented. The basic philosophy is called mathematical platonism. I have never heard a single mathematical platonist call math supernatural, and certainly not in the sense that ghosts and gods are supernatural.
The things we do clearly have control over is which mathematical domains to study, which problems to tackle and things like that. Humans and sometimes specific humans can be said to have developed a given field or cracked a specific problem - through discovery, not invention.
@johnrichardson7629 I have to politely disagree. Just because we don't know what a mathematical equation is describing, doesn't mean it isn't describing something in nature, or something that could possibly exist in nature. Math equations can fail because they don't follow the rules laid out in math. Numbers and letters are just place holders that describe reality. Once established, math can be used like our imaginations and create concepts and theories using languages.
@@dustinellerbe4125 Yes, there is a long history of some bit of advanced math being discovered and an application found only years, decades or even centuries later. My point is that finding an application isn't what validates the math. The math validates itself and if no application is ever found, that validation isn't rescinded.
@johnrichardson7629 that's bc the math is conceptual. Just like using words, the math replaces the words used to describe such an object, real or conceptual. You can use words in a manner, as well as numbers to create a coherent non contradictory description of something and not know if such a thing exists or not. Just replace the words with numbers to describe location in space, size, function, features, etc. Math is a language just as English is a language. It can describe real and conceptual things. A unicorn isn't real, but words and numbers can be used to describe it. The same with any coherent mathematical formulation. As long as it's non contradictory, it can be used to describe something real or conceptual, but the numerical system was based on real things as placeholders. Same with words. Words are placeholders and have been used to create concepts as well as describe reality.
@@dustinellerbe4125 Yes, mathematical investigations no doubt began in mundane matters but very early on, people figured out that it is its own vast continent worthy of and amenable to exploration in its own right. The negative numbers, irrational numbers and imaginary numbers were discovered during the investigation of purely mathematical problems. The origins of mathematical inquiry are interesting but the ultimate destinations are vastly more so.
"Causally effete"
What do you think about transcendental argument, are you familiar with Jay Dyer?
valid and sound
@ummalucoaew3802he’s obviously joking. If it was valid and sound in his opinion, he couldn’t be an atheist.
Also, I have the exact same question to him.
@ummalucoaew3802 yea. Even tho I’d like to hear how he objects to that. Not impossible but most fail at it
Is transcendental argument the one where you presuppose God exists and then say everyone else doesn't know why they can trust anything?
@ummalucoaew3802 I've only read a bit about it in an apologetics book by John Frame. It always comes across as sophistry to me, I find it to be a very confusing way to convince people they're right to believe a guy 2000 years ago rose from the dead etc etc.
Maybe I'm just too dumb to get it though.
Doesn't rule it out.
Isnt science studies the natural analytic. Wierd claim that science studies can study the supernatural. Math doesnt prove god but you are practically begging the question against the platonist by talking about mathematical causation
There is nothing outside of Nature dude, the "supernatural" is made up from minds, who are part of nature, and nature, the universe is god. Q.E.D
Unrelated to the video but you are so handsome omg
Of course the mandelbrot set is designed. It was designed by Benoît Mandelbrot.
Math obviously “proves” “god”
Yet you’ll find reasons to deny it
Obviously? Not.
@@martin2289 obviously not, to an ego, which can only see its degree of its microcosmic context
The profound mathematics equations I can do by counting my fingers alone, “proves” “god”
So does calculus and algebra and quantum physics, and art, and everything else
And it depends on what you mean by “proves” or what you mean by “god” (let me cook, Jordan Peterson mode) 👨🏾🍳
If “proof” must meet your ego’s criteria of its petty logic
And if god must still be the meme of the sky daddy to you,
Then perhaps you, who would tacitly claim to have already transcended such a fundamentalist and obsolete notion
Would be obliviously and near-arrogantly naive in your unconsciousness to the:
Self,
The elusively Obvious Oneness of All,
and the Self-Evident Love Nature of the All/Nothing
You make your easy rebuttal from a vantage point of intellectual immaturity and spiritual adolescence
You are “god” himself, yet you’d deny it to yourself
What you deny to “god” will be denied to your ego, and be a metaphysical condition of its instantiation
But what you accept of “god” will be given unto you in the totality you can accept, for its already yours, if you’re willing to see it
Or you can just keep going ego mode, for I, or shall I say, WE, permit all things, with love
Dude, space is finite. I've been at the rim. Boring as shi...😂
😮💨You didn't refute this video, sorry but your point of view isn't an argument.
Yes he did. You're just being obtuse.
@@martin2289 I have finished doing my analysis, you are free to believe it because you are an atheist, my concern is objectivism and thanks to that I did not see that he really objected. Already the very idea of the existence of mathematics as an IMMATERIAL entity is impossible in a naturalistic and material world, the same for logic, morality, truth, your thinking, your dreams, your consciousness... The basis.
@@masterxofficiel Your reply was essentialy the embodiment of the argument from incrudelity.
@@Pirroli "Argument from incredulity: ...is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." Sorry, but you are wrong, I did not use this sophism, you did not answer me ad rem, so you too have no argument, only your opinion. And I invite you to review what I wrote, because there is only knowledge and facts in it, not beliefs or common sense. Are you able to touch the truth? To feel evil?... pfff
@@masterxofficiel I advise to read what you first read.
You said that thoughts, dreams, logic... etc, are impossible to be immaterial under a naturalistic point of view.
This argument is invalid because it pre-supposes that thoughts, logic, consciousness are immaterial entities to begin with.
They are not. We do have a natural explanations for the dreams, thoughts, logic, consciousness (though we don't have a definitive answer to coinsciousness, we figured out much of it, and all of it was natural). I won't go into details about thise explanations here, but the short answer is that they are a product of the brain.
Again, if you pre-suppose that naturalism can't explain entities X or Y, of course it won't be able to explain them; you already pre-supposed that it can't!
As for the argument from incredulity part, I am not wrong about it. Let me show you why
The argument from incredulity is asserting that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
You did exactly that. You claim that under a naturalistic point of view, dreams, logic... etc, cannot be explained under that view, since they're immaterial.
You imply that naturalism is false by saying that in your comment. The reason why you think naturalism is no reason other than that you think and ecpect those phenomena (dreams, logic... etc) to be immaterial and non explainable under naturalism.
The definition of an argument from incredulity applies to your case. This is why I accused you of it.
Naturalists are the best believers of God. They disprove their claim that god does not exist in the cutest way.
May certainly be wrong, but I think most naturalists just don’t see why they should believe in god, not that it doesn’t exist. Tho if someone claims to ur face that god exists and It’s done this, wants this and will do this, then saying nuh uh is perfectly reasonable. Unjustifiable assertion countering unjustifiable assertion. Please tell us how what u assert in ur comment happens, whether cute or not
What do you mean by "god"? A desitic concept of god or the "biblical god"?
The bible is a man made book with man made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man made fallacies :
+ light wasn't there before the sun
+ the earth wasn't there before the sun
+ Adam and Eve didn't exist
+ insects have six legs not four legs
+ the value of Pi isn't 3
+ homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary sense
+ the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world
+ the moon doesn't produce visible light
+ etc etc
If the bible would be inspired by god it would be without fallacies, but it isn't.
@@user-hr8dx9qw4n i set god = the universe
And the universe in my hypotheses is spatially finite and time is also enclosed. It does not have a begining it does not have an end. Hard to grasp but should resolve any unjustified shit.
There has been a paper from.the university of ulm about it. Anton Petrov made a video on that. Even though it might not make sense too you on the first sight. Basically space is geometrically smooth but topographicly curved and enclosed within the new 4D coordinate system with time added in an visually not representable way.
The bible is a man made book with man made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man made fallacies :
+ light wasn't there before the sun
+ the earth wasn't there before the sun
+ Adam and Eve didn't exist
+ insects have six legs not four legs
+ the value of Pi isn't 3
+ homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary sense
+ the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world
+ the moon doesn't produce visible light
+ etc etc
If the bible would be inspired by god it would be without fallacies, but it isn't.
As easy as that.
Fine Tuning demonstrates God's necessary existence, as does Physical beginnings/Contingent existence. You atheists fail to engage anything substantively.
Hey brother, it sounds like you are thinking factionally rather than rationally. The video being responded to here is really quite poor, and Emerson provides here a very critical but very fairly critical appraisal of it, in my opinion. I think if you watch it charitably you may also find that to be the case. Cheers
Seems pretty fine damn tuned for a specie that cannot live under 90% of the places on earth.
@@5driedgrams I noticed you have nothing relevant to fine tuning. Typical atheist. Nothing but crap responses of no relevance to anything.
@@pauljackson9413 Then maybe you can pinpoint where he has anything of relevance to the Argument for God from Moral Ontology. Which specific premise does he defeat and specifically how?
Clue: He doesn't.
@@JimCastleberry Sorry? I don’t think at any point in the video was an argument from moral ontology even mentioned. It’s unreasonable to expect complete objections to a theistic argument which the video has nothing to do with. Also, are you talking about Craig’s deductive moral argument or something similar? If so I highly recommend the channel ‘The analytic Christian’ which has some videos critiquing it.
Nice.