Alex O’Connor deconstructs Ben Shapiro and Ed Feser (REBUTTED)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- In this episode Trent examines Alex O’Connor’s (aka “the Cosmic Skeptic”) and Genetically Modified Skeptic's objections to the argument from change for the existence of God as put forward by Ben Shapiro and Catholic philosopher Ed Feser.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Original Videos:
"Deconstructing Ben Shapiro on Religion" - • Deconstructing Ben Sha...
"I paid for Ben Shapiro’s video about atheism and all I got was disappointment" - • I paid for Ben Shapiro...
When I watched Alex's response video to Ben Shapiro, I immediately said "Boy, Alex did a good job with his replies. It would be cool if Trent did a rebuttal to see his perspective on the matter" well, it seemed like I got what I wished for lol.
Sitting here pretending to understand anything
😂
Yep. The seed and the tree in Shapiro's cartoon made total sense to me but it went down hill a bit from there! (More cartoons please!)
I don't even know what a nucular panner plant is.
It's all philosophical bullshit to compensate for the fact that they have no evidence at all for god. SO they have to make up thought-excersizes to justify it. And they pat themselves on the back for their cleverness while stating things they can't actually know are true.
🫡
I think Alex forgets that by quantum theory, energy is quantized and not continuous. That was the whole "ultraviolet catastrophe" issue.
I wonder if he even knows about that in the first place.
I don't think that the ultraviolet catastrophe is an appropriate word to call the advent of quantum theory, because if classical physics were true, we'd all be dead.
@@rudolfivonhabsburgkingofth601 That's what physicists at the time called it. They called it a catastrophe cus for a while all their theories were getting us killed on paper
not my first thought, but I got there too, after a while...and of course quantum theory deals in pure probability until some measurement/interaction actualises the state change (am I right there?)
@@rudolfivonhabsburgkingofth601 "catastrophe" is name of paradox cased by old physic that fail to correctly describe observed behavior. And attempts to solve this problem create quantum theory.
This is such a good reply to Alex.
As a protestant, you've helped me understand a lot of things in philosophy, Trent.
Do you already understand how 3 distinct persons share one divine nature or Godhead?
@@Lerian_V Not as much as I would like to. I'm yet to research deeply into the subject matter. But very soon planning to.
God's cause is his potential?
God's potential is to be purely actual?
Only actual things exist?
Are all points in time the same point in time or different.
What is it that is moving through the block universe and scanning the different parts?
Very IMPORTANT! It is absolutly not true that there is an infinity number of degrees that the cofee can be colled neither the distance between hands can not be reduced infinitively. the reason for that is that physics show that space and time are not continous but discret. We cannot add and infinity amount of decimals points to the T° of the coffee. The smaller distance and time period is given by the planck scale. That is the principle of quantum physics.
Also if coffee would reach, let's say, the temperature of the Sun, it would simply cease to be coffee.
Physics does not show that space-time is discrete. Rather, it shows that any solution using classical physics returns near infinities at a certain point, the Planck length and the Planck time. That is because you are dividing over such a small number. There are groups within physics, mainly those who are chasing a theory of quantum gravity, that argue for a truly discrete time and length. But this causes all sorts of problems. If space is discrete, what exists between space points? Is it nothing? Does the universe cease to exist between these space points? Why are these space points where they are? And the same goes for time. If time is discrete, does the universe cease to exist between time points, like a discrete signal? For this reason, it is not generally accepted that space and time are discrete. The only people who think so do so self-servingly, as it furthers their own hypothetical solutions to quantum gravity.
@@josephmoya5098 "Physics does not show that space-time is discrete". "returns near infinities at a certain point, the Planck length and the Planck time". It is much more than that. The planck lenght is necessary for quantum physics at every aspect of it. But I correct my statement. The space is probably discret and the planck length is probably the smaller that we can get. "But this causes all sorts of problems". None of these problems are physical problems. For example, "Does the universe cease to exist between these space points?". Those are interesting questions but there is no paradox there.
@@EstudioVoitheia I am not a quantum physicist. Perhaps you are. However, I am certain that there is nothing in quantum theory which requires discrete time or space. The Planck length is that length of which nothing smaller can be measured. And the Planck time is that time at which anything smaller is meaningless, and here meaningless refers to a trivial solution, such as an infinitesimal or an infinity. There are physicists who argue that space and time are discrete, but that is solely for the purpose of forwarding their particular solution to quantum gravity. And it is a major problem for physics if the universe doesn't exist, if space itself doesn't exist, between two "quantum points." Because, while the Planck length might be the smallest measurement, there are values less than that, and those values are infinite. So why are those values not real. It would be a huge problem.
It is easy to state an assertion about physics that is so barely understood to further your point or even “prove” it
Love philosophy and metaphysics. Makes my brain hurt
“You make it…. *boom boom* hurt so good!”
'Philosophy' is from the Greek language and it means' love of wisdom'
"Makes my brain hurt."
Yeah, but in a good way.
Like exercise to the body.
Alex O'Connor's objection using a block theory of the universe actually explains the eternity of God. In a block universe nothing is simultaneous (spatially or temporally) to observers who are part of the block universe, but for the Eternal God EVERYTHING is simultaneous.
Thank you, Trent. I understand these arguments better now!
Challenging Feser... that's bold Alex
If he did a better job it would be… I don’t think Feser needs to even respond.
Its not about just challenging Feser, anyone can attempt that.
Its about understanding the concepts well enough to do so. Alex clearly doesn’t understand it and Trent exposes that in this video.
Ask Joe schmid (majesty of reason)
I like that Alex shared his patron only segment on Ed feser. That was generous
Comment for the algorithm.
I’m grateful for Cosmic Skeptic’s rational manner. It seems to me that he isn’t out to score points, just to pursue the truth in good faith. I’m even more grateful Trent’s rigour. Great channel!
However; a good presenter no matter how polite is still wrong. He is an atheist. So by definition he's an ignorant racist, sexist, and homophobe. Every atheist I've met are like that, no matter how much they argue to the opposite.
Omg ,when I watched Alex I thought to myself how Trent will respond to that and here it is .
The potential of my head hurting after watching this video,......actually happened. 😁
So now the argument is 'change does not exist, so God does not exist'?
Am I the only one who thinks that is a bit far fetched?
I like my 8year olds reasoning for God, when I told him some people don't believe.
"Who do they think made the Universe? The sun? Have they even looked at Nature?"
The answer that they think it all happened by coincidence did not even remotely impress him.
I like children. They bring stuff to the point.
No it is. Totally a case of a philosopher spending to much time thinking about stuff and in his own head.
Honestly, in my non philosopher brain all I heard from Alex was: God is not needed because God is not needed
That Things change is a premise of the argument that does require philosophical backing. Aristotle developed the language of potential and actual in response to other great philosophers who claimed that things did not actually change.
@@Dianadicarta «[...] Because I don't want to need Him.» *
I like my 8 yo reasoning against god, he said “who do they think made God? The sun? Have they even looked at the nature of god?”
The answer that they think he started to exist by coincidence, rather than nothing existing at all, did not even remotely impress him.
The answer to the problem of "potential actuality" you give is spot on and I was happy that one of my philosophical heroes was brought to bear. When I saw Alex's video, Boethius' definition of eternity immediately came to mind. "Interminabilis vita, tota, simul et perfecta possessio." I believe that many (if not most) of atheists' most challenging challenges come from a defective understanding of eternity (evil, free will, etc.). Now, eternity (like everything else about God) is intricately bound to the divine simplicity, and I wonder how apologists such as WLC manage to fair so well in their debates without having this notion very clear. I think he (Dr. Craig) would save himself some intellectual acrobatics if he did come to understand that God's perfection calls for eternity and perfect simplicity.
I thank God that I was blessed with being able to study the origins of western thought and its deepest thinkers from the preSocratics on. God became intellectually present as well as immanent in all being. Where sanity lies.
I'm always impressed how intellectually arrogant some christians are. You speak about inventented, delusional things with such convintion! Same has to be said about flatearthers, btw.
@@bulavskyy Where are you from?
@@xaviervelascosuarezhell
does Alex actually engage with these arguments? potentially...
Loved the summary replies. It makes it easier to understand
Alex's arguments are so easily defeated that my brain almost hurts while listening to him. And as a former ultra-confident atheist now converted to the Catholic Faith, I say this with no sarcasm or ill intentions whatsoever.
Same across the board
Same
Not a Catholic, but I am in total agreement with you.
The second one was actually pretty good unless you thought about it for a minute.
Nice
If I had a dollar for every scholar who reverted to occams razor to "debunk" miracles but somersaulted through mental gymnastics to reject a creator....
I'd have enough to pay all their student loans.
😂 for sure! "A purely actual actualizer fails in relation to theory B of time, aka the time block.......and I can't believe you guys think there is a God and only one God lolol how silly how bout like several gods?!" Like wait a minute!! 😂
@@WilsonAcres For something that doesn't exist God sure has the undivided attention of the atheist. Indeed, I'm a Theist and atheists spend far more time than I ever do, talking about God.
Occam’s razor of course originally being used as support FOR God.
You might have enough to get their degrees revoked on the grounds of using unsupported and illogic al arguments.
A creator isn’t the simplest explanation.
A creator is the most complex explanation imaginable.
For the past many months I've been amazed about how much is reducible to the act/potency distinction.
Thomism literally is SANITY.
Thanks!
Me trying to understand this before my coffee has kicked in 🥴🥴🥴🥴
I think I have an easier to explain objection to Alex's first point:
He says that potential is not an actual property of an object, but I don't think he would say that the past isn't an actual property of an object. So if an object can have a past, and in its past it went from one quantity of a continous property to another quantity of that same property (like from 61 degrees to 60), then it already has in its past an infinite number of intermediate states. Potential is something that is as much of a property as its past, meaning that if you accept as true the abstractions some branches of physics use where there's supposedly infinitely many intermediate states in a change, then since that leads you to accept an infinite amount of past states, it should also lead you to accept an infinite amount of possible future states.
One could challenge the idea that continous properties exist, but that's besides the point. If you need a continous property to arrive at the conclusion that potential is infinite, you also arrive at the conclusion past is infinite, and since everyone agrees the past is an actual property of an object, you need a different argument to prove that potential cannot be a property of the object.
I thought it was a bit of a sleight of hand on his part to refer to potential and actuality as properties in the first place. Maybe there's a technical definition of property that allows for this, but my layman's understanding is that a property is an aspect of a thing (chair is yellow, coffee is 60.1° etc) while act and potential refer to a state of being. Is there no distinction between a thing's state of being and the properties it possesses?
I similarly had reservations about his reference to an actualized thing being simultaneously potential in order to maintain its actualized state. This describes the state of being for all caused thing's, but it wouldn't apply to a purely actualized actualizer, never mind that the way he put it, it's as if there's no distinction between potential and actual.
Nevertheless, Trent didn't comment on these points, so I feel like I'm missing something
I think these questions (or questions similar to these) are well-addressed in Modern Thomistic Philosophy, Volume I, where he talks about Zeno's objections. For anyone looking for a good introduction, that is also very detailed, to Thomistic philosophy of nature and metaphysics, I *highly* recommend that two-volume series.
Thomism is sanity. The real world available to our minds including why we are "moved" by beauty and goodness. God at the ground of being, BEING itself, REASON itself and why sunsets and children are so wondrous. Love. the final mover.
@@tommore3263 AMEN. I still want to engage with non-Thomist philosophy, I think that's really interesting, but Thomism is the only thing I've read so far where I've actually *felt* at peace. It really is a common-sense philosophy, where I'm very rarely finding that I have to stretch and wrap my head around something. Instead I just become aware of what my head is already wrapped around and how perfectly it fits.
Alex's objection using the B theory of time seems to purely rely on redefining the term change. Change seems to be the difference between an object at two different times. Even if all things exist in a time block it is not immediately obvious that change cannot have the same definition in this way of thinking about time. With Theory A an object can change from one moment to another. In the B theory of time an object can change from one moment to another, it just possesses new characteristics at different time points, but this seems to be change as originally defined. If I am missing something here, please let me know!
Redefining terms is what they do. Weasels
Agreed. Time seems inherently to be the reciprocal of change. You can't have the one without the other. Going "outside" of time to look at the time block and ask why it doesn't change seems bewildering.
POV: You see that Trent is defending an argument from motion, and now are wondering how quickly MoR will take to respond to it.
Ill give Joe another 3 minutes😉😎
Joe is a busy person it will probably take 2 seconds
Who’s MoR
@@Seanph25 MajestyOfReason
It seems neither of the atheists have really spent time pondering the concept of Divine Simplicity. Most of Aquinas' proofs are, first and foremost, an argument that Divine Simplicity is necessary to explain the complexity of this world.
I love how Trent brings in precision rules 💕🤓
Trent, since Alex describes the B theory of time as objects existing without potential but as parts, can we not just bring up the argument from contingency?
To do so would be to concede that the argument from motion is insufficient to prove the existence of God, since you basically just gave up when an objection got too hard to handle.
@@notpants2810 It’s not conceding that the argument doesn’t work, it’s appealing to other information to show that an objection doesn’t work.
@@notpants2810 Also, Cosmicskeptic does the same thing. He brings up his second argument even when he has moved on to his third.
If you think a bit it seems that Cosmic Skeptic is saying that existence is a huge panel, infinite in size with infinite moments as pictures.
But forgets - or either pretends - that we should then ask why there's a friggin' panel there? Who put it there? If not who, then what?
To have infinite past, doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, rather the contrary, it reafirms it as there has to be.
Notice that every time an atheist argue they'll try to explain that things can ONLY work in A specific way and that couldn't be another?
I feel a bit bad for Alex O’Connor that you put him next to Genetically Modified Skeptic…
Exactly. GMS seemed to not even have read Feser's work.
true but honestly o'connor has been stuck on the same simple problem at least since his debate with bishop barron, whether he reverts back to his old arguments or not.
@@flowinproductions6416 True…
@3:31 Alex stating that his coffee can be so many degrees in temperature was such a TERRIBLE argument 🤣
Yes, it's funny how atheists abuse abstractions given their pretensions about being scientific and reasonable in general
not at all. Its the concept of potentiality that is terrible.
I would then ask Alex, "How was the Timeblock made? Or Who arranged the set for events to occur? It sorta just sounds like fate if there isn't actual change."
My understanding of the argument is still a bit basic, but it seems that in order for there to be a set of potentials and actualizations within the so-called timeblock, wouldn't there need to be an actualization and potential for that specific timeblock, as to why it is chosen for the proximal past, present, and future, and not some other timeblock? It seems that even using the timeblock as a sort of scapegoat still creates the issue which you raised. Ultimately, I think the atheist position is overall untenable, because it still requires the same sort of so-called "assumptions" or "begging" that the theistic position supposedly requires.
I'm not a big fan of how Alex put his point in this video, but my question to you is pretty much the same thing. Who created everything for sure, because to me who didn't grow up religious, the creation stories are just stories that people made up to explain things they didn't know and now it clashes in important ways with the world now we can observe it differently with modern advancements.
Alex and others like him would have nowhere near the audience they do if they didn't have English accents. Not joking
Genetically Modified Skeptic has more views and has an American accent.
@@fedfoofy Ah but he preaches the material hedonism much better, per life in America.
To some extent this is true. And I'm English myself lol. I've not watched much of Alex before tbh, but he presents exactly as I expected, which is to say very eloquently spoken and full of intellectual vocabulary, but rather pretentious and kind of a can't see the woods for the trees effect in the sense that they put across a seemingly insightful point, but it's actually flimsy. I know many like this and I was also like this too as I've got a BA and MA in history and literature. Now, I don't have a problem with him putting forward a critique of classical theism or Thomism, but this is just a general observation of this type I find. Probably Dawkins and Hitchens are/were compelling in a similar way as they fit the archetype of the posh English intellectual and sometimes that aesthetic is convincing, more so that the substance. Not to say that Alex is not genuinely intelligent (he is) nor can he help his accent etc lol,but like many intelligent people sometimes that intellect needs to be balanced out with experience to give context and wisdom. There's a reason that the stereotype of students and academics exists of "plenty of brains but no common sense", because it is observablely true a lot of the time with real experience.
Another tendency, not so much of Alex here tbf, but generally can be snarky attitudes to anything vaguely traditional or concepts of established truths (indeed even the concept of truth itself sometimes), usually in a pompous and dismissive way, which is all an exercise in ego.
@@MidnightIsolde charisma sways people way more than they'd like to think, confirms their intuitions no matter how incomplete or outright flawed.
Hitchens was a master at it but Dawkins is just painful (even though they both had horrible arguments), so there's more to it than just the accent
True. He's boring and nothing brilliant.
*Joe Schmid is typing…*
I can smell the 4 hour response now
Ngl Im hoping Trent would respond to Joe if he did make a reply, simply because I’m interested in hearing Trent talk about Existential Inertia, which he dismissed since the objection wasn’t made.
@@probaskinnyman4960 true, existential inertia is a very interesting topic that I haven’t had time to do much research into, so hopefully having two people who are likely pretty knowledgeable about EI discussing it directly would help break the ice for the layman so to speak.
Has he done it yet? Because he sure does love to respond to people
what thing remains as it is? the yellow chair will not remain the same color yellow over time...it has no potential to remain unchanged
If it's a wooden chair, there's a chance that it maybe repainted another colour, how many potentials in that, when you repaint a wooden item you don't need scientific potentials that it'll change colour, just common sense,
I think Alex was trying to point out that if God exist, he should have potentially remain unchanged. The argument from motion says that there must exist a being who is a prime mover and that being must be unchanged with no potential. God must be actual without potential. Alex argues that if this is the case it would be illogical because things, whether actual or potential, must still have at least 1 potentiality to “remain as it is”. If God does not have potential, he therefore can’t exist. (I think this is what Alex meant, but i hve no idea since I’m not much a philosophy fan, but very much a Trent Horn fan)
@@probaskinnyman4960 issue with that argument from Alex is if something only has the "potential to remain as is" it would just be that something LOL ... like a being produced by human intercourse only has the potential to be human 🤣 but that's like a tautology. When we say potential for all intensive purpose we mean can be one state or another state .. if something only exists in one state it by nature is unchanging and thus it would be reductive to describe its potential like Water=Liquid H20 if it's not H20 it's not water so why would one say Oh it potentially could not have 2 hydrogen molecules well of course it could but then it isn't water LOL
@@landonlowe4029 thanks for your comment, im no atheist so I can’t really propose any rebuttal since I don’t dare to think like one, or even know. Your case seems strong. Its like saying a circle has a potential to be a triangle, or potentially remain as it is. This would then make things very arbitrary and thus seems unreliable. Considering also that it sounds contradictory by nature.
Though I would add, how could we respond to the argument that says something that exist must both be actualised and have potentiality (note still haven’t finish the video, but in all honesty, i barely understand a thing both Trent and Alex are saying 😂)
@@probaskinnyman4960 yeah the circle triangle thing is exactly the point I was trying to make 🤣 like a circle could potentially not be round ... that makes no sense then because then it's no longer a circle LOL.. as to general arguments yeah I am no master in the subject at all but sometimes it feels like yeah you can get so abstract that you miss basic flaws (find it funny Tremt didn't point this out ) unless I am missing something as I always say .. but yeah it's fun to watch these .. I'm actually a protestant looking into catholicism I guess.. I actually came to this channel a few months back looking for interesting discussions on the Bible and modern culture and now I've been into catholic apologetics and apologetics in general.. wasn't into it before but kinda a rabbit hole LOL
Loved this talk
Alex's argument was entirely defeated by this rebuttal.
He should, however, be complimented for having a nice-looking Taylor guitar in the background. (And then, he should get a mild finger-waggling for inducing others to covet.) 🙂
Doesn't he also have a statuette of the Moses...? 🤔
For the first argument. Essences and natures do not inhere into beings, they are predicated of beings. Potencies don’t exist in any instance of an essence but remain at the level of essence.
Thought it was a sleight of hand on his part. It might not be intentional but sloppy language gets you in the weeds pretty quickly, and atheists in general seem to rely on it for their objections
@@ironymatt I haven't finished the video yet but I'd characterize his whole reply as pretty sloppy. I don't think any of these hold up at the academic level. They might sound good to a regular person but he makes pretty elementary mistakes. His second point on potency completely misses the point of dichotomizing act vs potency. Potency is opposed to the actual, the potency to not change is nonsensical per the definition.
Like form and matter, actuality and potentiality are not two "things" that exist in the coffee cup , but rather are the two metaphysical or most basic principles that renders reality intelligible. Potential is real but it is only realized in actuality and not discernible other than by understanding the very foundations of being. And this does lead inevitably to a being who Is BEING itself.. Himself as such a being must be Personal.
I really like and admire Alex incidentally and look forward to his further growth in understanding. He is much disturbed by suffering for instance, but doesn't see that the very idea of suffering or evil actually must unavoidably be an assertion of the fundamental goodness of being. Monotheism is the necessary core of apprehending reality.
His interview with Bishop Barron was very good. Cheers
There was a point during his interview with BP Barron where I spoke out loud to my screen something to the effect of "How can you think suffering negates God's goodness?! Does it look like Jesus didn't suffer on the cross?"
I really wanted Barron to make that point as a rebuttal because Alex kept pressing it.
@@ironymatt Bishop Barron did point out that suffering is evil or bad only if everything is good and valuable. I see that as a bit of a blind spot with Alex who I fully expect will find his way to full sane rationality which literally is the Roman Catholic Church in the Person who sustains her. Catholicism really is exactly truth and sanity.
@@tommore3263 well put. I see in him the drive to correct the injustices of the world, insofar as he can perceive them - which isn't at all a unique outlook, especially at his age. While he might not readily concur at this time in his life, this reveals a de facto desire for God Himself, in whom lies the full embodiment of perfect justice, beyond all human comprehension.
He'll get there, once he starts getting out of his own way :-)
What do you think about having a dialogue with either Alex or perhaps Joe Schmid about the argument from change?
Need to watch this multiple times to understand !! You guys are just cool.
Alex slides between “real” and “actual”. The infinite potentials of the coffee are real, so there is an actual infinite number of potentials. “Real” and “actual” can be distinguished, and I think is central to Aristotle’s metaphysics of change. Alex begs that we “imagine” these potentials, but they exist as realities in actual powers substances have.
Yeah, it’s kind of sloppy for him to slide between actual and real like that
The problem of the B-theory of time is not that it denies the reality of change, but just that physical change across time (like physical structure across space) are intra-cosmic dynamics, not allowing inference beyond the cosmos. The introduction of the non-physical (at 25:30) certainly does change that, but that massive step needs to be acknowledged for what it is
OMG THE SLIDES ARE BACK!!!
I found many of Alex's arguments to fly so much in the face of "common sense" that it was somewhat hard to wrap my head around what he is actually trying to argue. Saying there is "no change" if a B series of time is true feels a bit like saying that there would be "no change" in a song because it is part of a single composition when viewed as a whole (that doesn't "change" unless it is played).
Anyone else thinking the same thing, or am I just not getting it?
I was actual struck by his chair analogy of changing the covering the chair but to the same color. What he merely proved by that is that some changes can imperceptible to the eyes it doesn't in any way prove that change didn't occur. Just like our limitations in our ability perceive the full actuality of God doesn't negate that it is there.
I have a feeling there is no coffee in that cup. Lol
Man, Alex's thinking seems to have a lot of fun separate from his own personal biases, and so he's able to entertain ideas like Trent does. I'd love to have a long deep discussion and a beer or two with him. (Though I'd take a notepad if I was with Trent)
I don't know if anyone covered this already, but the temperature of the coffee can't have an infinite number of potential temperatures because at it's boiling point it it ceases to be coffee, it is limited by thermodynamics to be warmer than absolute zero, and all its possible temperatures in between are limited by energy quanta.
Sheeesh, a trip to conversation land.
T'was good.
Also did Alex forget that Relativity isn't true? It's just a useful model but advances in understanding of Quantum Mechanics proves that Relativity isn't an accurate model of existence
Alex's argument is based on special theory of relativity, which is perfectly compatible with QM. The incompatibility you are probably refering to is between QM and general theory of relativity.
You can win every argument by redefining things in your favor, but then you are not referring to the same things as your interlocutor, and it shows a negligence in caring about giving good reason for others
Cosmicskeptic's arguments were definitely more convincing than Geneticallymodifiedskeptic's.
I'm glad that there are actual Atheists that aren't mindlessly regurgitating the nonsense of the people like Dawkins and have started listening to the more formidable arguments for Atheism from minds like Oppy.
Very good job, thanks.
Why would a god who wants to have a deep relationship with his children, make himself so hidden that his followers need to resort to sophisticated philosophical arguments to convince themselves that he even exists?
Its not complicated nor he Is faraway nor everybody has had need of philosophical degrees to grasp it. The stubborness of atheists and the fact that you have came up with more convoluted arguments is what has prompted us to more elaborate answers. Children possess natural teleological thinking and basic attributes of God can be discerned naturally from experiences of life even if a given culture Is lacking or even ignorant of whom the true God is. They are not born atheists,like you claim, neither theists but they are biologically predisposed to such and its atheism and agnosticism that go against human nature. Its a posteriori that you via secular education and corrupt morals strip children away from their innocense and built in openess for meaning and purpose and objective meaning for reality and replace It with hedonism and nihilism.
10 minutes in & my brain is a puddle of goo. This talk is totally out of my educational experience. But that’s okay. I have faith & God gifted me with a personal experience that is undeniable. That’s all I need.
Same mindset I had friend. Though I actually burnt my brain from rewinding the video 800 times. Still dont get like 70 percent that was said, but oh I tell you, that feeling of u understanding what they were saying is like Christmas Presents. Still don’t recommend frying out your braincells tho
@@probaskinnyman4960 Get some of Ed Feser's books. He can wonderfully walk almost anyone into getting it. And our minds exist to see and know truth. Its essential to human fulfillment.
@@tommore3263 always wanted to, but the cost to get a book shipped out here from America is crazy expensive, maybe one day I’ll consider a digital copy but never been a fan since it doesn’t inspire me to read. ( legit have a free Trent Horn ebook and I barely touched it)
Check out the Thomistic Institute and their Aquinas 101 series. They have given me a good background in Thomistic philosophy and meta-physics.
@@probaskinnyman4960 I hear ya with the e-books. Nothing against them for those who enjoy it, but I gotta have actual pages to turn as I sip my actual coffee before it actualizes its potential for heat death :-)
I hear the B theory of time and can't help but think that it makes the classical theistic argument. So if potential is just different parts of being. Then wouldn't God be the only being made of no parts because he never changed. I'm not sure if this makes sense but I'm trying to think it through.
Exactly my thoughts. Alex even uses the term "parts" to describe the B theory of time, and my mind immediately shifted to the argument from contingency.
If there is a god then yes I’d have to believe that god is outside space and time
It almost sounds in Alex's explanation (@ 20:50) of the awareness of the cup that TIME is the actual actuator of what happens to the cup at any given time.
Wonderful video, thank you for your good work !
I find that understanding this is more complicated that understanding the fundamentals. And knowing that time is a product of the fundamentals, there fore refuting the Alex's claims on the inception, I find that this "apologetic" route of dummying down the arguments for the masses counter intuitive and counter productive.
Love this channel . Excellent food for thought.
The objection of infinites showed a rudimentary understanding on actuality and potentiality. Feser kept skirting around answering the objection by appealing to the nature of things, which this video did a great job of doing.
The B theory of time makes no sense. Everyone experiences time. Just like everyone experiences space and everyone judges both and can have differing subjective views of both but each can be measured objectively. If time is just an illusion than it's an illusion every single conscious being. So how can we tell it's an illusion if its measurable and universally experienced? Everything that's objectively true is both measurable and able of subjective experience.
Edward feser, may favourite philosopher, it will be grait if Alex O’Connor invite feser in his podcast.
One of Trent's best videos, thanks to the faith and reason class I took this semester I could understand it so I get why it doesn't has that many views. Metaphysics are amazing and brain-damaging.
For those who want a full response to "Existential Inertia", checkout out "Philosophy for the People" and Gaven Kerr, who has written the only article in the literature on "Existential Inertia", which is ironic because he refutes it completely, showing how weak and not serious the argument actually is.
Can you provide some links to the things you are mentioning? Thanks!
@@alithea9510 "Philosophy for the People" "Existential Inertia and the Thomistic Way to God" "chroniclesofstrength" substack
But Aquinas doesn't argue that actual infinites don't exist , rather that an essentially causal series cannot be infinite which he does explain why . However he was open to an accidentally ordered series being open
This is the same guy who argued “God isn’t real because…injured deer…”
The second objection inadvertently (IMHO) asserts Aquinas's second way (and in a sort of way) his third way.
I appreciate videos like this, but man does it hurt the head. I had to rewind so often. I wish there were more pictures.
All I've realized, seeing Alex's discussion with Feser himself on the issue first, and now Trent's take on it later, is that Feser's a genius but has a suboptimal understanding of math {watch his discussion with Alex on Alex's show to see why. [Hint: Something relating to his response to Alex's objection regarding an actually infinite number of potentials (real things).]}, Alex focuses on the small details that are quite unimportant to the main premise and fails to see the big picture, and Trent offers really (I mean really) good defences of doctrine (at least when it comes to the existence of God. [This video is one of the more precious gems.]), and a lot of things to think about when it comes to talking about the existence of God (usually resulting - at least in my mind - to be in favour of the existence of God).
I must not forget to give credit to (completely based) Aristotle, who's probably watching from limbo right now, and of course to the Common Doctor of the Church St Thomas Aquinas for refining this argument and making it possible for The Argument From Motion to be a decisive problem for atheists forevermore
I may also add that I was much more serious when talking about Aristotle in Limbo, in heavy contrast to his watching us praising him from Limbo.
I think one of the primary issues that Alex had with the "actual actualiser" argument was that Shapiro said that an infinite string of past actualisers was unconvincing, and thus an initial "actual actualiser" was necessary, but he then evidences that with a theory that allows for the potential (no pun intended) of infinites. In which case, why would an infinite regress of actualisers be unconvincing if infinites are possible? You might argue that "potentials" don't exist in the same way as material objects do, but if you claim that they actually exist as real properties rather than being abstract, then anything else that actually exists may also have the potential to be infinite.
I think I got a cramp from all the mental gymnastics the atheists use to "debunk" God's existence.
Thanks for sharing this on RUclips.
Youngsters are still learning about life.
These potential temps in the coffee being fractions of a degree feels a lot like Xeno's paradox.
I'd argue an object possessing an infinite number of properties not existing is not given.
If the potential in an object exists via its interactions with the universe and possible futures then it can only be infinite.
Awesome stuff! Trent have you ever heard of Dr Anthony Rizi and the institute for advanced physics?
Alex loves the concept of infinity. The problem is that he fails to understand that infinity is not a number. It doesn't belong to the set of real numbers. An Infinite number of physical things cannot exist. Infinity is a limit: you never reach it. There's no infinite number of atoms, no infinite number of how to combine them, no infinite energy levels for an electron, ...
I’ve absolutely been loving Alex lately. He asks some hard questions in succinct and charitable ways that makes his content super beneficial. (I’m saying this as someone who converted to Catholicism because of challenges to my previous faith.)
Alex’s basic argument seemed to be that the argument for God’s existence from change violates the law of non-contradiction. But this misrepresents the argument by changing the definition of “potential” and conflating it with “actual”. Ed Feser’s book (the one he held up in the video) explicitly addressed this in the outline of the total argument, and showed it supports God’s omniscience.
Points 40-43 on pg 37 of that book he held up:
“40: So the forms or patterns manifest in all things [the purely actual actualizer] causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
41: These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
*42: They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things.”* (This would violate the law of non-contradiction.)
“43: So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.”
Feser ends the section by saying that God’s intellect containing all potentials is the definition of knowing all things (omniscience).
While this may just be a rebuttal to the specific example, there is a real sense in which an object cannot "be yellow" without a continuous stream of changes - in this case, a stream of photons of the "yellow" frequency continually striking the chair and reflecting to an observer. Very shortly after this stream of incident photons ends, the chair will cease to be yellow; it will become invisible.
Of course, some objects are yellow not because they reflect light but because they are hot enough to emit it themselves, but this either ends naturally as the energy leaves the object or it must be sustained by a source of energy, which is just another means of actualization.
Great and excellent job,Trent! Proud of you! Keep it up!
The B theory of time is misunderstanding. It does not mean that if the past present and future exist simultaneously then change cannot exist. Instead, it implies that time is not linear. Which it most likely isn't. Time is not an arrow that flows only forwards.
Your state of being dead correlates perfectly with the state of you being alive. In other words the actuality and potentialities exist even if they dont exist at the same time.
This is a very good video. I didn’t catch that immediately on the last one where he said describing a coffee basically going from hot to cold is the equivalent of it just being in two different rooms….well no because the coffee still has changed. It’s not the same temperature just in a different room. It itself is actually different and therefore changed.
Under B Theory, the concept of “change” is merely converted from talking about temporal states of before and after to spatial states of here and there. Consequently, the movement from one actualized potential to another actualized potential is replaced by the movement from one actualized part to another actualized part. This, the discussion concerns parts and the need for a perfectly simple being. Given the argument from simplicity obtaining, this merely goes to show how the divine attributes stand under both A Theory and B Theory, for they interconvert between one another depending upon the perspective.
Apparently I am a fetus and never was not a fetus. Tell my eye wrinkles change doesn't exist please 😒
If only they had the potential to remain unchanged. Alex does offer a mighty comforting falsehood.
Trent, I wish you'd put the "REBUTTED: " tag at the start of the video title. It's a little confusing trying to decode who said what and whom you're trying to rebut. I acknowledge if you do so, you'll probably get comments to return it to the way it is right now. Just a suggestion.
I liked this one but I really had to think about parts, so I am watching it twice.
I agreed with almost all you said and here are my comments.
1 enjoyed this discussion and would like to see you explore O'Connor more.
2. O'Connor's argument about temperature having an infinite potential range could be wrong physically but I think his argument could be modified to say the thermodynamic and quantum mechanical principles allow for infinite temperature states. With this modification, his argument could be valid. However, as you say it's irrelevant as it is potential.
3. At 18:46, you are engaging in special pleading by suggesting something "potential to remain in existence" and "everything has a cause" since everything we empirically know does have a cause for its existence. I would say it is up to you to prove it. Having said that I think why there is something rather than nothing is a problem both for you and O'Connor.
4. I agree with you that even in a block universe, existence requires the actualization of potential.
5. There is more than just the A and B theory of time, some other options eg one I like is that the past and present are real and the future is not.
Never heard this one, very interesting thanks (reminds me of Prime mover argument but I'm still very much a learner in this stuff).
Am I the only one that thought Alex's response was stupid and didn't actually answer anything?
For B theory of time. Even both moments exists there still objective change between them, like when you draw straight line and at some point you start makeing zig-zags. Now look on paper, whole line exists but have two distinct parts, one where line is straight and other that is not. Another thing for continues line there is still some limited potential, there is only some limited amount of lines that you could draw from given end point.
This even nicely match with Feynman diagrams, where lines can "collide" with each other and change "after" that. And this is many time timeless as time direction can be arbitrary changed.
Great refutations, but for Alex's first objection I would just argue that a potential is not a thing but rather the possibility of something happening because of the presence of something that can fulfill that possibility. For example, if I have a gun in my hand there is a possibility or a potential that I will fire a bullet, and that possibility or potential exists because I have a gun from which I can fire the bullet, and the hand that can cause the gun to fire the bullet. So this possibility or potential for a bullet to be fired is not an actual physical thing that exists, therefore Alex's objection is rendered moot.
To me the whole terminology (*potential* versus actual) implies that we're not talk about real things, just possibilities. Also, someone tell Alex that if he truly believes that if one set of abstractions, in this case, potentials, can't exist because they're infinite, he needs to reject mathematics as well, as there is an infinite amount of numbers. He even argues for an infinite amount of potentials based on the infinity of numbers.
When I need to be humbled I watch these videos lol. Makes me realize how little I know.
Min 38, the first cause doesn’t need to be separate from and simultaneously all knowing; that’s a paradox. It’s more coherent for the universe itself to be “god.”
39:19 - can somebody expand a bit on this argument for monotheism for me? I need a little more, particularly on the second thing Trent says.
2 infinite beings that are purely actual cannot be differentiated from each other, as both have no potentiality, and hence no parts.
Hence they would be identical in all attributes, and that is impossible.
Just to clarify, it would be impossible for them to be identical in all attributes but yet be two distinct things?
@@Cruizzerr 2 distinct beings with different essences, yes.
@@Cruizzerr if two things have all the exact same characteristics and neither of them have any characteristics that the other doesn't, then there is actually only one thing
I think you are being unintentionally funny - even Gandalf could not turn coffee into a chicken - not complaining though, I like a laugh as much as the next man
Alex is just a slightly more interested Hitch. Hitch was a joke (In his Christian criticism), Alex is slightly less of a joke because of his apparent interest.
Please talk about the recent Sedevacantism debate on Pints with Aquinas. Thanks!
The support for Sedevacantism on that vid is troubling.
Michael Lifting did a video review of it on Reason & Theology.
Francis's Strongest Soldier vs. Fake Monk
The definition of a theory is a guess an assumption an idea etc etc a theory cannot explain why a theory exists.
Great video Trent!
For something that doesn't exist, God sure has Alex O'Connor's attention.
Exactly. It boggles my mine how someone who doesn’t believe in God places so much time and energy in God.
@@rubenmartinez4346 It's very telling, psychologically.
He had a conversation with bishop Barron where he said he grew up Catholic and considers the existance of God is the most importand question there is. He also said he wants to be certain he is correct because of how important it is. As a Catholic I don`t agree with him but he does seem to be genuine in his search for God.
@@imperialhistory6120 Hopefully he is honestly seeking. My opinion from the few times I have heard Alex speak, he seems unable to surrender control of things to anything outside of his capability to reason... so he keeps going around and round, always having himself stay seating on the throne of control... or yellow chair pretending to be God's throne.
@@rubenmartinez4346 Because you're assuming that Alex initially believes that God doesn't exist and subsequently makes videos arguing about it, rather than him coming to the conclusion that God doesn't exist after the fact that he's tried arguing about it.
It could be that he's genuinely curious about determining whether God exists and still isn't convinced, after all, if God sends people to Hell to suffer for eternity, I think one would want to seem quite convicted in their belief that God doesn't exist before simply hand-waving this possibility.
So, when @36:27 Genetically Modified Skeptic basically says that the burden of proof is that one must demonstrate that an infinite regress is NOT possible. How is this even valid in the first place? There is no proof of an infinite regress insofar as I'm aware.
Energy comes in discrete amounts called quanta (see ultraviolet catastrophe) and as such the energy and therefore the average energy, i.e. temperature, can only differ in these small quanta amounts. Therefore Alex's temperature example, and any physical example, is wrong.
Hey Trent, I know you probably got a lot on your plate but do you think you could ever tackle apparent historical objections or Jewish objections. Thanks for all that you do. God Bless!