@eyephilosophiize: - C.S Lewis #philosophy #theology #edit #cslewis #fyp

eyephilosophiize
eyephilosophiize
Open In TikTok:
Region: US
Monday 22 December 2025 05:27:54 GMT
54666
5723
95
354

Music

Download

Comments

drinkawayyy
drinkawayyy :
2025-12-25 00:22:03
280
dustystarlord
✝️Dusty🌲 🪳 :
The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.
2025-12-22 20:46:04
318
lastedwizard
LastedWizard :
if i read cs lewis while i was a christian i would’ve become an atheist sooner
2025-12-23 01:11:20
2
carpentertony1
spot me a buck :
men become scientific because its sickening how those who are supposed to be your equals cling onto faith like a calf to the utter knowing that without it they'll fetal up and die, they will never understand that knowledge is truly faith based, i will chase it, seek it, and uncover it, but ill never be content taking anyones word for it. Ive had people actually look down on me because i refuse to go sit and listen to someone read about how horrid times are and always have been jejeje little do they know i look for the monsters that they hear about and because of my faith i know(ledge) that the knowledge ive racked up is more faith based than there hour every sunday singing halleluyah and getting pocket checked every time that basket comes around 😈
2026-01-13 11:35:45
1
logic_defender
𝓓𝓸𝔁𝓸𝓵𝓸𝓰𝔂 ☦︎ :
naturalism without God fails
2026-01-03 05:13:00
30
hidden_falcon
hidden_falcon :
The real question which God is the law giver?
2025-12-31 14:40:45
1
karenxanm
yami :
because they were curious, philosophers know , that humans do things that don't really have a logical neat cause, but you can philosophize them, but can't philosophize their own cause, and maybe some philosophers don't know .
2026-03-12 18:49:56
0
austin_4457
austin_4457 :
as a neurobiology major at ucsd i've only become more catholic after learning what i've learned so far
2026-02-05 01:38:18
2
elusionofeternal45
Return None :
yes and then for some reasons those laws turn out to not always be eternal/universal
2025-12-30 02:48:57
0
ethanconnol44
ethanconnol44 :
Fire but why is snape reading 😂
2025-12-22 07:30:53
10
jesus.is.god772
✝️🇻🇦☦️Jesus.is.God☦️🇻🇦✝️ :
Bro I was gonna say my fyp betray me😭
2026-02-21 04:32:34
0
lionel.jhon1
lio......nelllll✌️ :
name of the historical figures?
2026-02-28 11:19:32
0
imadab_07
Imad :
They made nature a law.
2025-12-31 21:47:50
0
olafhans4
olaf hans :
Still aura
2026-01-11 00:39:43
0
hau.ab_
- :
One the best lines I never heard in my life
2026-01-01 04:00:15
0
trulypeak7
truly.peak :
Amen
2025-12-28 18:41:31
1
tedkltu
ᛉ☦︎XCristoꑭPhoros☦︎ᛉ :
2025-12-27 01:53:39
4
geeked_gecko78
Geeked_Gecko寂 :
@🇻🇦ℭ𝔥𝔦𝔩𝔡 𝔬𝔣 𝔊𝔬𝔡📚
2025-12-25 06:51:20
1
elsapalmiri
naiveelf :
😁
2026-01-10 09:07:50
0
elijahtheevangelist
Elijah :
and people say christianity holds science back
2025-12-23 18:25:45
16
greatman.fx
Greatman ☑️ :
All religion claim to worship one God, the creator of the universe. But I have always wondered why they all practice different doctrines, even amongst the same religion. If God's the same and doesn't change, perhaps they've created God in their own image and ways.
2026-01-03 08:28:51
1
apostle.of.christ68
Just be the worst sinner🇻🇦 :
"God doesn't exist" ME: U := set of all entities E(x) := "x exist" N(x) := "x exist necesarily" C(x,y) := "x dipende ontologically from "y" T ∈ U := time ASSIOMI A1: ∃x ∈ U : E(x) A2: ∃x ∈ U : E(x) ∧ ¬N(x) A3: ∀x (E(x) ∧ ¬N(x) → ∃y C(x,y)) A4: ∀x∀y (C(x,y) ≠ (y proceds x in T)) A5: ∀x ¬C(x,x) A6: ∀x∀y (C(x,y) → ¬C(y,x)) A7: ∀x∀y∀z ((C(x,y) ∧ C(y,z)) → C(x,z)) ∀i ¬N(xᵢ) ⇒ ¬N({x₁,x₂,x₃,...}) Ass: ∀x ∈ U ¬N(x) ⇒ ∀x ∈ U ∃y C(x,y) ⇒ {x₁,x₂,x₃,...} infinite chain contingent ⇒ ¬N({x₁,x₂,x₃,...}) Contraddiction with E(U) ∴ ∃y ∈ U : N(y) ¬N(T) N(G) ⇒ G ≠ T ⇒ G ∉ T G := x be like (N(x) ∧ ∀y ∈ U C(y,x)) Ass: N(G₁) ∧ N(G₂) ∧ G₁ ≠ G₂ ⇒ C(G₁,G₂) ∧ C(G₂,G₁) ⇒ ⊥ (A6) ∴ ∃!G : N(G) Ass: G = a ∪ b ⇒ C(G,a) ∨ C(G,b) ⇒ ¬N(G) Contraddiction with ∴ G semplice ∀x (¬N(x) → ∃y C(x,y)) ¬ regressus ad infinitum ⇒ ∀x (¬N(x) → C(x,G)) mutament(x) → potenziality(x) potenzialità(G) → ∃y C(G,y) Contraddiction with N(G) ∴ ¬mutamento(G) potenziality(G) → dipendence ¬dipendence(G) ⇒ ¬potenziality(G) ⇒ G = pure act Dio := G be like N(G) ∃!G ∀x ∈ U C(x,G) G simple G atemporality G immutable G = pure act ∃G : Dio(G) QED U ≠ ∅ E(x) := “x exist” N(x) := “x exist necessary” C(x) := E(x) ∧ ¬N(x) D(x,y) := “x depends ontologicament from y” ∃x E(x) ∀x ( C(x) → ∃y D(x,y) ) ∀x∀y ( D(x,y) → ¬D(y,x) ) ¬∃{x_n} ( ∀n D(x_n , x_{n+1}) ) C(U) C(U) → ∃y D(U,y) ∃y₁ D(U,y₁) C(y₁) → ∃y₂ D(y₁,y₂) ¬∃{U,y₁,y₂,…} ( D(U,y₁) ∧ D(y₁,y₂) ∧ … ) ∃y* ( ¬C(y*) ) ¬C(y*) → N(y*) ∃y* ( N(y*) ∧ D(U,y*) ) ∃z ( z =God ) EZ=GOD God exist
2026-01-16 22:05:05
2
To see more videos from user @eyephilosophiize, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos


About