A Crash Course in Formal Logic Pt. 1

[@mendenos]

This needs to be a mandatory course in high schools and college even earlier.

[@williamspringer9447]

NOS Nitr2ous ••• You think that they're going to teach hundreds of millions of heavily armed slaves to reason clearly . There are very good reasons why the science of propositional logic isn't taught in our State controlled public schools.

[@SyrupSplash]

@@williamspringer9447 damn you evidently did not get much out of this series

[@user-td5gy2fh3p]

It was for me. I took it during university.

[@nickg1134]

@@williamspringer9447you can take philosophy and logic classes as an elective at most schools, honestly just sounds like a conspiracy bro

[@carlieheckyeah]

These videos took me from failing both of my midterms to helping me pass my final exam and entire class with a 72%! You're absolutely incredible at what you do, couldn't have done it without these videos! Thank you so much!

[@chrisfully5438]

Carlie Judge Amazing that a KZbin video has taught you better than your teacher... (Assuming you go to class, haha)

[@carlieheckyeah]

Went to every single class & was still confused! Nice to know I can relearn an entire course better from the comfort of my bed lol!

[@PhilHelper]

Carlie Judge It's really encouraging to hear comments like yours. I'll try to get back to work making more videos. Congratulations on passing your class!!!

[@carlieheckyeah]

Thank you!

[@MrLeiduowen]

+Carlie Judge Now if you could only make it 95% ;)

[@SJNaka101]

Arghhhhh! Why school, why didn't you teach me this stuff?! I've been getting little bits and pieces of this kind of information from different political and social commentators on KZbin, but my first exposure to a more academically structured explanation of logic was last night when I watched David Pakman's "Critical Thinking" series. In less than 24 hours, I've found the entire lens through which I view the world is suddenly clearer. And yet, in this very first video you've made that lens even clearer! I immediately started looking at many statements as arguments that weren't arguments after Pakman's series, and you have helpfully assisted me in distinguishing what is and what is not an argument. Man, I'm looking forward to being less of an idiot. Thank you!

[@williamspringer9447]

SJNaka101 •••• But have you learned the first law of the science of Logic yet ?

[@rukusfan1387]

Thanks PH; this is an essential foundation (along with Hurley) for me beginning the trek to scoring well on the LSAT - this is the one lec I found on youtube that is methodical and builds to mastery of the subject - really appreciate it.

[@mustafaali9128]

Beware with studying logic, it could make yourself feel stupid. Thanks for this course!

[@MrLeiduowen]

+Mustafa Ali You serious, dude?

[@williamspringer9447]

Mustafa Ali •••• Ironically , the number you are , the more an understanding of the science of Logic can help you . That's why the science of propositional logic isn't taught in our State controlled public schools.

[@patmark3059]

Mustafa has low esteem

[@wcsxwcsx]

This is a good sign. It shows that you realize how much you do and don't understand. Very few realize this.

[@cygnus8459]

Not only is the content of this presentation brilliantly done, but in addition the audio quality is miles better that the average video. Thank you so much!! Really appreciated!

[@PerryBattles]

Fantastic. Logic and reasoning is something I have pondered quite a lot in my lifetime and I find it incredibly fascinating. Your presentation of the material is also wonderful, and makes everything very easy to understand. Many thanks!

[@PhilHelper]

Thank you. I wish logic were taught in high schools. It would make life better for all.

[@williamspringer9447]

Perry Battles •••• Why didn't this video explain the first law of the science of Logic? Why didn't it define the fallacy the appeal to authority?

[@charliebaker1427]

@@PhilHelper the issue is that it formalizes reasoning in a way thats very unnatural for your average highschool student,besides programing logic the way its setup isn't very colloquial friendly

[@MrLeiduowen]

Thanks, Phil, you're a great teacher! You saved me a lot of time with your lecture series, plus you showed us how to turn a PPT presentation into a video lecture. Excellent job!

[@williamspringer9447]

Mr. Leiduowen •••• I would have been more impressed if he gave a good definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal, authority , and explained the first law of the science of Logic.

[@PhilHelper]

Thanks. I try to pack a lot in quickly. Now that I have learned to speak over slide transitions I should be able to speak more slowly as I lecture. Best of luck to you on the next lessons!

[@sajidrafique375]

I am deaf and I try to read your captions and iam 66 also ...your speed did make learning very difficult

[@MarcoMeerman]

I''m 34 years old and i started an study on informatics and logic is a course in the study. I have a hard time with logic, because I never learned how to do it. You're video's are amazing and you helped me to like logic. I''m ready to take the exam and could not have done it without your help. Thank you!

[@whipnode]

Hey I really enjoyed this lecture! I only turned 17 but I don't really think age matters! Good job getting tbe younger generation interested! Thank you

[@PhilHelper]

Excellent! I originally got my BA in Youth Ministries. Switched to philosophy when I decided young folks needed good philosophy training.

[@williamspringer9447]

Ivan Sidorov ••• Read Thinking to Some Purpose by the Susan Stebbing, and The Art of Controversy by Schopenhauer. They'll define the fallacy the appeal to authority, and the first law of the science of Logic.

[@hanicajanearabaca9371]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerjales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!👍👍👍

[@marissacervantes3582]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@maryjanesanjose5197]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!🙂

[@googlespynetwork]

Thank you. And Liked the intelligent comedy that can easily go unnoticed.

[@kylamaebaynas5849]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper! :)

[@sherlynnasi3798]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@rosalynpadayao5488]

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thank you for this video PhilHelper!

[@marylilmila8848]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thankyou for this video, Philhelper!

[@chrizzamaeabuque2818]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales. Thank for this video, PhilHelper!

[@eulaloumoronabombales4501]

Done watching, Maam Joy Cerjulas. Thank you for this video, PhilHelper!.

[@arramaygonzales6033]

done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thanks for the video PhilHelper!

[@jenniferbabila6956]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales! Thank you for this very informative videos! Godbless PhilHelper!

[@luisamariesanchez8734]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@carenbrondo3627]

Done watching , Ma'am Joy Cerujales thank you for this video,,PhilHelper!

[@honeylynsaculo1716]

Done watching, thank you for this video Ma'am Joy Cerujales, PhilHelper. 🙂

[@kalebmahoney8221]

How many people here are truly aware? This is beautiful

[@jisetteclairecordial9407]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@cfisanick]

This is a really excellent series. I am working on a course in logic for lawyers--you would be surprised how little exists outside of one seminal book by Ruggero Aldisert--and your explanations are spot on.

[@PhilHelper]

Excellent point. I am personally interested in eventually writing a logic book for Christian ministers. There is very little of that either, except for two rather old attempts. Logic is vital to good law. Maybe you'll write the next book on the subject?

[@cfisanick]

PhilHelper I'd like to. Good luck on your writing endeavors. I've noticed that there is no logic book that I've seen yet that does everything well---and I've looked at a bunch, including the oldies like Copi, Barker, and Quine. Each one falls down significantly in at least one major area. (And don't even get me started on Tomassi's book, lauded by reveiwers as the "easiest to understand," where the author just writes and writes and writes on easily understood matters, yet doesn't write enough on the complicated stuff--and he complicates that with idiosyncratic symbolism.) Currently, I'm looking at Gensler, 2nd edition, which I like for a lot of reasons--and I think you mentioned that you've used it--but it is still maddening. Most significantly, there is way too much magical "hand waving" and not enough explanation. His stuff on classical logic and syllogisms is really cursory, and his own "star validity test," while good, isn't really explained well. You've done a much better job explaining the concept of "distribution of terms"--which is what his gimmick uses--than he does. The same with DeMorgan's Law. Gensler, so simple and clear on so many points, just basically says, "Here it is. Now use it." And why can't logicians all agree on standard forms and notation? Gensler not only has to use zeroes and ones in his truth tables, but he has to do them upside down and put the zero (or false) lines first? Why? Just to be different? It drives me nuts. :)

[@PhilHelper]

Chris Fisanick Patrick Hurley's Concise Introduction to Logic has been my favorite for almost a decade and a half now. Highly recommended. This video series complements his exposition.

[@elghunk]

Very good presentation! I will be following the lectures.

[@pontifexmaximus_e]

Such a great educator!

[@marianebethapa8802]

Done watching. Ma'am Joy Cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper.

[@tambovlogs5406]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales , Thanks for this video, Philhelper.

[@dejureclaims8214]

I found this very valuable. Looking forward to watching the rest.

[@marygracetagun520]

Done watching, Maam joy Cerjuales, Thankyou for this video. Philhelper !

[@Josecorbito31]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper.

[@Jasperito7]

I think I'm using the book you're referencing in my course! This helps immensely. Thank you!

[@honeylynfrancisco7478]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video,

[@buenaventejohnchristopherc1089]

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhiHelp.

[@kimiwa1834]

2019 and stil watching..thank you, it's so helpful

[@williamspringer9447]

kimi wa ••• Ever wondered why the science of propositional logic isn't taught in our State controlled public schools? Ever wondered why videos like this never explains the first law of the science of Logic?

[@Swisstriplet]

William Springer id love to know. Seriously

[@blesslydelovino7129]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thankyou for this video, Philhelper

[@sheilamaepatlingrao5757]

Done watching maam joy cerujales. Thank you for this video philhelper

[@ClowdyHowdy]

Arguments aren't a part of logic, I argued with my girlfriend all the time before I knew what logic was. Now that I know what logic is, I don't argue with my girlfriend.

[@PhilHelper]

You might have fun looking at "Love is a Fallacy" here on youtube. Fun stuff about logic and arguing with the ladies.

[@cgallamo]

PhilHelper Which love is a fallacy? There are dozens. BTW - I enjoyed the lesson also. ;)

[@broncojonnes]

Why don't you tell her she's cute?

[@williamspringer9447]

Clowdy Howdy ••• The science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto. As a consequence, most people in this country don't even know that the science of Logic exists .

[@ElCodeMonkey]

@@PhilHelper Yeah, there's a crap-ton of "Love is a Fallacy". Did you have one in mind?

[@rubenscpersonal]

Is there a link to the mentioned exercises? I enjoyed the video and would love to do them.

[@williamspringer9447]

Rubens Cunha•••• Read Thinking to Some Purpose by L Susan Stebbing . She'll actually explain the first law of the science of Logic to you.

[@malamati007]

This is quite excellent...thank you!!

[@JasonMalan]

Many thanks for an excellent lecture!

[@MarcasLancaster]

Wonderfully lucid - much appreciated. Where can I find the material mentioned at the end of this video?

[@williamspringer9447]

Marcas Lancaster ••• I doubt that that he taught anything that will significantly improve your ability to identify sophisticated State sponsored deception. But then, that's why the science of propositional logic isn't taught in our State controlled public schools to begin with .

[@Someone-lc6dc]

Thank you @PhilHelper for the course and all the effort you put into it! May I ask if the exercises you mentioned in this video are available online? Cheers!

[@PhilHelper]

Thanks for the comments! My intro to Epistemology series is next. I'll try to correct those shrill (S)s though.

[@AliFatahalla]

Thank you for the great work but can you provide us with these slides? It would really help to study without the need to watch the video multiple times.

[@OBIRIOMBATI]

why your definition of argument differ in terms that i do know,, an argument is a set of propositions in which the truth of one of the proposition is claimed to be established on the basis of truth of the other propositions either necessarily or by some probability. what can you comment about it

[@devanz4444]

Thanks! Absolutely love it!

[@ScottASchuler]

Would really love to do the exercises mentioned in this video. Great video, but rather disappointing without linked opportunities to practice

[@svedishfisk]

So in regards to distinguishing arguments from non-arguments, would it be safe to say that a good rule of thumb would be that if in summarizing their "argument," you have to commit a strawman fallacy in order to come up with a premise or the conclusion (because you assume that this must be the point behind their assertion,) then it is a non-argument?

[@alexengland-shinemercy]

Is there a way to get the exercises? Or do they come up in later videos?

[@jomararana1418]

Dine watching maam Joy Cerujales, thankyou for this video. philhelper"

[@therealsocialgadfly]

Do you have a .ppt version available of your class that could be posted for accessibility and download? Thanks.

[@mac4christ]

At the end of this video, you mention exercises. Where are they?

[@williamspringer9447]

melissa corbett •••• Here's an exercise for you : Read Thinking to Some Purpose by L Susan Stebbing , and The Art of Controversy by Schopenhauer. They'll explain The first law of the science of Logic to you.

[@DEFCON-FMB]

Great tutorial! Thanks for the vids.

[@williamspringer9447]

These video are always so clever . They say that they're going to teach logic , but always leave you just as intellectually crippled as you were when you started .crippled There are good reasons for the fact that the science of propositional logic isn't taught in our State controlled public schools. There's a good reason for the fact that videos like this never explain the first law of the science of Logic.

[@PhilHelper]

Thanks Dustin. Hope you like the others as well!

[@ANSIcode]

From the way I understand these distinctions, whether a statement is considered an argument or not depends on either the audience or assumptions concerning the audience made by the one giving the statement. None of these criteria are part of the statement. To illustrate what I mean, let me quote a part of the video: at 16:00 the claim is made, that the phrase "There are many tipes of screwdriver... / There is the familiar Philips head, / ... [. . .] ..." does not contain an argument. While it is not my intention to debate whether or not it contains an argument, one of the arguments given in the video for the statement not containing an argument is :"This person is not trying to argue you into the position that there are many, many tipes of screwdrivers, unless, of course, you started a conversation debating that sort of issue [. . .]" To me this sentence clearly states that there are cases where it isn't possible to decide whether a statement contains an argument without a given context. I'd like to ask PhilHelper or people more familiar with the topic to elaborate on this issue.

[@elghunk]

I think you are correct! In Hurley's book he writes that sometimes we just cannot know if a passage contains an argument or not. Then we can say "if this is an argument, then the premises are ... and ... and the conclusion is .....

[@DanielRoyals]

great introduction. Are you able to share the powerpoint file?

[@B7NZ]

Please make Course 2 Advanced Logic videos, & Thank You.

[@JohnSutcliffe1988]

Anybody knows where I can see videos about different kinds of logic (temporal, modal, etc.)? } Also, if someone knows a program where I can practice deduction in different logical systems I beg you for information. Thanks.

[@PhilHelper]

Ian Qualia I'll get to work on the modal stuff eventually. Hopefully it will be as helpful and clear as this easier stuff.

[@JohnSutcliffe1988]

PhilHelper Great! I hope so too.

[@mohance]

Wonderful! Thanks lot for your hard work. English is my second language, if possible you could slowdown a little.

[@lotus_leo23]

Hello Dear..eagerly waiting for your videos on advanced logic..desperately want to ask why did you stop posting videos. .???

[@PhilHelper]

Fighting a terrible divorce battle for my kids :-( But recently I've started winning! Very happy! Maybe I'll get time to continue the series soon...I hope!

[@kamolpaul]

God Bless you and your family.Looking forward to the advanced course.It would be great help indeed

[@feynstein1004]

+PhilHelper That alone is enough reason for me to not get married. Like, ever :D

[@jonathanengle1419]

Would it be accurate to say that, say in the examples of Instructing, Expressing, Informing and Connecting Ideas not being part of an argument be more of Epistymological distinction rather than falling outside of logic and argument formation? For example, the couple that had the disagreement technically made arguments that could be analyzed, but their relevance, which is questioned in this video, is questioned from an Epistymology standing as to whether it's relevant? Basically, humans aren't always logical, so it doesn't make sense to treat something like an emotional argument as logical? Did that make sense to y'all? :) I'm studying logic at my University and we haven't made such distinctions.

[@DamarisJohnsonnakomiah]

Good stuff!

[@MultiSciGeek]

So according to this video, logic is to a priopri what science is to a posteriori. Correct?

[@twinkleharchandani8178]

Sir, Thankyou so much for these videos they are really helpful. Can you suggest from where should I practice questions on the same.

[@ramirezailyn7908]

Done watching @Ma'am Joy Cerujales💗

[@patrickkelly9022]

Phil are you still around I read somewhere in here that you were having problems. Did everything turn out okay?

[@Argionelite]

If i watch this entire series, how much would i miss compared to taking an official course?

[@veronicar4989]

20:39 you said explanations and conditionals are not arguments themselves, but you wrote on the chalkboard that they are arguments themselves. :)

[@plottingpeace7308]

I was wondering, if I study logic hard enough and improve. Would this turn me into a good detective?

[@hwtl6.103]

probably not, idk if you watched all of these but anyone trying to take this seriously will take the fundamentals of formal logic and apply to things. the most popular being quantum mechanics, quantum physics and computer programming. for awhile formal logic hasn’t really been about the premise of logic, but using it in fields like the ones i mentioned.

[@BossChronicles]

does a formal logic course require a lot of math?

[@cerevor]

Linguistically, I think this is a bit simplistic and frankly excessive for a Crash Course on logic. People speak in deliberate implications and their assumptions are usually meant as support for their complete statement. It is true that this doesn't automatically as a rule mean that this is an argument, but usually this can be inferred from the context as a whole or the person one is talking to. Therefore I think it is overgeneralized and false to say that implied arguments and inferences do not exist or are not valid interpretations. Consider for example discourse analysis, and I believe language pragmatics. Discourse analysis deals in thorough theories which may be mostly or completely non-stated, and language pragmatics, which is partly covered here, usually differentiates several layers. The same applies to literary interpretation, criticism and rhetoric. Mistakes are often made and usually out of habit and external assumptions/prejudice, but strict analysis is able to linguistically and by context prove what arguments are directly implied. And again, I think this rule is based on false overgeneralization (either way). In connection to this, I think a lot of real-world arguments, of positions, logic and truth, are based on alternative statements about something that is referred to. Alternate statements function as arguments for why something is a certain way. While potentially problematic, if taken to extremes, I think this is a real way of arguing, and can at least in the beginning not necessarily be analysed much further (or in highly complicated ways that could be considered a waste of time). And in that case, there is also no other explanation for what the statements are other than arguments for why something is a certain way, since there would be no other reason or point (purpose) to making the statements. Actually one can use part of this for an example. For example, if someone presumes and presupposes something about the other person in regard to a certain event or statement (because of this, it is so), and the other person disproves/contests this (it is not this, but this, and therefore so (- in another consequence showing the other appearance to be prejudice)). All in two single statements and sufficient. At least it can and perhaps sometimes should be (because otherwise there will probably be no conclusion and it remains unprovable).

[@Yuuiiytrfbh]

Thanks!!

[@goodukrainianhonestpositiv5800]

great

[@controlequebrado4455]

1:49 I'm gonna stop you right here, what do you mean logic "is the science of"? Doesn't logic literally define how any knowledge can be known ad priori? And science isn't ad priori (except theoretical but that's more math plus empirics than science). It would make more sense to use "is the study of" here. As the derived suffix: "-logy" literally means that "Logic is the study of argument evaluation" Unless you are using the term "science" informally, which would be kinda ironic.😅

[@ericmishima]

I think i found what ive been looking for.

[@Emzo99]

sick!

[@find-me-at-Clumslay]

I want to link this vid in every other videos comment section. Thank you!

[@PhilHelper]

jimbobgeorgejohn You're welcome!

[@patriciakranbuhl298]

Posture corrector

[@y0n1n1x]

thats ur vidros good

[@feynstein1004]

Hmm I see the point with conditionals but I don't see why advice doesn't count as argument. It is a conclusion based on premises after all. I don't suppose people go on randomly advising nonsense.

[@PhilHelper]

Advise isn't an argument e.g. "Don't move your queen out early in a game of chess." But, you can argue and make a case for why your advise should be followed. One can think of plenty of good reasons for following the advise I gave above...list them and add "THEREFORE, you shouldn't move the queen out early. The entire SET of propositions would then be an argument.

[@feynstein1004]

+PhilHelper Lol thanks for the reply. But this just seems like a semantic game of cat and mouse. I mean, if we really think about it, the complete sentence would be "Don't move your queen out early in a game of chess (because there's a high chance it might get captured, which will make it extremely difficult to win)". I guess the problem here is that with advice, the premises are always hidden. But to me, they are still there :P

[@gleon1602]

I'm glad that this is not the rapper.

[@khizar1995]

Awesome :) but please speak little slowly :P

[@MrLeiduowen]

+khizar1995 You know you can slow down a video in any major media player? Windows Media Player is the best tool to use for this purpose. KZbin only offers 0.5x and 0.25x speeds which is way too slow.

[@khizar1995]

+Mr. Leiduowen That sounds great! Thanks for telling I will try :)

[@OsyenVyeter]

lovely vid fontstructions/show/logic_font use this to have a logic font. find it at the website known as fontstruct

[@zetamovie7831]

I was really struggling in my Philosophy course, your videos are extremely helpful than you!

[@PhilHelper]

Zeta movie You're welcome. I'll work up some more videos.

[@annaOOwaffel]

Could you speak faster please?

[@robbryanton2412]

You can always use the settings tab on youtube to speed up the video without changing pitch. It's mighty helpful. Cheers!

[@reelgangstazskip]

The only way to listen to long lectures is at 2x speed. From a neurobiological perspective, it does not affect information retention negatively.

[@reelgangstazskip]

@rtyrty12 1. [citation needed] 2. It depends on the context, speed, and the type of information. I wasn't referring to the memorization of sequences.

[@reelgangstazskip]

@rtyrty12 It's not "common sense"; you're only asserting that it's common sense. I didn't say that I didn't understand your sequences example. I said that I wasn't referring to memorizing sequences. That kind of memorization requires the use of a brain region different from what I was mentioning. Learning in general demands repetition since there's only so much the brain will retain at any one time. Therefore, increasing the speed of videos will allow a person to take in more information at a time without the retention level being negatively affected. The capacity for retention remains the same, provided the speed doesn't make the speaker unintelligible due to the speed being unreasonably high.

[@wikivdorg1979]

Watch my video on concept of "Introduction to Proposition" & get a brief idea about the concept of logic & proof at - kzbin.info/www/bejne/nIuoiIyeqdilqrM

[@CTimmerman]

"If i'm taller than Shaq, then i'm taller than you." states/argues that you're smaller than Shaq, right?

[@SilentAtheistt]

Cees Timmerman Not exactly. I might be equally tall as Shaq.

[@PhilHelper]

Cees Timmerman Nope. The "if" clause is entirely devoid of any commitment to the truth or falsity of what comes after it. See my lecture on propositional logic, on conditional sentences in particular. Cheers!

[@CTimmerman]

PhilHelper Hence the need for "iff", which means "if, and only if". "If A > B, then A > C" implies "A

[@CTimmerman]

***** I don't know what i was thinking, but it appears we're both wrong. "If A > B, then A > C" implies "B >= C".

[@sajidullah]

so..what is one to say logically about God ? The believers assert that every effect has a cause ..so, the universe must have a cause ...which is God ..Can we say then what caused the God ?

[@sajidullah]

***** yeah..some say it was the size f a marble while others say it was smaller than an atom ..And what is eternity anyway when time is a by product itself ?

[@PhilHelper]

To the question of "what caused God..." The difference between God and the universe is that if God exists then as a perfect Being he would have his existence necessarily. It would not be contingent upon things outside of Himself. The starting point for cosmological arguments is to prove that the universe is contingent upon something beyond itself (God perhaps? So the argument goes).

[@sajidullah]

***** Yes. Even though I have a propensity for the big bang theory but that mysterious singularity is still unexplained ..May be a God popped it to see what the laws of permutations and combinations will create..May be God does play dice and it is just a game ..

[@sajidullah]

***** Excellent !

[@labtec5525]

Sajid Rafique, I agree with Eristic that we can only make speculation about who created the Universe, because we were not at the time when the Universe was made. Neither can we go beyond the Universe. We can't know the truth about the Universe's exitence, without the help of the Creator of the Universe. If there is no Creator and the Universe just popped into exitence, then we can never know wether there is a Creator behind the Universe or not. If there is a Creator behind the Universe, then we have a chance to know if the Creator wants to reveal the truth to us. But lets use the facts and our logic to find out what speculation does make the most sense and is closest to the truth. First I will explain why the Universe is not actual infinity/eternal. Remember that there are two kind of infinities. 1. Potential infinity, which is not really infinite. When something is potential infinity it just means that it can grow forever, but the actually thing is not infinity. Example: you can cut a bread into infinite pieces, but the bread itself is not infinite/eternal. 2. The definition of Actual Infinity/Eternal is: 1) It doesn't have any beginning or end 2) It is uncreatable 3) It doesn't grow (doesn't get Old/Young - Big/Small - Heavy/Light - Slow/Fast 4) It has and always will exist 5) It is unmeasurable We have nothing inside the Universe that is Actual Infinity/Eternal, because the Universe itself is not Actual Infinity/Eternal. The reason that the Universe is not Actual Infintiy/Eternal is, because it had a beginning (Big Bang) and it expands/gets bigger. When something expands it has a beginning, which means that it is creatable. This also means that the Universe has not always existed. Because the Universe had a beginning and was created there are only two things that can be behind its creation. Actual Infinity (something Eternal and immaterial) or Nothing. Saying that the Universe was made out of nothing, means that it was created accidentaly and it has no purpose/cause. But that is not the case when we look at our complexity world and Universe. We can see that everything has a cause/purpose. We can't find one thing that has no effect in our world or Universe. Saying that the creator of the Universe is something Actual Infinity makes the most Logical Sense. This Actual Infinity is what religous people call God. There can only be one Actually infinity, because if there would be two or more, then there would be an infinite space between those two or more Actual infinities. And that space would define the end of those two actual infinities. Actual Infinity has no beginning, nor an END. Therefore there could only be ONE Actual Infinity. Therefore God/Actual Infinity is the best and most logical explanation/speculation. Has someone a better speculation, then please share. And if you find something wrong with my speculation, then please explain, because I want to improve my speculation as much as possible.

[@Rotceev]

LOGIC IS NOT A SCIENCE OF EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS. its not the science of evaluating of arguments that makes my computer work right, and programs function well. Science of Evaluation of arguments is a Science of evaluation of arguments. or maybe a formal logic, but not logic.

[@TreyGre7]

I have a gut feeling that out of the 138 likes on this video 136 are from males.

[@mhzextreme2004]

Thank you for this lecture. Your (S)s are killing my ears though.

[@Rockstar97321]

Your war vs. peace examples are illogical without qualifying that there is no central world government that is orchestrating the wars from behind the scenes. Your inference is that there is no central world government, and that is not a foregone conclusion.

[@SJNaka101]

The sort of default understanding of global politics is that there are many sovereign states around the world. This is a fair way to view the world with the information that is available and has been presented to almost every man, woman, and child around the planet. For most of the planet, the non-existence of a single global entity controlling the entire world IS a foregone conclusion. Therefore, my friend, it is you who the burden of proof falls onto to cast reasonable doubt on the notion that the world is made up of many sovereign states. If there is, indeed, one world government; then they have positioned themselves solidly in a place where their existence is obfuscated by the many systems in place which make it seem like they do not exist. I love conspiracy theories, and the whole illuminati thing is very fun to explore. However, the conspiracy theorist has the unfortunate position of being required to refute many widely accepted facts about the world to prove some quite grand premises.

[@chaitanyalavu7405]

Hail Santa

[@TFTAlecUchiha]

jumpman jumpman jumpman

[@TFTAlecUchiha]

im batman

[@TFTAlecUchiha]

sisih meter longjump