Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Alex O’Connor explains the obvious.

17,518 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

19 Kommentare

Profilbild von Danger Raven
Danger Ravenvor 7 Tagen

saw this as a meme regarding microchips. Someone zoomed in and saw all the complexity of the chip that was hidden before and then says, "Now that i can see all of this, i know this chip had no creator!" it's absurd actually

Profilbild von RustInPeace 1️⃣9️⃣9️⃣ 🐭
RustInPeace 1️⃣9️⃣9️⃣ 🐭vor 7 Tagen

Would love to have seen him have a discussion with Jay Dyer but I think he knew he wouldn't be able to answer the critiques Jay had.

Profilbild von @MobiusDick
@MobiusDickvor 7 Tagen

The category error is: because all events where I have looked seem to have a cause, it necessitates that an uncaused cause cannot exist. Not being able to conceive of an uncaused cause is more about a failure of human imagination than it is about a failure of science.

Profilbild von Christopher Sean
Christopher Seanvor 7 Tagen

The problem is that this takes a legitimate unanswered question and presents a controversial philosophical position as settled fact. 1. “Laws merely describe regularities” is one philosophy of natural laws, not an established fact. 2. The Shakespeare analogy begs the question: we already know meter is an abstraction describing independently written text. We do NOT know that fundamental physical laws relate to reality in the same way. 3. Physics doesn’t simply “presuppose matter.” Modern physics deals in fields, quantum states, spacetime, symmetries, etc., and cosmology explicitly investigates the origins of physical states and structure. 4. Calling physical explanations of cosmic origins a “category error” is unjustified. Quantum cosmology specifically investigates initial conditions and whether apparently fundamental features can emerge from deeper physics. 5. Most importantly: “physics has not explained why anything exists at all” ≠ “physics cannot possibly explain it.” The former is true. The latter is a philosophical claim, not a scientific finding.

Profilbild von Mario Villalobos
Mario Villalobosvor 7 Tagen

It’s cute using clips from a guy who has shredded your particular religious cult in every way possible

Profilbild von ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_Morevor 7 Tagen

And yet, the book didn't make itself.

Profilbild von Lars Iggy
Lars Iggyvor 7 Tagen

That guy is so lame. Dissect is longer ramblings and it's always full of contradictions.

Profilbild von Elus
Elusvor 7 Tagen

Yes - and there’s still no evidence that the myth and superstition you’ve been indoctrinated into believing is reality.

Profilbild von Jim Trott
Jim Trottvor 7 Tagen

Perhaps you could petition the Holy Spirit for the gift of Nuance. You’ll not find a more remarkable academic whose even-handed approach leads more believers away. Your snotty little schoolgirl inane snip only aids in that endeavor. You’re not expected to be a dunce for Jesus

Profilbild von Kneeling_heathen
Kneeling_heathenvor 7 Tagen

He's done one of the better jobs of helping kastrup explain his ideas as well......legends these guys.

Profilbild von GK
GKvor 7 Tagen

Exactly, so many people aren’t trained in philosophy, that needs to change. Alex is moving in the right direction.

Profilbild von GivingYouFacts
GivingYouFactsvor 7 Tagen

He is so close! 😊

Profilbild von Matt Jones
Matt Jonesvor 7 Tagen

I like Alex, my favored opponent

Profilbild von Fabrício Miller
Fabrício Millervor 7 Tagen

Simple.

Profilbild von Orctep
Orctepvor 6 Tagen

Cringe last scene

Profilbild von Material Church
Material Churchvor 6 Tagen

The so-called “laws of nature” are generalizations of observations that can be used productively (creatively) in a consistent manner, for example, the “miracle” of making iPhones from stones and oils. By the way, iPhones are far more complicated than wine.

Profilbild von ☲First Clown☵
☲First Clown☵vor 6 Tagen

Well, yes. This implies miracles are paradoxical because the laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. You can't "break" laws of nature. If you make an observation that can't be accounted for by your law, your law hasn't been "broken". Your law is wrong. Rewrite it.

Profilbild von Ed Hansberry
Ed Hansberryvor 7 Tagen

I don't know why anyone bothers listening to him. He isn't qualified, isn't particularly smart, just navel gazing...

Profilbild von The Cosmic Ape
The Cosmic Apevor 6 Tagen

When he finally converts he’s going to be force to be reckoned with.

Ähnliche Videos