This is an extremely creative video but unfortunately filled with straw man arguments. You might want to examine a book like Testing Christianities Truth Claims.
I was taking notes while watching this video looking for noticeable flaws of reasoning.
A good video, but it is not watertight. I hope you find these points useful and apologies for the presentation.
Is the realm of existence that some call God physically inaccessible? Are we sure about this?
Is the realm of existence that some call God actually separate from the universe?
First cause of the universe implies that this is so, but does this thereby exclude interconnectedness between realms or that the centre is everywhere.
Is there asymmetry in the assertion that a divine being occupies a realm of existence outside our universe?
We can list beings that can’t exist
-Omniscience being capable of choice. Logically this is correct, for why exercise choice when there is full knowledge of what that choice would be about, thereby there would be no need to exercise choice in the first place. Sound so far. However, why the importance on omniscience?
Perhaps God is not omniscient? Perhaps Truth is growing. Therefore choice would have a function and purpose.
-A perfect being that needs to be worshipped. This is logically sound. This idea is a human self-projection, based on our immaturity.
-A non–spatial omnipresent being. This is logically unsound without knowledge of what is time or space.
-An all-loving omnipotent being that allows eternal agony. Logically unsound again. This assumes omnipotence nor is there a true understanding of what is love. You must love that which you wish to understand is a universal law.
So there are already flaws in the assertion that the above arguments are all impossible at time code 1.50.
Logic can refute impossible beings, but only 2 of the 4 are impossible and even the second is still possible inside Truth’s exploration of the concept of worship itself. The video statement itself is illogical as it makes assumptions, it does not stand the test of occam’s razor which is to argue without (or minimal) assumption.
Logic can show possible beings existing with evidence. You exist. Perhaps this is where an investigation should begin?
On what basis can Qualia Soup assert that there is no logical argument for a personal creator of our universe when he own basis for asserting the impossible is fundamentally flawed.
The theologian at time code 2.27 – yes nonsensical.
Arguments from beauty or the transcendental argument need not be wholly unjustified presuppositions. They may be weak but they are not unjustified. When the transcendental is complete, there is no self to argue. Argument is thought. Thought is time. All time must cease and then meditation is complete.
Again video asserts arguments around belief. There is no belief, faith nor the need to assert that belief for a master. There is only an understanding of ‘what is’, at this level and the primary level of reality.
A master does not assert the existence of God with logic. Instead he uses logic to demonstrate the corrupting nature of thought itself, how it perpetuates itself and of course how all concepts interrelate. EG. All attachment is corruption. Attachment to a belief, a dogma, an ism, to a person, to a property. Embracing Good is a world without God is itself attachment. One’s investigation is already tethered and therefore not truly sceptical.
Rest of video is sound.….
Hang on
What is the nature of an intelligence behind the universe? This can be explored in meditation. This is what is known as consciousness totality.
Is it single or collective – This is related to the concept of limited perception which defines selfhood, a perception which is intrinsically related to suffering.
Interested in humans – Astrology. Serendipty. All events have meaning.
Communication – Trance, Mediumship, Psychic, Seers, Shaman, Prophets.
Does it exists ? – Awareness is energy. You exist. Thought and awareness exist.
The being of a transcendental other can be examined? The video is making an incorrect assumption here. It has totally ignored the shamanic history and origins of humanity in one stroke, or the validity of one’s own meditation into emptiness.
There is logical support and evidence for the existence of a transcendental other.
We are simply looking in the wrong place. The answers are not to be found outside, though some evidence is there. The knowing of this is only found inside.
That is a good video. Thanks for posting it.
This is an extremely creative video but unfortunately filled with straw man arguments. You might want to examine a book like Testing Christianities Truth Claims.
By far my favourite blog at the moment. I am happy to see the World isn’t entirely made up of religion idiots.
I was taking notes while watching this video looking for noticeable flaws of reasoning.
A good video, but it is not watertight. I hope you find these points useful and apologies for the presentation.
Is the realm of existence that some call God physically inaccessible? Are we sure about this?
Is the realm of existence that some call God actually separate from the universe?
First cause of the universe implies that this is so, but does this thereby exclude interconnectedness between realms or that the centre is everywhere.
Is there asymmetry in the assertion that a divine being occupies a realm of existence outside our universe?
We can list beings that can’t exist
-Omniscience being capable of choice. Logically this is correct, for why exercise choice when there is full knowledge of what that choice would be about, thereby there would be no need to exercise choice in the first place. Sound so far. However, why the importance on omniscience?
Perhaps God is not omniscient? Perhaps Truth is growing. Therefore choice would have a function and purpose.
-A perfect being that needs to be worshipped. This is logically sound. This idea is a human self-projection, based on our immaturity.
-A non–spatial omnipresent being. This is logically unsound without knowledge of what is time or space.
-An all-loving omnipotent being that allows eternal agony. Logically unsound again. This assumes omnipotence nor is there a true understanding of what is love. You must love that which you wish to understand is a universal law.
So there are already flaws in the assertion that the above arguments are all impossible at time code 1.50.
Logic can refute impossible beings, but only 2 of the 4 are impossible and even the second is still possible inside Truth’s exploration of the concept of worship itself. The video statement itself is illogical as it makes assumptions, it does not stand the test of occam’s razor which is to argue without (or minimal) assumption.
Logic can show possible beings existing with evidence. You exist. Perhaps this is where an investigation should begin?
On what basis can Qualia Soup assert that there is no logical argument for a personal creator of our universe when he own basis for asserting the impossible is fundamentally flawed.
The theologian at time code 2.27 – yes nonsensical.
Arguments from beauty or the transcendental argument need not be wholly unjustified presuppositions. They may be weak but they are not unjustified. When the transcendental is complete, there is no self to argue. Argument is thought. Thought is time. All time must cease and then meditation is complete.
Again video asserts arguments around belief. There is no belief, faith nor the need to assert that belief for a master. There is only an understanding of ‘what is’, at this level and the primary level of reality.
A master does not assert the existence of God with logic. Instead he uses logic to demonstrate the corrupting nature of thought itself, how it perpetuates itself and of course how all concepts interrelate. EG. All attachment is corruption. Attachment to a belief, a dogma, an ism, to a person, to a property. Embracing Good is a world without God is itself attachment. One’s investigation is already tethered and therefore not truly sceptical.
Rest of video is sound.….
Hang on
What is the nature of an intelligence behind the universe? This can be explored in meditation. This is what is known as consciousness totality.
Is it single or collective – This is related to the concept of limited perception which defines selfhood, a perception which is intrinsically related to suffering.
Interested in humans – Astrology. Serendipty. All events have meaning.
Communication – Trance, Mediumship, Psychic, Seers, Shaman, Prophets.
Does it exists ? – Awareness is energy. You exist. Thought and awareness exist.
The being of a transcendental other can be examined? The video is making an incorrect assumption here. It has totally ignored the shamanic history and origins of humanity in one stroke, or the validity of one’s own meditation into emptiness.
There is logical support and evidence for the existence of a transcendental other.
We are simply looking in the wrong place. The answers are not to be found outside, though some evidence is there. The knowing of this is only found inside.
All belief is the fall from the absolute.
Correction …. Omniscience being incapable of choice ….. Logically this is correct……….