One of the smartest people alive, and always a pleasure to listen to.

What would you say is more plausible for an actual infinity to exist >IN< our time/space reality…..

Lets take “the card” analogy for consideration in this.

A) the Cards must continually be added, one after another, too infinity. ( in witch, is this actually infinity?)

B) the cards dont have to be continually added because it already exists fully and completely. ( somehow 🤷🏻‍♂️)

?????????

Kalam guys are brilliant!

In an interview with Pints with Aquinas about 3 years ago, William Lane Craig said that Alexander Pruss is "scary smart" and on par with the atheist and philosopher Graham Oppy as an intellectually formidable thinker. (Craig also mentioned J. Howard Sobel as another very intelligent atheist and philosopher, but Sobel passed away so Oppy would be the "torch bearer" for intellectual defenses of atheism. Craig likewise mentioned Rob Koons and Josh Rasmussen as very intelligent Christian philosophers who would have the intellectual chops to square up with Oppy.)

"The emotional things are oretry good reasons to believe" is that the justification for the hindu  thats accepted by yourself for thier belief as well. Or just to your own baised beliefs?

Did Greeks not consider the possibility of Earth sitting on top of a turtle, that unlike earth, does not have to fall? say, a turtle made more of fire or air? Or just some other animal, like a bird?

How do you rule out something you are not aware of as the explanation for everything around you?

Within our universe nothing is uncaused. How do you kbow this applies to things outside of our universe or the universe itself.

Comment for traction.

Ascribing a state of affairs to an idea does not substantiate the idea.  There must be a cause/effect linkage by which to substantiate an idea as being the case in the context of reality.

I take evidence to be a demonstrable cause/effect linkage in the context of reality showing some particular state of affairs.  The particular states of affairs then allow for more generalizable extrapolations.  There is the chance that the further from the base cause/effect linkage observed to the more extremes of the extrapolation, that such extrapolations may become inaccurate. It should be clear that given how tenuous extrapolations can become in the extremes [see newtons laws of motion versus relativity], that anything less degenerates into assertion.

I will grant that an idea can be considered reasonable within the context of a psychological/sociological context that is not reasonable in the context of reality.  It seems that theological belief is predicated on psychological/sociological dispositions as opposed to reality.  Consider that given the preponderance of claims within a given culture affirming a particular notion, that is reasonable for such individuals to accept such tales as being true at least in a sociological/psychological context.  However, the moment a review of reality doesn't allow for the claim to be substantiated (or worse is found to be in conflict with reality), then it should ideally be understood to be a vacuous belief in the context of reality.

He never shuffled an infinate deck of cards.

Helt sjukt att de använde Palme i thumbnailen

Even if we accept that the Universe was created by something that necessarily exists, why can't it be that the cause of the Universe is different from the being that then designed it? Why can't it be that the necessary cause of the Universe creates this intelligent being which then creates the Universe; or that this necessary cause creates the Universe and this being?

How do you know that the explanation for everything is even intuitive?

This was great! Keep making content

I’d love to pick these philosophers’ brains over why Christianity over other forms of theism. I find the case for theism very compelling, and find the case for Christianity most compelling, but I think the case for theism is a lot more solid than the case for Christianity specifically. Love to talk to someone as smart as Pruss about it.

I would disagree that looking outside and inferring that God is "Smiling", overlooks the fact that somewhere in the world at that moment there are violent storms killing people and wrecking their Iives.

You need arguments that don't change with the weather.

The issue with his paradoxes is he assumes actual infinities rather than potential — which is quite odd for someone familiar with Aristotelian philosophy.

""Talking to an atheist who just does not see it'' thats arogant to assume and assert like that good start to the video. Shows you humility

Here's why no object can merely happen to exist. Some philosophers say there are brute facts. A brute fact is something that can't be explained, even in principle. So there's no way to identify a brute face, since anyone's ability to do that would presuppose an explanation when no brute fact can have one.

You might reply that you explain an object's existence by saying that the object only happens to exist. But you could say that about a brute fact if there was one. Then again, if a brute fact existed, there would be no way to explain its existence. How can you know that something merely happens to exist if your ability to know that presupposes an explanation? You can't.