Timeless
Epidose a.k.a. Desimal Lyrics

Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴ Line by Line Meaning ↴

I'm like huh what did you say? It's so hard to make your way
Through this world without a faith
But he guides me through the fake
I just try to stay away and I just try to make a change
When snakes they try to lay amongst my path
I have to evade
I'm like huh what did you say? It's so hard to make your way
Through this world without a faith

But he guides me through the fake
I just try to stay away and I just try to make a change
When snakes they try to lay amongst my path
I have to evade
I've been walking on this earth for some time and there's folks that act like know me
It's kinda funny when I see them capping through their teeth
At times just sit back and laugh because I got modesty
Honestly it's a tragedy seeing peeps I once had piece with just dip up off the scene after calling out their bs
See you, wouldn't wanna be you
The whole associations full of crazy creatures but my flows been blessed my Jesus
So I have this plat to speak of
I'm like huh what did you say? It's so hard to make your way
Through this world without a faith
But he guides me through the fake
I just try to stay away and I just try to make a change
When snakes they try to lay amongst my path
I have to evade
I'm like huh what did you say? It's so hard to make your way
Through this world without a faith
But he guides me through the fake
I just try to stay away and I just try to make a change
When snakes they try to lay amongst my path
I have to evade
God's leading me to a place to where I'm spiritually elevated
While demons try to change my state until my mind's infiltrated
I stay and pray until God moves me to my destination
Through all the hating, God will guide me until my days end
Through all of the pain and all of these people hating
I won't let them get to me. Those are demons from Satan
I'll fight out the spirits until I get my final payment
This will always be my prayer and my final statement
I'm like huh what did you say? It's so hard to make your way
Through this world without a faith
But he guides me through the fake
I just try to stay away and I just try to make a change
When snakes they try to lay amongst my path
I have to evade
I'm like huh what did you say? It's so hard to make your way
Through this world without a faith
But he guides me through the fake
I just try to stay away and I just try to make a change

When snakes they try to lay amongst my path
I have to evade

Overall Meaning

The lyrics to Epidose a.k.a. Desimal's song "Timeless" seem to express the artist's determination to transcend the limitations of his past and present circumstances. He raps about his struggles and his desire for success in life, but acknowledges that it is ultimately up to God's grace to make things happen. He mentions the lure of money and the pressure to succeed, but also the need to stay positive and never give up. He refers to his personal qualities, such as his resilience and his ability to make dreams come true, and speaks to his audience, urging them to dance and to join him in his quest for a better life.

At its core, "Timeless" is a song about hope and perseverance. The artist seems to be saying that no matter what obstacles he may face, he will keep going until he achieves his goals. He also seems to suggest that the old ways of doing things may still hold sway, but that with enough determination and hard work, they can be overcome. In this sense, the song is a call to arms for anyone who has ever struggled to make it in the world, urging them to keep moving forward and never give up.

Line by Line Meaning

Medi me ni bre gyina kwanhu p3 sika
I've worked hard and sacrificed a lot just to make some money

Me bor mi bra minfa me n'kwan sh3 nipa
I've used the little money I have to help other people, because I know the importance of giving back

Ma huoden ne mi kra ne me gya
I've faced many challenges in life, but I've always persevered and moved forward

Eni awurade adom nti me baa na ma ba
I believe that everything I have is because of God's grace, and I will always give Him the credit

Mebab3 kan ne shi ama enigye aba
I've learned to be content with what I have, and not to be envious of others

Hw3 ma sum dae3 ama sika na aba
I don't let money control my happiness, because true happiness comes from within

Metu me nae like me nim kwanu dada
I always stay true to myself and my values, no matter what others may think or say

I dey do, kpa kpa kpa
I keep moving forward, step by step, no matter what obstacles come my way

Den I take 3ga ny3 la
And when I reach the top, I never forget where I came from

I don't play with am (Gboza)
I take my goals and aspirations seriously, and I don't let anyone or anything hold me back

Nana Aba tae fr3 me
Even when faced with challenges, I have a strong support system that encourages and lifts me up

She got the money on her mind like a church service
Others may be obsessed with money, but I know that true wealth comes from a life filled with purpose and positivity

Madane superman Klu I dey take burden
I have a strong sense of responsibility, and I'm not afraid to take on difficult challenges to help others

No heaven ma bank account for chop seven
I don't measure my success or happiness by the amount of money I have, but by the positive impact I can make in the world

No soul selling Mr Buffalo soldier, Hope Reverend
I stay true to my values and beliefs, and I won't compromise who I am for anyone or anything

Still a light still a beacon I dey shine heavy
I continue to shine bright and inspire others, even in the face of darkness or negativity

Wonim ah bisa, Azonto Ghost heaven
I have a unique style and personality that makes me stand out, and I embrace it fully

I'm in the HIT service
I'm dedicated to making a positive impact in the world through my work and actions

Big hope dealer
I'm a source of hope and inspiration for others

Big whip pull up
I have a strong sense of confidence and power, and I'm not afraid to show it

Me be the guy wey dey kick life fila
I'm someone who takes life by the horns and lives it to the fullest

Amanfuo choice
I'm a leader and role model for others in my community

The voice of voice
I use my voice to speak out for what's right and to inspire others to make a positive change

I make dreams come true I'm the choice
I'm someone who can help others achieve their goals and dreams, and I take that responsibility seriously

I get struggles I'm man like you
I face the same challenges and struggles as everyone else, but I don't let them hold me back

Living a real good life that's my virtue
I value living an authentic and meaningful life, and I prioritize that above anything else

Used to have all their weight on my back had to quit that
I used to carry the weight of others' expectations and pressures, but I've learned to let go and focus on my own path

Now i play that tick tack toe just to get that
I don't take life too seriously and I find joy in the little moments and simple pleasures

Amanfuor mbrao, its that time now
It's time for me to step up and make a positive change in my community and beyond

KINGKlu plus you lightning bolt, Gold, lets get this money control
With my talent and drive, and the support of others, I can make a positive impact and achieve financial success

Bring your dancing shoes do azonto
Let's have some fun and celebrate life, even in the midst of challenges

Lets make a block here no dey flop
Let's work together and build something great that will last

Sikiltele so we don't give a fuck
Let's ignore the negativity and criticism of others, and stay focused on our goals and values

God is in control he chork fo the top
I have faith that everything happens for a reason, and that if I stay true to my values and work hard, success will come

Rich boy flow, worldwide to the top
With my unique talents and perspective, I can succeed and make a positive impact on a global scale

You see we dey
You can see that I'm here and I'm making a difference

Like we no dey when we no dey
Even when facing challenges or obstacles, I never give up or lose faith

Wanna old ways still dey reign
There are still those who cling to outdated and harmful beliefs and practices, but I'm working to change that

(Timeless Fire Fire Fire)
My passion and drive will never fade or waver, and I'll continue to work towards my goals with fire and passion

I say we dey like we no dey when we no dey
I'm still working hard and achieving success, even when it may not seem like it from the outside

Wanna old ways still ey reign
Even though there are those who resist change, I'm committed to making a positive difference and moving forward

Lyrics © DistroKid
Written by: KENNETH JONES

Lyrics Licensed & Provided by LyricFind

To comment on or correct specific content, highlight it

TRACKS

No Related Genres

More Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Comments from YouTube:

@someguyontheinternet2729

2y↑262

When I watched Alex's response video to Ben Shapiro, I immediately said "Boy, Alex did a good job with his replies. It would be cool if Trent did a rebuttal to see his perspective on the matter" well, it seemed like I got what I wished for lol.

@IWasOnceAFetus

2y↑80

This is such a good reply to Alex.

As a protestant, you've helped me understand a lot of things in philosophy, Trent.

@Lerian_V

Do you already understand how 3 distinct persons share one divine nature or Godhead?

@IWasOnceAFetus

2y↑3

@@Lerian_V Not as much as I would like to. I'm yet to research deeply into the subject matter. But very soon planning to.

@johnhamilton2923

God's cause is his potential?
God's potential is to be purely actual?
Only actual things exist?

@johnhamilton2923

Are all points in time the same point in time or different.

@johnhamilton2923

What is it that is moving through the block universe and scanning the different parts?

5 More Replies...

@mike-cc3dd

2y↑114

If I had a dollar for every scholar who reverted to occams razor to "debunk" miracles but somersaulted through mental gymnastics to reject a creator....
I'd have enough to pay all their student loans.

@chloewilson9898

2y↑2

😂 for sure! "A purely actual actualizer fails in relation to theory B of time, aka the time block.......and I can't believe you guys think there is a God and only one God lolol how silly how bout like several gods?!" Like wait a minute!! 😂

@robinrobyn1714

2y↑8

@@chloewilson9898 For something that doesn't exist God sure has the undivided attention of the atheist. Indeed, I'm a Theist and atheists spend far more time than I ever do, talking about God.

@geoffstemen3652

2y↑1

Occam’s razor of course originally being used as support FOR God.

@peli_candude5549

You might have enough to get their degrees revoked on the grounds of using unsupported and illogic al arguments.

@ramigilneas9274

2y↑4

A creator isn’t the simplest explanation.
A creator is the most complex explanation imaginable.

18 More Replies...

@edwardanderson2847

1y↑25

Comment for the algorithm.

I’m grateful for Cosmic Skeptic’s rational manner. It seems to me that he isn’t out to score points, just to pursue the truth in good faith. I’m even more grateful Trent’s rigour. Great channel!

@i-love-cats75

33w

lol he will never change.

1 More Replies...

@Queef_Pegger

2y↑172

Sitting here pretending to understand anything

@glendanikolakakos7431

2y↑3

😂

@b.alexanderjohnstone9774

2y↑8

Yep. The seed and the tree in Shapiro's cartoon made total sense to me but it went down hill a bit from there! (More cartoons please!)

@j.cgallagher7092

2y↑1

I don't even know what a nucular panner plant is.

@HodgePodgeVids1

2y↑98

Love philosophy and metaphysics. Makes my brain hurt

@definitelynotaheretic.7295

2y↑2

“You make it…. boom boom hurt so good!”

@robinrobyn1714

2y↑4

'Philosophy' is from the Greek language and it means' love of wisdom'

@cordsworks

2y↑7

"Makes my brain hurt."

Yeah, but in a good way.

@danielz.7346

25w

Like exercise to the body.

@djo-dji6018

2y↑29

Alex's arguments are so easily defeated that my brain almost hurts while listening to him. And as a former ultra-confident atheist now converted to the Catholic Faith, I say this with no sarcasm or ill intentions whatsoever.

@Garry_Combine

45w↑3

Same across the board

@hassanahmad3589

38w↑1

Same

@robinrobyn1714

37w↑1

Not a Catholic, but I am in total agreement with you.

@TheSpacePlaceYT

36w

The second one was actually pretty good unless you thought about it for a minute.

@quintonconoly

34w

Nice

@tylerwyat9592

2y↑104

I think Alex forgets that by quantum theory, energy is quantized and not continuous. That was the whole "ultraviolet catastrophe" issue.

@mathewjose4753

2y↑3

I wonder if he even knows about that in the first place.

@rudolfivonhabsburgkingofth601

I don't think that the ultraviolet catastrophe is an appropriate word to call the advent of quantum theory, because if classical physics were true, we'd all be dead.

@MyMy-tv7fd

not my first thought, but I got there too, after a while...and of course quantum theory deals in pure probability until some measurement/interaction actualises the state change (am I right there?)

@von_nobody

@@rudolfivonhabsburgkingofth601 "catastrophe" is name of paradox cased by old physic that fail to correctly describe observed behavior. And attempts to solve this problem create quantum theory.

8 More Replies...

@xaviervelascosuarez

2y↑35

The answer to the problem of "potential actuality" you give is spot on and I was happy that one of my philosophical heroes was brought to bear. When I saw Alex's video, Boethius' definition of eternity immediately came to mind. "Interminabilis vita, tota, simul et perfecta possessio." I believe that many (if not most) of atheists' most challenging challenges come from a defective understanding of eternity (evil, free will, etc.). Now, eternity (like everything else about God) is intricately bound to the divine simplicity, and I wonder how apologists such as WLC manage to fair so well in their debates without having this notion very clear. I think he (Dr. Craig) would save himself some intellectual acrobatics if he did come to understand that God's perfection calls for eternity and perfect simplicity.

@tommore3263

2y↑5

I thank God that I was blessed with being able to study the origins of western thought and its deepest thinkers from the preSocratics on. God became intellectually present as well as immanent in all being. Where sanity lies.

@bulavskyy

I'm always impressed how intellectually arrogant some christians are. You speak about inventented, delusional things with such convintion! Same has to be said about flatearthers, btw.

@xaviervelascosuarez

@@bulavskyy Where are you from?

@azrael516

26w

@@xaviervelascosuarezhell

@1901elina

21w

@@azrael516 😂😂

@diannalaubenberg7532

2y↑37

Thank you, Trent. I understand these arguments better now!

@Zosso-1618

2y↑112

I feel a bit bad for Alex O’Connor that you put him next to Genetically Modified Skeptic…

@IWasOnceAFetus

2y↑27

Exactly. GMS seemed to not even have read Feser's work.

@flowinproductions6416

2y↑11

true but honestly o'connor has been stuck on the same simple problem at least since his debate with bishop barron, whether he reverts back to his old arguments or not.

@Zosso-1618

2y↑1

@@flowinproductions6416 True…

@jonphinguyen

2y↑86

Alex and others like him would have nowhere near the audience they do if they didn't have English accents. Not joking

@fedfoofy

2y↑4

Genetically Modified Skeptic has more views and has an American accent.

@michellelaudet5363

2y↑15

@@fedfoofy Ah but he preaches the material hedonism much better, per life in America.

@MidnightIsolde

2y↑15

To some extent this is true. And I'm English myself lol. I've not watched much of Alex before tbh, but he presents exactly as I expected, which is to say very eloquently spoken and full of intellectual vocabulary, but rather pretentious and kind of a can't see the woods for the trees effect in the sense that they put across a seemingly insightful point, but it's actually flimsy. I know many like this and I was also like this too as I've got a BA and MA in history and literature. Now, I don't have a problem with him putting forward a critique of classical theism or Thomism, but this is just a general observation of this type I find. Probably Dawkins and Hitchens are/were compelling in a similar way as they fit the archetype of the posh English intellectual and sometimes that aesthetic is convincing, more so that the substance. Not to say that Alex is not genuinely intelligent (he is) nor can he help his accent etc lol,but like many intelligent people sometimes that intellect needs to be balanced out with experience to give context and wisdom. There's a reason that the stereotype of students and academics exists of "plenty of brains but no common sense", because it is observablely true a lot of the time with real experience.
Another tendency, not so much of Alex here tbf, but generally can be snarky attitudes to anything vaguely traditional or concepts of established truths (indeed even the concept of truth itself sometimes), usually in a pompous and dismissive way, which is all an exercise in ego.

@ironymatt

2y↑9

@@MidnightIsolde charisma sways people way more than they'd like to think, confirms their intuitions no matter how incomplete or outright flawed.
Hitchens was a master at it but Dawkins is just painful (even though they both had horrible arguments), so there's more to it than just the accent

@TickleMeElmo55

2y↑1

True. He's boring and nothing brilliant.

7 More Replies...

@mariobaratti2985

2y↑77

Challenging Feser... that's bold Alex

@SHepburnEDJ

2y↑1

If he did a better job it would be… I don’t think Feser needs to even respond.

@charlesudoh6034

2y↑16

Its not about just challenging Feser, anyone can attempt that.
Its about understanding the concepts well enough to do so. Alex clearly doesn’t understand it and Trent exposes that in this video.

@senkuishigami2485

2y↑1

Ask Joe schmid (majesty of reason)

@gorgeousrose8734

1y↑3

When I need to be humbled I watch these videos lol. Makes me realize how little I know.

@petery6432

2y↑19

POV: You see that Trent is defending an argument from motion, and now are wondering how quickly MoR will take to respond to it.

@probaskinnyman4960

2y↑1

Ill give Joe another 3 minutes😉😎

@senkuishigami2485

Joe is a busy person it will probably take 2 seconds

@Seanph25

Who’s MoR

@vfjpl1

@@Seanph25 MajestyOfReason

@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039

2y↑6

Man, Alex's thinking seems to have a lot of fun separate from his own personal biases, and so he's able to entertain ideas like Trent does. I'd love to have a long deep discussion and a beer or two with him. (Though I'd take a notepad if I was with Trent)

@isaiahertel7162

2y↑11

Alex's objection using the B theory of time seems to purely rely on redefining the term change. Change seems to be the difference between an object at two different times. Even if all things exist in a time block it is not immediately obvious that change cannot have the same definition in this way of thinking about time. With Theory A an object can change from one moment to another. In the B theory of time an object can change from one moment to another, it just possesses new characteristics at different time points, but this seems to be change as originally defined. If I am missing something here, please let me know!

@ironymatt

2y↑1

Redefining terms is what they do. Weasels

@Benjamin-uj9fk

2y↑3

Agreed. Time seems inherently to be the reciprocal of change. You can't have the one without the other. Going "outside" of time to look at the time block and ask why it doesn't change seems bewildering.

@tafazzi-on-discord

2y↑8

I think I have an easier to explain objection to Alex's first point:
He says that potential is not an actual property of an object, but I don't think he would say that the past isn't an actual property of an object. So if an object can have a past, and in its past it went from one quantity of a continous property to another quantity of that same property (like from 61 degrees to 60), then it already has in its past an infinite number of intermediate states. Potential is something that is as much of a property as its past, meaning that if you accept as true the abstractions some branches of physics use where there's supposedly infinitely many intermediate states in a change, then since that leads you to accept an infinite amount of past states, it should also lead you to accept an infinite amount of possible future states.

One could challenge the idea that continous properties exist, but that's besides the point. If you need a continous property to arrive at the conclusion that potential is infinite, you also arrive at the conclusion past is infinite, and since everyone agrees the past is an actual property of an object, you need a different argument to prove that potential cannot be a property of the object.

@ironymatt

2y↑2

I thought it was a bit of a sleight of hand on his part to refer to potential and actuality as properties in the first place. Maybe there's a technical definition of property that allows for this, but my layman's understanding is that a property is an aspect of a thing (chair is yellow, coffee is 60.1° etc) while act and potential refer to a state of being. Is there no distinction between a thing's state of being and the properties it possesses?
I similarly had reservations about his reference to an actualized thing being simultaneously potential in order to maintain its actualized state. This describes the state of being for all caused thing's, but it wouldn't apply to a purely actualized actualizer, never mind that the way he put it, it's as if there's no distinction between potential and actual.
Nevertheless, Trent didn't comment on these points, so I feel like I'm missing something

@dylanfernandez3910

2y↑33

Trent, since Alex describes the B theory of time as objects existing without potential but as parts, can we not just bring up the argument from contingency?

@notpants2810

2y↑2

To do so would be to concede that the argument from motion is insufficient to prove the existence of God, since you basically just gave up when an objection got too hard to handle.

@sneakysnake2330

2y↑2

@@notpants2810 It’s not conceding that the argument doesn’t work, it’s appealing to other information to show that an objection doesn’t work.

@dylanfernandez3910

2y↑1

@@notpants2810 Also, Cosmicskeptic does the same thing. He brings up his second argument even when he has moved on to his third.

1 More Replies...

@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039

2y↑7

I would then ask Alex, "How was the Timeblock made? Or Who arranged the set for events to occur? It sorta just sounds like fate if there isn't actual change."

@garrettm.6557

My understanding of the argument is still a bit basic, but it seems that in order for there to be a set of potentials and actualizations within the so-called timeblock, wouldn't there need to be an actualization and potential for that specific timeblock, as to why it is chosen for the proximal past, present, and future, and not some other timeblock? It seems that even using the timeblock as a sort of scapegoat still creates the issue which you raised. Ultimately, I think the atheist position is overall untenable, because it still requires the same sort of so-called "assumptions" or "begging" that the theistic position supposedly requires.

@matthewnwafor8696

Great and excellent job,Trent! Proud of you! Keep it up!

@cordsworks

2y↑25

Alex's argument was entirely defeated by this rebuttal.

He should, however, be complimented for having a nice-looking Taylor guitar in the background. (And then, he should get a mild finger-waggling for inducing others to covet.) 🙂

@Vtorch

2y↑15

The potential of my head hurting after watching this video,......actually happened. 😁

@CatholicismRules

2y↑13

I think these questions (or questions similar to these) are well-addressed in Modern Thomistic Philosophy, Volume I, where he talks about Zeno's objections. For anyone looking for a good introduction, that is also very detailed, to Thomistic philosophy of nature and metaphysics, I highly recommend that two-volume series.

@tommore3263

2y↑7

Thomism is sanity. The real world available to our minds including why we are "moved" by beauty and goodness. God at the ground of being, BEING itself, REASON itself and why sunsets and children are so wondrous. Love. the final mover.

@CatholicismRules

2y↑6

@@tommore3263 AMEN. I still want to engage with non-Thomist philosophy, I think that's really interesting, but Thomism is the only thing I've read so far where I've actually felt at peace. It really is a common-sense philosophy, where I'm very rarely finding that I have to stretch and wrap my head around something. Instead I just become aware of what my head is already wrapped around and how perfectly it fits.

@rodwitzel9260

24w

Love this channel . Excellent food for thought.

@MrsYasha1984

2y↑122

So now the argument is 'change does not exist, so God does not exist'?
Am I the only one who thinks that is a bit far fetched?

I like my 8year olds reasoning for God, when I told him some people don't believe.
"Who do they think made the Universe? The sun? Have they even looked at Nature?"
The answer that they think it all happened by coincidence did not even remotely impress him.

I like children. They bring stuff to the point.

@halleylujah247

2y↑9

No it is. Totally a case of a philosopher spending to much time thinking about stuff and in his own head.

@Dianadicarta

2y↑15

Honestly, in my non philosopher brain all I heard from Alex was: God is not needed because God is not needed

@jeremysmith7176

2y↑1

That Things change is a premise of the argument that does require philosophical backing. Aristotle developed the language of potential and actual in response to other great philosophers who claimed that things did not actually change.

@GranMaese

2y↑4

@@Dianadicarta «[...] Because I don't want to need Him.» *

@IMincompetent1

2y↑3

I like my 8 yo reasoning against god, he said “who do they think made God? The sun? Have they even looked at the nature of god?”
The answer that they think he started to exist by coincidence, rather than nothing existing at all, did not even remotely impress him.

14 More Replies...

@TheThreatenedSwan

2y↑5

You can win every argument by redefining things in your favor, but then you are not referring to the same things as your interlocutor, and it shows a negligence in caring about giving good reason for others

@DeannaWillistonOFS

2y↑18

I love how Trent brings in precision rules 💕🤓

@nathanbustamante1525

2y↑8

I like that Alex shared his patron only segment on Ed feser. That was generous

@no_more_anymore

2y↑27

@3:31 Alex stating that his coffee can be so many degrees in temperature was such a TERRIBLE argument 🤣

@matswessling6600

31w↑1

not at all. Its the concept of potentiality that is terrible.

1 More Replies...

@tommore3263

2y↑17

Like form and matter, actuality and potentiality are not two "things" that exist in the coffee cup , but rather are the two metaphysical or most basic principles that renders reality intelligible. Potential is real but it is only realized in actuality and not discernible other than by understanding the very foundations of being. And this does lead inevitably to a being who Is BEING itself.. Himself as such a being must be Personal.

I really like and admire Alex incidentally and look forward to his further growth in understanding. He is much disturbed by suffering for instance, but doesn't see that the very idea of suffering or evil actually must unavoidably be an assertion of the fundamental goodness of being. Monotheism is the necessary core of apprehending reality.

His interview with Bishop Barron was very good. Cheers

@ironymatt

2y↑2

There was a point during his interview with BP Barron where I spoke out loud to my screen something to the effect of "How can you think suffering negates God's goodness?! Does it look like Jesus didn't suffer on the cross?"
I really wanted Barron to make that point as a rebuttal because Alex kept pressing it.

@tommore3263

1y↑2

@@ironymatt Bishop Barron did point out that suffering is evil or bad only if everything is good and valuable. I see that as a bit of a blind spot with Alex who I fully expect will find his way to full sane rationality which literally is the Roman Catholic Church in the Person who sustains her. Catholicism really is exactly truth and sanity.

@ironymatt

@@tommore3263 well put. I see in him the drive to correct the injustices of the world, insofar as he can perceive them - which isn't at all a unique outlook, especially at his age. While he might not readily concur at this time in his life, this reveals a de facto desire for God Himself, in whom lies the full embodiment of perfect justice, beyond all human comprehension.
He'll get there, once he starts getting out of his own way :-)

@MoogieB

2y↑19

10 minutes in & my brain is a puddle of goo. This talk is totally out of my educational experience. But that’s okay. I have faith & God gifted me with a personal experience that is undeniable. That’s all I need.

@probaskinnyman4960

2y↑4

Same mindset I had friend. Though I actually burnt my brain from rewinding the video 800 times. Still dont get like 70 percent that was said, but oh I tell you, that feeling of u understanding what they were saying is like Christmas Presents. Still don’t recommend frying out your braincells tho

@tommore3263

2y↑6

@@probaskinnyman4960 Get some of Ed Feser's books. He can wonderfully walk almost anyone into getting it. And our minds exist to see and know truth. Its essential to human fulfillment.

@probaskinnyman4960

2y↑1

@@tommore3263 always wanted to, but the cost to get a book shipped out here from America is crazy expensive, maybe one day I’ll consider a digital copy but never been a fan since it doesn’t inspire me to read. ( legit have a free Trent Horn ebook and I barely touched it)

@jeremysmith7176

2y↑1

Check out the Thomistic Institute and their Aquinas 101 series. They have given me a good background in Thomistic philosophy and meta-physics.

@ironymatt

2y↑3

@@probaskinnyman4960 I hear ya with the e-books. Nothing against them for those who enjoy it, but I gotta have actual pages to turn as I sip my actual coffee before it actualizes its potential for heat death :-)

1 More Replies...

@Mrs_Homemaker

2y↑18

Me trying to understand this before my coffee has kicked in 🥴🥴🥴🥴

@joelmontero9439

What an amazing video I still think that the argument from motion is the best argument for the existence of God
God bless you Trent

@alexbleyker5816

1y↑1

Props, you do better philosophy than Iv seen from any Christian apologists more mainstream than you.

@danielfreitas9301

I love these. Although on a first screening I can only grasp about 40% of it and in no way I can remember any of that in an argument t :P. It sucks that my future self in B theory has poor memory.

Another question I have is that in B theory, if my unknowledgeable self and my more knowledgeable self both exists and keep existing, then there also must be an infinite number of myself at the same point in time that might not be as knowledgeable because to arrive at the knowledgeable self, I have to have reasoned. But if I have not reasoned, than I would have not become more knowledgeable, so there should have be another dumber version of me at the same time as the smart one as well as a version of me that have not reasoned alongside another version that did. I think then it follows that there are a multitude (infinite?) number of realities coexisting at the same time (is that where the multiverse/parallel universe idea stems from?). But then even in that case, a particular parallel universe is pre-determined, removing the concept of choice or reasoning and the future self is nothing more than happenstance, that reasoning doesn't really exist.

Does that make sense or am I missing so.ething? I am not a philosopher by any stretch.

@ujwalsabu1106

1y↑1

Need to watch this multiple times to understand !! You guys are just cool.

@42imagefairly34

2y↑5

Thanks for sharing this on YouTube.
Youngsters are still learning about life.

@honeysinz3546

2y↑15

Omg ,when I watched Alex I thought to myself how Trent will respond to that and here it is .

@robinrobyn1714

2y↑181

For something that doesn't exist, God sure has Alex O'Connor's attention.

@rubenmartinez4346

2y↑48

Exactly. It boggles my mine how someone who doesn’t believe in God places so much time and energy in God.

@robinrobyn1714

2y↑24

@@rubenmartinez4346 It's very telling, psychologically.

@imperialhistory6120

2y↑75

He had a conversation with bishop Barron where he said he grew up Catholic and considers the existance of God is the most importand question there is. He also said he wants to be certain he is correct because of how important it is. As a Catholic I don`t agree with him but he does seem to be genuine in his search for God.

@michellelaudet5363

2y↑24

@@imperialhistory6120 Hopefully he is honestly seeking. My opinion from the few times I have heard Alex speak, he seems unable to surrender control of things to anything outside of his capability to reason... so he keeps going around and round, always having himself stay seating on the throne of control... or yellow chair pretending to be God's throne.

@Cruizzerr

2y↑10

@@rubenmartinez4346 Because you're assuming that Alex initially believes that God doesn't exist and subsequently makes videos arguing about it, rather than him coming to the conclusion that God doesn't exist after the fact that he's tried arguing about it.

It could be that he's genuinely curious about determining whether God exists and still isn't convinced, after all, if God sends people to Hell to suffer for eternity, I think one would want to seem quite convicted in their belief that God doesn't exist before simply hand-waving this possibility.

131 More Replies...

@danielvecchio9942

2y↑4

Alex slides between “real” and “actual”. The infinite potentials of the coffee are real, so there is an actual infinite number of potentials. “Real” and “actual” can be distinguished, and I think is central to Aristotle’s metaphysics of change. Alex begs that we “imagine” these potentials, but they exist as realities in actual powers substances have.

@sneakysnake2330

2y↑12

Joe Schmid is typing…

I can smell the 4 hour response now

@probaskinnyman4960

Ngl Im hoping Trent would respond to Joe if he did make a reply, simply because I’m interested in hearing Trent talk about Existential Inertia, which he dismissed since the objection wasn’t made.

@sneakysnake2330

2y↑1

@@probaskinnyman4960 true, existential inertia is a very interesting topic that I haven’t had time to do much research into, so hopefully having two people who are likely pretty knowledgeable about EI discussing it directly would help break the ice for the layman so to speak.

@infodisco4097

2y↑1

Has he done it yet? Because he sure does love to respond to people

@josephmoya5098

2y↑3

When discussing the necessity of a "God-like being" with some people, I usually bring up the problems which arise from an infinite series of events, mainly, that if one holds to a physical realism, that is, that which is described in physics in true, and not just our imagination, having an infinite series of events lead to having no unique solution. In other words, if this moment is dependent on a previous infinite series of events, all linked casually, then there is no reason for this moment to look the way it does. There are an infinite number of equally acceptable solutions to the physics. In order to get a unique solution, some initial condition must be given a finite number of events ago. In this way, even with an infinite past, you require a "God-like being" with control over the universe. (It would also need to set the rules by which the universe casually functioned.)

I then raise the B-Theory of time objection for my interlocutor. What if causality is false? If there is no causality, that there is only apparently so, but not so in reality, then why does one need a God? And the answer is, something needs to bring about the simultaneous existence of everything and all time. It is now even worse for the atheist, because prior to you need a cause acting once in order to get things going, and without careful thought, you could at least get to Deism. But with a series of non-casual events linked together in a "time-block" as Alex puts it, you now need the God-like being to hold in existence every non-casually linked moment, and do so in a way that makes everything appear casual. This now requires far more from the God-like being than a simple series of events starting with him does.

In summary, whether you choose a finite series of casual events, an infinite series of casual events, or a series of non-casual events that appear casual, you still require God. If atheists want to actually disprove God, they need to put forward a sound model of the universe which is self-sufficient. This is a lot of physicists' Golden-goose. And to this day, none that I have seen have escaped this dilemna without rejecting physical realism. And if you are going to say physics is all made up anyway, I see no reason to take your physics of the beginning of the universe seriously anyway.

@kymfortescue6737

But atheists don't need to disprove God. Deists need to prove a God (or Gods) and then theists have to prove that their god or gods is/are that god(s) (which, paraphrasing Hitchens, is a lot of work cut out for them).

@josephmoya5098

@@kymfortescue6737 Does God exist?

@arielathomo229

32w

Now how do you connect the god who created the univers withe Christian god ?

@josephmoya5098

32w

@@arielathomo229 Well, you need to start by looking at the attributes of this "necessary God" to understand what it is. I think that rationally, the necessary attributes of this necessary God lead one to conclude that an incarnation of God, the making finite and knowable that which is infinite and utterly unknowable, is necessary as well. And this means that either Christianity is true, or it is necessary that what Christianity professes will be made true at some point. And at that point, you might as well be Christian. I can walk you through all my thoughts on this, though it will take some time, and a willing participant.

Do you mind me asking whether you buy my argument about the necessity of God at all, or at least accept that there is some rationale behind them? There is not much point in going further into my argument for a theistic God if you think my initial argument is useless.

@kynesilagan2676

2y↑2

I think Trent might be one of the reasons Ben and Jordan might come into the fold.
Thanks to the people like Alex. Indeed God uses everything for his plan. Can't wait for Jesus' 2nd coming and the final judgement. Of course i need to remain in friendship with Jesus to pass the particular judgement :)

@EstudioVoitheia

2y↑26

Very IMPORTANT! It is absolutly not true that there is an infinity number of degrees that the cofee can be colled neither the distance between hands can not be reduced infinitively. the reason for that is that physics show that space and time are not continous but discret. We cannot add and infinity amount of decimals points to the T° of the coffee. The smaller distance and time period is given by the planck scale. That is the principle of quantum physics.

@dylanfernandez3910

2y↑7

Also if coffee would reach, let's say, the temperature of the Sun, it would simply cease to be coffee.

@josephmoya5098

2y↑2

Physics does not show that space-time is discrete. Rather, it shows that any solution using classical physics returns near infinities at a certain point, the Planck length and the Planck time. That is because you are dividing over such a small number. There are groups within physics, mainly those who are chasing a theory of quantum gravity, that argue for a truly discrete time and length. But this causes all sorts of problems. If space is discrete, what exists between space points? Is it nothing? Does the universe cease to exist between these space points? Why are these space points where they are? And the same goes for time. If time is discrete, does the universe cease to exist between time points, like a discrete signal? For this reason, it is not generally accepted that space and time are discrete. The only people who think so do so self-servingly, as it furthers their own hypothetical solutions to quantum gravity.

@EstudioVoitheia

@@josephmoya5098 "Physics does not show that space-time is discrete". "returns near infinities at a certain point, the Planck length and the Planck time". It is much more than that. The planck lenght is necessary for quantum physics at every aspect of it. But I correct my statement. The space is probably discret and the planck length is probably the smaller that we can get. "But this causes all sorts of problems". None of these problems are physical problems. For example, "Does the universe cease to exist between these space points?". Those are interesting questions but there is no paradox there.

@josephmoya5098

2y↑1

@@EstudioVoitheia I am not a quantum physicist. Perhaps you are. However, I am certain that there is nothing in quantum theory which requires discrete time or space. The Planck length is that length of which nothing smaller can be measured. And the Planck time is that time at which anything smaller is meaningless, and here meaningless refers to a trivial solution, such as an infinitesimal or an infinity. There are physicists who argue that space and time are discrete, but that is solely for the purpose of forwarding their particular solution to quantum gravity. And it is a major problem for physics if the universe doesn't exist, if space itself doesn't exist, between two "quantum points." Because, while the Planck length might be the smallest measurement, there are values less than that, and those values are infinite. So why are those values not real. It would be a huge problem.

@countzulu99

31w

It is easy to state an assertion about physics that is so barely understood to further your point or even “prove” it

@VACatholic

2y↑3

For those who want a full response to "Existential Inertia", checkout out "Philosophy for the People" and Gaven Kerr, who has written the only article in the literature on "Existential Inertia", which is ironic because he refutes it completely, showing how weak and not serious the argument actually is.

@alithea9510

Can you provide some links to the things you are mentioning? Thanks!

@VACatholic

2y↑1

@@alithea9510 "Philosophy for the People" "Existential Inertia and the Thomistic Way to God" "chroniclesofstrength" substack

@mistermkultra3114

2y↑3

Alex O'connor debunked Ben Shapiro? Yes
Alex O'connor debunked Ed Feser ? No

@prettycatlick4373

2y↑3

Alex is just a slightly more interested Hitch. Hitch was a joke (In his Christian criticism), Alex is slightly less of a joke because of his apparent interest.

@jackwalters5506

2y↑6

Also did Alex forget that Relativity isn't true? It's just a useful model but advances in understanding of Quantum Mechanics proves that Relativity isn't an accurate model of existence

@vitanderle7626

2y↑1

Alex's argument is based on special theory of relativity, which is perfectly compatible with QM. The incompatibility you are probably refering to is between QM and general theory of relativity.

@vinnyv949

2y↑1

This is a very good video. I didn’t catch that immediately on the last one where he said describing a coffee basically going from hot to cold is the equivalent of it just being in two different rooms….well no because the coffee still has changed. It’s not the same temperature just in a different room. It itself is actually different and therefore changed.

@Epiousios18

2y↑2

I found many of Alex's arguments to fly so much in the face of "common sense" that it was somewhat hard to wrap my head around what he is actually trying to argue. Saying there is "no change" if a B series of time is true feels a bit like saying that there would be "no change" in a song because it is part of a single composition when viewed as a whole (that doesn't "change" unless it is played).

Anyone else thinking the same thing, or am I just not getting it?

@yalechuk6714

1y↑1

I was actual struck by his chair analogy of changing the covering the chair but to the same color. What he merely proved by that is that some changes can imperceptible to the eyes it doesn't in any way prove that change didn't occur. Just like our limitations in our ability perceive the full actuality of God doesn't negate that it is there.

@darylfernandez2153

2y↑1

Well done.

@landonlowe4029

2y↑1

What I also thought is isn't the B theory an inherently religious belief itself ? 😅 I mean how would you prove that without faith? Inherently, as Alex seems to suggests the only way you could show time blocks exist would be to exist outside of time... No thing other than God, which Alex doesn't believe in possibly exists out of time (at best you could say something exists alongside time but this effectively means it happens at that time and at other times which would be a distinction without a difference if you have his world view).. thus No living intelligent being even with infinite intelligence could show the existence of it (you could show its possibility but again that is similar to any other faith).. if it can't be shown by reason then it is of the same faith he'd be arguing against in general LOL
Can someone tell me if I am missing something here?

@andyfisher2403

2y↑3

I have a feeling there is no coffee in that cup. Lol

@dylanfernandez3910

2y↑7

Cosmicskeptic's arguments were definitely more convincing than Geneticallymodifiedskeptic's.

I'm glad that there are actual Atheists that aren't mindlessly regurgitating the nonsense of the people like Dawkins and have started listening to the more formidable arguments for Atheism from minds like Oppy.

@sneakysnake2330

2y↑3

What do you think about having a dialogue with either Alex or perhaps Joe Schmid about the argument from change?

@sickboy666fu

2y↑2

I've come to the realization that these conversations and debates are pretty much useless only for fun

@danharte6645

2y↑10

Loved this talk

@peli_candude5549

It almost sounds in Alex's explanation (@ 20:50) of the awareness of the cup that TIME is the actual actuator of what happens to the cup at any given time.

@seekingtruth4045

I haven't watched Alex's response but I think merely raising objections isn't enough. You can deny that change exists, but you still have to explain how things are as they are at different points in time.

@j.johnson2190

2y↑7

For the first argument. Essences and natures do not inhere into beings, they are predicated of beings. Potencies don’t exist in any instance of an essence but remain at the level of essence.

@ironymatt

Thought it was a sleight of hand on his part. It might not be intentional but sloppy language gets you in the weeds pretty quickly, and atheists in general seem to rely on it for their objections

@j.johnson2190

2y↑3

@@ironymatt I haven't finished the video yet but I'd characterize his whole reply as pretty sloppy. I don't think any of these hold up at the academic level. They might sound good to a regular person but he makes pretty elementary mistakes. His second point on potency completely misses the point of dichotomizing act vs potency. Potency is opposed to the actual, the potency to not change is nonsensical per the definition.

@CatholicismRules

2y↑3

For the past many months I've been amazed about how much is reducible to the act/potency distinction.

@tommore3263

2y↑2

Thomism literally is SANITY.

@lucasmonteiro129

Great video Trent!

@paularnold3745

2y↑2

Alex O'Connor's objection using a block theory of the universe actually explains the eternity of God. In a block universe nothing is simultaneous (spatially or temporally) to observers who are part of the block universe, but for the Eternal God EVERYTHING is simultaneous.

@b.alexanderjohnstone9774

Never heard this one, very interesting thanks (reminds me of Prime mover argument but I'm still very much a learner in this stuff).

@YovanypadillaJr

2y↑8

Loved the summary replies. It makes it easier to understand

@johannaquinones7473

Geez I need to watch this a couple times😂

@craftexx15

2y↑4

Very good job, thanks.

@flowinproductions6416

2y↑4

those guys are why there's a need for more intelligent catholics to do this kind of thing. that second guy apparently did no other research before his video though and seems to think he's solved the God problem.

@TickleMeElmo55

2y↑2

Cambridge-Oxford grads who are secular tend to be like that.

@jonathanstensberg

Under B Theory, the concept of “change” is merely converted from talking about temporal states of before and after to spatial states of here and there. Consequently, the movement from one actualized potential to another actualized potential is replaced by the movement from one actualized part to another actualized part. This, the discussion concerns parts and the need for a perfectly simple being. Given the argument from simplicity obtaining, this merely goes to show how the divine attributes stand under both A Theory and B Theory, for they interconvert between one another depending upon the perspective.

@lionorfieldgules3740

2y↑3

It seems neither of the atheists have really spent time pondering the concept of Divine Simplicity. Most of Aquinas' proofs are, first and foremost, an argument that Divine Simplicity is necessary to explain the complexity of this world.

@halleylujah247

2y↑11

Apparently I am a fetus and never was not a fetus. Tell my eye wrinkles change doesn't exist please 😒

@ironymatt

2y↑4

If only they had the potential to remain unchanged. Alex does offer a mighty comforting falsehood.

@Mere-Theism

26w

"Actual infinites do not exist, so actual infinite potentials cannot exist"

But potential doesn't exist actually, it exists potentially lol

@dargosian

Trent, I wish you'd put the "REBUTTED: " tag at the start of the video title. It's a little confusing trying to decode who said what and whom you're trying to rebut. I acknowledge if you do so, you'll probably get comments to return it to the way it is right now. Just a suggestion.

@catholicguy3605

2y↑7

I hear the B theory of time and can't help but think that it makes the classical theistic argument. So if potential is just different parts of being. Then wouldn't God be the only being made of no parts because he never changed. I'm not sure if this makes sense but I'm trying to think it through.

@dylanfernandez3910

2y↑4

Exactly my thoughts. Alex even uses the term "parts" to describe the B theory of time, and my mind immediately shifted to the argument from contingency.

@countzulu99

31w

If there is a god then yes I’d have to believe that god is outside space and time

@mrdinosaur4545

31w

I would simply say that as long as a thing remains as it is, then the "potential" to remain as it is will just be actual, not potential. Furthermore, a thing having the "potential" to remain as it is is only meaningful when talking about things that have the potential to cease to exist, which would not apply to the actual actualizer

@jhoughjr1

These potential temps in the coffee being fractions of a degree feels a lot like Xeno's paradox.
I'd argue an object possessing an infinite number of properties not existing is not given.
If the potential in an object exists via its interactions with the universe and possible futures then it can only be infinite.

@sntxrrr

28w

I found the analogy of the carts being pulled by a locomotive interesting. Because I can explain the observation of a group of carts moving just as effectively by an incline and gravity. I don't need a first puller. What I am saying is that talking about potentiality creates a perspective with a particular logical structure but I am not convinced it is the right perspective to describe our reality.
I agree with Alexes early argument that potentiality is not a property of an actual thing and would say it is just a projection made by intelligent creatures when it suits them but it is not real beyond the fact that we can talk about it. Talking about potentiality is a trap when used as an argument about the existence of God.

@cerebralservant9870

You should talk with Joe Schmid about his responses to this video. Or at least give your take on them, which would be interesting.

@vol94

2y↑1

Great refutations, but for Alex's first objection I would just argue that a potential is not a thing but rather the possibility of something happening because of the presence of something that can fulfill that possibility. For example, if I have a gun in my hand there is a possibility or a potential that I will fire a bullet, and that possibility or potential exists because I have a gun from which I can fire the bullet, and the hand that can cause the gun to fire the bullet. So this possibility or potential for a bullet to be fired is not an actual physical thing that exists, therefore Alex's objection is rendered moot.

@johngleeman8347

As an atheist, I would be interested to learn the reasons that Trent and Feser find persuasive in concluding that: given the Universe is not infinite, a sapient eternal entity is more likely than the "first cause" being the sum of matter and energy in the Universe. There could be as of yet undreamt of possibilities, but the unmoved mover seems to be a very persuasive argument for theists.

@vexifiz6792

28w

Very good video 😊

@definitelynotaheretic.7295

2y↑3

Edit: I should’ve watched the whole video before commenting haha

A challenge to the infinite potential temperatures of the cup. I think it’s false on the face of it for this reason: resolution.

The temperature of his coffee is determined by the energy state of every atom in his coffee, which is finite. The temperature will always be a finite temperature. Are we SURE the temperature doesn’t stop at around the 32nd decimal point? Are we SURE it doesn’t “ratchet” through temps in limited intervals?

I would say it’s like claiming “I can see a potentially infinite number of pixels” when you’re looking at a 4K screen.

@alexbernard8907

2y↑1

It's common sense that when you make a cup of tea or coffee ect or even a mug of tea as I do, that if you put it on the table and get side tracked and forget you made it, when you remember it and go back to the cup or mug it'll be stone cold, don't need science for common sense

@EstudioVoitheia

2y↑2

Yes! It is not true that there is an infinity number of degrees that the cofee can be colled neither the distance between hands can not be reduced infinitively. the reason for that is that physics show that space and time are not continous but discret. We cannot add and infinity amount of decimals points to the T° of the coffee. The smaller distance and time period is given by the planck scale.

@OniLeafNin

1y↑1

Great response

@MyMy-tv7fd

2y↑1

I think you are being unintentionally funny - even Gandalf could not turn coffee into a chicken - not complaining though, I like a laugh as much as the next man

@von_nobody

For B theory of time. Even both moments exists there still objective change between them, like when you draw straight line and at some point you start makeing zig-zags. Now look on paper, whole line exists but have two distinct parts, one where line is straight and other that is not. Another thing for continues line there is still some limited potential, there is only some limited amount of lines that you could draw from given end point.
This even nicely match with Feynman diagrams, where lines can "collide" with each other and change "after" that. And this is many time timeless as time direction can be arbitrary changed.

@WagesOfDestruction

37w

I liked this one but I really had to think about parts, so I am watching it twice.

@WagesOfDestruction

37w

I agreed with almost all you said and here are my comments.
1 enjoyed this discussion and would like to see you explore O'Connor more.
2. O'Connor's argument about temperature having an infinite potential range could be wrong physically but I think his argument could be modified to say the thermodynamic and quantum mechanical principles allow for infinite temperature states. With this modification, his argument could be valid. However, as you say it's irrelevant as it is potential.
3. At 18:46, you are engaging in special pleading by suggesting something "potential to remain in existence" and "everything has a cause" since everything we empirically know does have a cause for its existence. I would say it is up to you to prove it. Having said that I think why there is something rather than nothing is a problem both for you and O'Connor.
4. I agree with you that even in a block universe, existence requires the actualization of potential.
5. There is more than just the A and B theory of time, some other options eg one I like is that the past and present are real and the future is not.

@danielcarriere1958

2y↑1

11:00 just a comment on the summary, second bullet - good points Trent. Alex, does not address, at least at this point, the distinction between substantial change, versus accidental change. Now, to be fair, neither does Ben address these topic in his video. Still, this is an important point to make, because coffee cannot undergo an infinite number of changes, and yet still be coffee, as you said. There are not an infinite number of accidental changes that can happen in coffee without that coffee becoming something else at some point, because the changes have been so drastic that say, for example, the coffee evaporates into plasma. That would be an example of substantial change. The change from one substance, to another substance.

Also, he gives the example of more and more exact temperature readings of the coffee. But the point is, it can only have one kind of change at a time. It cannot have all potentialities be actual, all at the same time. It can only be 100 degrees at time A, then 97 degrees at time B. It cannot be all temperatures all at the same time and in the same respects. That violates the law of non contradiction. And something must cause the change from 100 degrees to 97 degrees that is already actual. Say, for example, the surrounding temperature is leaching out the heat from the coffee. That colder environment is already actual, and its actuality is actualizing the potential of the coffee to become cooler.

So when Alex brings up the potential infinity of coffee's potential changes in temperature, then bringing up actual infinities versus potential infinities, he is bring this up in the context of accidental changes limited by the substantial form of coffee. And if he were to realize that, he would never make the claim that coffee can undergo an number of infinite number of potential changes, and yet still be coffee. Coffee, is limited, by its very nature as coffee.

@kenjackben

2y↑1

man does not live by bread alone but by every word they proceedeth out of the mouth of God

@pedroth3

I would like a video regarding the impossibility of existencial inertia

@introvertedchristian5219

Alex almost stumbled on another objection one could raise to the Aristotle/Thomas/Feser argument. A cup of coffee can't be both 61 degrees and 51 degrees at the same time, at least not all the way through. But that means it's impossible for a cup of coffee to be fully actualized. It's impossible for all of its potentials to be actual. And that casts doubt on whether anything at all could be fully actual in the sense of having no potentials or having all its hypothetical potentials be actual. For almost anything that's not fully actually, it will have contradictory potentials that cannot all be actualized. You can't both sit and not sit at the same time and in the same sense. If it's impossible for anything to be fully actual, then that casts doubt on the conclusion of the argument.

@robertortiz-wilson1588

Thought-provoking.

@tafazzi-on-discord

I also have another answer to the "block universe" idea. If the Universe is a block, then time is an illusion, yet if you think about it there must be some reason for it to not be utterly incoherent. Why does an object in a block universe always accelerate at the same rate towards the Earth? Couldn't its path be different each time it's dropped, with no discernible pattern? The speed of light intended as the speed of the spread of information, even in a block universe needs an explanation. So let's say that time was created all at once, and yet the laws of physics act on the 4 dimensional existance of an object given the vicinity that object has with others, so in the creation of the Universe even if those laws did not act over time because time is an illusion they still need to operate over the presence and space-time coordinates of all objects. You still end up with an unexplainable infinite regress, which while not temporal is still causal. What causes the rock's trajectory to be a downwards parabola over time? Earth's presence, and what causes Earth to be there? The Sun's pull on it, and what causes the Sun to be there? So on and so forth.

I have an aunt who teaches in middle school and its her job to provide the schedule of lessons, but she has limitations. For example all literature teachers want to have at least two consecutive lessons so they can give long written tests, the religion teachers want to be on the last period because since it's optional, kids that don't want to attend can leave early, then there's one teacher that has medical examinations on Friday so she can't teach that day. Her creating the schedule would be a similar process to the creation of the universee according to B theory of time, trying to fit all the periods and teachers with their needs and limitations. In her schedule, tuesday's schedule isn't caused by monday's, there is no change of the schedule *over time*, it's the same from September to June, however there needs to be a cause (my aunt). A cause that acts over the entire time block.

@dylanschweitzer18

28w

@counciloftrent, do you ever plan on having a conversation with genetically modified skeptic?

@penguinman9837

2y↑2

I can't help but feel like as much as I respect people who can and do think deeply like this, that the whole thing is still a waste of time and potential. If somebody does not want to believe in God, God could appear to them and zap them to the earth and shake the heavens, and they still would believe they'd been tricked. Nobody is going to convert to Christianity because they can't argue against the non-actualized actualizer.

Quite simply, if you want to know if God exists, believe that He does and then pray and ask Him if He exists. He can speak for Himself.

@partydean17

Awesome stuff! Trent have you ever heard of Dr Anthony Rizi and the institute for advanced physics?

@chimetime394

I appreciate videos like this, but man does it hurt the head. I had to rewind so often. I wish there were more pictures.

@jhoughjr1

If I recall, an infinite number of photons can be placed in a box.

@Trying-to-be-nice

2y↑1

Am I the only one that thought Alex's response was stupid and didn't actually answer anything?

@Benjamin-uj9fk

Hey Trent, I know you probably got a lot on your plate but do you think you could ever tackle apparent historical objections or Jewish objections. Thanks for all that you do. God Bless!

Load More Comments...

More Comments

just now