112. Graham Oppy | Religion

Graham Oppy is Professor of Philosophy at Monash University, and specializes in Philosophy of Religion.
/ friction
/ discord
/ frictionphilo
This "ask me anything" was conducted on the Discord server "Politics & Debate", which can be found here: / discord .
00:00 - Introduction
01:05 - Aquinas's first way
02:01 - Best argument for God
03:36 - Theistic literature
05:48 - Contingency argument
08:14 - Kalam cosmological argument
12:41 - Act and potency
14:49 - Cosmological arguments and modality
21:11 - Bayesian analysis of theism
24:27 - Consciousness
26:10 - Artificial intelligence
27:40 - Spacetime
29:08 - God and space
30:26 - Divine simplicity and monotheism
33:54 - Pascal's wager
38:31 - Principle of sufficient reason
40:40 - Causal series
44:45 - Coherence of the trinity
46:01 - Simplicity and agnosticism
51:02 - Account of modality
52:44 - Rasmussen's argument
59:57 - Mathematical entities
1:02:16 - Platonism
1:06:14 - Causal origin
1:10:18 - Arbitrary limits
1:13:20 - Classical theism
1:15:22 - Divine simplicity
1:18:05 - Unities and unifiers
1:22:51 - Holism and reductionism
1:24:18 - Conclusion
Where Do We Go by Tokyo Music Walker / user-356546060
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: tinyurl.com/542vrdvr
Music promoted by Audio Library tinyurl.com/52r466sx

[@CjqNslXUcM]

I love listening to Oppy. He's doing a great service by agreeing to appear on non-academic platforms.

[@Overonator]

The Oppynator!

[@mark110292]

Whoa. The hit list continues. Brilliant. Vital.

[@Friction]

Peter van Inwagen next week!

[@justus4684]

Certified *Soo* moment

[@dr.h8r]

Saaauuuwww

[@jmike2039]

P1. If oppy exists, then I have hands P2. Oppy exists C. Therefore, I have hands Oppy solves every problem.

[@bman5257]

I’m suspicious of premise 1, I could definitely foresee a world in which Oppy exists and yet where it is not the case that you have hands. If you are younger than Oppy than premise 1 at one point in time was false, as you did not yet have hands.

[@jmike2039]

@@bman5257 no that violates well established metaphysical principles

[@bman5257]

@@jmike2039 [I disintegrate immediately in response]

[@MajestyofReason]

So…

[@Friction]

When you compare the theories...

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

So so.

[@VaughanMcCue]

You can run The Opps at 2X because the Ozzi talks so slowly. It might be because they have been upside down their whole lives, and their heads have too much blood pressure.

[@coyork15]

Right

[@hiker-uy1bi]

Regarding Kalam, don't our best physics say that quantum fields don't have to be "caused" by anything? There's nothing ruling out that such fields couldn't have existed forever. From these fields we see early cosmology, inflation, big bang, etc.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...

[@sparephone3846]

No, this is exactly where physics fails. It implies the laws of nature are already formulated. There is no explanation of why the laws of physics take the form they do. I agree some physicist are very happy with this idea e.g. Lawrence Krauss. Kalam idea is obviously propagated by William Lane Craig, though clearly taken from Muslim theologians and the Qur'aan. I actually don't think Oppy has really though through the implications of the kalam argument. His negation of this implies time already exists.

[@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785]

Does analytic philosophy hold this view that contingency means dependency?or it's base upon conceivability?like i can imagine fail to exist?

[@Friction]

The term "contingency" has multiple uses. Sometimes, it's used to refer to some kind of dependency. In many philosophical contexts, however, it's used to refer to something that is true or exists but is not necessarily true/does not necessarily exist.

[@daviddivad777]

please interview Emanuel Rutten.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Please interview JC, John Cleese, the comic messiah.

[@intelligentdesign2295]

Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God" and David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom" - the best book that defended theism.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Are you a THEIST? 🤔 If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓

[@intelligentdesign2295]

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices One of the reasons is that primitive cultures ALREADY have an idea of God. The old theories that the idea of God developed from polytheism or animism do not stand up to criticism and are not supported by ethnographic data. If you are interested in the phenomenon of monotheism in primitive tribes, then I strongly recommend reading the book: Winfried Corduan "In The Beginning God:A Fresh Look At The Case For Original Monotheism". As well as the books by Mircea Eliade "Aspects of Myth" and "Treatise on the History of Religion" in which he also describes the phenomenon of monotheism among less developed cultures well.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

@@intelligentdesign2295, there’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Sir.☝🏼 There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, or Deity.‬🤓 It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God who created the Universe, would you not agree? 😩

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@intelligentdesign2295 Everything is possible in the magical kingdom.

[@markpaul1383]

@@intelligentdesign2295 Hello. Thank you for the comment involving monotheism. It seems like the OT has many texts that can only be understood properly by taking them to involve polytheism. I take the "sons of god" and divine council passages in Job 1:6, 38:7 to be sufficient, but Psalm 82:1, 6 and Psalm 89:6 also make the point that Israel's God is among other gods in a council of gods. Lastly, the most natural reading of Exodus 20:3 involves thinking that there are other gods to avoid worshipping (not that one shouldn't worship something called a god that doesn't exist because one ought only to worship the existent God). So, I'm not sure what ethnographic data you are referring to, but polytheism is in Jewish and Christian texts.

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

Great video you think we see more of this style on youtube but you dont

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

🤔🥴😬