The next stage of the God debate | Jack Symes

Pantheism is atheism without the humility of accepting the mystery of existence as mystery. What angst causes philosophers to jump from atheism to pantheism rather than being content to accept that things that science cannot yet or may never answer are yet mysteries? Oh, and I find it presumptuous and hubristic to think science can never understand consciousness. Neuroscience and computer science continue to study consciousness and they are indeed making strides. Whether or not consciousness will be fully or mostly understood we cannot now say. And that's okay with me. What came before the big bang or why there is a big bang we may never know. But the concept that all is God is not helping us know. Pantheism is merely putting a capital N on nature.

One of religions strengths is its ability to create a collective social myth. Would be nice if we could find a societal myth around building a collective moral not based on ancient nomads.

"Whether we look at Pantheism or classical philosophy, the core struggle has always been identity and meaning. But as machines relieve humanity from external necessity, our philosophical models won't just be academic debates—they will be the only framework left to define who we are."

I’m skeptical. While the multiversal God concept is presented as an alternative explanation, there’s no way to know if this pantheistic god is actually real. Redefining God in this way and using it to explain evil in the universe doesn’t sit right with me. Philosophically, it might offer Jack Symes some intellectual comfort as a way to account for evil’s existence, but it doesn’t prove the reality of this pantheistic divine entity. This metaphysical framework simply offers a comforting explanation for evil, without any means to falsify the idea. There’s also a misconception that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. You can reject or have an absence of belief in the existence of specific god or gods defined by current religious beliefs while remaining agnostic about “existence or non-existence of a deity or deities”. Agnosticism is a view that the existence or non-existence of a god is currently unknown or inherently unknowable. Atheism relates to belief. It is the absence of belief in a god or gods. An atheist does not hold a conviction that a deity exists.

I think antitheists don't want to talk about any of this, its a sort of a delusion when he claims otherwise

3:38 "Science explains what things do, not what they are".
Arguebly, what things do is what they are.

56:18 free will is the problem. There is no multiverse because nothing makes a decision without cause. No probability from the point of view of god here. No randomness.

This is such an optimistic world view, and it doesn't really explain the world we have right now.

The dude is extremely smart. I am fortunate to have come across this video. Thank you.

Only God exist nothing and no one else

🙏🏻the Most sincere Gratitude to the Channel and to the Speaker for the top interesting content! 👍🏻💕

New atheists > philbros. The theist’s reasons for believing god is good is just based off of more baseless assumptions that’s why new atheists didn’t take their arguments seriously. They’re unfalsifiable nonsense. NEXT

I am surprised this is part of Big Think. This analysis strikes me as parochial and flawed.

I’m not particularly convinced by the conclusion that some of philosophy’s biggest problems can be considered “solved,” or even “best answered,” simply by committing to a particular worldview. These questions have puzzled and fascinated the human mind for millennia, and while I wouldn’t necessarily argue that they’re unsolvable (although that’s certainly a reasonable possibility), I think there’s considerable value in their complexity and in the ongoing process of trying to understand them.

Ultimately, I hope that “consciousness is fundamental” isn’t treated as the end of the story. Even if this perspective offers a compelling way of approaching the problem of consciousness, I don’t think adopting it should be mistaken for having fully explained the problem of consciousness.

Is self-knowledge a great making property?

If so then surely it is greater to have it plentifully than sparsely. By that I mean that every conscious aspect of God's being should be aware of its divine identity.

My fingernail isn't conscious and doesn't even know that it is part of a human body. But for the sake of argument, suppose that it was conscious and had the misconception that it was part of an elephant instead. Wouldn't that be counted against me as a flaw?

Since it definitely is the case that I don't believe I'm God, we have at least one part of this God/World thing that doubts it is a being of maximal perfection. So God isn't maximally perfect.

religion is a form of ignorance

So he rediscovered Hinduism again huh ?

There is absolutely no free will.

This video proved to me that anyone can convince themselves of anything when casting spells with your hands.

1:00 if anything, pangram creates even more distrust