Can Metaphysics Discern God I? | Episode 1704 | Closer To Truth

[@davekiss2412]

I wish this man would try podcast, he has been asking these questions for years and is really knowledgeable and good at asking the right questions.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

He basically has one now

[@Petre66CA]

I would suggest a discussion with Bishop Robert Baron. He is a priest scholar of metaphysic that could give very good answers for Mr. Kuhn’s questions

[@gj1695]

Brilliant man, Bishop Baron.

[@joedavis4150]

Robert, God exists for sure! God is metaphysics. God is Not especially the Bible's big strong man in the sky, as you have been taught. God is more like the mystery, the energy, and the Creator. It is stupid to think that we can fully comprehend or understand God.

[@joedavis4150]

@zempath ... Okay, I will

[@KalCraig]

@zempath Oh, He already knows.

[@tomorrowmaynevercome3171]

Joe Davis , if God can be understood by people then he’s not big enough to worship.

[@invisiblechurch9621]

@@tomorrowmaynevercome3171 If he can't be understood then he is not worth worshiping

[@givememytacobell9397]

I feel like people confuse the Christian GOD with a concept much more deserving. The metaphysical answer to god cannot be based on Christian ideals because Christianity is deluded ideals. Metaphysics must stay in principle of what we actually know to exist. God metaphysically is time, space, gravity, biology. Things to this day that still contain mysteries. All which are everywhere and no where at once, both infinite and with endless and insurmountable power. Theocratic non sense uses a limited sense of thinking. Metaphysics is limitless. Their for God metaphysically are limitless components of existence. Its no mystery what GOD is. What is mystery is figuring out the God within each of these components.

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[@deepaktripathi4417]

I love you Robert. Thanks for providing this series.

[@sensei8120]

In quantum physics photons (light) can be a particle & a wave at the same time, essentially popping in & out of 3D space, & light is the cosmic speed limit. Well as you rise up the dimensional hierarchy time is considered the 4th dimension. If God exists out of time, He could have similar properties i.e the ability to pop in & out of time

[@tonytafoya6217]

Plausible argument.

[@Robinson8491]

@@tonytafoya6217 do photons pop in and out of 3d space because of the 4th dimension of time? How is this argument plausible

[@jamesbarlow6423]

The wave of Time is faster

[@RubelliteFae]

It seems to me that there is an unexamined premise that only if true makes such metaphysical ponderings possible: the reality we experience seems to be rational, logical, & causal, therefore reality *is* rational, logical, & causal. This conclusion does not necessarily follow. It could be the case that our conscious processing of reality is not perfect (and we know that everything we experience comes through subjective filters, such as the particular sensory perceptions of which we are capable). This could mean that, for example, though we experience the Universe through the arrow of time, this is not objective or "ultimate" reality. It's also possible that a rational, logical, & causal reality is a subset of an irrational, illogical, or acausal reality. Moreover, if anything exists outside of time it would at the very least necessarily be acausal.

[@asielnorton345]

Within every the esoteric thoughts of every major spiritual tradition in the world, the Infinite is infinite. It is beyond the idea of duality. It is beyond the idea of is and isn't. Going back at least as far as Plotinus and Plato the One is incomprehensible. If you are in a cave looking at shadows on a wall, it is impossible for you to guess that the world is anything but shadows. Going back to Kant, there is the reality we see and comprehend, then there is actual reality (which we have no idea what it is due to the limitations of our thinking and experiencing apparatus). Not only is there no reason to assume God or reality follows Aristotelian logic, it is silly to think it does. Again this is in the esoteric teachings one way or another of every major religion. Secondarily even using logic, if one reads Spinoza's metaphysics, which he lays out a metaphysical argument in the form of a Geometric proof, his argument for God is logically impregnable. His argument just isn't for a traditional exoteric, Abrahamic conception of God, so people don't like it. But not liking it is hardly proof against it.

[@RubelliteFae]

@@asielnorton345 Personally, I vibe with ancient Vedic (and subsequent) thought. If you think about it, everything we can experience is at best metaphors for reality (or at least reality as we experience it). Even these words are just pointers to the objects we experience so that I can put thoughts about them into your mind. And for me-though I enjoy reading about these things from all perspectives-the metaphors of South Asian philosophy & religion clicks best for me. And even this could be temporary. In my 20s it was Taoism. What little I know of Spinoza is great, I just haven't taken the time to read his writings yet. Same for Leibniz, despite his deism (nothing about any metaphor is entirely accurate, that's why it's metaphor). Outside of those two, I don't think I know *any* Western philosophy past Aquinas. What tidbits I've heard just seems like a reframing of something an Indian said hundreds of years previously (though I don't mean to imply this was purposefully misappropriated). Anyway, "yes, and..." I suppose.

[@asielnorton345]

@@RubelliteFae I like Taoism, Buddhism, and various forms of Hinduism as well. I also enjoy western philosophy, Christianity, Judaism, etc. I grew up engaged in shamanism. I know the least about Islam. I like Jesus quite a bit. The concept that everything is love seems to me the most profound way to approach life. In general my belief is that there is an infinite reality. Religions themselves are cultural constructs based on mystical experience. Some people have experiences of this transcendent everything. They then use language, imagery, dependent on their individual being to attempt to communicate this experience. This description will therefore be dependent on that individuals culture and overall being. But the experience itself is similar or the same.

[@RubelliteFae]

@@asielnorton345 Yes exactly. Just saying I've gotten further with certain metaphors than others. "Any will do, this has become my preference."

[@skronked]

"God is a consuming fire, his love is inexorable" W. Blake.

[@matthewmaguire8852]

In High School we were world class knuckleheads in my crew...could barely answer basic questions in classes.... but something funny would happen....would be out in the woods doing acid and the biggest knucklehead would start saying things that were weird and puzzling and later said knucklehead would not remember anything and return to his knuckleheadedness....only later would I read things in books that sir knucklehead had said...strange. I know God looks out for drunks, little children and idiots but didn’t know he would speak through them.

[@Blap552]

Very Cool man! I had to stop doing hallucinogens after I imagined I was being kidnapped by Mexicans and got out of the car to walk home. The cops saw my friend and I but we didn't run when they stopped and they didn't question us. Whew!

[@danellwein8679]

paradoxes and contradictions .. the stuff of life .. we live in an amazing universe .. we are fortunate ..

[@jmanj3917]

25:50 I say that if God is "God", then God is whenever God wants to be. I mean, we're talking about an Existence which self-identified (to borrow a term from the current youth) as, "I Am." Go Bluejays!

[@NaturalFuture]

Is the quantum field the ultimate bedrock of reality? But what gives rise to it?

[@dajuice4200]

uncertainty

[@PrinceBlake]

CERNtainty, the idea that after every few upgrades, a few more "particles" will be revealed.

[@DaveJLin]

Funny thing is, we wrangle so much about truth mainly because we don't want to accept it.

[@tylermacdonald8924]

Is the host ever going to write on what he's been talking about all these years?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

“finally an argument that works.” Assumes that the earlier arguments (and their offshoots) have actually been refuted. They haven’t been.

[@HatRSol]

There is nothing like unto Him; this is one of the ways Allah described himself in the Qur'an, Surah Ash-Shuraa [42:11].

[@cvsree]

You are looking for what is looking through your eyes

[@deathbydeviceable]

God

[@traductionscultureen-arver2307]

Breathtaking…

[@DivineIntelligence_101]

While I am the first one to admit that the questions: is there a God?, and what is his origin?, and what is he like?, and can we know him?, are indeed intriguing and mind-boggling questions. I also believe it's absurd that men with their finite cognitive abilities and limited knowledge, who can not understand themselves and their consciousness, or its causes, believe that with their limitations they can figure out and understand all there is to be known about God by asking and seeking answers to their own inquiries, instead of just accepting the foundational truth that God create the cosmos and all that exists in it. The birth of such questions and inquiries can be found in the narration of Genesis chapter 3, when the first rebel philosopher who question the sovereignty and ethics or morals of God by asking Eve a series of questions which led to the first philosophical negation against the character of God:“For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Eve ate of the there of knowledge good and evil yielding to one who was very persuasive and superior in intellect than herself and she gave her husband and he ate also. This is the origin of the theoretical reasonings of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and the wide range of philosophical theories about the nature of things, have their beginning. Noteworthy, metaphysics and epistemology are based on limited man wanting to be or become their own God by negating the foundational truth of the sovereignty of God as the creator of all man and all other things by seeking out hidden knowledge. While the philosophical theory of what is good or evil, right or wrong has its roots in the fact that man has fallen from his perfect union with God, now knowing good and evil, he must now decipher for himself what is ethical or moral. This gives rise to relative ethical standards rather than absolute ethical standards that are based on the foundational truth that what is ethical is based on what God deemed to be ethical. Can we through philosophical reasoning and by our senses discern that there is a God, and can we know what he is like? Surely! But, we may never know what is his origin. We just have to accept that by faith, because not because we don't know everything about something means that it is not real or it does not exists. One way we can discern that there is a God, is through creation, surely the well ordered cosmos and the complex biological beings that inhabit it did not come into being by accident. The same way we don't believe that the great Pyramids of Giza in Egypt came into being by accident. Another way we can discern somethings about the nature of God and what he his like, is to look at God in relation to man that the Bible state was created in his image and likeness. Looking at man as a complete being we see that man as a physical component that can be seen, touch or handled and at the same time we acknowledge that there is a component of man that is metaphysical that cannot be seen, touch or handle, but yet it exists. The none physical aspect of man can be likened to the aspect of God that can not be seen or touched but is still discernable by the senses. We can know somethings about God cataphatically and apophatically by looking at man's good characteristics vs man's bad characteristics. We can also get an idea of what God's absolute ethical standards are by looking at humans collectively across cultures and societies and discover what the majority of humans deem to be ethical. And the most profound example we can look at is that of Jesus Christ, the metaphysical God making himself physical. Through Jesus Christ we can see more clearly what the true characteristics of God is like, his love, his compassion, his sacrificial death for man's sins and at the same time we can see the metaphysical aspect of God through the miracles he performed and ultimately his resurrection from the dead. Jesus Christ life should lay to rest all the doubts of the so-called lifelong truth seekers, the intellectual lovers of knowledge and the atheists, because while we couldn't with any absolute certainty know that God exist metaphysically or intellectually before his incarnation, we see in His manifestation in Jesus Christ, the invisible and physical in one along with the demonstration of the divine attributes such as, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence displayed. But, I guess this will not lay to rest doubts of the various skeptics, because the lifelong truth seekers would now have nothing more to chase and the lovers of knowledge would have to admit that their ability to know everything through their own study of knowledge is limited and for the atheists they would now have to cease from their intellectual idolatry and submit themselves to the sovereignty God. All man's existential crises and their search for meaning will be resolved when they embrace the basic fundamental truth that there is a God that creates the universe and all things that inhabit it for his purposes and that his ethical and moral standards are absolute. Mat 18:3 (NKJV) said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

[@mediocrates3416]

Metaphysics can observe truth and the coherence of being that is the ground of truth. Whether that be the Son and the light of the Father in His face is a matter for discussion. And still; a mountain of colonialism and misogyny that any caring god would not leave us with.

[@zeltawho7071]

IOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO KEY TO OPEN UP MULTI-UNIVERSE AS WELL AS MORE. GREETINGS YEE OF WHO STILL THINKETH YEE ARE YOUR PHYSICAL BODY UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THAT YEE ARE MUCH MORE AS YEE ARE A CREATION FORCE WITHIN YEE AS ALL HAVE THE SAME BEGINNING FROM FORM TO FORMLESS LIMITLESS WE ARE ALL ONE

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

cringe comment from an npc

[@richardmooney383]

I can sum up the first bloke's contribution in two words - Woo, Woo.

[@geosantos2230]

02:48

[@4L3PH4]

The greatest get-out cause: " it should not be taken literally... "

[@NaturalFuture]

If God is in any way simple, it might be this: If there's a reason why everything exists, and reason itself exists for a reason---because it's produced by a Mind ---and that Mind itself exists for a Reason, then God is a Mind which exists by continuing to generate a Reason for Itself to exist. What might that Reason be? Could it be "to create other things?"

[@vu4y3fo846y]

11:31 😂 I felt that

[@prdy6871]

A gem as always

[@bazzadebear8012]

God???? That is just a word. There is no name for what you are looking for :)

[@Portekberm]

Roger Scruton should of been on this... and Keith Ward.. Great vid all the same.

[@eliwhaley4804]

I agree. I think Keith ward may have been though.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

The host has already interviewed Keith Ward. And the clips in this video were edited down- eg Spizter’s initial interview is probably twice as long. Go to closertotruth.com and do a search for your author of choice. Kuhn has interviewed Lawrence krauss, Kaku, lane Craig, David Bentley Hart, etc etc etc

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Use language of psychology and logic to link mind to consciousness.

[@tanshihus1]

Freud was somewhat shocked in his old age to discover young doctors talking about the Ego being an actual part of the brain and not just a label that he coined to describe a set behaviors.

[@PrinceBlake]

"Use language of psychology and logic to link mind to consciousness" ....and consciousness to its seed: the path of gravity, the dipole moment, the great conjunction of paths expanding and orbital, the arrow of time, 935-qkk.

[@xspotbox4400]

Let's say i stand on a dock and push with my hand against a large ship, it will move even if it weight tons. I can move my arm because cells in my body obey my conscious command, and cells move because my ancestors were moving, those were moved by a planet, moved by a sun and so on, until cosmic inflation, when first things came into existence and start all that pushing around. But modern cosmology doesn't talk about prime mover anymore, things exist in their own localized space time or at least it had to be so at moments of creation. Sure Big bang whatever moved those first particles, but they didn't push on each other at first, and they didn't start to move after they came to be, they were always moving because nothing in this universe can stand still, by default. Every particle is it's own mini universe, separated from others by nothing at all. In this perspective, nothing is moving, particles can only exchange energy potential and curve local space time. And i didn't really pushed several tons heavy object by hand, my push displaced water molecules just a tinny bit and those were pushing on a ship. Question is, what set life in motion and i don't mean in a physical way. Mind can't move, consciousness does not exist in any particular place, it's biological necessity and idea that does all the pushing against material order of things in constant motion. And that is very strange. Except is not, there's very little solid mater in the universe, consciousness is more like nothing than anything else we know exist, because here and now means nothing in realms of living energy. Mind doesn't care for 3 spatial coordinates and has no clock, does not follow exclusion principle and causal order of things. Same as all energy, except not all energy is us and alive. Pi is pure metaphysics. What do we mean by ratio of diameter to circumstance of a circle? Let's say diameter is 1, multiply that times 3,14... and we get circle with diameter of pi. But pi is not a number, it has no end, does this mean circle with diameter of 1 is infinite? Obviously not, it's just not well defined. How about we know circumstance of a circle and want to calculate diameter by diving with pi, only way we can do that is if result is 1. To calculate diameter of 1, we need a special kind of circle, it seems. Except we can't do that, we don't know what exact value of pi is, therefore circle with diameter of pi can't exist. What is 1 than?

[@xspotbox4400]

@Ruby Badilla It would be very hard to deny reality out there, maybe we can't see a falling tree, but somebody might stumble on it's dry branches and roots eventually. We can describe parts of reality by other senses or stand on our head, feeling flow of blood in our brain from gravity. Even if you never knew any word or symbol mind would still know something is out there and it's not like dreams. But what is this our body is submerged into and dependent from, reality is much like mother's womb in that sense. Or maybe this underlying sensation of being is just the way our brain is experiencing interactions with physical fields, than we should say life is how consciousness experience time. That kind of ideas were explored in Dr. Who series, maybe consciousness is cycles of births since we always find ourselves in some sort of womb like environment, because everything in this universe is connected and we can sense exchange of different potentials over space our entity occupy. Hope i understood those eastern ideas correctly, i can imagine some ancient mystic could come to same conclusions thousands of years ago. Parts could be true, but problem is when we examine causal chain in reverse, if everything is consciousness, why only some knowledge we call structure of science everywhere and always works?

[@Robinson8491]

Mind has no clock? Mind is a clock Also 1 is not dependent on the value of pi...etc. This is besides the point. How far do you want to take classical mechanics determinism if there is also quantum mechanics randomness in the history (and future) of the universe. Randomness in the future is unknown, however in the past we call it a cause: this shows us the mystery and our fundamental misconception of the concept of time (and of what is a cause). Time is the mystery of all that you state above

[@papinbala]

what is reason? the same working equations we have today could be made all type of ways if your smart enough. as long as they bring you the same answers. so what is reason, is it what it is to us? because how can we ever know if our reasons exist outside of our own minds.

[@rudy8278]

What is Source?

[@zeltawho7071]

IOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO KEY TO OPEN UP MULTI-UNIVERSE AS WELL AS MORE. GREETINGS YEE OF WHO STILL THINKETH YEE ARE YOUR PHYSICAL BODY UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THAT YEE ARE MUCH MORE AS YEE ARE A CREATION FORCE WITHIN YEE AS ALL HAVE THE SAME BEGINNING FROM FORM TO FORMLESS LIMITLESS WE ARE ALL ONE

[@mcsquared4319]

There is no creation but only transformation. Ideas must come from structures. Nothing is nothing and therefore nothing may be created out of nothing. Therefore, there is no beginning and no end... There is no creation and therefore no creator...

[@eenkjet]

@1:00 I disagree. The "process of science" has brought us ontological length contraction and time dilation forcing 4D geometry a default 'creation model' upon the Universe. But more so, wave function realism's UWF should be classified as a Godel Machine, and that Turing class is 'conscious'. So, we can use the process of science to taxonomically build a panentheistic model of God, because quantum cosmology so heavily relies on a conscious universal wave function.

[@eenkjet]

​@Al Garnier What part of the comment would you like me to unpack? Spacetime's 4D ontology is empirical. Do you wish for evidence of that? While quantum cosmology's classical 4D history is theoretical. I would though say that 3n-space is empirical which also requires 4D.

[@eenkjet]

@Al Garnier What does any of that have to do with my comment. Are you in over your head? 4D ontology is confirmed via terrestrial muon detection. Do you reject 4D spacetime geometry? I can't follow what angle you are working on here. As for "time" being emergent as a conscious process, IF one is a real materialist, they must gain that monism from spacetime. In the 4D this means you have brain states on a worldline that you are consuming and experiencing from a substance dualist relationship. 1) you have your arrangement of particles on their wormtube which is completely animated from birth to death. 2) you have your preferred hypersurface which would be like the "laser reader" reading the data OF that wormtube. This places the experience-er as an arbitrary observer apart from the worldline. It's called psychological time.

[@eenkjet]

@Al Garnier As I understand it, the super-symmetry project was a failure. Still, even IF String Theory worked out (LQG seems more promising at the moment), doesn't it still rely on reality being projected from an infinitely distant "Wall" via the holographic principle? ..or at least there are correlations that point to that being the most likely fabric of spacetime FROM String Theory (I don't study SS). Holographic principle is also 4D using a stack of compactified discs. You still have to escape the Universe being a causally complete mathematical object. Your argument is still ant's eye view. Not metaphysical, or ontological, or noumenal...only phenomenal. Materialism does ultimately unpack to a philosophy of perception describing all phenomena supervening on spatiotemporally connected constituents. As for the limited biological input. That input is a qualia-less relativistic Fourier landscape. IF reference frames are emergent, the data of those frequencies rely on animism, simulacra, and occasionalism from the UWF managing/decohering/providing emergent frames of reference with local arrows from the 4D history...which points to the existence of God. It comes down to a write:read system. Let's face it you are a creation and you are watching a movie of your life unfold before your eyes. And IN that movie, your character denies that God exists regardless of the evidence.

[@eenkjet]

@Al Garnier I don't have "a" God, only a working model that points directly at an intelligent creative agent. I think you are almost there. But you don't take the leap into ontology. Why? Why discuss //They are matter in a thermodynamic system subject to entropy or, evolution.// without doing the final step? Thermodynamics and entropy is information theory within the geometry of spacetime. There is no real matter in a dynamic domain that provides transformations over natural time to speak of to express such "evolution". Quantum Mechanics and the Consistency of Conscious Experience arxiv.org/pdf/1901.10825.pdf "The a-dynamical approach we advocate employs constraints over the block universe, which is summed up nicely by Geroch, from a “God’s-eye view” as it were. There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. In particular, one does not think of particles as moving through space-time, or as following along their world-lines. Rather, particles are just in space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once, the complete life history of the particle." Map your //evolution// to the hypersurface and ask "How is that dynamic if the hypyersurface is static?" The answer is "it's not dynamic, so I can't do that if discussing nature". One is discussing immobile particles 'as if' they are moving yet they cannot move due to spacetime's ontological fabric. We are only localizing the constituent to discuss our perceived/illusory evolution. You know this. How to remain an atheist forever is to never discuss the ontology. I know...it's weird and not consistent with naturalism. It's that final stepping out of the phenomenal that alters the way we perceive conscious/experience, evolution of life, the authority placed on the UWF in wave function realism, etc. If you don't step outside of the block, you are only a story teller. I find that odd in that so many people attempt to describe nature in naturalist terms while nature describes itself as not able to sequential foliate. So... my point, the point made in the OP remains unchallenged. IN wave function realism, the UWF has been given God-like powers to author a classical history from which we decohere its paths and are offered managed emergent frames of reference. If wave function realism is the future of physics, God exists because the UWF is classified as a Godel Machine. The UWF is the Creator of the 4D history. BRUNO MARCHAL: Universal Wave Function is a Godel Machine scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=Bruno+Marchal+computation&btnG= www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruno_Marchal3 “The universal wave function should come from the consciousness flux which differentiates in arithmetic (by the first person indeterminacy), then the physical theory can be found by the "GÖDEL-LÖBIAN" MACHINE (which is equivalent with being universal + KNOWING BEING UNIVERSAL (like Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (seen as a Löbian Lachine in Arithmetic). It is more a Block Mindscape than a Block universe. It is a block-web-of-number's-dream, WHERE A DREAM IS A COMPUTATION SEEN BY AN ENTITY SUPPORTED BY THE COMPUTATION. There is a canonical "many-computation" interpretation of arithmetic (even without Mechanism, but with Mechanism, the Quantum arise from that many computation seen from inside arithmetic. There is no physical universe at all: it is only an appearance for universal number in arithmetic. Quantum Mechanics (without collapse) confirms the most startling aspect of quantum physics. Note that with the Mechanist hypothesis: the physical universe is not Turing emulable, it really emerges from all universal machines. Below our substitution level, we should see (and that seems the case with physics) the infinity of computations going through our actual state.” B. Marchal “What I call "Löbian machine" or "Gödel-Löbian Machine", or "Löbian Number" is a universal machine (or number, word, finite-system, ...) which knows that she/it/he is a universal machine. Example, if you take Peano Arithmetic and subtract from it the induction axiom: you have still a Universal Machine (except you need to add the predecessor axioms), but it is not Löbian. But Peano arithmetic itself is Löbian. IT CAN PROVE ITS OWN (TURING)-UNIVERSALITY. All its effective consistent extensions will be Löbian, and so, as far as we are arithmetically consistent or sound, WE ARE LÖBIAN. LÖBIAN IS A SORT OF WIDE GENERALISATION OF "HUMAN". All specifications (in first order predicate language) of a (Church-Turing) universal system with enough induction axioms (operating on its intended objects (numbers, combinators, integers, lists, ...) can be shown to be Löbian. They have all the same formal neoplatonist-like theology, which is testable as it contains physics. To refute it it would be enough to find a difference between such physics and what we observe.” B. Marchal GODEL MACHINE ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/gmconscious.pdf Our FULLY SELF-REFERENTIAL G ̈ODEL MACHINE may be viewed as providing just such a technical justification. IT IS “SELF-AWARE” OR “CONSCIOUS” IN THE SENSE THAT THE ALGORITHM DETERMINING ITS BEHAVIOR IS COMPLETELY OPEN TO SELF-INSPECTION, AND MODIFIABLE IN A VERY GENERAL (BUT COMPUTABLE) WAY. It can ‘step outside of itself’ by executing self-changes that are PROVABLY GOOD, where the mechanism for generating the proofs also is part of the INITIAL CODE AND THUS SUBJECT TO ANALYSIS AND CHANGE. We will see that THIS TYPE OF TOTAL SELF-REFERENCE MAKES THE G ̈ODEL MACHINE AN OPTIMAL GENERAL PROBLEM SOLVER, in the sense of Global Optimality Theorem.

[@hotrodsonulondon7111]

God 🙏 has made a bridge which humanity needs to walk on , God also lives in our deeds and intentions, it's up to God to decide, meditation on god's true name is very important, 10 center's are in our soul's, first center is happiness and sadness, this is the first step or the first challenge, second one is desire of all attachments, and so on I can't tell you the third one, because some thing's are a secret , you need to know who is the true God?. Always remember that God is not your toy ,

[@pg9112471]

Psychedelics is another example to bring you to an "ultimate reality" according to many people who have tried them.

[@tanshihus1]

I have to disagree with that idea since psychedelic chemistry seems to play a part in brain metabolism. DMT appears to a defense against nerve atrophy.

[@zeltawho7071]

IOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO KEY TO OPEN UP MULTI-UNIVERSE AS WELL AS MORE. GREETINGS YEE OF WHO STILL THINKETH YEE ARE YOUR PHYSICAL BODY UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THAT YEE ARE MUCH MORE AS YEE ARE A CREATION FORCE WITHIN YEE AS ALL HAVE THE SAME BEGINNING FROM FORM TO FORMLESS LIMITLESS WE ARE ALL ONE

[@NaturalFuture]

I don't agree, Robert, with John Hawthorne saying that pi is a simple number with no parts. Notice: (1) the number three; and (2) the infinite series of fractions which come after that. So pi consists of two parts. Really, why is 3 followed by an infinitely long series of fractions? Does this serve a structural purpose for the operation of the cosmos? He is correct however when he says God's attributes must be in agreement with logical possibility.

[@richardmooney383]

The assumption that reality is intelligible relies on the prior assumption that it is real, which leads to a circular argument.

[@semrana1986]

God does exist and He doesn't give a damn about how you spent your lunch money?

[@steevemcintyre4035]

@Ruby Badilla Very nicely written, Ruby. How come I'm not aware of the identity of the world teacher? Be blessed 🌹

[@steevemcintyre4035]

@Ruby Badilla All right. I'll check it out. 😊

[@freesatellite3204]

Right.

[@redpillpusher]

god is a perv

[@mariachlin]

What is the reason that we, human beings, be able to descern God?

[@richardmooney383]

Pi is an irrational number in the decimal counting system we happen to use but would surely not be if we used a counting system based on pi or two times pi or three times pi.... It's irrationality is just an accident of arithmetic.

[@richardmooney383]

So - the man in the do-collar can use metaphysics to prove that God, or something like Him, exists, surprise, surprise!

[@ΕμμανουηλΠετρουλακης-ψ5λ]

Quantum fields and vacuum are in NO WAY necessary.

[@aaronhow2568]

Great series here! :)

[@bipolarbear9917]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus (341-270 BCE)

[@Modus07]

Ah, theodicy, my old friend, we meet again! I am not sure that we can consider good and evil as ontological categories in the same way we can consider omnipotence and omniscience. They are moral categories relative to the experience and moral constituency of human beings, we cannot project them upon God. Moreover, a finite, contingent being cannot make an absolutist assertion about the good and evil of any object or event because it does not have the requisite absolute vantage point from which to make the judgment to begin with. It would require the omniscience to even observe the connections between the events, to make the moral judgment. We are seeing disparate, flickering pixels on the screen, we need to see the entire screen to make any sense of all of it.

[@ibperson7765]

When is he going to get into the surprising and ever-increasing evidence for Biblical prophecy and historical resurrection

[@4L3PH4]

Photons are always waves, as indeed are all "particles".

[@rl7012]

photons do not exist.

[@merrybolton2135]

If religious people say they believe evolution is true , then Adam was not the first human on the planet .So that means sin does not exist, no fruit of knowledge . It then means Christ did not die on the cross for your sins Hallelujah I am not a sinner what a relief From a primate

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Conscious awareness experiences God free will.

[@zeltawho7071]

IOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO KEY TO OPEN UP MULTI-UNIVERSE AS WELL AS MORE. GREETINGS YEE OF WHO STILL THINKETH YEE ARE YOUR PHYSICAL BODY UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THAT YEE ARE MUCH MORE AS YEE ARE A CREATION FORCE WITHIN YEE AS ALL HAVE THE SAME BEGINNING FROM FORM TO FORMLESS LIMITLESS WE ARE ALL ONE

[@garypowell4565]

Well now, either we got here by accident or an intelligent being greater than ourselves created us and all that is around us. For such a vast and diverse material and living surrounding, one would be a fool to think it is all just an accident.

[@invisiblechurch9621]

No such thing as an accident, cause and effect

[@linasmarcinkevicius]

Thank you! :)

[@boooringlearning]

I think this documentary lacks of muslim philosophers, I know there are no many but you can try to ask them too (e.g., Edip Yuksel).

[@imabeast7397]

God of Abraham says he does NOT change.

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

It took me a couple of years of somewhat sustained reading and watching but I feel I have a decent grasp on this topic now and have formed my own tentative conclusions on this matter. I say tentative because I, of course, know barely fuck all about anything. And neither does Robert Kuhn or his many distinguished and highly educated guests. But just because we know zero what really exists outside of our universe (if anything at all) that does not mean we can't engage in the task anyway. Humanity as a species seems to have unlimited potential. But then so do all creatures. Evolution shows this. But humans have gone in ways unknown to any other life forms on this planet. Our capabilities and potential far outweigh our weaknesses on this planet. We utterly dominate it. We win. Now what? But we do have invisible enemies. What the ancients put down to gods and demons we now know as viruses. So we do have powerful invisible enemies after all. And not just viruses but our own unstable minds and mortality frighten us. Mental, physical and economical health are very precious commodities to to the leaders and people of nations. A healthy successful nation is made up of healthy successful people.

[@redpillpusher]

"what does god need with a starship?"

[@dajuice4200]

the Flash has a car, maybe it's a good way to get around

[@TisEYEthe1]

Why does God need humans to worship and praise him? What's the point of that need?

[@dudeman5303]

@@TisEYEthe1 yeah tbh I am an atheist so I tend to see those as human creations anyways. The idea that this superior being/force would create humans just to make them worship him/her/them is ridiculous. I personally think if there was a god, they would be above those types of downsides humans have (or whatever you want to call them, human traits etc. It isn't necessarily a "downside" depending on how you look at it)

[@xspotbox4400]

Anybody can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it from the ground. If God need to prove a point, he can create a steep slope nearby, a rope and another stone so heavy, place it on top of the slope, attach to rope and push slightly, so it roll down on other side and pull first stone up at the same time. Mind over matter.

[@billytyson5458]

If there was a God it would be simple. Since there is no God it is impossible.

[@nts821]

Why metaphysician, not metaphysicist?

[@clueless00003]

God is outside of metaphysics.

[@asielnorton345]

anyone who thinks metaphysics can't prove God, has never read Spinoza. There is no logical argument against it. People just don't like Spinoza's God. But not liking it has noting to do with the logic of the metaphysics.

[@lucianmaximus4741]

Kudos

[@doraannekey5228]

Oh well simply...One Thing Leads To Another‼️

[@jeremyduguay3640]

Nope metaphysics can’t do anything with things that do not meta exist. So is the best thinking the world is capable of now? New ideas for movies and sci-fi books? Here’s a book title Aliens Vs God

[@profzen1]

Good

[@Caligula138]

Speak to Jason Reza Jorjani!

[@lowereastsideastrologist7769]

Jorjani has mentioned the original Indo-European peoples groups upheld a belief called Mithraism (which Romans believed) which regarded the highest figure to be Mithra, the mediator between the god of GOOD and and the god of EVIL. In other words, they placed TRUTH above all. (see his "Thinking Allowed" interview on youtube).

[@JimHabash]

I watch him on New Thinking Allowed Here's a good one I liked kzbin.info/www/bejne/hICboX-il6ilbKs

[@Caligula138]

Thinking Allowed with Jeffery Mishlove is an excellent source of information in both its iterations the 70s and 80s episodes when he had hair 😁 and the 21st century episodes are on par with Robert Lawrence Kuhn Closer to Truth.... truly two of the greatest intellectual shows going on

[@syedahmed5295]

Al Koran said IF is word OF EVELL ,believers never says IF

[@garypowell4565]

Young Kwi ChI Cain's Search for Knowledge Lee-You: Why are you following me? What do you want? AH! You are from the temple. Have you nothing better to do? Young KCC: I was instructed to follow you. Lee-You: Come now. You can think of a better story than that. Young KCC: It is the truth, Lee-You. I am doing what Master Po told me to do. Lee-You: So wise a man, said to follow me. Why? Young KCC: He said you could teach me a great knowledge. Lee-You: (Laughs) But I cannot read or write. What can I teach anyone? Young KCC: Master Po said you had found both great wisdom and great happiness. And if I observed you, I might learn what they are. Lee-You: (Laughs again) Such a fine joke Master Po has played on you. Sending you to tramp on the dusty roads, after an old man, who does the only thing he can do. He lives every day from its start, to its end, and hopes there may be another to follow. Young KCC: There must be more? Lee-You: Nothing more, my son. But if you choose to think there may be more, you are welcome to follow.

[@joedavis4150]

Robert, if you are honestly looking for God, it is remiss to not do the simple Act of ingesting cogent doses of a few entheogenic plants, for crying out loud. To not do this is to be narrow-minded.

[@lowereastsideastrologist7769]

It's like asking if Metaphysics can discern Peter Pan.

[@RadicOmega]

all due respect did you even listen to the video?

[@theoldpilgrimway9129]

The metaphysical search for the ultimate reality is not a contingent being, rather something or someone that necessarily exists that undergirds the nature of existence and reality. In other words, they are talking about something that must exist, not should or wish or even want or hope. No matter what you hope or want, they are concerned with the truth.

[@kevinvallejo7047]

It can discern fictional characters. Look it up.

[@daniel-zh4qc]

In steps Alexius Meinong....

[@marcpadilla1094]

They didnt have much of a choice.

[@Malcolm701]

First describe what you actually mean by 'god'- if you mean a superior entity, apart from us, who watches over us and 'loves' us then there is no god.

[@iok2299]

earth concoiusness is the powerful source of energy that can do magical things humans are using the conciousness of the sun done

[@RadicOmega]

BRIAN LEFTOW!!!!

[@4L3PH4]

Only approximations of pi exist.

[@NaturalFuture]

Robert, I don't agree with Father Spitzer when he said that "an unconditioned existence is uncaused because it isn't dependent upon [pre-existing] conditions." Even for God to be uncaused requires certain conditions to exist a priori which enable Him to exist without beginning.

[@boooringlearning]

woww

[@georgegrubbs2966]

He’s wrong. He assumes that God created all reality and being including our observable universe. Not so. There is an eternal, infinite substrate Universe from which trillions of universes could have emerged. The is the ground of being. There is no need to invent an invisible, immaterial God that does things. Our observable universe is intermixed in the substrate universe. Nature is all; all is nature.

[@ingenuity168]

If there is a God, it is an It.

[@invisiblechurch9621]

I would describe it as a machine but that is just a metaphor

[@aqilshamil9633]

It She He

[@williammabon6430]

God has given us a gift. Let us share our present with the world. God do exist and the proof is in mathematics. Here is that proof. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1. This equation says a number, or any number is a set in space that change with space. It reveals how one number is different from any other number. In Number Theory this equation delineates the process as to how we count or measure anything using numbers. In physics this equation reads: Gravity is matter changing with space. It combines Relativity/fractured space with Quantum mechanics/spatial expansion and information/complete symmetry of a space. How dose God fit into this equation? This equation is God's mathematical name. God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God. Breakdown: God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore, man is a fraction of God Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind. Plus (+) in math means to combine or add something with something. There is only one God. In math the number 1 means something, or someone is complete and individual from all the rest. Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed (delta) With (+) God (1). Scientific Method Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4 Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist, He should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1)) Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of 3 domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exists otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. I wrote a research doc looking deeper into this matter. Anyone who wants a free copy can contact me at: [e-mail] God's Mind Is Man Changed With God

[@morganandreason]

I have such mixed feelings about this channel. On the one hand, there are some great interviews with serious scientists like Andrei Linde and Leonard Susskind, but on the other hand there are these God-themed interviews where the subjects predominantly seem to have made up their mind that deities exist or might exist. It's more fruitful to ask these God-related questions to people like Susskind and Linde. You won't get serious answers about God by asking them in a manner that begs the question.

[@xspotbox4400]

@zempath Are you asking a single person about his delusions or a bunch of people why they all share same delusion?

[@JimHabash]

I appreciate the opinions of these folks, sometime without predisposition on my part NOT knowing where they're coming from helps me to get more out of it, regardless of if I buy it or not. Seems fresh to hear. Speaking of .. I wrote about my miracle NDE friend who died and was sent back up higher on this feed,I know its long, give it a read if you dare. My wife thinks my friend is full of it. But we all know he was dead in the cath lab on the carm he fixes for 42 minutes, and the entire staff says he should be a vegetable at best. He was an atheist at the time of his death. Said God sent him back- for his wife. He said this side is not reality.

[@doring4579]

🌎⏳🌎🙏♥️

[@thomasridley8675]

Why would your concept of a god be any different from all the other concepts of gods we have had ? If a god requires man to accomplish anything in our physical ream. Its certainly not a god that we have to be concerned about or answer to.

[@mikel4879]

Can Phisics discern dog ?

[@zeltawho7071]

IOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO KEY TO OPEN UP MULTI-UNIVERSE AS WELL AS MORE. GREETINGS YEE OF WHO STILL THINKETH YEE ARE YOUR PHYSICAL BODY UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THAT YEE ARE MUCH MORE AS YEE ARE A CREATION FORCE WITHIN YEE AS ALL HAVE THE SAME BEGINNING FROM FORM TO FORMLESS LIMITLESS WE ARE ALL ONE

[@NaturalFuture]

Robert, it's too bad you interrupted Brian Leftow when he said: "If God exists necessarily, He's immaterial, because nothing material---." I wonder what he would've said after that. Perhaps something quite revealing. Please restrain yourself from interrupting your guests while they're speaking.

[@ikaeksen]

If God cant make a rock he cant lift, then God cant make a lift able to rock either (acdc-highway to hell suggested for this experiment). And if this dont make you laugh, God cant even make humans with humour! lool

[@cindyoverall8139]

Metaphysician? That’s new… It used to be meta physicist. God is in our DNA.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Gods and Religions are invented!

[@captainzappbrannagan]

Metaphysics (noun) abstract theory with no basis in reality.

[@jrd33]

Metaphysics is our attempt to understand "reality".

[@captainzappbrannagan]

@@jrd33 It is wasted time. and how the religious indoctrination holds onto peoples delusions.

[@matthewmaguire8852]

ZappBrannigan23 Okye dokey....Now what is the basis for this so called reality?...,Have to “think” about it...right? Maybe this reality is abstract

[@mikeayensu-mensah5606]

@@captainzappbrannagan if you think reality exists and functions in any way, you've got some metaphysical presuppositions

[@captainzappbrannagan]

@@mikeayensu-mensah5606 WTF are you smokin? If you don't accept there's a reality then just dig a hole fill with twinkies and stay there.

[@paulomiguel6484]

This is somewhat like a slave that though never having seen his master is well aware of his powers over him and then comes up with stories trying to make his life a little bit easier .

[@tomorrowmaynevercome3171]

This video is misleading.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Son of Dust.... why do you say this video is misleading?

[@redpillpusher]

there was much word salad in this episode.

[@johnbrowne8744]

Not much help I see. If intelligence and logic were to reveal a "God" most scientists would believe. Obviously, that's not the case. An experience of "God" is required for most us to understand. Fortunately, all will have this experience upon physical death. If you really want a "head start" interview someone who's had the experience of "God" like Rupert Spira. He's not far from Oxford too.😊

[@johnbrowne8744]

@Ruby Badilla Lot of words. Can't wait until you have your experience brother.😊

[@mikecarpenter487]

Has anyone proven god exists-and which god? Human's have had thousands of years to come up with a definition of "god" and they all differ. Why, in the 21st Centur,y do you think this is such an issue? Such a failure in thinking. so tired now ?

[@redpillpusher]

farther febreeze spritzer = fallacious, fallacious and fallacious.