The discussion ends with the supposed atheist assertion that the universe came out of nothing, but fails to provide proof of the existence of nothingness.

Possible worlds could be one of the factors that allows space and time to exist. If there was only one world, there may not be spatial "options" for matter to move to. Maybe every time matter moves, a new possible world is manifested/inhabited. A next question might be, does the metaphysical realm recognize energy limits like our universe does. Ie, would the obscene magnitude of number of universes created be any problem in a hypothetical metaphysical index of universes, or is does the very nature of the metaphysical realm allow for "pure infinity" of pointers (no space, energy, etc limitations) The only solid counterargument i can think of is if perfect determinism exists then the possible worlds can only exist in the metaphysical realm (no less real, just not "executed" in the sense of a computer program). I tend to think every bit of imagination (hypothetical worlds, the creatures created in children's drawings, etc) is conserved and is absolutely real, but not actually manifested or substantiated in an "executed" reality like ours. Perhaps our reality was simply one where some being thought it into existence and it was coherent enough to not "crash" when executed. Whatever that selection process looks like

Firstly why does God need to be confined by logic, God would ordain logic and could feasibly change it. I think the problem of evil is just due to our freewill to accept God or not. God is good and sustains what is good so choose that but choose that freely as God makes choice good too.

atlas shrugged is pure trite shite. Fascist drivel.

It took me a second to recognize that Jew list was just the way that they pronounced dualist. Fascinating how accents work.

That the future will resemble the past is fundamental to induction, but Hume was troubled that it didn’t provide us with apodictic certainty, and therefore he was a man of little faith…. In short, his definition of what constitutes true knowledge is unrealistic and even Platonic.

1 - In direct realism there is no image in the mind as you portrayed in the animation. Whatever you see is what you get. You see it how it is. 2 - Indirect realism claims no such thing. The external world is also how you perceive, but you have no idea how it really looks like as you need your filters (senses) to see part of reality. It's not really what you're claiming here.

Kallipolis

Absolute spirituality can be understood in terms of the previous link i.e. national spirituality, ethnospirituality, religious spirituality, artistic spirituality, dharma philosophical

Thank you philosophy vibe for all the work you do, I find myself frequenting your videos when I need help understanding the world, really appreciate all you do ❤

Beginner in philosophy, m confused

M8 needs a bohul uh wahuh

Rule consequentialism >>

Could you do a political philosophy tier list please 🙏 ?

Im an eye for an eye, if the majority try to sacrifise the minorety for their own safety, then the minority can do the same to the majority

You can't derive an outh from an is ,therefor the person deside for themselves if they want to commit suicide,or not

Very helpful

quiet similar mwith hindu cast system.

George sounded very hesitant when John began to talk more

There is only one ship. Each of the two "new " Ships of Theseus can each only make half a claim. The one true Ship of Theseus no longer really exists at all. But these remnants each have a half a claim AT BEST.

Induction was not properly explained. The deduction, however, was. Think of induction as having to specific premises to yield a general statement. For example if one has a basket of say 10 apples. If I bit one apple and found a worm and I randomly took a second apple and found the same, inductively I would say the (entire) basket of apples is rotten. 2 specific premises: the first apple I ate from the basket has a worm; the second apple I ate from the basket also had a worm. Therefore the basket of apples has a worms. Now notice the general statement although "general" has a parameter. In this case it woukd be the basket of apples I took the 2 apples from. So, if we were to say all the apples in all baskets have worms that would overly generalized and not be an induction. Moreover, otnwoukd be an illogical fallacy of "hasty generalization".

This is one of the easiest to disprove. All you have to do is show examples of all the bad designs in nature. "look how complex the human body is", O.K. It is complex, but why does the human body have numerous design flaws? From eyes that are completely designed backwards, spines that are made for 4 legged locomotion (not two), a larynx too high in the esophagus (which increases risk of choking), prostate surrounding the urethra (causing urinary problems in older men, when it doesn't need to be made that way), sinuses that drain upward instead of downward (causing sinus infections and congestion), etc... etc. So much for that watch design. Funny, after hundreds of years Christians still point to the eye for intelligent design. When now science can show numerous bad design issues with the eye.

We atheists do not claim the universe came out of nothing. That is just a lie. Also the burden of proof is on the person claiming something. As an atheist there is no burden of proof on me.

I reached adulthood on the battlefield, so Starship Troopers, The Devil’s Guard & All Quite on the Western Front are some of the greatest philosophical books I ever read.

The criticisms against Situation Ethics: "I want to know what love is! I want you to show meeeeeee!"

God may be alive but just not interested in giving us detailed and accurate instructions, however that still leaves us to come up with our own values. Even if science had proven every word of the Bible to be literal truth though, that only would have spared us the widespread crisis of moral confidence, but not relieved us of the choice to value his word or not. After all, exactly who is this God person and what is his claim to moral authority beyond the ability to dispense punishments and rewards? If we decide who is a good boy based on whether master lets us into his house for denying our natural instincts or casts us out for following those instincts then we are morally on the level of dogs. It seems likely that creating values and self-transcending has been an unavoidable biological process ever since the advent of self awareness and non-instinctive behavior. It’s just a structural drawback that unavoidably came with evolving a brain that can conceive of unrealized possibilities and form goal-oriented plans for those possibilities- it made us so much better able to stay alive until we produce offspring that the weird arbitrary extra stuff it makes us waste energy on and even the fact that it sometimes kills us via existential angst wasn’t very strongly selected against by evolution… although perhaps evolution is working on that now and that’s why Idiocracy is slowly turning into a documentary. Granted that explanation still makes our superiority to dogs only a matter of degree if it weren’t for the fact that we have begun to remake dog in our own image thru selective breeding for traits that fit into our way of living. Also there’s no reason under this view that we couldn’t simply raise God from the dead- it wouldn’t be the first time we’ve written that particular miracle into His story after all and it wasn’t any more realistic the first time around. “Just because something isn’t true that’s no reason you can’t believe in it. Some things you believe not because they’re true but because they are worth believing” (yes I’m suggesting that Second Hand Lions is a challenge to Nietzsche and a viable candidate for addition to Christian Apocrypha).

TO BE FAIR ENOUGH AGAIN. PARTS OF THESE BOOKS ARE THE WORLDS DAILY LIVES. MASS SURVEILLANCE. AI FREDOM OF SPEECH CORPORATE OVERSTEPPING HUNTING ILLEGALS CRIMINALITY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FASCISM SOCIALISM CAPITALISM

TO BE FAIR. AYN RAND IS NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL POLITICAL IDEOLOGUE. BUT YET THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IS BASED ON HER NONSENSICAL RETARDATION. SHE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE DOESN'T KNOW

please do more political philosophy vides they are very interesting, important and informative. i am doing a degree in 'Philosophy politics and ethics'

The dramatic music is taking me out, but also adding to it perfectly i get it. I love your channel! And really admire your ability to convey philosophical matters in a totally accessible but non protentious way while still clearly showing your intelligence. Please keep it up! Also i bought your book i just wanted to mention, so good, if anyone hasn't read requisite release go check it out, incredible unique read!!!

Thanks much for this video.

Peace

Really appreciate this video.

Yeah the causal connection objection doesn't really mean anything as it's presented. I may have a variant that argues there's a point where dogs being cats and up being down stops being a coherent worldview, so the potential to which you are *deceived* is thereby limited, but... Eh.

The big bang hasn't been accepted by cosmologists as a beginning for decades. And are we using some weak form of the PSR here, only applying it to contingent entities? Because that's just tuatological.

I am not convinced by the monad stuff and I don't think that pantheism needs it, even though monad stuff may fit well with some forms of pantheism. For the difference with atheism, "atheist" literally means "without God" so if God is identified with the universe, pantheists are not atheists as long as they believe in the universe. For the synonymy between "God" and "universe", so what? That happened for many things, e.g., with Hesperus and Phosphorus, and this is just Ockham's razor once more. I see the main idea with pantheism rather as attributing the "unmoved mover" feature to the universe itself. Finally, (this) pantheism does not tick the "personal" box. Here, pantheists would just say that classical theists are mistaken about that. Being the "unmoved mover" is the point.

I disagree. Existence is an attribute of a greatest possible being the same fat is an attribute of Santa. Because existence is greater than non-existence

Ye will never make it as Philosphers,your explanations are to clear and understandable 😂 keep up the good work

Dont use darwin to argue or debate. He was not a final - evolution is still just a theory. Panspermia is another.

I love the other character and his one word replies. Some people would say the more you know the less you speak, and I think this is a prime example of our good man here. "interesting", "I see", and " I understand" such wise words. every time he spoke he left me speechless.

Idealism is the only logical philosophical position. Aristotle was correct.

Sartre's age of reason deserves a mention, existential angst at it's most potent.

Federated Continental States

I’ve often wondered how senses like taste and smell could be digitized? If they could, flavors could be combined to create an experience similar to harmonic resonance with sound… Algebraic soup with a side of geometry anyone?

You did this video so perfectly thank you for the recommendations

I think virtue ethics is fine if held in conjunction with a theory that tells us how we ought behave towards others

I don’t think your reductio to the categorical imperative works. You were to vague, sure we wouldn’t want to live in a world where everyone lies for trivial reasons, but I would want to live in a world where people lie to prevent others from being murdered. So when you take the action specifically “lying to prevent murder” I WOULD want to live in a world where people lie to prevent murder.

You left out a pretty massive aspect of ethics (although you could apply these to it) - ethics rowards other living creatures/nature. Do any of those theories have anything to say about how we should treat our fellow members of the earth community? I think an ethic like Albert Schweitzers Reverence for Life ethics might work here.

As a moral relativist, I view ethics more like mathematics (an imaginary logical tool) than science (the pursuit of fundamental truths). Morality can be built up from axioms which we define (such as the "objective moral truths" defined at the end of the video). We can then determine what form of ethics best produces desired results. Assuming the same starting axioms, moral disagreements are really just two parties trying to work through the logic to determine who is correct. People and cultures are able to choose their own moral axioms, and then discussions can be had about which set of axioms produce the most desirable outcomes. Other cultures can be judged by critiquing their reasoning based on their axioms, or critiquing the results their axioms produce as undesirable. One could also judge a different party on one's own moral system just as easily as an objectivist does so, or possibly even easier given that an objectivist would run into the claim that the people of that culture weren't doing anything wrong, they were just misinformed (similar to how people in ancient rome weren't stupid simply because they didn't know the laws of physics).

I’ve been watching this channel for 3 years now! I might be biased but I always find my philosophical views aligning more with John 😅 What kind of philosopher is John? Utilitarian, Kantian etc.