Fellow Philosophy student here (in my final semester)! Though I myself am a Latter-day Saint, I find classical theism a fascinating/ rigorous worldview. Anyone who dismisses it without at least reading the likes of Ed Feser or David Bentley Hart are being intellectually sloppy. Good video! Also, I'm sorry you have to constantly deal with the reddit dweller atheists ( *cough cough @Bc232klm *cough cough) in the comment section. I'm all for disagreement and spirited discussion, but when you clearly don't have an adequate grasp of the subject matter to rigorously engage with it, and your only intent is to mock and or ridicule, then it's simply not worth anybody's time. You deserve better commenters haha. Hopefully some more thoughtful people (believers and unbelievers alike) will start to take more notice of you.
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
have you read joe schmid's critique(s) of ed?
@ethanf.237
17 күн бұрын
@@EitherSpark I have yes! I'm going to get his book on existential inertia
@rjskeptic5273
17 күн бұрын
I dont have to had read Feser or Hart to dismiss theism.
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
@@ethanf.237 its a bit pricey lol, ive got it myself and am yet to read it
@ethanf.237
17 күн бұрын
@@rjskeptic5273 Good thing I said classical theism then, and not theism qua theism.... I'm guessing you don't know the difference though
@hasone1848
18 күн бұрын
As I see it your argument will only get you to a deist god, and not a theist god. Your saying that there is a pure actuality with zero potential that is outside of spacetime and matter and is changeless. This actuality started potential which is what gives us spacetime and everything in it. So your pure actuality started potential, but how does it interact with potential, since this is what a Theist god does? You also say that this pure actuality has infinite knowledge, and we know knowledge comes from a mind, but we also know minds only come from brains and brains only come from material, plus minds need time and energy to work and process information, how does a mind outside spacetime do that?
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
how do we know minds only come from brains? why do minds need time and energy to work? im guessing god would've created potentiality
@hasone1848
17 күн бұрын
@@EitherSpark We only have examples of minds only coming from brains, if you have any examples of a mind that does not come from a brain I would love to hear about it. for a mind to work you have to feed it information (that takes time) it processes the info to create a decision (that takes time) then creates an action to respond to the information given. And to your last point, Created is an action that requires time, how can something go from a state of non-being to being with zero time.
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
@@hasone1848 what do you mean by 'coming from', and whats your example of minds coming from brains? what do you mean by feeding a mind information? is a mind not just the place in which thoughts can occur?, why does feeding something information necessarily take time? why does creating take time? i dont understand your final question? are you presenting an intuitive case for why something cannot arrive onto the scene of reality with no time?
@McCarthy1776
14 күн бұрын
Most of the most well known philosophers from the middle ages were catholic and they were big on Plato, Aristotle and the stoics. Catholic philosophers looked at the greek fathers of western philosophy as ethically Christian.
@Thomas-Cahill
14 күн бұрын
Indeed. For Catholic philosophers like Augustine or Aquinas, Plato and Aristotle went about as far as one can go in understanding the world by reason alone. The advantage that the Catholic philosophers had was access to both reason and divine revelation.
@generichuman_
17 күн бұрын
I don't think you can get from a God that is unchanging to anything that changes, because where is this change first introduced? If God for example decides to change something, then the change first has to happen in God's mind which means he isn't unchanging. It seems like as you push the first changing thing back in time, you either have to reach a changing thing that is part of God, or a first changing thing that isn't a part of God which means God couldn't have authored it. I know how these conversations usually go, and I'm anticipating an answer like "thinking of God in terms of parts is a mistake" or "God doesn't work like this". This is fine, as long as you're ok with God being essentially an impenetrable black box where magic and paradoxes can happen and you don't really care. If God is an unchanging thing that can cause change "somehow", that's paradoxical by any standard, and if it isn't, I question what tools you are using to probe the inner workings of a thing that is by definition not probe-able.
@billy-lanhthach5671
8 күн бұрын
I think the problem here is that God somehow has to have a mind and take decisions like a _living_ being. Why can't it be a ultimate force of nature that is ungraspable to our current civilization? Probably because all religions would fall apart then (as institutions at least).
@rjskeptic5273
17 күн бұрын
A by far better word than change is transition.
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
why?
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
i think feser says potency is between sheer nothingness and full blown actuality. this type of ontological pluralism still begs Parmenides' objection i believe, as even though the potentially may exist (if assuming act/potency distinction), how does this existing potency come into being from nothing? im not agreeing with parmenides, just wondering if act/potency distinction really works against his objection. Maybe you could say that potentialities come from God, but you said yourself that something cannot give what it does not have, and it would be odd to say God has potency. i dont think my argument here is that strong though 10:23 footballers pass the ball with their feet (mostly) im not sure i understand the pure actuality part. things pass on actuality, from one thing to another. but how does something have actuality? if we imagine something actual, it must have actuality as a property. but is the actuality that is a property not pure actuality? the actuality is not connected to any potentials, it is the thing which has actuality which has potentials, not the actuality itself. would this not suggest that actual things possess pure actuality? this seems a bit odd. im just misunderstanding though i think why does lacking a quality entail changeability? why could parts potentially come apart? would could god not exist as some Godly substance which has certain parts necessarily attached to the substance? how are there kinds of actuality to be lacked? is actuality not just actual existence? all things which are not causally inert have actual existence, which means they exist. if actual existence refers to things, as opposed to properties, how can there be kinds of actuality which are properties? properties may be said to be parts of essence. it is not the properties which are actual, but the thing which is actual. because the thing is actual, its essence and its properties exist. i think i am just rambling. how do you determine perfections (great-making features)? personally i dont like the perfect or infinite terminology (maybe not even maximal terminology) as it can get tricky. for example, god cannot possess self-referencing knowledge, however someone else could have knowledge which references god's knowledge, so god does not possess all the knowledge that anyone could possess, only the knowledge that he could possess. his knowledge is maximal for him, but not maximal for others as this is contradictory to him. this would be the same with the paradox of omnipotence, where god cant create a burrito to hot for him to eat but i can, so god lacks a power that i have as it is contradictory to him 17:31 i feel this is controversial in philosophy of mind what do you mean by mind?
@Bc232klm
18 күн бұрын
This is just excuses you're giving to lie to yourself. I implore you to care more about truth than faith.
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
what's your truth?
@christopherjohnson9167
15 күн бұрын
clearly he's put a lot of thought into the logic behind monotheism and Christianity and finds that it's most likely true. Whether there is God or not or Christianity is true is beyond our ability to completely prove or disprove, so whether you are atheist or religious faith is required. Yes faith is required to believe atheism is true.
@Bc232klm
18 күн бұрын
Seriously, it's incredibly ridiculous to play make believe with ancient mythological cults. You should really learn more about Yahweh and the cannanite myths that the Judaism cult offshoot came from. It's just far too silly to even come close to be able to pretend is real. Religions are cults. The only way you can fool yourself is to take their dogma as truth without question, even though the dogma has changed drastically over 2000 years. There's seriously so much that you don't know, and maybe don't want to know about Christianity and epistemology. Start caring if what you believe is true, then you can learn to use facts and evidence to discern truth from belief.
@EitherSpark
18 күн бұрын
thats not very nice why does it matter where the idea of yahweh has come from? whats wrong with religions being cults? what's wrong with the dogma changing? He has questioned his beliefs, yet he takes 'dogma' to be true what's wrong with his arguments?
@ethanf.237
18 күн бұрын
Mr. truth and epistemology over here dismissing arguments due to the uncharitable motives he ascribes to his interlocutor. The jokes simply write themselves.
@ethanf.237
18 күн бұрын
@@EitherSpark This is the most concise/ astute critique I have ever seen!
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
@@ethanf.237 thanks, i cant help but agree
@christopherjohnson9167
15 күн бұрын
Atheism is a cult.
@AbdulAlHasRol
9 күн бұрын
I'm a beginner in philosophy studies. This video is really useful! Thank you.
@Thomas-Cahill
9 күн бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@rjskeptic5273
17 күн бұрын
How easy is it for us to assume eg pure actual is a being.
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
because it be?
@rjskeptic5273
16 күн бұрын
@@EitherSparkbecause it be.
@EitherSpark
16 күн бұрын
@@rjskeptic5273 yh
@rjskeptic5273
17 күн бұрын
Superman defeats your pure actuality.
@EitherSpark
17 күн бұрын
how?
@ethanf.237
17 күн бұрын
I'm guessing you don't grasp what is implied by pure actuality....
@rjskeptic5273
17 күн бұрын
@@ethanf.237 And you'd be wrong.
@ethanf.237
17 күн бұрын
@@rjskeptic5273 If saying it would only make it so... Demonstrate it. How precisely does superman defeat an entity that is pure actuality?
@rjskeptic5273
16 күн бұрын
@@ethanf.237we have empirical evidence that superman exists.
@Bc232klm
18 күн бұрын
Because you don't care if what you believe is true or not.
Пікірлер: 45