Hey Pat. First I want to say that I am very grateful for your channel. You have been instrumental in my journey of becoming a classical theist. I also bought your book and many other books that you have suggested on this channel but I’m still trying to work some stuff out. Can you point me into a direct that will help me make sense of God being pure actuality and the incarnation? I saw one biblical theologian say that the incarnation disproves that God is pure actuality, because God became something that he previously wasn’t when he came in the flesh. Thank you.
Thank you for the kinds words! And yes, check out the work of Tim Pawl. He's your guy for demonstrating the compatibility between classical theism (God as pure act/absolutely simple) and the incarnation.
Great video, but what would you say to those who just don’t believe there must be a terminating point that isn’t natural? Say, they just simply accept that we just don’t yet know the natural cause of the world (it’s a mystery), but with time all will eventually be understood, and that cause will evidently not be supernatural?
Well, I would say quite a number of things, which I do in my book : ) But ultimately it depends on what argument for God we’re considering. If we’re looking at St. Thomas’s approach, he gives strong reason to think only that in which essence and existence are identical can serve as the fundamental explanatory entity, and upon conceptual analysis, such an entity would be quite unlike any natural finite thing in being non-multipliable (“uniquely unique”), qualitatively unbounded, purely actual, omnipotent, wholly good, etc. And all this we can know regardless of what future empirical discoveries may reveal about the natural order, since the argument is revealing the necessary condition for there to be a natural order in the first place. That’s just one approach. Other approaches can expose the problem of irrelevant differences among any conceivable natural entity to serve as a fundamental explanatory entity (for the reason that any natural thing will ultimately bear contingency implying attributes, and if one just strips all those away and calls the remaining entity natural, then I would say we’ve pretty much arrived at the same fundamental entity, and are just being quirky with our use of the term natural!), and how this leads to skepticism, I think.
Thanks Pat! I must say I’m struggling a bit to understand because your thinking is very sophisticated, but I will have go over it a few times to fully comprehend. I appreciate the response. 😊
i dont think it follows that just because an answer is not philosophically interesting then therefore you have to look for other answers through theism. even at the beginning of the video the assumption that everything MUST have a purpose is purposefully ignoring the potential that it doesnt. therefore intentionally ignoring the "closed" answer and favouring one that is more gratifying. and at the same time, if naturalism is critiqued for providing some answers that are philosophical dead ends that dont incite the imagination, why is this criticism not applied to the idea that god is behind everything? in my mind, saying "god did it" equally kills the imagination. if it can be proven that god is behind it, id want to know why is god behind it? what are his motives? how did he come into being? how does he use his power? why did he make certain things? to say that naturalism leads to unimaginative dead end philosophy but theism in this context is complete but equally closes the discussion sounds like an unwarranted bias. finally its important to note that the imagination of an idea doesnt have anything to do with the truthfulness of it. if the universe in actuality doesnt have a meaning behind it, then that is what the answer is. philosophers like to ponder and question the world which is a fantastic thing, but its not healthy to reject evidence or solid reasonings when its not satisfying.
Pat's point is about explanation. We need explanation all the way down for the various facets of reality. That explanation ultimately ends in an entity that is capable of explaining being and the means of being. There are theoretical reasons why such fundamental holistic explanations are important and epistemic concerns over brute facts, but most importantly, there are the actual metaphysical arguments for God as well. If a classical contingency argument for God's existence is well motivated, a PSR is going to logically entail an explanation for all contingent reality.
The idea is basically this. The traditional philosophical arguments for God give reason to posit a fundamental entity that can effectively explain everything else while also being able to explain (not cause!) itself. That entity would have to lack all contingency-implying attributes in order to play that theoretical role. Once those are conceptually stripped away, what you have left is what philosophers mean by God.
going to buy your book 🔥
I really appreciate it. Let me know what you think!
Commenting for Algorithm and to say great interview.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Comment for traction
Hey Pat. First I want to say that I am very grateful for your channel. You have been instrumental in my journey of becoming a classical theist. I also bought your book and many other books that you have suggested on this channel but I’m still trying to work some stuff out. Can you point me into a direct that will help me make sense of God being pure actuality and the incarnation? I saw one biblical theologian say that the incarnation disproves that God is pure actuality, because God became something that he previously wasn’t when he came in the flesh. Thank you.
Thank you for the kinds words! And yes, check out the work of Tim Pawl. He's your guy for demonstrating the compatibility between classical theism (God as pure act/absolutely simple) and the incarnation.
Great video, but what would you say to those who just don’t believe there must be a terminating point that isn’t natural? Say, they just simply accept that we just don’t yet know the natural cause of the world (it’s a mystery), but with time all will eventually be understood, and that cause will evidently not be supernatural?
Well, I would say quite a number of things, which I do in my book : )
But ultimately it depends on what argument for God we’re considering. If we’re looking at St. Thomas’s approach, he gives strong reason to think only that in which essence and existence are identical can serve as the fundamental explanatory entity, and upon conceptual analysis, such an entity would be quite unlike any natural finite thing in being non-multipliable (“uniquely unique”), qualitatively unbounded, purely actual, omnipotent, wholly good, etc. And all this we can know regardless of what future empirical discoveries may reveal about the natural order, since the argument is revealing the necessary condition for there to be a natural order in the first place.
That’s just one approach. Other approaches can expose the problem of irrelevant differences among any conceivable natural entity to serve as a fundamental explanatory entity (for the reason that any natural thing will ultimately bear contingency implying attributes, and if one just strips all those away and calls the remaining entity natural, then I would say we’ve pretty much arrived at the same fundamental entity, and are just being quirky with our use of the term natural!), and how this leads to skepticism, I think.
Expanded thoughts: open.substack.com/pub/chroniclesofstrength/p/why-not-a-natural-fundamental-entity?r=q941p&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thanks Pat! I must say I’m struggling a bit to understand because your thinking is very sophisticated, but I will have go over it a few times to fully comprehend. I appreciate the response. 😊
The one God cannot be logically proven but some idea-entities are observable immortal and exist those we call gods
?
i dont think it follows that just because an answer is not philosophically interesting then therefore you have to look for other answers through theism. even at the beginning of the video the assumption that everything MUST have a purpose is purposefully ignoring the potential that it doesnt. therefore intentionally ignoring the "closed" answer and favouring one that is more gratifying.
and at the same time, if naturalism is critiqued for providing some answers that are philosophical dead ends that dont incite the imagination, why is this criticism not applied to the idea that god is behind everything? in my mind, saying "god did it" equally kills the imagination. if it can be proven that god is behind it, id want to know why is god behind it? what are his motives? how did he come into being? how does he use his power? why did he make certain things? to say that naturalism leads to unimaginative dead end philosophy but theism in this context is complete but equally closes the discussion sounds like an unwarranted bias.
finally its important to note that the imagination of an idea doesnt have anything to do with the truthfulness of it. if the universe in actuality doesnt have a meaning behind it, then that is what the answer is. philosophers like to ponder and question the world which is a fantastic thing, but its not healthy to reject evidence or solid reasonings when its not satisfying.
Pat's point is about explanation. We need explanation all the way down for the various facets of reality. That explanation ultimately ends in an entity that is capable of explaining being and the means of being. There are theoretical reasons why such fundamental holistic explanations are important and epistemic concerns over brute facts, but most importantly, there are the actual metaphysical arguments for God as well. If a classical contingency argument for God's existence is well motivated, a PSR is going to logically entail an explanation for all contingent reality.
Good clip, but I don't see how the title matches the point being raised.
Full interview explains it
The idea is basically this. The traditional philosophical arguments for God give reason to posit a fundamental entity that can effectively explain everything else while also being able to explain (not cause!) itself. That entity would have to lack all contingency-implying attributes in order to play that theoretical role. Once those are conceptually stripped away, what you have left is what philosophers mean by God.
@@PhilosophyforthePeople alright I get it now, thanks!
@PhilosophyforthePeople perfect summary! Forgive me for not saying more on your behalf.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns all good, my dude. Appreciate you!