Great succinct content like always! WLC was definitely the most crucial especially early on to my understanding with his deep intelligence. Jesus loves you. God bless.
The existence of universals and mathematical abstract objects is a defeater for God's aseity. Even Craig admits that (while he then tries to deny their existence).
How do abstract objects defeat God's aseity? Edit: If you are refering to how they are objects that do not depend on God for their existence, then Craig has offered a view where these abstract objects exist necessarily inside the mind of God, so that way, they still depend on God to exist, but they still exist necessarily alongside him.
Craig does not deny the existence of abstract objects. He even uses them as examples of ‘Necessary’ entities when making a case FOR God. He has done this in multiple debates.
Argument against God's aseity is that it undermines the basis for the doctrine of God's creation and salvation, and the idea that humans have ultimate freedom from evil.
Can you explain why God cannot be a self-existent being? I think it is pretty obvious that God would have to be a self-existent being given what he is.
Hello, in order for a being to exist subsistently, i.e, be self-existing it requires its essence to be identical to its existence. Importantly, there can only be one thing whose essence is identical to its existence. For there to be multiple of something there has to be at least one distinguishable feature, e.g, a part or a place in time. However, its essence would not be identical to its existence, instead it would be existence plus whatever that distinguishable feature is. So, there can only be one being whose essence is identical to its existence. Is that the universe? No, for upon analysis of what it means to be subsistent existence itself, as Thomas Aquinas calls it, reveals that it has the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, radically simple and much else that does not describe the universe. I could explain this analysis if you want me to. By the way, these multiple attributes do not contradict its existence being identical to its essence as they are only predicated analogously, not univocally; His existence just is His omnipotence which just is His omniscience, etc. We only conceptualize them distinctly. It is not special pleading, but necessary. Jesus loves you. God bless.
@@ChristLovesYouSoMuch " in order for a being to exist subsistently, i.e, be self-existing it requires its essence to be identical to its existence" - How do you defend this claim?
@@Jack-z1z If it isn't identical then its existence does not follow from what it is. And something cannot impart existence to itself as that would require it to exist before it exists to impart existence to itself which is nonsensical. So, its existence follows from another. Jesus loves you. God bless.
You're misunderstanding the point. The point Craig was making wasn't something to the effect of "Here's why you should believe God exists." He was simply describing an aspect of the concept of God ("god" as in how monothiests use the term, not polythiests). If you correctly understand the concept of God then you should find Craig's statement to be an uncontroversial description. Think of it this way: if God does exist then all which exists depends upon Him for its existence. The question isn't God's aseity, it's His existence.
When I first introduced my children to apologetics, I started with aseity
Great succinct content like always! WLC was definitely the most crucial especially early on to my understanding with his deep intelligence. Jesus loves you. God bless.
The existence of universals and mathematical abstract objects is a defeater for God's aseity. Even Craig admits that (while he then tries to deny their existence).
How do abstract objects defeat God's aseity?
Edit: If you are refering to how they are objects that do not depend on God for their existence, then Craig has offered a view where these abstract objects exist necessarily inside the mind of God, so that way, they still depend on God to exist, but they still exist necessarily alongside him.
Craig does not deny the existence of abstract objects. He even uses them as examples of ‘Necessary’ entities when making a case FOR God. He has done this in multiple debates.
Argument against God's aseity is that it undermines the basis for the doctrine of God's creation and salvation, and the idea that humans have ultimate freedom from evil.
Isn't the existence of universals debated in philosophy?
@@maylingng4107 how?
The definition of God implies its existence! Check mate Atheist! I win!
and since no theist can show that their god actually exists, they all fail.
Can you explain why God cannot be a self-existent being? I think it is pretty obvious that God would have to be a self-existent being given what he is.
The definition of God is simply anything we currently don't understand, nothing more.
@@ji8044 That's not the definition of God.
@@Jack-z1z
A better question: why can't *something* be self existent? All we know is stuff exists, including us.
Self existence is simply a way of refusing to enter into any discussions about God based on history or science.
God isn't a Physical material that science can study: and God has entered history through Jesus Christ .
You're confused as usual!!!
@@davidjanbaz7728 and yet you have no evidence for your god or jesus, nor can christians agree on which version is the right one.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus was a very human Jewish rebel executed by the Romans. Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point with your comment.
This comment shows that you have no clue about aseity.
@@TroyPeiffer That's pretty funny.
aseity is just a fancy word for christian special pleading, insisting that only their god has no beginning.
I can’t imagine a more confused expression than what you have just stated.
Hello, in order for a being to exist subsistently, i.e, be self-existing it requires its essence to be identical to its existence. Importantly, there can only be one thing whose essence is identical to its existence. For there to be multiple of something there has to be at least one distinguishable feature, e.g, a part or a place in time. However, its essence would not be identical to its existence, instead it would be existence plus whatever that distinguishable feature is. So, there can only be one being whose essence is identical to its existence. Is that the universe? No, for upon analysis of what it means to be subsistent existence itself, as Thomas Aquinas calls it, reveals that it has the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, radically simple and much else that does not describe the universe. I could explain this analysis if you want me to. By the way, these multiple attributes do not contradict its existence being identical to its essence as they are only predicated analogously, not univocally; His existence just is His omnipotence which just is His omniscience, etc. We only conceptualize them distinctly. It is not special pleading, but necessary. Jesus loves you. God bless.
@@ChristLovesYouSoMuch " in order for a being to exist subsistently, i.e, be self-existing it requires its essence to be identical to its existence" - How do you defend this claim?
@@Jack-z1z It's a gorgeous word salad though.
@@Jack-z1z If it isn't identical then its existence does not follow from what it is. And something cannot impart existence to itself as that would require it to exist before it exists to impart existence to itself which is nonsensical. So, its existence follows from another. Jesus loves you. God bless.
What kind of mental gymnastic is that? I can also say that God must not exists if you don't know.
You're misunderstanding the point. The point Craig was making wasn't something to the effect of "Here's why you should believe God exists." He was simply describing an aspect of the concept of God ("god" as in how monothiests use the term, not polythiests). If you correctly understand the concept of God then you should find Craig's statement to be an uncontroversial description.
Think of it this way: if God does exist then all which exists depends upon Him for its existence. The question isn't God's aseity, it's His existence.
@LawlessNate your gawd is a fictional character, get over it.
@@jonnelacecodog3490 That's about the level of maturity I'd expect from an atheist on the internet. Atheists, by and large, are not intellectuals.
@jonnelacecodog3490 you're just a troll. If you don't believe in God why are you in WLCs comment section?