Answering Joe Schmid’s criticisms of my case for God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- In this week’s rebuttal video Trent responds to a critique Joe Schmid offered of the case he made in his previous debate on the existence of God with Alex O’Connor.
Original video: • A Demonstration of God...
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Divine simplicity and the trinity:
www.classicalth...
credomag.com/a...
UPDATE: I just became aware of the response Joe made on 08/28/21 to my remarks in my recent debate with Ben Watkins. Some of those points in his video would probably include his replies to my replies in this video. We are currently in dialogue about how to move forward in our disagreement, possibly with a public dialogue and/or book project. Stay tuned :-)
UPDATE: I just became aware of the response Joe made on 08/28/21 to my remarks in my recent debate with Ben Watkins (which I don't cover in this video). Some of those points in his video would probably include his replies to my replies in this video. We are currently in dialogue about how to move forward in our disagreement, possibly with a public dialogue and/or book project. Stay tuned :-)
Oh a book?
You look like you are doing much better. I hope so. He may have spilled the beans on his channel about a possibe debate. Also I love how charitable you to are. Joe Schmidt is the ideal Agnostic.
A book would be really good. Joe is awesome. Though formidable, probably the best dialogue partner any Christian apologist could have.
@@AlexADalton A book would certainly be great.
I vote for public discussion.
Just finished reading Case for Catholicism, Trent. I'm converting to the Catholic faith this Easter largely because of yourself, having been Protestant all my life. God bless you and your work.
Thanks be to God!
Welcome Home
@Alexander Harding. Welcome home brother! Thank you for not hardening your heart to Catholicism when you first started your journey! From a Buddhist/ Taoist convert to the Catholic faith.
Welcome brother!
Im converting this easter too!
Praise God.
Thanks Trent
Can't wait for a 30 hour response video
😅
Nah, only a 3 hour and 45 minute one.
Thanks for this! I'll be watching this weekend [got classes this week], and then I'll respond in the coming weeks! Much love
Try to keep it short, Joe. 😅
@@IWasOnceAFetus He talks at Ben Shapiro speed, so I think he will probably be fairly quick.
@@petery6432 I usually speed videos up but it's hard to keep up with the likes of Joe. 😁
@@petery6432
He is a young agnostic Ben Shapiro, but his talks are usually 2-4 hours.
@@JP-rf8rr what are his politics
Hi Trent, Protestant here, considering converting to Catholicism. You and others have made a persuasive case for Catholicism, debunking many of the Protestant lies and misinterpretations.
Thanks be to God, I will pray for your discernment!
Thanks for keeping an open mind, friend! Hopefully you’re finding the knowledge you need to help you make a decision. Don’t be afraid to ask questions or seek out more satisfactory answers if something doesn’t seem right. It’s about a 2,000 year old religion, so hopefully the answer is scattered somewhere in there 😅
I love listening to people like Trent as well, even as a cradle Catholic. It’s always fun to learn new things about the faith 😇 Praying you reach a fulfilling decision 🙏
Protestants don’t lie or misinterpret
That’s just bad faith coming from you
Yes. As a protestant I slowly realized everything I believed about catholicism was infact taught to me by a protestant... I woke up one day and decided a catholic instead .. and we'll, here I am an eastern rite catholic.
The RCC's view of the church is completely at odds with the NT. It is the Scripture, and it alone, that is the guide for all Christians. The church on earth must submit to the Scriptures.
In addition , the idea that the RCC is the church that Christ setup, and that all believers must submit to it, is also rejected in the Scriptures in the strongest possible manner.
The RCC bears no resemblance to the church which is portrayed in the NT. Their view is only obtainable if one approaches the Scriptures with such rigid theological misconceptions that they must “mis-interpret” these verses to conform it to their own theological system.
Kory, If you are absolutely commit yourself to the LITERAL, GRAMMATICAL, HISTORICAL HERMENEUTIC you will be able to understand the "Full Counsel of God" and come to the conclusion the church is not the RCC.
KEY POINT: Literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic is the same approach used in ordinary communication. In fact American jurisprudence rests upon this interpretive approach.
The dictionary defines literal interpretation that is "based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning...not beyond the facts.
In addition, it should be noted in passing that literal interpretation has been unfairly criticised on the basis that it adheres to a wooden, inflexible literalism that fails to allow for types, symbols, figures of speech and genre distinctions. Literalism does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation.
It is not too difficult to account for the widespread approval of the spiritualizing or allegorizing method adopted by many conservative theologians as well as liberal and ROMAN CATHOLIC expositors. Fundamentally its charm lies in its flexibility. The interpreter can change the literal and grammatical sense of Scripture to make it coincide with it own system of interpretation.
Shalom
Gotta love how Trent doesn't even need to speed up Joe's video since he already speaks at x1.25-x1.5 speed.
Fr. Pine asked Joe Schmid "what do you actually think?" in their discussion/debate, and Joe didn't have a coherent answer. He likes to put forth various arguments and play the skeptic, but doesn't really put forth a definitive idea of his own. That's fine given his age and continuing education, but deconstruction without construction gets tiresome and boring after a while.
and what do you propose? because you just deconstructed him…
@@vfjpl1 I propose that he tell us his actual beliefs, rather than reciting various arguments in pure skepticism. I thought that was implicit in my comment.
That's all modern atheists, it's a system that doesn't even get off the ground or look at its own history.
Well he does take his agnosticism seriously...
Yeah. Joe is a charlatan. He isn't interested in Truth. He just plays these games for fun and to masturbate his ego. I mean, it's good to have someone like this to ensure that our arguments are strong, but the smug agnosticism is so off-putting and reeks of cowardice and a refusal to examine himself with the same rigor that he applies to arguments for/against God.
Rebuttal videos are the best videos.
You look like you are feeling much better. This is a double listen video just to wrap my head around it.
I would strongly recommend the Thomistic Institute's Aquinas 101 series if you want to go deeper into metaphysics.
The unique topic I would be able to debate Trent Horn and challenge him even harder on that, is whether Trent Horn knows me more than I know myself. For the rest, I wouldn't really dare even in my most audacious dreams. Haha.
I'm so pumped to listen to this! While you yourself are well aware of sophisticated forms of Agnosticism and Atheism that Joe outlines in his rebuttal, I'm glad your audience will also get a chance to see what a thoughtful critique of Classical Theism entails as well. As you and Joe both expressed at the beginning of the video, hopefully, this can contribute to raising the dialogue on these perennial matters. Looking forward to more future engagements on this and beyond.
You are so so better than other atheists I have seen. Sometimes I feel, you are glorifying God too, but in a different way.
See ya, peace. :)
1:01:21 the issue here is that Joe's argument against the position that the universe cannot be necessary if it came into existence is that he's interpreting necessity as modal necessity. He's right that modal necessity is perfectly compatible with something's coming into existence (imagine that necessitarianism is true and this is the only possible world. We would all be modally necessary but we all obviously came into existence, so we are still ontologically contingent beings), but the kind of necessity that one is trying to get across when one says that the universe cannot be necessary if it begins to exist is ontological necessity, so I think Joe is missing the point here.
A series of rebuttals is superior to a live debate.
A live debate becomes more about performance ad personality than content.
This video was so very telling, it very much seems as tho Joe will never be a theist unless there is a "knock-down" proof that is created, its fascinating, so long as he can dream up something possible that is contrary to Trents argument it falls totally flat for Joe....I loved when you said "Possibility is not the same thing as probability", it seems Joe cares more about what could be possible rather then what is probable, you guys are coming from two completely different places, it's so fascinating lol
If you give me all of your money i can make you millions! Don't be overly skeptical or harden your heart, i can do this, you just need to have faith. You don't need proof, I'm telling you its true!
I struggled some time with the argument from motion exactly because of existential innertia, although I had no idea how to call it or how to express my thoughts. I'm so glad I've watched this video, because Schmid explained it much better than I ever could and Trent gave a great answer.
I love MoR. He really seems to argue his stance from good faith, unlike so many atheists. It’s the true passion of a geeky philosopher that simply loves engaging with ideas and you see that in Joe’s ecstatic smile when he talks about this stuff. Really hope to see more secularists like himself adopt such an honest and humble stance, instead of the provocative, polemic one we usually see.
I like he's agnosticsm
Nah. He's an arrogant charlatan not interested in Truth. He masturbates his ego.
I couldnt agree more (as an atheist). I am very tired of the Dillahunty-esk approach of fallacy hunting and cliche responses that fail to take the intricacies of specific and unique theistic arguements into account that has dominated the atheist community (at least in the popular apologetic space) for the last 10 years or so. Not to say that such approaches are entirely meritless, but I am generally of the opinion that both the theistic arguements and the atheist responses deserve more respect and better philosophical treatment than most people outside acedemia are willing to impart.
Thank you, Trent. Great content.
Dang, Trent is really smart.
I can imagine the look on their faces when they meet their creator face to face.
God has a face?
@@nsinkovyes. Brown beard, long brown hair.
Was afraid you never would do this. Cool!
I want Trent Vs Joe schmid debate...it will be a legendary debate.
I had no idea you were so proficient in Thomistic philosophy, Trent. Well done. An excellent response, I just wish these sorts of issues could be resolved between the classical theists and non-classical theists.
Ok, I thought I was a little smart, but my brain feels like it's melting. I'll keep trying to think tomorrow.
Trent, do you edit your videos? Shooting a 2 hr video and editing is must be super tiring. Thanks so much for the quality content!
He even said at the beginning he edited in the debate video in himself
Thank you Trent..And God Bless you.
I like Joe. I will try to set aside 2.5 hours to watch. Thanks Trent
Only need half that, Trent at 2x is Joe at 1x
Good point about necessary existence. Our universe is not a necessary existent because it did not always exist in its current form. This can be expanded.
The Lord GOD is my help,
therefore I am not disgraced;
I have set my face like flint,
knowing that I shall not be put to shame.
He is near who upholds my right;
if anyone wishes to oppose me,
let us appear together.
Who disputes my right?
Let that man confront me.
See, the Lord GOD is my help;
who will prove me wrong? - Is 50: 7-9a
I have to admit much of what it said in this video I don't understand. The terms being used are way above my head. God bless you Trent and everything you do for the Faith.
I'm not really seeing where his problem with the unactualized actualizer is. If the series originates with an entity that is changeable, what gave it that potential? I'm not sure if he's representing the "problems" the best, but he offers no real objection to "ok, and what causes that" where it's back to the infinite regress.
20:28 I would add that Triangles have many necessary properties that are not self evident yet follow from the definition of a triangle. That the sum any triangles interior angles is 180° or π radians. In an a similar way what we can know about God leads to knowing other truths about God, even if these truths are not self evident or obvious about God
You have to find a 'truth' about God first. Which cannot - read that again - CANNOT be done either theologically (that would violate the theological concept of God) or practically (since we would then BE God).
This is a tautology. And one with an extremely small turning circle. Most things have attributes that aren't "self" evident (which means evident to the eyes, btw, in this context and so is pitifully unhelpful). And we can still measure, assess and learn from them. They are also second-order pieces of information.
A triangle has three line segments touching in sequence in a closed structure. You cannot make anything other than a triangle (with all of its 'non-self-evident attributes) with those criteria. Those other 'truths' are not even 'discovered' truths. They are a result of covering the first three criteria (three.. haha).
@@AmadeusD Didn't you just try to give me a truth about God. That we cannot find any truths about God. How is that statement not contradictory? Please define your terms. It also seems you have arrived at this conclusion by considering a concept of God and then reasoning from it to other truths. That is all my analogy with triangles was meant to show.
I'm unsure how you got this quite so badly wrong, but let's try sort it for you:
No. No I didn't. At all. Your position means you believe that anything neutral is anti. I said we can't know any truths about God. That ISN'T A TRUTH ABOUT GOD. It's a truth a bout US. This is plain and simple English and not even a philosophical sticking point. I hope that's now clear. True about US doesn't denote truth about others. Which i was actually pretty careful to leave open. Knowing that we CANNOT know anything true about God, has NOTHING to do with whether God exists or that that are, or are not, any truths about said God.
I do not need to define any of these terms. The specific instances of God are irrelevant and Truth has only one definition (notice i used a capital T).
You've left a glaring, problematic implicit bias in your response:
"In an a similar way what we can know about God leads to knowing other truths about God, even if these truths are not self evident or obvious about God"
I responded to THIS. It is absolute nonsense unless you ALREADY buy the axiom that God exists, and we can know Truth's about it.
We don't even know that it exists. We CAN"T know that it exists. That is literally hte nature of God. It is transcendent and cannot be access via empirical means.
Your position is meaningless because God is not an axiomatic all-starter like 'the triangle' is. Whether or not a triangle 'exists' it is knowable, Even if it's an invention, it is knowable to us. God is not (which is a comment on US, not God). This is why the Bible. We cannot know God. We can only know human approximations of God. Because humans are... well, not God.
@@AmadeusD Are you limiting knowledge to what can be empirically gained or observed? Why? Are you advocating for a kind of scientism?
@@jeremysmith7176 not all knowledge is Truth. Knowledge of Truth is what’s relevant.
Nice tho, that took me a second to realise it was obfuscation :p
great stuff. I have been listening to this for two days as it's a bit too deep for me to absorb in one session. I will probably need another two days to finish it. Then I cannot wait to hear Joe's response.
I was waiting for you to reply.
2:03:10 I would say in response to Schmid's first point that non-personal forces or objects are only ever acted upon by some external force or cause. They cannot turn potential into actuality without being actualized by something else. Employing such an impersonal force as the necessary cause for all reality would result in an infinite regress in the logical past, since it would obey event causation. But the entire point is that this unmoved mover is the beginning of all causal change, and that it must be able to actualize without being actualized by something else. It must therefore have a personhood and will that is independent of anything else, starting every causal chain with agent causation
Furthermore if the first cause were an impersonal force, then it would be completely inexplicable as to why it caused the universe in a certain way, or at a certain time. It would be just as inexplicable as if the universe had had no cause whatsoever.
Wouldn't the timeline being capable of repairing itself be evidence of it being a designed system or a controlled system? How would time stop you from killing your grandfather? How would it "know" that you can't?
Yeah, I found that strange too
But you can kill your grandfather, just not prior to you being born, let alone before your father was born. Existence doesn't need to know, only remain self-consistent, until it doesn't and that might mean we wouldn't be here to 🤔 ponder such.
@@Fastlan3 I accept that theoretically you could kill your grandfather after your parent was born. However, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism that could correct for it if you attempted to kill him too early.
I’m really looking forward to that abortion debate that is coming up with you and another pro-choice philosopher.
This is just Hume with extra steps. The first way is still undefeated
All 5 ways are undefeated my guy.
To me, it looks like Feser is living rent free in Schmids head lmao.
28:05 Joe's argument is limited to a domain of discourse. God can change, but does not have to change a thing when observing it. A quantum interpretation is that "we change what we observe". This is not a necessity, but could be assumed to be necessary. Uncertainty is based on the contingency of impulse. For a given impulse, there can be a given response. The assumption is that an impulse must be imposed on the observable in order to observe it. Light hitting an electron will elicit a response.
The "unchanged changer" argument is not necessary, otherwise God must be involved in all of what happens, rather than being an observer of all that happens. This is a point of objection for those who consider God as being limited to a single mode: changer or observer. God can be either or both. I have heard arguments that assume God can't purely observe.
Joe is a non serious child who is full of arguments. He lacks conviction because it is all a game. I think Trent has spent too much time on Joes undergrad mind mush. Let him grow up. joes non reflective prattle ought be given short shift until he backs up his skepticism with substance. In essence, Joe is a shallow Hume imitation
WELL SAID. He is a petulant, immature charlatan.
I can't be the only one who, at first glance at the thumbnail, thought Trent was making a video about Tom Holland. XD
EXCELLENT VIDEO!!!!
Sounds like Joe is a bit too far into subjectivism.
Hi Trent, are you familiar with The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament by Joshua Aaron Bowen? You should do a rebuttal of it when you have time.
I have been waiting for this just finished Joe's video on you. You should go on his channel for an open discussion sometime.
24:45 I’m not sure if your reply works here, Trent. You raise the objection that we don’t observe material objects really going out of existence, but only observe fundamental particles changing locations, and therefore we can’t imagine these particles not existing. Your reply is that we can and do imagine these fundamental particles being all differently kinds of shapes, sizes, and configurations in actual scientific theories, and therefore we can imagine them not existing. But all these theories would show is that the properties of shape, size, and configuration of these particles are not necessary. This does not show that the particles’ existence is an unnecessary property. Indeed, in all these theories, the particles putatively exist, and therefore all retain the property of existence. We have yet to invent a theory of particles where the particles don’t exist. Furthermore, this treats existence as a property, which I believe is one of the main reasons most philosophers reject Anselm’s ontological argument. But Trent’s argument seems to treat existence as a property as well.
Thanks much for this video.
Keep going, Trent!
Here from New Zealand 🇳🇿 I couldn’t sleep it’s 2am on 31/8/2021. I watched the whole thing. Great talk Trent horn and joe sounded like Ben Shapiro. But I actually felt like I was there in the US watching them live! And then I woke up. It’s 7.40am now here in NZL. God bless you Trent horn 🙏👏❤️🇳🇿👍😊
A triangle is an abstract object with generic properties. Each and every triangle must be defined.
It's criminal that Schmids channel is still so undersubscribed. It's great to see big names interacting with him. I'm guessing in time he'll eclipse the other atheist leaning channels.
Joe is extremely overrated lol, what did he bring to the table that Oppy hasnt? Except for 3 hours videos, which i cant bother to listen for more than 10 minutes because they just fly in every direction?
@@floydthomas4195I can't bear him lol, he always use this incomprehensible word salad for 1 hour that can be simplified to 15 minutes and keeps repeating himself in different ways
Hmm, this is like a whole annual subject for a degree in Philosophy in a good university. It will take years for my mind to absorb everything...
“You can’t use hypotheticals to show that a certain physical reality is impossible because then I can just imagine a world with no moral good” is a such a radically pants-on-head argument.
24:30 We don't know if the fundamental particles can fail to exist or be different. It is possible that some (maybe unknown) mathematical equations make this particular set of particles a metaphysical necessity. Imagine if the mass of the electron was 2x greater. This imagination doesn't make this change possible. Maybe this change in mass is mathematically impossible.
Secular history and looking outside yourself is classic theology. Divine Allegory not seen in you will Wake you up and can't judge anymore. Imagination is God in man not outside in churches.
In arguing for the possibility of multiple unactualized actualizers, each limited to a certain causal chain, Schmid seems to be doing something tantamount to claiming the possibility of isolated pockets of omnipresence.
Joe Schmid looks like a mixture of Toby Maguire and Tom Holland:
Change my mind
Trent, I'll grant a necessary being (to exist). I just say, the necessary being is probably quantum fields (QF) the thing that manifests all time/space/energy/matter from itself not from nothing and doesn't seem to be conscious. If you want to say QF is God, I'm fine with that as QF doesn't seem conscious. If you ask why QF manifested this reality instead of another, the answer is the same as God...their necessary natures and there is no possible further explanation. You can try to tease out further arguments for consciousness, but no one really knows what consciousness really is and you would just be anthropomorphically the necessary being. It is the same as people a long time ago did...what caused the lightning? A God?
If something exists in all possible worlds, it must exist at all times because if their are infinite world's then there must be a world that is exactly the same except for the time, and therefore, a world exists identical to your world at every point in time. Thus, the being must exist at all times.
I don't know about that, in each world the MGB would still exist in the present so I don't think that would be a good indicator
I would argue that a world with different time would be physically impossible. Thus, not a possible world, so the argument holds.
I had to double take the thumbnail, I thought that was Tom Holland at first lol
Ok but… what the hell are these theoretical fire beings that Schmid is positing?? 😂
Any quantum scientist can confirm... Matter is always changing.
Can someone explain to me in simple terms how a limit entails a potential? Sadly Trent's explanation went over my head.
A limit implies a definition, that is to say the category of the thing, meaning it's information about what a being is and also about what it _can't_ be.
There isn't anything that a purely actual being isn't already because it has no potential, so it must also be true that it's limitless
@@Qwerty-jy9mj let me see if I understand. Limits inform us of our nature or what species we are. Limits are used to inform us of what something is and what's something is not. For example, my limitation of not being able to fly informs us on my nature and the species I'm apart of. The limit provides us with information of what I can be and what I can't be. God is pure existence/actuality thus he can't have potentials/absences of existence. Because he has no potentials God is everything he can be, which makes him limitless or unlimited. If we say he has a limit then we contradict the idea of God being everything he could be thus giving him a potential that can't be actualized.
@@YovanypadillaJr
Yes that's pretty much what I was trying to say
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I see. Would you also we can't say God has limitations because he doesn't have a nature and if we did say he had limitations that would make him a being a some sort?
@@YovanypadillaJr
I wouldn't use the word "nature" since that's exactly how we talk about the incarnation and Jesus having 2 natures, a human and a divine one so the divine nature must exist. Not only that, just metaphysically speaking to say something is but has no nature is kind of an empty statement.
Instead the nature of God is to be, to explain existence. For something to explain existence it can't have accidental properties otherwise that would condition what could or couldn't come into existence
I was wondering if some people should've realized that non-religious is not synonymous with atheism? Because there are plenty of "non-religious theists" who do exist.
Did they just seriously wanna believe that non-religious people are some kind of a monolithic group?
In the thumbnail he looks like Bully Maguire
Tom Holland 😂😂😂
Trent please refute Tovia Singer and other rabbis on Jesus being the Messiah. In many of his mythvision videos he warps understanding of scriptures, councils and dogmas with much mis/disinformation. Thank you very much sir
@Roger Mills Jesus is Lord. All nations now worship Jesus.The Glory cloud has left the Jews for over 2000 years and they can’t figure out why.
Psalm 118:22 makes it obvious
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone”
Genesis 49:10
The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until he to whom it belongs shall come
and the obedience of the nations shall be his.
Accept Jesus since He is your Messiah and it’s good news for Jews since they no longer have to wait - He has come and already established His kingdom - the Holy Catholic Church.
@Roger Mills The Glory cloud has left you for over 2000 years. The Jews no longer have sacrifice which means they don't have proper worship. You can come with all excuses you want, but your position makes no sense. God has left the old covenant.
Even your Babylonian Talmud in Sanhedrin 98b has Rabbi Sheila saying that Genesis 49:10 is a Messianic Psalm. So, it's not cherry-picking at all.
Even your Rabbi Rashi (whose writings have appeared in every Talmud edition published since the 1520s ) wrote
"Rashi on Micah 5:1:3
from you shall emerge for Me-the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture says (Ps. 118:22): “The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.”"
This is good news for you though. Since your Messiah has already come and He loves you! Jesus is LORD!
The channel "Dr. Michael Brown" has already refuted Tovia Singer in videos and his massive serie "Answering jewish objections about Jesus".
Brown is a former rabbinic jew.
@Roger Mills did you watch the link i sent you?
@Kool whip bro don't worrying because toviah singer already reputed the charlatan...
Trent, I’m grateful for all the words that you’ve spoken and enlightened us. Glory be to God who has appointed men like you to do such wonderful defensive work in favour of God. I wonder why you haven’t become a Catholic Priest! Do you have any specific reasons for it?
He's married with children, so the priesthood is not an option for him right now
@@phoult37 Thanks, brother.
@@CanisDei Also you don't have to be a priest to be well studied in the Catholic faith.
I hope for a clarification from Trent if you see this and have the time: I think I have a version of the paper passer paradox that does show there's either a problem with the thought experiment itself or that it also shows there is just as much of a problem with humans having an infinite future with immortal souls:
Suppose Paper Passers operate as Trent describe them, except that they don't bother to look at the paper they receive because God tells them either that it is blank or what is written on it. The paper passer then gets out a fresh piece of paper and writes down the number that he was told by God (or if God told him the received page was blank, the paper passer writes down his own unique number).
(at this point, the actual passing is unimportant, the paper could just be tossed since God will be supplying the information of what is written on it. There just needs to be a 'paper passer of the year' still selected by some means, even if their name is now inacurate)
At this point, the outcome is still the same, the paper passer is prepared to pass on a paper that has either the number that was written on it the previous year, or his own unique number if there was nothing written on last year's paper.
Now, there still seems to be the problem, to quote Trent from the Alex O'Connor debate, "There is a piece of paper that arrives in the present that isn't devoid of numbers, but also can't have any particular number written on it," and I certainly can't answer that question, but...
HERE'S THE PROBLEM: What if the system is exactly the same except that God doesn't tell the paper passer what was written on last year's paper, but what will be written on next year's paper?
If God was willing to supply the information every year, there doesn't seem to be any reason that a human or group of humans couldn't form a society of 'paper passers' that write down the number that will be written down next year (or however time might be sequenced following the Resurrection), or if blank their own number; nor any reason said society couldn't continue the practice infinitely into the future. So we still end with God not failing to give a number, but it also can't be any particular number.
If the paradox shows that we can't have an infinite past, does it also show that we can't have an infinite future? Or that an omniscient God can fail to know who will be the 'paper passer of the year' on every future year?
What am I missing? I don't think anything I changed in the experiment makes it dis-analogous to the original. It seems to rely only on information that classical theism would assert that God necessarily knows. Further, unlike the original version, it doesn't propose a type of being that we are saying can exist hypothetically, but uses humans as we believe they do exist.
31:45 derivatively*?
You can't patch two worlds together in which the tallest person in each world are now both the tallest person in this new merger world?
Really?
What if they're the same height?
You missed the point. If they are both the same height, they are taller than everyone else, sure, but none of then is the tallest of all people.
👌🙏
The problem I have with Philosophy is people generally use it to sound smarter than someone else and justify their life styles. Also you can worm your way out of stuff by just throwing in doubt or disregarding arguments.
I feel like philosophy is as depressing as it is beautiful for that very reason. It's hard to tell if you're right about anything when so many wrong ideas sound "smart."
Isn’t contingency a function of time? For contingent things, there is a before and after. Yet when speaking of the creation of the Universe, you are not only talking about mass and energy, but all its dimensions, including Time. The dimension of time is continuous with space. Time itself began 13.8 billion years ago. Asking what was before (what created) the Creator of Time is a nonsense question, it seems to me
Even time is contingent because, in some possible worlds, God didn't create anything.
Limitation and potential are the same really. The limit is just the potential to be. If you’re limited to being a cheetah, then you only have the potential to be a cheetah.
This makes sense of what Horn was trying to say. So thank you.
Sorry, I thought you were rebutting "Joe Schmoe" and who cares about what Joe Schmoe says?
Where exactly would the paper passers branch of the actual history? Any place picked will be a finite distance away from the present. I don't see how Trent's objection works here.
Also, ininital world segment can be a segment of infinite length so there is no problem with having something initial in that way on an infinite past view.
Nah
Can you and how seriously just making shorter videos? It's objectively hard to process this and feels not good on both sides. Experts can condense
The torture world is possible, but because of God it's not actual. That doesn't really pertain to his argument at all...
Aw hell yah.
Thank you, Mr. Horn. When I first listened to Mr. Schmid, I thought I was nearly stupid.
I like Schmid, but I’ve found he unnecessarily complicates his language.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 I don't mind the jargon, but he talks too fast for me.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Classic philosophy move. Complicate language and concepts to hide your arguments instead of explaining them.
Reminds me of the dialogue between Ed Feser and Graham Oppy
@@ironymatt I wish Dr. Feser would debate divine simplicity with Dr. William Lane Craig.
I feel like a baboon not being able to understand all this.
I get what you mean but there is a lot jargon being used and assumed references and knowledge that puffs it all up. Regardless, there needs to be something with the Power to hold up reality as we know it, that itself is uncaused (regardless of the specific powers of each unit in the causal chain themselves). This is by necessity , and that we call God. It might sound glib, but that's good enough for me, based on common sense. I am not the smartest person in the world, but the more I think about it, nor do I want to be. It seems to me really really smart people work themselves into a bind of their own doing. I believe Schmid is doing just that here.
@@aloyalcatholic5785 I agree with this completely. The common sense approach is often enough for me, but now and again I do enjoy learning from the knowledge gained by those wiser than me in this debate. However, I am starting to realize that this debate may never end with both parties satisfied. This is the problem with the finite mind trying to comprehend the infinite. It is like attempting to count pi, or filling the ocean in a little bucket. We may get ever closer as time progresses, and that’s interesting to witness, but through knowledge alone we cannot fully comprehend God, and thus through logic we can only get so far, and convince only so many. At some point raw faith is required
I'd like to see more non-believers be confronted with things like the Tilma from Our Lady of Guadalupe. That's the kind of evidence that stops you dead in your tracks, no matter how sound your arguments against the existence of God are. It's kind of a shame not to include that sort of thing in your apologetic efforts.
Hey, Catholic here. I don’t know much about Guadalupe, but I’d love you to point me in the right direction! I’d love to read about the kind of evidence you talk about. Bless
It is kinda weird that us Catholics don’t point to things like Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Eucharistic miracles as prove of God. Though I wonder if the idea is to have a more “blessed are those who believe without seeing” conversion. 🤔
One thing to remember is that even Jesus’s disciples and followers didn’t think he was the Messiah even after of all his miracle healings and feeding of the thousands. People have their way of denying denying truth even when it’s staring at them in the face.
@@edwardm9177
There are many videos about it online!
Apologetics is concerned with being able to defend the faith with common grounds. If one doesn’t accept that miracles can happen (like a naturalist would say), merely appealing to miracles would make the discussion drag out more. It’s better to establish common grounds that are important for the arguments and then use those to develop the arguments ultimately.
@@friendly_user1233 Being presented with a miraculous image that has undergone scientific investigation is the common ground. Literally every single person confronted with it must choose what to make of it. Someone's refusal to recognize the image as miraculous doesn't exclude them from its reality. It's precisely the type of thing we should be sharing with others. Jesus performed miracles to bolster people's faith, to prove His divinity. A miracle such as this puts a stopper in all the silly dialogue where each side gets to sound super eloquent and sophisticated with their arguments. The miracle speaks for itself and, at the end of the day, is quite undeniable.
10:47 Criticizes Trent for not saying "it seems to me", and "objectifying his sight".
1:38:30 "As we saw", "he did not establish",
@@robertbutchko5066 It's really just context, and spirit.
If someone is engaging with you in good faith, then you should engage with them in good faith. If they're engaging with you in bad faith, then you should point that out. "Objectifying sight" is something we should all seek to be doing, for if we're not conforming our understanding to reality, then we're not engaged in seeking Truth. However it should not be _you_ who determines if you're succeeding at that (in some sense), and as long as everyone in the conversation is aware of this, euphemisms and colloquial speech are fine. It is only when things become contentious that we have to fall back to strict formality and tradition, in order to maintain civility.
Bro, I feel SO stupid every time I listen to you. But, keep punching. Your doing an awesome job defending the Faith
I’m very, very bad at (classical) logic, reasoning, and rhetoric. I say classical because I’d say in the last…. oh…. 100 years? It’s slowly turned into a “pseudo-philosophical” mess. I can recognize the difference between the two, but my brain still is not good at practicing it.
At 21:00, so the difference is that there is a definition of God such that he is defined as necessarily existing. So asking why he exists would be as weird as asking why the triangle has 3 sides.
Two responses
1. It seems to me that if you met a God that had everything else that you thought were true about God (rising Jesus, creating time/space being omnipotent omniscient etc) but he told you that he has an explanation for his existence I think you'd still consider him God. That's a guess on my part but it would seem strange if you didn't.
2. Couldn't someone retort "if what you mean by universe is the set/collection of all contingent things then it follows from the very intuitive notion that sets can't contain themselves that the collection isn't contingent"
So the difference between the 2 tallest people and the paper-passer is that you just don't see the contradiction as clearly in the paper-passer setup. That seems to be quite subjective.
It does seem that Trent is saying that having a bunch of perfect paper passers isn't a problem.
What I have a problem with is asking what is written in the paper. He's essentially asking what the first element of a series which has no beginning is.
yeah 56:00 minutes in schmid is more sympathetic to the neo classical view of god that craig josh rasmussen ryan mullins etc holds to. But God did create man in his own image so wouldn't that sugest a superman like person as god isn't as farfetched
The imago dei refers to our ability to reason, not our physical appearance.
Rasmussen is not a neoclassical theist. In his book he says "The foundation has a purely actual nature" (Rasmussen in "How Reason Can Lead to God: A Philosopher's Bridge to Faith", ch. 11. That is a characteristic of a classical conception of God.
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed
if that is so, it means there has always been energy. In other words, it has been there eternally. And if that's the case, it must have been contained within something, like an universe. So whether or not a big bang occurred, some sort of universe was always there to contain the energy
......And thus, no "creator" required
So the universe created itself, and has always been, and will always will be...sounds like you are just replacing "God" with "universe"
If energy has always been there, it doesnt have a beginning. It never "created itself" The same could apply for a type of universe.
Or if you prefer, insert "god" in there. The difference however is that we know energy defo exists, we dont know a god does. Hence, no creator needed
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 No no creator needed, since matter just "appeared." You can play word games all you want, but the simple fact is the principle of causation means the universe and matter in it came from something. Your position here just punts on first cause without attempting to explain it.
No, I prefaced by initial comment by "if that is so".
If energy has always been there, then a creator couldn't have created it....cause creation needs the concept of "what came before"
So if u accept the 1st principle of Thermodynamics, u have to accept that a creator didn't create energy
QED
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 False dichotomy. The first law of thermodynamics explains energy as it exists, not its origin. The first law does not say energy "has always been there," simply that energy transfers. I can accept the first law of thermodynamics and also accept God as the primary cause of the universe and matter. There is a reason prominent non-theist philosophers don't use your argument...its' not good.
45:03 why would two purely actual beings have to belong to a common genus or species?
I think only if you want to say that they can interact with each other in terms of Cambridge or relational properties, then they should belong to the same genus. Otherwise, no. Two different and 100 percent actual things do not belong to the same genus by definition.
Or they are fully actual in the same respect and could influence each other indirectly on a third medium. They would belong to the same genus from our point of view, but this genus need not be a real entity, it can be a mere abstraction.
@@demergent_deist but them being fully actual and different, would entail them both not being fully actual. How could you otherwise differentiate them?
@@latronemastrucato7288 I would differentiate them only according to their actualities since I would not find any potentials. For we seem to distinguish between things based on their actualities rather than their potentials.
Schopenhauer says the following, with which I do not entirely agree:
"Generally speaking, however, if there were atoms they would have to be without difference and qualities, thus not sulphur atoms and iron atoms, etc., but instead merely atoms of matter, because differences suspend simplicity. For example, the iron atom would have to contain something that the sulphur atom lacked, and so it would not be simple but compound:"
I think this reasoning involves a non sequitur. I think it is wrong to assume that the iron atom must contain something that the sulfur atom lacks. The iron atom would be completely actual in ironness and the sulfur atom would be completely actual in sulfurness. Neither would lack anything.
The only problem would be to understand a causal interaction between the two, which is probably impossible, so they can merely exist in parallel.
@@demergent_deist yes! That is exactly my point.
However it seems to me that we have a different definition of *fully* actual.
When I, or Trent for that matter says fully actual, we mean fully and entirely actual in every possible way a thing can be actual. The iron atom is not fully actual, for it is actually iron, yet potentially carbon, or potentially part of a complex salt structure.
I think however, that when you say fully actual, you mean fully and actually the one thing it is. So, if I'm not mistaken, you would call the iron atom fully actual in the respect of being iron.
Whereas when I say fully actual I mean a thing or being which is fully actual, and lacks no single potential, in all respects.
TL;dr
I think we may be using the same words, but different definitions, and thereby we are speaking past each other.
@@latronemastrucato7288 Thank you for your reply. I wanted to make absolute and isolate a single actual respect. That would be the actual iron being, absolute for itself and in isolation. Compared to God, who is actual in every respect, it may seem that the iron being still lacks many actual respects (to be called fully actual). However, I believe it would be a mistake to think that this lack of all other actual respects would lead to the potential of these respects in the iron being.
I confess that my reasoning may seem very artificial, but I maintain that a pure actual iron being does not necessarily have to have potentials and I could move it to a transcendent realm so that it could not be a part of anything mundane either. It would be perfectly isolated.
I hope you can understand this reasoning a little bit. Most likely I have gained nothing meaningful with my ideas, but I do not see them as logically wrong.
Once upon a time.......well about 2000 yrs ago actually, the Son of Man appeared on earth, did a series of magic tricks....over a period of about 33 years, and then disappeared, never to be seen again...except briefly by around 500 punters
The End
Lmao
I have never seen an explanation of how god is necessary, just the assertion that god is so. This makes _necessary_ nothing more than a buzz word; it's meaningless.
The premise that things are either contingent or necessary is simply the law of non-contradiction as necessary is defined as non-contingent.The argument establishes that things cannot all be contingent (Stage 1) before arguing for the features of that necessary being (e.g. oneness, the omnis, etc.) as being something akin to what is traditionally called God (Stage 2). So your objection doesn't really make sense here. If you don't want to call it God you can call it dog or whatever, it doesn't affect the argumentation.
Does this purely actual being have an elephant-esque trunk?
If yes, cool learned a new thing about your God.
If no, does he lack an elephant-esque trunk?
If yes, then the purely actual being lacks things.
If no, then I think Joe's critique that you can lack something without having the potential for it due to your nature holds.
"Does this purely actual being have an elephant-esque trunk? "
--Purely actual means no potency, i.e. no limit, but by giving the being an elephant-eque trunk, you are limiting it...so your question really is: Does this purely actual being have limits? And that is a simple no, thus the label "purely actual"
@@phoult37 Good response, you are saying that "per the nature of the purely actual being it does indeed lack a trunk" but that that isn't an unactualized potential. (That is Joe's point)
Also, a bit weird how adding an elephant-esque trunk to God would in anyway limit God in any way. What couldn't he do just because he got a trunk. He did have a corporeal form in Jesus flesh in some 30 years and that didn't hinder him, why would a flashy trunk hinder him.
@@Oskar1000 I'd say God can't have any potential, as that is contingent on limit, and God is limitless, i.e. infinite. God can't be limited, otherwise he would not be the source of all things. I understand I'm begging the question here and making assumptions in my conclusion. I also may not be understanding your first point correctly, so correct me if I'm in error.
Regarding Jesus: God indeed limited himself in the form of Jesus, which gave him potential and made him "real" in the human understanding. Because Jesus was X (male, for example), he was not Y (female), which actually makes him real. If Jesus was as infinite as God the trinity, then he would cease to be accessible to our limited understanding. This is why the Catholic Church, in particular, teaches that Jesus had two wills: divine and human. His divine will was in union with God (i.e. inifinite), but his human will was limited and subjugated to himself (finite).
@@phoult37 So do we both agree then that one can lack a feature without having a corresponding unactualized potential due to one's nature?
@@Oskar1000 By "one" do you mean a person, God, some other being, all of the above?
I'd say yes to your question for all beings not including God.
god is a great answer if you're folk philosopher.
it is as plausible as ghosts or reincarnation.
O_O
but for smarter ppl.... it just dont cut it
And guess what, you are not that person
@@azrael516 what're you hootin about?
@@dmitrysamoilov5989You know what I'm talking about
@@dmitrysamoilov5989he is calling you dumb not smart enough to not “need” god
thomist gibberish generator.
Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks
This kid looks 13 lmfao leave him alone
What a load of useless words.