Can Metaphysics Discern God II? | Episode 1705 | Closer To Truth

[@Arunava_Gupta]

Robert Lawrence Kuhn deserves a profuse thanks from all of us for bringing to us one of the most intellectually captivating shows of all time.

[@Ascendlocal]

I couldn't agree more. Where is PBS or the Science Channel, buying this series? This is a winner! A ratings potential like no other.

[@NaturalFuture]

Finally, someone who acknowledges God as being made of a substance! If God is made of one component, I'd say it's reason. This is a substance general enough to include the many other things a God would need to possess the essence Swinburn mentioned: Will, power, knowledge, goodness, action, etc. For, all these are derived of reason. They exist for and because of reason. As for His existence not being contingent upon other things, even that must depend upon and be in harmony with Logic. God's existence is a result of logical possibility. His attributes must be as they are for God to exist. If God acts out of harmony with Logic, the result would be like a positive wave cancelling out a negative wave. For instance, if God destroys Himself, He can't will Himself back into existence; for His will can't exist separately from Him. As for His being unaware of the set of all true statements "because there isn't one," I'm confident that God does know that set. After all, being far more intelligent that are we, isn't it logical to assume that He knows far more about logic, reason, and truth than do we? Obviously. And He knows all about vague statements, because, as the Designer of the human brain, He can read our minds. He knows what we're thinking, and why we think as we do. I agree that humans can discern if there's a God. I disagree that metaphysics can't be used to discern Him. Earlier, it was aaid that metaphysics is a tool useful in investigating the deep workings of existence. It helps us unveil the abstract foundational structures which underly and give rise to the physical things we detect through our senses and technology, and the many invisible ones we as yet can't, except via the mind. I love that you said you're skeptical about skepticism. Very nice, Robert!

[@slawomirjakubek]

Those people who say that you are looking for the God in wrong places are right. Because God is love. And you won't find love in metaphysics, math or brain activity. You won't. To find God you need to find peace and love. To find peace you need to stop following desires of your body. And to find love you need to help someone. You imagine that God is something that He isn't. That is why you are looking for Him in wrong places. Just think about it for a moment: IF GOD IS LOVE HOW CAN YOU FIND HIM BY THINKING? Love is not thinking, love is action. Hope that helps.

[@williamburts5495]

so then you could say God is consciousness since consciousness is a love energy. To be love, is to also know love so knowing and love constitutes consciousness. So God is the supreme loving being.

[@slawomirjakubek]

@@williamburts5495 William Burts Consciousness is not love. Hitler and Stalin had consciousness but it doesn't mean they had love. All people on the world have consciousness but it doesn't mean that they have love. Even evil people have consciousness. To have love is to have good relationships with others. Love, God is in those relationships. Also the Kingdom of Heaven is made out of those relationships. And that is why we are beeing born in this world. To build the Kingdom of Heaven by our good deeds.

[@williamburts5495]

@@slawomirjakubek The highest commandment is " You should love the lord thy God with all your heart, mind, and soul and you shall love thy neighbor as you love thy self". We all have love as a part of us we couldn't love our self if we didn't and the self is the repository of that love.

[@slawomirjakubek]

@@williamburts5495 We all have consciousness. It has been given to us by God as an act of love. Whoever has a consciousness has a relationship with God. That relationship is a consciousness, love and life at the same time. The consciousness has been given to us at the day of our birth and as a consequence of sin will be removed at our death. That relationship is temporary because we have to die.*1 If someone has only that and dies for him it may be the end. But if one wants to leave more he needs to create new relationships with God, by creating new relationships with people. He will live forever because those relationships live forever. Those relationships are eternal because they are God. Relationships based on love live forever, so you live forever with them. That is your reward, your eternal life for the hard work you did on earth. So even if you have that little bit of love given to you by God for free at birth don't think it will save you. The consciousness has been given to you but is going to be taken away. You have a very brief time to create more love by which you can be saved. And even though it is you who love ultimately it is the Love who saves you. That is why when you listen to the teachings of Jesus, the importance of love, and put them in practice at the moment of your death you go to eternal life John 5:24. --------------------------------------------------------- *1 Jesus didn't come to remove death, the death will be removed at the end. Revelation 21:4.

[@williamburts5495]

@@slawomirjakubek I believe by being absolute truth ( God ) everything has a relationship with God eternally since God is the only thing we or anything else can have a relationship with if God is to be absolute truth when we understand this we have knowledge and wisdom.

[@melissaflanary7]

Without a truth in history Its hard to know who you and where your going I am not trying to take away anything but to give

[@davidumeda5516]

Perhaps humans can discern what have been called “signs” of God-an energy, a consciousness, a feeling-but it’s reasonable/logical to assume that creatures cannot fully comprehend their Creator: “ He hath through all eternity been exalted beyond the attributes of His creation, and will ever remain so. No man hath ever known him; no soul hath ever fathomed the nature of His Being.”

[@jeffamos9854]

What are you smoking

[@davidumeda5516]

Jeff Amos Nothing Jeff. How about you? For thousands of years, people from all over the world who have seriously investigated the nature of their own consciousness have made some “interesting” discoveries. However, the vast majority of people today are glued to the external world-cell phones, shopping, sports, celebrities, and so on. Those people will never make those interesting discoveries because they’re focused on the wrong place. I’ve found that the universe holds a lot of secrets, but I have to work quite hard to uncover even a very small number of them. I might be a slow learner...lol.

[@DavidSmith-wp2zb]

I don't find the arguments for anything other than the material world convincing at all. I think you are starting with a presupposition and inducing facts from there. This is not logic, this is in fact illogical. Exploring these questions seems like a waste of time no?

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@DavidSmith-wp2zb “I don't find the arguments for anything other than the material world convincing at all. Sorry but not finding something “convincing” other than the material world is an appeal to metaphysical realities such as absolutes and universals isn’t it? You just totally and utterly refuted yourself. If only the “material” exists then it’s all just ultimately meaningless word games right? Have you even read Nietzsche, Wittgenstein or Camus? Look up appeal to incredulity fallacy!! Everyone starts with metaphysical presuppositions and transcendental categories. Hence metaphysical naturalism. Furthermore, it gets worse because there is actually more evidence that the Easter Bunny and pink fluffy leprechauns exist than that a (random) arbitrary cosmic accident, a cosmic toss of the coin, the meaningless (random) accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea created (Truth), that is created value, the prescriptive laws of logic right? Not to mention [conscious agents/freewill, that is rationality itself] empiricism, the myth of the given, inductive reasoning, morals, ethics, identify over time, the one and the many, art, poetry, literature, music, beauty, meaning, purpose, empathy, compassion and ultimately love, the ultimate axiological!! Furthermore, despite appearances, the “natural sciences” offers no certainty. Decades of progress in the philosophy of science have led us to accept that our prevailing scientific understanding is a limited time offer, valid only until a new observation or experiment proves that it’s not. Equally, it is impossible even to formulate a scientific theory without philosophical presuppositions, that is without metaphysical presuppositions and transcendental categories such as Truth itself, that is value claims, ought claims, absolutes and universals, including abstract, immaterial, invariant conceptual realities such as the prescriptive laws of logic!! The fact is that it turns out to be impossible even to formulate a scientific theory without metaphysics, without first assuming some things we can’t actually prove, such as the existence of an objective reality, conscious agents/FREEWILL, that is RATIONALITY itself, inductive reasoning, identity over time, empiricism the myth of the given, the ultimate axiological etc!! The list goes on. Classical materialism is DEAD!!

[@DavidSmith-wp2zb]

@@georgedoyle2487It's just pointless to debate these people. I will never find religious arguments convincing and they will never find argument against convincing. Its the same as politics, so why bother thinking about it at all one way or the other? You will never get any closer to any truth, period

[@Ploskkky]

The question is not if metaphysics can discern god, but if we can discern metaphysics. :) I love this channel. Thank you for making this available to us.

[@andrewmoran7353]

One of my favorite delights Viewing Closer To Truth 🤔🙈👌👀

[@Tom-mc9ts]

The deeper you go into science the more religion makes sense..... how is that possible and why does my brain struggle to accept that

[@invisiblechurch9621]

Because religions are forms of nature worship

[@fahadbintarek175]

I am also skeptical about people who are not non-skeptical about skepticism.

[@dodgyphilisopher9905]

Hmm... I'm skeptical.

[@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 - 279 BCE)

[@bipolarbear9917]

@@centrenationaldelarecherch6821 Evil, in a general sense, is the opposite or absence of good. It can be an extremely broad concept, although in everyday usage is often used more narrowly to talk about profound immorality and wickedness. Evil is having malicious or selfish intentions. An evil person only cares about themselves, and does not care about the well-being of others.

[@bipolarbear9917]

​@@centrenationaldelarecherch6821 Stop being an idiot. For starters there's zero evidence of god. It's just a human construct of the imagination. You just have to look at how belief systems have developed and evolved throughout history. Tens of thousands of years before any form of Abrahamic religion people believed in animism. Before that they were probably too busy surviving day to day trials of life finding enough food and escaping being preyed on by wild animals. Just the shear number of religions tells you there's something seriously wrong with the idea that this so-called God that's just an anthropomorphized Christian interpretation. The Evolutionary Tree of Religions and Belief Systems: pbs.twimg.com/media/CWLT4lZUEAACRyR.jpg If everything were created by God, then who created God. It's just nonsensical circular reasoning; Turtles all the way down. It's a pointless debate, so don't be a condescending jerk!

[@bipolarbear9917]

@@centrenationaldelarecherch6821 Go f*ck yourself!

[@bipolarbear9917]

@@centrenationaldelarecherch6821 I didn't forget, I just disliked your pointless antagonistic comment instead. You really are the national center of ineptitude. Troll!

[@RubelliteFae]

0:55 "Belief, for me, if ever I could believe, would be the end result." That's a condition of knowledge, not belief.

[@InnerLuminosity]

We are God

[@RadicOmega]

Nagasawa? Swinburne? Van Inwagnen? Absolute Juggernauts

[@chemigue]

Read Immanuel Kant and u will understand that we can not get rid of metaphysic.

[@Raydensheraj]

Then read Spinoza and Hume to actually get your common sense to return.

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@Raydensheraj “Then read Spinoza and Hume to actually get your common sense to return.” Oh the irony!! The problem here is that this betrays a very superficial understanding of Spinoza’s metaphysics because Spinoza made it very clear that he did not equate “God” with nothing more substantive than “nature”. So you’re committing the (Fallacy of Incomplete evidence). According to Spinoza himself….. “The view of certain people that I identify God with nature is quite mistaken” (Spinoza). Sorry! Equally, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg, Spinoza wrote: “As to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken". (Baruch Spinoza). Furthermore, the French philosopher Martial Guéroult, who’s specialty is the history of philosophy, pointed out the term (panentheism), rather than “pantheism”, is more appropriate to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the universe. So what does Spinoza actually have to say about nature and the character of (Jesus) … “The eternal wisdom of God … has shown itself forth in all things, but chiefly in the mind of man, and most of all in Jesus Christ. (Baruch Spinoza) “I do not think it necessary for salvation to know Christ according to the flesh : but with regard to the Eternal Son of God, that is the Eternal Wisdom of God, which has manifested itself in all things and especially in the human mind, and above all in Christ Jesus, the case is far otherwise.” (Baruch Spinoza). Hence why Spinoza was called “the God intoxicated man” By the way you just totally and utterly refuted yourself!! Reference: Spinoza, Correspondence of Benedict de Spinoza, Wilder Publications (March 26, 2009), letter 73.

[@BigDaddyBlais]

I wonder why the topic always has to revolve around God being omnipotent and omniscient instead of simply a conscious power that is far more advanced than we are. Either way the question of why you search for God is important too. In the omniscienct and omnipresent nature of your own mind and imagination do you allow evil, sorrow and hate to reign? Perhaps the search for God should not be aimed at the cosmos but directed at your own universe. One can make many reasonings that suffering and introspection are required for "soul evolution" in an Abrahamian context, that being said, what about God in a context of being our ultimate goal as life? If one contends that God does not exist ... can we instead strive towards becoming this idea of an honorable, all loving and all powerful? Do we seek to be that which we revere?

[@bipolarbear9917]

It's completely obvious by the sheer numbers that orthodox religions and their gods are human constructs. To understand this just check out 'The Evolutionary Tree of Religions and Belief Systems': pbs.twimg.com/media/CWLT4lZUEAACRyR.jpg There are something like 4,300 different surviving religions or belief systems around the World including the 12 major religions which include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Judaism, Confucianism, Bahá'í, Shinto, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism. Many First Nations Peoples have their own creation mythologies that are completely different from the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. For example the original indigenous Australians even today still believe in their 'Dreamtime' creation story of the Rainbow Serpent who is known as Borlung by the Miali people, Dhakkan by the Kuli people, Kajura by the Ingarda people, Goorialla by the Lardil people, Kunmanggur by the Murinbata people, Ngalyod by the Kunwinjku people, Numereji by the Kakadu people, Taipan by the Wikmunkan people, Tulloun by the Mitakoodi, and so on for the hundreds of different tribes located and separated around the Australian continent. The human invention of God is just a way for us intelligent sentient beings to answer what we don't understand; Spinoza's 'God of the gaps'. “The Cosmos is all that is, or was, or ever will be." - Carl Sagan. It's not necessary to have God, because then you have to ask 'who created God?' It just kicks the question up or down another level 'Ad Infinitum'. In other words; the problem of infinite regress, ‘Turtles all the way down’. If one really needs a belief system, Scientific Pantheism is arguably the most coherent. It's NOT in conflict with science, and has no need for anthropomorphic gods of human imagination: i.pinimg.com/originals/db/67/17/db671718240b02ff614911287f464a97.jpg i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/2d/39/c62d39fe96fc59417e235332d98f373f.png i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/6f/87/6d6f87d03fd377870f087431ee228a10.jpg

[@BigDaddyBlais]

@@bipolarbear9917 if God is a human construct then God is a universal construct as humans are universal constructs. I disagree that God is just a God of the gaps. When you ask why or how the universe works mechanically perhaps this statement holds. When we talk about what we should be doing or aspiring towards (purpose) that too brings up the question of God. Applied rather than pure theology/philosophy. I think the question of the self in relation to "God" is more fundamental from our perspective.

[@bipolarbear9917]

​@@BigDaddyBlais I completely disagree with your premise that God has anything to do with 'purpose' or aspiring to something like morality for instance. A person doesn't need to be religious or believe in a God to be moral, ethical, compassionate, empathetic or kind. There's no need for God in any of this. As far as fundamental morality it's built into our biological natural selection, because it enhances our survivability as a species. Homo sapiens used language, cooperation and teamwork for hundreds of thousands of years before we developed the first belief systems, and there's proof of this according to the evidence left behind at ancient grave sites. If there's any grand purpose for our sentient being and intellect, it can be summed up by what Carl Sagan quoted in his book Cosmos, 'We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself'. There's also no need for God in the creation of the Universe or Multiverse, because as I said before, you then must ask what created or caused God. It just becomes an argument of circular reasoning. We already know scientifically that something can be created from nothing with our understanding of the quantum field theory zero-point energy/false vacuum state. Considering the size of the Cosmos, this so-called God sure wasted a lot of space if we are the only intelligent life form that exists in it, and if we're not, why are there no religious texts (the so-called word of God) that mention other intelligent beings in some other part of the Universe? There is zero evidence that any God exists. There are no miracles. Historically, organized orthodox religions have just been a scam to control the gullible and extract wealth from them by using fear tactics. So, the idea of God is a childish belief system for the intellectually lazy, to comfort those afraid of dying and to feed the arrogant who want to live for eternity. It's pure adult fairy stories.

[@BigDaddyBlais]

@@bipolarbear9917 I think there is a need for a belief in something greater than ones self. There is a force of nature that overcomes our greed and selfishness. It's a force that drives us to community and love rather than tribalism and self-interest. We don't know that something can be created from nothing. I am sure it can be argued mathematically but the best mathematicians rely on empirical equations derived from physical experiments. Why do you say Grand purpose? You mean there was an intent before the creation of life? Ie a driving force or physical laws? I am speaking person to person, where do we want the planet to go? Not all life reveres life in the same way or even cares. That force or drive that makes us strive towards something good and just is a part of life and the universe. Is it pre-willed? Are we the will moving it forward? To you content free will? It stands to reason that a greater being than us, which probabilistically has or will exist, will have a more developed sense of this ability (evolutionarily or through our will which I guess has to be the same thing if there is no God right). It all depends on how you are trying to see God. As an almighty being? As another incarnation of life that created us? As an ethical concept and force in life. I would love to chat more but maybe in a DM? There are many interesting points being brought up here but maybe too much at one time to really dive deep.

[@bipolarbear9917]

​@@BigDaddyBlais I already hinted that I do believe in something greater than myself, just not any of these pre-packaged ideas that have their roots in organized orthodox religions. Scientific Pantheism seems to make the most sense, because it revers Nature, the Cosmos itself, and it's not in conflict with science. It needs no anthropomorphic god, or fairy stories about heaven. It has no doctrine, or dogma, and it's completely up to the individual how they want to interpret it. In fact the way I see it, the ancient animist and first nations people's belief systems are far more truthful, selfless, less greedy, and more in harmony with nature than any of the Abrahamic Christian religions. And there's no force driving us towards love and community, because love from a psychology viewpoint is primarily an emotion that's fundamental for higher order animals that must take care of their young for them to survive. The emotion of love is able to extend from that to other individuals that happen to bond with someone. Community is also a survival strategy that has been naturally selected for, and reinforced genetically because those are the kinds of animals or individuals that are more likely to survive than lone solitary creatures of the same species. It's completely understood by modern science. There's no great mystery or supernatural requirement needed. The idea of God the way that it's taught by religious elders and priests is always far too anthropocentric. Just one look at the vastness of the Cosmos, should be evidence enough that we humans are not necessarily special, other than we've been lucky enough to develop into some kind of sentient being. We're far from a so-called God's ultimate or perfect creation, because we are capable of evil, unnecessary violence and war. We're just an emergent result of a happy confluence of random but suitable physics, chemistry, biology and psychology. There's no evidence of any destiny, even though there's plenty of debate about freewill, and what is consciousness. If one has an open mind and really studies what we know so far, there's zero evidence of any paranormal, supernatural being, and if there was, what created it? You're left with exactly the same enigmatic conundrum. It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, and it always will be, because the more we know, the more we learn how much more we don't know. It just presents more question exponentially. There's no need for an almighty god. 'The Cosmos is all that is, or was, or ever will be'. Just use Occam's Razor.

[@ianchamblee9599]

So in other words, God speaks "creation" and creation is mapped by the equations that make up creation. Sounds paradoxical and rational at the same time

[@paxanimi3896]

His description of god is amazing. How does he know all that about god ?

[@hooliogoolio4446]

No lol. The question is how do YOU know all that about God lol

[@paxanimi3896]

hoolio goolio. What do you mean ? I said nothing about god. He did.

[@DavidSmith-wp2zb]

No two people on earth have the same notion of god. Doesn't that seem suspiciously dubious? Even one pope to the next does not agree. Dubious

[@paxanimi3896]

David Smith . Right, a very elusive god.

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@DavidSmith-wp2zb “No two people on earth have the same notion of god.” “Doesn't that seem suspiciously dubious?” Nope!! It’s not dubious at all!! Scientists have disagreed on the finer points of logical positivism for years hence our current methodological naturalism and falsificationism. It does not logically follow that they were all wrong does it? Look up fallacy of composition. Or parts whole fallacy as it’s commonly known!! Furthermore, according to the famous author and Oxford professor C. S. Lewis….. “If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake” (C.S. Lewis). The irony and the absurdity is that atheists and so called left wing “liberals” pride themselves on being more “freethinking” and more “liberal” minded than everyone else!! But as C.S. Lewis points out, in reality, if you are Christian you are actually [more liberal] and [more freethinking] than the militant atheist as you are free to have lots of different denominations and lots of free discussions about the finer points without being cancelled and losing your livelihood or having your family threatened for not submitting to cancel culture!! Equally, you are free to think that a transcendental outlook and all religions, even the strangest ones including pagan religions contain some elements of truth and a genuine attempt to ground metaphysics, that is a genuine attempt to ground Truth and value. According to C. S. Lewis…. “When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view” (C.S. Lewis).

[@zelmoziggy]

I’d finish discerning God I before worrying about discerning God II.

[@havenbastion]

God is real as a pattern in a mind and there are at many as there are people who have thought about it. Whether they have an external referent is a separate question. All ideas of god include ineffable characteristics and are therefore indistinguishable from fiction. No version of god can be shown to be possible, much less plausible, much less actual. People typically skip the first two bits entirely.

[@jmanj3917]

10:41 Yessir...lol. If metaphysics wasn't arguing both sides, then it wouldn't be metaphysics, would it?

[@vandevil8193]

Basic epistemology: gather all evidences, reasoning, coherence, methods and perspectives you could get your hands on, and beware of the ways skeptical questions are posed. I want to point out a few things in these discussions. 1. Evidences, methods, perspectives: Why purposely avoid spiritualism method of subjectivity? (Give meditation a try, man! And the suppressed body of sciences. Yes, we know they exist). Why are naturalists so obsessive with using only objective perception that everyone know only reflecting the parts of reality that our few provided-by-nature sensory organs receiving, given a huge part of reality that we don't have the physical faculties to perceive. 2. Skepticism: Issue of certainty: there is almost no 100% perfectly logical justification of any knowledge (exception: I think therefore I am), we make do with the almost reasonable justification for every knowledge; Hume's skeptical issue: that retrospective viewpoint is so Hume's skepticism.

[@mark.J6708]

What if God created our universe specifically to be dynamic. If God is God such a being is beyond our sentient abilities to box in, but we can deduce things about God by the way things occur or don't occur. If God is dynamic within this universe God might "cheat" a little on himself/herself etc... to help things along that God believes still have a role in this universe, or rather that still retain the potential to have a role or earn the right to have a role. God could also choose to specifically not be omniscient within the confines of our universe because being such would remove the parameters of which were set when God created our Universe. For a God that creates Universes fudging a bit or helping just a bit wherever such a God chooses is not insynchronic. Why, How? Heh, a God that can create universes can do as said God wishes. Such a God would certainly not be bound by Laws created by itself nor any law discovered by one of many sentient beings within a giant universe full of stars and rocks.

[@mark.J6708]

When you meet God, ask God if God can beat him/her- whatever self at Chess. The valid answer is yes and no. Fun to ponder is it not?

[@islamisamess6160]

How does the law of logic affect the Trinity?

[@rl7012]

It doesn't affect it.

[@BobHamiltonnewradio]

The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao as we try to define God...I sometimes think what the world would be like if there were no mystery or quest to understand God...suppose we wake up tomororw and walk outside and there is God showing himself in the sky...and being God he is able to recognize and communicate with us as individuals....so he's here to end the mystery so we can ask him any questions...Now that we know he exists we got that question answered...so next, why I am here...he answer s...what is my assignment. He answers...Is there eternal life...yes....is there a heaven and is the joyous place we here it is...yes...no suffferening, only eternal joy....thanks God...so now what?...First of all what I am doing here..take me to that place of non-suffereing and eternal joy immediately...so life becomes meaningless and uneceesary....no, I believe the quest is the meaning of life...working through this manifestation of God in a time and space existence is an important part of life...and learning to see all around me and taking a journey to find God is what we are doing here....So, no...I'm not ready for the big guy in the sky to be up there everytime I look up....I am loving the trip to get there...to a Christ and God consciousness. Just like the plant grows from the seed it's seems to be that's the way of existence....thank you thank you thank you for this great series...I cannot begin to tell you how much it is helping me on my way...

[@cvsree]

We should just believe in ourself. Not to be mistaken to being arrogant. Kind of opposite. Yoga says: Your true SELF is God. You just have to drop your chronic thinking 😃 Consciousness is God. Every living being is a reflection of God in an imperfect mirror Read "be as you are" by David Goodman

[@igor.t8086]

E1705 (i.e. part II) >> E1704 (i.e. part I) | ">>" == "better than", or, ">>" == "I liked it more" 😉

[@sharonlee7111]

Seek the Lord your God with all your heart soul💖🙏🇮🇱

[@larrylutsky181]

I'd prefer to seek God with my mind. Never stop thinking for yourself. That's what cults ask of you.

[@anikettripathi7991]

More we focus more we are surely to find him. But problem is depth . He is so deep inside everthing that only our consciousness can reach, but it is not possible for consciousness to comeback because it finds own source and entangles to absolute. And we loose consciousness permanently.

[@mushtaqsheikh2230]

Closer to truth or meditation one of a same

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Language discovers meaning of God's fullness.

[@amirkhalid5449]

Can metaphysics discern God? What means "God"? What means "discern"?

[@richardmooney383]

I'm not sure, I could be wrong , but I have a suspicion that God is supposed to be insubstantial. So, He can't have a substance or consist of a substance. Substances follow the laws of science. God doesn't. In my understanding substances are supposed to follow the laws of God, not the other way round. Swinburne seems to want it both ways here, as usual.

[@kwillie999]

IF YOU LIKED GOD YOU'RE GONNA LOVE GOD 2: THE GODDENING

[@ingenuity168]

If there is a God, my definition of it is different from that of the bible 's.

[@DavidSmith-wp2zb]

No two people on earth have the same notion of god. Doesn't that seem suspiciously dubious? Even one pope to the next does not agree. Dubious

[@ingenuity168]

@@DavidSmith-wp2zb Absolutely. Humans believe in thousands of gods. Which is the right or true one or is there even a true one at all.

[@richardmooney383]

God cannot be all knowing and all powerful. If he was all knowing he would know the future and therefore be unable to change it, or it would no longer be the future he knew previously.

[@rl7012]

God does not know the future. He knows all the infinite possibilities of what a future may be, but He does not know the future. The reason is not that God can't know it, but that in order to render as much free will as possible to his children, God has not determined what the future will be. But if God wanted to know the future He could easily know it, but why would God want to know the future when He chooses that His creations must have the freedom to create too. God knows His creations are loved and safe in eternity so why would the want to pre determine any given Earth bound future?. God knows the ultimate future anyway.

[@HatRSol]

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

[@antidotes1999]

BURN.

[@HatRSol]

@@antidotes1999 He is The Almighty Creator who will reward the believers in Paradise with that which no eye had seen nor ear had heard nor passed on anyone's imagination; And it is He who will cause those who die disbelieving in him to BURN in Hellfire for eternity, and replace their burnt skin with fresh one immediately so that they feel the torment. REMEMBER, WHERE YOU WILLEND UP IS THE CHOICE THAT YOU DO MAKE HERE, BEFORE YOU DIE.

[@antidotes1999]

​@@HatRSol I believe in the god who became flesh, bro. Jesus Christ. The Only. The Word. Peace be upon you

[@HatRSol]

@@antidotes1999 May you be guided to believe and worship the God of Jesus, peace be upon him. It is idolatry to worship a prophet, and Jesus never claimed (himself) to be divine. Sorry to be persistence but it hurts to see people going astray while believing they're on the path to heavens. Peace be upon you Mateus

[@antidotes1999]

@@HatRSol It's fine. Sorry for the first comment as well

[@publiusovidius7386]

Would have been better if there would have been interviews with scientists who question the very validity of the basic concepts theistic metaphysicians use: essences, necessity, contingency, etc. They're using archaic, meaningless ideas to flesh out and justify an imaginary being they think ought to exist.

[@jeffneptune2922]

I'm sure the metaphysicians would just say the tools and concepts of science are just as "archaic" if not more so than their reasoning methods when it comes to the question of God. It is quite possible there are realms of reality and knowledge that will be forever beyond our comprehension.

[@publiusovidius7386]

@@jeffneptune2922 And the scientists would have pointed out the obvious difference. The scientific method has yielded major progress in understanding the universe. Metaphysics has yielded nothing of consequence. Metaphysicians agree on nothing.

[@jeffneptune2922]

@@publiusovidius7386 Again, the metaphysicians would say scientists have made absolutely zero progress on the topic at hand, i.e. the question of God's existence. In fact, they would argue, science will never be able to speak on the issue no matter how far it advances in the future. Somewhat like teaching a dog calculus.

[@publiusovidius7386]

@@jeffneptune2922 Quite the contrary. Scientists have made enormous progress in discrediting former religious claims about the nature of the universe. Metaphysicians have made many explanations of physical processes. Which have been shown to be false. That tilts the scale away from the idea of God. At least as articulated by any of the religions.

[@publiusovidius7386]

@@jeffneptune2922 lol. Metaphysics is like a dog chasing its tail. Futility.

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

When Swinburne discusses science he sounds like a genius. When he discusses metaphysics he sounds like a madman. One is based on observation and experiment. The other on wishful thinking.

[@lironlmeirovitch880]

If god is all than we live in god and god where is god's limit the time or physical limit...my brain ahhh

[@georgedoyle2487]

First and foremost the core of Christianity lies in the idea that the concept “GOD” is intangible, inexplicable and is a mystery and that Christs message of peace and love is purely persuasive and never coercive. It’s an invitation to love not an invitation to judge. Christs message was meant to be a proposal not an unfair and unattainable imposition!! One of the tenets of Christianity is that what is ultimate and personal/God is a [mystery/mystical] in nature and is both transcendent and Immanent which means that we all contain that immanent divine spark within us whilst being constantly drawn to the transcendent. So our real self is God like in a sense. What is ultimate and personal is in us and we are in Him!! Even science itself is a metaphysical project in that it is a quest for the holy grail of what is ultimate and true right? The irony and the absurdity is that most forms of organised atheism are attempts to fashion God surrogates. In other words, one of the paradoxes of contemporary atheism and left wing ideology is that it’s a flight from a genuinely godless world. It is a flight away from relativism, a flight away from moral subjectivism, that is a flight away from materialism, fatalism and epistemological nihilism!! According to the Nobel prize winner Sir William Bragg…. “Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - (Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics). Equally, the fundamental nature of [MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM] is first and foremost a mystery. This also happens to be the first tenet of the Orthodox Church (Ware 1979, p. 11). Reference: Ware, K. (1979), The Orthodox Way, (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press)

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

No

[@stoya2s]

Meta-fisician or meta- physicist?🤔

[@MrRamon2004]

The creator is there, discern god? nobody can do that, discern god is discerning are on life, something science don't have any idea what is, the creation the universe is a process between two forces darkness and white energy I identify are creator as white energy (light) In this life and the next one stay en the light.

[@DavidSmith-wp2zb]

Schellenberg's rejection of naturalism is preposterous. Basically reduces to...I reject A because I already believe B. How absurd that he can speak like a professional with a straight face thinking like that. ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL!

[@Raydensheraj]

Methodological Naturalism destroys Metaphysical claims so profoundly that this episode is just not justified to even exist....

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Utter nonsense.

[@aaronseldes767]

I'm sorry to upset you metaphysics is spiritual and theres physical and spiritual and spiritual is not the same as G-d neither is physics you cant know G-d but what hes not becuase hes woven in and more and more lgiht of G-d will be revealed in a way time travel will definately be possible but one has to try to understand and ask a big rabbi what that means that no one can understand G-d becuase I'm not on the high enough level to explain.

[@AudioPervert1]

Can hoodwink science be avoided ?