Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Alex O’Connor explains the obvious.

17,518 просмотров • 7 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 19

Фото профиля Danger Raven
Danger Raven7 дней назад

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

Фото профиля RustInPeace 1️⃣9️⃣9️⃣ 🐭
RustInPeace 1️⃣9️⃣9️⃣ 🐭7 дней назад

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.

Фото профиля @MobiusDick
@MobiusDick7 дней назад

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.

Фото профиля Christopher Sean
Christopher Sean7 дней назад

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.

Фото профиля Mario Villalobos
Mario Villalobos7 дней назад

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

Фото профиля ProdigalNo_More
ProdigalNo_More7 дней назад

And yet, the book didn't make itself.

Фото профиля Lars Iggy
Lars Iggy7 дней назад

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

Фото профиля Elus
Elus7 дней назад

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

Фото профиля Jim Trott
Jim Trott7 дней назад

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

Фото профиля Kneeling_heathen
Kneeling_heathen7 дней назад

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

Фото профиля GK
GK7 дней назад

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

Фото профиля GivingYouFacts
GivingYouFacts7 дней назад

He is so close! 😊

Фото профиля Matt Jones
Matt Jones7 дней назад

I like Alex, my favored opponent

Фото профиля Fabrício Miller
Fabrício Miller7 дней назад

Simple.

Фото профиля Orctep
Orctep6 дней назад

Cringe last scene

Фото профиля Material Church
Material Church7 дней назад

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.

Фото профиля ☲First Clown☵
☲First Clown☵7 дней назад

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.

Фото профиля Ed Hansberry
Ed Hansberry7 дней назад

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

Фото профиля The Cosmic Ape
The Cosmic Ape6 дней назад

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

Похожие видео