What are your sources for those curious into looking into this more in depth

The AI art was sometimes ridiculous and distracting, but I appreciated the history lesson. Believe it or not, a video game got me into studying the period of the proto-Reformation.

This is amazing. Church history, manga and retowave. Keep it going brother. Ave Christus Rex.

I think it was the execution of Jan Hus that was the tipping point. The priests would do things like rob their hospice patients and then investigate themselves, when they were put in charge of the sick they would spend the money on themselves etc. so they partied like college kids and were a menace, that's essentially all Jan said, and they burned him alive, so all of christianity did a double take

This artwork is hilarious! The Gospel of "Open Romance" (37:13)? Priests STANDING on an altar (4:32)? Thermobaric bomb exploding in the distance (41:40)? TOWER-CRANE overlooking Medieval knights (47:02)? Viking meat-feast, right in the middle of Holy Mass (7:43)? Winged Perseus' cameo-showing (9:10)? Clerics sporting a modern tie (4:32)? Roman Corinthian capitals on a small church inside a bigger church? Pews for sitting (4:32) ? Priest with no shirt (7:02) ? Babylon 5 mitres (7:02) ? Flying warrior (11:07) ? Wrong date of Constantine (7:02) ? Medieval Soviet officer (35:50) ? 2 wheeled carts mowing down gardens (40:00) ? "Doniation" (12:58)? "Snoynod" (31:26)?

This art style looks almost like Tetsuo Hara's from Fist of the North Star, especially the panel I see at 10:29. I love it!

Is this some type of manga from Japan? Those seem to be Japanese characters in some of the panels, and the art style looks very manga/anime like. Was this created by a church in Japan? Curious to know which one, if so. Seems to be clearly made by Protestants of some sort, but when I went to Japan, I mostly only saw Catholic Churches (of which there were few churches period, just that most were Catholic).

"amigo das quecas" 😂

** UPDATE ** Since the making of this video me and Maverick Christian (MC) had a video-call to talk about the topic of this video: the plausibility of the Designer Hypothesis concerning creation. I wanted to do a video with a longer script and more study behind it, but I've not been able to find the time for that. Hence this quick written update. The main contention between us is: **our capability to calculate probabilities concerning the likelihood or unlikelihood of the current physical constants**. If these probabilities cannot be assessed, the expression "fine tuning" stands only for some vague conception. For something to be fine tuned, that something could be otherwise; however if we cannot know about this state of affairs (viz. that the physical constants **could have been** different) by assessing the probability of other possible states, we end up with the mentioned vague conception. During our conversion, MC mentioned and explained (though I didn't understand) that scientists can really measure these probabilities. He gave me some resources to consult, but I didn't have the time to look at them. He also insisted that even Sabine didn't deny this fact. I conceded the point because of my limitations in understanding physics and because I trusted his account about Sabine's opinions. But at the same time it seemed weird to me, so after we finished our video-call I went back to Sabine's video. His account of Sabine's opinions was wrong. In her video, between 3:12-3:18 she clearly states that statements about the likelihood or unlikelihood of the current physical constants are "meaningless". Scientists cannot assess the probabilities under contention. This puts, from my perspective, MC's understanding of physics against Sabine's, and I naturally more strongly believe her than him. Without these probabilities, there's no fine tuning; no fine tuning (the explanandum), there's nothing to explain by the Designer Hypothesis (the explanans). Also, without fine tuning (which would fill out the "state of information" or "evidence" variable) there can be no epistemic probability assessment between fine tuning and Intelligent Designer (which would fill the "truth claim" variable) -- something I mentioned in this video around minute 11:50. For now, the Designer Hypothesis and the arguments that support it appear weak to me. It's extravagant speculation based on nothing. The quantitative talk gives a more rigorous and scientific air to the case, but it is just that, an appearance. When one starts digging to get to the hard materials from which inferences are made, there's nothing there.

Unfortunately you don't seem to have correctly understood my objections, or my purpose for pointing out the nitpicks (some of which weren't quite nitpicks). You also don't seem aware that the scientific consensus is that fine-tuning (in the sense that I defined it) is real, and seem to be under the impression that it's baseless speculation (0:37 to 1:32). It is not baseless speculation; it's based on scientific observation of what the physical laws, constants, and quantities are like; and our understanding of what the universe would be like if we had the same laws but different physical constants. See for example various PBS SpaceTime videos on it, such as the one titled, "Can You Observe a Typical Universe?" The purpose of the "nitpicks" was to correct various misperceptions of the fine-tuning argument (FTA), and some of them have significant bearing. For example, if intelligent, interactive life were inevitable no matter what the constants would turn out to be, this would pretty much annihilate the fine-tuning argument. 7:52 to 10:53 - It seems as if you might not have understood the point of my analogy. My fine-tuned meteor shower scenario was used to illustrate that the "The constants are constant; we can't quantify the probability in a frequentist/propensity way, therefore there's nothing in need of explanation" sort of reasoning doesn't logically follow. The fine-tuned meteor shower scenario is a situation where the constants are physically necessary, and we can't quantify the probability in a frequentist/propensity way, yet clearly there would still be something in need of explanation and Sabine's objection wouldn't work here (10:31 to 10:44). You seem to think that it _would_ work (10:44 to 10:54) and you say it's not clear how this defeats Sabine's claim. The reasoning I'm using this: (1) If Sabine's objection worked, then there would be no need of an explanation in the fine-tuned meter shower scenario. (2) There is a need of an explanation in the fine-tuned meteor scenario. (3) Therefore, Sabine's objection doesn't work. Why believe premise (1)? Because we're applying the same sort of reasoning Sabine used to the fine-tuned meteor shower scenario, which results in the claim that there's no need for an explanation. I take premise (2) as obvious enough; to say that not only would the fine-tuned meteor shower not be evidence for the design explanation, but not even _require_ an explanation, seems absurd. 11:49 to 12:12 - It _does_ have something to do with the claim at hand. You seem to have missed the point entirely with this confused response. It seems that this 11:49 to 12:12 response is talking about frequentist/propensity probability, when part of the point of my brining up the fine-tuned meteor shower scenario is that _even a 100% physically necessary frequentist/propensity probability does nothing to remove the need of an explanation._ The reason Sabine's objection doesn't work in the fine-tuned meteor shower scenario involves epistemic probability. (In 12:23 to 12:40, imagine applying that same objection to the fine-tuned meteor shower scenario.) 14:44 to 15:14 - Here you seem to have not correctly grasped my objection, which is about why this propensity/frequentist probability basically doesn't matter (in the sense that even if we didn't know the frequentist/propensity probability, or even if the frequentist/probability were 100% towards the fine-tuned parameters, this still wouldn't be enough to defeat a design inference). Again, the point of my bringing up the fine-tuned meteor shower scenario is _why even a 100% physically necessary frequentist/propensity probability does nothing to remove the need of an explanation._ It may well be true that a frequentist/propensity probability wouldn't be very useful in inferring design for the fine-tuned parameters, but that doesn't remove the need for an explanation as the fine-tuned meteor shower scenario illustrates. Again, Sabine argued that there was nothing in need of explanation, and I was explaining why the reasoning for this conclusion didn't work, because the fine-tuned meteor shower scenario provides a counterexample to this sort of reasoning. 16:16 to 16:53 - I could have worded what I said better (I was describing the general idea), but you don't seem to be aware that I linked to a real article that argues along the same lines I did. Go to the article and look up the fine-tuning of the Higgs vev; that's a real fine-tuned parameter in which naturalism is non-informative about what value that parameter would take within a certain conceivable range (note that in philosophy _conceivable_ just means it can't be ruled out a priori). You don't launch an objection against the general reasoning here; you just say I'm "supposing" while being unaware that there's a real physical constant that fits the bill here. I thought it was obvious enough that there was at least one of those physical parameters that fit the bill and that I was just describing the general reasoning behind one approach (due to my referring to the paper), but maybe I was wrong. 18:03 to 19:32 - The problem Sabine was pointing to here was an unjustified low frequentist/propensity probability, and again the point I'm making is _why this doesn't matter_ (in the sense that even if we didn't know the frequentist/propensity probability, or even if the frequentist/probability were 100% towards the fine-tuned parameters, this still wouldn't be enough to defeat a design inference). 22:25 to 22:50 - The same mistake is made here (see the above paragraph). You don't seem to have correctly understood my objection. I _did_ deal with the problem by explaining why pointing to an unjustified low frequentist/propensity probability doesn't remove the need for an explanation, nor is it sufficient to negate evidence for design. That is, even if we _do assume that the low frequentist/propensity probability of the parameters is false, that still doesn't remove the need for an explanation,_ nor is it sufficient to negate the evidence for design. Again, the fine-tuned meteor shower scenario illustrates why the type of reasoning Sabine used doesn't work. 23:04 to 23:24 - You don't seem to understand the epistemic probability I'm talking about (it didn't help that you cut out parts where I did explain it). It's _not_ about the epistemic probability of the truth of those low frequentist/propensity probabilities at all. To illustrate my _actual_ position, consider again the fine-tuned meteor shower illustration; the epistemic probability of the design explanation obviously has nothing to do with the epistemic probability _of the low frequentist/propensity probability of the parameters,_ because the parameters in question are _physically necessary_ thereby making the frequentist/propensity probability 100%. Instead, the epistemic probability is related to the _fine-tuning itself_ for the fine-tuned meteor shower yielding evidence for design (e.g. it is epistemically improbable that the fine-tuned meteor shower would exist in the absence of a designer). Similarly, when it comes to epistemic probability regarding the fine-tuning being evidence of design, I was _not_ talking about any epistemic probability of any frequentist/propensity probability of fine-tuning; I never said or implied any such thing anywhere in my video. I'm afraid a straw man was attacked here.

Don't you think you should have linked to Sabine's video, at the very least?

00:02 -- Introduction 01:26 -- Methodology 11:07 -- Exegetical Hypothesis 11:29 -- Analysis 1-5 16:13 -- Synthesis 1-5 17:00 -- Analysis 6-23 48:07 -- Synthesis 6-23 49:31 -- Analysis 24-33 56:13 -- Synthesis 24-33 56:45 -- Application of the hypothesis

Don't know why the chapters are not appearing 00:08 - Intro 01:28 - Summary 01:41 - Commonsensism 06:22 - Calvinism 12:59 - Agrarianism 15:27 - Conservationism 17:52 - Concluding

My boyo is growing up! So proud!

Although I'm no friend to Reidian epistemology (or epistemological commonsensism in general), I appreciate that you called out Oliphint for his poor scholarship. I'm routinely unimpressed with Oliphint's work.

"5 euros de groja" xD. Hmm not sure que se porque sentes coisas acerca das tuas acções, não havendo ninguém para testemunhar, é porque tem de existir deus. Até porque a "lei" ou "inclinação" moral que está em ti pode ter sido incutida pela sociedade, pais, ou ser até mesmo uma intuição que formaste somewhere along the line. Also, CONATUS <3

.....CONATUS!!! You've said it!!! E nunca mais irás referir isso na tua vida xD

Se a tradução em 3:07 não for inteligível deixo aqui outra. Estava a tentar manter a tradução à letra, mas é melhor assim: «Digo reflexão sobre a autoconsciência porque não basta dizer simplesmente autoconsciência sem mais explicação nenhuma. Todos os seres humanos adultos são conscientes de si de algum modo, e os homens primitivos também o eram - estavam capacitados de julgar os objetos como diferentes e distantes de si mesmo. Mas esta consciência, ou autoconsciência, não é suficiente; tem de passar à reflexão. Não basta ser-se consciente de si, é preciso também ter um sentido, uma impressão, ou ideia, para dar a “interpretação” disponível para a história. Isto significa que o eu tem de assimilar ou apreender de que está a pensar sobre si mesmo de uma certa forma (3)»

Para além de ficarmos a saber sobre epistemologia prática também ficamos com uma ideia superficial sobre o que é o ciclo hidrológico. Mas será que o RGY realmente tem conhecimento sobre o mesmo? Não sei se posso atribuir tal conhecimento sem eu mesma ter mais experiência na área. Terei de investigar.

É possível perceber que na altura dos seus 21 anos vc teve bastante contato com diversas literaturas... O cristianismo é de fato algo curioso que nos transforma e nos mostra as diferenças das demais religiões. Talvez essas dicotomias é o grande segredo para separar o joio do trigo no evangelicalismo mundial. Sim, porq na altura em que cá estamos as coisas se misturam como um mix de Mc Donald, Bobs e Burger King: poucos sabem a diferença.