Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)
- Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
or sign in to load a different list.
Loading...Saving...
Loading...Saving...
I find it sad that you didn't address anything substantial in the first 20 minutes of the video. You didn't address the metaphysics, let alone the main philosophical arguments against your arguments in regards to the foundation of Being, or how the alien argument got compared to Russell's Teapot.
thunderbolt94 4 weeks ago
@thunderbolt94 I don't understand Metaphysics. Also Again I was only defending another guys reply to puppy. I don't believe in things until facts are shown.
ebilly99 4 weeks ago
@ebilly99
Metaphysics = the philosophical study of different theories about reality, the questioning about what is real and what is not. I recommend reading an intro to metaphysics and epistemology. The mere fact that you won't believe in something unless given "evidence" (whatever that means according to you) is assuming a metaphysical view of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a metaphysical naturalist.
thunderbolt94 4 weeks ago
@thunderbolt94 But I only know one theory of reality and that is that this universe is but one of a infinite number of possible universes. I do not see metaphysics as a important field. Science works, wondering if we exist is useless and thus should not be invested in.
I prefer natural causes as they are the only ones that exist. If magic, alchemy or deistic were real causes I would consider them.
ebilly99 4 weeks ago
@ebilly99
I recommend reading Plato, Jorge. L. Borges, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Aquinas, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis (not his popular stuff, his academic stuff), Paul Tillich, Robert Barron, and many others, because it's obvious that you've only limited yourself to understanding one metaphysical view. You've already assumed Humean metaphysics and not engaging the arguments of that disagree with Hume or even as far as A.J. Ayer or Bertrand Russell.
thunderbolt94 4 weeks ago
@thunderbolt94 How can I argue another one if I have never heard of another one? Explain to me what can be gained by understanding Meta other then questioning everything I know and questioning how to know it? What good can come from it?
ebilly99 4 weeks ago
@ebilly99
"How can I argue another one if I have never heard of another one?"
By actually taking the time to study metaphysics and its history of inquiry. Again, I start with the names I've just listed. Metaphysics IS the study of reality! You cannot engage in questions about the nature of our world or the universe (such as claiming that God doesn't exist, causality, being, etc) without engaging in metaphysics. The fact you argued against God is you engaging in metaphysics.
thunderbolt94 4 weeks ago
@thunderbolt94 So God can not be debated except with a special branch of Philosophy? If god exist is no longer a problem, The big problem now is do I want to worship a god who can only be proved by understanding a far flung branch of Philosophy. But ok where would you like to start. How about the ontological problem of god then?
ebilly99 4 weeks ago
@ebilly99
"So God can not be debated except with a special branch of Philosophy?"
Nothing can be debated without engaging in metaphysics and epistemology. Period.
thunderbolt94 4 weeks ago
@thunderbolt94 WHAT??? Ok lets see if this is true. Is it better to use a dead battery of a live battery to power my remote... How can this be metaphysics?
ebilly99 4 weeks ago