Graham Oppy | Negative Theology, Theistic Idealism, Comparing Worldviews
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июл 2024
- Folks I am very happy to be joined today by Graham Oppy. Graham is professor of philosophy at Monash University specializing in the philosophy of religion.
Link to Oppy's books on Amazon:
www.amazon.com.au/s?i=digital...
Chapters:
0:00 Intro
0:43 Oppy's Main Argument Against Theism
3:24 Negative Theology & God's Nature
12:51 Epiphenomenal God
15:20 Criteria for Explanatory Power & Simplicity
20:39 Theory Comparison Under Dialetheism
23:54 Dialetheism & Theism
25:31 Gödelian Implications for Morality & Knowledge
36:35 God's Knowledge
39:17 Gödel's Ontological Argument
43:17 Is Necessary Existence a Positive Property?
48:39 Any Hope for Anselm?
57:09 Aristotelian Modality
1:00:10 Infinity or Origin?
1:06:00 Relationship Between Physics & Metaphysics
1:08:19 Foundation with Infinite Past?
1:13:03 Divine Simplicity
1:17:39 Love & the Problem of Evil
1:20:03 Minded Organisms & Worlds
1:28:26 Theistic Idealism
1:39:08 Aboriginal Spiritual Practises
1:41:45 Other Evidence for God
1:45:22 From Necessary Foundation to Contingency?
1:47:25 Problems with Negative Theology
1:48:55 Is Atheism's Dominance in Philosophy Problematic for Theists?
1:52:15 Fideism & Agnostic Theism
1:56:21 Is Oppy Afraid of Death?
2:01:11 Problems with the Afterlife
2:03:42 Atheists Who've Changed Their Minds
2:06:06 42
2:08:46 Conclusion
Folks if you enjoyed that please feel free to leave a like and don’t forget to subscribe!
It's great that Oppy is willing to engage not only with other professional philosophers but also young interviewers just starting out. He's never condescending or arrogant, and shows great respect when challenged. Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins are not the only path to atheism.
Lol it's pretty cool that a RUclips channel with sixty-one subscribers has managed to get Graham Oppy on for an interview. I suppose philosophy of religion is pretty niche, but it's cool to see that he was willing to come on for two hours. Also, I'm glad to see someone asking him questions besides 'What is the proper definition of 'atheism'?' and 'What is the best argument for the existence of God?'
Oppy cussing was everything I've ever needed
I just want to say that the interviewer did a great job and this was a brilliant interview
great questions! (and answers)
Watching this as a theist, I think you did an amazing job as an interviewer. You really squeezed a lot of philosophical knowledge out of Oppy with your questions. Personally, I love to listen to Dr Oppy even though I am a theist because he really brings some good challenges to the theistic position and it’s great to know the pros and cons of different philosophical worldviews. I’ll be looking forward to more good content from your channel
2:00:00 I never really understood this "I lean theism over naturalism because I hope there's an afterlife" mindset. There is nothing inherent to the god hypothesis that implies an afterlife at all. Like, at all.
If anything, I would say that I assign a significantly higher prior probability to the existence of god than to the existence of an afterlife, and if it turned out the former were true, that wouldn't move my conditional posterior of the latter much at all.
I actually like Josh’s blog post where he disputes it. He believes theism explains more of the data such as consciousness.
I wonder who Graham supports in the AFL. If he's like the other smart people, it would have to be Carlton.
We just tripled viewership from one discord 😂
W
I want oppy to explain where his necessary initial item of reality goes after t=0.
Are you serious? Do you know what necessity means in philosophy?
@@cogitoergosum3433 yes you brain let that’s my point. If it’s necessary at t=0 it would still be necessary at t=1 for example if you believe god is the necessary initial item. For oppys view it’s perfectly reasonable to ask where did this necessary stuff go?
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Well not quite, though I see your reasoning. However, the reasoning Oppy uses is very different and hard to refute if you’re a theist (which is why he is not convinced by theism) and made more difficult by virtue of the creation ex nihilo.
You will recall that Craig (and Loke) argue for creation ex nihilo, that is creation from absolutely no thing at all. However, both theist and atheist agree and accept that nothing can come from nothing, Craig’s supports this with his ‘nothing can come from nothing, nothing has no potentiality, etc’. (Accepting that there is no logical contradiction entailed in creation from nothing by nothing and Alexander Vilenkin shows this is possible by no cause using the known laws of physics).
There are two problems theists often gloss over. Neither physicists or cosmologists agree that was ever a state of nothing at all. What is absolutely known is that the universe that the stuff of the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state. Not only does this mean there is no creation from absolute nothing known (the evidence shows otherwise), but that this state would also be timeless, spaceless and contain an immense amount of potential energy (what Craig calls powerful) and we know that energy does not require anything, not even a mind to actuate an event.
So, what can we conclude?
1. There is never (insofar as is known) a state of no thing at all.
2. If there is never a state of no thing then it must necessarily contain everything that becomes the universe, including fine tuning etc.
3. If follows logically and necessarily from the above that as the universe cannot be created from nothing, then the stuff of the universe must, by axiomatic definition, exist necessarily.
In the past both Craig and Loke in debate with Graham Oppy have tried to assert that the necessary state of the universe is proceeded by a further necessary state, i.e god. Of course, this is absurd as this is in effect arguing that an explanation of the explanandum is needed (which both argue is absurd when god is reasoned to be necessary, but oddly when god is not implicated they demand an explanation, much in the way an atheist may ask what is the explanation of god.
One of the few times I’ve seen Oppy annoyed is when Loke tries to pull this trick and Loke misquotes Oppy’s argument.
So you can see that neither Craig or Oppy can provide a valid and sound argument that can unseat Oppy or even give him the slightest cause to reconsider his position, even if we assume creatio ex nihilo, as on the theists own argument nothing comes from nothing.
But even if we accept Vilenkins argument, oddly Craig doesn’t cite Vilenkin when he does not conclude the god possibility, then the laws of physics show god is not necessary for anything.
Craig and Loke both know this, but never make explicit the implications of Oppy’s valid and sound argument, which not only philosophically robust, but is supported by evidence.
So, to conclude, as you do, that the necessary condition is god, is to deny the arguments of Craig and Oppy on grounds of logic, physics and, more importantly, Christian doctrine and theology.
I hope I have made clear the way theists claims are formed, means that Oppy is perfectly and rationally justified to reject theist claims. In other words claiming that the stuff of the universe not only did exist, but necessarily had to exist (it could not not existed) with all the potentials to do what’s happened. And all this follows from theist / atheist agreement that from nothing, nothing comes. The atheist clause for this to be true something had to necessarily true. And if so, the theists claim of ex nihilo creation is self refuting. But as I showed even if creatio ex nihilo is possible, Vilenkin is able to show that at the very least, based on the known evidence and laws of physics, god is unnecessary, and can be dispensed with by the use of Occabd razor (as citing god is a wheel in the cog that performs no function in the argument).
Peace.
@@cogitoergosum3433 I had to skim over your wall of text because I am busy and don't really have time to get in a deep philosophical debate in a youtube comment section man. Why would you assume I agree with Loke or Craig? I think God is temporal. You sound pretty limited on which theists you follow. I suggest looking into Ryan Mullins more. Most contemporary physicists currently do HOLD that the initial conditions are contingent. I'm not arguing for the kalam here. But putting all that aside I do believe Kenny Pearce in the debate book with Oppy pointed out flaws in his thinking and that Oppy needs to explain how his version aligns with current science.
@@cogitoergosum3433 Josh Siwuade has a paper countering Oppy naturalism and when you analyze first autonomous fact that attributes fit God more. Also if you are thomistic you are arguing initial items essence=existence. Which attributes that fit God more than some natural item.
Dr.Oppy
My name is Dawn Marx, I’m a fan of your work in philosophy of religion. I was wondering if you’d be interested in joining a “philhoes” server. We’d love to have you.
Thanks bunches,
Dawn Marx
Oppy does frequent discord servers from time to time. He can’t see your comment here but if you shoot him an email I’m sure he’ll respond!
I heard dawn is a sophist :)
Hey buddy
@@jmike2039 oh yeah?! Let’s formalize it, the prop is “Dawn is a sophist”, you can take the affirmative 😎
Omg😢😢
W us
Dad?
Probably not.
Surely not!
Antony Flew
nope, god doesn't exist