Uniformity of Nature; One & Many; Transcendental Argument.

[TheFunkyTheist]

Whoa. This sounds very platonic! Haha.

While I don't think that the trinity per se is a deduction from the existence of universals and particulars, I think you provided a very convincing way of understanding how universals and particulars must be accounted for apart from Nominalistic thinking. At least that's what you seemed to be arguing here from I what I could tell. Very interesting indeed.

[SetonsH4ll]

I can see the deduction of atheism's falsity, and the argument for the trinity in the end as an ontological one but in what way does the Trinity explain the one and the many?

[Theologica37]

Check PM

[guitarstrummr]

Okay, I had to stop this video because your claim about atheists and time and matter was so silly it shows you have little clue what an atheist like me thinks.

"[To an atheist...]The universe is nothing but mere time and chance acting on matter." ~ Video at 6:20

First of all, "chance" doesn't "act" on anything. Neither does time. Chance and time are not things that do stuff. Chance is an illusion created by a limited mind. Time is just a dimension and dimension don't do anything.

[Theologica37]

By "chance", in this context, is meant causal relations without intended purpose, no specific direction or meaning. The variables of time and matter are the causal parameters in this system that would be of relevance.

[ogirv101]

1:10:

I have a perfect quote from Albert Einstein that explains this, it's so relevent that I can't even understand why it's not on the video, want me to post it?

[blapperz]

How can you say that a premise of an argument (another argument) is not true by itself but can be used to create conclusions? This is circular reasoning by necessity. This entire series so far has been chalked full of appeals to authority OF which adds nothing to the validity of your claims. You are exposing yourself with a confident tone in a way that makes me suspicious of your motives.

[Theologica37]

You, apparently, do not understand what an appeal to authority is. I did not make the claim that because someone said something, that it is therefore true. You have responded to exactly 0% of the argument presented in this video. You within the span of roughly 10 minutes, posted comments on many of my videos; all of which share this shallow rhetoric.

I was somewhat excited initially, but now I am moving through the substance and suspect you to be a troll.

[blapperz]

In place of a support for a claim is a statement "this guy believes it so you should too".

Suspect what you want? Even if I were a troll, you are still appealing to ridicule or guilt. Which is as it turns out is another logical fallacy.

Nice formulation of pointless buzzwords of which lend zero credibility to your false claims or credibility.

Seriously though, you admit to false premises yet use them support a particular conclusion. It's entirely fallacious.

[Theologica37]

Its not an appeal to ridicule for me to point out that you are not dealing with the arguments; its right here in writing.

You say my claims are false with 0% argumentation and 100% blind posit. Same thing with this "false premises" nonsense. There is 11 minutes to this video; you've dealt with no more than a second of it. You are just spamming my page with complaints.

[ogirv101]

@blapperz:

You have been continously stating that people have been following fallacies, without even understanding the fallacies themselves. Correcting you isn't a fallacy, assuming that it's a fallacy to correct you is a fallacy. Calling someone fallacious because you don't understand the fallacy means that you're a flat out idiot, and when you don't accept it, it means you're stubborn and close minded. Not trying to offend you, but go and read what 'appeal to authority' is.

[Theologica37]

Most of what you see in this video comes from collegiate philosophy classes. But the ideas aren't mine, they (as most of the stuff I present) go all the way back to Aquinas; though most would recognize the arguments in later Calvinistic literature. So.. I guess you could say I'm self taught in alot of things. I try my best to argue as St. Thomas Aquinas did.

[Theologica37]

If everything in the universe is unified, we have no means of differentiating anything from one another.. nor the ability to know particular attributes of some things that others lack.

[paleocrat]

This video is excellent. Our styles our much different, with yours being far more professional and scholarly. I truly appreciate the quality of your work.

I sent you a message with a number of books, CD collections, blog entries (of mine) and a video I have exclusively on Xanga pertaining to presuppositionalism. I hope you enjoy. It took me a bit to find and link them to the message, but it was well worth it.

Laus tibi, Christe!

Jeremiah "Paleocrat"

[fenoglios]

Hi Theologica37,

Can't an atheist believe in both unity and plurality and not believe in the trinity?

[Theologica37]

Atheists can believe whatever they want, I suppose, Id be interested to see what they would come up with for justification of this.. but seeing as how they are limited to naturalistic and materialistic explanations, .. it is bleak.

[Dhorpatan]

You deleted several of my comments.

Shame on you Theo.

[Theologica37]

I did no such thing. I always put the comments on friend only upon leaving for extended periods of time, so that nobody is left unanswered. Many times when comments are left just open I am not able to respond, and/or answer questions. Making the comment section this way when i leave, forces me to look through them.

And no, I did not change the comment section just because of you lol.

[Theologica37]

You've claimed that the mighty novelist ayn rand has solved the problem of the one and the many by her ground breaking ideological movement of 'objectivism'.. and in this way, it is impossible to argue with you. Rand has obvious philosophical precedence of the likes of Leibniz, George Berkeley and Kant.

You should know that of the four common secular responses given to the problem of the one and the many, the one you've given is completely out of left field. Rands' "response" is not noteworthy.

[tooltime9901]

get this into your brain one last time. naturalism and materialism are NOT tennents of any atheist religion. they are not the limits of what an atheist can believe. you willfully ignore that fact and paint atheist with one big strawman brush.

[Theologica37]

I'm disappointed. In other videos I refer to you as an atheist intellectual, and actually give you positive light. Your complete lack of substance here really is disappointing. And you're correct, atheists cannot go beyond the beliefs of naturalism and materialism.. which outline the framework of reference within the worldview; as going beyond the natural is supernatural. In this way, when people apply this limited reference. It becomes the dogma of the worldview, and so the beliefs' defense.

[Dhorpatan]

Continued....

The answer to the problem of the one and the many, lies in understanding

concept formation and algebra.

In concept formation, the omitted measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. Which is the equivalent of the basic principle of algebra.

The relationship between concepts and their specified particulars, is the same as the relationship of algebraic symbols to numbers.

Continued...

[Theologica37]

There do appear to be some comments missing here, but I wouldn't have deleted them. If I somehow did, It was not on purpose; please re-post them.

Now, there are slight differences between the mathematical infinite/finite paradox.. to which apparently ayn rand, the writer (??), goes over. I asked you for your basis and you mentioned something about rand. This astounds me that this is the person to whom you base your beliefs off of. Dhorpatan. rand is to Philosophy as Mike Behe is to Biology

[Theologica37]

Now, academic philosophers have generally dismissed rand's ideas and have marginalized her philosophy. Tisdale called Atlas Shrugged "sophomoric," "preachy," and "unoriginal." Because of Rand's criticism of contemporary intellectuals, 'objectivism' has been called "fiercely anti-academic." David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, says Rand's work is "outside the mainstream" and is more of an "ideological movement" than a well-grounded philosophy.

[Theologica37]

" It look to me like you have no ability to refute my solution "

Proper use of the English language would also help your cause.

Think of a more tenable response, and perhaps next time respond with substance.

It will be friend only until this evening.

[Theologica37]

I've unblocked you from my channel, please take this opportunity to think twice about the responses you give me. It is very supportive of your assertions to give the basis of your ideas.. quotes, citations and so forth are always valuable. This is why 50-75% of all of my videos outline the established ideas in Philosophy-- instead of just making arbitrary, made up arguments.

[Dhorpatan]

It look to me like you have no ability to refute my solution to the problem of the one and the many.

This video is thus, duly refuted in it's erroneous epistemology. And don't think I don't realize you deleted one of my comments.

[Theologica37]

That was not a "solution". You just arbitrarily asserted, without any reasoning whatsoever, that we can "conceptualize" and then ignored the claims and thorough reasoning to the contrary in the video.. and claimed victory.

You've made one arbitrary claim, not cited or referenced any of the philosophy to which you speak, and you are already making sweeping generalizations about how the epistemological problem of the "One and the Many" is "erroneous". Please, think carefully about your responses

[Theologica37]

Please refrain from making baseless ad hominem remarks. You're already claiming victory, by making one unfounded, and baseless assertion that the video specifically refutes; also to which you've not given rebuttal.

Think through the responses you give me. Do not just take one little sentence and then spam my channel with baseless assertions. Make consistent your claims.. and it would give you significant credibility to cite the philosophy to which you are referring; don't make things up.

[Theologica37]

As I said, this undermines all of science and the process of induction as a whole (video). We become as the atheist would assert, determined matter in motion without the ability to interact with the natural order and learn the interworkings of it--- but this is obviously not the case.

In this way, denying the uniformity of nature, by saying that we just "cannot conceptualize" is intellectual suicide. Are you just making up this response.. or..?

[Dhorpatan]

@Theo

"In this way, denying the uniformity of nature, by saying that we just "cannot conceptualize"

^^^Hahahaha! Cannot? I said, the problem of the one and the many, is solved because of the human ability to conceptualize. And then you tell me, I'm saying we CANNOT? What's wrong with you? Hahahaha!

[Theologica37]

You cannot say that we "have the ability to conceptualize" and then not provide the foundation of such an assertion, or articulate how this is the case in your worldview. Especially when in the video to which you are commenting on, the assertion is specifically invalidated.You might as well have left me a comment saying "We cannot conceptualize"; you're remaining arbitrary.

[havock89]

Yep. You have gone into this with some depth in the video.

Great video btw. I have to watch them a couple of times to get my head around it all. but very well put together and precise in the language used. This doesnt give people wiggle room to logically misinterpret what your argument is - although it doesnt stop people form making illogical arguments, as we have seen.

God bless you.

[Theologica37]

A contemporary rendering? Or of the foundations?

You could go with St. Augustine's work, "City of God", (which is more than just metaphysics) or with Aquinas. I wouldn't go straight to the Summa, I'd recommend "A Shorter Summa" by Peter Kreeft.

Something more contemporary, that I enjoyed, was "Aquinas, Ethics and Philosophy of Religion: Metaphysics in Practice" by Thomas Hibbs.

I've not read Loux; I have heard from people I respect that P Van Inwagen does a great job in "Metaphysics"

[TheGamingWeasel]

I have Loux. It's excellent.

[Dhorpatan]

This video completely fails for one simple reason.

There is no problem of the one and the many. This problem has already been answered. It comes from the fact that humans have the ability to conceptualize.

[Theologica37]

So you've once again chosen to reject every single mind that comes before you. Instead of out and out saying "Clouds don't exist" you merely just say "The Problem of the One and the Many" (One of most established philosophical conversations in all the field) .. does not exist. Dhorpatan, you are not allowed to make ridiculous statements like this on my channel.

[Dhorpatan]

@Theo

I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said the problem is solved because we know it comes from the human ability to conceptualize.

[Theologica37]

Right, this sort of non-response is indicative of nihilism. I specifically refute this sort of "reasoning" in the video. It doesn't follow to just posit ignorance as explanation for your worldview's inability to articulate the foundations of reality, and that which make it decipherable.

[Theologica37]

This ridiculous out and out denial, I predicted in the video, and made it a point to refute it.. as I knew some atheists would use the cop-out.

[Theologica37]

lol

[muertos06]

You really hit it home with 6:18 - 7:08

Great job.

[KosmicCitizen]

Monism would seem to be the natural conclusion of where you were going for the first seven minutes or so of this video, until you basically dismiss this out of hand and and move on merrily to another far less obvious option which you clearly favor.