I took humanities for four years has a young men. I was the worst one i got the lowest grades and struggle the most. But yet i became a critical thinker and I consider myself very intelligent.

You could've been a little more impartial. An heir of a pompous attitude of righteousness the whole time was kind of annoying. I think you reduce the free will arguments to simple easy-to-argue premises.

6:17, rather simple actually. Every religion was created an invented by Men to spread messages and morality throughout the ages and keep it enforced and importanlty to preserve the concept of an Ideal Man. Further, reality and existence is objective and reason brings forth rational morality such as the Golden Rule. Since this is objective people from vastly different cultures, being people and wanting to survive, reached the same conclusion. This implies obviousy, that there is an objective good.

4:01, mythology has an awkward obsession over proving Man's mind impotent and his senses invalid.

22:53, would you not be violating your principle of loyalty?

7:02, We ought to judge an action by the degree to which it progesses the actor's singular individual happiness and judge it unfavourably to the degree to which it invovles the energy of others to make.

Moral principles are the only absolutes, that and reality exists. From these the basis of ethics are derived. Utilitarianism holds no absolutes and therefore is not even achievable. It cannot be done, you are gauged by how close you get to it. Yet a value that holds the value in no value is not a value in itself.

19:30, perhaps the mind constructs the concept of wishing to press the top button for those seconds prior to being cognitively aware of this choice. This would still, in theory, hold that the person is deciding and using free will.

14:10, yes humans are no doubt influenced by their background however, a human being is a sentient being. They have a subjective experience, which we call here qualia. This much you'll agree. If he has a subjective experience, then there must be a "he" to experience it. There must be a self, a being capable of reasoning and thought in which case he can act. This is genreally pointed to as personality or "ego". This is unique to ever single person and is under their individual control outside of biological and cultural biases. This is where free will originates, within your "self".

7:22, if you suppose there is an all knowing entity then can not His future self not communicate with his present or past self? Surely he must be able to. This solves the issue, as the future entity having seen what you ate communicates supernaturally to the past entity. Hence you had free will and there is an all-knowing being. In function this entity in the past will still know what happens in the future but only after it happened. Imagine time to be a three track tape, the first track is forward motion (future) , the second is backward motion (past) and the third being a supernatural unmoving line which is where this entity lies. In this third line he can go either to the past or the future or the present (by jumping in at one particular point without moving) therefore he is before he is and after he is.

4:49, while it may be induspitable that a future exists before my present time, my action in my present time will create another future that may be in deviance from the original or exactly the same because my present time is the original future's past and as such, a different event would force a seperate future since the original cannot be changed. Therefore, by this arguement man can excercise his free will and physics can remain unchallenged.

Thank you, this lecture has made rationalism easy to understand

Big help. Thanks!

Maybe OK for 5th grade class

The religion of truth By Maudoodi Deals The religion in a philosophical way

This is going to be unkind but it needs to be said. You’re really bad at philosophy. Please don’t make videos any more. You’re going to dumb down the world. You said SO many false things. UGH. You are entirely and completely muddled up between ontology and epistemology. You confuse them entirely. You use laughter inappropriately 99% of the time. You say things completely backwards like “if something works, that makes it true,” when the reality is that “if it’s true, that makes it work.” This is not a slight or subtle different. This is monumentally different. You also seemed to completely fail to recognize how pragmatism is not a separate “theory of truth.” It is an epistemological technique, fully compatible with coherence, that gives additional signal about THE REAL WORLD. Things work because the real world is really there. We expect things to work because we suppose that they must do so, because we theorize that they actually are so. Are you getting this? Pragmatism is useful IF AND ONLY IF past experience can be extrapolated to future experience. And we can only reasonably expect that to be so by assuming uniformity and permanency lasting over some meaningful timescale. And guess what the most pragmatic, Occam’s razor thing we conclude from this expectation that we can predict the future from the past? THAT REALITY REALLY IS REAL! There is no better theory or framework or whatever the heck you want to call it. Despite your doubling down on how we can’t know things because we can’t know reality directly, it is only if reality exists that we can ever expect pragmatism to ever be useful. I wrote the is off the cuff with no editing. It’s probably terrible. But if you are confused and don’t know what I’m getting at, that’s your fault. Maybe I’ll do a rebuttal/critique video someday, and will put some effort into writing a coherent, pragmatic explanation of why we have to assume reality is there even if we can’t know it directly. I’m appalled.

Try to wake up the Western world up.

Truth is the foundational of good, honest, and right living. If truth is tentative and changing all the time, then it never was truth in the first place.

There are absolute truths. To say there are no absolutes is saying there are absolutes 🤪

Yes, truth works and fake things don’t work. Fake things might work for a while, but eventually fake things fail!

We need a standard of truth, a definition, and a purpose for truth. God is the creator and the purpose giver. Jesus says that He is the way, the truth and the life. It is only because of God that we have purpose and truth, yes 👍

This exact spot is where my wife and I held some tropical birds during our honeymoon in February of 2012. Sunsets are beautiful but, a sunrise on this beach is a reminder to me that “joy always comes in the morning” and how beautiful heaven must be. Thank you for sharing.

2

A priori synthetic take that empiricists

By definition

Pragmatic theory (or utilitarianism) has resulted in some of the most devastating and brutal “advances” in human conduct and discoveries. history. For example, it allowed the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in the torture and execution of hundreds of thousands of people and the unspeakable oppression of millions more for many decades. It allowed for trans fat, celebrated from its discovery and for many decades afterward as the cure for food shortages and by extension world hunger, resulting in the slow poisoning of, and the unprecedented epidemic of heart disease for, generations of people over the course of 80 years.

9:20 appeal to emotion does not a make a theory wrong

thank you!

Thanks you explained it well

Yes, I definitely did not get it, so I went on KZfaq to get an understanding.

This was a fantastic lecture, thank you so much!

The answer is that the question "Is it still possible to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god?" Misses one of the central ideas of proccess theology: God in process theology is not omnipotent. Dr. John Cobb discusses this very well in his introductory speech on Process Theology, which can be found in an MP3 format online still. The typical atheist argument follows this line of logic "You cannot have an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god which has grand plan and a world in which great amounts of evil and destruction take place. Those two concepts together are contradicted by the presence of evil and suffering in the world." This is very logical and makes a lot of sense, however in Process Theology the "Almighty" interpretation of God's name is not used, so God is not described as Omnipotent, but rather one that makes nudges here and there. The reason this answers the contradiction of omnipotence, benevolence, and evil existing together is because that logic is only based on the presupposition of an omnipotent god. Thus asking "How can evil and suffering exist in a benevolent God's world who nudges and calls to people to act?" Thus the answer would be "Just because God calls to you, does not mean that you cannot ignore that call." And thus people chose to ignore the opportunities and guidance provided to them, and the world becomes worse every time someone decides to ignore those calls and nudges. This is how it side steps the problem of evil, because the original translations did not emphasize an omnipotent god in the same sense as the new wording.

An essay I have written - ‘The Refutation of Materialism’ - clearly and methodically undermines materialism, by showing it to (1) involve a contradiction in terms and (2) to be incompatible with modern physics. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bNhipZN92bCtmps.htmlsi=EcoE6dgXCv3F1u0m

I know it is a table, because I built designed and shaped the thing. I know the cup exists because I molded it into the shape of a cup to hold water. In other words my mind never shaped anything, what created these shapes was created by my hands working with matter. I know a cat exists because 'mother cat' molded into the of a living kitten. I know 100% that the Earth Moon and Sun exist as round objects because the universe through gravity molded it into their round shape. Just because Kant and a few nutty psychologists say we have no access to physical reality, doesn't make it so. Dear Professor, if you have ever had do a real job, in the real world - then wouldn't get everything back to front.

At the end of the 16th minute, what did you mean when you said conscious experiences aren’t material? Maybe you meant that in the way that a concept is immaterial - like we couldn’t find matter in the world that directly correlates with ‘justice’ or ‘friendship’.

So helpful ❤❤..

That was good info but definitely not a meditation

Great expaination

This helpped me get an A on my religion test which lead to an A in the whole courseeeee!!!

❤

So, argument # 3 goes something like this: why did you take drugs? It was determined by my genetics and past history. Why did you stop taking drugs? It was determined by my genetics and past history. So my genetics and past history makes me take drugs and also makes me stop taking drugs. So, the same factors can cause two completely opposite actions. How does that work ?🤷‍♂

I watched this to study for a religion test tomorrow and I just want to say that I liked this video because it didn't bore me, I didn't want to just turn it off and watch netflic insetad, I actually watched the whole video and I learned from it, so thank you for keeping it interesting.

What a great lecture!!! Appreciate your explanation!!

Things that go bump in the night

Thanks Sir🙏

Thanks for the lectures.

But if all of what Rorty is saying is ...ahem 'true', then does that mean by extension that we have 'truth', absolutely, or is that relative too?

God probably uses natural evil to judge the moral evil in his administration!

Pragmatic theory of knowledge are very American 😂

I suppose it's worth saying that there are different forms of Process Theology. I don't think the problem of evil, particularly natural evil, is solved here. I think this presentation only moves the problem one stage back. Namely, yes I agree that 'process' is a better description than 'things'. And I agree that God is participative in the overall process and only knows what could happen (we need freedom to be fully human). But none of this removes a creator-God's responsibility for creating 'this' process. I think that the answer is around God not being the creator or omnipotent at all, but instead something more like an archetypal loving process in reality, that we interact deeply with. More like a maximally loving Buddha type becoming.