Chris cleared it all up. If you give it time and reflection I think this becomes clear. Schmidt and Cameron have a hard time accepting non composite things. I think if you gave Joe a long time with Chris you would discover that none of these objections hold up. And all that does is refine the distinctions necessary to understand.
You've gotta get on Ed Feser brother! God Bless and thanks for your tireless work. Also if you can try and get these guests: Dr Brant Pitre (Jewish Context of Christianity); Dr Scott Hahn (amazing on liturgy); Dr Nigel Cundy (Oxford Quantum Thomist); Fr. Robert Spitzer (Amazing knowledge on the soul and cosmology).
Trust me brother, you're probably way better off with someone like Chris, Gaven Kerr and Rob Koons than with someone like Feser, at least if the goal of the discussion is to get a more pure thomistic framework. Feser is a good philosopher, don't get me wrong, but his formulations of Aquinas's arguments and thoughts are well known to be somewhat simplistic in relation to the real complexity found in the more orthodox thomistic tradition.
@@amentirahonesta2394 Right, but Feser does a great job at communicating his ideas to a mainstream audience who might not be completely familiar with the technical jargon.
@@amentirahonesta2394 I get where you're coming from. But I think Ed Feser has a real knack for communicating the Aristotelian-Thomistic framework to a broad audience; but his other more in depth works as found in Introduction to Scholastic Metaphysics and Aristotle's Revenge are great; alongside his Neo-Scholastic Essays collection, notably the elucidation and defense of the perverted faculty argument.
I've tried on a number of occasions via a number of mediums to reach Dr. Pitre. I'm even "friends" with him on Facebook. He has not responded to any of my requests to appear on this channel.
My weight consists of two things: 1: My mass (intrinsic) 2: Gravitational field strength of the world (extrinsic). Similarly, God's knowledge of the world consists of two things: 1: God's intellect (intrinsic) 2: The truth of the world (extrinsic) My weight could change even if my intrinsic feature (mass) were immutable (if I were on the moon). Similarly, God's knowledge could change, even if His intrinsic feature (intellect) were immutable (if He created a world).
Then it wouldn't be the creator changing but creation in respect to the creator instead. I agree with what you're saying but I think to phrase it as God changing isn't necessary, God's knowledge can't be composed of parts because his knowledge is identical to his essence, which is purely actual.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I don't understand why God need be seen as changing. He can know all possible worlds simultaneously, and he can choose to create or not create all possible worlds even in this single act of intellect. The world created or not created are extrinsic, or knowledge, of that which is contained within the intellect.
But knowledge of the world requires that the intrinsic part (mental representation) matches with reality, if the world changes but the mental representation stays the same then it would cease to be knowledge and just be a false belief.
@@Againstfascist So he wouldn't know which of the possible worlds is the actual one? I Don't see a way out that doesn't involve accepting modal realism and the b theory.
@@Daniel-cz9gt I’m no longer a classical theist, so I have no inclination to defend it further. But, I would say that I reject the notion that knowledge has anything to do with “mental representations”. The difference between a person who knows that p and a person who doesn’t consists in what the former is able to do (e.g., answer certain questions, correct others, etc.).
Feser is a clown. He thinks people deserve to be tortured forever because they randomly selected B instead of A. With free will, two events could spring out of the same cause, so the cause can't explain why we got B specifically. There is nothing the agent can do/be, qua cause, to ensure the right intention pops out. Did it intend on intending B? Whatever leads up to the choice was unchosen. He always deletes the above comment because he is a prideful coward.
@Classical Theist00 If you defend a religion that spreads misery, guilt, and shame, and tells poor people they can't use birth control, and that people go to hell because they randomly picked B over A, you deserve to be insulted, just as Nazis deserve to be insulted. There's no misunderstanding of free will. Two intentions coming out the same agent, with identical reasons and desires causally prior to both outcomes. So there's no explaining why we got one rather than the other.
@@ObsidianTeen Since Catholics do not believe in determinism, but instead believe in free will, we do not believe that people go to Hell for being a spinning-wheel that randomly lands on the wrong tile. Even if you are a determinist, your argument has no force, since *Catholics* are not determinists. If determinism is true then Catholicism is false altogether, and nobody should believe it, so you have no cause to be angry about people going to Hell (since, if Christianity isn't true nobody *will* be going there) and if determinism is not true, then anyone who goes to Hell does not do so randomly or because they had no choice in the matter.
@@CantusTropus Free choices are inexplicable, i.e. random. Let's say there's a choice between A and B, and the agent selects A. Why did they choose A rather than B? No where do I assume determinism is true. My argument is that there is no deep responsibility on both determinism and indeterminism.
@Classical Theist00Let's take the event, in your words: "the agent A made that self-determination" Did the agent choose (i.e. intend) for that to happen? If yes, there is a regress. If no, the agent's unchosen power acted on its own and forced him/her to choose A rather than B. And the above is being charitable and assuming that "making a self-determination" is not synonymous with a making a choice. Because if it were, you'd have a circle: the agent chose A over B because they chose A over B. I didn't say Feser was a Nazi, but he does defend a religion that makes people miserable. Don't underestimate how psychologically abusive the doctrine of hell can be. It drained all the joy out of life, made it hard to function at work, weeks without showering. And I'm not alone in this suffering. It has scarred many children over the centuries. Ruined lives. Learning that free will = randomness finally got me out of it.
Funnily enough, Chesterton already made the same joke! Divine Simplicity isn't about being simple in the sense of easy to understand. It's about God being Absolutely Simple, as in, having no parts, not being "made of" anything more fundamental, being the most fundamental thing that exists. Yeah, confusing, I know, but it's because of ancient technical terminology that is no longer common parlance around these parts.
@@KC-fb8ql divine simplicity is the main thesis of western philosophy since Aristotle's first mover and Plotinus' One. Not only a doctrine of the Church but a central question about the nature of reality and causality. Aristotle considered the existence of absolutely simple cause of all reality a deductive consequence of atomism, the doctrine that birth modern scientific worldview. Reflects a common intuition that the change we see in the world must be caused by things more simple, the so called fundamental particles. But Aristotle distills the complexity of these particles and concludes their metaphysical parts must have a more simple cause.
Adam, thanks. You are obviously well read in this topic and I appreciate your thorough explanation. However, it’s these very types of heavily philosophic subjects that I have little to no patience for. I’ve delved deep into apologetics trying to bolster a failing faith but it continues to be elusive. These type discussions are just endless talk to me. I understand many people find them fascinating.
@@KC-fb8ql sorry i don't want to sound patronizing but maybe certain things are necessary to say. I don't think people learn through listening to the debates, maybe they contain hints as to what to read and think of day and night, this way some profound realization could have happened. But also philosophy constitutes a very "autistic" way of coming to God or changing a worldview whatsoever. Presupposes you already have certitude in certain kinds of reasoning and acceptance of their rules which is something even academic philosophers sometimes only pretend to have. I don't think I have something new to say to you. But my experience is this: people need something more than mere thinking or even praying. The Church has sacraments which really work. I would adhere to them if I was losing my faith. If your doesn't have sacraments than I would reconsider if your doubts refer to God's existence or something subtler like existence of a true religion whatsoever or your salvation. These can't be ultimately resolved philosophically.
Thank you for your top quality content and pursuit of truth! P.S. I've seen some of the hate you've been getting for your recent FB posts. Don't be disheartened and remember for all the hate more are keeping you in their prayers.
The divine simplicity as understood by Classic Theists, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants is that God contains no real physical distinctions and no real metaphysical distinctions. God is immaterial so in principle He cannot have any real physical distinctions. God is Pure Act so God contains no passive potency that can be made act by something already in Act. Thus in principle God can have no real metaphysical distinctions. That is it. The doctrine does not mean God cannot contain any distinctions at all. That would be a contradiction. God can contain the mysterious real distinctions of the subsisting divine relations(which thought real are neither real physical nor real metaphysical distinctions). A metaphysical real distinction is basically real change in something as shown by the Act/potency distinction. God contains metaphysical distinctions that are logical and notional no question but none that are real since God cannot undergo real change.
I can't countenance the amount of damage the defense of divine simplicity does to what words mean. For example, "when God learns about you it is you that changed not God." Sorry. That is not what the word learn means. If you mean that God cannot learn say it that way.
It's amazing that people who see no value in these discussions will waste their own time visiting these channels just to leave annoying comments. It's almost as if they have nothing better to do with their day.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 No, I enjoy philosophical discussions. I was just curious what kind of back flips a theist has to do to get around divine simplicity. I would have gone with the mystery of God and the mystery of free will. As I said, it's amazing the imaginations of people for imagined beings. In the end, it is an appeal to the "consciousness" of God. No one understands our consciousness so God's consciousness is even more mysterious. I just enjoyed the back flips. Theist make up new categories like accidental and intentional will as if anyone understands "will". To me it is simple (pun intended). If God exists and is simple, everything becomes necessary...determinism. Free will does not exist. As Joe says, there might be some indeterminacy, but that is the same as randomness and again not free will. Indeterminacy leads to God not having providence over creation. You may now start doing back flips, I mean explaining why I'm wrong. Personally, I believe the (mechanistic) subconscious makes all decisions and sends the decisions to the conscious brain where the decision just appears and we think we made "free" decisions. As I write these words, they just appear. I cannot say my conscious brain picked these words. Even if I look back on a word and wonder if I could use a better word, I have to ask where did this impulse come from to look back at a specific word. I gotta say the impulse just appeared...again the subconscious.
@Actus Purus I see. But recall that others have a more apophatic approach and thus do not speak of God ad intra. edit: oh wait...do you mean to say that "knowledge is extrinsic" in the sense that we interact with an objective reality? if so then yes.
@@danglingondivineladders3994 good point. Maybe then just don't look up the gown of your angelic neighbor. Don't want to find out if angels are properly equipped or not...only one hypothetical question can be answered by any one hypothetical scenario.
@@anitkythera4125 I see... in that case then, we have our answer. How many angels can yo put on the head of a pin? the answer is..... infinity plus one
Thanks for the video Cameron. It would be cool if you have the arguments, maybe you could use that one quarter of the screen with the title to show the argument in written form, or even use the entire top half of the screen for the argument until he's done going through it. Just a thought if your software can do that.
I viewed the video but as an atheist I find these theological interesting. They are interesting, but not compelling in a way that YEC is interesting but not compelling. It’s just fascinating that people formulate elaborate philosophies on thin topics.
I agree, and wonder if it's a kind of separating the subject from the ordinary believer so the believer can be comfortably assured that the faith is sound despite all kinds of abstruse challenges, and that because it all takes place in a language few of them will ever understand, they needn't trouble themselves about it. If the great theologians are so smart as to discuss complex subjects like this, and still believe, the faith must be on a sound footing... And given the importance of the subject, and the potent cognitive biases that lead huge numbers to insist on believing in it despite the most heavy fire imaginable, I guess there has to be an incessant complexification to try evade those challenges.
The only example of intelligence, consciousness and awareness we have is related to extremely complex brains. We can’t tell if such attributes could exist without being related to such complexity. If you think there is a god that has these attributes, that’s pure speculation You seem to claim to understand the so called God without having access to anything concrete about it and yet you don’t understand the real world that we experience very well.
I would say this since the Trinity is not something we can ever know by natural reason alone apart from divine revelation then I submit all philosophical critiques of it are non-starters. There is no philosophical argument that can take us to God being a Trinity. We can only know it if God tells us(in which case Skeptics/Atheists should stop wasting our time with such non-starters & concentrate on polemics against the viability of divine revelation or the validity of the NT). Thus I submit in principle making a philosophical case against God being a Trinity makes about as much sense as trying to “refute” Evolution using a particle accelerator. Or trying to dig up a Higgs Boson in a fossil record. It is a category mistake. The doctrine of the Trinity as formulated traditionally by the Church contains no logical contradictions and in principle no provable formal contradictions given the divine hiddenness. Ergo Atheists are wasting their time with these arguments. They should change their tactics IMHO along the lines I suggested.
Honestly some of the things said just seems made up, we couldn't possibly know some of these concepts pertaining to nature of God's aseity, how would we know what knowledge is contingent to God based on a counterfactual universe/cosmos? We can posit some thoughts on the matter but that's it, beyond that we couldn't really know that unless God tells us
Aaron & Vanessa Bair Well, in this concept, knowledge is different than certainty. These guys are talking about probabilistic models, and are using the word "know" in a soft way, not to say "this is for sure God's properties", but rather, "this seems to be true of God's properties given X which we already know about God".
Mr/s. Bair: I couldn’t agree more! There needs to be a discussion of context before all this stuff, where both sides admit that if these issues were important, Jesus would have explained them. Anything He didn’t emphasize is a side issue we MAY debate but should never express certainty over, let alone divide over.
Theology and Biblical Studies aren't the same thing. Theology often deals in speculation about what God COULD be like rather than interpreting what scripture says God IS like. As a simple Bible believer looking to get deep in God's Word, theology will be hit-or-miss as to whether any given theologian feels any obligation to stick closely to scripture or not so sometimes you get great insight from a theologian and sometimes it's just purely philosophy with no relation to Biblical Christian belief.
Scotus does not reject analogy, he only shows that analogy presupposes Univocity, without which we can have no knowledge of God. Scotus certainly did not reject divine simplicity, guess this means Univocity is also consistent with the doctrine. For Scotus, it is God's infinity that is key as opposed to God's simplicity, though this does not mean he rejects divine simplicity. It is true that for Scotus, intelligence in man and God were univocal, but this was because intelligence for Scotus was a pure perfection.
Analogy presupposes both univocity and equivocation, as it is from both. Bear with me as I am thinking out loud here, but my instinct tells me Aquinas is correct in that creation subsists in the Holy Spirit. Being is Father (univocity) Son (equivocation) and Spirit (analogy). Thus, our logic will conclude being as analogous.
Up until 1h 38m this was high end scholastic stuff, such that I couldn't properly follow. At 1h 38m the wheels fell off Chris' wagon. When the esoteric is tested against mundane reality the silliness is exposed.
Here are a couple of equally important questions: (1) Is Superman really in love with Lois Lane? (2) Given their body to wing ratio, could the Cottingley fairies actually fly?
you are not a smart person. What's really tragic is you'll spend your life thinking you are b/c of comments like this. From an informed perspective, to even make this attempt at humor or whatever it's supposed to be (while being not original at all, itself just a paraphrase if not an outright quotation of standard new atheist meme page 'humor'), to even have any expectation it be intelligible, you have to be mired so very deeply in what philosophers call category errors, it's absurd. You're like an infant wondering where everything goes when he closes his eyes, or someone trying to count to a complex number
@@gerardt3284 How can it be demonstrate ? ALLAH is Metaphysical Reality He has revealed His attributes and properties which are very comprehensible and perfect in all aspect I would suggest you watch this video which provides translation of each of those attributes and give me your response Muhammad P did not write the Qur'an it is divne revelation broguht by Angel Gabriel P It was memorized by Prophet Muhammad P word for word and today over 10 millions Muslims have been memorized it today. Here is link for the attributes of Allah swt th-cam.com/video/lgm3puP3tMA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/TIqvM2PcpI4/w-d-xo.html You should watch this video on the trinity. It explains how the son is the perfect image of God. Being an image, he proceeds from the father by way of intellect, is distinct from him by way of relation, corresponds perfectly to the father, yet also remains within him. The trinity is, in short, God’s single act of self knowledge (per the son) and self love (per the Holy Spirit.)
Divine simplicity seems intentionally complicated and subjective. It reminds me of discussions between Game of Thrones or Tolkien fans, vaguely interesting but ultimately pointless.
That's because you have no reading in ancient philosophy it's not an insult since it follows from your view. All the notions employed by these guys are very well known and central to understanding reality at all
It seems complicated because it is unlike everything we know about. It's not conditional like everything else. If it's in its very own category, a category that is necessarily unlike everything else, then it becomes obvious why we have a hard time with it.
I think Chris clears it all up. I'm not sure if Joe or Cameron can accept the implications that we are dealing with something that can only be known apohatically. But for me that makes sense when we are talking about a being that transcends all catagories.
In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.Say He is Allah "God" the One; Allah the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.(Quran 112)
The Bible 'book' = a compendium of fire side tales and fables, recounted orally , for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age, until writing was invented, and then, many different sources, transliterations, and versions were copied and written down.. ''The Bible was created during a time where stories were verbally passed down over hundreds of years. Stories constantly morphed and changed over time, and the Bible is a collection of these. This is why it has the nearly identical flood story from Gilgamesh, and why Jesus has the same characteristics as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, and Krishna. The contradictions and immorality in the stories are not evidence that God is flawed or evil, but rather that humans invented him, just like the thousands of other gods that we used to, but no longer believe in.'' ..and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe, like 'thunder' and earthquakes, since there was no science yet. That was the old Testament.... The new Testes is also hearsay since these letters, 'gospels' and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus. There is essentially very little evidence of a Jesus in real documented history. A couple of spurious Roman reports, and all the rest anecdotal. ...but more importantly ...a jesus' existence is not an issue! A jesus is irrelevant without a god ! Then, many of these stories, but not all, as many were not chosen, [ There are more than just four Gospels but only these four were agreed on ], were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor in his Nicean Council, for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognised that this was the perfect religion/mythology for the future domination of the populaces. Half of the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops and none have been proven to be based on fact. This 'Bable' book is backed up by absolutely no facts and no evidence. It is not proof for any god(s) ....(or of any jesus as a god...) The fables are intertwined within historical places and people... eg Egypt and the Pharaohs existed, whereas Moses and the Exodus did not happen...! It is a historical novel .... ie A book of fiction.. Only! The Bible book is proof of a book ... ONLY (certainly not evidence of any gods...) PROVE a god!
The J and E traditions (which are the oldest) in the Old Testament are actually from the BRONZE Age, not the Stone Age. A deluge was seen as the ultimate form of divine judgement. Practically all ancient traditions have a universal flood story. Jesus does have some theological similarities with other Near Eastern gods. The contradictions between the depictions of Yahweh only show a contradiction because there is more than one depiction of Yahweh in the first place. J sees him as pretty human, E sees him as something beyond, P and D see him as something in between; that's not to mention the fact that he was a southern warrior god who was later integrated into the Canaanite pantheon and then conflated with Elyon as the head of the Divine Council. The P worldview got adopted by mainstream Judaism later on. Yes, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' lifetime. No, they were not entirely fabricated - the earliest one, Mark, draws on earlier already-present sources. Matthew and Luke draw on Mark and Q. John may have had a first century version, but it nevertheless draws on earlier sources. And it's setting is the most historically authentic of the four. But the Gospels do have several fictional elements. The Da Vinci Code is historical fiction. Do some work on the Nicean Council. The Bible itself does not claim to prove any god's existence. It is an anthology of the Jewish religion and culture. Just a bit of fact-checking. People familiar with modern scholarship, feel free to check my check.
@@nicholocadongonan1074 ''Practically all ancient traditions have a universal flood story.'' Because ALL ancient civilisations had a land circumference of very few miles... hahhaha
I love that both speakers talked and prepared with each other in advance. It makes the quality of the content so much better.
Chris cleared it all up. If you give it time and reflection I think this becomes clear. Schmidt and Cameron have a hard time accepting non composite things. I think if you gave Joe a long time with Chris you would discover that none of these objections hold up. And all that does is refine the distinctions necessary to understand.
I didn't know Tom Holland was an apologist.
Lol
Schmid is an agnostic, lol.
@matthewmayuiersbruh 😂
You've gotta get on Ed Feser brother! God Bless and thanks for your tireless work.
Also if you can try and get these guests:
Dr Brant Pitre (Jewish Context of Christianity); Dr Scott Hahn (amazing on liturgy); Dr Nigel Cundy (Oxford Quantum Thomist); Fr. Robert Spitzer (Amazing knowledge on the soul and cosmology).
Trust me brother, you're probably way better off with someone like Chris, Gaven Kerr and Rob Koons than with someone like Feser, at least if the goal of the discussion is to get a more pure thomistic framework. Feser is a good philosopher, don't get me wrong, but his formulations of Aquinas's arguments and thoughts are well known to be somewhat simplistic in relation to the real complexity found in the more orthodox thomistic tradition.
@@amentirahonesta2394 Look what he has to work with
@@amentirahonesta2394 Right, but Feser does a great job at communicating his ideas to a mainstream audience who might not be completely familiar with the technical jargon.
@@amentirahonesta2394 I get where you're coming from. But I think Ed Feser has a real knack for communicating the Aristotelian-Thomistic framework to a broad audience; but his other more in depth works as found in Introduction to Scholastic Metaphysics and Aristotle's Revenge are great; alongside his Neo-Scholastic Essays collection, notably the elucidation and defense of the perverted faculty argument.
I've tried on a number of occasions via a number of mediums to reach Dr. Pitre. I'm even "friends" with him on Facebook. He has not responded to any of my requests to appear on this channel.
My weight consists of two things:
1: My mass (intrinsic)
2: Gravitational field strength of the world (extrinsic).
Similarly, God's knowledge of the world consists of two things:
1: God's intellect (intrinsic)
2: The truth of the world (extrinsic)
My weight could change even if my intrinsic feature (mass) were immutable (if I were on the moon). Similarly, God's knowledge could change, even if His intrinsic feature (intellect) were immutable (if He created a world).
Then it wouldn't be the creator changing but creation in respect to the creator instead. I agree with what you're saying but I think to phrase it as God changing isn't necessary, God's knowledge can't be composed of parts because his knowledge is identical to his essence, which is purely actual.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I don't understand why God need be seen as changing. He can know all possible worlds simultaneously, and he can choose to create or not create all possible worlds even in this single act of intellect. The world created or not created are extrinsic, or knowledge, of that which is contained within the intellect.
But knowledge of the world requires that the intrinsic part (mental representation) matches with reality, if the world changes but the mental representation stays the same then it would cease to be knowledge and just be a false belief.
@@Againstfascist So he wouldn't know which of the possible worlds is the actual one? I Don't see a way out that doesn't involve accepting modal realism and the b theory.
@@Daniel-cz9gt
I’m no longer a classical theist, so I have no inclination to defend it further. But, I would say that I reject the notion that knowledge has anything to do with “mental representations”. The difference between a person who knows that p and a person who doesn’t consists in what the former is able to do (e.g., answer certain questions, correct others, etc.).
God's simplicity merely means that He is not composed otherwise He would be contingent.
@Oners82
It kind of does.
Correct, God is not composed of three persons.
Feser vs Schmid NOW!!
Feser is a clown. He thinks people deserve to be tortured forever because they randomly selected B instead of A. With free will, two events could spring out of the same cause, so the cause can't explain why we got B specifically. There is nothing the agent can do/be, qua cause, to ensure the right intention pops out. Did it intend on intending B? Whatever leads up to the choice was unchosen.
He always deletes the above comment because he is a prideful coward.
@Classical Theist00 If you defend a religion that spreads misery, guilt, and shame, and tells poor people they can't use birth control, and that people go to hell because they randomly picked B over A, you deserve to be insulted, just as Nazis deserve to be insulted.
There's no misunderstanding of free will. Two intentions coming out the same agent, with identical reasons and desires causally prior to both outcomes. So there's no explaining why we got one rather than the other.
@@ObsidianTeen Since Catholics do not believe in determinism, but instead believe in free will, we do not believe that people go to Hell for being a spinning-wheel that randomly lands on the wrong tile. Even if you are a determinist, your argument has no force, since *Catholics* are not determinists. If determinism is true then Catholicism is false altogether, and nobody should believe it, so you have no cause to be angry about people going to Hell (since, if Christianity isn't true nobody *will* be going there) and if determinism is not true, then anyone who goes to Hell does not do so randomly or because they had no choice in the matter.
@@CantusTropus Free choices are inexplicable, i.e. random. Let's say there's a choice between A and B, and the agent selects A. Why did they choose A rather than B?
No where do I assume determinism is true. My argument is that there is no deep responsibility on both determinism and indeterminism.
@Classical Theist00Let's take the event, in your words: "the agent A made that self-determination"
Did the agent choose (i.e. intend) for that to happen? If yes, there is a regress. If no, the agent's unchosen power acted on its own and forced him/her to choose A rather than B.
And the above is being charitable and assuming that "making a self-determination" is not synonymous with a making a choice. Because if it were, you'd have a circle: the agent chose A over B because they chose A over B.
I didn't say Feser was a Nazi, but he does defend a religion that makes people miserable. Don't underestimate how psychologically abusive the doctrine of hell can be. It drained all the joy out of life, made it hard to function at work, weeks without showering. And I'm not alone in this suffering. It has scarred many children over the centuries. Ruined lives. Learning that free will = randomness finally got me out of it.
I guess I'm dumber than I thought I was...
I didn’t know this was a topic of discussion anywhere. Either I’m not so smart or this is totally uninteresting.
Funnily enough, Chesterton already made the same joke! Divine Simplicity isn't about being simple in the sense of easy to understand. It's about God being Absolutely Simple, as in, having no parts, not being "made of" anything more fundamental, being the most fundamental thing that exists. Yeah, confusing, I know, but it's because of ancient technical terminology that is no longer common parlance around these parts.
@@KC-fb8ql divine simplicity is the main thesis of western philosophy since Aristotle's first mover and Plotinus' One. Not only a doctrine of the Church but a central question about the nature of reality and causality. Aristotle considered the existence of absolutely simple cause of all reality a deductive consequence of atomism, the doctrine that birth modern scientific worldview. Reflects a common intuition that the change we see in the world must be caused by things more simple, the so called fundamental particles. But Aristotle distills the complexity of these particles and concludes their metaphysical parts must have a more simple cause.
Adam, thanks. You are obviously well read in this topic and I appreciate your thorough explanation. However, it’s these very types of heavily philosophic subjects that I have little to no patience for. I’ve delved deep into apologetics trying to bolster a failing faith but it continues to be elusive. These type discussions are just endless talk to me. I understand many people find them fascinating.
@@KC-fb8ql sorry i don't want to sound patronizing but maybe certain things are necessary to say. I don't think people learn through listening to the debates, maybe they contain hints as to what to read and think of day and night, this way some profound realization could have happened. But also philosophy constitutes a very "autistic" way of coming to God or changing a worldview whatsoever. Presupposes you already have certitude in certain kinds of reasoning and acceptance of their rules which is something even academic philosophers sometimes only pretend to have. I don't think I have something new to say to you. But my experience is this: people need something more than mere thinking or even praying. The Church has sacraments which really work. I would adhere to them if I was losing my faith. If your doesn't have sacraments than I would reconsider if your doubts refer to God's existence or something subtler like existence of a true religion whatsoever or your salvation. These can't be ultimately resolved philosophically.
Thank you for your top quality content and pursuit of truth!
P.S. I've seen some of the hate you've been getting for your recent FB posts. Don't be disheartened and remember for all the hate more are keeping you in their prayers.
The divine simplicity as understood by Classic Theists, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants is that God contains no real physical distinctions and no real metaphysical distinctions. God is immaterial so in principle He cannot have any real physical distinctions. God is Pure Act so God contains no passive potency that can be made act by something already in Act. Thus in principle God can have no real metaphysical distinctions. That is it. The doctrine does not mean God cannot contain any distinctions at all. That would be a contradiction. God can contain the mysterious real distinctions of the subsisting divine relations(which thought real are neither real physical nor real metaphysical distinctions). A metaphysical real distinction is basically real change in something as shown by the Act/potency distinction. God contains metaphysical distinctions that are logical and notional no question but none that are real since God cannot undergo real change.
Everyone should take a lesson from these participants on civility - they treat one another with respect.
I can't countenance the amount of damage the defense of divine simplicity does to what words mean.
For example, "when God learns about you it is you that changed not God." Sorry. That is not what the word learn means. If you mean that God cannot learn say it that way.
Awesome!!! Thanks for this awesome discussion!
It's amazing people imagined these descriptions for an imagined being. I guess we can imagine almost anything.
It's amazing that people who see no value in these discussions will waste their own time visiting these channels just to leave annoying comments. It's almost as if they have nothing better to do with their day.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 No, I enjoy philosophical discussions. I was just curious what kind of back flips a theist has to do to get around divine simplicity. I would have gone with the mystery of God and the mystery of free will. As I said, it's amazing the imaginations of people for imagined beings. In the end, it is an appeal to the "consciousness" of God. No one understands our consciousness so God's consciousness is even more mysterious. I just enjoyed the back flips. Theist make up new categories like accidental and intentional will as if anyone understands "will". To me it is simple (pun intended). If God exists and is simple, everything becomes necessary...determinism. Free will does not exist. As Joe says, there might be some indeterminacy, but that is the same as randomness and again not free will. Indeterminacy leads to God not having providence over creation. You may now start doing back flips, I mean explaining why I'm wrong.
Personally, I believe the (mechanistic) subconscious makes all decisions and sends the decisions to the conscious brain where the decision just appears and we think we made "free" decisions. As I write these words, they just appear. I cannot say my conscious brain picked these words. Even if I look back on a word and wonder if I could use a better word, I have to ask where did this impulse come from to look back at a specific word. I gotta say the impulse just appeared...again the subconscious.
knowledge isn't extrinsic. Saying "knowledge depends on extrinsic factors" vs "knowledge is extrinsic" isnt the same thing
@Actus Purus but if it is partly extrinsic then by necessity it must also be part intrinsic downplaying the distinction and thus it's implications.
@Actus Purus I see. But recall that others have a more apophatic approach and thus do not speak of God ad intra.
edit: oh wait...do you mean to say that "knowledge is extrinsic" in the sense that we interact with an objective reality? if so then yes.
Joe is Steve Smith from American Dad!
I will never unsee this.
I'd say "actually" instead of "really."
So how many angels can stand on a point of a pin? I think I missed it...
are they allowed to stand on each other?
@@danglingondivineladders3994 only if they promise not to look up!
@@anitkythera4125 ok, but that could get tricky. apparently "up" is relative once you get way "up" there into space.
@@danglingondivineladders3994 good point. Maybe then just don't look up the gown of your angelic neighbor. Don't want to find out if angels are properly equipped or not...only one hypothetical question can be answered by any one hypothetical scenario.
@@anitkythera4125 I see... in that case then, we have our answer. How many angels can yo put on the head of a pin? the answer is.....
infinity plus one
Thanks for the video Cameron. It would be cool if you have the arguments, maybe you could use that one quarter of the screen with the title to show the argument in written form, or even use the entire top half of the screen for the argument until he's done going through it. Just a thought if your software can do that.
I viewed the video but as an atheist I find these theological interesting. They are interesting, but not compelling in a way that YEC is interesting but not compelling.
It’s just fascinating that people formulate elaborate philosophies on thin topics.
I agree, and wonder if it's a kind of separating the subject from the ordinary believer so the believer can be comfortably assured that the faith is sound despite all kinds of abstruse challenges, and that because it all takes place in a language few of them will ever understand, they needn't trouble themselves about it. If the great theologians are so smart as to discuss complex subjects like this, and still believe, the faith must be on a sound footing...
And given the importance of the subject, and the potent cognitive biases that lead huge numbers to insist on believing in it despite the most heavy fire imaginable, I guess there has to be an incessant complexification to try evade those challenges.
The only example of intelligence, consciousness and awareness we have is related to extremely complex brains. We can’t tell if such attributes could exist without being related to such complexity. If you think there is a god that has these attributes, that’s pure speculation
You seem to claim to understand the so called God without having access to anything concrete about it and yet you don’t understand the real world that we experience very well.
I would say this since the Trinity is not something we can ever know by natural reason alone apart from divine revelation then I submit all philosophical critiques of it are non-starters. There is no philosophical argument that can take us to God being a Trinity. We can only know it if God tells us(in which case Skeptics/Atheists should stop wasting our time with such non-starters & concentrate on polemics against the viability of divine revelation or the validity of the NT). Thus I submit in principle making a philosophical case against God being a Trinity makes about as much sense as trying to “refute” Evolution using a particle accelerator. Or trying to dig up a Higgs Boson in a fossil record. It is a category mistake.
The doctrine of the Trinity as formulated traditionally by the Church contains no logical contradictions and in principle no provable formal contradictions given the divine hiddenness. Ergo Atheists are wasting their time with these arguments. They should change their tactics IMHO along the lines I suggested.
Some discussion of knowledge from the POV of reformed theology (Calvinistic determinism) would've been helpful ;)
Honestly some of the things said just seems made up, we couldn't possibly know some of these concepts pertaining to nature of God's aseity, how would we know what knowledge is contingent to God based on a counterfactual universe/cosmos?
We can posit some thoughts on the matter but that's it, beyond that we couldn't really know that unless God tells us
Aaron & Vanessa Bair Well, in this concept, knowledge is different than certainty. These guys are talking about probabilistic models, and are using the word "know" in a soft way, not to say "this is for sure God's properties", but rather, "this seems to be true of God's properties given X which we already know about God".
Mr/s. Bair: I couldn’t agree more! There needs to be a discussion of context before all this stuff, where both sides admit that if these issues were important, Jesus would have explained them. Anything He didn’t emphasize is a side issue we MAY debate but should never express certainty over, let alone divide over.
Theology and Biblical Studies aren't the same thing. Theology often deals in speculation about what God COULD be like rather than interpreting what scripture says God IS like. As a simple Bible believer looking to get deep in God's Word, theology will be hit-or-miss as to whether any given theologian feels any obligation to stick closely to scripture or not so sometimes you get great insight from a theologian and sometimes it's just purely philosophy with no relation to Biblical Christian belief.
this is just a mutilation of the idea of knowledge
1:56 Video starts
Thx
Scotus does not reject analogy, he only shows that analogy presupposes Univocity, without which we can have no knowledge of God. Scotus certainly did not reject divine simplicity, guess this means Univocity is also consistent with the doctrine. For Scotus, it is God's infinity that is key as opposed to God's simplicity, though this does not mean he rejects divine simplicity. It is true that for Scotus, intelligence in man and God were univocal, but this was because intelligence for Scotus was a pure perfection.
Analogy presupposes both univocity and equivocation, as it is from both. Bear with me as I am thinking out loud here, but my instinct tells me Aquinas is correct in that creation subsists in the Holy Spirit. Being is Father (univocity) Son (equivocation) and Spirit (analogy). Thus, our logic will conclude being as analogous.
Want a Dr. Craig vs Shelly Kagan again.
Up until 1h 38m this was high end scholastic stuff, such that I couldn't properly follow. At 1h 38m the wheels fell off Chris' wagon. When the esoteric is tested against mundane reality the silliness is exposed.
Here are a couple of equally important questions: (1) Is Superman really in love with Lois Lane? (2) Given their body to wing ratio, could the Cottingley fairies actually fly?
NO think is laugh Hah.
you are not a smart person. What's really tragic is you'll spend your life thinking you are b/c of comments like this. From an informed perspective, to even make this attempt at humor or whatever it's supposed to be (while being not original at all, itself just a paraphrase if not an outright quotation of standard new atheist meme page 'humor'), to even have any expectation it be intelligible, you have to be mired so very deeply in what philosophers call category errors, it's absurd. You're like an infant wondering where everything goes when he closes his eyes, or someone trying to count to a complex number
Cameron get a better haircut pls.
No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things. Quran 006:103.
Assertion. Provide demonstrable evidence of this "Allah", otherwise I an not convinced and shall lack belief in it.
@@gerardt3284 Are you a lacktheist?
@@paradisecityX0 No one is safe from the lack theist. Haha.
@@gerardt3284 How can it be demonstrate ? ALLAH is Metaphysical Reality He has revealed His attributes and properties which are very comprehensible and perfect in all aspect I would suggest you watch this video which provides translation of each of those attributes and give me your response Muhammad P did not write the Qur'an it is divne revelation broguht by Angel Gabriel P It was memorized by Prophet Muhammad P word for word and today over 10 millions Muslims have been memorized it today. Here is link for the attributes of Allah swt th-cam.com/video/lgm3puP3tMA/w-d-xo.html
Agnostic is the charitable way to say coward
There is nothing like Him and He is ALL Hearing and ALL Seeing Quran 42:11
Invent not similitude’s for Allah. for Allah knoweth, and ye know not. Quran 16.74
Say He is Allah "God" the One; Allah the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.(Quran 112)
th-cam.com/video/TIqvM2PcpI4/w-d-xo.html
You should watch this video on the trinity. It explains how the son is the perfect image of God. Being an image, he proceeds from the father by way of intellect, is distinct from him by way of relation, corresponds perfectly to the father, yet also remains within him.
The trinity is, in short, God’s single act of self knowledge (per the son) and self love (per the Holy Spirit.)
Divine simplicity seems intentionally complicated and subjective. It reminds me of discussions between Game of Thrones or Tolkien fans, vaguely interesting but ultimately pointless.
That's because you have no reading in ancient philosophy it's not an insult since it follows from your view. All the notions employed by these guys are very well known and central to understanding reality at all
It seems complicated because it is unlike everything we know about. It's not conditional like everything else. If it's in its very own category, a category that is necessarily unlike everything else, then it becomes obvious why we have a hard time with it.
I think Chris clears it all up. I'm not sure if Joe or Cameron can accept the implications that we are dealing with something that can only be known apohatically. But for me that makes sense when we are talking about a being that transcends all catagories.
@@brendansheehan6180 - “a being that transcends all categories” sounds like a made up being to me.
@@maniac4239 Well, sure. That's because you aren't following the argument that necessitates that kind of being. Thats the only reason to accept it.
Islam teaches there is only One Creator and everything besides Him is His Creation. Worship the Creator not the Creation.
Your Allah is a creation based on logic my friend
Just read the bible
Reading is the easy part
16AV11 not God but you are confuse
Joseph Robi
Your Bible Context is a good Video you posted !!
Reading the Bible doesn't prevent Christians from arriving at thousands of different conclusions without the guidancr of church teaching
Calgach V. True if you are at the right church. But reading the bible is the only way to screen the truth against the lies
In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.Say He is Allah "God" the One; Allah the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.(Quran 112)
Does Allah have attributes or is Allah his attributes? Asking for a friend. Thank you.
The Bible 'book' = a compendium of fire side tales and fables,
recounted orally ,
for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age,
until writing was invented,
and then, many different sources, transliterations, and versions were copied and written down..
''The Bible was created during a time where stories were verbally passed down over hundreds of years.
Stories constantly morphed and changed over time, and the Bible is a collection of these.
This is why it has the nearly identical flood story from Gilgamesh, and why Jesus has the same characteristics as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, and Krishna.
The contradictions and immorality in the stories are not evidence that God is flawed or evil,
but rather that humans invented him, just like the thousands of other gods that we used to, but no longer believe in.''
..and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe, like 'thunder' and earthquakes, since there was no science yet.
That was the old Testament....
The new Testes is also hearsay since these letters, 'gospels' and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers,
not by objective historians at that particular time,
or by any contemporary writers,
and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus.
There is essentially very little evidence of a Jesus in real documented history.
A couple of spurious Roman reports, and all the rest anecdotal.
...but more importantly ...a jesus' existence is not an issue!
A jesus is irrelevant without a god !
Then, many of these stories, but not all, as many were not chosen,
[ There are more than just four Gospels but only these four were agreed on ],
were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor in his Nicean Council,
for his expressed purpose of conquest
and
control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire.
He recognised that this was the perfect religion/mythology for the future domination of the populaces.
Half of the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops and none have been proven to be based on fact.
This 'Bable' book is backed up by absolutely no facts and no evidence.
It is not proof for any god(s) ....(or of any jesus as a god...)
The fables are intertwined within historical places and people...
eg Egypt and the Pharaohs existed,
whereas Moses and the Exodus did not happen...!
It is a historical novel
.... ie A book of fiction..
Only!
The Bible book is proof of a book ... ONLY (certainly not evidence of any gods...)
PROVE a god!
The J and E traditions (which are the oldest) in the Old Testament are actually from the BRONZE Age, not the Stone Age.
A deluge was seen as the ultimate form of divine judgement. Practically all ancient traditions have a universal flood story.
Jesus does have some theological similarities with other Near Eastern gods.
The contradictions between the depictions of Yahweh only show a contradiction because there is more than one depiction of Yahweh in the first place. J sees him as pretty human, E sees him as something beyond, P and D see him as something in between; that's not to mention the fact that he was a southern warrior god who was later integrated into the Canaanite pantheon and then conflated with Elyon as the head of the Divine Council.
The P worldview got adopted by mainstream Judaism later on.
Yes, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' lifetime. No, they were not entirely fabricated - the earliest one, Mark, draws on earlier already-present sources. Matthew and Luke draw on Mark and Q. John may have had a first century version, but it nevertheless draws on earlier sources. And it's setting is the most historically authentic of the four.
But the Gospels do have several fictional elements.
The Da Vinci Code is historical fiction. Do some work on the Nicean Council.
The Bible itself does not claim to prove any god's existence. It is an anthology of the Jewish religion and culture.
Just a bit of fact-checking. People familiar with modern scholarship, feel free to check my check.
@@nicholocadongonan1074 and that nonsense proved your god ... how?? hahahha
@@nicholocadongonan1074 ''Practically all ancient traditions have a universal flood story.'' Because ALL ancient civilisations had a land circumference of very few miles... hahhaha
@@nicholocadongonan1074 'gods' are stone age! Writing about gods is Bronze age! And you proved your god ... here ... HOW?
@@briendoyle4680 you can't be this daft. What part of my piece makes you think I want to prove any god? All I did was fact check.