Corpus evidence — top 10 passages

Most-relevant passages from the entire indexed corpus (67,286 paragraph chunks across YouTube transcripts, PubMed, arXiv, archive.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OpenAlex, and more) ranked by semantic similarity (bge-small-en-v1.5).

1. 01 · yt0.828

   If we're talking about a theory of everything, the first question we have to establish, does God exist? Yes. Simple as that. Yes. The reality has an identity. Okay. The identity is that as which something exists. Matter of fact, when you say the word reality, you're naming an identity. It is you're identifying something. This that's what the CTMU says. It's just comes up with the mathematical structure that you need to build a reality out of that. You see, so you come up with that identity and then you search it for its properties. You see once you've built the preliminary framework then you s…

   yt/usDVuyx0Myc-they-will-break-your-understanding-of-everything/transcript.txt

2. 02 · blog0.820

   We could admit an infinite regress of causes if we had evidence for such, but lacking such evidence, God must exist as the non-dependent cause. Many of the objections to the argument contend that God is an inappropriate cause because of God’s nature. For example, since God is immobile and has no body, he cannot properly be said to cause anything. The Naiyāyikas reply that God could assume a body at certain times, and in any case, God need not create in the same way humans do (Potter 1977: 100–07). René Descartes advances his version of the cosmological argument not only as a piece of natural t…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/cosmological-argument.md

3. 03 · yt0.814

   So therefore, God must not exist." And I'm like, "Well, do you know the mind of God? Maybe God only helps people God likes. Maybe God only helps people on every third Tuesday, right? I don't know. And if I can't manipulate something about the mind of God, then I can't infer causality if God exists or doesn't exist. And so I think this question of does God exist is one science can't answer. I mean, I'm happy to say as a scientist, I see no empirical evidence that God exists. But without being able to run an experiment to prove it, it's beyond the realm of science. And all it does is polarize us…

   yt/Whe2Jh9q6jI-science-health-benefits-of-belief-in-god-religion-dr-david-d/transcript.txt

4. 04 · yt0.812

   No, God is the onlogical source from which the entire hierarchy, corporeal, psychic, noetic gets its existence moment by moment through vertical causality. or Smith putting God inside the temporal process suggesting God changes or suffers like Whitehead does. That's a catastrophic metaphysical error. It's confusing the creator with the creation. It blurs the infinite difference between the absolute source and everything that merely receives being from that source. God is the cause, not part of the effect. Exactly. The ultimate transcendent cause. And because God is being itself, Smith also cal…

   yt/3sDxoZuNlJc-11-two-paths-from-the-crisis-of-modernity/transcript.txt

5. 05 · yt0.810

   Complete knowledge, ultimate power, and presence everywhere. These exactly match what religions say about God. This isn't just a theory. God is conscious and aware, creating direct connections with humans by putting part of himself into each person. This means we can have real relationships with God, not just believe in him as an idea. The mathematical structure behind this shows that God must exist because reality needs him to work properly. He's not just a concept we created, but the central force that makes everything possible and keeps it working. This leads to a crucial question about how…

   yt/usDVuyx0Myc-they-will-break-your-understanding-of-everything/transcript.txt

6. 06 · blog0.808

   After all, big bang cosmology says that the universe has a finite age, and (traditional) theism says that God created the universe out of nothing. Does big bang cosmology not confirm traditional theism? We give several reasons to be cautious about such claims. Advocates of big bang theology are most interested in the claim that the universe is finitely old. Thus, the chain of inferential support should run as follows: Big Bang Model → supports → Universe Finitely Old → supports → Theism Before discussing the first supposed inferential relation, we note that not all theists are committed to the…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/cosmology-and-theology.md

7. 07 · yt0.807

   God is actually a necessary dynamic part within this cosmic process subject to its ultimate principles. Okay. So, Whitehead's building a completely new ship, a modern ship designed to navigate these new scientific waters. But Wolf Gang Smith, he takes a totally different approach, almost the reverse, doesn't he? He really does. Smith essentially says, "Hang on, we took a major wrong turn way back." He argues we need to reject the basic philosophical assumptions that modern science itself rests on. Reject the foundations. Wow. Yeah. He argues that our whole modern worldview shaped by people lik…

   yt/3sDxoZuNlJc-11-two-paths-from-the-crisis-of-modernity/transcript.txt

8. 08 · yt0.804

   As you said, people have been debating this for millennia, but it's not useful because as scientists, we can't prove it. Any scientist who tells you they know for sure God doesn't exist, you shouldn't listen to. Um the reason I say that is oftentimes we you and I as scientists live by the data. We run experiments. And what's behind any experiment is we try to manipulate a variable and we see if it produces a change. When you're talking about God, you can't do an experiment. And so, you know, I'll say the the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. People hear that a lot and it sounds l…

   yt/Whe2Jh9q6jI-science-health-benefits-of-belief-in-god-religion-dr-david-d/transcript.txt

9. 09 · blog0.804

   Quinn argues that an adequate explanation need not require a complete explanation (2005: 584–85); a partial explanation might do just as well, depending on the context. Among these adequate explanations of why this actual world obtains rather than another possible world (including one with no contingent beings) is that the universe is an inexplicable brute fact or that God strongly actualized the world (although not everything in it). He refuses to take sides on the debate between explanations, except to say that science cannot provide an adequate explanation if the explanatory chain is infini…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/cosmological-argument.md

10. 10 · blog0.801

    It is important to be more precise about what one is asking when one asks this broader metaphysical question about why there is something rather than nothing. Second, the cosmological argument lies at the heart of attempts to answer the questions, and to this we now turn. 4. Argument for a Non-contingent Cause Thomas Aquinas held that among the things whose existence needs explanation are contingent beings that depend for their existence upon other beings. Richard Taylor (1992: 84–94) discusses the argument in terms of the world (“everything that ever does exist, except God, in case there is a…

    blog/plato-stanford-edu/cosmological-argument.md