วีดีโอ

If the grace was not given through no fault of our own, then, first, there would be no punishment and no concupiscence (and it would be false to say the experience of the world was 'marred' - as nothing 'mars' the world in a state of pure nature), and, second, we would never be able to form an intuitive awareness of God. However, it is possible and alleged by Christians that we can form intuitive awareness of God through grace. And it looks like some people have gained intuitive awareness of God, e.g., Theresa of Avila. So, in our world, it is possible that hiddenness is either evidence against God's existence or in favor of the Christian story of original sin. But this disjunction is precisely what I defended in the paper.

​​​@@stmichael71thank you for your response. I mean "marred" to describe an error of reasoning that leads to denial of god; a facet of our embodiedness without direct experience of god as in the garden of Eden. Your argument still does not demonstrate the necessity of original sin; the fact of Gods existence (established through other arguments) and the observation of the variety of the intuitiveness of Gods existence are perfectly compatible with a description of the world without the original gift and loss of grace, much as all other suffering is. The counter factual one must answer is "in a world in which the gift was not originally given and lost (as would be permitted because it was not owed to us), would there in that world not exist a variety in our experience of god". The fact that some individuals have a direct intuitive awareness of god (even as far as receiving direct messages from him) can be explained by these being individual gifts from god. "Why doesnt everyone has this gift?" Is answered by "because they dont". Because they are gift, not owed to anyone by god, and given by his mercy. you didnt get something you Arent owed (i.e. an intuitive awareness of god) because god's design is fundamentally inexplicable to us Edit: this would be argument against the fundamental Christian description of God as actively wanting and seeking a personal relationship with us. Not that god doesnt exist per se, but that the Christian description of him is wrong. It seems you have to invent original sin in order to save *Christianity*, not to save theisn per se

​@@Indigomyth It seems to me you've confused a few issues. It is not apparent to me that anyone in the state of pure nature would have a 'marred' experience of God. That is, I would theorize that those in a state of pure nature - not suffering from intellect and will impaired by original sin - would easily and universally know that God exists. I'd think there would be no nonresistant nonbelievers in that world. Nevertheless, the dialectic of the problem of divine hiddenness (as you noted in an addendum) is an evidential problem for *Christian* claims regarding our actual world, where God supposedly desires relationship through grace with each person. In light of the dialectic, I don't understand how the appeal to pure nature is relevant. The problem only gets started if we assume hypothetically that we are evaluating evidence against the existence of the Christian story. The case of pure nature is irrelevant, since in a world God where does NOT want a relationship through grace with each person, the fact nobody has an intuitive awareness of God's desire for that relationship is not 'hiddenness' at all. My response to divine hiddenness was to note that divine hiddenness would be evidence *either* against the Christian God *or* in favor of original sin. On this view, however, 'pure nature' is not really another branch among the options. The apparent phenomenon of nonresistant nonbelievers would remain evidence *either* that the Christian God does not exist (who wants relationship with everyone through grace) *or* that original sin has occurred, since the kind of theism without a God who wants relationship with everyone would fit within the first branch of the argument (where Christianity was false). Contrary to your final claim that God's designs are always fundamentally inexplicable, which I don't think is true even in natural theology (since we can know lots of things about the natural world and God's designs for it), I think we have good evidence that indicates God's will *is* for relationship with each person and therefore supports the option that original sin has occurred.

@stmichael71 it would depend on the exact nature of the privation wrought by original sin. In the description in the video it is a loss of a gift, not an impairment or change or human will. In the state of nature we would only have pure reason to know god, or individual instances of his granting of grace. I submit that the latter is compatible with a Christian view of god, without inventing original sin. Because in this reading, the fact that god only grants garce to certain people alive today is no more problematic than why he only gave it to Adam and eve (who then lost it). There is no more or less injustice between god not granting it automatically to Adam and eves descendants (as it was a gift originally rejected by them) then it is by the variance of its existence today. As i understand it, even if god had not provided the gift of grace to Adam and eve, that would not falsify god wanting a loving relationship with us; we would have the tools suitable to out nature (i.e. reason) to know and love him. The individual instances of grace, of intuition, can be explained by individual gifts, granting for reasons unknown to us. It doesnt follow that original sin or the falsity of Christian claims about god follow from that. Question: can it be true that a god that loves us and wants to commune with us personally is compatible with a) the non-existence of original sin and b) the variance in divine hiddeness. I submit it can be true, because grace is only accorded as a gift and therefore can be fundamentally ineffable. Humans, according to their nature, have reason to know god. I would further submit that in a state of pure nature our reason and intellectual would necessarily be limited simply by virtue of the material from which we are made. And it appears highly likely, given our Evolutionary origins, that we would experience bodily and emotional impulses at odds with reason.

​@@Indigomyth I characterized original sin as loss of a gift that affected our intellect and will. This is indeed the Catholic position. Concupiscence is the name for one such affect in the will that results from original sin, which affected and damaged our natural gifts. That said, the speculation is rather irrelevant. If your view is that God wants to be in relationship with each person, but that God does not manifest His intentions to be in relationship with many people, due to no fault of their own, then it strikes me as inconsistent. Either God wants to be in personal, explicit relationship with everyone - and He therefore needs to manifest Himself to them - or He does not. It makes no obvious sense to think God wants to be in explicit personal relationship with everyone and not be manifest to them. Reason is not sufficient for us to be in a relationship with God. So, the problem is that God would obviously make us aware of His desires, if He really wants to be in relationship with us. And, as Schellenberg argues, the only way we could ignore those desires is if we put ourselves in a position of culpability regarding them. Consequently, if there are nonresistant nonbelievers (as you seem to affirm exist), that would constitute evidence against God having such desires to be in relationship with everyone. By contrast, what you are arguing seems to be as follows: God possibly does not *want* to be in relation with each person today. Perhaps, contrary to Catholic or most other mainstream Protestant or Orthodox views on which God wants relationship with everyone and provides each person sufficient grace to be in relationship with God, you have a quasi-Calvinistic view on which God freely denies such graces to some persons and therefore does not want/desire everyone to be in relationship with Himself. However, this scenario is beside the point of the dialectic around divine hiddenness. Your scenario requires it is false that God wants to be in relationship with everyone, and therefore concedes the divine hiddenness problem to constitute evidence against God wanting relationship with all.

Although I guess they depend on each other to have ontological status at all, to not be nothing, so perhaps the paradox would still remain without reference to an external cause since even though they depend on each other in different respects, they still also depend on each other in the same respect, that is, in order to not be nothing.

@@peterchristeas5519 you'll see I argue exactly that in the paper. There is indeed a mutual dependence relation at play; nevertheless, it is logically the case that constructional basis must be the essence element--and that's what gets the problem going.

@@PhilosophyforthePeople Thanks for the response I look forward to reading the paper.

Thanks, Mark! And yes, Anthony is tremendous.

Miller takes issue with haecceities-indeed, he issues some powerful arguments against them in From Existence to God-but only insofar as they are understood by Plantinga.

@@PhilosophyforthePeople That would ne something interesting to explore. I had more in mind Scotus' doctrine of univocity, prima facie it doesn't seem like there would be tension but I might have missed something.

Within Aquinas's metaphysical system-which includes commitments to a thick theory of existence, the act-potency distinction, the convertibility thesis, etc.-yes, I believe so. If you're interested, he infers the divine attributes from pure actuality (subsistent existence) in Articles 3-26 of the Summa Theologica.

@@PhilosophyforthePeople Thanks!

No surprise, that's one of my favorites. Happy reading!

Not Patrick here, but I'll try to answer anyway. Your description was very clear. What you are describing is a theory of mental states (within philosophy of mind more broadly) known as "functionalism." It's extremely popular these days due to the advent of computing machines, though it is losing some ground among philosophers to various panpsychist accounts. It's too much to go into in a TH-cam comment, but your friend is presupposing some pretty serious metaphysical commitments that aren't necessarily plausible when examined more closely. Things are by no means as clear cut as he is making them out to be. Pat treats some of these concepts in the latter chapters of his book "The Best Argument for God", although it's not the primary purpose of the book. I would strongly recommend that you buy and read "Philosophy of Mind: Beginner's Guide" by Edward Feser. It will cover all the arguments for functionalism (like the "replacement" thought experiment you outlined here), as well as the various objections against them. Once you've read those, you should have a sufficient list of "further reading" built up from the footnotes in these two titles. Good luck!

@lucas34540 thank you for your reply and the recommendations. I'm grateful that you could explain it to me ☺️

Gone too soon!

@@PerisaSekondo no, that isn’t exactly Miller’s approach. He doesn’t try to defend the usual casual principle/PSR at all. He shows how to run a cosmological argument entirely without it. However, I think as a *result* of his approach, you wind up with PSR. Feser does defend PSR through a variety of means, similar in approach to Pruss & Koons.

Truth does change.

@@dr.tafazzi thank you!

@@soupeverywhere9565 Several places but you might want to start with his PSR: A Reassessment book.

Will consider it, for sure. Thanks for the idea.

@@PhilosophyforthePeople and if you can include the part on how it relates to principle of causality it would be great. Your book is really good, congrats!

Certainly many people share your perspective!

If somebody wants to organize it, I'd be happy to.

Love hearing this : )

@@Mdeil20 will definitely consider it!

I second this!

Thank you, very much, for the kind words. It makes me smile to hear you've found my work so helpful. God bless you!

Glad to hear it. More to come!