Arguments for Classical Theism | Part 2/2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- In this two-part series, I explain and assess arguments for classical theism. In a separate two-part series, I'll examine arguments against classical theism.
Salem's channel, Inspiring Christianity: / channel
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
Outline for Part 2:
3.5.4 Other
3.5.4.1 Vallicella, Nemes, Spitzer, Pruss, and others
Vallicella’s Broadly Neo-Platonic Argument
Nemes’ This-Such Argument
Spitzer on Unconditioned Reality
Juliano on Creatio Ex Nihilo
Pruss’ Argument from Worship
A Pruss-inspired Argument from Transcendence
The Argument from Beginnings against Divine Temporality
An Anti-Aristotelian Argument for DDS
The Composition-to-Contingency Argument
Pruss’ Finitist Argument for DDS
Pruss’ Perdurantist Argument for Timelessness
Pruss’ Mereological Perfection Argument
Pruss’ Centrality of Life Argument
Koons’ Passage of Time Rendition of the First Way
Vecchio’s Coconut Argument
3.5.4.2 Explicability
3.5.4.3 Ontological arguments
Vecchio’s ontological argument from pure actuality
Vecchio’s Thomistic Modal Ontological Argument
Nemes’ Phenomenological Ontological Argument for Pure Actuality
3.5.4.4 Closing the Gap Problem
Koons: God = God’s nature
Potency Dependence
Koons: God = God’s nature, part 2
Koons: God = God’s existence
Koons: Composition and Coincidence
3.5.4.5 Creation Argument
3.6 Perfect Being Theism
Prisoner of Time
Platonic Argument
0:00 Intro
1:07 Vallicella’s Neo-Platonic Argument
6:06 Nemes’ This-Such Argument
8:10 Spitzer on Unconditioned Reality
13:36 Juliano on Creatio Ex Nihilo
17:55 Pruss’ Argument from Worship
22:23 Pruss-Inspired Argument from Transcendence
25:17 Argument from Beginnings
37:10 Anti-Aristotelian Argument for DDS
40:43 Composition Implies Contingency
42:36 Pruss’ Finitist Argument for DDS
46:44 Pruss’ Perdurantist Argument for Timelessness
54:59 Pruss’ Mereological Perfection Argument
58:39 Pruss’ Centrality of Life Argument
1:03:00 Koons’ Rendition of the First Way
1:20:45 Vecchio’s Coconut Argument
1:25:24 Explicability
1:30:08 Vecchio’s Ontological Argument from Pure Actuality
1:39:34 Vecchio’s Thomistic Modal Ontological Argument
1:44:03 Nemes’ Phenomenological Ontological Argument
1:57:46 Koons: God = God’s Nature
1:58:35 Potency Dependence
1:59:03 Koons: God = God’s Nature, Part 2
2:00:13 Koons: God = God’s Existence
2:02:25 Koons: Composition and Coincidence
2:04:43 Creation Argument
2:06:28 Prisoner of Time
2:08:19 Platonic Argument
Note: The Link to the document is removed because it is under significant construction for my series "Arguments Against Classical Theism". The link will be placed in the description of the latest video in that series.
And the usual links:
My book: www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...
My website: majestyofreason.wordpress.com/
if you pay attention, you can actually track this young, promising philosopher's descent into madness throughout this presentation
𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓼𝓪𝔂
ahaha my loopiness increased as time progressed as I recorded lol
Once again, great work, Joe!!
Thanks joe for your notes/guide. Fire as usual.
Amazing job! Looking forward to going through your document!
God is the Dreamer and intrinsically-knows all possible dreams via essence. It knows how its energies would behave in any given dreamtime position. It extrinsically (via energies) knows all actual dreams. Any dream is the Dreamer by participation but not by essence (non-Advaita). There will always be new dreams, but the end of any dream is inevitable ecstasy. (It is of the nature of love is not take infinite risks. If you love yourself, you'd not put yourself in a state of affairs where one outcome is eternal misery. God loves all others.) On the ultimate level, We have been innocent from the start. There's no explanation for why a person does A over B; free choices are a spiritual die roll. Eventually, through memory, everyone will make the right choice and be admitted to the beatific vision.
"The universe is a dream dreamed by a single dreamer where all the dream characters dream too." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer + David Bentley Hart = Truth
At around 38:48 in your modalized argument, your first premise is that possibly, parts are more fundamental than their wholes.
This seems like it is a necessary truth - either it is true, or it is not. Your sense of "possibly" here then refers to *epistemic* possibility, but not the type of metaphysical possibility that the argument requires.
I guess in the end you don't find the argument compelling, but that is another thought that came to mind if someone tried to defend it.
Dear Joe, do you still have this document? I absolutely love your work mate! Having access even to the unfinished copy would be incredible, just for my own interest! Thanks
Just shoot me an email!
@@MajestyofReason fantastic ! Sent 😊
Hi Joe! What do you make of Swinburne's solution to the gap problem (that a simpler being has a higher prior probability compared to a complex one, and that a being with no arbitrary limits is simpler than a being with arbitrary limits - in terms of power, knowledge, freedom, etc. God has no arbitrary limits in that he has infinite power, for example, and so is simpler than a being with x finite power)? Thanks.
Great question!
I think Paul Draper has a pretty powerful response to that. Paul outlines that response really well in this video he made with Alex Malpass ( th-cam.com/video/Ur6gxT6bQZQ/w-d-xo.html ), and he also develops it rigorously in his SEP article on atheism and agnosticism.
Something to keep in mind: while the hypothesis of an unlimited foundation might be more probable than the hypothesis of a foundation with some specific limit, that ignores the following: there are infinitely many ways to be limtied *in some way or another*, and only one way to be unlimited. And so even if being unlimited is more probable than any given limit chosen at random, surely 'the foundation is limited in some way or another' is far, far more probable than 'the foundation is utterly unlimited'
Surprised that the kalam cosmological argument didn't make it. Don't you think it is strong enough to merit serious engagement and discussion ?
That is not an argument for *classical* theism but instead for *theism* -- see part 1 about the purpose of my series. The purpose is to look at arguments *distinctively* for classical theism :)
@@MajestyofReason understood. I should have read the title more carefully before commenting.
@@jobinbiju6431 No worries!!! Enjoy the video :)
And in case you're curious, I have a kalam playlist here: th-cam.com/video/irfj8N6uHYE/w-d-xo.html
@@MajestyofReason I'll check it out once my final exams are done. Thanks.