@bananabread119 the basis of philosophy rests on the shoulders of these giants! you want to do programming without axiomatic logic? what would godel of had to work off of? you spit at gods that you have no understanding of.
Arguing about the nature of God is certainly within the realm of philosophy, is that all it is? I didnt see anyone claiming that
as a child one will question what anyone else truly knows' and if one has read Meno' by Plato and has applied it to the senses one will know the nature to physics and the geometry within the minds capabilties to reason logical suppositions'
He is clearly introducing and then discussing the importance of logic for thomistic philosophy and theology (0:35) and an overview of whatever course he is lecturing on. What is confusing about this for everyone? He is a philosophy professor discussing a very specific topic... that so happens to have some bearing on theology. At 3:00 he starts a summary of the prologue...
This is mainly directed at @bananabread, MCTMD, lance, georgesbarras,
@bevay Theology' "Theological" Theory In Logic or God' as a catch phrase to the mere fact that anything exists' an agnostic knows that God is a redundant argument' philosophical interpretation attempts to define an intrinsic world view' logic and literacy have everything to do with intuitive impulses within any self education and the existential world of mans vanity transferred to the material world' the despotism of instinctive natures within survival' conditioned within mans laws'
@DrFruedienslip That paragraph contains not a single complete sentence nor a single coherent thought. I'll give it to you that it is actually quite an aesthetically pleasing jumble of nonsense.
@bevay Quite frankly I dont really give a darn' do you know what it means' but hey what do you mean' the question still remains' what is within the point to any philosophy? Philosophy can be seen this way' how one lives life' so what is any question? Whatdoes rhetoric truly imply? What does anyone truly seek? What is the point within any realization toany philosophical statement? ill give you a clue' its context as context is the key to any sense within literacy' whichthey dont teach in colledge
@bevay Quite frankly I dont really give a darn' do you know what it means' but hey what do you mean' the question still remains' what is within the point to any philosophy? Philosophy canbe seen this way' how one lives life' so what is any question? Whatdoes rhetoric truly imply? What does anyone truly seek? What is the point within any realization toany philosophical statement? ill give you a clue' its context as context is the key to any sense within literacy' whichthey dont teach in colledge
@bevay Authoritarian Superiority is backards. However, this relatees to what might be known as a question mark' to what one actually experiences and to what one conjures within any thought within reason or recognition' Contex has everything to do with expressions to actual physical experiences'
To be a true philosopher one must live witin secluion for a long time and not be subjected to the influence within any and all suppostion or theoretical conjecture' is that a bid with a turd in thine eye; ok letsstep back for a monent and ask the question' whats really going on round here? listen to some Yes. ive seen all good People and then you'll know what philosophical interpretation is all about'
@bananabread119 You don't need to curse. Incivility doesn't help one's case. I think your definition of God is incoherent as you claim because of your irrational definition of omnipotence. It is unfortunately shared by many irrational theists. But not by rational theists.
@bananabread119 You're quite correct that you can't derive an "ought" from a purely physical "is" alone, but Hume's distinction there is made only within the context of his materialism/physicalism which it is quite possible he could be wrong about. One could derive an "ought" from a spiritual "is" if there is such a thing, which Hume argued there isn't. But Hume's arguments are no good, they are shown to be circular in C. S. Lewis's "Miracles; A Preliminary Study." (1947)
@bananabread119 Um, no, though it may be true that any possible universe containing "matter and energy" may have to abide by the 1st law of thermodynamics, which may be because that's part of how we define "matter and energy" that doesn't mean that every possible universe has what we've defined as "matter and energy." However, there can be nothing aside from the fundamental laws of thought. The rules of logic and scientific laws are not the same thing.
@bananabread119 No sir, the laws of physics and thermodynamics are not fundamental like unto the fundamental laws of thought. It is completely possible to build internally consistent mathematical models that completely disregard and/or contradict the laws of physics. It is quite possible to conceive of an alternate universe where the laws of physics are different than they happen to be here, but not the fundamental laws of thought. They apply to all possible worlds, others are inconceivable.
@bananabread119 Aristotle didn't MAKE the fundamental laws of logic. He merely formalized them. Those laws of logical thinking that really are fundamental haven't changed from the beginning of time and never will.
@bananabread119 First of all, yes I could say that God obeys some principles of nature but not all. That is exactly what certain kinds of polytheists have historically said. But I don't, because I deny that the laws of logic are specific to nature, claiming them to be absolutely universal.
@bananabread119 You're also confusing the laws of physics with the laws of logic. They are not the same. Neither is the law of causation the same thing as the laws of logic.
God doesn't break his own laws. But having written the laws of physics, he may have put exceptions into them.
@bananabread119 Your argument depends on a confusion of mind about what is meant by "laws." There are no Logic Police who show up in cop cars with sirens to arrest God if he does something silly. And God is not governed by the same "laws" that govern the Universe but must/does abide by certain principles of logic that certain things simply cannot be in any possible world ever. To say that God can do the illogical is like saying oaheihfawlkebfjlakwbiklwafluihliusbvilubfilawufbailwfugalwifugawlifu
@bananabread119 If one could make philosophical arguments that are like unto the classic philosophical arguments for the existence of God but for the existence of Rainbow-cats then belief in the existence of Rainbow-cats would be a philosophical position. However, one cannot.
Yes, God "obeys" the fundamental laws of thought absolutely. God can't take contradictory courses of action any more than anybody else can. See C. S. Lewis's position on omnipotence; power of the intrinsically possible
By the way, the kind of logic the guy in this video is talking about is the very kind used by all the sciences, particularly my field of computer science. He doesn't actually say anything controversial far as I could tell.
Since I have named many great philosophers who were theists and argued for the existence of God as part of their philosophy, I believe this shows that arguing for the existence of God is taking a philosophical position. The burden of proof would be on you to show that these philosophers either didn't believe in God or else weren't really philosophers somehow.
@bananabread119 First of all, Kant also used Aristotelian logic. It really wasn't until Hegel and Marx that we got a rival to Aristotle's formal logic in the form of dialectics. Seriously, look up Aristotle's fundamental laws of thought.
Philosophy got started with Socrates who was a theist, carried on by Plato and Aristotle, also theists, picked up by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, also theists, Galileo was too, Kant was a theist who actually concluded that he MUST believe in God, many more
Comparing a ham radio with an iPod huh? You know, the computer you're using is based on Boolean logic which Boole based directly on Aristotle's fundamental laws of thought... so if Aristotle didn't have a valid point then you couldn't have posted that comment.
@bananabread119 the basis of philosophy rests on the shoulders of these giants! you want to do programming without axiomatic logic? what would godel of had to work off of? you spit at gods that you have no understanding of.
Arguing about the nature of God is certainly within the realm of philosophy, is that all it is? I didnt see anyone claiming that
towerofrebel 3 weeks ago
Not a bad lecture, but it has a misleading title.
hunan131 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
as a child one will question what anyone else truly knows' and if one has read Meno' by Plato and has applied it to the senses one will know the nature to physics and the geometry within the minds capabilties to reason logical suppositions'
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
This is logic: If A then B = If not B then not A. The End
bvssvni 10 months ago
I am confused by many of the comments...
He is clearly introducing and then discussing the importance of logic for thomistic philosophy and theology (0:35) and an overview of whatever course he is lecturing on. What is confusing about this for everyone? He is a philosophy professor discussing a very specific topic... that so happens to have some bearing on theology. At 3:00 he starts a summary of the prologue...
This is mainly directed at @bananabread, MCTMD, lance, georgesbarras,
bevay 11 months ago 3
@bevay Theology' "Theological" Theory In Logic or God' as a catch phrase to the mere fact that anything exists' an agnostic knows that God is a redundant argument' philosophical interpretation attempts to define an intrinsic world view' logic and literacy have everything to do with intuitive impulses within any self education and the existential world of mans vanity transferred to the material world' the despotism of instinctive natures within survival' conditioned within mans laws'
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
@DrFruedienslip That paragraph contains not a single complete sentence nor a single coherent thought. I'll give it to you that it is actually quite an aesthetically pleasing jumble of nonsense.
bevay 5 months ago
@bevay Quite frankly I dont really give a darn' do you know what it means' but hey what do you mean' the question still remains' what is within the point to any philosophy? Philosophy can be seen this way' how one lives life' so what is any question? Whatdoes rhetoric truly imply? What does anyone truly seek? What is the point within any realization toany philosophical statement? ill give you a clue' its context as context is the key to any sense within literacy' whichthey dont teach in colledge
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bevay Quite frankly I dont really give a darn' do you know what it means' but hey what do you mean' the question still remains' what is within the point to any philosophy? Philosophy canbe seen this way' how one lives life' so what is any question? Whatdoes rhetoric truly imply? What does anyone truly seek? What is the point within any realization toany philosophical statement? ill give you a clue' its context as context is the key to any sense within literacy' whichthey dont teach in colledge
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
@bevay Authoritarian Superiority is backards. However, this relatees to what might be known as a question mark' to what one actually experiences and to what one conjures within any thought within reason or recognition' Contex has everything to do with expressions to actual physical experiences'
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
@DrFruedienslip oops I miss spelled a word' is that a demerit?
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
To be a true philosopher one must live witin secluion for a long time and not be subjected to the influence within any and all suppostion or theoretical conjecture' is that a bid with a turd in thine eye; ok letsstep back for a monent and ask the question' whats really going on round here? listen to some Yes. ive seen all good People and then you'll know what philosophical interpretation is all about'
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
Comment removed
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
Hmmm I was thinking he looked a bit... dim to have a PHD in actual philosophy XD
lanceawatt 11 months ago
A mystic talking about reason. Hilarious.
MCTMD1 1 year ago
You mean man has the ability to learn? Wow, why didn't he just say that.
gwss76 1 year ago
Where is the logic? He's just chatting shit about a fucking roof. Where's Frege?
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Meh, one cannot do all that with YouTube's comment system. It's in the book.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bananabread119 You don't need to curse. Incivility doesn't help one's case. I think your definition of God is incoherent as you claim because of your irrational definition of omnipotence. It is unfortunately shared by many irrational theists. But not by rational theists.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 You're quite correct that you can't derive an "ought" from a purely physical "is" alone, but Hume's distinction there is made only within the context of his materialism/physicalism which it is quite possible he could be wrong about. One could derive an "ought" from a spiritual "is" if there is such a thing, which Hume argued there isn't. But Hume's arguments are no good, they are shown to be circular in C. S. Lewis's "Miracles; A Preliminary Study." (1947)
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Um, no, though it may be true that any possible universe containing "matter and energy" may have to abide by the 1st law of thermodynamics, which may be because that's part of how we define "matter and energy" that doesn't mean that every possible universe has what we've defined as "matter and energy." However, there can be nothing aside from the fundamental laws of thought. The rules of logic and scientific laws are not the same thing.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 No sir, the laws of physics and thermodynamics are not fundamental like unto the fundamental laws of thought. It is completely possible to build internally consistent mathematical models that completely disregard and/or contradict the laws of physics. It is quite possible to conceive of an alternate universe where the laws of physics are different than they happen to be here, but not the fundamental laws of thought. They apply to all possible worlds, others are inconceivable.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Aristotle didn't MAKE the fundamental laws of logic. He merely formalized them. Those laws of logical thinking that really are fundamental haven't changed from the beginning of time and never will.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 First of all, yes I could say that God obeys some principles of nature but not all. That is exactly what certain kinds of polytheists have historically said. But I don't, because I deny that the laws of logic are specific to nature, claiming them to be absolutely universal.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 You're also confusing the laws of physics with the laws of logic. They are not the same. Neither is the law of causation the same thing as the laws of logic.
God doesn't break his own laws. But having written the laws of physics, he may have put exceptions into them.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Your argument depends on a confusion of mind about what is meant by "laws." There are no Logic Police who show up in cop cars with sirens to arrest God if he does something silly. And God is not governed by the same "laws" that govern the Universe but must/does abide by certain principles of logic that certain things simply cannot be in any possible world ever. To say that God can do the illogical is like saying oaheihfawlkebfjlakwbiklwafluihliusbvilubfilawufbailwfugalwifugawlifu
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 If one could make philosophical arguments that are like unto the classic philosophical arguments for the existence of God but for the existence of Rainbow-cats then belief in the existence of Rainbow-cats would be a philosophical position. However, one cannot.
Yes, God "obeys" the fundamental laws of thought absolutely. God can't take contradictory courses of action any more than anybody else can. See C. S. Lewis's position on omnipotence; power of the intrinsically possible
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
By the way, the kind of logic the guy in this video is talking about is the very kind used by all the sciences, particularly my field of computer science. He doesn't actually say anything controversial far as I could tell.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
Since I have named many great philosophers who were theists and argued for the existence of God as part of their philosophy, I believe this shows that arguing for the existence of God is taking a philosophical position. The burden of proof would be on you to show that these philosophers either didn't believe in God or else weren't really philosophers somehow.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 First of all, Kant also used Aristotelian logic. It really wasn't until Hegel and Marx that we got a rival to Aristotle's formal logic in the form of dialectics. Seriously, look up Aristotle's fundamental laws of thought.
Philosophy got started with Socrates who was a theist, carried on by Plato and Aristotle, also theists, picked up by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, also theists, Galileo was too, Kant was a theist who actually concluded that he MUST believe in God, many more
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Aristotelian science is bunk, yes we know. Aristotelian logic however is what everyone uses.
"Says Logic"? To make that argument, you'd have to prove logically that arguing for God's existence is not a philosophical position.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Arguing for God isn't philosophy? Who says?
Comparing a ham radio with an iPod huh? You know, the computer you're using is based on Boolean logic which Boole based directly on Aristotle's fundamental laws of thought... so if Aristotle didn't have a valid point then you couldn't have posted that comment.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
We can Never accomplish Anything perfectly. A clear definition of reason has not been given here.
Gijreb 1 year ago
Good Stuff, thanks icuweb!
teton99 3 years ago