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.

Akhenaten must be smiling at this

I Like wen people talk about the Pharoah of 201 bc and 701 bc 1350 bc that was not Around in those times . wow

But the Orthodox believe in the assumption of Mary...

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 ☦︎

Thanks

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 😊

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.

Love your podcast Anthony!

Coptic is one of many ancient black Egyptian language spoken ling before the grerk and romans invaded

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

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.

Great video but far, far too many adverts. Nearly unwatchable.

Great!

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.

Why Orthodoxy and not Roman Catholicism?

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.

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.

Thank You✨🪔✨

The picture is a picture of F.H. Jacobi, not Kant

This was great! Thanks ☮️❤️

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")

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.<><><>

I'm pretty sure the first monotheist in recorded history was Adam.

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?

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.

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 .

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

🙏🕊️💓❤️🤗

Another one bites the dust.

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.

Welcome to the Kingdom of Heaven dear brother, may your path to salvation be fruitful ☦️

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.

If he reads Bart Ehrman's book "How Jesus Became God", he'll go back to the Canadian church 😂😂😂.

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.

Great interview. I will be looking from more from you.

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.

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).

All religion leads to God.. choose what is comfortable and brings you bliss and peace... religion is a private affrair...

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.

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.

What does it mean to be a religious person?

It is hard to visualize this person as a young man. Obviously he was at some point in his life.

Thou shalt not cast your pearls before Swinburne.

This is a evil man.

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

Cant get over the size of this dub bossman

Mio fratello come se dici?

Super interesting, thanks for this!

How do you "examine" a tradition outside an intellectual tradition of inquiry?