Dry Apologist, thanks for presenting the Catholic perspective and for speaking charitably and with an honest attitude of humility on your positions. This has been interesting dialogue so far; thanks to all three of you!
Great discussion. As someone who was born and raised Mormon, Joseph's version of God is interesting but VERY different from what I was taught. I think Joseph's version sounds like VERY progressive Mormonism or "Atheism Light." This is not a knock on Joseph's presentation or beliefs. I'm just noting that this is brand new to me and sounds like it is worth considering. Thank you for giving me things to think about.
The Bible is very clear that Yahweh has a body, can be defeated and even possibly killed. I don't want to be like "Joseph came out on top" in this discussion because I have a bias, a concept of God more similar to his, but his God is reflected in the Bible more than the God Caleb worships.
I think it depends upon what section of the Bible you read. The OT has sections that depict God as having a body, but then there are sections that depict God as being a transcendent, spiritual being.
@@DryApologistI'd be careful not to assume that spirits don't have bodies. Ancient divine beings are often depicted as having a body, it's just made of different kind of substance and has different properties (e.g. invisible).
@@kamilgregor One can take that view, but that is also why I used the word 'transcendent'. I wouldn't rest a philosophical case upon a Biblical interpretation, but it's not clear to me that God is thought to have a physical body throughout the Bible. It seems plausible that God is understood in a more classical theist perspective in places of the Biblical text, is my only point here (c.f. James 1:17).
@@DryApologist It'd be interesting to see some Biblical proof texts for divine transcendence. I don't see how James 1:17 supports the idea that God doesn't have a body. It seems to me pretty clear that παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα refers to God being a stable and reliable gift-giver, similarly to how a good master would be a steady gift-giver to his clients. Interpreting this as a proof text for a concept of divine transcendence seems like a typical case of imposing a very particular theological interpretation on the Biblical text. Analogically, the Romans called Jupiter "Optimus Maximus" (the Best and the Greatest) and the Greeks called Zeus "the most perfect of the perfect" but nobody would seriously suggest this is evidence that they subscribed to a theology of a maximally great and maximally loving being.
[Haven't finished the video yet] The "aseity" concept is pretty terrifying, right? Makes it sound like god is a machine whose job is filters people into the trash without caring about how they feel, how they think, or why. Didn't God so love the world he sent his only begotten Son? I seem to recall at least a few stories in the OT where people spoke with God and God decided to change his actions based on what they asked. If these are all true but God still has perfect "aseity" then "aseity" seems like a completely hollow concept.
There's an argument to be made that the middle ground might be a neoclassical view. In fact, it seems to me that many process thinkers, like Hartshorne for instance spell this out well. Or perhaps the best middle ground is Sijuwade's approach which i think he models using ontological pluralism. I cant say i quite understand it, but its something like that on the abstract mode of being God is classically theistic and the ground of ultimate reality, but in the concrete mode of existence God is a neoclassical God. I dont quite get it though but it would be a cool response
Superman Vs. God. I wouldn't call not being able to create a square circle "a limit." Limits imply something is lacking. The power to create a square circle does not exist, so you can't lack it.
I think more so god can’t create of ex nihilo simply because of the fact ex nihilo doesn’t exist under the belief that matter is eternal and there is infinite matter, if there is infinite matter than the concept of nothing does not exist and therefor ex nihilism is a concept that exists in a reality that is not our own, and therefor a logical impossibility. It’s like how 0 doesn’t exist, cold doesn’t exist being the fact it’s the absence of heat, darkness is just the absence of light. You can’t create out of nothing when nothing inherently doesn’t exist, especially in a reality when there’s an infinite supply of something
@@EmersonGreen Agreed! I just meant, especially with how unappealing philosophy jargon can get to people that aren't in those weeds all the time, it feels silly not to just say "out of nothing" or "from nothing" since the shorthand isn't even a shorthand. Also, I absolutely love your content, and apologies if I'm misunderstanding the distinction you're trying to make. Thank you for everything you do for the community of people that want to engage these subjects.
Kinda bummed Joseph only leveled arguments against classical theism, rather than against omnipotence. Neo-classical theists could easily accept all his critiques while still affirming God as omnipotent in the strong sense.
I don’t really have as much a problem with omnipotence - I’m open to strong versions of omnipotence, and even if God isn’t omnipotent in the strong sense, I don’t imagine we could decide that a priori (that is to say, I don’t think there’s anything conceptually incoherent about strong versions of omnipotence)
As we argued in the section on limitations, whether or not you defend “omnipotence” is a bit of a semantic issue. Different theistic philosophers have defended very different analyses of omnipotence with varying degrees of “limitations”. You can believe that God is “limited” in power *and* omnipotent, as LDS do, and as you probably do with respect to logical (and maybe metaphysical) limitations. You could also hold to the same exact analysis and instead say that you reject omnipotence. You could say Joseph defended a God who’s not omnipotent, if that’s how you choose to view it. You could also say he defended an omnipotent God. There is no objective, agreed-upon analysis of omnipotence. This is why I mentioned the Descartes/Plantinga analogy. It’s better to focus on limitations (which has its own challenges and isn’t a super-clear notion, either).
@@p00tis Unfortunately, p00, you have no evidence to support your claims. It is nothing surprising, since theists don't, and they do love to claim each other wrong, despite this utter lack of evidenc for their own nonsense. No respect is needed for ignorant and harmful lies. Those deserve to be revealed, ridiculed and reviled.
@@velkyn1 Dude. I'm an agnostic. Don't be a militant atheist, you should have grown out of that after a year or two. Theism has a rich tradition with brilliant minds attached who are smarter than either of us could hope to be. I'm almost tempted to put on my Feser hat and argue back, but that'd be a waste of both of our times.
@@p00tis Dude, if you are an agnostic, then why say respect baseless nonsense? I'll be a militant atheist if I so choose, since christian liars try to force their ignorance on everyone. Theism has tradition but it is not "rich" or brilliant. It is a set of lies based on hate of anyone not like them, nothing else. And I'm far smarter than you have demonstrated yourself to be, so nice attempt to authority logical fallacy, you've used. The common excuse of a christian that it would be a waste of their time is a classic, showing that you have nothing, poo. Alas, Ed Feser is one of those hilariously bad apologists. Again, no reason to think your an agnostic at all. I suspect you are simply a catholic who is trying to present himself falsely to create the impression that some non-christians "really" do agree with christians. I could be wrong, but in the many years I've been doing this, it's not too hard to sniff out a rat. "Dude. I'm an agnostic. Don't be a militant atheist, you should have grown out of that after a year or two. Theism has a rich tradition with brilliant minds attached who are smarter than either of us could hope to be. I'm almost tempted to put on my Feser hat and argue back, but that'd be a waste of both of our times."
@@p00tis I mean he is right if he means that we should respect people not beliefs. Sometimes it does make sense to be a militant atheist but all it depends on what are you trying to do and the circumstances. Usually it's just not very productive.
Dry Apologist, thanks for presenting the Catholic perspective and for speaking charitably and with an honest attitude of humility on your positions. This has been interesting dialogue so far; thanks to all three of you!
Great discussion. As someone who was born and raised Mormon, Joseph's version of God is interesting but VERY different from what I was taught. I think Joseph's version sounds like VERY progressive Mormonism or "Atheism Light." This is not a knock on Joseph's presentation or beliefs. I'm just noting that this is brand new to me and sounds like it is worth considering. Thank you for giving me things to think about.
Interesting, what were some differences you noticed?
The Bible is very clear that Yahweh has a body, can be defeated and even possibly killed. I don't want to be like "Joseph came out on top" in this discussion because I have a bias, a concept of God more similar to his, but his God is reflected in the Bible more than the God Caleb worships.
I think it depends upon what section of the Bible you read. The OT has sections that depict God as having a body, but then there are sections that depict God as being a transcendent, spiritual being.
What verses of scripture do you think make it very clear that “Yahweh has a body, can be defeated and even killed”?
@@DryApologistI'd be careful not to assume that spirits don't have bodies. Ancient divine beings are often depicted as having a body, it's just made of different kind of substance and has different properties (e.g. invisible).
@@kamilgregor One can take that view, but that is also why I used the word 'transcendent'. I wouldn't rest a philosophical case upon a Biblical interpretation, but it's not clear to me that God is thought to have a physical body throughout the Bible. It seems plausible that God is understood in a more classical theist perspective in places of the Biblical text, is my only point here (c.f. James 1:17).
@@DryApologist It'd be interesting to see some Biblical proof texts for divine transcendence. I don't see how James 1:17 supports the idea that God doesn't have a body. It seems to me pretty clear that παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα refers to God being a stable and reliable gift-giver, similarly to how a good master would be a steady gift-giver to his clients. Interpreting this as a proof text for a concept of divine transcendence seems like a typical case of imposing a very particular theological interpretation on the Biblical text. Analogically, the Romans called Jupiter "Optimus Maximus" (the Best and the Greatest) and the Greeks called Zeus "the most perfect of the perfect" but nobody would seriously suggest this is evidence that they subscribed to a theology of a maximally great and maximally loving being.
[Haven't finished the video yet] The "aseity" concept is pretty terrifying, right? Makes it sound like god is a machine whose job is filters people into the trash without caring about how they feel, how they think, or why.
Didn't God so love the world he sent his only begotten Son? I seem to recall at least a few stories in the OT where people spoke with God and God decided to change his actions based on what they asked. If these are all true but God still has perfect "aseity" then "aseity" seems like a completely hollow concept.
There's an argument to be made that the middle ground might be a neoclassical view. In fact, it seems to me that many process thinkers, like Hartshorne for instance spell this out well. Or perhaps the best middle ground is Sijuwade's approach which i think he models using ontological pluralism. I cant say i quite understand it, but its something like that on the abstract mode of being God is classically theistic and the ground of ultimate reality, but in the concrete mode of existence God is a neoclassical God. I dont quite get it though but it would be a cool response
Very nice discussion!
Superman Vs. God.
I wouldn't call not being able to create a square circle "a limit." Limits imply something is lacking. The power to create a square circle does not exist, so you can't lack it.
I think more so god can’t create of ex nihilo simply because of the fact ex nihilo doesn’t exist under the belief that matter is eternal and there is infinite matter, if there is infinite matter than the concept of nothing does not exist and therefor ex nihilism is a concept that exists in a reality that is not our own, and therefor a logical impossibility. It’s like how 0 doesn’t exist, cold doesn’t exist being the fact it’s the absence of heat, darkness is just the absence of light. You can’t create out of nothing when nothing inherently doesn’t exist, especially in a reality when there’s an infinite supply of something
Ex nihilo feels like such a useless term nowadays to me. It's literally the same number of syllables as its definition
There’s an important distinction between a God who creates everything out of nothing and a God who shapes the world out of pre-existing material.
@@EmersonGreen Agreed! I just meant, especially with how unappealing philosophy jargon can get to people that aren't in those weeds all the time, it feels silly not to just say "out of nothing" or "from nothing" since the shorthand isn't even a shorthand.
Also, I absolutely love your content, and apologies if I'm misunderstanding the distinction you're trying to make. Thank you for everything you do for the community of people that want to engage these subjects.
Promo sm
Kinda bummed Joseph only leveled arguments against classical theism, rather than against omnipotence. Neo-classical theists could easily accept all his critiques while still affirming God as omnipotent in the strong sense.
I don’t really have as much a problem with omnipotence - I’m open to strong versions of omnipotence, and even if God isn’t omnipotent in the strong sense, I don’t imagine we could decide that a priori (that is to say, I don’t think there’s anything conceptually incoherent about strong versions of omnipotence)
As we argued in the section on limitations, whether or not you defend “omnipotence” is a bit of a semantic issue. Different theistic philosophers have defended very different analyses of omnipotence with varying degrees of “limitations”. You can believe that God is “limited” in power *and* omnipotent, as LDS do, and as you probably do with respect to logical (and maybe metaphysical) limitations. You could also hold to the same exact analysis and instead say that you reject omnipotence. You could say Joseph defended a God who’s not omnipotent, if that’s how you choose to view it. You could also say he defended an omnipotent God. There is no objective, agreed-upon analysis of omnipotence. This is why I mentioned the Descartes/Plantinga analogy. It’s better to focus on limitations (which has its own challenges and isn’t a super-clear notion, either).
this is what happens when you have no evidence and you make up nonsense about your imaginary friend.
You're woefully wrong in this. Have respect for the tradition.
@@p00tis Unfortunately, p00, you have no evidence to support your claims. It is nothing surprising, since theists don't, and they do love to claim each other wrong, despite this utter lack of evidenc for their own nonsense.
No respect is needed for ignorant and harmful lies. Those deserve to be revealed, ridiculed and reviled.
@@velkyn1 Dude. I'm an agnostic. Don't be a militant atheist, you should have grown out of that after a year or two. Theism has a rich tradition with brilliant minds attached who are smarter than either of us could hope to be.
I'm almost tempted to put on my Feser hat and argue back, but that'd be a waste of both of our times.
@@p00tis Dude, if you are an agnostic, then why say respect baseless nonsense?
I'll be a militant atheist if I so choose, since christian liars try to force their ignorance on everyone.
Theism has tradition but it is not "rich" or brilliant. It is a set of lies based on hate of anyone not like them, nothing else.
And I'm far smarter than you have demonstrated yourself to be, so nice attempt to authority logical fallacy, you've used.
The common excuse of a christian that it would be a waste of their time is a classic, showing that you have nothing, poo. Alas, Ed Feser is one of those hilariously bad apologists. Again, no reason to think your an agnostic at all. I suspect you are simply a catholic who is trying to present himself falsely to create the impression that some non-christians "really" do agree with christians. I could be wrong, but in the many years I've been doing this, it's not too hard to sniff out a rat.
"Dude. I'm an agnostic. Don't be a militant atheist, you should have grown out of that after a year or two. Theism has a rich tradition with brilliant minds attached who are smarter than either of us could hope to be.
I'm almost tempted to put on my Feser hat and argue back, but that'd be a waste of both of our times."
@@p00tis I mean he is right if he means that we should respect people not beliefs. Sometimes it does make sense to be a militant atheist but all it depends on what are you trying to do and the circumstances. Usually it's just not very productive.