Відео

God bless Eleonore Stump

The guy asking a question at the 2 hr mark is rude. What a fool.

Alright, let's explore the choice of dating someone of the opposite sex, but this time with a critical perspective. Buckle up, because we're about to delve into the complexities and potential drawbacks of heterosexual relationships. First off, dating someone of the opposite sex can sometimes be like conforming to societal norms rather than following your heart's true desires. It's like opting for the conventional path without questioning whether it's genuinely the right fit for you. It's important to remember that love should never be dictated solely by external expectations. And don't even get me started on the potential consequences! While opposite-sex relationships are the societal default, it's crucial to recognize that they too can come with their own set of challenges. It's like choosing a well-trodden road without considering the potential twists and turns it might take. It's essential to ensure that the connection is based on genuine compatibility rather than just conforming to expectations. Now, the emotional aftermath of dating someone of the opposite sex? Oh boy, that can be like settling for a predetermined path instead of exploring your authentic self. It's like fitting into a mold that might not truly align with your identity, values, or desires. It's essential to evaluate whether you're entering the relationship for the right reasons and not just because it's the default choice. In conclusion, while dating someone of the opposite sex is a common choice, it's crucial to approach it with critical thinking and self-reflection. Love should always be based on genuine connection and compatibility, not just societal expectations. So, before you dive into a heterosexual relationship, take a moment to examine your motivations and ensure it's the right fit for you. Thanks for tuning in, and as always, prioritize authenticity in matters of the heart!

Pike seems to be making a HISTORICAL claim. That we can come in over a millennium later and say "well this interpretation is adequate" doesn't make Pike eat his hat because the change in Christian thought towards platonism because of their cultiral influence is just a fact if history. It isnt assumed based on unwarranted assumptions.

I wish i understood all of what they're saying

1:42 bookmark

Fantastic talk, indeed!

They ended the debate at the most interesting moment.

I watched this whole sequence. It was really great. You should post the whole session as one video.

To whoever is reading this: If you're not using headphones, you can get rid of the high pitch noise by shielding your ears from the direction of the speaker and slightly pushing them down.

First

❤

amazing lecture! my philosophy professor Dr. Wakefield taught this lesson and i thought it was wonderful. bruce russell has a very very convincing debate of god.

When a poster needs to turn off comments… That shows you they know that their argument is weak. How sad and pathetic… you don’t have enough balls to let people comment on your video… 🙄

Thank you so much for making these videos available. I'm so totally grateful for recordings of a conference which proceeded at such a high level.

From the first sentence already, you see where NT Wright veers off the right path: “…exegesis is part of ancient history…” (Needless to say that ‘history’ here for him has a modernist determination or at best strongly inflected as a retrieval of spatiotemporal string of determinative causes or agents.)

First of all Adam-and-Eve should have known that a snake does not talk! That was a giveaway!that it was not the snake! it was the devil disguising himself! Not too clever! Here is another rendition: imagine that if the Lord would have replaced with a pair adam & eve (male and female) mantis ( or black widows), The problem of overpopulation and adultry would have also been drasctically minimized from the very beginning! The indirect impact would have been minimizing the volume of the divorces cases, resulting in lowering number of divorce attorneys! Needed to think of other profession or types of work such as environmental, maritime, etc.

prior to biblical interpretations concerns, the proper theological and historical content that we so aim to obtain, may i humbly suggest, to please please..let us all first and foremost read the entire scriptures over and over which is far more substantially helpful to finding answers in our search for truth and thus far greater than philosophical approach in tackling the topic, believe me, try it please ..i mean, the reading of the entire scriptures before anything else in our truth search, you will find out yourself the scriptures will do you best by first mastering them

Was this really the best professor that Notre Dame could put up in an intellectual debate? Sad. Harris easily dismantled every argument. I expected more from a so-called expert in theology.

The answer is apparently no, as they behave, think, talk, look exactly as the world. At that age, they should know how to dress appropriately to their age, body shape and the occasion most importantly... This is feminism wearing the cloake of Christianity, isn't that

His hair is evil

👙🤍🌸💐"40:42~,【▽✿♡44:51~♡✿】,1:42:55~,2:00:02~"!!😍 Mary Rice Hasson...The colors and patterns on her panties are perfect!!😍😍😍 Wow. . . Nice view & looks like it smells good 🤍💐😋😍 The view in her skirt has love above all👙🌸💐❤🧡💛🤍

The idea of thought formation in categorical reduction theory of antithetical transcendence. Well that's not that difficult.

I'm not really convinced by most of what Bergmann said in response to Dougherty. Once someone makes a distinction between the irrationality of persons and the irrationality of beliefs, it becomes clear that one can't handwave away Phenomenal Conservatism.

Just who was there at the time of the garden taking this down ???????????????

Weak arguments from both sides. Ironic that they were debating this at a Catholic university because Catholics have things to say for and against both of these debaters

His divagations are somewhat distracting... I appreciate clear thinking and expression as a sign of a good teacher. He may be brilliant scholar, but if he cannot share his insights proficiently, it becomes tiresome to follow his lectures for a non-specialized audience...

8:06 to 8.17 Im surprised he didnt list the more mundane one: in the beginning is the beginning of this universe. And God and time existed in the normal way before that. This can sortve be a subset of unmeasurable, in that nothing in the created universe holds any information about it.. but not really the same hypothesis.

One of the things I increasingly find to be amazing, and which for a long time I didnt even know was so, is how quickly and wholeheartedly the communities accepted something as holy scripture and some other things not. Especially the more I learn about it. Im not saying infinitely quickly or unanimously wholeheartedly, but I yet do marvel at the level. The only thing Ive found that was ever really debated was the book of James, and maybe Jude a tad. (Im not counting the catholic church here. I dont count them as part of the continuous community from the hebrew people up through the church of Christ. Before nicea for example, everyone knew for a hundred years what was and was not holy scripture (the Bible we now have).

Oh that was especially interesting at the end. About scripture

5:49 That part I disagree with: “Time began, yet there has been a non-finite series of time units from the beginning until now” is possible.

Who's on first?

Is she suggesting that genocide = medical treatment?

why are you jewish

0:54

Susan Neiman's thinking is the type that led to the Cambodian killing fields, the Soviet gulags, and the tens of millions of corpses left in the wake of China's Great Leap Forward. All argued about discounting the wisdom of the past and working towards perfecting the future, the same thing Neiman's speech leads towards. This was in 2013 but if she hasn't changed her philosophy in the meantime, I'm guessing she's an enthusiastic social justice warrior here in 2021. Her talk is just the sort of thing they use intellectually to justify the riots and cancel culture tactics they use in pursuit of their perfect world.

Thank you Prof. Eleonore Stump, now I understand! The Canaanite children, families and animals were all anaesthetized like during surgery, and God was really healing them. Bravo.

Prefer Karen Armstrong.

Williams' response to utilitarianism is that it undermines the integrity of a person's goals by forcing themselves to give up personal goals, projects ect. for the sake of abstract utilitarian calculus. Linda argues this also applies to God as a person(/s). ^ This I find a despicable argument; basically it either admits God doesn't have the time or resources to redress gratuitous suffering and evil, which is true for ua as part of what being a person is (we are finite), but is not the case for an infinite God, unless you then admit he is not omnipotent (in which case that's fine I guess), but far worse is the suggestion that he has his own arbitrary agenda that is not in alignment with the greatest good for the greatest number at any given time, in which case he is certainly merely a paltry supreme being, a being among beings - it implies to me a rejection of divine simplicity and impassibility to start. God is not *a person* except by extreme stretch of analogy. Even Aquinas said he's more *not* like a person than he is like a person. God is *personal*, not *a* *person* (the translation of the Greek 'hypostasis' into 'person' I maintain was a mistake). Such a God would at best be good, but not *the Good*, even if he is the source of the Good, and would be far from perfect. Williams' argument against utilitarianism is only valid for us as finite beings; because of our ignorance we must commit to certain courses of action that may not after all lead to the greatest good, but seem to at the time and may well lead to greater good than attempting to drop everything and attend to the apparent utilitarian calculus at every turn. This part of Linda's theodicy seems to rest on a rather pagan / modernist view of God as *a god*, in the direction of theistic personalism. The whole point of the critique of utilitarianism is that it implies the sacrifice of personal connections - thick values, rich bonds - for abstract and ultimately uncertain potential outcomes. But an infinite (omniscient) being has no such limitation; everything is equally "at hand" so to speak, and so the analogy that Peter Singer makes, that if a young girl was clearly drowning in a pond next to you that it would be morally indefensible not to pull her out (and in his example he goes on to argue it should make no difference whether she is in another country if you can do something about it, e.g. send money), while it may fall prey to Williams' critique, does not whatsoever fail when applied to God, for whom the distinction of distance should be meaningless. For God, every suffering child is right next to him, and his limbs are infinite in number (assuming an omni God). The only theodicy that doesn't implicitly acknowledge God's finitude has to acknowledge his willing of the potential for evil and permission of evil *for their own sakes* which reduces to willing evil itself for its own sake, usually attempted to be justified by an aesthetic gestalt. E.g. the route Paul Antleitner took, where evil provides an aesthetic contrast that supposedly enhances the beauty of the whole of reality through time and space. I find this to be a disgusting tack, because it essentially acknowledges particulars don't ultimately matter after all, and runs quite close to Hegel's idea of history as a slaughterhouse for the theogony of absolute spirit. Such a God may inspire awe but not really love, and is certainly not "perfect" in any sense of the word. It also seems contrary to the spirit of the Gospel which seems to want to save particularity - one may claim this only applies to Jesus himself, but I find this an oversimplification, and also ties to my critique of claims of Christianity to have solved the problem of the one and the many when it actually just attempts to claim a particular particular as simultaneously universal, rather than offering a universal so transcendent that it takes all particulars into itself without being diluted or the many being subsumed (e.g. what sunyata offers). Further they may say particulars are saved / justified only *through* their suffering, and here I would respond that this is only intelligible if suffering is inevitable and necessary, but if its existence is a choice made by an omni God for whom even *freely chosen* goodness and union with him is possible without it, then once again that God is (at least partly) evil due to willing evil and suffering *for their own sake*. • She claims that *it is not the case that* a good person aims at producing good and eliminating evil. I find this ridiculous on many levels. It idolizes the person as somehow separate from their actions and the world, somehow pure of any contact with it. I think centering acts as the primary locus of value (rather than either persons or states of affairs) is the most coherent view, because they bridge the two, are the mediating touchpoint of agent and arena and so intrinsically affect both. Haven't quite finished yet but did she say anywhere what the justification is for primarily locating value in the person as opposed to acts or states of affairs, other than that it gets her this attempt at a theodicy (which begs the question)? And does she hold this view or is she merepy offering it? And does she / this view hold that *no value whatsoever* inheres in acts or states of affairs?

It is the prerogative of God and only God to be without sin. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Therefore Adam and Eve in their sinless state were in violation of the prerogative of God. And the fall is the necessary result.

i have read somewhere that Marques de Pombal took inspiration from the modern Paris design of the time

It looks for me that Jonathan Israel does nor believe in God.

Why are many of the video's comment sections on this channel disabled? Seems very odd.

no one wants to reply about this, with 1,003 views and 3 likes..

Tutti difuori forza

Io invece in my mind mente Manas cakravartin ciambella occhio finalmente chiudo io solo nel globo

Malebranche very philosoper

Make branche very classic philosopher

Fondatore di tubo

"Cow nature, my favorite" 15:31 HAHA!!!