POPULARITY
Categories
314 episodes with Pascal
118 episodes with Pascal
218 episodes with Pascal
81 episodes with Pascal
91 episodes with Pascal
100 episodes with Pascal
134 episodes with Pascal
1,525 episodes with Pascal
85 episodes with Pascal
90 episodes with Pascal
83 episodes with Pascal
57 episodes with Pascal
111 episodes with Pascal
73 episodes with Pascal
52 episodes with Pascal
68 episodes with Pascal
136 episodes with Pascal
56 episodes with Pascal
51 episodes with Pascal
35 episodes with Pascal
35 episodes with Pascal
37 episodes with Pascal
499 episodes with Pascal
27 episodes with Pascal
28 episodes with Pascal
15 episodes with Pascal
9 episodes with Pascal
24 episodes with Pascal
27 episodes with Pascal
23 episodes with Pascal
19 episodes with Pascal
18 episodes with Pascal
23 episodes with Pascal
10 episodes with Pascal
45 episodes with Pascal
15 episodes with Pascal
14 episodes with Pascal
15 episodes with Pascal
29 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
17 episodes with Pascal
17 episodes with Pascal
18 episodes with Pascal
16 episodes with Pascal
26 episodes with Pascal
26 episodes with Pascal
21 episodes with Pascal
21 episodes with Pascal
9 episodes with Pascal
16 episodes with Pascal
11 episodes with Pascal
31 episodes with Pascal
236 episodes with Pascal
10 episodes with Pascal
16 episodes with Pascal
13 episodes with Pascal
22 episodes with Pascal
16 episodes with Pascal
9 episodes with Pascal
20 episodes with Pascal
18 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
11 episodes with Pascal
13 episodes with Pascal
13 episodes with Pascal
12 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
28 episodes with Pascal
20 episodes with Pascal
11 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
12 episodes with Pascal
9 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
14 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
31 episodes with Pascal
4 episodes with Pascal
10 episodes with Pascal
30 episodes with Pascal
9 episodes with Pascal
20 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
11 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
4 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
10 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
12 episodes with Pascal
13 episodes with Pascal
4 episodes with Pascal
12 episodes with Pascal
129 episodes with Pascal
128 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
9 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
12 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
116 episodes with Pascal
15 episodes with Pascal
4 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
17 episodes with Pascal
9 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
3 episodes with Pascal
3 episodes with Pascal
3 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
8 episodes with Pascal
108 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
31 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
10 episodes with Pascal
3 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
10 episodes with Pascal
3 episodes with Pascal
99 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
4 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
5 episodes with Pascal
19 episodes with Pascal
2 episodes with Pascal
11 episodes with Pascal
11 episodes with Pascal
11 episodes with Pascal
3 episodes with Pascal
2 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
7 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
4 episodes with Pascal
4 episodes with Pascal
9 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
6 episodes with Pascal
4 episodes with Pascal
On this episode of Unlimited Capital, Richard McGirr interviews Pascal Wagner, a capital allocator and educator who shares his journey from managing his family's wealth to becoming a guide for W-2 professionals seeking passive income through alternative investments. Pascal discusses the evolution of his investment strategy, from room-by-room single-family rentals to building diversified income streams through vetted funds. The conversation dives into investor psychology, the true appeal of cash flow vs. equity growth, and how fund-of-funds managers can position themselves as trusted advisors by speaking directly to a well-defined avatar. Pascal also offers tactical insights into LinkedIn marketing, deal flow generation, and building community through storytelling. Pascal Wagner Current role: Founder of Grow Your Cashflow, fund manager, and educator for passive investors Based in: Miami, Florida Say hi to them at: Website: growyourcashflow.io Free Starter Kit: passiveinvestingstarterkit.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/pascalwagner YouTube: @pascalwagner Get a 4-week trial, free postage, and a digital scale at https://www.stamps.com/cre. Thanks to Stamps.com for sponsoring the show! Post your job for free at https://www.linkedin.com/BRE. Terms and conditions apply. Join the Best Ever Community The Best Ever Community is live and growing - and we want serious commercial real estate investors like you inside. It's free to join, but you must apply and meet the criteria. Connect with top operators, LPs, GPs, and more, get real insights, and be part of a curated network built to help you grow. Apply now at www.bestevercommunity.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
@JordanBPeterson Scott Adams and Jordan Peterson | EP 561 https://youtu.be/TwfJQa-_Y9Q?si=w8tvWnmS7FNCK51R @SpeakLifeMedia These Two Thinkers Made Your World — Descartes and Pascal https://youtu.be/BM2W9FLF5ps?si=uJK7emQDOQCaRjif @pism_penn Lecture 3 | Adam Smith and the Liberal Plan | Daniel Klein https://youtu.be/2YeJ-2hLaII?si=vIJl2gRYwzEKZh45 Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg Midwestuary Conference August 22-24 in Chicago https://www.midwestuary.com/ https://www.meetup.com/sacramento-estuary/ My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Bridges of meaning https://discord.gg/cAjXpprB Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://calendly.com/paulvanderklay/one2one There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333 If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/ All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos. https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640 https://www.livingstonescrc.com/give
durée : 00:05:20 - La main verte - par : Alain Baraton - Alain Baraton passe de son jardin à sa bibliothèque pour nous recommander la lecture de l'ouvrage "Toutes les saveurs du jardin" (éditions Ulmer) de Pascal Garbe. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.
Pascal's Triangle is a useful concept in binomial theorem. However, it also has uses in biology. Today, we use it to answer the question- if you have X number of kids in a family or randomly chosen people in a sample, what is the probability of ending up with at least Y males and/or Z females?Sources for this episode:TBA
Heute blickt Ric auf die Musik seiner bisherigen Podcastprojekte zurück, angefangen bei Tracks aus der ein oder anderen Soundbibliothek, bis hin zu den aktuellen von Marvin und Pascal kreierten Intros für Cast 'Em, MonoTyp und BäckchenBrothers.►Intro & Outro von Pascal►Cast 'Em auf Spotify for Podcasters,YouTube & Instagram►Cast 'Em auf SteadyHQ unterstützen►BäckchenBrothers auf Spotify for Podcasters►Rics Projekte und Socials►Zum Community Discord Server►Rics Equipment:Shure SM7B + Motu M2►Outdoor:Shure Beta 58A + Zoom H6 Essential►Aufnahme & Bearbeitung:Audacity, Adobe Audition CC
Démarrez la journée en écoutant votre horoscope de ce dimanche 13 juillet 2025. Un changement amoureux ? Une opportunité professionnelle ? Financière ? Découvrez ce que vous réservent les astres avec l'horoscope de Pascal, médium à Firminy. Un podcast proposé par ACTIV RADIO, 1ère radio locale de St Etienne et de la Loire.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.
Démarrez la journée en écoutant votre horoscope de ce samedi 12 juillet 2025. Un changement amoureux ? Une opportunité professionnelle ? Financière ? Découvrez ce que vous réservent les astres avec l'horoscope de Pascal, médium à Firminy. Un podcast proposé par ACTIV RADIO, 1ère radio locale de St Etienne et de la Loire.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.
Pascal Papathemelis: The Mobile Product Owner—Why Great POs Move Around and Talk to People Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. The Great Product Owner: The Visionary Communicator Pascal describes great Product Owners as excellent communicators who possess the courage to confront stakeholders when necessary. These exceptional POs thrive as decision makers and understand the importance of being mobile - they have "legs and walk around to meet stakeholders" rather than remaining isolated in their offices. Great Product Owners maintain a clear vision and excel at breaking down products into granular items that teams can easily pull from the backlog. They demonstrate superior backlog management skills and understand how to focus on creating systems that collect valuable feedback. Pascal emphasizes that it's critical to help Product Owners develop these capabilities so they can flourish in their role as the primary decision makers for their products. The Bad Product Owner: The Dominating Manager Pascal encountered a challenging Product Owner who exhibited several destructive anti-patterns. This PO dominated meetings by talking most of the time while the team remained silent, creating an environment where team members felt unsafe to contribute. The situation was complicated by the fact that this Product Owner also served as the line manager for the team members, blurring the boundaries between product decisions and personnel management. This dual role created a power dynamic that inhibited healthy team collaboration. The PO went so far as to stop retrospectives, even when Pascal explained how these sessions could benefit the entire team. Pascal identifies a critical anti-pattern: when a Product Owner has no channel of communication or coaching support, and they resist help, it becomes impossible to improve the situation. Self-reflection Question: What steps could you take to help Product Owners in your organization develop better communication skills and create safer environments for team collaboration? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]
In this Fund Friday episode, Craig McGrouther welcomes Pascal Wagner, founder of Grow Your Cashflow. Pascal shares his journey from managing a $150M venture capital fund at Techstars to becoming an LP investor with $250K+ in annual passive income across 23 investments. He reveals how his Venture Capital background shaped his investment thesis approach and why he shifted focus to debt funds in 2022, perfect timing to avoid the multifamily distress. Pascal breaks down his three pillar framework for LP success: having a clear investment plan, comparing deals with proper context not in isolation, and mastering due diligence with his 100 point checklist. Plus, he explains the "money pie" concept, how to balance investments between cash flow, equity growth, and tax benefits to build sustainable six figure passive income.Learn more about Lone Star Capital at www.lscre.comApply to attend the LSC Summit 2025: www.lscsummit.com Get a FREE copy of the Passive Investor Guide:https://www.lscre.com/content/passive-investor-guide Subscribe to our newsletter and receive our FREE underwriting model package:https://www.lscre.com/resource/fof-underwriting-toolkit Follow Rob Beardsley:https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-beardsley/ Read Rob's articles:https://www.lscre.com/blog
Démarrez la journée en écoutant votre horoscope de ce vendredi 11 juillet 2025. Un changement amoureux ? Une opportunité professionnelle ? Financière ? Découvrez ce que vous réservent les astres avec l'horoscope de Pascal, médium à Firminy. Un podcast proposé par ACTIV RADIO, 1ère radio locale de St Etienne et de la Loire.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.
Découvrez l'incroyable parcours du grand reporter Pascal Coquis. Il nous dévoile sa vision du journalisme ainsi que de nombreuses anecdotes sur son métier.Reportage Tom Herga
Rendez-vous incontournable des amoureux de la musique FUNK Il était une fois, mes premiers 45T, maxis, albums, mes premières cassettes audio, il me manquait quelque chose, une expérience radio, elle allait venir, il a fallu se présenter, ce fut chose faite et hop : L'aventure allait commencer en 1982, je m'en souviens très bien, les émissions Funk se succédaient le week end, c'était de la folie, premiers calages de disques vinyles et premières interventions au micro. La toute première radio s'appelait RDP Radio des Poumons 92 mhz, de bons souvenirs avant de connaître d'autres horizons. Nous sommes en 1983, je débarque sur une radio beaucoup plus importante à l'époque avec à l'intérieur une équipe d'animateurs qui pour la plupart officiaient aussi en discothèque, cette station de radio avait pour nom Contact Fm sur le 104 mhz. Il a fallu se faire une place et ce fut chose faite avec une émission Funk Night Club le vendredi, le samedi il existait une autre émission Funk appelée Dérapages Nocturnes animée par Pascal , belle rencontre, contraint d'abandonner pour raisons personnelles quelques temps après cette émission, je décide avec son accord de reprendre celle-ci, il était inconcevable à l'époque que cette émission DN puisse disparaître de la grille des programmes de la radio, les années passent, Contact FM devient Radio Mandarine 95.2 mhz. Au milieu des années 80 l'occasion se présente et j'organise des soirées Funk dans une discothèque Nantaise située à la Beaujoire : le New Cleef , de bons souvenirs mais aussi de belles rencontres. Fin Janvier 1988, Radio Mandarine cesse d'émettre, une page se tourne, l'émission DN reprendra sur quelques radios : Saga 98 Mhz, Radio Fréquence bleue 102.1 Mhz en Bretagne , Radio Alternantes 98.1 Mhz. Janvier 1996 l'émission DN arrive sur Turbulence Radio 93.4 mhz qui deviendra par la suite Radio NTI en Janvier 2001, l'émission cessera d'émettre sur NTI le samedi 24 Juillet 2004. 8 ans ½ là encore de bons souvenirs. Nouveau départ pour les DN en Septembre 2004 sur une Radio locale Nantaise SUN 93 FM où je retrouve la couleur musicale que j'avais connu une bonne vingtaine d'années auparavant sur Contact Fm puis Radio Mandarine. Vendredi 26 Septembre 2008 sur SUN le Son Unique à Nantes avec des passionnés de musique Funk, nous avons célébré comme il se doit le 25 eme Anniversaire de l'émission DN toutes radios confondues, un grand merci à Pascal, Denis Louis Marie, Dominique, Xavier et José. Vendredi 30 Septembre 2011, le 28 eme Anniversaire des DN a eu lieu, un grand merci pour leur présence à Kamel et Thierry, étaient également présents José , Dominique, Eric, Maxime, Denis, Louis Marie, Xavier, Guy Accardo du groupe Plaisir mais aussi Joce, Charles et les frangins Eric et Alex A. Vendredi 27 Septembre 2013, autre Anniversaire avec cette fois-ci les 30 ans de l'émission DN ; merci pour leur présence à Pascal ; Denis ; Louis Marie ; José ; Samir ; Frédéric P ; Guy Accardo ; Joce ; Thierry ; Anne ; Patrice ; Lionel ; Nadjette ; Fabrice ; Fredi ; Alexandre et Thierry Guillom Vendredi 28 Septembre 2018 les 35 ans de l'émission avec une bien belle équipe ; Nadjette ; Lionel ; Thierry R. ; Thierry G. ; Denis D. ; Stephane L. ; Olivier "Kélo" ; Laurence ; Didier "Did" ; Samir ; Nathalie ; Louis Marie ; José et Enzo. Vendredi 25 Septembre 2020 L'initiative est signée Laurence qui avait envie de faire quelque chose pour ce 37 ème Anniversaire de l'émission Dérapages Nocturnes ; ce fut chose faite avec des invités et avons passé une bonne soirée ; merci pour leur présence à Ludivine ; Ludovic ; Keno ; José ; Stephane et Laurence Vendredi 24 Septembre 2021 Anniversaire DN ; les 38 ans avec Thierry Guillom ; José ; Nadjette ; Lionel ; Stéphane L. ; Ludovic ; Didier " Did " et Nathalie H. Vendredi 23 Septembre 2022 ; 39 ème Anniversaire de l'émission Dérapages Nocturnes ; étaient présents et avons passé une très bonne soirée avec José - Stéphane L. - Did - Laurence - Ludovic - Nathalie - Lionel - Nadjette - Thierry G. et John Macenzo. Vendredi 22 Septembre 2023 ; 1ère partie concernant le 40 ème anniversaire de l'émission Dérapages Nocturnes ; les invités présents ce jour étaient ; Alain A. Olivier B. Ludovic C. Pierre L. Didier ; Thierry ; Bruno ; Pascale et Ghislaine ; pour les photos prises ; grand merci à Bruno P. Vendredi 29 Septembre 2023 ; 2ème partie avec une autre équipe de passionnés de musique Funk et parmi les invités ; il y'avait ; Lionel B. Nadjette ; José G. Stéphane L. Samir ; Did ; Thierry G. Pierre B. Nathalie ; Rafael ; Clément et Quentin ; absente : Laurence ; notre Parisienne girl Merci à tous ; l'aventure DN continue sur SUN www.lesonunique.com Le temps passe ; nous sommes en 2025, l'émission Dérapages Nocturnes est toujours en place le vendredi sur SUN 22h – Minuit et sur la fréquence de Cholet 87.7mhz . Auditrice, Auditeur, Merci pour votre Fidélité . LAURENT
Pascal Papathemelis: Selecting the Appropriate Agile Values for Organizational Impact Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Pascal defines success for Scrum Masters through his recent mantra of "effectiveness over efficiency," "outcome over output," and "create value for the customer." Working with a client introducing a new digital platform, he focuses on understanding the value for both the organization and end customers while minimizing confusion in the process. Pascal emphasizes the importance of ensuring work sustainability over time by focusing on Agile values and principles and their deep understanding. He customizes the Agile Manifesto's values and principles for each organization, such as focusing on customer value, collaboration, and constant learning. Pascal strategically highlights the principles and values that address the biggest challenges facing the organization at any given time, making Agile concepts relevant and actionable for the specific context. Featured Retrospective Format for the Week: Sailboat Pascal recommends the sailboat retrospective as his preferred format, though he emphasizes that the choice depends on context and team focus. He values this metaphor-based retrospective because it helps teams discuss critical aspects of their work through different perspectives. The sailboat format allows teams to explore what propels them forward (wind), what holds them back (anchors), what they need to watch out for (rocks), and their destination (island). Pascal also uses timeline retrospectives and stresses the importance of varying retrospective formats to prevent teams from falling into routine patterns that might limit their ability to bring fresh insights to their work. He believes that good data and effective visualization are essential components of any successful retrospective format. Self-reflection Question: How effectively are you customizing Agile principles to address your organization's specific challenges and context? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]
Send us a textIn Season 10, we're tackling the most basic question of them all: Does God exist?While there may not be a single, knock-down argument for the existence of God, the cumulative case is very strong. Over the course of this season, we will consider 8 or 9 arguments that, when you put them together, make an utterly compelling case for God's existence — and specifically for the existence of the God of the Bible.We hope you join us on our journey through this season!We always love to hear from you. Get in touch via:Instagram: @theequipprojectEmail: theequipproject@gmail.com
Dans cet épisode, on vous embarque dans l'ambiance chaude et feutrée des Lectures Scandaleuses, un rendez-vous littéraire érotique où l'intime se partage à voix haute, dans un club où les mots éveillent autant que les corps.
Démarrez la journée en écoutant votre horoscope de ce jeudi 10 juillet 2025. Un changement amoureux ? Une opportunité professionnelle ? Financière ? Découvrez ce que vous réservent les astres avec l'horoscope de Pascal, médium à Firminy. Un podcast proposé par ACTIV RADIO, 1ère radio locale de St Etienne et de la Loire.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.
In dieser Folge spreche ich mit Kameramann Pascal Hein über Bildsprache, Teamarbeit und kreative Entscheidungen in der Filmproduktion. Wir diskutieren die Rolle von Licht, Mut zur Imperfektion und die Balance zwischen Technik und Emotion.Pascal teilt seine Erfahrungen aus Werbung, Musikvideo, Fashion und Spielfilm – und wie sich diese Bereiche gegenseitig beeinflussen. Weitere Themen waren Work-Life-Balance in der Kreativbranche, KI im Bewegtbild und der Wunsch nach kultureller Relevanz im eigenen Schaffen.Infos zu Pascal findet ihr auf Instagram: @psclhn und seiner Website www.pascalhein.comFür Feedback, Wünsche oder Anderes findet ihr mich auf Instagram unter: @ulrichaydt oder @gestatten.sie oder auf meiner Website: www.ulrichaydt.comDanke an Mala für das Podcast-Cover (@mala.kolumna) und Belinda für das Produzieren des Jingles (@Belinda Thaler)Diese Folge wird unterstützt durch die Landesinnung Wien der Berufsfotografie.
Joanie: Mattel nous surprend encore avec une Barbie diabétique CKOI ton prix Qu’est-ce que tu écoutes encore, mais qui est destiné aux enfants ? Le moment de Pascal Cameron Roulette: Le chien de Pascal s’est fait attaquer par le chien de Kevin Parent Minute à Joanie: c’est la pleine lune la gang !! Debout les caves Une femme se souvient d’absolument tout. Et toi ? De quoi tu te souviens quoi de vraiment niaiseux ? Cabaret des comiques - Lauriane Lalonde DÉBAT DU JOUR: Ça ne sert à rien de cacher le visage de tes enfants avec un emoji sur les réseaux sociaux. Pour ou contre les photos des jeunes sur Facebook ? Voir https://www.cogecomedia.com/vie-privee pour notre politique de vie privée
Pascal Papathemelis: From Waterfall to Agile—A Multi-Level Change Strategy Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Pascal describes a successful agile transformation where he collaborated with a fellow coach in the IT department of a large organization with a waterfall history and heavy documentation-driven processes. The two coaches worked together effectively, sharing information and scouting for opportunities to take action. They began with an assessment and discussions across IT, business, and management levels to understand the current state. Using the Cynefin framework to understand complexity, they conducted a two-day workshop to introduce Agile vocabulary, covering concepts like Push/Pull and process waste. The coaches operated at multiple levels simultaneously - working strategically with leadership who typically pushed excessive work to the organization, while also helping teams visualize their processes and clarify priorities. At the team level, they acted as Scrum Masters to demonstrate the role while mentoring the actual Scrum Master through one-on-one sessions. They also supported the Product Owner in understanding their role and used story maps to help visualize and organize work effectively. Self-reflection Question: How might collaborating with another coach or change agent amplify your effectiveness in leading organizational transformation? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]
durée : 00:19:09 - 8h30 franceinfo - Le PDG du groupe Aéroports de Paris (ADP) était l'invité du "8h30 franceinfo", mercredi 9 juillet 2025. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.
Scopri la pressione nei fluidi, le loro proprietà, il principio di Pascal, i vasi comunicanti, pressione atmosferica, principio di Archimede e galleggiamento dei corpi.
Démarrez la journée en écoutant votre horoscope de ce mercredi 09 juillet 2025. Un changement amoureux ? Une opportunité professionnelle ? Financière ? Découvrez ce que vous réservent les astres avec l'horoscope de Pascal, médium à Firminy. Un podcast proposé par ACTIV RADIO, 1ère radio locale de St Etienne et de la Loire.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.
The one about Storytelling vs Bullet Points, Back to the Future at 40 and the film, 28 Years Later - TG127 00:00:00 Introduction Here are your hosts, Roger and Pascal. 00:003:36 In the News A selection of announcements and news releases from the world of marketing and technology that caught our attention. 00:16:35 Content Spotlights ROGER: The film wouldn't even be made today': the story behind Back to the Future at 40 by David Smith, Guardian Newspaper: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/jul/03/back-to-the-future-at-40 PASCAL: Why Storytelling Beats Bullet Points and Facts Every Time by Andrea Olson and edited by Micah Zimmerman: https://www.entrepreneur.com/starting-a-business/how-to-get-people-to-remember-and-repeat-your/493166 00: 32:56 This Week in History Our selection of historical events and anniversaries from the world of science, technology and popular culture. 00:43:23 Marketing Tech and Apps ROGER: It's all about AI Marketing Strategy: Most AI tools have been built to churn out content quickly (tactics) rather than help you think and plan (strategy). Here's two with a strategy focus. Miro (with AI Assist): https://miro.com/ai/ StratApp: https://www.producthunt.com/products/stratappOut of the box, ChatGPT pushes you into tactics. But you can force it to stay strategic. For example: “Act as a marketing strategist. Help me define my target customer segments, brand positioning, and key goals before suggesting any tactics.” PASCAL: It's all about getting serious with AI for Marketing: Google AI Studio https://aistudio.google.com/live use the Share Screen function and have in-depth conversations about your marketing plan, workflows and content strategies. Prompt: Ideal Customer Profile – use this prompt to begin a detailed conversation about your ideal customer and create a series of profiles and avatars: I need your help to write a detailed customer profile or persona. Acting as my expert marketing and sales consultant, can you please remind me how to structure a customer profile or persona for b2b/b2c? 00:54:00 Film Marketing 28 YEARS LATER (2025) Directed by: Danny Boyle Written by: Alex Garland Cast: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jodie Comer and Ralph Fiennes were cast to star,[36] with Jack O'Connell Music by: Young Fathers, Scottish progressive hip hop group formed in Edinburgh in 2008. Tagline: What will humanity become? Time didn't heal anything. In 28 days, it began. In 28 weeks, it spread. In 28 years, it evolved. We discuss the rather basic but striking marketing campaign for the film and Pascal enthuses about the Premier Event he attended in Newcastle UK. About Two Geeks and A Marketing...
Pascal Papathemelis: The Hidden Cost of Removing Scrum Masters from High-Performing Teams Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Pascal shares a cautionary experience with mature Scrum teams that appeared to function flawlessly. These teams demonstrated excellent Scrum practices with minimal impediments, leading management to conclude that Scrum Masters were unnecessary. When management removed all Scrum Masters from the department, the previously high-performing teams began to struggle significantly. Team members had to absorb the responsibilities previously handled by their Scrum Masters, causing them to lose focus on their core value-creating work. Different teams adopted various approaches to fill the Scrum Master void, but none proved effective. Pascal reflects that the Scrum Masters could have made their value more visible by supporting Product Owners more actively and becoming more involved in team tasks. This experience taught him the importance of demonstrating the ongoing value that Scrum Masters provide, even when teams appear to be self-sufficient. Featured Book of the Week: Learning Out Loud—Community Learning and Networking Pascal draws his greatest inspiration not from a single book, but from active participation in the Agile community. He finds tremendous value in discussions within local communities, networking events, and sparring sessions with colleagues. Pascal particularly benefits from Agile Coaching circles in Helsinki, which provide practical knowledge and insights. He also gains inspiration from Agile conferences, but credits Agile Coaching Camps as having the biggest impact - these 2.5-day open space format events are intense and packed with valuable insights. Pascal recommends that Scrum Masters actively engage with their local Agile communities and attend coaching camps to accelerate their professional development and gain diverse perspectives. Self-reflection Question: How visible is the value you provide as a Scrum Master, and what steps could you take to make your contributions more apparent to your organization? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]
In dieser Episode nehmen wir dich mit auf eine Reise hinter die Kulissen von Home Assistant – dem Open-Source-Giganten für Home Automation, der den Smart-Home-Markt im Sturm erobert hat. Es geht um eine Frage, die (fast) jede Tech-Community irgendwann beschäftigt: Ab welchem Punkt reicht Ehrenamt nicht mehr aus, und wie schafft man Strukturen, die weltweit Wirkung entfalten?Zusammen mit Pascal Vizeli – Co-Founder und CFO von Nabu Casa und Gründungsvorstand der Open Home Foundation – tauchen wir tief ein: Wie wächst ein Open-Source-Projekt von einer Freizeitidee zum internationalen Backbone für Smart Homes? Warum braucht es eine Schweizer Stiftung, um Kommerzialisierung zu verhindern? Und was hat es mit Works With Home Assistant, lizenzierten Produkten, Hardware-Innovationen und politischen Ambitionen auf sich?Spannend wird's, wenn Pascal erzählt, wie es gelingt, aus Community-Engagement professionelle Jobs zu machen, warum Datenschutz und Nachhaltigkeit zentrale Werte sind und wie Open Source endlich auch die großen Hersteller in die Pflicht nimmt. Dazu gibt's jede Menge Insights aus der Welt des Home Assistant, von Cloud-Diensten und Lizenzmodellen bis hin zum Kampf für offene Standards, Transparenz und das Recht an den eigenen Daten.Eine Folge, die nicht nur Smart-Home-Fans elektrisiert, sondern zeigt, wie Open Source zu echtem gesellschaftlichen Impact wird. Jetzt reinhören und Open Source mit ganz neuen Augen sehen!Bonus: Wer immer schon wissen wollte, warum Vereinsbuchhaltung manchmal wichtiger ist als Programmieren und wie man mit einer Non-Profit-Stiftung weltweit Standards definiert – hier kommt die Antwort.Unsere aktuellen Werbepartner findest du auf https://engineeringkiosk.dev/partnersDas schnelle Feedback zur Episode:
Démarrez la journée en écoutant votre horoscope de ce mardi 08 juillet 2025. Un changement amoureux ? Une opportunité professionnelle ? Financière ? Découvrez ce que vous réservent les astres avec l'horoscope de Pascal, médium à Firminy. Un podcast proposé par ACTIV RADIO, 1ère radio locale de St Etienne et de la Loire.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.
durée : 00:02:51 - Pascal soigne la déco du chalet des ses rêves à Vacheresse - " j'aime bien les vieux objets et les choses anciennes, j'en récupère, on m'en amène mais ma femme a dit stop, ça commence à ressembler à une brocante ici " Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.
Pascal Papathemelis: From Mechanics to Human Factors—How Scrum Masters Grow Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Pascal shares his evolution as a Scrum Master, moving from focusing purely on the mechanics of Scrum to understanding the critical importance of human factors. Early in his career, Pascal worked with teams that struggled to achieve sprint goals, with stories floating from one sprint to another. Through retrospectives and continuous improvement, he learned essential tips like not taking too much into sprints and making stories smaller. However, Pascal's biggest transformation came when he shifted focus to human elements - involving everyone in the team, improving collaboration during refinement, and developing people's skills and attitudes. He emphasizes that every person is an individual with the intention to be their best, and a good Scrum Master must sense when something is wrong and create safe environments for open conversations. Pascal highlights the importance of corridor conversations and coffee machine breakthroughs, especially before COVID, and stresses the need to invest effort in how teams start, using models like Tuckman's team growth model and Diana Larsen's Team Liftoff approach. In this segment, we also refer to the episode with Arne Roock, about the importance of team design and setup in the success of teams. Self-reflection Question: How might shifting your focus from Scrum mechanics to human factors transform the way you support your team's growth and collaboration? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]
durée : 00:29:23 - Avoir raison avec... - par : Géraldine Mosna-Savoye - Qui peut se vanter d'avoir consigné, tous les jours, de 5h du matin à 8h, ses pensées et ses méditations à la manière d'un Pascal ou d'un Descartes ? Quel philosophe, si ce n'est Paul Valéry, peut prétendre avoir cherché toute sa vie les lois de l'esprit et tenter de l'atteindre tel un maître yogi ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Benedetta Zaccarello Chargée de recherche au CNRS
durée : 00:21:28 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé - L'eurodéputé Pascal Canfin, membre du groupe centriste Renew, était l'invité de France Inter ce vendredi. Il dénonce "l'offensive anti-écologique" à l'œuvre actuellement en France. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.
durée : 00:21:28 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé - L'eurodéputé Pascal Canfin, membre du groupe centriste Renew, était l'invité de France Inter ce vendredi. Il dénonce "l'offensive anti-écologique" à l'œuvre actuellement en France. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.
Six morts dans un village silencieux de l'Oise à l'automne 1983. Presque toute une famille, le Labrousse, décimée à coups de couteau au cours d'une nuit d'épouvante. Parents, enfants, grands-parents...La rage meurtrière d'un seul homme, Pascal Dolique, un apprenti charcutier de 23 ans. Une colère incontrôlable dictée dira t-il par un "dépit amoureux". Des mots presque futiles qui ne vont jamais être à la hauteur de ce massacre familial.Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.
This week we look at the subject of death including - Stephen Ireland; NHS Chestfeeding Workshops; Billboard Chris wins in Australia; Chris Coghlan vs the Priest; Pascal Robinson-Foster's death chant at Glastonbury; Country of the Week - Thailand; Zoohran Mandani and the artificial construct of violence; Transfeminist Pregnancy; Turkish Islamists attack LeMan; The UK Governments definition of extreme right wing; Pakistani Drug Dealer can stay in UK to teach son Islam; The effects of Cruise Ships on Climate Change; the Planet is getting Greener; O Brother Where Art Thou? AI and Medicine; The Thickness of Justin Welby; The Death of Jimmy Swaggert; and 1 Corinthians 15:55 with music from Alison Krauss; Ralph Stanley; Soggy Bottom Boys; EmmyLou Harris ; Gillian Welch; Acts Music
At the EUVC Summit, Bernard Dalle (formerly of Index Ventures) and Thomas Kristensen (LGT Capital Partners) shared candid reflections on how to build a venture firm from the inside out. Instead of fixating on star hires and grand strategies, their talk emphasized the compounding power of cultural alignment, junior talent development, and early operational investment.Drawing on first-hand experience, they unpack what it takes to build enduring institutions—where team, trust, and time matter more than titles.Whether you're raising your first fund or scaling your platform team, this conversation offers timeless lessons from one of Europe's most respected firms.Here's what's covered:00:45 Betting on People: Why hiring for cultural fit beats chasing CVs02:20 Long-Term Talent Playbooks: Junior hires, long runway, big impact03:50 Under-hiring on Purpose: Why Index rarely hired GPs straight out05:10 The Operations Edge: Building support teams early pays dividends07:00 The Index Blueprint: Early days with David, Pascal, and a deep ops bench08:30 Institutional Memory: Capturing partner insights across the portfolio
Less than one week out to a deadline for a deal on tariffs between the European Union and the United States, where do negotiations stand? And is it likely that a base rate of 10% tariffs will remain? Minister for Finance Pascal Donohoe is in studio to discuss this and the latest around coalition disagreement on college fees.
Matt, hey, my friends, welcome to the off the wire podcast. My name is Matt Wireman, and with over 25 years of coaching experience, I bring to you a an integrated approach to coaching where we look at mind, body and soul. So this being my little corner of the universe, welcome we cover everything from spiritual formation or the interior life all the way to goal setting and how to make your life better with life hacks, and I cover everything in between. So whatever it fits my fancy, I'm going to share with you, and I'm so thankful for your time, and I hope this episode helps you. All right. Well, hey, welcome, welcome to another episode of Off The Wire. This is Matt, still I haven't changed, but I do have with me, my friend. Really proud to call him a friend. And from seminary days, Dr Josh chatro, who is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson. That's a mouthful. Josh, well done. And then he is also, they just launched a concentration in apologetics at Beeson, which is really exciting. They got a conference coming up this summer. Is that also an apologetics Josh,its own preaching and apologetics? Okay? Awesome.And, and largely, you're also, you're also part of the Tim Keller Center for Cultural apologetics, and then also a, they call them fellows at the Center for Pastor theologians as well. That's right, yeah. And you in, you have been at Beeson for a couple years, because prior to that, you were at a you were heading up. And what was it largely an apologetics group, or was it, was it more broad than that in Raleigh?Yeah, it was. It was much more expansive than that. Evangelism and apologetics is part of what we were doing, but it was the Center for Public Christianity, okay? It was also very much in the work and faith movement. And I was also resident theologian at Holy Trinity Anglican in Raleigh. We were there for five years,excellent and and you don't know this because you don't keep tabs on who bought your book, but I've got every one of your books brother, so every every book you put out, and I'm like, I love this guy, and I'm gonna support him and buy his book. So it started all the way back, if you remember, with truth matters, yeah. And I use that book for one of the classes that I built here where I teach. And then then I want to go through the Litany here and embarrass you a little bit. And then it goes to apologetics, at the Cross Cultural Engagement, telling a better story, surprised by doubt. And then one that you just released called the Augustine way, retrieving a vision for the church's apologetic witness. So do you write much on apologetics? Is that kind of your thing?Yeah, I've written a few books on that.So why? Like, what is it about apologetics that has really captured your heart, in your mind and like, as opposed to just teaching theology, yeah, it's a certain it's a certain stream. If folks are first of all, folks are curious, like, What in the world is apologetics? Are you apologizing to folks? Like, are you saying I'm sorry?Well, I do have to do that. I'm sorry a lot. That's a good practice. That's not quite what apologetics is. Okay. Okay, so we, one of the things I would say is, and when I meet, when I meet up with old friends like you, sometimes they say, What have you been doing? Because we didn't see this coming. And when we were in seminary together, it wasn't as if I was, you know, reading a lot of apologetic works. And so one of the things is,and you weren't picking fights on campus too much. You were always a really kind person. And most, most time, people think of like apologists as, like, real feisty. And you're not a feisty friend. I'm not. I actually, unless you start talking about, like, soccer and stuff like that, right? Yeah,yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I don't. I don't love, I don't love, actually, arguments I'd much rather have, which is an odd thing, and so I need to tell how did I get into this thing? I'd much rather have conversations and dialog and kind of a back and forth that keeps open communication and and because, I actually think this ties into apologetics, most people don't make decisions or don't come to they don't come to any kind of belief simply because they were backed into an intellectual corner. And but now maybe I'll come back to that in a second. But I got into this because I was doing my PhD work while I was pastoring. And when you do yourpH was that in in Raleigh, because you did your PhD work at Southeastern, right?That's right, that's right. But I was actually, we were in southern, uh. In Virginia for the first half, we were in a small town called Surrey. It was, if you know anything about Tim Keller, it was he served in Hopewell, Virginia for seven or nine years before he went to Westminster and then to New York. And we were about 45 minutes from that small town. So if you've read Colin Hansen's book, he kind of gives you some background on what is this, these little communities, and it does, does kind of match up the little community I was serving for two years before moving to another little community in South Georgia to finish while I was writing. And so I pastored in both locations. So these aren't particularly urban areas, and yet, people in my church, especially the young people, were asking questions about textual criticism, reliability of the Bible.Those are any topics forfolks like, yeah, something happened called the Internet, yes. All of a sudden now, things that you would, you would get to, maybe in your, you know, thm, your your master's level courses, or even doctoral level courses. Now 1819, year old, 20 year olds or 50 year olds had questions about them because they were reading about some of this stuff on the internet. And because I was working on a PhD, I was actually working on a PhD in biblical theology and their New Testament scholar, people would come to me as if I'm supposed to know everything, or you know. And of course, of course, when you're studying a PhD, you're you're in a pretty narrow kind of world and very narrow kind of lane. And of course, I didn't know a lot of things, but I was, I kind of threw myself into, how do I help people with these common questions. So it wasn't as if, it wasn't as if I was saying, oh, I want to study apologetics. I kind of accidentally got there, just because of really practical things going on in my church context. And and then as I was reading and I started writing in response to Bart Ehrman, who is a is a agnostic Bible scholar. Wrote four or five New York Times bestsellers, uh, critical of the New Testament, critical of the Bible, critical of conservative Christianity. I started writing those first two books. I wrote with some senior scholars. I wrote in response. And then people said, so your apologist? And I said, Well, I guess I am. And so that, yeah, so I'm coming at this I'm coming at this area, not because I just love arguments, but really to help the church really with really practical questions. And then as I began to teach it, I realized, oh, I have some different assumptions coming at this as a pastor, also as a theologian, and trained in biblical theology. So I came with a, maybe a different set of lenses. It's not the only set of lens. It's not the it's not the only compare of lenses that that one might take in this discipline, but that's some of my vocational background and some of my kind of journey that brought me into apologetics, and in some ways, has given me a little bit different perspective than some of the dominant approaches or dominant kind of leaders in the area.That's great. Well, let's go. Let's get after it. Then I'm gonna just throw you some doozies and see how we can rapid fire just prove all of the things that that are in doubt. So here we go. Okay, you ready? How do we know that God exists?Yeah, so that word no can have different connotations. So maybe it would be better to ask the question, why do we believe God exists? Oh,don't you do that? You're you can't, you can't just change my question. I was kidding. Well, I think, I think you bring up a great point, is that one of the key tasks in apologetics is defining of terms and understanding like, Okay, you asked that question. But I think there's a question behind the question that actually is an assumption that we have to tease out and make explicit, right? Because, I mean, that's, that's part of you. So I think sometimes people get into this back and forth with folks, and you're like, Well, you have assumptions in your question. So go ahead, you, you, you go ahead and change my question. So how do we knowthe issue is, is there is that when we say something like, you know, we people begin to imagine that the way Christianity works is that we need to prove Christianity in the way we might prove as Augustine said this in confessions, four plus six equals 10. And Augustine, early church father, and he's writing, and he's writing about his own journey. He said I really had to get to the point where I realized this is not how this works. Yeah, we're not talking about, we do not one plus one, our way to God.Yeah. And when is Augustine writing about When? When? So people are, yeah, 397,at. This point. So he's writing right at the, you know, right right before the fifth century, okay? And, and, of course, Augustine famously said, we have to believe to understand, for most believers, God is intuitive, or what? Blaise Pascal, the 17th century Christian philosopher He called this the logic of the heart. Or I can just cite a more contemporary figure, Alvin planeta, calls this basic belief that. He says that belief in God is a basic belief, and and for So, for for many believers, they would say something like this. And I think there's validity in this so is that God just makes sense, even if, even if they haven't really worked out arguments that they they say, Well, yeah, this God makes sense to me. Now I can kind of begin to explore that. I will in just a second, but I just want to say there's, for most of your listeners, it's something like, I heard the gospel and this and the stories of Jesus, and I knew they were true, right? And as kind of insiders here, we would say that's the Spirit's work. The Holy Spirit is working, and God speaks through creation and his word, and people believe. And so that's that's why we believe now, of course, once we say that people have these kinds of intuitions, or as theologians would put it, this sense of God kind of built into them, I would want to say, as an apologist, or even as a pastor, just a minister, you don't have to be apologist to say this is that we can appeal to those intuitions and make arguments in many different types of ways. Well,hold on one second. Isn't that a little too simplistic, though? Because, I mean, you have the Greeks who believed in all the different gods, and the Romans who adopted those gods and changed their names and like, how do we assimilate that? You know, where, you know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins famously say, Well, I don't, I don't believe in Zeus. So does that make me an atheist? It would have made me an atheist back in, you know, you know Roman and Latin and Greek times. So, so there's an intuition, but, but how do we delineate that? Well, that's not the right object of that intuition.Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this intuition, you know, we could say Romans, Romans, one is pointing us to, this is what I would argue, this sense of God, and yet we're, we're fallen, according to the Christian story. And so even though we have this sense of God, we suppress that, and we worship false gods, or we worship the created, rather than the Creator. So the Christian story as a as a Christian, helps make sense of both the kind of why? Well, although we have this sense this, there's this common sense of God, it goes in many different directions and and I would argue that even if you deny kind of transcendence altogether, you're still going to have you're going to still make something kind of a god. You're going to you're going to want to worship something. And I think that's that's part of the point of Romans, one, you end up going to worship the created rather than the Creator. So does that get out what you're asking Matt or Yeah,I think so. I think sometimes the arguments that are real popular, even now is like, well, I just don't, I just don't, I just don't believe that God exists, just like I don't believe that Zeus exists, like, what's, what's the big deal? Why? Why are you so adamant that I believe in that God exists? Like to because I don't, I don't know that God exists because I don't see him. So how would you respond to somebody who says, Well, this Intuit intuition that that you say we all have, and that Romans one says we have, I just don't buy it, you know, because, I mean, I'm, I wouldn't believe that Zeus exists, because there's no empirical evidence to show me otherwise. So how would you respond to somebody that's equivocating or saying that, you know, Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of the, you know, the God of the Bible is, this is just a tribal deity, just like Zeus is. So, how should we? Iwould, I would say so. So I think we can make kind of arguments for some kind of for transcendence. So there's ways to make arguments against naturalism. That's that's what's being promoted. And there's various different kinds of, you know. So sometimes these kinds of arguments that are in the Christian tradition are used to say, hey, we're going to prove God's existence using these arguments. I think I'm not. Are typically comfortable with the language of prove and how it's used in our context today, again, we get into the math, kind of two plus two equals four. Kind of thinking, yep. But I think a lot of those arguments are appealing to both intuitions and they they work much more effectively as anti naturalistic arguments. Not so much saying, Okay, we know a particular God through, say, the moral argument, okay, that we're but, but it's arguing against simply a naturalistic, materialistic. You know, even Evans, who's a longtime professor at Baylor, makes this argument that those, those types of arguments are really good against pushing back against naturalism. So plan again, has a famous argument that says, if naturalism and evolutionary theory are both true because of how evolution theory works, it's not about right thinking, but right action that you perform certain things to survive. Then, if both of those are true, you have no reason to trust your kind of cognitive faculties.Can you tease that one out a little bit? I kind of lost on that one. He said,What planet is arguing? Is he saying? Look, if, if all of our kind of cognitive faculties are just a product of evolution, okay? And by the way, not only does it's not just a plan. Ago makes this argument, it's actually kind of interesting figures who were like Nietzsche and others made this argument that basically, if, if evolution and naturalism is true that all we are is energy and manner and this product of evolutionary process, then we would have no reason to actually trust kind of our rationality, and that's what rationality is actually mapping onto reality. All of our our brains and our minds are really just producing certain conclusions to help us survive. So it would undercut the very foundations of that position. Now again, yeah, being able to observe, yeah, yeah. So, so with that, again, I think that's an example of an argument that doesn't so much. You know, say this is the Christian God. This supports the belief in Christian God. But what it does is it from within their own thinking. It challenges that. It undercuts their own way of thinking, which is what you're assuming and what you're kind of pushing back on, is a kind of naturalistic world. And I think we can step within that try to understand it and then challenge it on its own terms. And I think that's the real strength of planning this argument. What he's doing now, go ahead.Well, that's it, yeah, in his, in his, like, the the Opus is, uh, warranted. Christian belief is that what you're referencing the the big burgundy book.I can't remember where he makes this argument? Yeah, I can'tremember exactly. But like, if all your cognitive faculties are working, somebody who believes that God exists does not mean that they does not negate all of the other cognitive faculties that they're like if they're in their rational mind, that they have warrants for their belief. But, but that's what I what I think, where I'm tracking with you, and I love this is that even like, it still holds true, right? Like there's not one silver bullet argument to say now we know, like, that's what you were challenging even in the question is, how do you know that you know that you know that God exists? Well, you have to layer these arguments. And so this is one layer of that argument that even the Greeks and the Romans had a sense of transcendence that they were after, and they identified them as gods. But there's this other worldliness that they're trying to attribute to the natural world that they observe, that they can't have answers for, and that we can't observe every occurrence of reality, that there has to be something outside of our box, so to speak, out of our naturalistic tendencies. And so even that can be helpful to say, well, that kind of proves my point that even the Greeks and the Romans and other tribal deities, they're after something outside of our own experience that we can experience in this box. Yeah, that'sright. And there's a, I mean again, this, this argument, isn't intellectually coercive, and I don't think any of these are intellectually coercive. What I mean by that is you can find ways out. And so the approach I would take is actually called an abductive approach, which says, Okay, let's put everything on the table, and what best makes sense, what best makes sense, or what you know, what story best explains all of this? And so that way, there's a lot of different angles you can take depending on who you're talking to, yep, and and so what one of the, one of the ways to look at this and contemporary anthropology? Psycho psychologists have done work on this, to say, the kind of standard, what we might call natural position in all of human history, is that there's there's transcendence. That's, it's just the assumption that there's transcendence. Even today, studies have been shown even people who grow kids, who grew up in a secular society will kind of have these intuitions, like, there is some kind of God, there is some kind of creator, designer. And the argument is that you actually have to have a certain kinds of culture, a particular culture that kind of habituate certain thinking, what, what CS Lewis would call, a certain kind of worldly spell to to so that those intuitions are saying, Oh no, there's not a god. You know, there's not transcendence. And so the kind of common position in all of human history across various different cultures is there is some kind of transcendence. It takes a very particular, what I would say, parochial, kind of culture to say, oh, there's probably no there. There's not. There's, of course, there's not. In fact, Charles Taylor, this is the story he wants to tell of how did we get here, at least in some secular quarters of the West, where it was just assumed, of course, there's, of course, there's a God to 500 years of to now, and at least some quarters of the West, certain, certain elite orsecular? Yeah? Yeah, people. And even then, that's a minority, right? This is not a wholesale thing, yeah.It seems to be. There's something, well, even Jonathan height, uh, he's an atheist, says, has acknowledged that there seems to be something in humans. That's something like what Pascal called a God shaped hole in our heart, and so there's this kind of, there's this deep intuition. And what I'm wanting to do is, I'm wanting in my arguments to kind of say, okay, given this as a Christian, that I believe we have this sense of God and this intuition of God, these intuitions, I want to appeal to those intuitions. And so there's a moral order to the universe that people just sense that there is a right and wrong. There's certain things that are right and certain things are wrong, even if a culture says it is, it is, it is fine to kill this group of people, that there's something above culture, that even there's something above someone's personal preference, that is their moral order to the universe. Now, given that deep seated intuition, what you might call a first principle, what makes best sense of that, or a deep desire, that that, that nothing in the universe seems to satisfy that we have. This is CS Lewis's famous argument. We have these desires, these natural desires for we get thirsty and there's there's water, we get hungry and there's food, and yet there's this basically universal or worldwide phenomenon where people desire something more, that they try to look for satisfaction in this world and they can't find it. Now, what best explains that? And notice what I'm doing there, I'm asking that the question, what best explains it? Doesn't mean there's, there's not multiple explanations for this, but we're saying, What's the best explanation, or profound sense that something doesn't come from nothing, that intelligence doesn't come from non intelligence, that being doesn't come from non being. Yeah, a deep sense that there's meaning and significance in life, that our experience with beauty is not just a leftover from an earlier primitive stage of of evolution. And so we have these deep experiences and intuitions and ideas about the world, and what I'm saying is particularly the Christian story. So I'm not, I'm not at the end, arguing for just transcendence or or kind of a generic theism, but I'm saying particularly the Christian story, best, best answers. Now, I'm not saying that other stories can't incorporate and say something and offer explanations, but it's a, it's a really a matter of, you know, you might say out narrating or or telling the Gospel story that maps on to the ways we're already intuiting about the world, or experiencing or observing the world.Yeah, so, so going along with that, so we don't have, like, a clear cut case, so to speak. We have layers of argument, and we appeal to what people kind of, in their heart of hearts, know, they don't have to like, they have to be taught otherwise. Almost like, if you talk to a child, they can't, they kind of intuit that, oh, there's something outside, like, Who created us? Like, who's our mom? You know, like, going back into the infinite regress. It's like, okay, some something came from nothing. How does that even how is that even possible? So there has to be something outside of our. Experience that caused that to happen. So, so say you, you go there, and then you help people. Say, help people understand. Like, I can't prove God's existence, but I can argue that there are ways of explaining the world that are better than other ways. So then, how do you avoid the charge that, well, you basically are a really proud person that you think your religion is better than other religions. How, how could you dare say that when you can't even prove that you're you know? So how? How would you respond to somebody who would say, like, how do you believe? Why do you believe that Christianity is a one true religion? Yeah, um,well, I would say a couple of things. One is that, in some sense, everyone is staking out some kind of claim. So even if you say you can't say that one religion is true or one one religion is the one true religion, that is a truth claim that you're staking out. And I think it's fine that this for someone to say that they just need to realize. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I think they're they're making a truth claim. I'm making a truth claim. Christians are making truth so we're, we all think we're right, and that's fine. That's fine, but, but then we but then once you realize that, then you're not saying, Well, you think you're right, but I just, I'm not sure, or it's arrogant to say you're right. I think, of course, with some some things, we have more levels of confidence than other things. And I think that's the other thing we can say with Christian with as Christians, it's saying, Hey, I believe, I believe in the resurrection. I believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't mean that everything I might believe about everything is right. It doesn't even mean all my arguments are are even 100% always the best arguments, or I could be wrong about a particular argument and and I'm also not saying that you're wrong about everything you're saying. Okay, so, but what we are saying is that, hey, I I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and you're saying he's not okay. Let's have a conversation. But it's not, rather, it's not a matter of somebody being air. You know, you can hold those positions in an arrogant way. But simply saying, I believe this isn't in itself arrogance, at least, I think how arrogance is classically defined, yeah. And what is this saying? I believe this, and I believe, I believe what Jesus said about himself. And I can't go around and start kind of toying with with, if I believe he's Lord, then it's really not up to me to say, okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, kind of take some of what he said, but not all of what he said. If you actually believe he rose from the dead and he is Lord and He is God, then then you take him at his word.What is it, as you think about cultural engagement, cultural apologetics that you've written on like, what is it in our cultural moment right now where people you say that thing, like Jesus said, You know, he, he, he said, I'm God, you know, not those explicit words, right? That's some of the argument. Like, no, but you look at the narrative he did, and that's why he was going to be stoned for blasphemy. That's why all these things. But that's, that's another conversation for another day. But, and then you talk to someone, you're like, Well, I don't believe he was God. I don't believe His claims were. Like, why then do you do we oftentimes find ourselves at a standstill, and people just throw up their hands like, well, that's your truth, and my truth is, I just don't, like, just don't push it on me. Like, why do we find ourselves in this? And it's not new. I mean, this is something that goes back to, you know, hundreds of years ago, where people are making arguments and they're like, Well, I just don't know. So I'm gonna be a transcendentalist, or I'm gonna be a deist, or I'm gonna whatever. So how do we kind of push back on that a little bit to say, No, it's not what we're talking about. Is not just a matter of preference, and it's not just a matter of, hey, my truth for me and your truth for you. But we're actually making it a claim that is true for all people. Like, how do we kind of encourage people to push into that tendency that people have to just throw up their hands and say, whatever? Pass the piece, you know? Well,okay, so I think let me answer that in two ways. One's philosophically, and then two are practically. One philosophically. I do think it's, you know, CS Lewis was on to this, as he often was way ahead of the curve on certain things, but on an abolition of man. When he talked, he's talking about the fact value distinction and how we've separated. You know, you have your facts, and then everything you know, where, classically, you would kind of recognize that courage, you know, is a virtue, and that's, it's a, it's a, it's also a fact that we should pursue courage and rather than just my preference of kind of and so there's actually. Be this, but now we have, well, that's a value, kind of courage, and say you should do something, but it's, it's, that's your value and and so we have this distinction between facts, which is, follow the science, and then values over here. And as that has opened up. You have both a kind of, on one hand, a very, very much, a people saying in a very kind of hard, rationalistic way, you know, science has said, which, that would be another podcast to kind of dive into that more science is good and, yeah, and, but science doesn't say anything. So I'm a fan of science, but it doesn't say anything. We interpret certain things, but, but so you can kind of have a hard rationalism, but you also combine with a kind of relativism, or at least a soft relativism that says, Well, this is my truth, because values become subjective. So that's the philosophical take. But the kind of practical thing, I would say, is they need people. One of the reasons people do that is because, it's because they've seen kind of these to reference what you're talking about earlier this hey, this person's coming in wanting to talk about my worldview, and it just becomes this fierce, awkward encounter, and I don't want anything to do with that type of thing, like I don't, I don't want to go down the dark corners of of the Internet to have these, to have these intellectual just like Charles Taylor says, a lot of the kind of arguments are, I have three reasons why your position is untenable. He says something like untenable, wrong and totally immoral. Now, let's have a conversation. It just and so it's kind of like, no thanks. I don't think I want to have that conversation. You do you. And so there's, there is a part that, culturally, something is going on which needs to be confronted. And Lewis was doing that work, and a lot of philosophers have followed him in that but there's also a side of of maybe where our own worst enemies here, and the way that we try to engage people, and where we start with people, and we think, Okay, let's start in this kind of, you know, apologetic wrestling match with people. And a lot of times, people are just looking to cope. People are just looking to survive. They have mental health issues going on, and they don't want another one to pop up because of the apologist. And so they're just looking to try to skirt that conversation and get to feeding their kids or dealing with their angry neighbor. And so we've got to kind of take stock on kind of where people are at, and then how to engage them with where they're at. Now I'm going to apologize. I think all of those arguments are helpful in a certain context, but a lot of times, we've been our own worst enemy, and how we try to try to engage so what I what I encourage students and ministers to do is is start talking about people's stories, and you know how life is going and where what's hard, and asking really good questions, and kind of having a holy curiosity and and often, I was in an encounter with a guy who came up to me after a kind of a university missions thing, and he was an atheist, and he wanted to talk about the moral argument. And I was happy to do that for a few minutes, but then I just asked him. I said, what you know, what do you love to do? Tell me about yourself, and where do you really find joy in life? And he looked at me, and he started to tear up, and he said, You know, I'm really lonely right now, you know, go figure this moment in our world, the kind of fragmented world we live in. And he said, what's really meaningful to me is my is my pet, because he provides solace. And there's this moment where, of course, I mean, here's an atheist wanting to show up at a Christian event, right? And because Christians were nice to him, and he's deeply lonely, and we got to have a pretty meaningful conversation about, you know, the benefits of following Christ in the community, communion with not only God, but with others, yeah, but if I would have just left it at, let's go to the more we would have never got there. But it took me kind of asking the question, which is, in essence, what I was trying to ask is what, I didn't put it like this, but what are you seeking? What are you really after here? And where are you really getting joy in life, and what's going on? And I if we can learn to go there, I think we'll have much more productive conversations. And then just kind of, I heard chatro talk about the, you know, ontological argument. Now let me throw that out there at somebody. I think that's why apologists and apologetics have sometimes been given a bad name. But if you. Actually look at the tradition, the the larger tradition. There's so many resources, and there's so many people, apologists, doing lots of different things, that I think gives us kind of way to actually engage people where they're at.Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. Well, I It reminds me, I believe it was Schaefer who talked about the the greatest apologetic, at least his time, and I think it stands true even now, is welcoming people and being hospitable towards people, welcoming the questions, not looking at folks as adversaries, but fellow pilgrims. And then you welcome them into that space, into that community. And then they're they see that, quite frankly, the faith works. The Christian ethic actually works, albeit imperfect, by imperfect people in imperfect ways. But you know, as we go through pain and suffering, as we go through, you know, elation and disappointment, like there's still a lot that that we can demonstrate to the world through our testimony that it works. You know, so to speak. So I'd love to hear you kind of help walk us through how the Christian story tells a better story about pain and suffering, because that's that's a fact of every person listening is that there's some modicum of pain and suffering in their life at any moment. And then you look at the grand scale of the world and all these things, but just even we can go down to the individual level of the why is there pain and suffering in my life and in the world and, you know, in general. But I like, like for you to just kind of riff on that for a little bit for us, to helpus, yeah. And in some ways, this question, and the apologetic question is a kind of real, a snapshot into the into what we're talking about with, how do we respond to that? Not just as Okay, an intellectual question, yeah, yeah, but it's also a profoundly experiential question. And there's youmean, you mean, and how, in the moment when you're saying, in the moment when somebody asks you the question, not getting defensive, but being being willing to listen to the question, Is that what you mean by that? And yeah,well, what I mean is, that's certainly true. Matt, what I was really thinking, though, is how this is not just something kind of an abstract, intellectual question. Oh, okay, but it's a profound experiential and there's different angles that we might take into it. But I mean, as a kind of snapshot or a test case in our apologetic is, I think there's ways to answer that question that are sterile, that are overly academic, and I and that also, I would say, rushes in to give an answer. And I would want to argue that Christianity doesn't give an answer to evil and suffering, but it gives a response. And let me make, let me explain that, yeah, is, is an answer. Tries in the way I'm using it, at least tries to say, I'm going to solve this kind of intellectual problem, and the problem of evil and suffering in the world, of why a good God who's all powerful would allow the kind of evil and suffering we see in the world is, is one that we might say, Okay, now there's the problem. Now let me give the solution. And this is often done, and we've you maybe have been in this if you're listening into a certain context where a kind of famous apologist says, Here is the answer, or famous Christian celebrity says, Here is the answer to evil, and this solves all the problems, until you start thinking about it a little bit more, or you go home, or three or four years, and you grow out of that answer and and so I think we need to be real careful here when we say we have the answer, because if you keep pushing that question back in time, or you start asking questions like, well, that that bullet that hit Hitler in World War One and didn't kill him? What if the God of the Bible, who seems to control the wind and everything, would have just blown it over and killed Hitler. It seems like maybe it could have been a better possible world if Hitler, you know, didn't lead the Holocaust. Okay, so, so again, I think, I think pretty quickly you begin to say, Okay, well, maybe some of these theodicies Don't actually solve everything, although I would say that some of the theodicies that are given things like free will, theodicy or or the kind of theodicies that say God uses suffering to to grow us and develop us. And I think there's truth in all of that, and there's but what it does. What none of them do is completely solve the problem. And so I think that there's value in those theodicies in some extent.Hey, did you know that you were created to enjoy abundance? I'm not talking about getting the latest pair of Air Jordans or a jet plane or whatever that this world says that you have to have in order to be happy. Instead, I'm talking about an abundant life where you are rich in relationships, you're rich in your finances, but you are rich in life in general, that you are operating in the calling that God has for you, that He created you for amazing things. Did you know that? And so many times we get caught up in paying our mortgage and running hither and yon, that we forget that in this world of distractions that God has created you for glorious and amazing things and abundant life. If you would like to get a free workbook, I put one together for you, and it's called the my new rich life workbook. If you go to my new rich life.com my new rich life.com. I would be glad to send you that workbook with no strings attached, just my gift to you to help you. But here'sthe thing, here's what I want to go back to with a question. Is that the Odyssey as we know it, or this? And what I'm using theodicy for is this, this responsibility that that we feel like we have to justify the ways of God, is a particularly modern phenomenon. I think this is where history comes and helps us. Charles Taylor talks about this in that the kind of way we see theodicy and understand theodicy was really developed in the middle of the 1700s with figures like Leibniz, and then you have particularly the Lisbon earthquakes in the middle of the 18th century. And that was this kind of 911 for that context. And in this 911 moment, you have philosophers being saying, Okay, how do we justify the ways of God? And are trying to do it in a very kind of this philosophical way to solve the problem. But from for most of human history and history of the West, of course, evil and suffering was a problem, but it wasn't a problem so much to be solved, but it was a problem to to cope with and and and live in light of, in other words, what you don't have in the Bible is Job saying, Okay, well, maybe God doesn't exist. Or the psalmist saying, maybe God doesn't exist because I'm experiencing this. No, they're ticked off about it. They're not happy about it. They're struggling to cope with it. It is, it is a problem, but it's not, then therefore a problem. That says, well, then God doesn't exist. Yeah. And it didn't become a widespread kind of objection against God's very existence, until certain things have happened in the kind of modern psyche, the kind of modern way of imagining the world. And here is what's happened. This is what Charles Taylor says. Is that Taylor says what happened is kind of slowly through through different stages in history, but but in some sorry to be gloved here, but it's, it's a very kind of, you know, long argument. But to get to the point is, he says our view of God became small, and our view of humans became really big. And so God just came became kind of a bigger view of version of ourselves. And then we said, oh, if there is a reason for suffering and evil, we should be able to know it, because God's just a bigger kind of version of us, and he has given us rational capacities. And therefore if we can't solve this, then there must not be a god. That's kind of where the logic goes. And of course, if you step into the biblical world, or what I would say a more profoundly Christian way of looking at it is God. God isn't silent, and God has spoken, has given us ways to cope and live with suffering and ways to understand it. But what he what he doesn't give us, is that we're going to he actually promises that, that we're not going to fully understand His ways that, that we're going to have to trust Him, even though we can't fully understand why he does what he does in history all the time. And so this leads into what, what's actually called. There's, this is a, this is a weird name if you're not in this field, but it's called skeptical theism. I'm a skeptical theist. And what skeptical theists Are you is that we're not skeptical about God, but we're skeptical about being able to neatly answer or solve the problem of evil. But we actually don't think that's as big of a deal, because, simply because. I don't understand why God, God's simply because I don't understand God's reasons. Doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons. Yeah, yeah. Andso just beyond your the your finite, uh, temporo spatial understanding of things, right? Like you don't understand how this horrible situation plays out in a grander narrative,right? So it's Stephen wickstra. He had this famous argument. I'll riff off of it a little bit. I mean, just metaphor. He says, if you have a if you have a tent, and we go camping together, Matt and and I open the tent and say, there's a giant dog in there. And you look in there, there's no dog, you would say, Yeah, you're either crazy or a liar. But if I open the tent and say there's tiny bugs in there, and they're called no see ums, you wouldn't, you wouldn't know. You wouldn't be in a position to know. You wouldn't be in an epistemological position to know whether there's a bug in there or not. So you would simply have to decide whether you're going to trust me or not. And then, you know, the claim of the non Christian might be, well, yeah, why would I trust the God given the kind of crap that I see in the world? And I would say, well, a couple reasons. One is most profoundly because God has entered into this world. He has not sat on the sidelines. So even though we don't fully understand it, he has in the person of Jesus Christ, he has suffered with us and for us. So this is a God who says, I haven't given you all the answers, but I have given you myself. And that's I think both has some rational merit to it, and profoundly some intellectual merit to that. I'd also say that the Christian story actually gets at some deep intuitions, kind of underneath this challenge or this problem. It was CS Lewis, who was an atheist in World War One, and and he was very angry at God because of the evil and violence and his his mom dying at an early age, and was an atheist. But then he realized that in his anger against God, that he was assuming a certain standard, a certain kind of moral standard, about how the world should be, that there is evil in the world and that it shouldn't be so, and this deep intuition that it shouldn't be so that certain things aren't right. Actually, you don't have if you do away with God's existence, you just you have your preferences. But in a world of just energy and matter, why would the world not be absurd? Why would you expect things not to be like this. Why would you demand them not to be like this?So a deeply embedded sense of morality that can't be explained by naturalism is what you're getting, yeah?That that we have a certain problem here, or certain challenge with not fully being able to answer the question, yeah, but they have, I would say, a deeper challenge, that they don't have even the kind of categories to make sense of the question. So that's those are some of the directions I would go, and it's first stepping inside and kind of challenging against some of the assumptions. But then I'm as you, as you can tell, then I'm going to say how the Christian story does make sense of these deep intuitions, our moral intuitions, that are underneath the problem, or the challenge of evil and suffering. And then also going to Jesus in the Gospel. And the Gospel story,one of the questions I had on our on the list of questions was, how do we know the Bible is true? But I want to delve into more of this understanding of doubt and how that plays, because you've written a lot on this. But I'd like, could you just direct us to some resources, or some folks, if folks are interested in, how do we know the Bible is true? I'm thinking real popular apologist right now is Wesley. Huff is a great place to go. But are there other like, hey, how do I know that the Bible is true? Because you keep appealing to Christianity, which is in for is the foundation of that is the Bible. So could you give us a few resources so people could chase those down.Peter Williams has written a couple little good books on the Gospels. AndPeter Williams Williams, he's in Cambridge, right, orTyndale house, over there and over the pond. And he's written a book on the Gospels. And I can't think of the name, but if you put it on the internet, it'll show up. And the genius of Jesus as well. Okay, little books, and I think both of those are helpful as far as the Gospels go. Richard, Richard balcom is really good on this, Jesus and the eyewitnesses. As well as a little book that most people haven't heard of. It's a, it's an introduction to the Gospels in that off in an Oxford series, which is, you know, kind of a brief introduction to the Gospels. And he, especially at the very beginning, he gives us John Dixon, who's at Wheaton now, has written a lot of good books on on on this. And it's got this series called skeptics guide to and it does both Old Testament and New Testament kind of stuff. So that little series is, is really helpful. So those are some places I would start. And in my books, I typically have, you know, chapters on this, but I haven't, haven't written, you know, just one book, just on this. The early books, truth matters and truth in a culture of doubt, were, were engaging Bart airman. But really, Bart airman not to pick on on Airmen, but just because he was such a representative of a lot of the the views that that we were hearing, he ended up being a good kind of interlocutor. In those I would just say, I know you didn't. You just asked for books. And let me just say one thing about this is I, I think if you are trying to engage, I think if you take the approach of, let me prove the Bible, let me take everything and just, yeah, I don't think that's the best way. I think you often have to give people some you know, whether it's, you know, the beginning of Luke's Gospel, where he's saying, This is how I went about this. And I actually did my homework to kind of say, this is at least the claim of the gospel writers say, and then, but the real way that you you come to see and know, is you have to step into it and read it. And I think one of the apologetic practices I would want to encourage, or just evangelistic practices, is is offering to read the gospels with people and and working through it. And then certain things come up as you read them, apologetically that you'll, you'll want to chase down and use some of those resources for but I think often it's, it's saying, hey, the claims are, at least that, you know, these guys have done their homework and and some of the work Richard welcome is doing is saying, you know, the Gospel traditions were, were were pinned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and this. And so that's some of the work that that balcom has helpfully done that kind of help us get off the ground in some of these conversations.Would that be your go to gospel Luke or, like, if you're walking with players, or a go to like,some people say more because of the shortness or John, I I'm happy with them. Allfour should be in the canon. Yeah, no, that's great. And I think a couple other books I'm thinking of Paul Wagner's from text from text to translation, particularly deals with Old Testament translation issues, but then text critical pieces, but then also FF. Bruce's canon of Scripture is a real, solid place to go, if people are interested in those big pieces, but those, I mean, yeah, Richard Bauckham work was really helpful for me when I was like, How do I even know, you know the starting place is a good starting place. So, yeah, thank you for that. Sowhat the challenge is, people have got to make up their mind on Jesus. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I want to kind of triage conversations and say, Hey, I know the Bible is a big book and there's a lot going on. First things you gotta make a call on. So that's where I'm going to focus on, the Gospels. That'sgreat. No, that's great. Well, you know, a lot of times you, and you've mentioned this earlier, that sometimes in our attempts to give reasons for our faith, we can come to simplistic answers like, Okay, this is, here you go. Here's the manuscript evidence, for example. Or, hey, here's the evidence for the resurrection. Oh, here. You know, this is pain and suffering, Romans, 828, you know, having these quick answers. And I think it stems from a desire to want to have a foundation for what we stand on. But a lot of times, and I think what we're seeing in our culture, and this is not anything new, this topic of deconstruction is not really a new topic is, you know, it's what's been called in the past, apostasy, or just not believing anymore. But now it's gotten a more, you know, kind of sharper edges to it. And and I would love for you to you know how you would respond to someone who is deconstructing from their faith because it didn't allow for doubt or because they were raised in perhaps a really strict Christian home. So how would you respond to somebody who says, I don't I don't like the. Had answers anymore, and I don't, you know, it's just too simplistic, and it doesn't, it's not satisfying. So how would you, because I encounter a lot of folks that are in that vein, the ones who are deconstructing, it's, it's not, you know, there's definitely intellectual arguments, but there's something else in back of that too, I think. So I'd love to hear you just kind of, how would you respond to someone who is deconstructing or has deconstructed in their faith?Yeah, yeah. And of course not. In that situation, my first response it's going to be, tell me more. Let's, let's talk more. I want to hear, I want to hear your story. I want to hear your deconversion story, or where you're at and and to have some real curiosity. Rather than here, let me tell you what your problem is. And let me tellyou, yeah, you just don't want to believe because you got some secret sin or something. Yeah? Oh, goodnessno. I mean, it's right faith, unbelief and doubt is complex, and there's lots of forms of doubt. And we use that word I mean, it has quite the semantic range, and we use in lots of different ways. And of course, the Bible, by no means, is celebrating doubt. The Bible, it's, you know, that we is saying we should have faith. It calls us to faith, not to doubt, but doubt seems to be a couple things to say. We talk about, we talk about ourselves as Christians, as new creations in Christ, but we also recognize that we still sin, we still we still have sinful habits. We're still sinful, and in the same way we we we believe, but we can struggle with doubt, and that's a reality. And it seems to me that that doesn't mean, though, that then we celebrate doubt, as if doubts this great thing, no, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and honest that we do. And there's certain things culturally that have happened, because we now live in a pluralistic world where people seem very sane and rational and and lovely, and they believe radically different things than we do. And just that proximity, Peter Berger, the late sociologist, did a lot of work on this area. This is just it. It creates these kinds of this kind of contestability, because, well, we could imagine even possibly not believing, or kids not believing, in a way that, again, 500 years ago, you know you Luther was wrestling with whether the Roman Catholic Church had everything right, but he wasn't wrestling and doubting the whole the whole thing, yeah, God. So that creates certain pressures that I think we need to be honest about, and but, but with, and part of that honesty, I think, in that kind of conversation to say, Hey, you're not alone and you're not just simply crazy because you're you're raising some of these things because, I mean, that's in many ways, understandable. Yeah, okay, yeah. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's understandable. And I hear what you're saying, and I'm, let's talk about it now. The the kind of metaphor that that I use is to think about Christianity as a house. Of course, that's not my metaphor. I'm I'm borrowing from CS Lewis, who talked about Christianity as a house and in Mere Christianity, Lewis said he wanted to get people through non Christians into the hallway, and so he wanted to get them into the door so that they would and then they could pick up a particular tradition, they could enter a room. But his approach in Mere Christianity was to represent kind of the whole house. And what I think is happening in many cases is that people, now, I'm riffing off of his metaphor, people in the church. People have raised in the church, so they've grew up their whole life in the house, but it's actually in the what I would call the attic. And the attic as as I talk about it is, is in the house. It's, it's a Christian community, but it was, it was many times they're built out of a kind of reactionary posture against culture, without a deep connection to the rest of the house. It's kind of like, Hey, we're scared, and understandably so, the kind of decadent morality, certain shifts happening in the west with Can you giveus a couple examples of what you're thinking like? What would a person living in the attic like? What would their tradition kind of. Look like,yeah. So a couple of things. One in response to, in some cases, in response to the kind of intellectual movements, the kind of sex, secular and, you know, thinking they would say, you know, intellectualism is bad, that would be one response from the attic, like, don't worry about, you know, thinking. Just believe your problem is you're just thinking too much. So that would be one response, a kind of anti intellectualism. The other response is what I would call a kind of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I would call it a kind of quasi intellectual that, and that sounds harsh that I say what kind of mood I'm in, but a kind of quasi intellectual response, which is like, Oh, you want arguments. You want evidence. We'll give you two plus two equals equals God, and we'll kind of match, you know, fire with fire, and we can prove God's existence. And oftentimes, those kinds of apologetic reactions, I would call them, sometimes they're kind of quasi intellectual, because I don't think that's how the kind of bit we come to the big decisions. I don't think it's rational enough about a rationality about kind of what type of humans we are, and how we come to the big decisions and the big truths and and so I think that's one response, and that's why you have a kind of industry of apologetics sometimes. And the way they do it, I'm not saying in some ways it can be helpful, but in other ways, it can cause problems down down the road, and we've seen that at least, like, for instance, with the evil and suffering kind of conversation we were having before. If people say, actually, those arguments actually don't make, don't fully do what they were. We you claim too much for your arguments. Let's just say, like that. Okay, so that's one kind of, so there's a there's a kinds of, well, Christianity, in that side can kind of become this kind of intellectual, sterile work where you're just kind of trying to prove God, rather than this, than this way of life, where does worship come in? Where does devotion come in? What is And so very quickly it becomes, you know, this intellectual game, rather than communion with the living God. And so the emphasis understandably goes a certain way, but I would say understandably wrong goes a certain way, and that argument should be part of this deeper life of faith that we live and so we again, I'm wanting to say the motives aren't necessarily, aren't wrong, but where we get off because we're too reactionary, can go off. Let me give you one other ones. And I would say, like the purity culture would be another kind of side of this where we see a morally decadent culture of sexuality, and we want to respond to that we we don't want our kids to grow up believing those lies. Yeah, as as a friend of mine says, you know that the sexual revolution was actually and is actually bad for women, and we need to say that. We need to say that to people in the church, absolutely. But in response to that, then we create what, what has been called a purity culture, which, which has, has kind of poured a lot of guilt and have made have over promised again, if you just do this, you'll have a wonderful life and a wonderful marriage if you just do this, and then if you mess up, oh, you've, you've committed this unpardonable sin, almost. And so there's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly young women and then, and then over promising and so all of this,can people see that the House of Cards is coming down because they're like, Yeah, my marriage is horrible.It creates this pressure, right where you have to. You have to think a certain way. You have to behave this very kind of way. It's reaction to want to protect them. So again, I'm saying, Yes, I understand the reactions, yeah, and, but, but, and this is, I think, a key part of this, because it's not connected well to the rest of the house. It often reacts, rather than reflected deeply on the tradition and helps fit your way, the centrality of the Gospel, the centrality of what's always been, Christian teaching and coming back to the main things, rather than kind of reacting to culture because we're nervous, and doing it in such a way that, you know, well, people will begin to say, That's what Christianity is about. Christianity is really about, you know, your politics, because that's all my pastor is talking about, interesting, you know, and this is all they're talking about. So that becomes the center,even though the ethic is is, is, becomes the. Center, as opposed to the the philosophy and theology guiding the ethic, is that, would that be another way to put it, like how you live, become, becomes preeminent to, you know, wrestling with doubt and and trying to bring God into the space of your doubt and that kind of stuff is, that, is that?Yeah, I mean, so that, I think one of the things that the the early creeds help us to do is it helps us to keep the main thing. The main thing, it helps us to keep, rather than saying, well, because culture is talking about this, we're going to, you know, kind of in our churches, this becomes the main thing, is reacting or responding, maybe, whether it's with the culture and certain movements or against the culture, yeah. But if you're anchored to the kind of the ancient wisdom of the past you're you do have, you are at times, of course, going to respond to what's going on culturally, yeah, but it's always grounded to the center, and what's always been the center, yeah? And I think so when you're in a community like this, like this, the pressure of, I've gotta think rightly. I've gotta check every box here, yes, and oh, and I've, I've been told that there is proofs, and I just need to think harder. I just, you know, even believe more, even Yeah, if I just, if I just think harder, then I'll eliminate my doubt, but my doubts not being eliminated. So either I'm stupid or maybe there's a problem with the evidence, because it's not eliminating all my doubt, but this creates this kind of melting pot of anxiety for a lot of people as their own Reddit threads and their Oh, and then this, trying to figure all this out, and they're Googling all these answers, and then the slow drip, oh, well, to be honest, sometimes the massive outpouring of church scandal is poured into this, yeah. And it just creates a lot of anxiety amongst young people, and eventually they say, I'm just going to jump out of the attic, you know, because it looks pretty freeing and it looks like a pretty good way of life out there. And what, what I say to people is two things. Number one, rather than simply jumping out, first look what you're about to jump into, because you have to live somewhere, and outside the attic, you're not just jumping into kind of neutrality, you're jumping into cultural spaces and assumptions and belief. And so let's, let's just be just as critical as, yeah, the attic or house as you are will be mean, be just as critical with those spaces as you have been with the attic. So you need to explore those. But also, I'm wanting to give them a framework to understand that actually a lot of the ways that you've kind of grown up is actually been in this attic. Why don't you come downstairs, and if you're going to leave the house, explore the main floor first.And what would be the main floor? What would you say? The main floor?Yeah. I would say themain orthodox historic Christianity, like, yeah. Orthodox historic Christianity, Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, just kind of go into the Yeah. And whatI would say is, for instance, the apostle creed gives us kind of what I would call load bearing walls in the house. So it gives us the places where you don't mess like load bearing walls. You don't you don't knock those down if you're going to do a remodel, and, and, and. So you would recognize the difference between load bearing walls, walls that are central versus actual different rooms in the house, and how? Well, these aren't load bearing walls, but they're, they're, they're, they're how certain people in Christian communities, churches at particular times, have articulated it and and some of these, you could deny certain things, but you could, but those are more denominational battle lines, rather than the kind of load bearing things that you if you pull out the resurrection of Jesus, if you pull out the the deity of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, If you pull out the Trinity. So let's go back to the core. And if you're going to reject, if you're going to leave, leave on the basis of those core things, not okay. I've had these bad experiences in the church now, yeah, what I think this to kind of wrap this up on this is what often happens, or what can happen if someone says, Well, yeah, I've done that, and I still don't, I don't believe Okay, yep, that's going to happen. Yep. But one of the things I suggest, in at least some cases, is that the addict has screwed people up more than they realize, and that the way that they approach. Approach the foundation and the the main floor, it's still in attic categories, as in, to go back to our first question, well, I can't prove this, yeah. And I was always told that I should be able to prove it. Well, that's not how this works, yeah. And so they they reject Christianity on certain enlightenment terms, but they don't reject Christianity as Christianity really is. So people are going to interact with Christianity, I would say sometimes your people are investigating, say the resurrection, and reflecting more on on these central claims, but they're still doing it as if, if it doesn't reach kind of 100% certainty that I can't believe. And that's just not how this works.Yeah, that's, that's food for thought, because there, there's so many people that I interact with that I try to encourage. Like, yeah, your experience was really bad, like I'm affirming that, and that was messed up. That's not That's not Christianity, that is a branch on this massive tree trunk that stinks and that needs to be lamented and grieved and also called out as wrong. So I'm using another metaphor of a tree instead. But I love the because the house metaphor is something that you use in the telling a better story. Isn't that surprised bydoubt? Surprised by doubt? Yes, that's that's what we use, and we march through things, and we use that as, really our guiding metaphor through all the chapters. And that's what I would encourage if you're if you have somebody who's struggling with this, or you're struggling with this yourself, that's That's why a friend of mine, Jack Carson, that's why we wrote the book together, because obviously this is a we had a lot of friends and acquaintances and people who were coming to us and we weren't fully satisfied with all of the kind of works, yeah, that were responding and so this, this was our attempt to try to helppeople. Well, the book right after that was, is telling a better story. And one of the things I've really appreciated in your emphasis over the last few years has been, I would call a more humane apology, apologetic in that, you know, not giving into, okay, we're gonna give you want evidence. We're gonna give you evidence, as opposed to like, okay, let's just talk about being a huma
Send us a textWhat do Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Alex O'Connor, Matt Dillahunty, Rationality Rules and Genetically Modified Skeptic have in common? They've all commented on Pascal's Wager. And they've all misunderstood him. It's easy to do. Most people misunderstand the French Mathematician and Philosopher (1622-1666).In this podcast, Glen Scrivener discusses common misconceptions of the Wager and, with the help of Rev Dr Graham Tomlin and Tim Keller, brings out Pascal's original intention.Graham Tomlin's book: Pascal, The Man Who Made the Modern World… https://amzn.eu/d/djuoGRjGraham Tomlin's excellent website: https://www.seenandunseen.com/Glen's full conversation with Graham Tomlin (SLP594): https://www.buzzsprout.com/1202891/episodes/17409006Book your place at Responding to the Rebirth: http://rebirthconference.netCheck out the 321 course and The 321 Podcast at: 321course.comSubscribe to the Speak Life YouTube channel for videos which see all of life with Jesus at the centre:youtube.com/SpeakLifeMediaSubscribe to the Reformed Mythologist YouTube channel to explore how the stories we love point to the greatest story of all:youtube.com/@ReformedMythologistDiscord is an online platform where you can interact with the Speak Life team and other Speak Life supporters. There's bonus content, creative/theological discussion and lots of fun. Join our Discord here:speaklife.org.uk/discordSpeak Life is a UK based charity that resources the church to reach the world.Learn more about us here:speaklife.org.ukSupport the show
Cam Heyward and Hayden break down a massive Steelers trade that sent Minkah Fitzpatrick to Miami — and then welcome German soccer star Pascal Groß to talk about life in the Bundesliga, why he ditched social media, and how he became a diehard NFL fan. In this episode:
Die 2025er Offseason in der NFL ist im vollen Gange und damit ist auch die Nachrichtenlage bei den Seattle Seahawks relativ dünn. Doch bevor Ende Juli das Training Camp beginnt und die heiße Phase der Saisonvorbereitung eingeläutet wird, haben die German Sea Hawkers Redebedarf. Und wo können wir besser fachsimpeln, als im Ballhawks-Podcast! Deshalb haben sich Jonas und Pascal jetzt für Folge Nr. 349 mit Mitch vom 12 Talk-Podcast der UK Sea Hawkers einen Gast eingeladen, um mit ihm auf Englisch über die bisherige Offseason der Seahawks zu sprechen.
durée : 00:29:23 - Avoir raison avec... - par : Géraldine Mosna-Savoye - Qui peut se vanter d'avoir consigné, tous les jours, de 5h du matin à 8h, ses pensées et ses méditations à la manière d'un Pascal ou d'un Descartes ? Quel philosophe, si ce n'est Paul Valéry, peut prétendre avoir cherché toute sa vie les lois de l'esprit et tenter de l'atteindre tel un maître yogi ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Benedetta Zaccarello Chargée de recherche au CNRS
Send us a textGlen Scrivener interviews Graham Tomlin about his book 'Blaise Pascal:The Man Who Made the Modern World'. They discuss how René Descartes introduced a radical method of doubt which has had a huge impact on how we see the world and the split between fact and value. But Blaise Pascal, living at the same time as Descartes, had a different approach.Book your place at Responding to the Rebirth: http://rebirthconference.netCheck out the 321 course and The 321 Podcast at: 321course.comSubscribe to the Speak Life YouTube channel for videos which see all of life with Jesus at the centre:youtube.com/SpeakLifeMediaSubscribe to the Reformed Mythologist YouTube channel to explore how the stories we love point to the greatest story of all:youtube.com/@ReformedMythologistDiscord is an online platform where you can interact with the Speak Life team and other Speak Life supporters. There's bonus content, creative/theological discussion and lots of fun. Join our Discord here:speaklife.org.uk/discordSpeak Life is a UK based charity that resources the church to reach the world.Learn more about us here:speaklife.org.ukSupport the show
What happens when decades-old C code, powering billions of daily messages, starts to slow down innovation? In this episode, we talk to Meta engineers Elaine and Buping, who are in the midst of a bold, incremental rewrite of one of our core messaging libraries—in Rust. Neither came into the project as Rust experts, but both saw a chance to improve not just performance, but developer experience across the board. We dig into the technical and human sides of the project: why they took it on, how they're approaching it without a guaranteed finish line, and what it means to optimise for something as intangible (yet vital) as developer happiness. If you've ever wrestled with legacy code or wondered what it takes to modernise systems at massive scale, this one's for you. Got feedback? Send it to us on Threads (https://threads.net/@metatechpod), Instagram (https://instagram.com/metatechpod) and don't forget to follow our host Pascal (https://mastodon.social/@passy, https://threads.net/@passy_). Fancy working with us? Check out https://www.metacareers.com/. Timestamps Intro 0:06 Introduction Elaine 1:54 Introduction Buping 2:49 Team mission 3:15 Scale of messaging at Meta 3:40 State of native code on Mobile 4:40 Why C, not C++? 7:13 Challenges of working with C 10:09 State of Rust on Mobile 18:10 Why choose Rust? 23:36 Prior Rust experience 28:55 Learning Rust at Meta 34:14 Challenges of the migration 37:47 Measuring success 42:09 Hobbies 45:15 Outro 46:41
"Limité à 80" Pascal Atenza revisite l'actualité en 80 secondes ! Découvrez la chronique d'aujourd'hui !Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.
Bonjour, nous sommes Thomas, Pierre et Arnaud.Avec Mohamed, à qui nous avons parlé de maturité émotionnelle, nous discutons des différences entre la maturité professionnelle et personnelle, de la sensibilité des artistes, et de la manière dont on gère des projets sans toujours savoir où on en est émotionnellement.« Au Coeur des Hommes », ce sont 3 amis (Pierre, Pascal et Arnaud) qui ont décidé de poser à des copains des questions concernant les rapports amoureux. Depuis le départ de Pascal pour de nouveaux projets incroyables, Thomas a rejoint Pierre et Arnaud pour continuer cette belle aventure.À chaque épisode, nous recevons un nouvel invité et nous abordons un nouveau thème avec bienveillance.Avertissement : Il se peut qu'on dise des choses qui ne plairont pas à tout le monde… mais on va les dire quand-même.Un jeudi sur deux, écoutez-nous sur Apple Podcasts – Spotify – Deezer – Podcast Addict – Google Podcasts – YouTube (sur le compte de Compagnie Club) – Acast.Merci de nous écouter, abonnez-vous, commentez-nous et partagez-nous !Vous pouvez nous rejoindre sur instagram : @aucoeurdeshommespodcastou par mail : aucoeurdeshommespodcast@gmail.comRetrouvez le travail de Mohamed Abozekry sur www.mohamedabozekry.comQuestion subsidiaire : Lequel de nous trois est le plus mûr ?Réponds sur instagram @aucoeurdeshommespodcast—Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.Au Coeur des Hommes est un podcast Compagnie Club. Enregistré à Rstlss studio. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.
Just June is wrapping up its random cinematic adventures here on @wedrinkandwewatchthings, and for our grand finale, we're getting meta (and maybe a little messy) with "The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent." This one was a bit of a ride, with Mackenzie having an absolute blast and Lemar... well, Lemar had some thoughts about its meta-ness. Grab your drink and prepare for a discussion that might be as divided as our opinions on the film itself!This week, we're dissecting the movie where Nicolas Cage plays Nick Cage/Nicky, trying to save himself (and his family) from a very enthusiastic fan. We'll be talking about the sheer audacity of the concept, the moments where it truly shines (like when Pedro Pascal appears), and where it perhaps falls a little flat for some. Mackenzie will gush about the humor and the sheer joy of seeing Cage lean into his own legend and Pedro Pascal fully commit to his Nick Cage obsession, while Lemar will offer his perspective on whether it truly lands as a smart meta-commentary or just a fun diversion. Expect laughs, some head-scratching, and plenty of "only Nic Cage" moments.If you're a devoted Cage-head, curious about how Hollywood tackles self-parody, have a crush on Pascal, or just want to hear a good-natured debate between two friends who saw the same movie very differently, then this is your episode. We're blending our wildly divergent experiences with our usual casual banter, making this the perfect, slightly chaotic send-off to Just JuneThis episode VIDEO is live on YouTube AND Spotify!Follow us on Instagram and TikTok to get ep sneak peaks and find out what's coming next. DM us what you want to hear about next or email us at wedrinkandwewatchthingspod@gmail.com.
When Amee Devani watched her mother battle colorectal cancer in Kenya, she witnessed firsthand the stark reality of healthcare inequity. That experience would reshape her entire career trajectory—from investment banking at UBS to founding a digital health startup that's revolutionizing how hospitals manage post-acute care. "I faint when they take my blood," Amee admits with characteristic candor. Yet today, as CEO and Co-founder of WellBeam, she's tackling one of healthcare's most persistent problems: the black box of care that swallows patients after hospital discharge. This conversation with host Laurie McGraw reveals how a chance meeting on a Stanford cycling training ride led to a partnership that's now bridging the dangerous gap between acute and post-acute care. Amee and her co-founder Pascal—both Kenyans who met thousands of miles from home—shared more than a homeland. They shared mothers fighting cancer and a determination to fix a broken system. What started as rejected startup ideas in Stanford surgeons' offices evolved into WellBeam after one crucial conversation with pancreatic surgeon Dr. Brendan Visser. His frustration was clear: exceptional inpatient care followed by total blindness once patients left the hospital. Fax machines. Phone tag. Patients bouncing back to the ER before anyone knew there was a problem. Now, WellBeam serves as the critical infrastructure connecting hospital EMRs with home health, hospice, and skilled nursing facilities. The result? A 20-30% reduction in readmissions and millions in recovered revenue for physicians doing work they couldn't previously bill. In this episode of Inspiring Women with Laurie McGraw, Amee also discusses: The unexpected value of "having too much fun" at Cambridge and how it shaped her leadership approach Why she left the prestige of investment banking and consulting to work out of a shoebox office in London How catching the "startup bug" at Pavegen prepared her for the healthcare innovation journey The importance of building a village of mentors, especially as a female founder in healthcare Why healthcare's biggest problems aren't glamorous—and why that's exactly where innovation is needed Navigating slow healthcare sales cycles while maintaining startup momentum Leading as a new mother and CEO: ruthless prioritization and trusting your team Chapter Markers 00:54 - Introduction & Background 04:17 - The Stanford Connection & Finding a Co-founder 07:13 - WellBeam's Origin & Solution 11:28 - Business Model & Market Approach 14:06 - Leadership as a Female CEO & New Mother 21:39 - Advice for Aspiring Female Founders Guest & Host Links Connect with Laurie McGraw on LinkedIn Connect with Amee Devani on LinkedIn Connect with Inspiring Women Browse Episodes | LinkedIn | Instagram | Apple | Spotify
En este episodio analizamos el conflicto reciente entre Irán, Israel y Estados Unidos, también conocido como la guerra de los 12 días, un evento que ha reconfigurado las tensiones en Medio Oriente y sus implicaciones para el resto del mundo. Para abordar este complejo escenario, nos acompaña Pascal Peña, doctor en Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales por la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, con una destacada trayectoria académica y profesional en derecho internacional, geopolítica y regulación económica.
Discover the unseen part of you that's already leading—and how to harness it for real influence, as told by Pascal Mbo'a.
What happens when we teach science and math not just as technical subjects—but as opportunities for wonder, worship, and wisdom?In this summer flashback episode, Davies Owens is joined by renowned classical educator Ravi Jain, co-author of The Liberal Arts Tradition and a leading voice in the recovery of classical science education. Too often, classical schools are seen as focused on the humanities, while math and science remain untouched by the classical tradition. But Ravi makes a compelling case for why recovering natural philosophy—the pursuit of truth in the created world—is vital to forming whole human beings.From sketchbooks and pendulums to Pascal, Newton, and Galileo, this conversation explores how students can rediscover the beauty and order of God's creation—and how science class can become a place of discovery, not just memorization.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
