Moral Philosophy Conference | Is God's Moral Perfection Reducible to His Love?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 окт 2024
- In 2023 Dr. Craig gave a lecture at The Moral Philosophy Conference hosted by Houston Christian University. Speaking on the title "Is God's Moral Perfection Reducible to His Love?", Dr. Craig engages audience questions following his lecture.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P0XRQd9YOUM/mqdefault.jpg)
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![Diggy Graves - Red Vineyard [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Ro085T0mnQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Praise Almighty Jesus for the Ministry of Prof. Craig - a faithful execution of God's Gift and Calling. What an Ideal Example!
He is way more greek than jew, if you catch my drift.
More Philosophical - not difficult to guess @@DartNoobo
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
God is awesome!
Which one?
Under Thomist philosophers’ paradigm, divine simplicity entails God is Love per se or God is Truth per se or God is Power per se or God is Being/Existence per se or God is Goodness per se and so on, whereby transcendentals such as Love, Truth, Existence/Being, Goodness etc are interchangeable or convertible ontologically/metaphysically when analogical language is taken into account.
Analogical language is only useful when there's a univocal element which attaches the analog to something real. But most Thomists are committed to saying that we can only speak of God equivocally, leaving the analog without a univocal element (Aquinas asserts this in ST I, Q. 13, Art. 5). That's a pretty bad situation to be in, since it leaves us in complete skepticism as to whether or not God really exists, much less whether or not he's loving, omnipotent, etc. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thanks for your sharing. I suppose you were referring to this passage: “And thus whatever is said of God and creatures is said according to some ordering of creatures to God as source and cause in which all the perfections of things preexist in a more excellent way. This kind of commonality lies in between pure equivocation and simple univocity. For when things are said analogically, there is not a single meaning in common, as there is in the case of univocal terms, nor is there a completely diverse meaning, as in the case of equivocal terms.” (I.13.5)
While the 1st clause in the last sentence above, IF READ ONLY BY ITSELF, could have sounded like what you said, the 2nd clause of that same sentence “nor is there a completely diverse meaning, as in the case of equivocal terms” would need us to interpret the 1st clause to mean that there remains some sort of commonality (“commonality” is mentioned in the above quote) between a term used to describe God and the same term used to describe a created entity.
Furthermore, just slightly before the above statements Aquinas also wrote that:
“[I]n the names that we attribute to God there are two things that need to be
distinguished: namely, the very perfections signified-such as goodness, life, and the like-and the mode of signifying. As regards what names of this kind signify, these names apply properly to God, indeed more properly to God than to God’s creatures, and they are said primarily of God. As regards their mode of signifying, however, they are not properly said of God, for they have the mode of signifying that belongs to creatures.” (I.13.3)
Hence analogical language is not equivalent to equivocal language. In “God exists” and “Dr Craig exists”, the concept “exists” of the former is not equivocal to the “exists” of the latter, even though the concept “exists” applies more properly to God than to Dr Craig or any other created being.
@@ReasonableFaithOrgsee Pat Flynn’s new book “The Best Argument for God.”
@@reasonablemind6830 //In “God exists” and “Dr Craig exists”, the concept “exists” of the former is not equivocal to the “exists” of the latter, even though the concept “exists” applies more properly to God than to Dr Craig or any other created being.//
Right, that's what his view *claims*. What it *implies* is that there are, somehow, degrees of existence, which seems absurd. It seems axiomatic that a thing either exists or it doesn't. There's no in-between. So, either "exists" is univocal or equivocal. Appealing to analogy in this case is no use. - RF Admin
"beneficence" Are we just making up words now? Lol
Uh-it’s a real word, perfectly legitimate. Check a dictionary, dear friend. And it’s often used with reference to God.
@@toddtyoung it's called a little levity. Why so serious?
I'm sorry, but between that interviewer guy's almost unintelligible southern accent and the other audio weirdness it felt like I was having a stroke listening to the last part....
No! It is most definitely not. To give one example from tens of thousands: When god intelligently designed SARS Cov2 and killed 7 million it was not something moral, reducible to its love.
Now prove that sars cov was designed by God
@@DartNoobo According to theists, evolution doesn't exist, I'm just agreeing to and accepting intelligent design. Or should I go for accepting evolution and saying "no gods required so no gods exist"?
Some theists accept both with evolution being guided by God@@Lightbearer616
@@Masowe.Also known as tapdancing
So must time wasted on tales of fantasy.
Why think they're "tales of fantasy?" - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg because you and I both know deep down there’s no truth to any of the Abrahamic religions. It may make you sleep better at night, but it’s not based in reality and there’s no evidence supporting it….
@@skepticalbutopen4620 You don't think a contingent, finite, finely tuned, mathematically describable universe with intelligent life, objective morals, and a historical resurrection is evidence against atheism? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg it’s easy to feel that way being on the one planet that struck the existential lottery. You fail to see the trillions of other planets that didn’t have the necessary conditions for life. Dont get me started on the resurrection. If that had any factual basis it could be repeated in a lab. It’s important for us to drop the fairy tales when we grow up.
@@skepticalbutopen4620 Your comment fails to grasp the point of the fine tuning argument, which is that the constants and quantities necessary for any biological life were incredibly precise *from the beginning of the universe.* There are three options to explain this fine tuning: chance, necessity, and design. Since physical necessity seems on all sides to be highly implausible (there could have been a different universe, as theoretical physics predicts), we're left with chance and design. Given the range of possible universes, the likelihood of a life-permitting universe rather than a life-prohibiting one is so small that chance alone is not a rational option. It's less likely than throwing a dart at random from one "end" of the universe to the other and hitting a preselected particle.
You then say that if the resurrection had any factual basis, then it could be repeated in a lab. But, of course, this is a category error, since the resurrection is not a naturalistic hypothesis. It's a miraculous one. The idea that science is the only measure of truth is self-defeating, since the claim "science is the only measure of truth" is not ascertainable via science.
So, if anything, it very much seems that the fairy tale is actually atheistic naturalism. - RF Admin