And as per Frege, existential statements are statements of number. To say X exists, is to say "the concept X has one instantiation". We're talking about that concept of X, so we can't be predicating on the object X.
@maureenwhite3424Ай бұрын
Akhenaten must be smiling at this
@maureenwhite3424Ай бұрын
I Like wen people talk about the Pharoah of 201 bc and 701 bc 1350 bc that was not Around in those times . wow
@darkknightsdsАй бұрын
But the Orthodox believe in the assumption of Mary...
@vladislavstezhko18643 ай бұрын
A very English reasoning. I watch this as a Russian. It is a great example that each nation has its own good cultural specifics, and that in each case they can help one to find the unchanged Truth of Christ ☦︎
@brymtb3 ай бұрын
Thanks
@v.berart88545 ай бұрын
Thank you for this interview. I’ve been digging into the book cold turkey, and found out the hard way that I needed an introduction to it, or at least a few reading keys. This interview is very helpful 😊
@brianw.52309 ай бұрын
I think Pascal's Wager is brilliant. Life is a long series of gambles. Humans can't predict the future. There could be trillions of gods but every human is wagering their lives on one, some or none. Atheism is a wager, too. We're all making wagers (driving a car, walking down the street, being an atheist or religious, choosing a job, getting married, having kids) all our lives.
@ksgurgui11 ай бұрын
Love your podcast Anthony!
@ElliottRandle Жыл бұрын
Coptic is one of many ancient black Egyptian language spoken ling before the grerk and romans invaded
@ElliottRandle Жыл бұрын
This white man is no copy, no more than I'm white. He is an imposter. Greek and Coptic are two different people. The ancient black copts accepted and converted to Greek Orthodox Christianity. If this man was living during the invasion and claimed this position he clams today would have been put to death or driven out. This type of man and his kind claim to be the descendents of the ancient black Egyptians. That ancient Egyptian looked like his Turkic or one of those other European decended peoples. They make me sick, dam liers and invaders, mixed their devil blood lines withe the blacks who original own that part of the world
@ElliottRandle Жыл бұрын
The copts of Byzantine controlled Egypt at the time of the Black Arab conquest were black native Egyptians. Muhammad gave orders after his deaf that when they the black Muslims invade and take Egypt be kind to the Copts who are our keef and kin. The invading Arabs broke white Byzantines power of Egypt , north Africa and the Levant.
@williambenjamin9238 Жыл бұрын
Great video but far, far too many adverts. Nearly unwatchable.
@paperclip6993 Жыл бұрын
Great!
@marcmeinzer8859 Жыл бұрын
If God exists then everything is God. The problem with Christianity is that it teaches that we have been separated from God. The only explanation for our consciousness is that consciousness is God within us. Consciousness cannot arise from matter. Although Orthodoxy may be superior to current Anglicanism it still shares the same origins which have led to the error of believing that anything can be outside of God.
@milkshakeplease4696 Жыл бұрын
if everything is God you've eliminated distinction and thus justified knowledge claims because then distinction is illusory. false thinking
@@marcmeinzer8859 Are You a Buddhist or Hindu? Actually in Eastern Orthodox Christianity there is some version of panentheism, because God is in all creatures and simultaneously He is above them. So on some sense He is both immanent and transcendent. Ultimately God is unknowable, there is some mystery and that implies Orthodox mysticism. There is no Orthodox philosophy, only mysticism and theology
@marcmeinzer88594 ай бұрын
@@hubertkorzeniak5549 I’m kind of a do-it-yourself Buddhist. I tried being a Catholic monk but quit after a year. I’ve also been an Anglican and Eastern Orthodox. In today’s world Orthodox monasteries seem to do better than either Catholic or Anglican monasteries. Anglican monks tend to be so gay that straight aspirants find it off-putting. But in any event the drop-out rate in monasticism is around 90% which to me indicates that it no longer works.
@hubertkorzeniak55494 ай бұрын
@@marcmeinzer8859That is very good to try many spiritual paths (or even "no-path" when someone is "spiritual but not religious") and I must admit that some kinds of Buddhism seems to be very adequate when we think about our personal mystical experience (I especially appreciate Zen and the "no-mind" attitude). I also believe that the Buddha way can be a first stage of our mystical experience, whereas Eastern Orthodox Christianity can be a second, higher step, when we are conscious about God which is in us. Buddhism alone is not aware about God as the Ultimate Reality, but it let us to discover the highest Truth which is in Logos-Christ
@kayedal-haddad Жыл бұрын
Why Orthodoxy and not Roman Catholicism?
@ionictheist349 Жыл бұрын
He already mentioned it.
@joseeduardoporcher1678 ай бұрын
5:10
@kec7116 Жыл бұрын
I’m sorry capitalism has failed because of climate change? As if Marxist regimes don’t use and try to dominate nature? I am always humored how neo Marxist rail against capitalism using the fruits (technology) of capitalism. It’s like John Kerry railing against climate change on his private jet. I totally agree that the Frankfurt School is good at assessing the problem and terrible at solutions. Capitalism needs reforms but I think it has been the rise of the administrative state and its intersection with capitalism.
@mazyar_ Жыл бұрын
At around 50:45 James K. Hoffmeier says " ...Historians are divided on when Moses and the Israelites left Egypt..." but Dr. Hoffmeier says nothing about the Historians (his colleages) that despute the very existance of Moses as a historical figure (see Jan Assmann). Dr. Hoffmeier speaks about Moses as if he was an undisputed historical fact.
@pamelamarek2309 Жыл бұрын
Thank You✨🪔✨
@sietse7183 Жыл бұрын
The picture is a picture of F.H. Jacobi, not Kant
@ScarabChronicles Жыл бұрын
This was great! Thanks ☮️❤️
@intelligentdesign2295 Жыл бұрын
Many of Hume 's objections can be answered. Objection 1. "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (David Hume "Dialogues") Reply. "And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection 2. “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.(David Hume " Dialogues ") Reply. "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "By tracing the origin of the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection 3. "In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts." (David Hume "Dialogues") Reply. "Hume's objection has force only if he is correct to suppose that the parts of any whole none of which exist necessarily in and of themselves can each and all be fully explained in terms of other members of that same whole. This supposition may be doubted. The causal explanations of the parts of any such whole in terms of other parts cannot add up to a causal explanation of the whole, if the items mentioned as causes are items whose own existence stands in need of a causal explanation. The fatal flaw in Hume's supposition has been well put by James Sadowsky. He asks, 'how any member [of any such causal series] can do any causing unless it first exists. B cannot cause A until D brings it into existence. What is true of D is equally true of E and F without end. Since each condition for the existence of A requires the fulfilment of a prior condition, it follows that none of them can ever be fulfilled. In each case what is offered as part of the solution turns out instead to be part of the problem.' " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go, there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots. But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there being any robots at all? That question has not been answered. In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings. " (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")
@ducdejoyeuse Жыл бұрын
What you appear to miss, is the logical symbolism of the Sun, as it is a circle, it is a perfect symbol of the Universe , as it has no beginning nor end, therefore no need for creator gods.<><><>
@briancisco1176 Жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure the first monotheist in recorded history was Adam.
@MeisterBeefington Жыл бұрын
Thanks, nice questions! I've ordered this book. But I'm so keen for the content of the second book and the narrative that deals with. I wonder if any papers on it have been published in english yet?
@geraldlevin5141 Жыл бұрын
Demographics suggest majority of Israelites assimilated. How? Joseph & 69 family members enter Egypt. After 5 generations (210 years), about 620 000 soldiers leave; about 2 500 000 people. So, "Chosen' status is proportional to 10 Commandment compliance, NOT GENETICS, AS 35 FEMALES WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER ABOUT 50 BABIES EACH.
@CVUK Жыл бұрын
Moses, Aaron & 600,000 Hebrews left Egypt 430 years after Joseph first arrived in Egypt. This is written in Chapter 12 of the Book of Exodus.
@user-vr6io5xb9e Жыл бұрын
Can we call Akhenaten first prophet of the Monotheistic Religions and first attempt to change the traditional belief system of the humanity? Also Nubian Pyramids are much smaller than Egyptian ones which’s another proof that Egypt’s Pyramids were not done by ancient Egyptians .
@silencemeviolateme6076 Жыл бұрын
Nubia's pyramids we're built after Egypt's.
@daddycool228 Жыл бұрын
I am exploring faith. I was raised in RC but I am drawn to Orthodox. The way it is unswerving and Unashamed and is not pandering to the latest thing. Anglican just seems like a social secular organisation. RC is teetering that way...although there appears to be a war between trads and the libs. What's great about this vid is looking at it from a viewpoint of doctrine. Pray for me please
@zachsmith5515 Жыл бұрын
i'm in the same place you are, i'm Trad Catholic at moment. it's not easy is it brother?
@user-ws4py5np2f2 жыл бұрын
🙏🕊️💓❤️🤗
@IIrandhandleII2 жыл бұрын
Another one bites the dust.
@Alina_Schmidt2 жыл бұрын
1:37 Sums up as: I don‘t think Hume is right about natural laws being natural laws because that conflicts with my christian believe that they aren‘t. That‘s a reason there is a god, which now seems to prove what I already assumed for no reason other than „I don‘t like it“. This is not wisdom, this is the opposite.
@sakellarioudimitris74392 жыл бұрын
Welcome to the Kingdom of Heaven dear brother, may your path to salvation be fruitful ☦️
@gamnamoo61952 жыл бұрын
Denying the deity of Christ and incarnation is nothing new. In the patristic era, Arianism, for example, taught that Jesus was a creature. The church fathers repudiated such a teaching as heretic. There are numerous teachings and theories these days that are Arian, and Swinburne is simple being truthful to the path of the patristic fathers, which I follow also.
@johnpetkos56862 жыл бұрын
If he reads Bart Ehrman's book "How Jesus Became God", he'll go back to the Canadian church 😂😂😂.
@gamnamoo61952 жыл бұрын
He's one of the liberal thinkers who doesn't believe in the Bible as the written word of God. Know that Christians are the ones who believe in it.
@A.--.2 жыл бұрын
Blasphemy against 1 God when you say He took human form. May God guide you. Bible is unreliable (Bart Ehrman) so who cares what is says and to base your salvation on made up book with unknown authors is the most dangerous and foolish thing one could do. Pick up a Quran and go to One Message Foundation KZbin channel and get some clarity on the Afterlife and God before it's too late for salvation.
@clemfarley72572 жыл бұрын
Great interview. I will be looking from more from you.
@david_porthouse2 жыл бұрын
You have done a U-turn on the sainthood of John Fisher and Thomas More, which makes you a heretic. War in the Ukraine puts cesaropapism back in the news, and these saints were champions of the fight against it.
@magne60492 жыл бұрын
1:31 If a Christian means a follower of Christ, then it is pertinent to ask: Do you need to believe in any particularly doctrine to follow Christ, as the various people during the time of Christ followed after Christ, simply wanting more of Him? Given that they came from all walks of life, with many different levels of knowledge and beliefs (many beliefs which were bound to have be contradictory amongst themselves).
@adolphCat2 жыл бұрын
Are you claiming Christ had no message? And so to follow Christ is to believe whatever you feel like and add the name Christ to that.
@magne60492 жыл бұрын
@@adolphCat No, not at all. Read again.
@adolphCat2 жыл бұрын
@@magne6049 If you don't have to believe in any particular doctrine or hold to a particular way of life, following Christ is just following yourself and therefore a meaningless justification for what you already decided to believe or the lifestyle you already choose for yourself. You might as well say, I decided to follow the Buddha and adapt a Capitalist mindset, just meaningless names, meaningless justifications of your own will.
@magne60492 жыл бұрын
@@adolphCat No, it would just mean that you have a relationship with The Holy Spirit first and foremost, over any particular relationship with or prime allegiance to a man-made doctrine. Man-made doctrines are fallible, even your own self-made one (as you say). So it would mean you would live in communication and relation with all doctrines, but let The Holy Spirit adjudicate between them, and convince and convict your actions. It's about following a certain other person (Jesus, as currently manifest in The Holy Spirit), in the end, not about following your own whims, nor about performing a religion.
@adolphCat2 жыл бұрын
@@magne6049 So, in other words you make up something and blame it on the Holy Spirit. I like homsexuality so I adapt a homosexual lifestyle and I blame it on the Holy Spirit. You love gambling and so you blame the Holy Spirit for your lifestyle. When Christ founded the Church you say the Holy Spirit was unable to lead the Church into all Truth. The Church according to you is a collection of individualist anarchists you follow themselves and blame the results on the Holy Spirit. Why not just be an Atheist and blame yourself for your own decisions?
@zatoichiable2 жыл бұрын
All religion leads to God.. choose what is comfortable and brings you bliss and peace... religion is a private affrair...
@ReformedR2 жыл бұрын
thats entirely false all religions have precepts that contradict one and over and if we are to suppose God is a loving God he simply wouldnt contradict at the very least his own moral standard but also that message he wishes to relay to human beings. religion has never been private but true religion involves loving that true God and following after his commandments yet your supposing that the god of islam and The God of christianity leads to the same conclusion makes God an arbitrary contradictory pattern of feelings and no fit judgeof man kind nor moral foundation. if everyone lived how you want them to we would have chaos and not peace because if the satanists god molech states that kill one newborn baby every day for rainwater and food what would you have to utter against it...... by your own words " all religion leads to God"
@caret48122 жыл бұрын
that's a devil claim....not all religion lead to God....but I don't think God would judge you if you tried your best to know the truth and you didn't get there 100%
@zatoichiable2 жыл бұрын
@@ReformedR If youre an atheist you are seeking for utopia and you will not find it here on earth. utopia is only found in heaven but you only deserve that if you are a believer in God and the hereafter... if not you are doomed here on earth with all its good and its evil and all its imperfection...
@Joeonline262 жыл бұрын
A predictable comment from someone in this modern age. Religion is not a "private affair". That is a typical outlook of someone in our indivualized, atomistic secular society. Religion by its very nature is participatory. Making religion a "private affair" = meditative practices by me and for me. The problem with that is it makes you liable to self-deception with no opportunity for exterior help or correction.
@zatoichiable2 жыл бұрын
@@Joeonline26 everyone of course if you view religious people as decieved people. Einstean believe in religion and i think he is smart enough to choose what he believe is right.
@wybuchowyukomendant2 жыл бұрын
It's funny how he says he is orthodox, and yet he fights for (pretty much discredited at this point) cartesian dualism that treats animals as meat robots with no feelings, robbing the nature of it's spiritual realm... which can't be farter from the Orthodox traditional view of the nature, showed over and over again in the lives of saints. Descartes views of animals were based on his empirical experiments, the notion that animals don't "speak", etc. Orthodox saints (and Jewish before them) always had a way of communicating with the nature on a whole different level, and it was obvious there is a spiritual lining under everything. "When we are saved, our surrounding is saved also", that's why animals always flocked to the Desert Fathers or Serafin of Sarov... Not to mention quantum physics which only confirms that - consciousness is definitely way more ubiquitous than we thought, when even basic particles know if they are observed. So holding cartesian dualism and denial of animal consciousness is imo anti-scientific and anti-orthodox.
@preasidium132 жыл бұрын
I think your extrapolating too much from his views to their possible conclusions. Just because he believes in Cartesian dualism as a starting point doesn’t mean he came to the same conclusions as Descartes about the state of the world. For instance, many of the church fathers and doctors throughout the ages used ancient pagan principles and came (rather ingeniously) to novel Christian ideas.
@notdeadyetagain12 жыл бұрын
From the beginning of Genesis, to the final triumph in the end, when the lamb lies down with the lion, animals did not eat animals. I'm a vegan Christian.
@jeffhelvey20662 жыл бұрын
All of us in the West suffer from the modern and postmodern materialism way of thinking that has surrounded us since the day we were born. It’s a slow process shedding that way of thinking. And I, for one, will likely never completely shed it. So I won’t judge him.
@latinboyyy3052 жыл бұрын
@@notdeadyetagain1 It might have been true that before the fall being vegan was the only way to be, but science has shown time and again that grass fed grass finished muscle meat, organs, fat, bone broths and raw dairy are far superior at providing the essential nutrients than veganism can ever. So how nutrition worked before the fall we don't know exactly, but after the fall, meat, fat, organs, bones and dairy, have always provided humans with what they need, without plant toxins (and yes they do exist and are very harmful). The world is in a fallen nature, and we need to accept that until Christ creates a new heaven and a new earth. I am Orthodox as well, and my blood work from consuming a carnivorish diet, with fruits shows that I am healthy. I was also vegan for 4 years, and there is no comparison. Clean meat is always better for the human body.
@notdeadyetagain12 жыл бұрын
@@latinboyyy305 I have true empathy for living creatures that have blood, nerves or a beating heart, sentient beings created by God. Jesus came and met people where they were and stopped the slaughter of animals for sacrifice too. He said we would do greater things than he would, and that includes veganism. I try not to be an indirect cannibal, for selective empathy is selective psychopathy. The oldest person on the planet currently is vegan. She’s from France and a life long vegetarian and 80 year vegan. vegans have a proven 15% lower risk of dying prematurely from all causes, indicating that a vegan does help people live longer than those who adhere to vegetarian or omnivorous eating patterns. Do Vegans Live Longer Than Non-Vegans? If you've heard that the vegan diet promotes longevity, you may want to know more about the science behind these claims. This article tells you whether vegans live longer than non-vegans. www.healthline.com/nutrition/do-vegans-live-longer#population-studies Many large population studies have found that vegetarians and vegans live longer than meat eaters: According to the Loma Linda University study, vegetarians live about seven years longer and vegans about fifteen years longer than meat eaters
@sonarbangla87112 жыл бұрын
When you need god to depend on a human in order to discharge his duty, you diminish his power, Christians are blamed for the crime. Incarnation is trying to say that divine power is inadequate.
@milkshakeplease4696 Жыл бұрын
this doesn't make sense
@sonarbangla8711 Жыл бұрын
@@milkshakeplease4696 When your god needs Jesus, it implies god wasn't adequate, needed Jesus or Trinity. This contradics the original one god theory.
@paulskillman75952 жыл бұрын
What does it mean to be a religious person?
@paulskillman75952 жыл бұрын
It is hard to visualize this person as a young man. Obviously he was at some point in his life.
@11kravitzn2 жыл бұрын
Thou shalt not cast your pearls before Swinburne.
@tac60442 жыл бұрын
This is a evil man.
@D-777i2 жыл бұрын
Because?
@zachsmith5515 Жыл бұрын
if only everyone was as good as you
@navienslavement9 ай бұрын
an*
@markmorgan37472 жыл бұрын
The inner meaning of said thesis represents the holy ankitama. His essence exists and resonates within the basin of the great osiris and thus your incarnation
@markmorgan37472 жыл бұрын
Cant get over the size of this dub bossman
@markmorgan37472 жыл бұрын
Mio fratello come se dici?
@Lazergaz2 жыл бұрын
Super interesting, thanks for this!
@joeruf65262 жыл бұрын
How do you "examine" a tradition outside an intellectual tradition of inquiry?