Has Trent Horn Disproved Christianity?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2024
- Interested in Arguments from Motion, the Kalam, the Moral Argument, and Žižek and Swinburne impressions? I have just the video for you. Here, I respond to Trent Horn's (@TheCounselofTrent) recent case for God.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
RESOURCES
Here's the document: drive.google.com/file/d/1cL00...
"So you think you understand Existential Inertia?": majestyofreason.wordpress.com...
OUTLINE
0:00 Intro and Prelims
3:05 Trent’s Opening Statement
4:58 Argument from Change/Motion
1:30:03 Kalam
1:54:15 Moral Argument
2:07:30 Trent’s First Rebuttal
2:19:30 Trent’s Second Rebuttal
2:39:45 Conclusion
LINKS
My book: www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...
My website [new website coming soon…]: majestyofreason.wordpress.com/
My PhilPapers profile: philpeople.org/profiles/josep...
SMALL NOTE: I said, in the video, that Paul Audi (2019) explicitly rejects an argument from the second law of thermodynamics against EIT. This is correct in one sense, incorrect in another sense. It is correct insofar as Audi explicitly discusses the relationship between EIT and the second law, and he actually thinks the second law gives some reason to think EIT is true. He says, e.g., on p. 6 that "I think the most we
get from entropy is a reason to think the EIT is true, but not an
explanation of why." And since he thinks EIT gives some reason to think EIT is true, this is why I said he rejects an argument to the effect that EIT and the second law are incompatible. So what I said is mostly correct. The sense in which it's incorrect is as follows. Strictly speaking, Audi doesn't address any specific argument from the second law to the falsity of EIT, and consequently he doesn't go on to say something like 'I reject the/a argument from the second law against EIT'. So my claim is mostly correct, but also slightly incorrect. But I've corrected and clarified things now!
![[UNCUT] ฝันรักห้วงนิทรา | EP.9 (3/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ikd1tEhXbp8/mqdefault.jpg)
Knew you would do this. CANNOT WAIT TO WATCH
Interesting fact: if you can keep up with Joe on 2x speed, you actually prove the existence of god, you ARE that god!
I did it
Awesome. I will save that document too. Thanks, Joe!
That zizek impersonation @ 4:15 was glorious, actually made my day, Thanks Joe.
And the Swinburne one shortly after!
Just finished watching the debate only to find this. This channel is so great.
Fantastic video Joe! As a Christian who loved the debate and thought that Trent did well, this has challenged my position, so thank you for that. I’m sure you are told this often, but you are an intellectually virtuous and dedicated individual- so keep it up.
As a random aside, I think that if I were debating theism with you, I’d use a) Pruss’ contingency argument, b) fine-tuning - as embedded into a larger Bayesian teleological case for a cosmic designer, and c) the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Maybe one day.. :P
Much love
I was expecting this and glad it came LoL. I want to see Trent on your channel at some point.
Btw, I was in the audience of the debate, and as soon as Trent put up his first slide I knew - I just KNEW - Joe was making a response video.
EDIT: Apparently this was everybody’s reaction lol
SO EXCITED FOR THIS VIDEO WOW WHAT A PLEASANT SURPRISE
Hey Joe! Just a question. How would a model of God put forward by someone such as Ryan Mullins stand against some of these arguments that are used against the models of God that someone such as Trent Horn may hold?
Excellent question! It actually depends on the argument in question! Mullins’ argument, for instance, won’t have any issue with Ben’s argument from modal collapse, since Ben’s argument from modal collapse was predicated on classical theism’s commitment to God’s being devoid of potency (and hence to the impossibility of God’s being different across worlds). By contrast, Mullins and others reject this. But the answer to your question can only really be given on a case-by-case (ie, argument-by-argument) basis
Not even sure how it's possible to respond this quickly!! 💀 Nonetheless I look forward to watching this once I finish the debate
Churches are voluntary associations of real people that outlast all secular state governments. There is nothing important to prove or disprove. I studied Logic at Harvard working for Unitarians. Nobel winners I met there aren't asking for proofs. Proofs are but pastimes. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of mere words, but a matter of power." Of course, Catholics run more Law and Medical Schools than any government on earth.
I'm not sure about your argument around the factiveness of knowledge - If that factiveness includes some kind of temporal pointer, such as "The water was frozen yesterday" or "the water will be liquid every day after September 1st", wouldn't that allow some kind of atemporal being to have knowledge of things that progress without itself progressing?
I’d love an analysis on the energy-essence distinction in Orthodox theology and analyze if it provides as a coherent understanding of God.
I think there's too much appeal to mystery when defining God qua energy vs God qua essence to make for substantive analysis. Seems more like a theological view then a philosophical one.
@@Biblig Define mystery in this context
Mathoma had a good blog post on an analytical argument against Palamism
@@alexandros0828 something akin to saying we accept this as an article of faith but it is beyond logical inference.
@@glof2553 I think his point is that there isn't enough analytic philosophy in the West in favor of Palamism for an analytical response against it to be fully understood. I'm not sure though, I was only made aware of Palamism about a two months ago.
1:34:05 Joe, you sometimes do impersonate Swinburne without noticing. That little laugh there sounded like him. Love it. 🤣
A lot of Horn's mistakes and slip-ups are easily attributed to the nature of the debate format - it's not surprising that there would be non-sequiturs or unjustified premises when you try to fit a 10 point argument into one third of a fifteen minute opening speech.
I thought Watkins' preparation and organisation for the debate was uncharacteristically fantastic from an atheist debater (no offense to the myriad of WLC's washington generals-esque opponents), but similarly he left a lot unsaid when it came to his inferences to the best explanation. Chalk me up as VERY interested in hearing what you have to say about his parts of the debate - the "best possible" outcome in my opinion would be a discussion on Real Atheology.
This is definitely part of the problem. But then again, if you know that your debate time is limited, why choose such a complicated argument with so many premises and assumptions in the first place?
Great video so far, I do have a question for you regarding the mysterious forces objection. I've always thought that this was one of the reasons UPD was "unsatisfying" (lol), but recently it was put in a very clear way and I'm curious to see what you think about it. The basic idea is that the relevant paradoxes are analogous to grandfather-time-travel paradoxes. Where you travel back in time, and kill your grandfather before he has his kids. The obvious problem being that you could not do this because it means you would not exist. So we are left with an unsatisfiable pair:
1) Time travel into the past is possible
2) You can kill your grandfather
The prima facie issue with UPD then seems to be that we can allow for any one of these to happen. So say one does travel back in time, what stops him from killing his grandfather? Can he approach him, can he causally interact with him? Say he holds a gun up and pulls the trigger, what stops the grandfather from dying? It seems a lot simpler to just say that time travel is just not possible, or at least this particular kind of time travel in which there is only one timeline etc etc (we can perhaps leave other complications of time travel aside?).
I know malpass has replied to this in the past via some bridge paradox-esque scenario, but I would appreciate your thoughts, thanks :)
(creds to doggoslayer56)
We discuss this in my video with Malpass on the UPD and also in the discussion between Josh and Alex on my channel! You might enjoy looking into those further! :)
@@MajestyofReason you are very keen on learning the truth about existence. That explains the reason why you have BLOCKED the TH-cam account of the owner of this planet. 🙄
Came from rationality rules. Love your content
Much, much love🥰❤️
25:00 perhaps I am missing something...
Say, in place of S (assuming S is a substance) we substitute "That noncomposite substance whose essence is existence", then we would get:
(A*) That noncomposite substance whose essence is existence is purely actual.
(B) Some part of that noncomposite substance whose essence is existence exists potentially
(A*) would then be a generally agreed conception of the Thomist God, and (B) is internally contradictory. How are (A*) and (B) thus not a contradiction?
Does the paragraph discussing accidental features F assert that these accidents F of S would make S composite?
Hope my question makes sense, I'm no galaxy brain but this video is helping me get closer. Thanks again for the content
The problem is that (A*) isn’t established by the Aristotelian proof, ie, Trent’s argument. So yes, (A*) is incompatible with (B), but Trent was trying to show the falsity of (B) by means of some thesis that his proof actually delivers.🙂 His proof, importantly, doesn’t deliver such a substance
But your question is *excellent* my man!!
“I developed this is this book, this paper, these papers, and this book under academic review but don’t get on me for when this other thing is coming out because I’m a full time student…”
I feel sooooooooo lazy right. 😂😂 How do you do it?!
ahahaha :)
Part of the answer is that I do suffer from anxiety. I have medicine for it, and it does help. But still, my anxiety makes me care *intensely* about certain things, and I often feel extremely powerful and uncontrollable urges to do things like this.
It's both a blessing and curse. It allows me to channel anxiety into good outlets [e.g., producing content], but it also isn't on the whole healthy for me. But like I said, the medicine is helping!!! And comments like yours encourage me :)
@@MajestyofReason As someone with ADHD and anxiety (who has always been the person others have said what I said to you) I TOTALLY get where you're coming from. It's just funny to me when others are even MORE like that to me because then my anxiety starts telling me I'm underachieving ;-)
I'm glad meds are helping. And I do hope you continue to put out amazing content, like you're doing. But now just that you keeping finding rest and healthy ways to continue doing so.
Aloha and thanks!
@@MrAndyStenz much love❤️❤️❤️
46:55 Feser's view is that time is the measure of change with respect to succession (see Feser 2019).
Thomistic models of theism seem so systemized and accessible it's hard for me to get on the wheel f another. Do you think there are any models and/or books that offer an account of God with less problems?
I do! There are lots of models out there, such as neo-classical theism, panentheism, theistic idealism, open theism, and so on. For a helpful intro, you should check out Ryan Mullins' "The Difficulty of Demarcating Panentheism", and then you can follow the references in that paper :)
The impersonations are too funny. Then the immediate flip to OK back to work. Lmbo 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Btw, this might be a me problem but after your website link, all the subsequent links are unclickable.
Everyone was talking about how you were gonna go in on this one soon as Trent made these points haha.
Good stuff man.
Ahahaha
Omg this is moving along at pace. At 25:06
Surely it is a contradiction for something purely actual to have a part or be partly potential by accident? If not then it is definitely not pure or perfect.
Anyway I have Another 2 hrs to get through so will wait and see
Well done another gem 👍
Great question! So, importantly, the *entity* isn't purely actual. Instead, its *very existence or being* is purely actual. But its various accidental properties are different from its very existence or being, since the entity can exist without any given such accidental property, and so the entity's very existence or being can obtain without any given accidental property obtaining. And so merely from the fact that something's *very existence or being* is purely actual, this is perfectly compatible with that entity's having various potentials that are *distinct* from its very existence or being.
@@MajestyofReason thanks so much for replying that's a lot clearer.
Since you reject the Thomistic pluralism regarding being, would you instead favor a sort of Eleatic monistic rejection of potential as a class?
Good question! It wouldn’t be an Eleatic monism, since they deny plurality and change. By contrast, monism about ways of being doesn’t deny change, and nor does it deny plurality. Instead, it just says that in cases where there is a plurality of things, or in cases where change occurs, everything involved enjoys the same kind of existence. Things still come into existence and pass out of existence, and things still have different properties and whatnot. If you want to explore further, you can check out my discussion with Merricks🥰
Watching this video is like watching some philosophical Jiu Jitsu where your mind is also being pretzeled as you observe Joe twist Trent's arguments. Freaking ❤ it
There is a certain beauty to being comprehensible at all times
I hope someone can answer this question: It seems existential inertia is the intuitive basis for the law of identity; How would we justify the law of identity if things cease to exist for no logical reason. God would have to be perpetually maintainning the law of identity..could he maintain his own identity? How much maintenance does omnipotence require? then what is God if he is not himself?
I was in Horn's presentation on classical theism. He didn't discuss existential inertia until 5 minutes before the end. I could just picture Joe on the edge of his seat if he were there!
as soon as Trent brought up his argument from change I immediately knew that you would respond to it lol
Thanks for this Joe. I love listening to you articulate the hard work you’ve done.
So much love❤️❤️❤️
Darn, the video is scrambled for me for some reason?
That was damn fast hahaha
Just out of curiosity and I was hoping you can tell me Joe why do thomists choose to use this argument from motion instead of the contingency argument which seems to be much stronger to me. Is it because they believe it has some advantage because it’s hierarchal change?
That’s an excellent question, and I was honestly wondering the same thing when I watched Trent’s debate. Contingency arguments are very powerful, and they’re far better than arguments from change. I think Trent might have done it because he might think it is harder to get from “necessary being” to God than “purely actual being” to God, which means the naturalist would have an easier time simply accepting the contingency argument. Now, I don’t think it is at all easy to get from purely actual being to God, as I argued in my video; and arguments from change also fail to deliver a purely actual being. But that’s my hypothesis as to why Trent used it. Also, I’m extremely surprised he used Hilbert’s Hotel
@@MajestyofReason yeah I agree. I even saw people commenting on live chat saying did he really go with hh instead of grim reaper paradox.
@@MajestyofReasonI was wondering this same thing. It seems that the argument from motion could as easily justify polytheism as monotheism.
Joe Shimid sounds way too much like Ben Shapiro. I had to watch some of this video at about 0.5 speed.
In all honesty, the main title is why I don't think philosophical arguments against a past eternal universe don't work. It just creates so much special pleading.
My mans shoulda moderated
How does Joe go from “I’m a full time student, I’ll do it in a month” to 2 hour typed out response the day of?
Anxiety is the answer plus the fact that those args against CT videos require dozens of hours of research and writing plus the fact that I had already typed out/written much of the stuff in the document in this video
@@MajestyofReason I wasn’t expecting a serious answer. I was just memeing my guy, no need to stress. Good luck with your long term projects and I hope Elephant is back on again soon to dispute this video.
@@whatsinaname691 no worries! I know you were messing around haha. I just wanted people who might not be aware of the serious answer to be aware of it. As for EP, he agrees with most of it, actually lol. Eg he doesn’t like the Aristotelian proof, he doesn’t like Hilbert’s Hotel, and he doesn’t like moral arguments (NB: I’m talking here about ontological moral arguments, not epistemological ones)
@@MajestyofReason Hrmmm. I seem to remember him having very divergent views from you on the grim reaper paradox, but everything makes sense.
For the record, I don’t like Hilbert’s Hotel or Feser proofs, but I do strongly disagree (with EP at least) on the argument from moral ontology
0:54 I'm flattered
Upon further consideration I've come to regret watching this at 3:00 am.
Who's Jermaine?
Is it even POSSIBLE to "disprove Christianity"? Or to "disprove" Islam, or Mormonism, or Hinduism, or ANY religion that asserts a supernatural, all-powerful (or even just "significantly more powerful than us") god?
Doesn't ANY religion become completely unfalsifiable, when they can always just assert "but god just deliberately created [whatever evidence makes it look EXACTLY like no god exists], for reasons unknown to us, but which are sufficient, and morally justified"?
If we understand that the supernatural is defined as something for which we do not have a scientific explanation, we realize that being supernatural is not an intrinsic characteristic of the thing, but only how we categorize the thing based on ever-expanding body of knowledge. Then, it becomes clear that, if we actually have a scientific explanation for _everything,_ which is what is often implied, then _nothing_ can be supernatural; and as a god is a being capable of supernatural acts, if nothing is supernatural, then no god can exist.
I like to break it down to claims. Eg the god of the bible cannot exist.
1. God is love (from John)
2. Love keeps no record of wrongs (1Cor 13)
3. God keeps records of wrongs (for the purpose of judgement)
At least on of these must be false.
@@truerealrationalist I disagree with that argument because i believe that if a God is to exist God is in no way shape or form apart of our realm of existence.
For instance if God exists than God created time, if God created time God cannot be part of time, if God is not part of time than God cannot be found In time.
If God exists than God existed before matter, so you can't find God it matter.
If God is to create anything within our realm of existence than it would have physical properties, properties that we can observe as it is part of our realm. But God created our realm so God cannot be part of our realm. God is outside our realm.
@@nickolaswishon7136
"..I believe that if a God is to exist, God is in no way, shape, or form a part of our realm of existence."
And what is the _basis_ for this belief?
It is possible to disprove any religion other than Christianity. Watch Apostate Prophet channel for disproving Islam. Mormonism has failed in its predictions of the Second coming and their theology is also poor. Hinduism is a pure fairy tale.
Poor trent is going to wake up thinking he had a solid debate night to this monster review haha
I wonder if he'll make a 4 hour REBUTTED video to this. He hasn't on MoR's other response, but this seems to large to let go.
Nevermind, he just made a response to MoR's first response.
@@petery6432 I find it so funny that they rebutted each other on different things in the same week by accident
1:12:06 the answer is that S's potential for existence is _S itself._ On the classical theistic view, substances or essences are merely potential or in-potency relative to their existence. Contingent essences are, as it were, receptive capacities for existence. So, what is meant by saying that S has a "potential for existence", as I see it, is that it has an essence which is capable of existing or not-existing. For it to exist at any moment is thus for that potency to be actualized at that moment. If this were a problem (contrary to what you say), it would be a problem for classical theism as such. Unanimously, classical theists hold that God is the efficient cause of creatures, and efficient causation is the actualization of a potential. Creation hence involves the actualization of potential on classical theism, and the Aristotelian Proof is not in conflict with it.
Thanks for the lovely comment!!
One of my reservations for this avenue, though, is that it seems to contradict the thesis that potentials don’t float free (as it were) but instead can only inhere in some (ontologically) prior and more fundamental actuality. From my studies, this is often taken to be a core component of potentials under traditional Aristotelian metaphysics. But the only two candidates for this prior actuality is the substance itself or God. Now, it cannot be God, since the potency in question -- per the Aristotelian proof -- is causally acted upon, and nothing in God is causally acted upon. But nor can the prior actuality be S itself, for then S’s actuality is prior to S’s potential for existence and hence not *resultant* from something making that potential into an actuality. [Moreover - so it seems to my mind -S’s existence would then already be actual, in which case S’s existence would not be *potential* and inherent in S, for it cannot be true of some one x [S’s existence] that it is both actual and potential.]
@@MajestyofReason
I don't think it's correct to say that it is a a core component of potentials under traditional Aristotelian metaphysics that they inhere in an ontologically prior substrate. This is certainly true of accidents or attributes, but not so much of potentials. On Aristotelian hylemorphism, for instance, primary matter has (or, more properly, is) a potential for receiving form, and yet does not inhere in an ontologically prior reality or substrate, since it is the first and ultimate substrate. Nor does this require such potential to "float free", as you put it, since it only exists insofar as it is being informed by substantial form; it does not (and indeed cannot) exist by itself, floating free. So I don't see any worries here for the avenue my original comment suggested. Essences do not float free, but exist only insofar as they are actualized by having existence imparted to them (just like prime matter with respect to form).
@@ob4161 I’ll respond later tonight after I finish some homework! 🥰
@@ob4161 Thanks again for the comment! I think this might reveal that the objection in question may hinge on how one construes potencies. I am very open to allowing that this specific objection doesn’t apply under some understandings/construals of potencies.
The understanding with which I work in my book chapter [from which this bit of the video is extracting [though not in whole]] draws from Feser’s “Scholastic Metaphysics”. According to this construal, “a thing’s potencies are _grounded in_ its actualities” (Feser 2014, p. 41). Perhaps Feser is restricting this claim only to attributes and accidents and whatnot; he doesn’t, however, indicate this, and so I concluded that he’s talking about the nature of a thing’s potencies *simpliciter*. Since Feser construes S’s potential for existence as, well, one of *S*’s potencies (i.e., a thing’s potency), I take this to entail that S’s potential for existence is grounded in [i.e. obtains in virtue of the more fundamental or prior reality of] some actuality of S. But it is this priority/grounding thesis that engenders the problem, as described above and in the video.
I think your point about prime matter is interesting. Do you think we’d be able to distinguish prime matter *as such* [and in the abstract, considered apart from any substantial form or any particular substance] and *a particular substance’s* (prime) matter? [I recognize there is no such thing as prime matter *as such*, independently of some form. My point is about us *considering* prime matter in itself as purely potential.] If so, then I think the argument in the video can grant that matter *as such* [in the abstract] isn’t grounded in a prior actuality. But if we can make the aforementioned distinction, it’s a separate question whether *a particular substance’s* matter isn’t grounded in a prior actuality. For, presumably, *S*’s matter is an inherent principle of S, and *S*-as a supposit or substance-is the actuality in which this principle of changeability and determinability is grounded. [I’m just asking for your thoughts here.] This distinction is similar to how forms are inherent principles of their substances, even though a form considered *as such* and in the abstract doesn’t inhere in any particular substance.
If all of this is right - and, again, we’re at the edge of my thinking here, so I’m testing these ideas with you - then presumably what matters in determining whether a potency is grounded in a prior actuality is whether it is *a thing*’s potency. [This is similar to what I take Feser to be saying when he says *a thing’s potency*.] The question, then, is whether the potency spoken of in the Aristotelian proof is a thing’s potency. And at least how Feser casts things, it certainly seems to be. He says, after all, that it is *S*’s potential to exist.
What do you think my man?
@@ob4161 the bolding got messed up, lol. the bolding is usually only supposed to be around: *S*
Trent: "Exis..."
Joe: "ABUBUBUBUP!! Hold my beer".
Lmaooo
I love how in your comment, Joe interrupts Trent before Trent can even exist properly
Joe kun, i feel like a dumb dumb when watching several of your videos(not sure about this one, haven't watched it yet) :((( what do u suggest for me to do ?
An excellent place to start are some intros to philosophy! I have some *excellent* book suggestions for you near the end of my video "What is Philosophy?". Another one you could buy right now -- one that's cheap and AMAZING -- is Michael Huemer's "Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy"
@@MajestyofReason Arigatu Joe san 😌🙏 will definitely check them out :D.
@@milos223 part of it is that I find it just so interesting!!! If I were you, I would try to find a subject you absolutely love. Maybe you find the free will debate to be super fascinating. If so, I would recommend picking up some introductory and then intermediate/advanced books in the philosophical literature on free will. The trick is to find a subject on which you’re super passionate, and then to read!
¡Me gusta!
You should do a debate with the youtuber "Classical Theist"
No. Mathoma would be better
CT is good but Mathoma's old defense of classical theology videos were very, very impressive to me
@@glof2553 I suppose mathoma would work too, sure
the fucking zizek im dead
Nice Zizek impression right at the beginning. I am a fan of Zizek.
LOL 😆 at you're conclusion!
Watching at .75x
Is it true you've affirmed '' the proposition that God exist is false'' a friend of mine has said you affirmed it.
I have not🙂
I mean, I think the God of CT doesn’t exist. But as for bare bones theism, I don’t affirm it’s negation.🥰
@Mejesty of Reason
We will eventually get you there 😈😈😈woohahaha
Wouldn't the argument from change/motion, if true only mean that there would be a first cause, but doesn't necessarily lead one to Christianity and at best would lead someone to Deism?
I couldn't help when watching this debate to think that it's so entirely irrelevant to 99.9% of Christians on planet earth. I mean it's interesting from an academic standpoint but in terms of practically addressing Christianity as it exists in the real world, the debate was rather pointless IMO.
I think you're right. Overall, it all depends on purpose. There are many different purposes people might have for this sort of debate. For some such purposes, it is well-suited. These purposes would be more along the academic lines you gestured towards. But relative to other purposes, the debate is extremely poorly-suited. And -- for better or worse -- most people don't share the academic purpose.
My lights found these objections easily answered.
Hola
Demonstrating that there is reason to doubt that something is true does not equating to proving that it is false.
You are correct. Could you please expand, though? I’m not yet seeing the relevance of this 🙂
@@MajestyofReason
Is there reason to _doubt_ Christianity, that Jesus of Nazareth was/is divine? *Yes.* Has sufficient evidence been presented to demonstrate that this is _false?_ *No.* Indeed, while there is also reason to be skeptical of Jesus as a historical figure, there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that he was purely fictional.
It seems to me that the most reasonable position to hold is that a historical Jesus of Nazareth existed and he was sensationalized and deified post-humously by his followers. Does that make this any more objectively _true< than the alternatives? *No.*
@@truerealrationalist thanks for the comment! So, in my video I don’t take a stand on Jesus’ divinity. Instead, I focus on Christianity’s claim that there is an endless afterlife, as well as on the Trinity, and I point out that Trent’s arguments are incompatible with these Christian tenets.
@@MajestyofReason
My comment was in relation to the title of the video. Even if we agree that his arguments fail and are irreconcilable with Christian tenets, this still does not disprove Christianity, as the title implies. Though, I suspect that title was (at least in part) intended as click-bait. 😉
That's okay, though, as Christian Apologetics bores me; it's not difficult to pick those arguments apart.
What is rob koon's response to the future version of the grim messenger scenario?
Just as an advice. Slow down. I had to put it on 0.5 to have you speak at a more comprehensible and comfortable speed. I may be a bit hung over and past my prime. At notmal speed it just becomes a fast flow of words. You have thought about this but others have not. Most people need to digest and comprehend.
Maybe something to consider or just blow off.
I think you’re right. I recognize that this video can be difficult to digest due to speed. This one is faster than most of my other videos, and I likely should have slowed down. My motivation for the speed was that I had a *lot* I wanted to get through, and I didn’t want to draw it would to (say) a 4 hour video or longer.🙂
@@MajestyofReason
Hi, first time on your channel!
4 minutes in, I understood maybe half of what you said, sadly .
And as a non-native speaker, putting 0.75 speed makes the English in the audio less intelligible to me.
Idk if the rest of the audience would say the same, but a 4 hours video may have been better, maybe? Idk
@@castoramanwab2723 thank you!! I take into account feedback, so your comment here helps.❤️
@@MajestyofReason It was no way a critique of the content. I need to listen to this several times and think on it. I also dont have english as primary language so there is a lotbof googling words and concepts.That will of course slow me down. Keep up the good work. You have evidently put in a lot of thinking on the matter. I love to learn different perspectives and ideas.
@@northernlight8857 Much love
Wouldn't one be able to say that our nature makes us valuable but only because our nature reflects God's nature (which is equal to his existence) i.e. God himself. And every virtue we could posses in turn exempefies certain property God has (property in an anological sense ofcourse). God's nature (God) would be on that view the standard because it is the foundation of all there is (now someone who knows a bit more about the topic of trancedentals could probably make a better case than me that they are convertible so he would not only be the foundation of being but also truth, goodness, beauty and others if there are more of them).
On the other hand the nature of a "human" is just one among many natures in the universe and it seems kind of arbitrary or at the very least more unlikely that only that nature (or only a handful of them) among all others is (are) the intrinsically valuable one(s).
So you might as well set up a debate or conversation with him rather than rebutting his rebuttal. Trent does not do rebuttals to rebuttals like an unending chain. He only does one and then it is up to you to converse with him. That being said him and his wife have been really sick so may not be soon.
Yep! We plan to have a debate sometime in Spring. But I'll still very likely respond to his response, since I don't think I'll be able to curb my anxiety.
Christian theology maintains that Christ is the actualizer of God, co-eternal and begotten, not created. There is also the energies/essence distinction in Orthodoxy.
Argument from change isn't as good as Kalam Cosmological Argument or Leibniz cosmological argument
👏🙂
It's funny because "theists" (ahem Christians) never seem to argue for the god who promises that upon his return the earth will cleansed in a great genocide (Mt 24:37), or the god who killed a husband and wife for not donating money (Acts 5:1-10), or who the god who acts like a Cartesian demon and tricks us so we can be sent to hell (2thess 2:11-12). It's always a jargon laden god barely indistinguishable from a particle. Trent couldn't go up against a student (a regular student, Joe, not your reborn spirit of Kant or whatever) with one semester of philosophy if all he used was the Bible. The Bible is worthless in these conversations and that's completely uncontroversial to say.
Anyway, please re-make a Zizek video because that was dope. And was there a Swinburne? Goodness his voice…
Maybe I'll have more constructive thoughts after fully consuming this, but thanks for putting it together so quickly.
How about you don’t strawman Christianity and blatantly assume a prejudiced position just because upon superficial inspection you find something questionable? The Bible is a liturgical book and must be read holistically. May God bless you.
@@eternalbyzantium262 Be specific: what did I strawman? Have I not quoted directly from the Bible? Have I taken God's unforgivable crimes out of context? Have I taken God's approval of slavery, genocide, blood sacrifice, science denial, etc out of historical context and not realized God can't interrupt our freewill and this is all logically possible and kalam and contingency and modal ontological and minimal facts and Bart Ehrman even says and Mike Licona and inference to the best explanation and McGrew and McLatchie and Bayes and even if the priors and how do I even explain everything that exists and objective morality and Feser and Pascal and decision theory and it's not even an argument for Christianity per se and how do I explain the 500 and the tomb and the women and the martyrs and and and and and and…
It's the same game over and over. Like Felipe Leon, I believe this whole paradigm is holding us back. There's something at the core of reality, I agree, but we're no closer today than 2,000 years ago because we have to argue about the guilt induced hallucinations of an epileptic traveling leather goods trader and whether an unprovable miracle happened based on pre-scientific literature written about Aramaic peasants far off in the first century Jewish diaspora.
Uh oh, someone used a Feser arg...
Bruh i cannot understand a word of this 😢
I think if you're a B theorist and you don't believe in actual infinites, then you have problems with the afterlife...
But I think you can still hold that it is impossible to have actual infinites in reality for every moment t and still believe in after life if you're an A theorist.
Importantly, though, none of my arguments required saying that the afterlife is an actual infinite. Instead, I pointed out how all the allegedly absurd subtractions that Hilbert’s Hotel drivers are equally delivered by an endless future. None of the premises of my argument and no step in my reasoning required that the endless future is an *actual* infinite.
(As an aside: Malpass and Morriston, in their Philosophical Quarterly article “Endless and Infinite”, show that - under the definition of “actual infinite” - an endless future *is* an actual infinite. Crucially, an actual infinite doesn’t imply that the members of the collection are all actual. That’s because the past isn’t actual, and yet a beginningless past is alleged to be an actual infinite. Instead, the definition of an actual infinite is simply a collection whose cardinality is aleph null. Cf. Their paper for more details.)🥰
@@MajestyofReason yeah well it's an error on both sides I think... A beginningless serie is not an actual infinite (because past events don't exist anymore) but it can entail an actual infinite number of things existing in reality at the present moment. It's not the same with the future which is always potentially infinite in nature, at least on A theory...
@@MajestyofReason but yeah that's not the argument you're making, no worries. 🙂
@@matthieulavagna I disagree my dude :)
I disagree because the endless future can also entail an actual infinite number of things existing in the present. Malpass and Morriston argue quite forcefully by my lights, in their article, that an endless future likewise implies that a HH could exist in the present, and that the only response to debar this equally debars the inference from the beginningless past to the possibility of HH in the present. :)
@@MajestyofReason yeah well Im still not convinced that an endless future (which I don't believe to be actually infinite) entails Hilbert's hotel could exist in the present, since future events are merely potential (they don't exist yet).
The past HAS existed and objects could have come into existence during each past event making the number of things in reality to be actually infinite at the present moment,even if the past events don't exist anymore.
It doesn't make sense, by my lights to talk about a collection that will never be reached.
At no point in the future will the angels have sung an infinite number of praises because it is impossible to count to infinity.
I really think it is important to take into account the asymmetrical nature of time.
The expression "will happen" is misleading I believe, because at no point in the future will the number of praises be infinite. The expression is trying to subtly transform a potential infinite into an actual infinite.
We can do this for the past because it has been traversed, but we can't do this for the future since it's always growing...
But I will definitely read their paper although I've already read alot of kalam literature (including the collection of scholarly work: "the kalam cosmological argument, philosophical evidence for the finitude of the past", Paul Copan)
You're NOT trying to TALK " Over our heads" RIGHT?
Well, can't we say that an endless future is only a potential infinite (or a limit tending towards infinity) so an actual infinite has not lapsed, unlike in the case of an beginning-less past.
I haven't watched the full video yet, nor am I any expert on this topic, so pardon my ignorance lol.
Good work
Great question! Importantly, none of my arguments require a claim that 'if the future is endless, then an actual infinite has elapsed'. I only talked about how an endless future entails the allegedly absurd substractions that Hilbert's hotel itself capitalizes on. So whether the endless future is a potential infinite or actual infinite is beside the point of my arguments. They go through either way. :)
[I would also recommend reading Malpass and Morriston's 2020 paper in the Philosophical Quarterly. I link a free version of it in the document. Therein they argue quite convincingly by my lights that an endless future is an actual infinite. Importantly, an actual infinite doesn't mean all the elements of the collection are all actual. If that were true, then a beginningless past isn't an actual infinite, since the past isn't actual [under presentism]. Instead, an actual infinite is just a collection the cardinality of which is aleph null. And this is true of the set of events which are such that each of them will occur. Again, plz see the Malpass and Morriston paper for more :) ]
@@MajestyofReason ok, I got a rough idea.
The paper sounds really interesting, (and would be quite troublesome for my present stance if successful) I'll definitely check that out. (And hopefully understand lol)
I have some thoughts on the angel paradox, I found it beautiful lol, (similar reaction as to when I see a physics problem with an elegant solution), but it's too late today, so hopefully tomorrow!
@@sathviksidd I *love* that feeling!! It feels so great. I'm so happy my videos serve you in your pursuit of truth. :)
@@sathviksidd Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices nah, my humble, unbiased ABSOLUTELY correct opinion is the objective truth
3:06 "Trent begins by saying God is _being itself._ ... This view faces quite serious independent problems."
There's no point in criticizing definitions. This is just laying out the terminology Horn plans to use so that he can avoid confusion. If we don't like this definition, we don't have to use it in our own work. So long as we know what he means when he uses the word God, there's no problem.
Horn is going after very low-hanging fruit by trying to prove that being exists. Pick up any object, notice that there is something in the world, and therefore being itself exists. It seems that apologists have lowered their sights away from trying to prove the existence of vast cosmic powers and infinite intellects and are now aiming for less ambitious goals, and there's nothing wrong with keeping our goals within reach.
6:28 "Trent doesn't justify premise 2 that says that change is the actualization of a potential. He just asserts it."
Premise 2 looks like it was intended to be a tautology, just directly following from Horn's meanings for the words change, actual, and potential. When there is change, some proposition goes from false to true. When the proposition was false, it was a potential. When the proposition is true, it is actual. Perhaps we prefer to define change, actual, and potential differently and use these words in another way from how Horn uses them, but that's not Horn's fault.
We should do our best to try to understand what Horn is trying to communicate. It's pointless to demand that Horn's use of words conforms to our expectations. It's too late for Horn to change the debate now, and the real issue is the substance of Horn's argument, not the semantics of the words that he uses. This premise is just laying out the relationship between the concepts of change, actual, and potential as Horn defines those concepts, so there's no point in criticizing it.
Thanks for the comment! But this is untrue. Trent is not just saying what he means by change. Instead, he is affirming a highly contentious and minority view according to which (1) there is a distinction between different kinds of being, namely potential being and actual being, and (2) change involves a transition from potential being to actual being. This rests on a substantive metaphysical theory, namely the theory of act and potency, and it’s rejected by most metaphysicians. So he is most definitely not just giving an innocuous definition of terms. He’s importing an Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical framework, with all its extremely contentious (and implausible) commitments, into his argument.
@@MajestyofReason : Perhaps Horn is smuggling some controversial ideas into his argument, but shouldn't we abide by the principle of charity and always presume the best possible interpretations upon Horn's arguments? We shouldn't assume the worst unless Horn leaves us with no alternative. If a premise could be innocuous and uncontroversial, then why not take it as innocuous and uncontroversial?
@@Ansatz66 because he’s here reciting the Aristotelian proof from Feser, and Feser is explicit that this is importing the substantive, metaphysical theory of act and potency
An absolutely simple God that has multiple attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, sounds like a contradiction to me.
It will indeed sound like a contradiction if one ignores the sense/reference distinction and the doctrine of analogy.
@@ob4161 Wrong. On the doctrine of analogy, there is a univocal element shared between God and creatures.
@@ob4161 On the doctrine of analogy creatures such as X, Y, and Z, each have an element that God univocally has in common with them. Now, in X, Y, and Z, these elements are all distnct from each other, but are identical in God, which is absurd.
The argument from motion/change is not well formed.
Joe.. don't even try to justify this bait title, as if no one has heard future infinity objection already.
Second point, chill, this really looks like an obsession (supposedly you are studying as well).
Thirdly, why don't you just get Feser on the show? Now that would be epic, since for all I know, 1st hour of this might be utter nonsense and I am none the wiser.
There is nothing baity about the title lol. I articulated four arguments to the effect that the considerations Trent adduced in the debate are incompatible with Christianity. I then posed my title as a *question*, asking the audience to consider my four arguments for themselves. The four arguments:
(1) Trent’s first argument for the uniqueness of pure act relies on a principle according to which distinction requires some differentiating feature, which in turn requires some potential. This is incompatible with Trinitarianism and hence Christianity.
(2) Trent’s second argument for the uniqueness of pure act relies on a principle according to which distinction requires a more fundamental common framework, which in turn requires some potential. This is incompatible with Trinitarianism and hence Christianity.
(3) Trent’s Hilbert’s Hotel argument relies on a principle that the relevant subtractions are absurd and hence impossible. But an endless future entails the possibility of such subtractions, and so an endless future is incompatible with his argument. Since Christianity requires endless future, Christianity is incompatible with his argument.
(4) Trent’s Benardette paradox, as Alex and I argue extensively in our video, can equally be run in the later-than direction to imply the impossibility of an endless future. Once more, that’s incompatible with Christianity.
This rather decisively demonstrates that there is no click bait, since click bait is misleading, and yet there is nothing misleading about my title.
“as if no one has heard the future infinity objection”
Nowhere did I claim, imply, or even intimate that no one has heard objections deriving from an endless future. I didn’t, moreover, merely gesture towards such objections and imply that no one addressed it; instead, I gave *reasons* in favor of them.
“this really looks like an obsession”
Yes, that’s the nature of anxiety - it causes those who suffer from it to obsess over things.
Third, I didn’t claim I was “studying as well”. School just started, and I had to get behind on a lot of work (papers, readings, etc.) because of making this video. [NB: I’m not complaining about that-it was self-imposed (or rather anxiety-imposed, or potentially self-and-anxiety-imposed).]
“Why don’t you just get Feser on the show?”
Cameron Bertuzzi has already reached out to Ed twice about a discussion between me and Ed, once about a year ago, another about 1-2 months ago. Feser respectfully declined, as he is busy working on a book manuscript on the immateriality of the intellect. Plus, Feser and I have already gone back-and-forth via blog posts on the very criticisms i level in the video. See the resources linked in the document I’m using in the video.
“For all I know, the first hour of this might be utter non-sense”
The fact that a significant portion of the first half of this has already been published in international peer-reviewed philosophy journals should indicate that it isn’t utter nonsense.
@@MajestyofReason Sorry, my first remark is dishonest, you are right (titles sometimes really rub me the wrong way and I typed it out when you got to that part).
Shame we won't see you two interact live any time soon, that would be season finale. (And I would see some good replies, since I'm no philosopher myself)
Lastly, I know a bit about anxiety, and obsession, that's why this video bothers me as well, I don't know you or your timetable.. but I feel you need to rein yourself in, at least a bit, respectfully.
Anyway, I made a bit of a dismissive comment, but your response is informative, so let it stand.
Have a pleasant day, Joe
@@franesustic988 much love my man❤️
Wtf bro... You wrote 54 pages in a day? Fucking shit.
There is no God. Only failures of proof. So you debate on something that doesn't exist. What is the point on wasting time with this BS.
The point of discussing this topic is that we happen to live in the world where many people believe in such god, and act based on that belief.
So addressing is very relevant even if the target of the belief isn't real
"There is no god."
That is a claim. All claims require evidence to support them. Please, provide evidence to support your claim.
@@truerealrationalist Do you assert that a god exists?
@@theoskeptomai2535
Nope.
I *don't* _know_ that any deity exists, I *don't* _claim_ to know that any deity exists, and I *don't* know if it is possible _to_ know that a deity exists.
@@truerealrationalist I would wholeheartedly agree with you. I too am agnostic. So may I ask if you _believe_ a god exists. I do not.