Prof Rob Koons, Thomism (P1)

If you can please consider supporting the channel

Church of the BPW:

Start your own church today!

[dylanmotes]

Yeah! because we're always looking in telescopes, seeing all these numbers floating around in space? 8, 6, 7, 5, 3, 0, 9.... LMFAO 🤣🤣🤣 logic? The eternal pineapple!

[StripperLicker]

I like the professor's filing system.

[bradfordjr]

I was commenting on the advertisement before the Tom's video.

[Esch-a-ton]

What people don't understand is that the debate is not whether God exists, it's whether or not God is personal and sentient. Tom says all there is is reality, a theist says God is reality. The disconnect is using the term God denotes personhood. We’d save a lot of time purely debating the personhood of fundamental reality.

[dylanmotes]

Oh no Tom! How could you do stuff, if you don't know everything....

[CASSIODORUS]

The lack of self awareness by those who adhere to the presumption of physicalism is amusing .

[Iverath]

Prof. Koon was pleasant to listen to. Perhaps a bit long-winded at times.

Im not sure that "mathematicians would be astounded by that" is a good answer to anything. Do mathematicians believing that numbers actually exist have any effect on the real world? Can they do worse math by thinking numbers werent real? Of course not.

[muveemanone]

Eh yo, TJ!
quick ?uestion King...R U team PC, Switch, PS or XB? 🎮🕹

[muveemanone]

See Matt, this is how you can have a respectable/decent"argument" without that "STFU/I'm in charge" ego. Let's not feed into the "stereotype" and be more like 'Mr. Potato(e)' ovah here...😄 🤘🏼

Jus' _ucking wit you Mizz...Much respect homie!✊🏼

[MyContext]

Maybe I am missing something, but every claim which in anyway requires idealism as a foundational point is an absurdity to me; and Tom has done an excellent job of pointing out why in every exchange that I have observed.

The claims are wholly disconnected from any substantiated linkage with reality. So, while this allows one to be free to simply make up something as an answer so long as the answer can be considered conceptually coherent and applicable to what is observed. This also means that such claims are an appeal to imagination which amounts to being an appeal to possibility OUTSIDE of what is known; and thus rationally foundationless.

I am assuming this point of issue hasn't been missed among philosophers broadly, so I am left with - *Why is this considered reasonable?* Or more broadly what am I missing wherein this sort of spew (at least from my current perspective) has merit beyond merely understanding how people think? (I have less decent ideas as to why, but I am hoping for something decent. Or even better something that I am missing with regard to this state of affairs.)

[constructivecritique]

Tom's quantum field step is the first of many that, by definition, enter the supernatural world. He even proposes that the quantum fields create and maintain the natural world. Nice job!
All he needs now is to enjoy the properties of a conscious mind that are required to get the ball set up and rolling

[dubbelkastrull]

10:36 WVO Quine essay

49:41 bookmark

[constructivecritique]

I love how atheist are taking little baby steps to the ultimate cherry 🍒 on top! They really know how to savor every last detail.

[edluckenbill]

Parsimonious is the simple explanation. Not speculation

[HoneyBadgerKait]

I think the Theist always needs to try to aware of the fact that it is obviously harder to explain things using materialism as opposed to purely conceptual ideologies. Koons often pushes back with comments like "well you're going to find it hard to do X", or "On you're view it's harder to explain why X". This is because material explanations are dependent on inductive evidence all the way down. It requires some actual work to be done. Time, experimentation, validation etc. Either we cannot verify God or it is asserted that we don't need to. It's obviously much easier to propose God and assert properties that cleanly and instantly solve any problem or question, specially if we cannot or should not ask any deeper questions. What's worse, is when other Theists, not Koons, make the argument that science has already spent X years trying to solve Y, therefore, it probably means God is the only explanation.
Imagine you have 2 people in a cold house. Person 1 goes outside to chop some wood to make a fire. Person 2 attempts to use imagination and the power of the mind to make themselves feel warm. Even if Person 2 is happy with their mind over matter warmth, it is still much harder and more time consuming to actually go outside and chop all the wood for real. The fact that it is very hard and very time consuming to chop all that wood, is not a good argument to show that warmth is purely in the mind and is not physical at all.

[unduloid]

6:57 Numbers obey a common set of laws because they were invented by human beings that also invented those laws.

I mean, this is really not that hard, and it already shows the wrong-headedness of Koons' thinking.

[MTRRCTNGL]

Thomism is one of those propostions that shows philosophy is capable of being completely useless in the wrong brains.

[dylanmotes]

this guy seems to not have any of his own ideas? So and so says....