The Argument for God from Limits: A Conversation Between Josh Rasmussen & Joe Schmid
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- In this video, Dr. Josh Rasmussen (@WorldviewDesignChannel) and Joe Schmid (@MajestyofReason) discuss their respective views on the argument for God from limits. Dr. Rasmussen, a theist, believes the argument is sound, while Joe Schmid, an agnostic, has several philosophical concerns.
I'm just a tad overexcited for this one.
--------------------------- FREE STUFF ---------------------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CC...
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on TH-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchris...
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
![ออกพรรษาน้ำตาหล่น - แอน อรดี [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PFZtOcY9ONA/mqdefault.jpg)
This was a fantastic conversation that advanced the dialectic. Thank you Cameron for organizing this, and thank you Joe and Josh for being so charitable and working together to think so carefully about a really intriguing argument.
Perhaps:
1) Trinitarianism is false, thereby removing an objection and following the argument where it most naturally leads.
2) Creation Ex Deo is true, thereby accomodating at least a couple of alternative causal principles. (I'm curious, which causal principles would one propose that would still be problematic in this case?)
3) Open Theism is true, thereby removing the potentially problematic result of an actually infinite future.
These results serve by sharpening our conception of God and Creation, as well as (by my lights) being more harmonious with the biblical data.
That were also my thoughts listening to Josh and Joe!
All 3 are heretical and are completely contrary to the faith handed down by the apostles and confirmed by the early church fathers. These divine truths cannot be overturned because of "science" or philosophical speculation. These truths cannot be in conflict with science or whatever because they were directly revevealed to us by God. Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology like St. Thomas explains and not the other way around.
Can someone explain to what open theism really is vs the objective? Thankyou.
I’d never considered open theism as a response to the problematic result of an actually infinite future. This brings to mind the dialogue that Craig and Malpass had regarding that very issue. In your view, do views such as molinism (also Arminianism and Calvinism) have an internal problem because there’s an actually infinite future (what god has decreed, foreseen, etc.) in those views?
@@CMVMic Thanks for your insights. 👍🏻
There are no philosophers I fancy, but if I did, it'd be Dr Josh 👍
Fantastic pedagogy. Thanks. Surely Josh is getting close to solving the riddle at 1:42:40, and Joe has the humility to say he must think about it.
Let's assume we can navigate through the “morass” of free-will literature to affirm our free-ranging intentionality acting upon non-free physical entities. Then, this intelligent spontaneity does indeed bring to an end, concerning our artefacts, the recurrence of arbitrariness and explains their limits.
Might something similar not be true of the whole of my physical environment, the unified cosmos?
Been looking forward to this one. I'm thankful for this channel, keep it real dog.
I honestly think that the argument from arbitrary limits is a misnomer. It's an argument for the simplicity of the concept of perfection or maximal greatness. The argument from arbitrary limits isn't adding anything uniquely separate. Perfect goodness can be seen as a limit as a being with perfect goodness cannot commit an action that isn't in accordance with perfect goodness. The theist simply argues that Perfect Goodness is a perfection. From there the argument is about the concept of a perfect being or maximally great being as technically such a being cannot commit an action that isn't in accordance with perfect Goodness which is a limit on the range of actions said being could take.
1:20:06 _"What about the capacity to produce valuable states"_
An anti-realist would say it is the mind who produces valuable states.
Combined with a physicalist it would be the brain which produces valuable states.
1:21:07 _"That's part of what makes it valuable, that it allows there to be value in the world"_
Sure, we value brains because we can cooperate with them, or domesticate them to produce things that we value. In particular, we value our own brain, because we value ourselves...
Otherwise there is no value _"in the world"_ for the anti-realist.
I am also not sure that there exists things that are valuable whose value is stance independent of any agent's wants, desires, or goals. I am not even sure what perfection is abstractly outside of such a stance dependant context.
Greetings from Brazil.
Brasilllll
Namaste and love from India!🙏🇮🇳☮️☮️
Boa noite
I still don't see how God's actions aren't arbitrary in some sense. He could do other and yet it seems arbitrary that he did what he did as opposed to what he could have done. You can try to appeal to free will but free will doesn’t seem to really explain why God did one action that is in accordance with his perfect goodness as opposed to another which is also in accordance with his perfect goodness. Because he chose to seems arbitrary unless we have motivations for why he chose to do A rather than B.
The theist will argue that the motivation is only known by God
Great content! Thanks!
59:51 _"Objective and subjective are kind of slippery terms"_
He then goes on to talk about _"intrinsic value"_ ... But doesn't "intrinsic" mean "in itself" ?
Like the Kantian "ding an sich" ? Is he saying that he can know whether something has value in itself ? Isn't that precisely what Kant said was NOT possible ?
If I'm not mistaken Kant said happiness is not intrinsically good because you can be happy for evil reasons, like delighting in the suffering of others. Only a Good Will is intrinsically valuable on Kant.
I think it's self-evident that pleasure is good. So I say pleasure is intrinsically good (desirable for its own sake) & distinguish between wickedness and happiness (vicious and virtuous pleasure).
19:11 _"Arbitrariness, as a degree that's a non maximal parameter where reason doesn't preclude greater and lesser than degrees of that"_
Reason doesn't preclude that "fundamental reality" be _"greater than"_ unique. Therefore uniqueness is _"arbitrary"_ unless uniqueness can be shown to be _"maximal"_ .
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Yes I agree. Then I guess I need the part of the argument which explains that uniqueness is "maximal".
If *"god doesn't have limits"* like you say, then god can't be unique. Because uniqueness would be a limit, except if uniqueness is maximal.
I think this is what they talk about with the topic of "greatness" and the topic of the trinity.
And I think this is a point that Josh has addressed many times elsewhere.
I guess a plausible response would be to say that uniqueness is not in fact a limit, but rather a perfection - how is it supposed to be limiting to be the sole omnipotent being in existence?
@@dominiks5068 Correct, as said in the video, if a parameter can vary on a range of possibilities, if it cannot be shown to be _"maximal"_ then it is arbitrary (this is the definition given by Josh).
Maximal could be then linked with *"perfection"* .
*-"how is it supposed to be limiting to be the sole omnipotent being in existence?"*
It's limiting in the sense explained above, if it isn't _"maximal"_ then it is arbitrary.
And that seems pretty counter intuitive to me that the number "1" would be _"maximal"_ as compared to all other natural integers...
A maximal number would be, in my opinion (in my intuition), an "unlimited" number, which would precisely be something that could be ANY number, including the different kinds of infinity. Same thing for dimensions.
I loved this. I love Josh and his work, and Joe is excellent!
If the "fundamental reality" must not be limited, doesn't that mean that it must be infinite ?
In particular, in number ? If the "fundamental reality" is one, or unique, isn't that arbitrarily limitating ? Shouldn't it be unlimited in number ? Which is : infinite in number ?
1 is unlimited and infinite.
@@achyuthcn2555 19:11 _"Arbitrariness, as a degree that's a non maximal parameter where reason doesn't preclude greater and lesser than degrees of that"_
Reason doesn't preclude that "fundamental reality" be _"greater than"_ 1. Therefore 1 is _"arbitrary"_ unless 1 can be shown to be _"maximal"_ ... Which should be rejected by anyone who understands what the natural numbers are...
@@MrGustavier Reality is 1.
@@achyuthcn2555 .... Sure.... But then, "reality" is fundamental... Right ?
You understand that they talk about the "fundamental reality", not reality itself... Right ?
@@MrGustavier, Fundamental reality is the only reality.
Thanks for these awesome videos, Cameron. Only gripe is you input and maybe talk too much, let the guest explain the tenants of the arguments. Otherwise thanks for putting these 2 great minds together.
Awesome discussion
If Joe Schmid could put on his Oppy voice every time he puts on his Oppy hat, this video would be 1000 x's better.
If there's a standard that the Trinity is not perfect it would need to be measured by some higher standard. Where would that come from?
Is there anywhere to see the premises laid out to analyze?
Josh lays it out around the 21:00 mark
Classical version (from Value/Greatness), outline:
1. Assume there is a fundamental (=unexplained) reality, N.
2. Limits (non-maximal degrees) are explained.
3. Therefore, if N has a degree of greatness, its greatness is not arbitrarily (inexplicably) limited.
4. N has some greatness.
5. Therefore, N’s greatness is not arbitrarily limited.
6. If N’s greatness is not arbitrarily limited, then N is (in some sense) perfect.
7. Therefore, N is (in some sense) perfect.
@@MajestyofReason Thanks, Joe! This really helps to analyze the argument and follow along with the discussion.
@@MajestyofReason hey Joe, what do you think about the response to the trinity objection that would cite the doctrine of eternal generation of the son and the Holy Spirit by the father? That way, there might be some “limit” but it’s perhaps not arbitrary then?
Thanks!
Joe & Josh - Nick at Night Season 3
I wish that in the trinity part of the discussion they had engaged with the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son and the Holy Spirit and how that might interact with the alleged arbitrary limit in the fact that there are 3 persons in God.
@@CMVMic ok lol
@@CMVMic average stage cage atheist
@@CMVMic not very cage stage
I think he's basically just saying any model of the universe you can give him he'll classify as arbitrary
You gotta get James Rochford on here man. That dude KNOWS his stuff.
Too smart for me lol
I’d like to point out to Schmidt if I could that he is saying he doesn’t see truth as inherently valuable. To my mind that would disqualify him from being called a philosopher. If you don’t enjoy the taste of truth, if you don’t hunger for it, lust for it, need and value it, then how can you be said to love wisdom?
Funny, because i think only a true philosopher would question the value of truth itself.
Why do we constantly have to speculate and make theories on whether a god or gods exist...? If they existed, wouldn't logic dictate that we would have solid evidence for it? Also, who is to say a god or gods existed at one point but no longer do? What suggests they're inherently all powerful, immortal, and all-knowing? These are real questions we need to be asking instead of making such insane assumptions based on one's preferred religious tradition. I'd love for a god to exist and for there to be an afterlife. The sad part is, my years of searching led me to the conclusion that it is not the reality of the situation. All I chased was met with silence, confusion, and frustration at the end of the day...nothing profound or spiritual happened and I have an inkling it was because I didn't prime my brain to expect something supernatural. Those who want or expect a supernatural experience will likely get one because they've tricked their brain to create it for them.
Bro you could have simply just commented “Where is God in sense experience?”
You seem to have been chasing the idea of God according to Plato or Augustine… nothing more, nothing less.
what do you even mean by god here?
If we need to convince ourselves that God exists by arguing, then most probably God doesn't exist.
that's just fallacious reasoning
@@tld2972,Might be fallacious, but shows shallowness in theism.
If we need to convince ourselves that the earth is round by arguing, then probably the earth isn't round
@@kylealandercivilianname2954 haha
@@achyuthcn2555 I don't want to insult you by implying you sincerely believe the statement you just made
The correct title of the video must be:
Joe ripping apart Josh's weak argument from limits
That’s not really true though, mostly it was Joe discussing that he doesn’t necessarily share many of the intuitions that the argument relies on, not that the intuitions are wrong or unreasonable.
another day, another internet atheist who seems to prioritize edgy comments over discussion of the argument
@@sneakysnake2330 that's pretty much the main objection people use. To be hyper skeptical of all first principle assumptions and intuitions. That way you save your ego from having to admit you were wrong. It's pretty pointless discussing with such people who just go I'm not convinced to pretty much everything even their own existence.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf "Secondly, Joe saying particle wave function doesn't have any value seems like a bizarre claim to me"
Do you think it would have value on it's own even if no one values it? If so, what does it mean to say that something has value if no one values it?
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Assuming Josh's definition of value, what reason is there to think that a particle wave function would be more likely to have value than to not have value?
what a load of nonsens... Do you ever really listens to your selves...😂