If infinite potential is possible some how then the question remains the same that from potentiality to actuality has a cause or not 1. If has a cause then it is in object or somewhere else. (I)If in object then object cannot remain in the causal form (II)If in other then object then anything can come from anywhere and cause and non cause would be same. And effects can come from nothing. 2.If potentiality to actuality has no cause then anything has no cause u r just shifting the goal post. This is my short and simple answer to this problem and hence no cause no effect exists in actuality it is just appearance in your the consciousness.
Real? What kind of stupid empty cult is this nothing offer nothing gives, but empty BS? As God really cares about what you think and your stupid philosophy empty words as godless alone trash person (anyone who deny God is a godless alone trash person)… Another reason none can respect you, you are a lier as any modern Goddenier.. And we hope the next generation will be better then you and forget about you and your empty stupid worthless atheism not even worst to clean my ass. … Why onyoua re empty like it. Then why only godless alone trash people are obsessed with hell, while we are not? Another reason to do not be like them, and live with this constanlty fear… What idiots! For really you did not get those empty Videos where godless alone people constantly talk about God, showing their obsession, are made not to help anyhow your godless alone life but to trap you into this empty stupid cult called atheism they know we live in the time of stupidity and godless trash people so they need to capture them as more as they can. They know you are the most stupid, weakest and alone people in the face of earth and they need to take advantages on you. They know you run anytime you see godless ass to kiss it. That what this empty BS cult atheism make you be, without God and without dignity. But let see how you are in trapped in this cult: Let see how many godless rats are here with their empty words and life, just as their cult called atheism. Why? Why Godless alone trash people want see the existence of God when it is clear that if they and all the things they see around (earth, stars, planets and so on) if they are creation something must created them. For real no respect for those godless blind trash people. God is what they do not know have and do not know in their miserable alone trash life. But God will take care about them as well, once death as anyone alse. Let's hope we will have better generation that those godless alone trash one.... We really do not need this empty and worthless cult called atheism and those modern godless alone idiots who thinks God cares to exist what those poor alone people think about him. No respect for them and their miserable godless alone life. (they are also godless ass kissers, as they run anytime they see a godless alone person... that what happen when you do not have God in your life, you lose your dignity, and you start to be disgusting in that way)... Oh anyway when you stopped to believe in God something died on you but you are so pathetic that you are not willing to admit it (right?). What trashy people without shame they deny their creator, and they will be judge for it.... Liars ad patetich as any Goddeniers. so their worthless empty life without him.... They are even the weakest people, because if they are wrong, they are the ones who will pay for denying God... Won't be in their shoes. No respect for them.... I told you this godless is the worst generation (those people are just empty and worthless as the cult they are in), and when it will be gone with their stupid empty, worthless atheism that does not going anywhere, that do not offer or teach anything, none will complain about it, not even those very weak losers!!!!! ... Do not call them atheist but godless alone souless trash. Let's forget about those worthless empty people and their worthless and empty cult do not even good to clean the dirtiest motel. WHEN YOU WILL BE GONE NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR STUPID CULt CALLED ATHEISM. You are the worst of people, no respect for you:... those are juss godless alone trash people, liers as any Godeniers with less thing sacred in their miserable alone godless life… those weak people are so weak and alone that they wait for an empty videos from an obsessed godless person to kiss his ass, disgustingly (no God, No Dignity) it would not change their life, actually more alone and empty, (they do not even have a real community) empty life they live empty shit they are in like this stupid cult called Atheism! No respect for them. (They are very weak, empty and frustrated people, a life that none will accepted, but those godless alone trash idiots).. those who say there is no God will pay for it, soon or later... No won't be a godless alone trash person into an empty cult not even good for my ass such atheism, that offers them nothing. But emptiness and lonlyness for their miserabile godless alone life. No respect for them. They are just empty as their cult called atheism. But they will pay this soon or later, and all the emptiness for nothing they are facing in their ridicolous miserable alone life! It is time to throw on the trash empty atheism and godless alone trash people, they are not even worthless to clean shit. You can not respect them and their emptiness! It is over for you, trash is not even good to clean you of all this atheism BS. No respect for you. Let's really hope we can have a better generation and forget this godless alone trash one as quickly as possible. IT IS OVER, it is time for you and this nosense called atheism to go back from the nothing you come from. No respect for you. You will pay all this shit, soon or later... Today I will put your BS atheism in the toilet and flash it and you godless alone will shut up, ok? You are worthless and empty as your stupid cult. No respect for you.... This is the worst, weakest, empty generation, and when it will be over with their stupid empty cult called atheism none will complain it. IT'S IS OVER, godless alone trash.... Those godless alone poor people are playing with the fire, and they will pay for it, and even badly........ They are so desperate and frustrated in and empty stupid life... No sorry for you. Let's hope in the next generation, let's hope in a better generation, and let's forget this one and trhow it on the trash with their stupid, nosense cult called atheism that will lead them anywhere. No respect for you again..... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GODLESS ALONE TRASH PEOPLE AND YOUR EMPTY STUPID ATHEISM NOT EVEN GOOD TO CLEAN THE DIRTIEST TOILET IN THE WORLD... You got no peace over there (and if God is real you will be and are f.... up.. You godless alone people are so weak)......... God will care about you as well, poor person.... (you life is more miserable and empty without God, but you are so patetic to realize it). NO respect for you and your empty cult called atheism....... You are just frutrated,obsessed, miserable, alone godless person that does deserve any kind of respect, just to be so. (Lier as any Godenier)....... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GUYS, YOU AND YOUR STUPID EMPTY CULT ATHEISM That does not even deserve my piss….. all this just show how much those godless trash people are frustrated (to do not have what people have sacred and holly) no respect for them. it is time to throw away that empty bs cult called atheism that does not explain anything and it is not even good to clean the dirtiest toilet. Godless alone trash people, liers as an any Goddenier, dishonest and the worst and stupidest generation ever had. Let’s froget about this godless trash worthless generation and waiting for a better one. (By the way you will be judge as anyone alse once death by God, do not think you will escape because you deny him, as a godless alone rat as you are (You are also a disgusting godless ass kisser, that anytime you see a godlesss ass you run to kiss it. because you got no God and no dignity in your miserable godless life) NO RESPECT FOR YOU (your life is more empty and miserable without God, but you are the only fool to do not get it… WHY?) they obsession will not lead them anyway... but will harm them, poor godless alone trash people. No respect for them and their godless obsessed alone life.........
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns First of all stop to call yourself atheists, the real name is godless alone weak trash person into an empty cuklt (and lier as any Godenier or godless ass kisser, without God or dignity). Then le'ts see it, how much you are the worst generetion and there is no much to respect about you. Real? What kind of stupid empty cult is this nothing offer nothing gives, but empty BS? As God really cares about what you think and your stupid philosophy empty words as godless alone trash person (anyone who deny God is a godless alone trash person)… Another reason none can respect you, you are a lier as any modern Goddenier.. And we hope the next generation will be better then you and forget about you and your empty stupid worthless atheism not even worst to clean my ass. … Why onyoua re empty like it. Then why only godless alone trash people are obsessed with hell, while we are not? Another reason to do not be like them, and live with this constanlty fear… What idiots! For really you did not get those empty Videos where godless alone people constantly talk about God, showing their obsession, are made not to help anyhow your godless alone life but to trap you into this empty stupid cult called atheism they know we live in the time of stupidity and godless trash people so they need to capture them as more as they can. They know you are the most stupid, weakest and alone people in the face of earth and they need to take advantages on you. They know you run anytime you see godless ass to kiss it. That what this empty BS cult atheism make you be, without God and without dignity. But let see how you are in trapped in this cult: Let see how many godless rats are here with their empty words and life, just as their cult called atheism. Why? Why Godless alone trash people want see the existence of God when it is clear that if they and all the things they see around (earth, stars, planets and so on) if they are creation something must created them. For real no respect for those godless blind trash people. God is what they do not know have and do not know in their miserable alone trash life. But God will take care about them as well, once death as anyone alse. Let's hope we will have better generation that those godless alone trash one.... We really do not need this empty and worthless cult called atheism and those modern godless alone idiots who thinks God cares to exist what those poor alone people think about him. No respect for them and their miserable godless alone life. (they are also godless ass kissers, as they run anytime they see a godless alone person... that what happen when you do not have God in your life, you lose your dignity, and you start to be disgusting in that way)... Oh anyway when you stopped to believe in God something died on you but you are so pathetic that you are not willing to admit it (right?). What trashy people without shame they deny their creator, and they will be judge for it.... Liars ad patetich as any Goddeniers. so their worthless empty life without him.... They are even the weakest people, because if they are wrong, they are the ones who will pay for denying God... Won't be in their shoes. No respect for them.... I told you this godless is the worst generation (those people are just empty and worthless as the cult they are in), and when it will be gone with their stupid empty, worthless atheism that does not going anywhere, that do not offer or teach anything, none will complain about it, not even those very weak losers!!!!! ... Do not call them atheist but godless alone souless trash. Let's forget about those worthless empty people and their worthless and empty cult do not even good to clean the dirtiest motel. WHEN YOU WILL BE GONE NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR STUPID CULt CALLED ATHEISM. You are the worst of people, no respect for you:... those are juss godless alone trash people, liers as any Godeniers with less thing sacred in their miserable alone godless life… those weak people are so weak and alone that they wait for an empty videos from an obsessed godless person to kiss his ass, disgustingly (no God, No Dignity) it would not change their life, actually more alone and empty, (they do not even have a real community) empty life they live empty shit they are in like this stupid cult called Atheism! No respect for them. (They are very weak, empty and frustrated people, a life that none will accepted, but those godless alone trash idiots).. those who say there is no God will pay for it, soon or later... No won't be a godless alone trash person into an empty cult not even good for my ass such atheism, that offers them nothing. But emptiness and lonlyness for their miserabile godless alone life. No respect for them. They are just empty as their cult called atheism. But they will pay this soon or later, and all the emptiness for nothing they are facing in their ridicolous miserable alone life! It is time to throw on the trash empty atheism and godless alone trash people, they are not even worthless to clean shit. You can not respect them and their emptiness! It is over for you, trash is not even good to clean you of all this atheism BS. No respect for you. Let's really hope we can have a better generation and forget this godless alone trash one as quickly as possible. IT IS OVER, it is time for you and this nosense called atheism to go back from the nothing you come from. No respect for you. You will pay all this shit, soon or later... Today I will put your BS atheism in the toilet and flash it and you godless alone will shut up, ok? You are worthless and empty as your stupid cult. No respect for you.... This is the worst, weakest, empty generation, and when it will be over with their stupid empty cult called atheism none will complain it. IT'S IS OVER, godless alone trash.... Those godless alone poor people are playing with the fire, and they will pay for it, and even badly........ They are so desperate and frustrated in and empty stupid life... No sorry for you. Let's hope in the next generation, let's hope in a better generation, and let's forget this one and trhow it on the trash with their stupid, nosense cult called atheism that will lead them anywhere. No respect for you again..... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GODLESS ALONE TRASH PEOPLE AND YOUR EMPTY STUPID ATHEISM NOT EVEN GOOD TO CLEAN THE DIRTIEST TOILET IN THE WORLD... You got no peace over there (and if God is real you will be and are f.... up.. You godless alone people are so weak)......... God will care about you as well, poor person.... (you life is more miserable and empty without God, but you are so patetic to realize it). NO respect for you and your empty cult called atheism....... You are just frutrated,obsessed, miserable, alone godless person that does deserve any kind of respect, just to be so. (Lier as any Godenier)....... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GUYS, YOU AND YOUR STUPID EMPTY CULT ATHEISM That does not even deserve my piss….. all this just show how much those godless trash people are frustrated (to do not have what people have sacred and holly) no respect for them. it is time to throw away that empty bs cult called atheism that does not explain anything and it is not even good to clean the dirtiest toilet. Godless alone trash people, liers as an any Goddenier, dishonest and the worst and stupidest generation ever had. Let’s froget about this godless trash worthless generation and waiting for a better one. (By the way you will be judge as anyone alse once death by God, do not think you will escape because you deny him, as a godless alone rat as you are (You are also a disgusting godless ass kisser, that anytime you see a godlesss ass you run to kiss it. because you got no God and no dignity in your miserable godless life) NO RESPECT FOR YOU (your life is more empty and miserable without God, but you are the only fool to do not get it… WHY?)...
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns DBH seems deeply uninterested with apologetics unfortunately. I think hed be a force to be reckoned with if he appeared in the scene. Ive asked him on his substack with little response.
As a Christian I admire Alex, he is polite, calm, rational, doesen't insult anyone, doesen't mock even if something sound stupid, asks questions, listens to answers, respects opponent..we need more people like him
I’m a Christian too and I always say Alex is the most honest atheist I know. You can tell there is no pretense with him. He really believes exactly what he says he does. And he honestly is looking for truth
@@brycemannn4847Why does your God condemn gay sex with the punishment of death but condones the owning and beating of slaves? Is it morally permissible to allow for any form of slavery, now, or 3,000 years ago?
@@Username34823i would tell you to read commentary on the verses and the context of how it was at the time. of course we can always point to Jesus saying that divorce was never intended because of the hardness of hearts, same applies to slavery as well
This is the First time I've seen an Argument for God with minimal discussion about God himself, That truly means these guys are really trying to understand and respect each other's stand very thoroughly, What a wonderful show. Thanks Alex for your wonderful work. Truly Appreciated.
The same argument can be made for our existence in someone else simulation/experiment or anything else apart from a mono theistic, specific denomination, personal interpretation of one out of millions of gods.
@KleandrosStogiannopoulos The conclusion of this argument is that the cause of the universe is purely actual/has no potential. Despite not being covered in this video, the specific attributes of the god of classical thesism have been argued through an analysis of what a purely actual being would be like.
Most of the arguments I've been seeing don't involve god, or only connect to a god tangentially before going off on a philosophical tangent. It's a huge problem from my perspective
He's British, is polite and even toned. He could get guests to come on and discuss shampoo bottle instructions and the rest of us would listen to the whole thing.
@@lpadron13 Alex was out of his league. Feser was great. Could listen to him all day. Bishop Barren and Feser are excellent. These Catholics make the atheists especially Alex look pathetic.
I love this form of discussion where Alex allows the person to form and present his argument uncontested and to even strongman the argument before raising objections
Been an atheist for more than 10 years and listened to almost all debates for or against god, and almost all episodes of Alex and so on. But this one right here with this gentleman Fesser, is the only one who made me actually rethink again. It was the only plausable explanation I have ever heard. Very very interesting and mind challenging. At least for me. I saw what he (fesser) meant. And I don't think Alex exactly saw it (or if he did, it didn't seem like that for me) because he kept presenting objections that were non-factors to me, which Fesser also pointed out. I am honestly and personally thankful for Alex, his efforts and conversations and this channel, that has been always one of the best platforms to offer actual food for thought. Thank you alex, and thank you Mr. Fesser for such interesting arguements.
Numbers are real, objective things, not mere fictitious ones, and they are also infinite. But they are NOT actual, since they are only conceptual, abstract entities. So there's NO problem about there being infinite number of reals that are not actual.
I agree. I think the argument for an "unmoved mover" has potential (pun unintended 😅). I still don't really understand it the way it was described here. It deals with too many abstact concepts that I'm not sure are real. If it could be translated to strictly physics, which I have also heard, I think it could be easier to understand, and potentially also to test or refute. Regardless, I think this is perhaps the best argument for something incredible and powerful outside our understanding of the universe at the moment that could resemble something like a god. Hopefully we find the answer in quantum mechanics or some other scientific endeavor. Otherwise I fear this riddle may never be solved.
I think I've heard the word "potential" more times during my years at university. But in this video, the word is used with the greatest frequency so far!
This is such a wonderful and interesting interview alex. I completely understand that an interview or debate with Ben Shapiro will generate more views and more Revenue. An interview like this one may not have the same amount of eyeballs on it but it is far more substantial and greatly more satisfying. Thank you for all this sort of work that you do.
Alex was out of his league. Feser was great. Could listen to him all day. Bishop Barren and Feser are excellent. These Catholics make the atheists especially Alex look pathetic.
@@joannware6228 I don't think this was about making someone look pathetic, neither this guy nor Bishop Barron (at least spell his name correctly) made him look pathetic. Why are you so hostile about a conversation? Are you that insecure in your beliefs? Your desire to make the other side seem pathetic reminds me of Mohammed Hijab, don't be a Mohammed Hijab.
@@Alexander_Grant "ensonar9652 1 year ago Ben Shapiro got to age 12 and said "I have reached my final form." Did you respond similarly to this guy? "St. Augustine said that all of us, made from nothing, tend toward nothing. We can see this in our frailty and sin and mortality. St. Paul said, “What do you possess that you have not received? But if you have received it, why are you boasting as if you did not receive it?” To believe in God is to know these truths. To live them out is to live in the attitude of humility. Thomas Aquinas said humilitas veritas, meaning humility is truth. It is living out the deepest truth of things: God is God, and we are not. Now, all of this sounds very clear when it’s stated in this abstract manner, but man is it hard to live out! In our fallen world, we forget so readily that we are creatures. We start to assume that we are gods, the center of the universe. The ego becomes a massive monkey on our backs, and it has to be fed and pampered constantly. What a liberation it is to let go of the ego! Do you see why humility is not a degradation, but an elevation?" Bishop Robert Barron
Set Fesers to FUN! Hey professor, it’s been a few years but I’m glad to see you get the recognition you deserve these last few years. You’re a wonderful teacher and I hope you keep popping up in discussions like this.
Just wanted to say thank you Alex for your patience during a discussion, thoughtful questions, and crisp explanations of your views. As an LDS member I find these excellent qualities.
One of my favorite episodes thus far; just the right balance of technical robustness and accessibility to the viewer. Only complaint is that it was so short!
Damn, Vervaeke and now Feser. Alex is getting some big hitters on this podcast. If he can get David Bentley Hart on I will be especially impressed. That's a challenge to you, sir😁
Sorry Alex, I was a real arse to you in the comments on one of your videos once but I see now, that you’re actually quite a cordial dude. I got a lot out of this and I found your objections as thought provoking as the argument. Cheers. And thanks to Edward Feser too
I'm a big fan of Dr. Feser's work, so it's pretty cool to see him on one of my favorite podcasts! Even though I disagree with Alex, I respect his pursuit of truth.
Are you interested in a discussion? I feel like Alex got hung up on the wrong detail (the existence of actual infinite realities), and completely skipped over the justification that a hierarchical causal chain must have a first cause. Their justification for that existence was very unsatisfying to me. I could imagine creating a causal chain starting with the stick moving a rock and going back to the existence of the laws of physics as we know them. Then perhaps there are reasons we don’t know about that lead to the laws of physics we see today, and causes for those deeper reasons. Why can’t that go back infinitely?
@@featherton3381 "Laws of physics" are not things. They are descriptions of how physical things behave, and therefore are dependent on, and therefore caused by, other things. They are only potential.
@@Sinkh Fair enough, but you can use the laws of physics as a shorthand for the things that cause them. For example, a magnet pulls metal to itself via magnetic force, which is fundamentally the result of the particles in the magnet and metal exchanging photons in just the right way to generate an attractive force. So what causes the photons to jump between the atoms in the magnet and metal? This is caused by the charges of the particles within these materials (another physical phenomenon). What causes these charges? That goes beyond my knowledge of physics, but I'm sure there is an answer. If I'm understanding this right, I have established a hierarchical causal chain as the phenomenon fails if any link of this chain does not occur. So why must this causal chain have a first cause? Can't I keep delving deeper into the problem forever even if we reach causes that no human could possibly observe?
@@featherton3381 Feser explains pretty thoroughly, in the podcast. If you see a long paintbrush that is painting a picture, you have to infer that something on the other end is doing the moving, because paintbrushes can't move themselves. Or to put it more generally: for any give effect, insofar as it is an effect, there must be a cause capable of producing it. I really don't understand how this is even remotely controversial.
@@Sinkh He explains through examples. I can accept that any effect must have a cause. What I struggle with is why there must be a first cause. An uncaused cause. Alex and Feser just state that hierarchical causal chains must have a first cause as if it's obvious.
Alex O' Connor has gone from New atheism, Dawkins and Hitchens to first rate philosophy of religion. Definitely an improvement. Been happy to see great theist and atheist philosophers on this channel and Alex presenting both sides! Happy to see the channel grow!
@@nacasius I'm not sure how much you follow the channel or absorb the content but he repudiated new atheism a long time ago and is now into sophisticated atheist philosophy of religion especially since he started studying philosophy at Oxford. He no longer thinks Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc have the correct approach and the tools to respond to sophisticated theist philosophy of religion represented by people such as Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Josh Rasmussen, Edward Feser, Alexander Pruss, etc . Robust metaphysical naturalism is the better way and new atheism is a very dumbed down and unsophisticated version of atheism that he thinks should be avoided
New atheism starts out by declaring that all of the arguments for God have been debunked hundreds of years ago so any apologists that wants to come to the table has to come with a deep sense of humility with the intellectual Poverty of their position. Call Alex is doing is giving people the opportunity to see the poverty stricken intellectual nature of their claims in real time.
@@nacasius I'm not sure if you understand the purpose of his channel or the content but Alex definitely doesn't think that theistic philosophy of religion is intellectually impoverished. If you watched his discussion with Trent Horn he repudiated a tribalistic mindset that demonizes the view you disagree with which is characteristic of cognitive bias. He interviews both theist and atheist philosophers to show that reality is much more complicated than basic minded people make it out to be. I recommend you watch his videos with Joe Schmid, Trent Horn and Josh Rasmussen
As a member of the philosophical community I am so happy to watch all that you post. Your content really sheds a light on the power of critical thinking and does an excellent job at exposing the greater public to stuff that although is somewhat digitally accessible tends to go unnoticed. It makes me feel seen in someway I can’t describe it. I’m happy you are a content creator.
A very good interview! O'Connor is correct in observing that actual infinites are real states of being in potency on the theory of act/potency, and Feser is correct that said observation does not affect the force of the argument from motion because he agrees that at least some actual infinites can exist as real capacities (potencies) in beings. I am of the opinion that the Five Ways, particularly the first two, are the strongest arguments for the existence of God. That said, a potential infinite isn't an actual infinite. The capacity to exist in an infinite number of ways does not mean that the thing in question _actually_ exists in an infinite number of ways.
I think a problem here is also determining what exactly “properties “ are and what things can be defined as properties. I felt at some point along the way there was some sort of category error going on regarding properties and maybe the understanding of what different philosophers have for these terms may lead to the term meaning different things. For example one may believe an object is warm because it has the property of fire everything has this property to a varying degree etc. but this does not mean the property really exists. In many ways science helps us determine properties and to a large extent how they work and whether there are limitations (as far ad it can) not that there maybe other properties out there which we struggle with.
Yes, I think category error comes pretty close to naming the issue here. Probably “properties“ come from our human perspective of things that are much smaller than we are (a topic Dawkins addresses frequently). Things move… emphasis on move… at a microscopic level, but we view them as some type of mystic change of property. In the example of eating food and getting the property of weight, there are molecules moving around and being reassembled and ultimately manifesting as fat, resulting in your body weighing more. It’s not some black magic “I eat food and mysteriously my new property is ‘heavier’ “.
@@derinderruheliegt sabine hossenfelder (science without the gobbledegook) just released a video concerning the idea and problem with the term complexity, it interestingly presents similar issues to "properties"
With the risk of sounding dismissive, I think a lot of early philosophy and philosophical dialogue stems from the very fact that those were brilliant people but they were working with the tools of the time. Tools such as conceptual engineering did not exist back then. So when they came up with a concept, what they would do is come up with hypotheticals and reasoning chains and IF those lead into contradictions, they would maybe dismiss the concept *then* , but they would never think to ask whether the concept is coherent *first* . "Property", as it stands here, is a very finnicky concept. Local motion is no longer considered an intrinsic property, which is the only kind of property that requires actualization (back in Aristotle's time there wasn't this clear distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic or Cambridge properties). Existence, by many contemporary philosophers, is no longer considered a property *at all* , after the arguments made by Kant against it, and that is directly problematic for Aristotle's argument for god. And then you get into stuff like strong mereological structuralism (a philosophical position which is so contemporaneous that the guy who proposed it is literally still alive) where, at the very bottom of metaphysics, there is no *substance* , there is only properties, and any object X is simply that bundle of properties identified with X's attributes. And in this view, there is nothing special about God per se being the apotheosis of simple attributes, because *everything* is like that.
Alex you are probably my favorite atheist. Genuinely honest inquiry and I loved how you were able to clarify a point oppy was trying to make that just didn't quite make it through to Feser when they had the discussion. This allowed Feser to properly address it. I very much enjoyed this discussion keep up the good work
A quick note on the issue of having an endless number of potentialities. I believe you don't have to insist on the existence of an infinite number of them. For instance, consider a cup of coffee. You could argue that it only has the potential to become one basic unit warmer or cooler. Similarly, you might say it has the potential to move just a single basic unit in any direction (like moving a bit left, right, up, down, forward, or backward). With this approach, even though there are a lot of possible changes, their number remains limited, not infinite.
I was thinking the same thing. You could even drop the “unit” language and just say that it has the potential to become colder or hotter until a certain threshold. It does seem like Alex is falling for the Zeno’s paradox here.
Even if that was the case, i.e., that a continuous reality was in fact discrete, there would still be a potentially infinite amount of units of temperature the coffee could achieve. To say there exist greater infinites than others is to admit infinity nonetheless. This is not my problem with any of Alex's seemingly falacious arguments. I've analysed them in a separate comment, it might be of your interest :)
Even with the example of moving it north, south, east or west there are an infinite number of degrees in between so the possibilities of which direction to move the mug in are still infinite.
@@swiftsetrider4543 If you belief in strict finitism, then there are also a fixed amount of possible degrees. And also the objection of @Player-pj9kt would not make it infinite. There surely will be a large amount of potentials in an object. But not necessarily an infinite amount.
Ok here is my response: Not everything requires a cause. Some things are probabilistic and without cause. Radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, and higher dimensional dynamics to name a few. Within a hierarchical structure, these uncaused and probabilistic phenomena could occupy a foundational level that influences subsequent levels of causation. Quantum fluctuations, known for their inherent uncertainty and spontaneous nature, might serve as the base level, influencing the emergence of fundamental fields or properties that then lead to the formation of particles and forces. These emergent properties at higher levels could further interact to create the macroscopic world we observe. Within the context of a hierarchical model where quantum fluctuations or higher-dimensional dynamics serve as fundamental influences, their existence and influence would indeed be crucial for the entire hierarchy to function or exist. In many scientific theories, including some interpretations of quantum field theory, the existence of fundamental fields is often considered inherent to the nature of the universe itself rather than requiring an external cause in the classical sense. These fields and their properties might be considered as fundamental aspects of the fabric of reality, existing as the foundational elements from which particles, forces, and everything else arise. Within the context of a hierarchical model where quantum fluctuations or higher-dimensional dynamics serve as fundamental influences, their existence and influence would indeed be crucial for the entire hierarchy to function or exist. In this view, the entire hierarchical structure of existence could be seen as contingent upon these fundamental influences, suggesting a simultaneous interconnectedness where these foundational aspects are necessary for the existence and operation of the entire hierarchy. Their influence permeates and sustains the hierarchy, challenging a strictly linear or hierarchical view where causes at higher levels are detached from their foundational influences. This perspective suggests a more intertwined and interdependent relationship between different levels of causation, where the foundational aspects exert a simultaneous and crucial influence on the entire hierarchy of existence. So, instead of the uncaused cause being a singular deity at the top sustaining the hierarchy this view suggests that all the magic happens at the base of the hierarchy and these base fundamentals are not caused at all they are probabilistic and random. It is for these reasons why I accept that the universe is random and probably not deterministic. I also tend to accept a cyclic conformal cosmology too. In the context of a cyclical model without a distinct beginning or end, it may imply a circular form of causation, where the completion of one cycle leads to the initiation of the next in an ongoing, perpetual manner. This cyclic causation doesn’t follow a linear chain of causes but instead suggests a continual, self-sustaining cycle without a definitive starting or ending point. Within this framework, causation is cyclical and self-contained, avoiding the need for an infinite linear chain of causes while still implying an ongoing cycle without a distinct beginning or end
"Not everything requires a cause. Some things are probabilistic and without cause. Radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, and higher dimensional dynamics to name a few. " Those would still have causes, even if not strictly deterministic (which is not a problem at all in a Aristotelian-Thomist view which is based on substance causation, not event causation, but that's another topic). The problem with denying causes is that you end up running in to the PSR, or the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you start saying that some things don't have causes, then you have to explain how something that is not actual becomes actual. How does some radioactive decay become actual if it was just potential? A potential can't do anything because it's just potential. If you say "it just actualizes and nothing explains that", as I said, you run head first in to the PSR. The problem is that denying the PSR in any situation makes denial of it a possibility in every situation and you've just turned scientific knowledge in to just a kind of faith built on intuition. The PSR is, to put it simply, that there are explanations for things to be discovered. It's assumed in all scientific enquiry, even philosophical and mathematical enquiry. What is trying to be found in scientific enquiry are explanations. Typically the most brilliant minds try anything they can to avoid denying the PSR because it's like a universal acid. To make a simple example, start tapping a hard surface nearby. Likely, the effect you observe is a tapping sound. It seems like your tapping action is the explanation for the actualization of that tapping sound, but there could just be no explanation and it's entirely a coincidence that these two events are connected. To take another example, Hubble noticed that the light from galaxies is redder and redder depending on how far away they were. What explains that? Well, the explanation is that the wavelength of the light is being stretched, and the further away the galaxy is the more the wavelength is stretched. This "stretching" causes the frequency of the light to shift toward the red end of the color spectrum. But what explanations that "stretching"? Well, galaxies are moving away from us, and the further away they are, the faster they are moving away. Now I could ask "what explains that?" again, but if you deny the PSR, it could be that the redness of the light could have no explanation, or that the stretching of the wavelength, and the speed as which the galaxies are moving away all just happen to coincide. There is correlation, but not causation, and no matter how many times they are correlated, that won't bring you any closer to determining causation. That's one of many problems with denying the PSR in any situation. Generally, no one who understands the problem with denying the PSR denies the PSR. In fact, the only time anyone considers denying it is if they are trying to avoid the conclusion of an argument for God, which makes it rather ad hoc. "the existence of fundamental fields is often considered inherent to the nature of the universe itself rather than requiring an external cause in the classical sense." But, do these quantum fields change? If so, they go from potential to actual and require something to actualize them, or you run in to the PSR as I detailed above. If they don't change, then they are the unmoved mover, or unactualized actualizer. BUT, upon further investigation, there can only be one unactualized actualizer. This is because if there were, say, two, then there would have to be something that distinguishes one field from another, lets call that difference X. If one field has X and another doesn't, then X is actual for one field while the other only has it as a mere potential. But, an unactualized actualizer can't have an potentials. Thus, the one that doesn't have X can't be an unactualized actualizer. Or, X becomes more fundamental than either of the fields, and thus neither field is the unactualized actualizer. X could be instead. So, none of these fields can be the unactualized actualizer. They must also depend on something external to them to keep them actual.
Outside of this planet, to the best of our knowledge, there is no life. So nothing is caused by intention, except here on Earth. You need a mind to cause something, because the word implies actioning a will. We humans use language to describe the natural world that is most useful for our needs but that does not impart any qualities onto the natural world. It doesnt care how we describe it, which is the main problem of metaphysics, its a discussion about the mind and language which merely helps us to understand our limitations, rather than any knowledge about how or why the Universe exists. What difference does it make whether the universe existed forever or was created, even if it were created the cause could be completely unknown to us and no proof whatsoever of 'God' because they are both unimaginable and infinite. Even if we were to call the cause abramhic God, why would that entity allow billions of years of a dead universe only to suddenly create life, just here, and wait another 4 billion years for humans. Once we had a bit of rudamentary technology take a strong interest in us for a few hundred years before then backing off again? Why would he reveal his true message once in the form of a man? We can see now how inefficient this is. There are so many more efficient ways of getting information out! Why not be clearer? His son didnt even convince the jews, from whom him came, that he was devine. One of his followers, Judas, was so unimpressed he betrayed him. If God really sent his son to Earth it must have been for his dark sense of humour. His message only took another thousand years at least spread much beyond the Mediterranean/ middle east. The most important message, but most people would just have to wait for hundreds of years... And there are so many other reasons why even if you decide, completely on a hunch, that there is a first cause/ creator, that the likelihood of that cause being the devine entities described in the worlds religions is still extremely slim.
@@billyg898ah that’s easy on the plank scale cause and effect are fluid. You can have effect before cause. Temporal literally and spatial separation break down at that scale. As such we can have actualities that appear randomly. Also this whole talk of potentials is fundamentally wrong. There is a chance that a ball grows legs. That’s just quant luck mechanics over a long period of time. Now the chance of that happening is unbelievably small but not zero. As such, the ball has the potential to do many things including growing legs.
@@mnemosyne1337 if the effect is before the cause, the cause doesn't yet exist when the effect occurs. How does something that doesn't exist generate any effect at all? That's incoherent. I'm not sure you understand the quantum level very much. As for potential, can an electron grow legs?
When I was in college, majoring in EE, I avoided Philosophy. I believed the stereotype of the big headed philosopher babbling word games about things that don't exist,. I wanted nothing to do with such nonsense, and preferred to take science and engineering/tech courses. Then, I took some required Philosophy, which peaked my interest and caused me to fall in love with it. However, when I hear Dr. Feser defend this argument, it brings back memories and feelings from my earlier aversion to Philosophy.
@@chansetwo you might wanna take a look at the CTMU by Chris langan, you might dislike his personality and politics but his theory is one of the most rigorous works in metaphysics I have ever seen. I am not saying he is right but there are a lot of interesting ideas
Idk why but Edward looks like the kind of guy to just be pissed 24/7 but he’s actually super chill and polite. Unlike someone that’s been on this podcast. Good thing there were no false pretenses here….
Alex’ argument for unlimited potentiality does not account for context. Potentiality is determined by what is adjacent to the object in the hierarchical causal chain. Alex sits on a chair at his desk, Alex can only sit on a chair at his desk due to the material nature of the desk, chair, floor, walls, building etc. The material nature of these items limits the potentiality of Alex in that context, i.e the potentiality of Alex is not to sit by his desk on a traveling asteroid due to the constraint of where he is in the causal chain.
A problem I'd raise with the potentiality/actuality framework is that it seems to bear a strange relation to essences, which are a part of the Aristotelian view Feser is defending. I think this problem leads us to a monist alternative. If we accept that there are some essential qualities of things without which the thing itself would be taken away (for instance, the essence of God is pure actuality for Feser, such that if it were taken away, He would not be God), it seems like adding this list of potentials to it would involve adding potentials which would destroy the thing itself-the coffee cup has the potential to be destroyed, the chair has the potential to burn, a human being has the potential to die, etc. This would require that the essence of a thing would contain self-negating propositions, so we would be able to say "it is an essential potentiality of this human that he can actually die." But the definition of an essence is that without which the thing is removed-an essence always affirms that of which it is an essence, to violate that principle would be for essence itself to violate its own...essence, lol. It would be like saying that 1 contains a potential 0 in its essence because there is always a potentiality to subtract 1 from it. It seems more correct to say that the essence of each thing is its power (its persistence in its being, the expression of that essence), and therefore all its negating or even just accidental properties are an interaction with other essences and are in no way essential to the thing itself. For instance, if we take as our example a red coffee cup, what we are treating as an essential quality (redness) is not an essential quality but actually an interaction of two essences: the coffee cup and the visible light spectrum, with the result being a perceived quality of redness, which has its own essence. The redness is not actually a part of the essence of the cup, and thus all its potentials to become some other color (by painting it, or perhaps seeing it in the dark) are not essential to it or properties of it, but are in fact distinct from it, ideas which partly follow from but are not themselves properties of it in any way. This would better explain how something could destroy something else-the potentiality for its destruction does not exist in it, but in the things that could destroy it. So God would be better understood as being purely actual only if He were in fact the only thing that exists and therefore the only thing that can exercise any power, and would necessarily do so with absolute freedom without anything which could impinge upon or violate his essence. This would be the monist view that Feser is trying to avoid. The main objection I can see to this argument could be that potentials are not a part of the essence of something to begin with, and so Feser doesn't need to commit himself to this in the first place. But this would seem hard to maintain, because at least some potentials are clearly essential: imagine a chair that lacked any potentiality for being sat upon, for instance, or a coffee cup that had no potential to hold liquid. This would clearly violate the essences of these things-if they lacked them, we would be talking about something that is not in fact either a chair or a cup. So if potentials exist, they are part of essences. We could say the two are distinct but the potentials follow necessarily from the essence, but what does it then mean to say that x "has" this or that potential derived from its essence? What principled line could be drawn between those potentials and the self-negating ones that I think Feser needs to avoid?
Potentiality as a property doesn’t exist. It’s simply the ability to be acted on by an actual property of another real object. If anything, potentiality is the property of this second object, not the one in consideration.
I was intrigued between a discussion between these especially after Alex's video response to Shapiro. I'm glad that Alex was able to bring up the points he raised directly to Feser. I'm surprised that he was able to respond to each of them satisfactorily. Good work.
It seems that they were talking past each other during the infinities discussion. Alex kept positing the problem that the “real” status of potency entails an actually infinite number of potencies in a thing (cause a cup of coffee can be potentially 69°, 69.1°, 69.11°… to infinity), but Feser’s original disambiguation of the terms solved the problem. Real = being = what there is. There are two modes reality (or being) can take, and that is the act/potency distinction. So yes, this coffee cup does have an infinite amount of temperatures in the potential mode of reality, but only one in the actual mode of reality. I think Alex was equivocating real and actual, then claiming if potential infinities exist then they exist in reality (true), and if they exist in reality then they are actual infinities (false, given the distinction). He brought it up as a problem for the Kalam, but Craig believes in the “reality” of potential infinites, just not actual infinities (because a potential infinity, such as time starting from t=0 onwards, “really” has the potential to go on for infinity). Ultimately, I think the confusion comes from trying to conceptualize “potential” properties in reality without subtly picturing them as “actual” properties, but hypothetically there is nothing unintuitive about seeing a coffee cup and saying “there are, right now in reality, an infinite amount of potential temperatures this coffee can be”. Of course, as Feser said, physics or chemistry might set limits to the potential properties that adhere in a thing, but that is in virtue of the nature of the properties and not of a potential infinity per se. If he wants to take issue with the act/potency distinction itself he can do that, but it would be on him to put forward a new theory of change or else deny change altogether.
@@Uryvichkthat's actually just how philosophy works. Unless you want to deny the reality of change you need to put forward an account of it, and since people will want the best account of something then the best account is the winner until a better account is made.
Coffee may have infinite temperature. It has hot and cold regions. How u define temperature depends where and how large the region of the coffee you are measuring.
As a mathematician, actual and potential in terms of infinite sets are references to what is fundamentally the same concept as actual and potential in motion. The potential infinities are just a reference to algorithmically potential extension relationship. Potential actual infinities is just potential infinities.
Look up secession function that is part of the construction of the natural numbers. It the basis for them being infinite and the naturals are used to construct integers, integers the rationals, reals, complex, hyperreals, surreals ect. The point is infinite that we talks about is just a successor function at the that is applied without end making infinites always potentials. Technically irrational numbers are like pi are at their core algorithmically defined from definitions of successor function constructions.
No just not familiar with the concepts. It gets a bit specific and it would take more space than here to break down. Dumb or not dumb has nothing to do with it.
One of the most fascinating ways to think of how God sees time, space and matter is that He sees them as all physical objects. Time is an object. Space is an object and matter is object to God. Really cool to think of it like this.
Hey Alex, I would love to see you respond to Gavin Ortlund (Truth Unites). He made a response to your argument about divine hiddenness. Or a dialog, I think you two would have a very good conversation.
In discussions on this topic, “something can’t come from nothing” is often said as if it is self evidently true. I would be interested to hear a justification for that premise
Not everything requires a cause. Some things are probabilistic and without cause. Radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, and higher dimensional dynamics to name a few. Within a hierarchical structure, these uncaused and probabilistic phenomena could occupy a foundational level that influences subsequent levels of causation. Quantum fluctuations, known for their inherent uncertainty and spontaneous nature, might serve as the base level, influencing the emergence of fundamental fields or properties that then lead to the formation of particles and forces. These emergent properties at higher levels could further interact to create the macroscopic world we observe. Within the context of a hierarchical model where quantum fluctuations or higher-dimensional dynamics serve as fundamental influences, their existence and influence would indeed be crucial for the entire hierarchy to function or exist. In many scientific theories, including some interpretations of quantum field theory, the existence of fundamental fields is often considered inherent to the nature of the universe itself rather than requiring an external cause in the classical sense. These fields and their properties might be considered as fundamental aspects of the fabric of reality, existing as the foundational elements from which particles, forces, and everything else arise. Within the context of a hierarchical model where quantum fluctuations or higher-dimensional dynamics serve as fundamental influences, their existence and influence would indeed be crucial for the entire hierarchy to function or exist. In this view, the entire hierarchical structure of existence could be seen as contingent upon these fundamental influences, suggesting a simultaneous interconnectedness where these foundational aspects are necessary for the existence and operation of the entire hierarchy. Their influence permeates and sustains the hierarchy, challenging a strictly linear or hierarchical view where causes at higher levels are detached from their foundational influences. This perspective suggests a more intertwined and interdependent relationship between different levels of causation, where the foundational aspects exert a simultaneous and crucial influence on the entire hierarchy of existence. So, instead of the uncaused cause being a singular deity at the top sustaining the hierarchy this view suggests that all the magic happens at the base of the hierarchy and these base fundamentals are not caused at all they are probabilistic and random. It is for these reasons why I accept that the universe is random and probably not deterministic. I also tend to accept a cyclic conformal cosmology too. In the context of a cyclical model without a distinct beginning or end, it may imply a circular form of causation, where the completion of one cycle leads to the initiation of the next in an ongoing, perpetual manner. This cyclic causation doesn’t follow a linear chain of causes but instead suggests a continual, self-sustaining cycle without a definitive starting or ending point. Within this framework, causation is cyclical and self-contained, avoiding the need for an infinite linear chain of causes while still implying an ongoing cycle without a distinct beginning or end
I would be very interested in you having a talk with Sabine Hossenfelder. I think there are many things to discuss regarding misconceptions in science, determinism and her book existential physics
Awesome stuff. The best works of Aristotle which I have enjoyed most are his “Poetics” and his rationale known commonly as “One swallow does not make a summer”. I think we men need paramount convincing surrounding our potential and to how we can change; albeit tragic or comedic. But even his ideas surrounding “resolution of character as synthesis” is basically what we may call God (like the Golden mean in men’s endeavours) If my memory serves correct, Aristotle is acknowledged in Dante’s Divine Comedy, specifically because Dante held Aristotle in high regard for the conversation of God. This reflects enough how valuable these ideas are to Western enlightenment.
This whole discussion was just about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Seriously there functionally no difference. I'm like 30 minutes in and have lost interest in hearing more because I have heard this exact same conversation SO MANY times before. It's apologetics at best. Time & sequence doesn't matter for the "uncaused cause" argument. You could have one moment in time with no future or past and still the possibility would exist of an infinite sequence of causes. The only way we get to ignore that possibility without proof to the contrary is by making the assumption that a first cause exists ahead of time. It's completely unfalsifiable. Sorry. This was a frustrating listen.
This reminds me of that part of the Summa where Aquinas says that it is possible for an infinite universe to exist, because it does not constitute an essentially ordered chain
That is if karma can be understood correctly. The word "karma" has a very different meaning in western (including European) culture and is a very different understanding from karma in eastern traditions.
I think Alex having Dr K (healthygamerGG) on would be good as there are a number of relevant topics that can be explored including Hinduism, and health
@@bike4aday I know you would say that, that is what i thought but if you read more deeply, this is usually what they say . all causes from previous life will have an effect, however all effects upon you will not be by those causes, it could be by some other party. if you want to be freed from this be enlightened. thats all, maybe some other sect would have different intrepretation, but one cant read every sects intrepretation for obvious reasons
@@markus6746 Last I checked he was an undergraduate studying theology at Oxford/Cambridge? Unclear if he's actually graduated at this stage so talk of doctorates and writing books may be somewhat premature.
First if all, great discussion. You are both very bright and pleasant to listen to! Regarding your counter argument about infinite amount of potential states, one could think of it like this; a square in 2d space theoretically contains an infinite number of points, even though the square itself is finite in size. If I’m not mistaken, you use the argument that there cannot be infinite number of states/(objects?), yet in reality, a cooling cup of coffee can go from 100 to 0 degrees, transitioning through infinite number of states (temperatures). Which according to your statement is impossible. This reminds me of Zenos famous paradox.
But there is a difference between the transition from 0 to 100, and actually having all the possible intermediate temperatures as real properties. During the transition from 0 to 100 at each point (say we stop the process at a random time) the cup has just one temperature value. On the other side, if we assume all potentialities are real things, then at each point in time we are assuming a infinite amount of things
@@geokalaigeokalai3185 Im late to the table here but ok, I think I get it. You simple argue against the notion that no potentiality can possibly be considered as real?
I could never grasp how a changeless first cause could cause change, and despite the efforts of these brilliant minds I am no closer to grasping it now..
I think I know what you’re saying. Maybe this isn’t the best response, but the way I see it is the first cause has no potency to be anything other than it is. So it is changeless with respect to its being, essence, and existence(though technically its essence is to be or to exist). However with respect to what it does, since it is pure actuality, it is not limited to act only with respect to its inner nature, but can also act outside itself in a way that is very distinct from itself. In that sense, it has the ability to cause change in things external to it, to bring forth other actualities, create, make etc. I know it raises all kinds of questions as to what prompts it to bring about those changes “when” it did create, or how it could conceive of things in the realm of possibility if there is nothing but actuality, and I’m not sure how to proceed through those. I suspect that there’s some kind of necessary inference that if there is a pure act, then nothing limits it’s action and it would therefore have to follow that this pure act is omnipotent and can “do” anything. Which would force the concept of a pure potentiality capable of receiving that pure act. If there is a pure potentiality for anything to be, then it’s really because the pure act already “knows” what can be and so all possibilities/potencies are held within the “mind”of the pure act. Sorry if that was sloppy or unhelpful. You might be able to tell I’m also trying to work it out lol. But I suspect there are maybe some interesting insights to be found in more carefully examining the trinitarian nature of God as it seems concepts like knowing are conceivably in play.
Please bring on Forrest Landry, his triadic Immanent Metaphysics is super profound and would shed light on the subtle distinctions between terms like 'exist', 'real', 'objective', 'potential vs actual' etc. Highly recommend to take the time to get deep with him if he's open to this!
The idea that everything has to have a cause does not imply that there ever needed to be an uncaused beginning. Matter and energy has always and will continue to exist forever, cycling into different forms.
That’s the Kalam argument. Aristotle’s argument is different in that it takes it for granted that you can in theory have an infinite series of cause and effect, but that this is only possible in a linear causal chain. The crux of this argument is not that it’s impossible to ever have an infinite cycle of causality, but rather that the causal chain of reality is not linear, but hierarchical, and hierarchical chains do require a primary cause (which is not the same thing as a beginning).
@@swiftsetrider4543 hmm it’s an interesting distinction but I can’t see how it really escapes similar objections to the Kalam one. It’s like saying there has to be an uncaused primary source for all other causation, something everything else is contingent upon but that itself doesn’t require anything beyond itself. Seems like an uncaused beginning and non contingent source of causation are synonymous.
Also the examples in the video seem to make anthropomorphized assumptions. Like stick can’t move stone without human hand. Then making a similar further leap of human hand can’t move without some uncaused being or mind way up the hierarchy.
To me saying everything has to have an uncaused initial cause, or a non contingent source of causation, but then saying that thing doesn’t itself need a beginning or source itself, is inconsistent. Might as well go one step down and say the material universe of matter and energy is the uncaused, eternal beginning or primary source of all other causation.
@@godsfool5284 If you want a non-anthropomorphic example one could use a seesaw or a scale or some natural equivalent; when one side is lowered the other rises. The cause of the seesaw rising on one side is the lowering of the seesaw on the other, yet the lowering does not precede the rising temporally, which is why a primary cause is not the same thing as a beginning, or the string attached to the ceiling which is the primary cause for the items beneath it remaining suspended in midair. But the advantage to using examples with anthropomorphic primary causes is that you do not beg the question as readily as you would with any natural cause being the cause in this context- of whether the primary cause of all natural change is a divine agent. Also, Aristotle does not argue that everything must have a cause, but only that any change requires a cause. An unchanging thing would not require any cause to explain it, in the same way that we only require forces to explain changes in velocity while no change in velocity implies lack of force (which in Aristotle’s day was understood as stillness vs. motion, while from Newton onward it was understood as constant velocity vs. acceleration).
I think, the problem Alex pointed out could presented as follows: If X changes then prior to actualisation of a new property in it, there are infinite other states of potentialities that needs to be actualised first. And since infinity cannot be traversed, no property of X could ever be actualised. But then again the mug is a temporal object, having a beginning for itself as well as all its properties, hence the chain doesn't extend back to infinity. The change w.r.t to the mug starts from pure potency such that before it no other potentiality is required to get actualised first. This leaves us with potential infinity extending forwards, the mug has infinite potentialities in it that could be actualised.
How can a perfect being have potential? Can it change without becoming less than perfect? Can it become more perfect? And why would it add something outside it's self? Could it add something outside it's self? A being that can change or create change cannot have been perfect.
Regarding the infinity problem, wouldn't we also be compelled to say there are an actually infinite number of ACTUAL properties as well? For example the warm coffee in the cup has the property of being warmer than 10 degrees and also the property of being warmer than 10.1 degrees and also warmer than 10.11 degrees and so on.
Never mind that the temperature is just the average movement of billions and billions of atoms. The coffee cup is a temporary arrangement, an emergent property, an idea, not necessarily its own "thing".
Im only 25minutes in, but hasn't physics proven that hierarchical (as opposed to linear) causal chains dont exists? For one when a hand pushes a stick that pushes a rock, those events dont occur simultaneously, the hand creates a pressure wave that propogates through the stick at the speed of sound. The hand could stop pushing as the pressure wave travels and the rock would still be moved. This seems like a pedantic nitpicking of a specific example, but I'm not convinced there are ANY real examples. In relativity we know that there are no simultaneous events. A train can go through a tunnel and, from one persons view the front and back of the train simultaneously leave and enter respectively, while from another reference frame the train is literally longer than the tunnel. The speed of light is the speed of causation, there are no events that instantaneously and strictly depend on other events. There are phenomenon such as the delayed double slit experiment where effects can appear to be temporarally prior to their causes. An event at t1 determines the outcome at t2 in such a way that is dependent on local phenomenon that would have occured at t0. The key thing is that there is clearly a temporaly relationship here, we know the universe isnt locally real, but it is incredibly premature to assume that this means that locality is what is violated, rather than the universe simply being probabalistic and indeterminate. This scenario is fully explainable by a static B theory 4 dimensional model of the universe, and you can even be able to adapt a growing block model in which the 4D manifold can crumple back on itself along the time axis.
Check out how Bishop Barron explained this hierarchical causal chain in another video with Alex. He gave a good explanation of causal series subordinated 'per se' and subordinated 'per accidens'.
At the speed of light. 1 light minute long stick need 1 minute till executes the entire movement. Maybe this will be not the best way to explain. Feynman diagrams only showing light waves between 2 electrons. It indicates that the photon "knows" where it will land in the moment in its creation. From the viewpoint of a photon the word "existence" makes no sense at all. At he speed of light there is no time. Another way of thinking about it. If you love pool games and standing beside a pool table your fate is sealed. If you late from an appointment you will feel regret if you play and if you go to the date too. In a successful first date do you have a chance not to kiss her/him?
Objection 1: It seems that physics has proven hierarchical causal chains do not exist. For example, when a hand pushes a stick that pushes a rock, the events do not occur simultaneously. The hand can stop pushing, and the rock will still be moved due to the previously created pressure wave. Therefore, the Aristotelian concept of a hierarchical causal chain, where effects strictly and simultaneously depend on their causes, is outdated and false. Reply to Objection 1: This objection misunderstands the nature of Aristotelian causality, which is not primarily about the temporal sequence of events but about ontological dependency. The argument is not concerned with how quickly one physical event follows another but with the sustaining cause at the moment of causation. The hand-stick-rock example, when correctly understood, demonstrates a clear hierarchy of causation: the rock moves because the stick moves, and the stick moves because of the hand. The temporal delay introduced by the pressure wave does not negate the hand's role as the primary mover. To dismiss the profound depth of Aristotelian causality based on a superficial understanding of physical processes is to overlook the distinction between physical and metaphysical causation. The former is subject to the laws of physics, including the speed of light and time delays, but the latter delves into the deeper question of why anything exists or changes at all. It is this ontological grounding that physics itself cannot provide, and it is here that the Aristotelian proof stands unchallenged. Objection 2: The theory of relativity undermines the concept of simultaneous events, essential to the Aristotelian idea of a first cause. Since relativity posits that simultaneity is relative and there are no universally simultaneous events, the notion of a strict, hierarchical chain of simultaneous causes and effects is implausible. Reply to Objection 2: The objection conflates the physical theory of relativity with metaphysical principles. While relativity indeed revolutionizes our understanding of time and space, it does not and cannot address the metaphysical underpinnings of existence itself. The Aristotelian argument for a first cause transcends physical temporality and instead focuses on the existential need for a sustaining cause. This cause is not one that operates within time but is rather timeless, the necessary ground for the existence of time, space, and all that exists within them. To argue that relativity negates the necessity for a metaphysical ground is to misunderstand the scope and purpose of both physics and metaphysics. Physics can describe how events within the universe unfold, but it cannot explain why the universe, with all its laws and constituents, exists in the first place. This fundamental 'why' is the domain of metaphysics, and it is here that the necessity of a first cause remains unshaken. Objection 3: The speed of light limits the speed of causation, suggesting that there are no instantaneous or timeless events. Every cause and effect have a temporal relationship, which contradicts the idea of a necessary, timeless first cause. Reply to Objection 3: This objection again fails to distinguish between the physical and metaphysical realms. The speed of light as a limit applies to events within the universe, but the concept of a first cause pertains to the foundation of the universe itself. The first cause, as understood in Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, is not an event within the universe subject to its laws but is instead the reason for the universe's very existence and order. It is beyond time and space and, therefore, not restricted by the speed of light or any other physical law. To apply physical laws to this metaphysical principle is a categorical error, misapplying the findings of one field (physics) to a question that fundamentally lies outside its purview (metaphysics). The first cause is not a domino that topples the next in a sequence within the universe; it is the existential ground for the entire sequence and the reality in which it exists. As such, the limitations of physical causation do not apply to it. Objection 4: Phenomena like the delayed double-slit experiment suggest a more complex, probabilistic, and indeterminate universe, which can be explained by models like the static B-theory or a growing block universe. This undermines the need for a traditional first cause. Reply to Objection 4: Quantum phenomena, while challenging our classical intuitions, do not negate the need for a foundational reality. The probabilistic nature of quantum events and the peculiarities of phenomena like the delayed double-slit experiment indeed invite a reevaluation of how we understand causation and determinism on a quantum scale. However, these phenomena occur within the fabric of the universe and do not account for the fabric itself. Theories like the B-theory of time or the growing block universe attempt to describe the nature of time and existence within the universe but do not address the metaphysical necessity for an underlying ground of being. The first cause, as a metaphysical principle, is not just another event in the chain but the reason for the chain's existence and nature. Quantum mechanics, with all its intriguing implications, operates within the realm of this chain. To assume that the indeterminacy and complexity observed at the quantum level can account for the existence of the universe itself is to overextend the scope of these scientific theories. The need for a metaphysical ground of being remains a fundamental question, one that the peculiarities of quantum mechanics, however fascinating, do not answer.
@@Chris-yr8wb I really do not think you followed my objection whatsoever. A linear causal sequence is one in which causally prior events need not continue to exist in order for their effects to. An example is a person being causally dependent on the existence of their great great grandfather, but this causality doesn't imply the ancestor still exists. An alternative would be hierarchical causality, in which an effect is causally dependent on another thing in such a way that the non existence of that thing makes the effect cease to exist. The example given was pushing a stick, where the movement of the end of the stick is causally dependent on the movement of the shaft of the stick, and if the shaft were not to move, the end would not move. The point of this example is to establish that, by observation of the world, things exist that require the sustaining causation of another thing. My objection pointed out that a stick moving is actually not hierarchical, and is instead linear like the person and the ancestor. The movement of the end of a stick is causally dependent on an event in its past, and since time must pass for this to occur, the ongoing movement of the shaft is not necessary for the effect to actualise. I posit that there are no such examples of hierarchical causation, and a person making the claim that the universe needs an ontologically sustaining entity had a burden of proof to establish the existence of hierarchical causation. In the absence of hierarchical causation, you could still make the case that linear causation cannot regress infinitely, but that is a different argument to the one I was objecting to. Please provide an example of an observable, verifiable, a-temporal, hierarchical causation relationship to establish that it exists and proceed with the Aristotelian argument. Regarding metaphysical grounding, it is no more absurd to posit that the universe just exists than that a god just exists, and that a god also made the universe. Asserting the existence of the universe answers the question of why there is something rather than nothing just as well as asserting a god does: not at all. If you ask why why why why why all the way down, you will get to "why does the universe exist". You can be honest and say "I don't know, maybe it's unknowable" or you can say "Because a god made it". If you say the latter, then you can just ask "Buy why does a god have to exist? Why couldn't there have been nothing at all?" And we are at exactly the same place with one additional unprovable assumption.
I think I just spent 30 minutes listening to Alex say "if potentialities are real, and there may be an infinite number of them (say, infinite possible temperatures), then you are proposing there could be an infinite number of real properties/things" and Feser saying "yeah, that's not a problem for this argument." Lol, still a good point to consider, probably just not worth going in that circle for so long.
If you accept that different temperatures of the coffee are not simultaneously possible then it doesn’t matter whether there are an infinite or finite number of potential temperatures. I tend to agree with Feser here that its our measurement of temperature which produces seemingly infinite possibilities and that there are actual constraints but that’s another argument.
Aristotle, Aquinas, and the coffee example all build the "actual" and "potential" concepts off of things in the universe being discrete individual objects to which actions are performed. The idea of the coffee being one temperature is actually ridiculous now that we have the understanding that not only does the coffee have convection currents flowing in it when it loses temperature at the surface, but even the idea of temperature is a bunch of separate particles within the coffee hitting each other. But, regardless what is considered "actual" - I think the idea of "potential" sounds suspiciously like a thing that humans made up to describe stuff, and not an inherent facet of the universe. If the universe is completely deterministic, then "potential" is kind of a misnomer because everything is a certainty. It would be more of a laundry list of "actuals" which happen in sequence. If the universe is _not_ completely deterministic, then the idea of the "unmoved mover" is useless because the "potentials" wouldn't need a mover to become "actual".
@@CookiesRiot "If the universe is completely deterministic, then "potential" is kind of a misnomer because everything is a certainty. It would be more of a laundry list of "actuals" which happen in sequence." No because if it's deterministic it still has the potential in future tense because it's not in actuality. We are talking about potentials from the thing of their nature themselves. That means let's take a random flower seed and say it has the potential to become a flower rather than a car for example. Here i am not actually talking about even if this random flower seed exists and so you cannot talk here about determinism. And we are talking about a things' nature and so we are in universals, we are not talking about particular. Determinism is concerned about a particular's predetermined path. Two different particular may have the same potentiality but one particular may not actualize said potentiality. To illustrate it two different flower seed living in two different environment won't end up the same ways, but they had the same potentialities. Also a things temperature is the quality of an object that we can scientifically be measured, they are a result from the density of atom and how excited they are yes but they are not just the atoms you are presupposing a kind of reductionistic view which the modern ariostotlian wouldn't accept. Color is also atoms and waves soudn too, but they are not the same and the science doesn't really contradict the metaphysic from Aristotle unless you are a physicalist reductionist which is an other metaphysical position. It seems you have misunderstood the concept.
@@toonyandfriends1915 The idea that there is a "potential" implies possibility of alternatives. Not just linguistically - which is where I was going with my use of "misnomer" - but literally Aristotle's entire concept of potential was tied to the idea of alternative possibilities, of which one would be the natural outcome but any could be made to happen intentionally or accidentally. His idea of potentiality was, in point of fact, antithetical to a completely deterministic universe. If everything is deterministic, then "potential" is, at best, a misleading word to use for what amounts to more of a "future actual". The seeds would not have "potential" to become a flower - some simply will be a flower and others simply will not be a flower. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone describing themselves or anything modern as Aristotelian outside of ethics and philosophy... especially not physics. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that the field of physics sees Aristotle's work as historically significant but physically nonsensical. The mere concept of actualizing potentials differently than the natural outcome goes against the concept of natural physical laws. Other facets of Aristotelian physics were very directly supplanted by specific physical laws (especially the Newtonian laws of motion versus the natural motions of the four elements and the unmoved mover concept).
@@CookiesRiot it doesn't make sense, things have alternative possibility in their nature, even if we suppose that something was deterministic . You don't understand that potentiality is embeded in the very nature of thing, this is before if we talk even if these things exists. And things must exists before we talk about how determinism affects them. Let's say again, you have a flower seed and another flower seed. "some simply will be a flower and others simply will not be a flower." Again you are talking about particulars. It having the potentiality of being a flower is congruently compatible with it being deterministicaly the case that this particular flower seed will certainly become the flower. But if this flower didn't exist and we are just looking at it's nature, not even the mega hypothetical computer could tell you if it will grow or not because it doesn't exist. Even in like, normal common talk, if some guys tells me "i have the potential to become great", it doesn't mean i will become great and deterministically i will only become what is predtermined from the initial condition, what he is just saying is that i have something in me that can allow this fact to happen, not that this fact will definitely happen. So even if you only understood the common parlance of it, it would still be incorrect. Therefore if it's just having something in you that can allow a fact to happen (being a flower) it doesn't tell you anything about if deterministically or non deterministically it will happen, so the concept doesn't eliminate both. The concept only relies on the fact that the world seems rationally comprehensible and ordered. Rather or not being rationally ordered is compatible with non determinism is also outside the scope of the concept. For example, a human has no potential to grow wings and fly, because such nature wouldn't be that of a human anymore and it could never be actualized. This has nothing to do with determinism or non determinism. "I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone describing themselves or anything modern as Aristotelian outside of ethics and philosophy... especially not physics" Well yes we are talking about metaphysics so everything you are going to say below literally doesn't matter in the context of what we are talking about, and not even edward feser would content that. The unmoved mover doesn't contradict the metaphysical of motion in the slightest and it also shows a misunderstanding of the thing. First of all newton is concerned about local motion while motion is change, secondly it doesn't say anything about why a particular thing stay in motion and it's answer why it moves is also congruent in aristotliist lense The four elements isn't and never was metaphysics.
Pardon if I missed it, but why the objection to infinity? Seems Alex is bothered by it and Feser is not (whether or not the potentiality argument is what brings it in) - what complications does this give rise to?
I think there are several difficulties with Alex's first objection that the idea of an infinite number of potentialities is problematic. First is that he never actually gives a reason to believe there is a difficulty in the first place. He says that many philosophers argue against there being an actual infinity of things and that it leads to various paradoxes, but beyond that not much is given to make the claim compelling. Now I understand that this is primarily a discussion not a debate, but Alex has given this objection before such as in the Ben Shapiro video he referenced so it would be nice to actually have an argument for why this is a problem. And I bring this up because how we understand something like an actual infinite is crucial to the whole objection. Clearly many philosophers would have no problem with there being in Alex's terminology an actual infinite number of numbers, so we need to be specific about what we mean by an actual infinite. This issue becomes clear when terms like "actual" and "real" get used in various ways throughout the discussion and it causes confusion in my opinion. When giving the example of the coffee cup at one point Alex even says that "we have an actually existing actual infinity", but it seems like even if the Aristotelian granted his usage of actually existing as being the same as what he means, we only have an actually existing potential infinite. Alex then shifts to the idea of local change and begins to bring up the objection of a spatially infinite universe where an object could have an infinite number of potential locations it could be in. In doing this however, he seems to be undermining his own argument because he allows for an infinite universe, but thinks it problematic that an object in that universe could have the potential to be in an infinite number of places within that universe. I am not sure why one infinity is allowed but the other poses a problem, and Alex gives no reason for this distinction. To make matters even worse, in Alex's example his proposed universe is actually infinite, but the locations of the object are just potentially infinite so it seems like the potential infinity associated with the object should be less problematic than the universes actually infinite size. The last problem I have with this objection is that it seems to be saying that because the A/T analysis of change is committed to potentials being real properties of things, and we can imagine a scenario involving an actual infinity of real properties (the potential temperature of the coffee) that therefore the A/T analysis of change is problematic. I don't see how this is a real problem though because either actual infinites are possible and there is no problem with this scenario, OR actual infinites are not possible in which case the coffee just wouldn't have an infinite number of real properties so the objection wouldn't even get off the ground. Nowhere in the analysis of change being discussed is any commitment to the reality of an infinite number of potentials. All it says is that potentials are real properties of things, whether or not something could or could not have an actual infinity of properties is irrelevant in my opinion. Ultimately I think that the objection is confused because Alex has to assume the existence of the infinity that he then wants to go on to argue is problematic.
If I'm understanding Alex's objection, it's that all future instances entailed by a potential infinity would be compressed into an actual infinity if all of an object's potential future states were a real thing possessed by said object.
The "no actual infinities of things" argument only works when you apply it to things that are localized in spacetime and can't overlap, i.e. follow an exclusion principle. Possible attributes don't fall into that category. Just the use of "possible" indicates that more than one thing can be,.
I agree completely. The question starts and ends with whether or not actual infinities exist or not, and neither answer is problematic for the argument. By saying that the coffee has infinite potentials in regards to its temperature, you have to accept that the coffee will actually traverse an infinite number of temperatures in a finite time as it cools down in the real world. I don’t see how one of these infinities is acceptable while the other is not.
I think Alex’s objection addresses someone with beliefs like this: Suppose I believe that 1. actual infinities do not exist in reality, and 2. that the notion of a “continuum of temperature” makes sense. Then in this case, I believe my coffee can take on an actually infinite number of different temperatures. Thus, i believe my coffee has the potential to actualize all infinitely many temperatures. However, since I do not believe actual infinites exist in reality, I cannot assign these potentials the same ontological status of “existing in reality” that Feser seems to require for the argument. I.e. whether the argument fails seems to depend on what kinds of “non-existing-in-reality actual infinities” are allowed in one’s theory.
@@ethanmartin2781 Yes I agree, but my problem is with the second premise. By accepting the notion of a "continuum of temperature" or "an infinite spatial universe" we are allowing a real infinity to exist at that point so how can we then hold premise one to be true as well?
Alex you are one of the great philosophers of our time! I’m not formally educated but I’m very passionate about the subject. I think about the rebuttals to the arguments presented to you and you say exactly what my thoughts are! I appreciate what you do!
The clarity Alex has in his 20s, this boy is going to be very influential thinker of our times eventually I loved the guest. Very smart fellow. These discussions are so much better than "Christianity debunked!!" type content.
I think this argument immediately folds under determination because potentiality as a concept is incoherent under determinism. Things either are or they are not, and they only are as they are and will only ever be as they have to be pending prior causes. Hence your hand is never potentially anywhere. It is in X1 and will be in X2, wherein X2 is not a "potential" of X1, but the inevitable extension of X1. Because potentiality does not exist as an actual phemonenon in this view, all appeals to potential are incoherent. Secondly, there's a linguistic trap here in saying something like a stick "has the potential to move a rock". I would argue this is incoherent regardless your view on causality because a stick is an object and has no other qualities except the ones that make it a stick. The grammatically correct way of thinking of the stick in terms of its "potential to move a rock" is that the stick "has" the potential to be used to move a rock. This is not a trivial distinction because to say that an object may "be used" is to immediately recognize that the potential in respect to use is not a property of the stick but of the person picking it up. The properties of the stick in relation to moving the rock is therefore not directly related to movement, but related to matters like the stick's structural integrity(not breaking when used to apply leverage etc) and only that. HOWEVER, and importantly, under any model of determinism, we are all sticks. So nothing has self-actualizing properties. People aren't "moving sticks" any more than "sticks are moving rocks". If nothing has, as far as we observe, self-actualizing properties, then you cannot use induction to postulate a first self-actualized domino. What's more, the postulation of such a domino is no different than the exercise of doing so in linear causality, such as in the case of your run of the mill cosmological arguments. Thirdly, considering the two previous points, it's readily apparent that the distinction between linear and hierarchical causality is a red herring, if even coherent in respects to an argument for God's existence. Fundamentally, the issue with reality, following Alex's example of people hanging with their hands interlinked from a cliff, is that we neither see the cliff nor the end of the chain and that there's no real distinction between positing a hierarchical first "self-actualized" cause and a linear unmoved first mover/uncaused first cause. As far as we're concerned, all we're privy to is a seemingly endless line of people with their hands interlocked. Whether you want to posit that there's a first man per linear causality, who was born from nothing together with a cliff to hold the rest of us as we jumped off one by one, or that the cliff and man was simply there always holding all of us, is immaterial to the question of how this is justified via induction or deduction when all we've ever seen is the chain and the chain itself contains no traces of this cliff or first man.
Plus, even granting most of the argument, maybe the "base" in the hierarchical dependency is just the cliff i.e. some inanimate structure that's just the nature of the universe.
"Hence your hand is never potentially anywhere. It is in X1 and will be in X2, wherein X2 is not a "potential" of X1, but the inevitable extension of X1." Just because an outcome is inevitable doesn't change that it is a potential. You seem to be confusing potential with possible, as if potential implies that at any moment any possibly event could result X1. That's not required here for the idea of potentials and seems to misunderstand potentials. Even if we don't talk about things, like coffee or bananas or whatever, and instead talk about events or states, there are still potentials. An event or state can have the potential to bring about various other events or states, and that's regardless which potential events or states do in fact become actual. X2 can never be actual if it weren't at least previously a potential. But, potentials must exist within something actual, so perhaps it is in X1. But that doesn't mean that the only potential in X1 is X2. There could be X3 or X4, even if those never become actual because of how X1 actually is. In fact, Aristotle actually gave an answer for why there is this causal regularity where certain specific things (whether states, events, or substances) being a certain specific way (and not any other way) regularly, if not inevitably, results in certain specific outcomes being a certain specific way (and not any other). This is what Aristotle and his followers understood by final causes. The philosophers and scientists of the enlightenment misunderstood Aristotelian final causes quite dramatically, and thus rejected it without refuting it, and it very quickly lead to Hume presenting the problem of causality and the serious problems for scientific knowledge as a result. Much of the time from Hume on was trying to grant Hume's conclusion that we can't really know anything about external reality and redefining truth and knowledge around that. Recently, though, philosophers of science have began recognizing that returning to Aristotle, and rejecting Hume, seems to be the answer. I would recommend you search "Feser Faith Reason Gonzaga" on RUclips and find Part 1 of a two-part lecture by Feser, which should help you clear this confusion up. Jump to 8min40 to skip the intro. PS This is all granting hard determinism, but there is no solid reason to grant this. But I thought I would for the sake of the point.
@@billyg898 Ignore the first response. My youtube bugged out and made it look like this was a reply to a different post than what it was. In either case, all you seem to be doing is assert without argument the very thing I was rejecting in the first place. There's no meaningful distinction between possible or potential to my mind here, and trying to delineate is nothing but a vacuous semantic game. My fundamental contention here is that possibilities and potentials are both just abstract linguistic trappings that don't describe any meaningful concrete features of reality. When you see a pebble on a lawn, you can conceive of the pebble being somewhere else on the lawn. When you see coiled spring, you can conceive of it as uncoiling. We think of these as "possible" alternatives and the "potentials" of objects/phenomenon respectively. What I'm arguing is that either is meaningless nonsense. Objects are where they are, nowhere else. They were where they were, and nowhere else. They will be where they will be, and nowhere else. And, only springs that are determined to uncoil by preceding phenomenon will uncoil. Hence to speak of springs as "having the potential to uncoil" in a generic sense is nothing but a linguistic construct of practicality that humans employ because we don't have perfect knowledge of which springs will uncoil or which won't. It's not a linguistic structure that describes how reality actually operates. To say "X has potential Y" in premises of arguments meant to describe the nature of reality is therefore confused. It's mistaking the map for the territory in the premise of an argument meant to describe the territory, not the map. Also, I think there are plenty of good reasons to grant hard determinism - the greatest being that I don't think there are any coherent non-deterministic models of reality. Determinism is the only model parsimonious with the cause-effect relationships that constitutes seemingly everything we observe and measure except particles on the quantum level. But why one would expect those to be random given everything else simply because they appear that way, is uncertain. Furthermore, the fact that quantum randomness appears completely divorced from prediction on the macro scale of events also means it has no bearing the claim that the universe operates deterministically.
@@hian "There's no meaningful distinction between possible or potential to my mind here" There is, but this comment would get too long to clarify and perhaps the distinction doesn't really matter for what you say after this. Suffice it to say that Aristotle would say that an object can have many potentials but given the current state of the object and it's current interactions with the objects around it, the outcome would be that a particular potential would become actual and not anything else. "Objects are where they are, nowhere else. They were where they were, and nowhere else. They will be where they will be, and nowhere else." Perhaps I can explain the problem with your thinking, which was something that was refuted about a 100 years ago (but some people still push the thinking). Let me ask you something: Say you have a glass in your hand. Let's say it's a reasonably thin glass. If we say that the glass is brittle, what does that mean? I assume you would agree that this means that it wouldn't take much force for the glass to shatter. However, let's say there isn't, never was, and never will be a situation where the glass is hit with such force and shatters. By your reasoning, no matter whether we speak of possible or potential, the glass simply is incapable of shattering. Thus, in what sense can we say that the glass is brittle then? We would have to conclude that the glass is not brittle or saying that it is brittle is incoherent because the glass can never and will never never shatter. If someone was swinging a hammer near your glass and you say "Whoa, be careful! This glass is brittle. You could possibly shatter it if you aren't careful", you'd be saying something incoherent because, according to you, there is no such thing as what "could possibly" happen. This is a problem, among many, that arose toward a long standing post-enlightenment view called positivism, and basically caused a fundamental problem with being able to claim any kind of scientific knowledge. Science becomes incapable of giving us actual knowledge. It can only give us beliefs which are either coherent or incoherent. This problem can be extended to any thing we say about anything at all, including where an object is. For example, if you say that the glass can be 2 meters to the left from where it currently is, but it isn't there, never was there, and never will be there, you'd have to conclude that it couldn't ever be there. But, then you can't say at all where a glass will be. If you say that we can know, at least in principle if we had sufficient knowledge of physics, where it will be by applying the laws of physics we've learned through scientific investigation and map out all the points in space this glass would be at every moment across time, you'd still run in to the problem of assuming that the laws of physics will apply to the glass in all those moments. To say that the glass follows the laws of physics is no different to saying that the glass is brittle. Is there a law that says that the glass must follow the laws of physics? If so, why must that law be followed? Because of another law? See the problem? Aristotle's understanding of potentials and final causes avoids this problem altogether while still make sense of cause and effect relationships as we observe them. It was precisely because the enlightenment thinkers abandoned final causes that this problem arose in the first place. As I noted in my previous post, philosophers of science are beginning to see that these ideas from Aristotle perhaps should NOT have been abandoned, although they use more modern terminology. "Determinism is the only model parsimonious with the cause-effect relationships that constitutes seemingly everything we observe" I'd say that it depends entirely how you understand the cause and effect relationships. But, this comment is long enough.
What I love about Alex is that he pushes until questions I have are addressed, if not answered 😊 Some can't be answered... and that's ok. The problem I have with this argument is that of infinity as it applies to actual things, as Alex brought up. For a potential to be actual, it seems to me that it then has properties (a point about 80% into the video) like "red" or "sixty degrees" or whatever. As soon as you ascribe properties to "a potential" then that potential becomes a discreet entity. This is what leads to the infinity problem, that you can't have an infinite number of discreet entities in a space at any given time. Thus, I think the difficulty is with defining potential in the way Edward Feser (and Aristotle? Sorry, can't keep track!) does here - as an actual entity that exists - which then disrupts the argument's very foundations. Anyway, that's my take. Thank you for great content, Alex, and thank you Dr. Feser!
Interesting thoughts. I would respond that I don't see how giving properties to a potential becomes a separate entity. To use Freser's ping pong ball example. A better example (i think) of the ping pong ball's potential reality is that it is bouncy. But that property of the ping pong ball's potential reality doesn't create a new distinct ping pong ball.
Potential is necessarily discreet. It has a linearity because the actual sets up the frame for the potential. You could say there are infinite possibilities, but the context (including history and co-existing actualities) limits those possibilities to a set of probabilities for what is likely to actualise or as many would say "realise". Everything that exists in spacetime has near infinite interactions, influences, and consequences/potentials, but we only perceive certainty parts of that near-infinity. Chaos theory explores this rather well.
a ping pong ball is bouncy by virtue of being a ball made out of a certain kind of matter. One such ball sitting n the ground has only the potential to bounce. It will only do so really or actually when dropped or thrown. It's not obvious to me that this analysis runs into the infinity problem. There's no need for the worry of actually existing infinites - potentials are not actually existing beings, so they don't take up any space in themselves. Similarly, even granting the ball has the potential qua material object in space to be at an infinite number of spatial locations, it doesn't follow these potentials are all actually existent. They are mere potentials not physically attached to any thing. It appears your problem is just a category error. Material things can only ever actually be in one location at any instant. Hence there is no way for the problem of actual infinities to arise
These problems exist because this argument is a philosophical construction framed in (poorly defined) language. Any interpretation of the language needs a bundle of hidden assumptions, such as an understanding of the infinite.
Philosopher Alvin Plantigina defined philosophy very simply, “Thinking very hard about something.” This podcast is Exhibit A proving his point. I love it! Thank you Alex for having Feser on! His book was difficult to get through but every page I turned I loved that I was being challenged to think deeper. And it’s podcasts like yours that do the same thing as Feser’s book (and I’m a Christian)! You are easily in my top five most watched channels on RUclips.
I just realized while watching this video that we have never observed any unmoved thing. It might be wholly baseless to assume there is any need for a mover at all.
30 minutes of Ed patiently trying to explain to a novice to Thomistic thinking that he isn’t making Bill Craig’s argument and therefore Alex’s objection is irrelevant. Derivative causality in a vertical hierarchy is the key point.
12:38 Didn't the Greeks, Aristotle included, have a belief in 'gods'. I know, not one primary God, well maybe Zeus, but a lot of them. Wouldn't that have influenced Aristotle's formation of his ideas?
The unmoved mover is not the creator for matter was eternal. It only thinks of itself and not individual and accidental things, so we can throw all of the nonsensical ideas concerning "prophecies" into the fire.
None of this is a problem for atheism. Why are we even calling the unmoved mover "God"? Because these pagans had no problem calling a rock "God". Simply because it is meta-necessary? The unmoved mover is not aware of individual things or beings within the universe in a personal or conscious manner. It doesn't have knowledge of particulars because it doesn't engage in specific thoughts or intentions. The only Gods that are a problem for atheism are the ones proposed by various world religions that, strangely, are concerned with a specific carbon-based lifeform found on this planet.
Love the philosophers you get on this show. Can you do Michael Della Rocca next? He's probably the best defender of the monism that Feser is trying to avoid. I'm convinced views like Spinoza's offer the most effective refutation of Thomism and classical theism more generally.
Spinoza is an interesting figure, but to say he offers "the most effective refutation of Thomism and classical theism" is silly. Thomism and classical theism shouldn't even be strictly equated. The classical theism of the eastern fathers, for instance, shares little in common with manualist Thomism
Absolute actuality is potential itself. So the argument of the yellow chair needing the potential to stay yellow is actuality. Change (potential) is the actuality because change is required to remain constant because reality is pure energy. In this case, God would be energy itself with no moral bearings, neither good nor evil. It is everything.
I don't agree with the formation of the premises. We are trying to describe things as they really are in this discussion. When ascribing these properties to objects what are the objects we are talking about? Lets say its an apple, the apple is made of atoms and sub atomic particles, and the substance and properties of the apple are all rearrangements of these particles (or whatever particles break down as being in their essence). The fundamental particles do not have the properties of green or sweet. These properties are emergent and subjective. Without someone to taste there is no sweet. So what i am saying is the formulation of this argument is based on a lack of understanding of reality.
40:00 _"We've got to recognize something like potentiality as a real feature of the world that's distinct from actuality"_ How is that different from modality ? X has the _"potential"_ to do/become Y. X can be different, it can be Y. And more importantly, why does that need to be in _"reality"_ ? Modality is often conceived in terms of conceivability : I can conceive of a world in which X were Y (had property Y). Why wouldn't it be the same for _"potentiality"_ ?
1:13:51 _"The basic idea is this that um the the yellowness is there in the chair already it's not potentially yellow it is yellow whereas the redness is not in the chair already"_ That seems to lend credence to the idea that actuality/potentiality is nothing more than modality. Because modality is the study of the possibility to be different... The consideration of alternatives. So _"redness"_ is an "alternative" for the yellow chair. And the rule according to which _"something actual is required to actualize a potential",_ would be like saying that a "possibility" in a modal sense, needs to be actualized in the sense that the actual world needs to "move" towards the possible world in which the alternative is true, through that movement, the possible becomes actual.
1:27:40 _"Even if that were correct this the four-dimensional object that is the universe would be something that in which we can distinguish its essence or nature what it is from its existence it would be a contingent thing that could have failed to exist and yet it doesn't fail to exist so why does it exist well we need to appeal to something outside of that imparts existence to that the nature of the universe"_ Yep, that pretty much is the Leibnizian contingency argument... Lending even more credence to the idea that potential/actual is nothing more than modality.
@@CMVMic *-"There are no contingencies in existence. Necessitarianism is true and it has do with change, not existence."* It has to do with change, not existence ? So necessitarianism is true, and it means that there are no contingencies, and that means that there is no change ?
Parmenidese implies "oneness of God" through denying multiplicity and change while Aristotle implies "the power of God to actualize" through tracing the source of change.
There’s a major difference between “God” as described by several religions, held to standards… …And the idea that everything which exists does so within a container of itself in the form of all things real or imagined.
A monotheistic god is in essence exactly what you described, god being the container and everything else, both realised and unrealized potential existing within the container. The religious differentiation comes down to the claim of transcendental laws and this is where the idea of objective morals sits. For example let's assume the container is the English alphabet. Within this container is an infinite number of potential combinations of different letters, but one could infer that a law of sorts in this container is that any possible combination must abide by the convention of the English alphabet. A rather crude example, but explains how montheistic religions make claims to objective moralities within the framework of a universe of seemingly infinite potentialities. The Christian view for instance is that objective moralities are defined by the nature of god (the container), so these ideas are not mutually exclusive, instead I would argue religious world views are an attempt at defining the nature of the container that we exist within.
@@jakobdowney355 You’re describing a group. Singularity is unrepresentatable Existence is a relationship. The container is imaginary. Labeling existance has nothing to do with human on human manipulation
@@jakobdowney355 I think it’s a more basic thing and all that though… A person might ask themselves, “do I want to be the one teaching or do I want to be the one learning? Which has the greater value?”
@@mitzzzu_tigerjones444 I mean it depends how you define value. I do not know how one defines value outside of a religious framework so that's an incredibly difficult idea to tackle. Within a religious framework it's easier as you assume a definition of value.
"There is nothing more dangerous than to confide in our own strength, and trust to feelings of fervor. We are full of malice, and capable of committing the most enormous crimes, unless God supports us.” -Fr. Ignatius of the Side of Jesus, p. 85-86
I refute the entire premise of something being purely actual and at the same time it can interact with the world. It must have states of being after actualization that are different if it can assert it's will or self upon others. It has the potential to cause the first change, but at some point it had not yet done so.
![BRASIL vs. PERÚ [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tbyOJKXfQnI/mqdefault.jpg)
Get early access to episodes, and get them ad-free, by supporting the channel at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
If infinite potential is possible some how then the question remains the same that from potentiality to actuality has a cause or not
1. If has a cause then it is in object or somewhere else.
(I)If in object then object cannot remain in the causal form
(II)If in other then object then anything can come from anywhere and cause and non cause would be same.
And effects can come from nothing.
2.If potentiality to actuality has no cause then anything has no cause u r just shifting the goal post.
This is my short and simple answer to this problem and hence no cause no effect exists in actuality it is just appearance in your the consciousness.
Please reply to my answer and please give me a shout out your younger brother from India 😂😂
@anshguuhh ZZ we 2 I'm aww a www mm j I'm mmm mm mm l l mm wa😀 l=-Opta4478
"You've got me here under false pretences! I didn't come here to talk about infinity! This interview is over!"
Well played sir.
"You are obsessed with infinity!"
you have taken advantage of my good nature!
😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
I'm gonna write a tweet about this!
Podcast has been top class recently. Oppy, Rasmussen, Feser. What a time to be alive
Real? What kind of stupid empty cult is this nothing offer nothing gives, but empty BS? As God really cares about what you think and your stupid philosophy empty words as godless alone trash person (anyone who deny God is a godless alone trash person)… Another reason none can respect you, you are a lier as any modern Goddenier.. And we hope the next generation will be better then you and forget about you and your empty stupid worthless atheism not even worst to clean my ass. … Why onyoua re empty like it. Then why only godless alone trash people are obsessed with hell, while we are not? Another reason to do not be like them, and live with this constanlty fear… What idiots!
For really you did not get those empty Videos where godless alone people
constantly talk about God, showing their obsession, are made not to
help anyhow your godless alone life but to trap you into this empty
stupid cult called atheism they know we live in the time of stupidity
and godless trash people so they need to capture them as more as they
can.
They know you are the most stupid, weakest and alone people in
the face of earth and they need to take advantages on you. They know you
run anytime you see godless ass to kiss it. That what this empty BS
cult atheism make you be, without God and without dignity. But let see
how you are in trapped in this cult: Let see how many godless rats are
here with their empty words and life, just as their cult called atheism.
Why? Why Godless alone trash people want see the existence of God
when it is clear that if they and all the things they see around (earth,
stars, planets and so on) if they are creation something must created
them. For real no respect for those godless blind trash people. God is
what they do not know have and do not know in their miserable alone
trash life. But God will take care about them as well, once death as
anyone alse. Let's hope we will have better generation that those
godless alone trash one.... We really do not need this empty and
worthless cult called atheism and those modern godless alone idiots who
thinks God cares to exist what those poor alone people think about him.
No respect for them and their miserable godless alone life. (they are
also godless ass kissers, as they run anytime they see a godless alone
person... that what happen when you do not have God in your life, you
lose your dignity, and you start to be disgusting in that way)... Oh
anyway when you stopped to believe in God something died on you but you
are so pathetic that you are not willing to admit it (right?). What
trashy people without shame they deny their creator, and they will be
judge for it.... Liars ad patetich as any Goddeniers. so their worthless
empty life without him.... They are even the weakest people, because if
they are wrong, they are the ones who will pay for denying God... Won't
be in their shoes. No respect for them....
I told you this godless
is the worst generation (those people are just empty and worthless as
the cult they are in), and when it will be gone with their stupid
empty, worthless atheism that does not going anywhere, that do not offer
or teach anything, none will complain about it, not even those very
weak losers!!!!! ... Do not call them atheist but godless alone souless
trash. Let's forget about those worthless empty people and their
worthless and empty cult do not even good to clean the dirtiest motel.
WHEN YOU WILL BE GONE NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR STUPID CULt
CALLED ATHEISM. You are the worst of people, no respect for you:...
those are juss godless alone trash people, liers as any Godeniers with
less thing sacred in their miserable alone godless life… those weak
people are so weak and alone that they wait for an empty videos from an
obsessed godless person to kiss his ass, disgustingly (no God, No
Dignity) it would not change their life, actually more alone and empty,
(they do not even have a real community) empty life they live empty shit
they are in like this stupid cult called Atheism! No respect for them.
(They are very weak, empty and frustrated people, a life that none will
accepted, but those godless alone trash idiots).. those who say there is
no God will pay for it, soon or later... No won't be a godless alone
trash person into an empty cult not even good for my ass such atheism,
that offers them nothing. But emptiness and lonlyness for their
miserabile godless alone life. No respect for them. They are just empty
as their cult called atheism. But they will pay this soon or later, and
all the emptiness for nothing they are facing in their ridicolous
miserable alone life! It is time to throw on the trash empty atheism and
godless alone trash people, they are not even worthless to clean shit.
You can not respect them and their emptiness! It is over for you, trash
is not even good to clean you of all this atheism BS. No respect for
you. Let's really hope we can have a better generation and forget this
godless alone trash one as quickly as possible. IT IS OVER, it is time
for you and this nosense called atheism to go back from the nothing you
come from. No respect for you. You will pay all this shit, soon or
later...
Today I will put your BS atheism in the toilet and flash it
and you godless alone will shut up, ok? You are worthless and empty as
your stupid cult. No respect for you.... This is the worst, weakest,
empty generation, and when it will be over with their stupid empty cult
called atheism none will complain it. IT'S IS OVER, godless alone
trash.... Those godless alone poor people are playing with the fire, and
they will pay for it, and even badly........
They are so
desperate and frustrated in and empty stupid life... No sorry for you.
Let's hope in the next generation, let's hope in a better generation,
and let's forget this one and trhow it on the trash with their stupid,
nosense cult called atheism that will lead them anywhere. No respect for
you again..... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GODLESS ALONE TRASH PEOPLE AND
YOUR EMPTY STUPID ATHEISM NOT EVEN GOOD TO CLEAN THE DIRTIEST TOILET IN
THE WORLD... You got no peace over there (and if God is real you will be
and are f.... up.. You godless alone people are so weak).........
God
will care about you as well, poor person.... (you life is more
miserable and empty without God, but you are so patetic to realize it).
NO respect for you and your empty cult called atheism....... You are
just frutrated,obsessed, miserable, alone godless person that does
deserve any kind of respect, just to be so. (Lier as any
Godenier)....... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GUYS, YOU AND YOUR STUPID EMPTY CULT
ATHEISM That does not even deserve my piss….. all this just show how much those godless trash people are frustrated (to do not have what people have sacred and holly) no respect for them. it is time to throw away that empty bs cult called atheism that does not explain anything and it is not even good to clean the dirtiest toilet. Godless alone trash people, liers as an any Goddenier, dishonest and the worst and stupidest generation ever had. Let’s froget about this godless trash worthless generation and waiting for a better one. (By the way you will be judge as anyone alse once death by God, do not think you will escape because you deny him, as a godless alone rat as you are (You are also a disgusting godless ass kisser, that anytime you see a godlesss ass you run to kiss it. because you got no God and no dignity in your miserable godless life) NO RESPECT FOR YOU (your life is more empty and miserable without God, but you are the only fool to do not get it… WHY?) they obsession will not lead them anyway... but will harm them, poor godless alone trash people. No respect for them and their godless obsessed alone life.........
I hope he brings on DBH some day!
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns
First of all stop to call yourself atheists, the real name is godless alone weak trash person into an empty cuklt (and lier as any Godenier or godless ass kisser, without God or dignity). Then le'ts see it, how much you are the worst generetion and there is no much to respect about you.
Real? What kind of stupid empty cult is this nothing offer nothing gives, but empty BS? As God really cares about what you think and your stupid philosophy empty words as godless alone trash person (anyone who deny God is a godless alone trash person)… Another reason none can respect you, you are a lier as any modern Goddenier.. And we hope the next generation will be better then you and forget about you and your empty stupid worthless atheism not even worst to clean my ass. … Why onyoua re empty like it. Then why only godless alone trash people are obsessed with hell, while we are not? Another reason to do not be like them, and live with this constanlty fear… What idiots! For really you did not get those empty Videos where godless alone people
constantly talk about God, showing their obsession, are made not to
help anyhow your godless alone life but to trap you into this empty
stupid cult called atheism they know we live in the time of stupidity
and godless trash people so they need to capture them as more as they
can.
They know you are the most stupid, weakest and alone people in
the face of earth and they need to take advantages on you. They know you
run anytime you see godless ass to kiss it. That what this empty BS
cult atheism make you be, without God and without dignity. But let see
how you are in trapped in this cult: Let see how many godless rats are
here with their empty words and life, just as their cult called atheism.
Why? Why Godless alone trash people want see the existence of God
when it is clear that if they and all the things they see around (earth,
stars, planets and so on) if they are creation something must created
them. For real no respect for those godless blind trash people. God is
what they do not know have and do not know in their miserable alone
trash life. But God will take care about them as well, once death as
anyone alse. Let's hope we will have better generation that those
godless alone trash one.... We really do not need this empty and
worthless cult called atheism and those modern godless alone idiots who
thinks God cares to exist what those poor alone people think about him.
No respect for them and their miserable godless alone life. (they are
also godless ass kissers, as they run anytime they see a godless alone
person... that what happen when you do not have God in your life, you
lose your dignity, and you start to be disgusting in that way)... Oh
anyway when you stopped to believe in God something died on you but you
are so pathetic that you are not willing to admit it (right?). What
trashy people without shame they deny their creator, and they will be
judge for it.... Liars ad patetich as any Goddeniers. so their worthless
empty life without him.... They are even the weakest people, because if
they are wrong, they are the ones who will pay for denying God... Won't
be in their shoes. No respect for them....
I told you this godless
is the worst generation (those people are just empty and worthless as
the cult they are in), and when it will be gone with their stupid
empty, worthless atheism that does not going anywhere, that do not offer
or teach anything, none will complain about it, not even those very
weak losers!!!!! ... Do not call them atheist but godless alone souless
trash. Let's forget about those worthless empty people and their
worthless and empty cult do not even good to clean the dirtiest motel.
WHEN YOU WILL BE GONE NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR STUPID CULt
CALLED ATHEISM. You are the worst of people, no respect for you:...
those are juss godless alone trash people, liers as any Godeniers with
less thing sacred in their miserable alone godless life… those weak
people are so weak and alone that they wait for an empty videos from an
obsessed godless person to kiss his ass, disgustingly (no God, No
Dignity) it would not change their life, actually more alone and empty,
(they do not even have a real community) empty life they live empty shit
they are in like this stupid cult called Atheism! No respect for them.
(They are very weak, empty and frustrated people, a life that none will
accepted, but those godless alone trash idiots).. those who say there is
no God will pay for it, soon or later... No won't be a godless alone
trash person into an empty cult not even good for my ass such atheism,
that offers them nothing. But emptiness and lonlyness for their
miserabile godless alone life. No respect for them. They are just empty
as their cult called atheism. But they will pay this soon or later, and
all the emptiness for nothing they are facing in their ridicolous
miserable alone life! It is time to throw on the trash empty atheism and
godless alone trash people, they are not even worthless to clean shit.
You can not respect them and their emptiness! It is over for you, trash
is not even good to clean you of all this atheism BS. No respect for
you. Let's really hope we can have a better generation and forget this
godless alone trash one as quickly as possible. IT IS OVER, it is time
for you and this nosense called atheism to go back from the nothing you
come from. No respect for you. You will pay all this shit, soon or
later...
Today I will put your BS atheism in the toilet and flash it
and you godless alone will shut up, ok? You are worthless and empty as
your stupid cult. No respect for you.... This is the worst, weakest,
empty generation, and when it will be over with their stupid empty cult
called atheism none will complain it. IT'S IS OVER, godless alone
trash.... Those godless alone poor people are playing with the fire, and
they will pay for it, and even badly........
They are so
desperate and frustrated in and empty stupid life... No sorry for you.
Let's hope in the next generation, let's hope in a better generation,
and let's forget this one and trhow it on the trash with their stupid,
nosense cult called atheism that will lead them anywhere. No respect for
you again..... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GODLESS ALONE TRASH PEOPLE AND
YOUR EMPTY STUPID ATHEISM NOT EVEN GOOD TO CLEAN THE DIRTIEST TOILET IN
THE WORLD... You got no peace over there (and if God is real you will be
and are f.... up.. You godless alone people are so weak).........
God
will care about you as well, poor person.... (you life is more
miserable and empty without God, but you are so patetic to realize it).
NO respect for you and your empty cult called atheism....... You are
just frutrated,obsessed, miserable, alone godless person that does
deserve any kind of respect, just to be so. (Lier as any
Godenier)....... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GUYS, YOU AND YOUR STUPID EMPTY CULT
ATHEISM That does not even deserve my piss….. all this just show how much those godless trash people are frustrated (to do not have what people have sacred and holly) no respect for them. it is time to throw away that empty bs cult called atheism that does not explain anything and it is not even good to clean the dirtiest toilet. Godless alone trash people, liers as an any Goddenier, dishonest and the worst and stupidest generation ever had. Let’s froget about this godless trash worthless generation and waiting for a better one. (By the way you will be judge as anyone alse once death by God, do not think you will escape because you deny him, as a godless alone rat as you are (You are also a disgusting godless ass kisser, that anytime you see a godlesss ass you run to kiss it. because you got no God and no dignity in your miserable godless life) NO RESPECT FOR YOU (your life is more empty and miserable without God, but you are the only fool to do not get it… WHY?)...
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns DBH seems deeply uninterested with apologetics unfortunately. I think hed be a force to be reckoned with if he appeared in the scene. Ive asked him on his substack with little response.
@@weezy894 I agree
As a Christian I admire Alex, he is polite, calm, rational, doesen't insult anyone, doesen't mock even if something sound stupid, asks questions, listens to answers, respects opponent..we need more people like him
reasoned debate is such a regrettably forgotten keystone of a functioning society
I’m a Christian too and I always say Alex is the most honest atheist I know. You can tell there is no pretense with him. He really believes exactly what he says he does. And he honestly is looking for truth
@@brycemannn4847Why does your God condemn gay sex with the punishment of death but condones the owning and beating of slaves?
Is it morally permissible to allow for any form of slavery, now, or 3,000 years ago?
@@Username34823 read the room pls
@@Username34823i would tell you to read commentary on the verses and the context of how it was at the time. of course we can always point to Jesus saying that divorce was never intended because of the hardness of hearts, same applies to slavery as well
This is the First time I've seen an Argument for God with minimal discussion about God himself, That truly means these guys are really trying to understand and respect each other's stand very thoroughly, What a wonderful show. Thanks Alex for your wonderful work. Truly Appreciated.
The same argument can be made for our existence in someone else simulation/experiment or anything else apart from a mono theistic, specific denomination, personal interpretation of one out of millions of gods.
@KleandrosStogiannopoulos The conclusion of this argument is that the cause of the universe is purely actual/has no potential. Despite not being covered in this video, the specific attributes of the god of classical thesism have been argued through an analysis of what a purely actual being would be like.
Most of the arguments I've been seeing don't involve god, or only connect to a god tangentially before going off on a philosophical tangent. It's a huge problem from my perspective
Damn, you got Feser on. I've always respected his work, and he was the first philosopher to introduce me to the philosophy of mind.
I can't imagine who Alex is dropping such content once a week. Keep up the hard work
He's British, is polite and even toned. He could get guests to come on and discuss shampoo bottle instructions and the rest of us would listen to the whole thing.
@@lpadron13 Alex was out of his league. Feser was great. Could listen to him all day. Bishop Barren and Feser are excellent. These Catholics make the atheists especially Alex look pathetic.
@@joannware6228 I wouldn't say hr came across as pathetic. He's a sharp dude even if I disagree with him. He's a good egg. Hard not to like him.
@@lpadron13 Yes he seems likable. He's smart enough to know when not to push the issue.
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord.
May it be done to me according to your word.
R. Alleluia, alleluia. Lk 1:38
I love this form of discussion where Alex allows the person to form and present his argument uncontested and to even strongman the argument before raising objections
I like when Alex makes Dinesh D’Souza look retarded in front of a live audience
Been an atheist for more than 10 years and listened to almost all debates for or against god, and almost all episodes of Alex and so on.
But this one right here with this gentleman Fesser, is the only one who made me actually rethink again. It was the only plausable explanation I have ever heard.
Very very interesting and mind challenging. At least for me.
I saw what he (fesser) meant. And I don't think Alex exactly saw it (or if he did, it didn't seem like that for me) because he kept presenting objections that were non-factors to me, which Fesser also pointed out.
I am honestly and personally thankful for Alex, his efforts and conversations and this channel, that has been always one of the best platforms to offer actual food for thought. Thank you alex, and thank you Mr. Fesser for such interesting arguements.
Read Plato! He's amazing on the god argument.
Numbers are real, objective things, not mere fictitious ones, and they are also infinite. But they are NOT actual, since they are only conceptual, abstract entities. So there's NO problem about there being infinite number of reals that are not actual.
Christians are one God away from being one of us.
I agree. I think the argument for an "unmoved mover" has potential (pun unintended 😅).
I still don't really understand it the way it was described here. It deals with too many abstact concepts that I'm not sure are real. If it could be translated to strictly physics, which I have also heard, I think it could be easier to understand, and potentially also to test or refute.
Regardless, I think this is perhaps the best argument for something incredible and powerful outside our understanding of the universe at the moment that could resemble something like a god. Hopefully we find the answer in quantum mechanics or some other scientific endeavor. Otherwise I fear this riddle may never be solved.
Matthew 7:21
i think i heard potential in this conversation more then ever in my life
Potentially true
I think I've heard the word "potential" more times during my years at university. But in this video, the word is used with the greatest frequency so far!
Impotent analysis.
I can't say you're wrong!
This is such a wonderful and interesting interview alex. I completely understand that an interview or debate with Ben Shapiro will generate more views and more Revenue. An interview like this one may not have the same amount of eyeballs on it but it is far more substantial and greatly more satisfying. Thank you for all this sort of work that you do.
Second this thought.
Alex was out of his league. Feser was great. Could listen to him all day. Bishop Barren and Feser are excellent. These Catholics make the atheists especially Alex look pathetic.
@@joannware6228 Agreed brother, the atheists have no rational ground to stand upon
@@joannware6228 I don't think this was about making someone look pathetic, neither this guy nor Bishop Barron (at least spell his name correctly) made him look pathetic. Why are you so hostile about a conversation? Are you that insecure in your beliefs? Your desire to make the other side seem pathetic reminds me of Mohammed Hijab, don't be a Mohammed Hijab.
@@Alexander_Grant "ensonar9652
1 year ago
Ben Shapiro got to age 12 and said "I have reached my final form."
Did you respond similarly to this guy?
"St. Augustine said that all of us, made from nothing, tend toward nothing. We can see this in our frailty and sin and mortality. St. Paul said, “What do you possess that you have not received? But if you have received it, why are you boasting as if you did not receive it?”
To believe in God is to know these truths. To live them out is to live in the attitude of humility. Thomas Aquinas said humilitas veritas, meaning humility is truth. It is living out the deepest truth of things: God is God, and we are not.
Now, all of this sounds very clear when it’s stated in this abstract manner, but man is it hard to live out! In our fallen world, we forget so readily that we are creatures. We start to assume that we are gods, the center of the universe.
The ego becomes a massive monkey on our backs, and it has to be fed and pampered constantly. What a liberation it is to let go of the ego! Do you see why humility is not a degradation, but an elevation?"
Bishop Robert Barron
I very much appreciate the quality of this interview
Great discussion conducted without shouting , ridicule or bad manners ...a real triumph...well done to these men and long may they continue .
Set Fesers to FUN! Hey professor, it’s been a few years but I’m glad to see you get the recognition you deserve these last few years. You’re a wonderful teacher and I hope you keep popping up in discussions like this.
Just wanted to say thank you Alex for your patience during a discussion, thoughtful questions, and crisp explanations of your views. As an LDS member I find these excellent qualities.
One of my favorite episodes thus far; just the right balance of technical robustness and accessibility to the viewer. Only complaint is that it was so short!
Feser is a genius. Truly remarkable to hear him speak.
I was never an athiest, but Feser's Aristotelian proof was what---intelectually at least---removed all doubt for me.
@@mzmPACmanHe's good.
Damn, Vervaeke and now Feser. Alex is getting some big hitters on this podcast. If he can get David Bentley Hart on I will be especially impressed. That's a challenge to you, sir😁
Sorry Alex, I was a real arse to you in the comments on one of your videos once but I see now, that you’re actually quite a cordial dude. I got a lot out of this and I found your objections as thought provoking as the argument. Cheers. And thanks to Edward Feser too
I'm a big fan of Dr. Feser's work, so it's pretty cool to see him on one of my favorite podcasts! Even though I disagree with Alex, I respect his pursuit of truth.
Are you interested in a discussion? I feel like Alex got hung up on the wrong detail (the existence of actual infinite realities), and completely skipped over the justification that a hierarchical causal chain must have a first cause. Their justification for that existence was very unsatisfying to me. I could imagine creating a causal chain starting with the stick moving a rock and going back to the existence of the laws of physics as we know them. Then perhaps there are reasons we don’t know about that lead to the laws of physics we see today, and causes for those deeper reasons. Why can’t that go back infinitely?
@@featherton3381 "Laws of physics" are not things. They are descriptions of how physical things behave, and therefore are dependent on, and therefore caused by, other things. They are only potential.
@@Sinkh Fair enough, but you can use the laws of physics as a shorthand for the things that cause them. For example, a magnet pulls metal to itself via magnetic force, which is fundamentally the result of the particles in the magnet and metal exchanging photons in just the right way to generate an attractive force. So what causes the photons to jump between the atoms in the magnet and metal? This is caused by the charges of the particles within these materials (another physical phenomenon). What causes these charges? That goes beyond my knowledge of physics, but I'm sure there is an answer. If I'm understanding this right, I have established a hierarchical causal chain as the phenomenon fails if any link of this chain does not occur. So why must this causal chain have a first cause? Can't I keep delving deeper into the problem forever even if we reach causes that no human could possibly observe?
@@featherton3381 Feser explains pretty thoroughly, in the podcast. If you see a long paintbrush that is painting a picture, you have to infer that something on the other end is doing the moving, because paintbrushes can't move themselves. Or to put it more generally: for any give effect, insofar as it is an effect, there must be a cause capable of producing it.
I really don't understand how this is even remotely controversial.
@@Sinkh He explains through examples. I can accept that any effect must have a cause. What I struggle with is why there must be a first cause. An uncaused cause. Alex and Feser just state that hierarchical causal chains must have a first cause as if it's obvious.
Alex O' Connor has gone from New atheism, Dawkins and Hitchens to first rate philosophy of religion. Definitely an improvement. Been happy to see great theist and atheist philosophers on this channel and Alex presenting both sides! Happy to see the channel grow!
Has went???!!! Bruh
You are aware all he's doing is exposing why new atheism is correct right?
@@nacasius I'm not sure how much you follow the channel or absorb the content but he repudiated new atheism a long time ago and is now into sophisticated atheist philosophy of religion especially since he started studying philosophy at Oxford. He no longer thinks Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc have the correct approach and the tools to respond to sophisticated theist philosophy of religion represented by people such as Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Josh Rasmussen, Edward Feser, Alexander Pruss, etc . Robust metaphysical naturalism is the better way and new atheism is a very dumbed down and unsophisticated version of atheism that he thinks should be avoided
New atheism starts out by declaring that all of the arguments for God have been debunked hundreds of years ago so any apologists that wants to come to the table has to come with a deep sense of humility with the intellectual Poverty of their position.
Call Alex is doing is giving people the opportunity to see the poverty stricken intellectual nature of their claims in real time.
@@nacasius I'm not sure if you understand the purpose of his channel or the content but Alex definitely doesn't think that theistic philosophy of religion is intellectually impoverished. If you watched his discussion with Trent Horn he repudiated a tribalistic mindset that demonizes the view you disagree with which is characteristic of cognitive bias. He interviews both theist and atheist philosophers to show that reality is much more complicated than basic minded people make it out to be. I recommend you watch his videos with Joe Schmid, Trent Horn and Josh Rasmussen
As a member of the philosophical community I am so happy to watch all that you post. Your content really sheds a light on the power of critical thinking and does an excellent job at exposing the greater public to stuff that although is somewhat digitally accessible tends to go unnoticed. It makes me feel seen in someway I can’t describe it. I’m happy you are a content creator.
A very good interview! O'Connor is correct in observing that actual infinites are real states of being in potency on the theory of act/potency, and Feser is correct that said observation does not affect the force of the argument from motion because he agrees that at least some actual infinites can exist as real capacities (potencies) in beings. I am of the opinion that the Five Ways, particularly the first two, are the strongest arguments for the existence of God.
That said, a potential infinite isn't an actual infinite. The capacity to exist in an infinite number of ways does not mean that the thing in question _actually_ exists in an infinite number of ways.
It was such a delicious conversation. Please do continue this discussion with this guest. Thank you and keep the good work in the next year as well.
Such a great conversation, as a Catholic myself I worship Edward, but Alex let me tell you that you are my favourite Englishman. Kudos for the video!
Let's be more precise then! I think highly of him. Vade retro idolatry 😂
Lost all respect for him after his comments on Joe Schmidt.
@@eduardosouto1116the Reformed urge to dunk on the way you just phrased that
@@a.i.l1074ay ay your worship
@@user-pn8ke3kf5fWhat did he say about Joe? Just curious.
Alex thank you for having Dr Feser on! I haven't watched it yet but I'm sure this will be great
I think a problem here is also determining what exactly “properties “ are and what things can be defined as properties. I felt at some point along the way there was some sort of category error going on regarding properties and maybe the understanding of what different philosophers have for these terms may lead to the term meaning different things. For example one may believe an object is warm because it has the property of fire everything has this property to a varying degree etc. but this does not mean the property really exists. In many ways science helps us determine properties and to a large extent how they work and whether there are limitations (as far ad it can) not that there maybe other properties out there which we struggle with.
Yes, I think category error comes pretty close to naming the issue here.
Probably “properties“ come from our human perspective of things that are much smaller than we are (a topic Dawkins addresses frequently). Things move… emphasis on move… at a microscopic level, but we view them as some type of mystic change of property.
In the example of eating food and getting the property of weight, there are molecules moving around and being reassembled and ultimately manifesting as fat, resulting in your body weighing more. It’s not some black magic “I eat food and mysteriously my new property is ‘heavier’ “.
@@derinderruheliegt sabine hossenfelder (science without the gobbledegook) just released a video concerning the idea and problem with the term complexity, it interestingly presents similar issues to "properties"
With the risk of sounding dismissive, I think a lot of early philosophy and philosophical dialogue stems from the very fact that those were brilliant people but they were working with the tools of the time. Tools such as conceptual engineering did not exist back then. So when they came up with a concept, what they would do is come up with hypotheticals and reasoning chains and IF those lead into contradictions, they would maybe dismiss the concept *then* , but they would never think to ask whether the concept is coherent *first* .
"Property", as it stands here, is a very finnicky concept. Local motion is no longer considered an intrinsic property, which is the only kind of property that requires actualization (back in Aristotle's time there wasn't this clear distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic or Cambridge properties). Existence, by many contemporary philosophers, is no longer considered a property *at all* , after the arguments made by Kant against it, and that is directly problematic for Aristotle's argument for god.
And then you get into stuff like strong mereological structuralism (a philosophical position which is so contemporaneous that the guy who proposed it is literally still alive) where, at the very bottom of metaphysics, there is no *substance* , there is only properties, and any object X is simply that bundle of properties identified with X's attributes. And in this view, there is nothing special about God per se being the apotheosis of simple attributes, because *everything* is like that.
Kudos to you Alex for hosting such a great conversation!
As I watched this, my coffee grew cold.
God made it happen 😂
Alex you are probably my favorite atheist. Genuinely honest inquiry and I loved how you were able to clarify a point oppy was trying to make that just didn't quite make it through to Feser when they had the discussion. This allowed Feser to properly address it. I very much enjoyed this discussion keep up the good work
Excellent episode! I am extremely impressed!
Great Guest. Fesers work is crucial for many reasons.
Would you ever have David Bentley Hart or Jonathan Pageau on the podcast, Alex?
He’s had Jonathan Pageau! Now it’s time for DBH
A quick note on the issue of having an endless number of potentialities. I believe you don't have to insist on the existence of an infinite number of them. For instance, consider a cup of coffee. You could argue that it only has the potential to become one basic unit warmer or cooler. Similarly, you might say it has the potential to move just a single basic unit in any direction (like moving a bit left, right, up, down, forward, or backward). With this approach, even though there are a lot of possible changes, their number remains limited, not infinite.
I was thinking the same thing. You could even drop the “unit” language and just say that it has the potential to become colder or hotter until a certain threshold. It does seem like Alex is falling for the Zeno’s paradox here.
The coffee doesn't have to have one uniform temperature it can be hotter at the bottom then the top
Even if that was the case, i.e., that a continuous reality was in fact discrete, there would still be a potentially infinite amount of units of temperature the coffee could achieve. To say there exist greater infinites than others is to admit infinity nonetheless. This is not my problem with any of Alex's seemingly falacious arguments. I've analysed them in a separate comment, it might be of your interest :)
Even with the example of moving it north, south, east or west there are an infinite number of degrees in between so the possibilities of which direction to move the mug in are still infinite.
@@swiftsetrider4543 If you belief in strict finitism, then there are also a fixed amount of possible degrees. And also the objection of @Player-pj9kt would not make it infinite. There surely will be a large amount of potentials in an object. But not necessarily an infinite amount.
Ok here is my response:
Not everything requires a cause. Some things are probabilistic and without cause. Radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, and higher dimensional dynamics to name a few.
Within a hierarchical structure, these uncaused and probabilistic phenomena could occupy a foundational level that influences subsequent levels of causation. Quantum fluctuations, known for their inherent uncertainty and spontaneous nature, might serve as the base level, influencing the emergence of fundamental fields or properties that then lead to the formation of particles and forces. These emergent properties at higher levels could further interact to create the macroscopic world we observe.
Within the context of a hierarchical model where quantum fluctuations or higher-dimensional dynamics serve as fundamental influences, their existence and influence would indeed be crucial for the entire hierarchy to function or exist.
In many scientific theories, including some interpretations of quantum field theory, the existence of fundamental fields is often considered inherent to the nature of the universe itself rather than requiring an external cause in the classical sense. These fields and their properties might be considered as fundamental aspects of the fabric of reality, existing as the foundational elements from which particles, forces, and everything else arise.
Within the context of a hierarchical model where quantum fluctuations or higher-dimensional dynamics serve as fundamental influences, their existence and influence would indeed be crucial for the entire hierarchy to function or exist.
In this view, the entire hierarchical structure of existence could be seen as contingent upon these fundamental influences, suggesting a simultaneous interconnectedness where these foundational aspects are necessary for the existence and operation of the entire hierarchy. Their influence permeates and sustains the hierarchy, challenging a strictly linear or hierarchical view where causes at higher levels are detached from their foundational influences.
This perspective suggests a more intertwined and interdependent relationship between different levels of causation, where the foundational aspects exert a simultaneous and crucial influence on the entire hierarchy of existence.
So, instead of the uncaused cause being a singular deity at the top sustaining the hierarchy this view suggests that all the magic happens at the base of the hierarchy and these base fundamentals are not caused at all they are probabilistic and random.
It is for these reasons why I accept that the universe is random and probably not deterministic. I also tend to accept a cyclic conformal cosmology too.
In the context of a cyclical model without a distinct beginning or end, it may imply a circular form of causation, where the completion of one cycle leads to the initiation of the next in an ongoing, perpetual manner. This cyclic causation doesn’t follow a linear chain of causes but instead suggests a continual, self-sustaining cycle without a definitive starting or ending point. Within this framework, causation is cyclical and self-contained, avoiding the need for an infinite linear chain of causes while still implying an ongoing cycle without a distinct beginning or end
"Not everything requires a cause. Some things are probabilistic and without cause. Radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, and higher dimensional dynamics to name a few. "
Those would still have causes, even if not strictly deterministic (which is not a problem at all in a Aristotelian-Thomist view which is based on substance causation, not event causation, but that's another topic). The problem with denying causes is that you end up running in to the PSR, or the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you start saying that some things don't have causes, then you have to explain how something that is not actual becomes actual. How does some radioactive decay become actual if it was just potential? A potential can't do anything because it's just potential. If you say "it just actualizes and nothing explains that", as I said, you run head first in to the PSR.
The problem is that denying the PSR in any situation makes denial of it a possibility in every situation and you've just turned scientific knowledge in to just a kind of faith built on intuition. The PSR is, to put it simply, that there are explanations for things to be discovered. It's assumed in all scientific enquiry, even philosophical and mathematical enquiry. What is trying to be found in scientific enquiry are explanations. Typically the most brilliant minds try anything they can to avoid denying the PSR because it's like a universal acid. To make a simple example, start tapping a hard surface nearby. Likely, the effect you observe is a tapping sound. It seems like your tapping action is the explanation for the actualization of that tapping sound, but there could just be no explanation and it's entirely a coincidence that these two events are connected. To take another example, Hubble noticed that the light from galaxies is redder and redder depending on how far away they were. What explains that? Well, the explanation is that the wavelength of the light is being stretched, and the further away the galaxy is the more the wavelength is stretched. This "stretching" causes the frequency of the light to shift toward the red end of the color spectrum. But what explanations that "stretching"? Well, galaxies are moving away from us, and the further away they are, the faster they are moving away. Now I could ask "what explains that?" again, but if you deny the PSR, it could be that the redness of the light could have no explanation, or that the stretching of the wavelength, and the speed as which the galaxies are moving away all just happen to coincide. There is correlation, but not causation, and no matter how many times they are correlated, that won't bring you any closer to determining causation. That's one of many problems with denying the PSR in any situation. Generally, no one who understands the problem with denying the PSR denies the PSR. In fact, the only time anyone considers denying it is if they are trying to avoid the conclusion of an argument for God, which makes it rather ad hoc.
"the existence of fundamental fields is often considered inherent to the nature of the universe itself rather than requiring an external cause in the classical sense."
But, do these quantum fields change? If so, they go from potential to actual and require something to actualize them, or you run in to the PSR as I detailed above. If they don't change, then they are the unmoved mover, or unactualized actualizer. BUT, upon further investigation, there can only be one unactualized actualizer. This is because if there were, say, two, then there would have to be something that distinguishes one field from another, lets call that difference X. If one field has X and another doesn't, then X is actual for one field while the other only has it as a mere potential. But, an unactualized actualizer can't have an potentials. Thus, the one that doesn't have X can't be an unactualized actualizer. Or, X becomes more fundamental than either of the fields, and thus neither field is the unactualized actualizer. X could be instead.
So, none of these fields can be the unactualized actualizer. They must also depend on something external to them to keep them actual.
Outside of this planet, to the best of our knowledge, there is no life. So nothing is caused by intention, except here on Earth. You need a mind to cause something, because the word implies actioning a will. We humans use language to describe the natural world that is most useful for our needs but that does not impart any qualities onto the natural world. It doesnt care how we describe it, which is the main problem of metaphysics, its a discussion about the mind and language which merely helps us to understand our limitations, rather than any knowledge about how or why the Universe exists.
What difference does it make whether the universe existed forever or was created, even if it were created the cause could be completely unknown to us and no proof whatsoever of 'God' because they are both unimaginable and infinite.
Even if we were to call the cause abramhic God, why would that entity allow billions of years of a dead universe only to suddenly create life, just here, and wait another 4 billion years for humans. Once we had a bit of rudamentary technology take a strong interest in us for a few hundred years before then backing off again?
Why would he reveal his true message once in the form of a man? We can see now how inefficient this is. There are so many more efficient ways of getting information out! Why not be clearer?
His son didnt even convince the jews, from whom him came, that he was devine. One of his followers, Judas, was so unimpressed he betrayed him. If God really sent his son to Earth it must have been for his dark sense of humour.
His message only took another thousand years at least spread much beyond the Mediterranean/ middle east. The most important message, but most people would just have to wait for hundreds of years...
And there are so many other reasons why even if you decide, completely on a hunch, that there is a first cause/ creator, that the likelihood of that cause being the devine entities described in the worlds religions is still extremely slim.
@@billyg898ah that’s easy on the plank scale cause and effect are fluid. You can have effect before cause. Temporal literally and spatial separation break down at that scale.
As such we can have actualities that appear randomly.
Also this whole talk of potentials is fundamentally wrong. There is a chance that a ball grows legs. That’s just quant luck mechanics over a long period of time.
Now the chance of that happening is unbelievably small but not zero. As such, the ball has the potential to do many things including growing legs.
@@mnemosyne1337 if the effect is before the cause, the cause doesn't yet exist when the effect occurs. How does something that doesn't exist generate any effect at all? That's incoherent.
I'm not sure you understand the quantum level very much.
As for potential, can an electron grow legs?
When I was in college, majoring in EE, I avoided Philosophy. I believed the stereotype of the big headed philosopher babbling word games about things that don't exist,. I wanted nothing to do with such nonsense, and preferred to take science and engineering/tech courses. Then, I took some required Philosophy, which peaked my interest and caused me to fall in love with it. However, when I hear Dr. Feser defend this argument, it brings back memories and feelings from my earlier aversion to Philosophy.
You just don't like engaging is metaphysics. You can still enjoy the rest of philosophy. I personally enjoy metaphysics when it's rigorous.
@@goawqebt6931 Agreed. So do I.
It's stupid
@@chansetwo you might wanna take a look at the CTMU by Chris langan, you might dislike his personality and politics but his theory is one of the most rigorous works in metaphysics I have ever seen. I am not saying he is right but there are a lot of interesting ideas
Lmao @@goawqebt6931
Idk why but Edward looks like the kind of guy to just be pissed 24/7 but he’s actually super chill and polite. Unlike someone that’s been on this podcast. Good thing there were no false pretenses here….
I get what you mean lmao he gives off that "dick" vibe in the way he speaks.
Alex’ argument for unlimited potentiality does not account for context. Potentiality is determined by what is adjacent to the object in the hierarchical causal chain. Alex sits on a chair at his desk, Alex can only sit on a chair at his desk due to the material nature of the desk, chair, floor, walls, building etc. The material nature of these items limits the potentiality of Alex in that context, i.e the potentiality of Alex is not to sit by his desk on a traveling asteroid due to the constraint of where he is in the causal chain.
You have to be brave to set yourself out on these kinds of conversations. Bravo Alex
I feel like the conversation about infinity could have been five minutes but somehow Alex made it a half hour. But still good talk.
Such an underrated episode. Deep and interesting.
A problem I'd raise with the potentiality/actuality framework is that it seems to bear a strange relation to essences, which are a part of the Aristotelian view Feser is defending. I think this problem leads us to a monist alternative.
If we accept that there are some essential qualities of things without which the thing itself would be taken away (for instance, the essence of God is pure actuality for Feser, such that if it were taken away, He would not be God), it seems like adding this list of potentials to it would involve adding potentials which would destroy the thing itself-the coffee cup has the potential to be destroyed, the chair has the potential to burn, a human being has the potential to die, etc.
This would require that the essence of a thing would contain self-negating propositions, so we would be able to say "it is an essential potentiality of this human that he can actually die." But the definition of an essence is that without which the thing is removed-an essence always affirms that of which it is an essence, to violate that principle would be for essence itself to violate its own...essence, lol. It would be like saying that 1 contains a potential 0 in its essence because there is always a potentiality to subtract 1 from it.
It seems more correct to say that the essence of each thing is its power (its persistence in its being, the expression of that essence), and therefore all its negating or even just accidental properties are an interaction with other essences and are in no way essential to the thing itself. For instance, if we take as our example a red coffee cup, what we are treating as an essential quality (redness) is not an essential quality but actually an interaction of two essences: the coffee cup and the visible light spectrum, with the result being a perceived quality of redness, which has its own essence. The redness is not actually a part of the essence of the cup, and thus all its potentials to become some other color (by painting it, or perhaps seeing it in the dark) are not essential to it or properties of it, but are in fact distinct from it, ideas which partly follow from but are not themselves properties of it in any way. This would better explain how something could destroy something else-the potentiality for its destruction does not exist in it, but in the things that could destroy it.
So God would be better understood as being purely actual only if He were in fact the only thing that exists and therefore the only thing that can exercise any power, and would necessarily do so with absolute freedom without anything which could impinge upon or violate his essence. This would be the monist view that Feser is trying to avoid.
The main objection I can see to this argument could be that potentials are not a part of the essence of something to begin with, and so Feser doesn't need to commit himself to this in the first place. But this would seem hard to maintain, because at least some potentials are clearly essential: imagine a chair that lacked any potentiality for being sat upon, for instance, or a coffee cup that had no potential to hold liquid. This would clearly violate the essences of these things-if they lacked them, we would be talking about something that is not in fact either a chair or a cup. So if potentials exist, they are part of essences. We could say the two are distinct but the potentials follow necessarily from the essence, but what does it then mean to say that x "has" this or that potential derived from its essence? What principled line could be drawn between those potentials and the self-negating ones that I think Feser needs to avoid?
Very well done, so nice to not be speaking over one another.
Potentiality as a property doesn’t exist. It’s simply the ability to be acted on by an actual property of another real object. If anything, potentiality is the property of this second object, not the one in consideration.
Properties dont exist to a nominalist
I was intrigued between a discussion between these especially after Alex's video response to Shapiro. I'm glad that Alex was able to bring up the points he raised directly to Feser. I'm surprised that he was able to respond to each of them satisfactorily. Good work.
It seems that they were talking past each other during the infinities discussion. Alex kept positing the problem that the “real” status of potency entails an actually infinite number of potencies in a thing (cause a cup of coffee can be potentially 69°, 69.1°, 69.11°… to infinity), but Feser’s original disambiguation of the terms solved the problem. Real = being = what there is. There are two modes reality (or being) can take, and that is the act/potency distinction. So yes, this coffee cup does have an infinite amount of temperatures in the potential mode of reality, but only one in the actual mode of reality. I think Alex was equivocating real and actual, then claiming if potential infinities exist then they exist in reality (true), and if they exist in reality then they are actual infinities (false, given the distinction). He brought it up as a problem for the Kalam, but Craig believes in the “reality” of potential infinites, just not actual infinities (because a potential infinity, such as time starting from t=0 onwards, “really” has the potential to go on for infinity). Ultimately, I think the confusion comes from trying to conceptualize “potential” properties in reality without subtly picturing them as “actual” properties, but hypothetically there is nothing unintuitive about seeing a coffee cup and saying “there are, right now in reality, an infinite amount of potential temperatures this coffee can be”. Of course, as Feser said, physics or chemistry might set limits to the potential properties that adhere in a thing, but that is in virtue of the nature of the properties and not of a potential infinity per se. If he wants to take issue with the act/potency distinction itself he can do that, but it would be on him to put forward a new theory of change or else deny change altogether.
His long-discredited metaphysics is not the winner by default if someone else can't explain change better.
@@Uryvichkthat's actually just how philosophy works. Unless you want to deny the reality of change you need to put forward an account of it, and since people will want the best account of something then the best account is the winner until a better account is made.
Potency is not an existent.
Coffee may have infinite temperature. It has hot and cold regions. How u define temperature depends where and how large the region of the coffee you are measuring.
@@Player-pj9kt how do you know temperature can be infinitely hot or cold?
I can't believe he didn't storm out because the conversation naturally stuck to one of the objections for a longer period of time than expected.
Thank you I really needed this video!
I guess I'm confused. What is fesers argument? Is it that there's one primary causer (god i suppose)? And how is it different than the kalam argument?
Aquinas said that the universe can be infinite (in the past). It's not impossible, at the very least
As a mathematician, actual and potential in terms of infinite sets are references to what is fundamentally the same concept as actual and potential in motion. The potential infinities are just a reference to algorithmically potential extension relationship. Potential actual infinities is just potential infinities.
Look up secession function that is part of the construction of the natural numbers. It the basis for them being infinite and the naturals are used to construct integers, integers the rationals, reals, complex, hyperreals, surreals ect. The point is infinite that we talks about is just a successor function at the that is applied without end making infinites always potentials. Technically irrational numbers are like pi are at their core algorithmically defined from definitions of successor function constructions.
What is bro talking about💀
Maths
@@zacharyweber6308 i can see that, and i realize I'm too dumb to comprehend
No just not familiar with the concepts. It gets a bit specific and it would take more space than here to break down. Dumb or not dumb has nothing to do with it.
One of the most fascinating ways to think of how God sees time, space and matter is that He sees them as all physical objects. Time is an object. Space is an object and matter is object to God. Really cool to think of it like this.
Hey Alex, I would love to see you respond to Gavin Ortlund (Truth Unites). He made a response to your argument about divine hiddenness. Or a dialog, I think you two would have a very good conversation.
In discussions on this topic, “something can’t come from nothing” is often said as if it is self evidently true. I would be interested to hear a justification for that premise
Not everything requires a cause. Some things are probabilistic and without cause. Radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, and higher dimensional dynamics to name a few.
Within a hierarchical structure, these uncaused and probabilistic phenomena could occupy a foundational level that influences subsequent levels of causation. Quantum fluctuations, known for their inherent uncertainty and spontaneous nature, might serve as the base level, influencing the emergence of fundamental fields or properties that then lead to the formation of particles and forces. These emergent properties at higher levels could further interact to create the macroscopic world we observe.
Within the context of a hierarchical model where quantum fluctuations or higher-dimensional dynamics serve as fundamental influences, their existence and influence would indeed be crucial for the entire hierarchy to function or exist.
In many scientific theories, including some interpretations of quantum field theory, the existence of fundamental fields is often considered inherent to the nature of the universe itself rather than requiring an external cause in the classical sense. These fields and their properties might be considered as fundamental aspects of the fabric of reality, existing as the foundational elements from which particles, forces, and everything else arise.
Within the context of a hierarchical model where quantum fluctuations or higher-dimensional dynamics serve as fundamental influences, their existence and influence would indeed be crucial for the entire hierarchy to function or exist.
In this view, the entire hierarchical structure of existence could be seen as contingent upon these fundamental influences, suggesting a simultaneous interconnectedness where these foundational aspects are necessary for the existence and operation of the entire hierarchy. Their influence permeates and sustains the hierarchy, challenging a strictly linear or hierarchical view where causes at higher levels are detached from their foundational influences.
This perspective suggests a more intertwined and interdependent relationship between different levels of causation, where the foundational aspects exert a simultaneous and crucial influence on the entire hierarchy of existence.
So, instead of the uncaused cause being a singular deity at the top sustaining the hierarchy this view suggests that all the magic happens at the base of the hierarchy and these base fundamentals are not caused at all they are probabilistic and random.
It is for these reasons why I accept that the universe is random and probably not deterministic. I also tend to accept a cyclic conformal cosmology too.
In the context of a cyclical model without a distinct beginning or end, it may imply a circular form of causation, where the completion of one cycle leads to the initiation of the next in an ongoing, perpetual manner. This cyclic causation doesn’t follow a linear chain of causes but instead suggests a continual, self-sustaining cycle without a definitive starting or ending point. Within this framework, causation is cyclical and self-contained, avoiding the need for an infinite linear chain of causes while still implying an ongoing cycle without a distinct beginning or end
A stunning interview, I appreciate that!🍎
I would be very interested in you having a talk with Sabine Hossenfelder. I think there are many things to discuss regarding misconceptions in science, determinism and her book existential physics
Sabine can't handle philosophy.
@@Lerian_VI don’t think that’s entirely true.
Awesome stuff. The best works of Aristotle which I have enjoyed most are his “Poetics” and his rationale known commonly as “One swallow does not make a summer”. I think we men need paramount convincing surrounding our potential and to how we can change; albeit tragic or comedic. But even his ideas surrounding “resolution of character as synthesis” is basically what we may call God (like the Golden mean in men’s endeavours)
If my memory serves correct, Aristotle is acknowledged in Dante’s Divine Comedy, specifically because Dante held Aristotle in high regard for the conversation of God. This reflects enough how valuable these ideas are to Western enlightenment.
I made my first steps towards converting to Christianity (almost 10 years ago) after reading Feser. Excited to hear this!
what sort of Christian are you? a conservative Catholic like Feser, or something else?
This whole discussion was just about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Seriously there functionally no difference. I'm like 30 minutes in and have lost interest in hearing more because I have heard this exact same conversation SO MANY times before. It's apologetics at best. Time & sequence doesn't matter for the "uncaused cause" argument. You could have one moment in time with no future or past and still the possibility would exist of an infinite sequence of causes. The only way we get to ignore that possibility without proof to the contrary is by making the assumption that a first cause exists ahead of time. It's completely unfalsifiable.
Sorry. This was a frustrating listen.
This reminds me of that part of the Summa where Aquinas says that it is possible for an infinite universe to exist, because it does not constitute an essentially ordered chain
Alex, you should do a video on karma philosophy of Hinduism. I think would be a really interesting topic
That is if karma can be understood correctly. The word "karma" has a very different meaning in western (including European) culture and is a very different understanding from karma in eastern traditions.
@@bike4aday no its same if u go more deeper its just cause and effect happening to a soul with no awareness
@@Anxh007 I would say that's either a shallow understanding of karma in eastern traditions or a westernized version of it.
I think Alex having Dr K (healthygamerGG) on would be good as there are a number of relevant topics that can be explored including Hinduism, and health
@@bike4aday I know you would say that, that is what i thought but if you read more deeply, this is usually what they say . all causes from previous life will have an effect, however all effects upon you will not be by those causes, it could be by some other party. if you want to be freed from this be enlightened. thats all, maybe some other sect would have different intrepretation, but one cant read every sects intrepretation for obvious reasons
Great interview.
We all know Alex will eventually write one or more books... and he'll probably get his doctorate degree...
Does He even have a Master? Does he even actively study at uni anymore?
This is is Not supposed to be an insult, just a question ^^"
@@markus6746 Last I checked he was an undergraduate studying theology at Oxford/Cambridge? Unclear if he's actually graduated at this stage so talk of doctorates and writing books may be somewhat premature.
@@Joeonline26 He graduated a couple of years ago I believe
@@Joeonline26he has graduated.
First if all, great discussion. You are both very bright and pleasant to listen to!
Regarding your counter argument about infinite amount of potential states, one could think of it like this; a square in 2d space theoretically contains an infinite number of points, even though the square itself is finite in size.
If I’m not mistaken, you use the argument that there cannot be infinite number of states/(objects?), yet in reality, a cooling cup of coffee can go from 100 to 0 degrees, transitioning through infinite number of states (temperatures). Which according to your statement is impossible.
This reminds me of Zenos famous paradox.
But there is a difference between the transition from 0 to 100, and actually having all the possible intermediate temperatures as real properties.
During the transition from 0 to 100 at each point (say we stop the process at a random time) the cup has just one temperature value. On the other side, if we assume all potentialities are real things, then at each point in time we are assuming a infinite amount of things
@@geokalaigeokalai3185 Im late to the table here but ok, I think I get it. You simple argue against the notion that no potentiality can possibly be considered as real?
I could never grasp how a changeless first cause could cause change, and despite the efforts of these brilliant minds I am no closer to grasping it now..
From neutrality of time
I think I know what you’re saying. Maybe this isn’t the best response, but the way I see it is the first cause has no potency to be anything other than it is. So it is changeless with respect to its being, essence, and existence(though technically its essence is to be or to exist). However with respect to what it does, since it is pure actuality, it is not limited to act only with respect to its inner nature, but can also act outside itself in a way that is very distinct from itself. In that sense, it has the ability to cause change in things external to it, to bring forth other actualities, create, make etc.
I know it raises all kinds of questions as to what prompts it to bring about those changes “when” it did create, or how it could conceive of things in the realm of possibility if there is nothing but actuality, and I’m not sure how to proceed through those. I suspect that there’s some kind of necessary inference that if there is a pure act, then nothing limits it’s action and it would therefore have to follow that this pure act is omnipotent and can “do” anything. Which would force the concept of a pure potentiality capable of receiving that pure act. If there is a pure potentiality for anything to be, then it’s really because the pure act already “knows” what can be and so all possibilities/potencies are held within the “mind”of the pure act.
Sorry if that was sloppy or unhelpful. You might be able to tell I’m also trying to work it out lol. But I suspect there are maybe some interesting insights to be found in more carefully examining the trinitarian nature of God as it seems concepts like knowing are conceivably in play.
Please bring on Forrest Landry, his triadic Immanent Metaphysics is super profound and would shed light on the subtle distinctions between terms like 'exist', 'real', 'objective', 'potential vs actual' etc. Highly recommend to take the time to get deep with him if he's open to this!
The idea that everything has to have a cause does not imply that there ever needed to be an uncaused beginning. Matter and energy has always and will continue to exist forever, cycling into different forms.
That’s the Kalam argument. Aristotle’s argument is different in that it takes it for granted that you can in theory have an infinite series of cause and effect, but that this is only possible in a linear causal chain. The crux of this argument is not that it’s impossible to ever have an infinite cycle of causality, but rather that the causal chain of reality is not linear, but hierarchical, and hierarchical chains do require a primary cause (which is not the same thing as a beginning).
@@swiftsetrider4543 hmm it’s an interesting distinction but I can’t see how it really escapes similar objections to the Kalam one. It’s like saying there has to be an uncaused primary source for all other causation, something everything else is contingent upon but that itself doesn’t require anything beyond itself. Seems like an uncaused beginning and non contingent source of causation are synonymous.
Also the examples in the video seem to make anthropomorphized assumptions. Like stick can’t move stone without human hand. Then making a similar further leap of human hand can’t move without some uncaused being or mind way up the hierarchy.
To me saying everything has to have an uncaused initial cause, or a non contingent source of causation, but then saying that thing doesn’t itself need a beginning or source itself, is inconsistent. Might as well go one step down and say the material universe of matter and energy is the uncaused, eternal beginning or primary source of all other causation.
@@godsfool5284
If you want a non-anthropomorphic example one could use a seesaw or a scale or some natural equivalent; when one side is lowered the other rises. The cause of the seesaw rising on one side is the lowering of the seesaw on the other, yet the lowering does not precede the rising temporally, which is why a primary cause is not the same thing as a beginning, or the string attached to the ceiling which is the primary cause for the items beneath it remaining suspended in midair.
But the advantage to using examples with anthropomorphic primary causes is that you do not beg the question as readily as you would with any natural cause being the cause in this context- of whether the primary cause of all natural change is a divine agent.
Also, Aristotle does not argue that everything must have a cause, but only that any change requires a cause. An unchanging thing would not require any cause to explain it, in the same way that we only require forces to explain changes in velocity while no change in velocity implies lack of force (which in Aristotle’s day was understood as stillness vs. motion, while from Newton onward it was understood as constant velocity vs. acceleration).
The second objection is beautiful; philosophy is beautiful
God bless you Alex
I think, the problem Alex pointed out could presented as follows: If X changes then prior to actualisation of a new property in it, there are infinite other states of potentialities that needs to be actualised first. And since infinity cannot be traversed, no property of X could ever be actualised. But then again the mug is a temporal object, having a beginning for itself as well as all its properties, hence the chain doesn't extend back to infinity. The change w.r.t to the mug starts from pure potency such that before it no other potentiality is required to get actualised first. This leaves us with potential infinity extending forwards, the mug has infinite potentialities in it that could be actualised.
I hope and pray that one day, Dr. Jordan Peterson will have a conversation with Dr. Edward Feser.
How can a perfect being have potential? Can it change without becoming less than perfect? Can it become more perfect? And why would it add something outside it's self? Could it add something outside it's self? A being that can change or create change cannot have been perfect.
Regarding the infinity problem, wouldn't we also be compelled to say there are an actually infinite number of ACTUAL properties as well? For example the warm coffee in the cup has the property of being warmer than 10 degrees and also the property of being warmer than 10.1 degrees and also warmer than 10.11 degrees and so on.
Never mind that the temperature is just the average movement of billions and billions of atoms. The coffee cup is a temporary arrangement, an emergent property, an idea, not necessarily its own "thing".
@@niceguy191 then you can do the same analysis with more fundamental things, even with brute facts themselves
Amazing content! Thanks for this video!
Im only 25minutes in, but hasn't physics proven that hierarchical (as opposed to linear) causal chains dont exists? For one when a hand pushes a stick that pushes a rock, those events dont occur simultaneously, the hand creates a pressure wave that propogates through the stick at the speed of sound. The hand could stop pushing as the pressure wave travels and the rock would still be moved. This seems like a pedantic nitpicking of a specific example, but I'm not convinced there are ANY real examples. In relativity we know that there are no simultaneous events. A train can go through a tunnel and, from one persons view the front and back of the train simultaneously leave and enter respectively, while from another reference frame the train is literally longer than the tunnel.
The speed of light is the speed of causation, there are no events that instantaneously and strictly depend on other events.
There are phenomenon such as the delayed double slit experiment where effects can appear to be temporarally prior to their causes. An event at t1 determines the outcome at t2 in such a way that is dependent on local phenomenon that would have occured at t0. The key thing is that there is clearly a temporaly relationship here, we know the universe isnt locally real, but it is incredibly premature to assume that this means that locality is what is violated, rather than the universe simply being probabalistic and indeterminate. This scenario is fully explainable by a static B theory 4 dimensional model of the universe, and you can even be able to adapt a growing block model in which the 4D manifold can crumple back on itself along the time axis.
This comment is underrated
Check out how Bishop Barron explained this hierarchical causal chain in another video with Alex. He gave a good explanation of causal series subordinated 'per se' and subordinated 'per accidens'.
At the speed of light. 1 light minute long stick need 1 minute till executes the entire movement.
Maybe this will be not the best way to explain.
Feynman diagrams only showing light waves between 2 electrons. It indicates that the photon "knows" where it will land in the moment in its creation. From the viewpoint of a photon the word "existence" makes no sense at all. At he speed of light there is no time.
Another way of thinking about it. If you love pool games and standing beside a pool table your fate is sealed. If you late from an appointment you will feel regret if you play and if you go to the date too. In a successful first date do you have a chance not to kiss her/him?
Objection 1: It seems that physics has proven hierarchical causal chains do not exist. For example, when a hand pushes a stick that pushes a rock, the events do not occur simultaneously. The hand can stop pushing, and the rock will still be moved due to the previously created pressure wave. Therefore, the Aristotelian concept of a hierarchical causal chain, where effects strictly and simultaneously depend on their causes, is outdated and false.
Reply to Objection 1: This objection misunderstands the nature of Aristotelian causality, which is not primarily about the temporal sequence of events but about ontological dependency. The argument is not concerned with how quickly one physical event follows another but with the sustaining cause at the moment of causation. The hand-stick-rock example, when correctly understood, demonstrates a clear hierarchy of causation: the rock moves because the stick moves, and the stick moves because of the hand. The temporal delay introduced by the pressure wave does not negate the hand's role as the primary mover. To dismiss the profound depth of Aristotelian causality based on a superficial understanding of physical processes is to overlook the distinction between physical and metaphysical causation. The former is subject to the laws of physics, including the speed of light and time delays, but the latter delves into the deeper question of why anything exists or changes at all. It is this ontological grounding that physics itself cannot provide, and it is here that the Aristotelian proof stands unchallenged.
Objection 2: The theory of relativity undermines the concept of simultaneous events, essential to the Aristotelian idea of a first cause. Since relativity posits that simultaneity is relative and there are no universally simultaneous events, the notion of a strict, hierarchical chain of simultaneous causes and effects is implausible.
Reply to Objection 2: The objection conflates the physical theory of relativity with metaphysical principles. While relativity indeed revolutionizes our understanding of time and space, it does not and cannot address the metaphysical underpinnings of existence itself. The Aristotelian argument for a first cause transcends physical temporality and instead focuses on the existential need for a sustaining cause. This cause is not one that operates within time but is rather timeless, the necessary ground for the existence of time, space, and all that exists within them. To argue that relativity negates the necessity for a metaphysical ground is to misunderstand the scope and purpose of both physics and metaphysics. Physics can describe how events within the universe unfold, but it cannot explain why the universe, with all its laws and constituents, exists in the first place. This fundamental 'why' is the domain of metaphysics, and it is here that the necessity of a first cause remains unshaken.
Objection 3: The speed of light limits the speed of causation, suggesting that there are no instantaneous or timeless events. Every cause and effect have a temporal relationship, which contradicts the idea of a necessary, timeless first cause.
Reply to Objection 3: This objection again fails to distinguish between the physical and metaphysical realms. The speed of light as a limit applies to events within the universe, but the concept of a first cause pertains to the foundation of the universe itself. The first cause, as understood in Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, is not an event within the universe subject to its laws but is instead the reason for the universe's very existence and order. It is beyond time and space and, therefore, not restricted by the speed of light or any other physical law. To apply physical laws to this metaphysical principle is a categorical error, misapplying the findings of one field (physics) to a question that fundamentally lies outside its purview (metaphysics). The first cause is not a domino that topples the next in a sequence within the universe; it is the existential ground for the entire sequence and the reality in which it exists. As such, the limitations of physical causation do not apply to it.
Objection 4: Phenomena like the delayed double-slit experiment suggest a more complex, probabilistic, and indeterminate universe, which can be explained by models like the static B-theory or a growing block universe. This undermines the need for a traditional first cause.
Reply to Objection 4: Quantum phenomena, while challenging our classical intuitions, do not negate the need for a foundational reality. The probabilistic nature of quantum events and the peculiarities of phenomena like the delayed double-slit experiment indeed invite a reevaluation of how we understand causation and determinism on a quantum scale. However, these phenomena occur within the fabric of the universe and do not account for the fabric itself. Theories like the B-theory of time or the growing block universe attempt to describe the nature of time and existence within the universe but do not address the metaphysical necessity for an underlying ground of being. The first cause, as a metaphysical principle, is not just another event in the chain but the reason for the chain's existence and nature. Quantum mechanics, with all its intriguing implications, operates within the realm of this chain. To assume that the indeterminacy and complexity observed at the quantum level can account for the existence of the universe itself is to overextend the scope of these scientific theories. The need for a metaphysical ground of being remains a fundamental question, one that the peculiarities of quantum mechanics, however fascinating, do not answer.
@@Chris-yr8wb I really do not think you followed my objection whatsoever. A linear causal sequence is one in which causally prior events need not continue to exist in order for their effects to. An example is a person being causally dependent on the existence of their great great grandfather, but this causality doesn't imply the ancestor still exists. An alternative would be hierarchical causality, in which an effect is causally dependent on another thing in such a way that the non existence of that thing makes the effect cease to exist. The example given was pushing a stick, where the movement of the end of the stick is causally dependent on the movement of the shaft of the stick, and if the shaft were not to move, the end would not move. The point of this example is to establish that, by observation of the world, things exist that require the sustaining causation of another thing.
My objection pointed out that a stick moving is actually not hierarchical, and is instead linear like the person and the ancestor. The movement of the end of a stick is causally dependent on an event in its past, and since time must pass for this to occur, the ongoing movement of the shaft is not necessary for the effect to actualise.
I posit that there are no such examples of hierarchical causation, and a person making the claim that the universe needs an ontologically sustaining entity had a burden of proof to establish the existence of hierarchical causation. In the absence of hierarchical causation, you could still make the case that linear causation cannot regress infinitely, but that is a different argument to the one I was objecting to. Please provide an example of an observable, verifiable, a-temporal, hierarchical causation relationship to establish that it exists and proceed with the Aristotelian argument.
Regarding metaphysical grounding, it is no more absurd to posit that the universe just exists than that a god just exists, and that a god also made the universe. Asserting the existence of the universe answers the question of why there is something rather than nothing just as well as asserting a god does: not at all. If you ask why why why why why all the way down, you will get to "why does the universe exist". You can be honest and say "I don't know, maybe it's unknowable" or you can say "Because a god made it". If you say the latter, then you can just ask "Buy why does a god have to exist? Why couldn't there have been nothing at all?" And we are at exactly the same place with one additional unprovable assumption.
I think I just spent 30 minutes listening to Alex say "if potentialities are real, and there may be an infinite number of them (say, infinite possible temperatures), then you are proposing there could be an infinite number of real properties/things" and Feser saying "yeah, that's not a problem for this argument." Lol, still a good point to consider, probably just not worth going in that circle for so long.
Aren’t we all geeks
The true essence of being a greek philosopher is to be a geek to god
😂
No
@@fan4every1lol89gods
yep.
Im 6min in and Im HOOKED!
This is great!!
If you accept that different temperatures of the coffee are not simultaneously possible then it doesn’t matter whether there are an infinite or finite number of potential temperatures. I tend to agree with Feser here that its our measurement of temperature which produces seemingly infinite possibilities and that there are actual constraints but that’s another argument.
Aristotle, Aquinas, and the coffee example all build the "actual" and "potential" concepts off of things in the universe being discrete individual objects to which actions are performed.
The idea of the coffee being one temperature is actually ridiculous now that we have the understanding that not only does the coffee have convection currents flowing in it when it loses temperature at the surface, but even the idea of temperature is a bunch of separate particles within the coffee hitting each other.
But, regardless what is considered "actual" - I think the idea of "potential" sounds suspiciously like a thing that humans made up to describe stuff, and not an inherent facet of the universe.
If the universe is completely deterministic, then "potential" is kind of a misnomer because everything is a certainty. It would be more of a laundry list of "actuals" which happen in sequence.
If the universe is _not_ completely deterministic, then the idea of the "unmoved mover" is useless because the "potentials" wouldn't need a mover to become "actual".
@@CookiesRiot "If the universe is completely deterministic, then "potential" is kind of a misnomer because everything is a certainty. It would be more of a laundry list of "actuals" which happen in sequence."
No because if it's deterministic it still has the potential in future tense because it's not in actuality. We are talking about potentials from the thing of their nature themselves. That means let's take a random flower seed and say it has the potential to become a flower rather than a car for example. Here i am not actually talking about even if this random flower seed exists and so you cannot talk here about determinism. And we are talking about a things' nature and so we are in universals, we are not talking about particular. Determinism is concerned about a particular's predetermined path.
Two different particular may have the same potentiality but one particular may not actualize said potentiality. To illustrate it two different flower seed living in two different environment won't end up the same ways, but they had the same potentialities.
Also a things temperature is the quality of an object that we can scientifically be measured, they are a result from the density of atom and how excited they are yes but they are not just the atoms you are presupposing a kind of reductionistic view which the modern ariostotlian wouldn't accept. Color is also atoms and waves soudn too, but they are not the same and the science doesn't really contradict the metaphysic from Aristotle unless you are a physicalist reductionist which is an other metaphysical position.
It seems you have misunderstood the concept.
@@toonyandfriends1915 The idea that there is a "potential" implies possibility of alternatives. Not just linguistically - which is where I was going with my use of "misnomer" - but literally Aristotle's entire concept of potential was tied to the idea of alternative possibilities, of which one would be the natural outcome but any could be made to happen intentionally or accidentally. His idea of potentiality was, in point of fact, antithetical to a completely deterministic universe.
If everything is deterministic, then "potential" is, at best, a misleading word to use for what amounts to more of a "future actual". The seeds would not have "potential" to become a flower - some simply will be a flower and others simply will not be a flower.
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone describing themselves or anything modern as Aristotelian outside of ethics and philosophy... especially not physics. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that the field of physics sees Aristotle's work as historically significant but physically nonsensical. The mere concept of actualizing potentials differently than the natural outcome goes against the concept of natural physical laws. Other facets of Aristotelian physics were very directly supplanted by specific physical laws (especially the Newtonian laws of motion versus the natural motions of the four elements and the unmoved mover concept).
@@CookiesRiot it doesn't make sense, things have alternative possibility in their nature, even if we suppose that something was deterministic . You don't understand that potentiality is embeded in the very nature of thing, this is before if we talk even if these things exists. And things must exists before we talk about how determinism affects them.
Let's say again, you have a flower seed and another flower seed.
"some simply will be a flower and others simply will not be a flower."
Again you are talking about particulars. It having the potentiality of being a flower is congruently compatible with it being deterministicaly the case that this particular flower seed will certainly become the flower. But if this flower didn't exist and we are just looking at it's nature, not even the mega hypothetical computer could tell you if it will grow or not because it doesn't exist.
Even in like, normal common talk, if some guys tells me "i have the potential to become great", it doesn't mean i will become great and deterministically i will only become what is predtermined from the initial condition, what he is just saying is that i have something in me that can allow this fact to happen, not that this fact will definitely happen.
So even if you only understood the common parlance of it, it would still be incorrect.
Therefore if it's just having something in you that can allow a fact to happen (being a flower) it doesn't tell you anything about if deterministically or non deterministically it will happen, so the concept doesn't eliminate both.
The concept only relies on the fact that the world seems rationally comprehensible and ordered. Rather or not being rationally ordered is compatible with non determinism is also outside the scope of the concept.
For example, a human has no potential to grow wings and fly, because such nature wouldn't be that of a human anymore and it could never be actualized. This has nothing to do with determinism or non determinism.
"I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone describing themselves or anything modern as Aristotelian outside of ethics and philosophy... especially not physics"
Well yes we are talking about metaphysics so everything you are going to say below literally doesn't matter in the context of what we are talking about, and not even edward feser would content that.
The unmoved mover doesn't contradict the metaphysical of motion in the slightest and it also shows a misunderstanding of the thing. First of all newton is concerned about local motion while motion is change, secondly it doesn't say anything about why a particular thing stay in motion and it's answer why it moves is also congruent in aristotliist lense
The four elements isn't and never was metaphysics.
Pardon if I missed it, but why the objection to infinity? Seems Alex is bothered by it and Feser is not (whether or not the potentiality argument is what brings it in) - what complications does this give rise to?
I think there are several difficulties with Alex's first objection that the idea of an infinite number of potentialities is problematic.
First is that he never actually gives a reason to believe there is a difficulty in the first place. He says that many philosophers argue against there being an actual infinity of things and that it leads to various paradoxes, but beyond that not much is given to make the claim compelling. Now I understand that this is primarily a discussion not a debate, but Alex has given this objection before such as in the Ben Shapiro video he referenced so it would be nice to actually have an argument for why this is a problem. And I bring this up because how we understand something like an actual infinite is crucial to the whole objection. Clearly many philosophers would have no problem with there being in Alex's terminology an actual infinite number of numbers, so we need to be specific about what we mean by an actual infinite.
This issue becomes clear when terms like "actual" and "real" get used in various ways throughout the discussion and it causes confusion in my opinion. When giving the example of the coffee cup at one point Alex even says that "we have an actually existing actual infinity", but it seems like even if the Aristotelian granted his usage of actually existing as being the same as what he means, we only have an actually existing potential infinite.
Alex then shifts to the idea of local change and begins to bring up the objection of a spatially infinite universe where an object could have an infinite number of potential locations it could be in. In doing this however, he seems to be undermining his own argument because he allows for an infinite universe, but thinks it problematic that an object in that universe could have the potential to be in an infinite number of places within that universe. I am not sure why one infinity is allowed but the other poses a problem, and Alex gives no reason for this distinction. To make matters even worse, in Alex's example his proposed universe is actually infinite, but the locations of the object are just potentially infinite so it seems like the potential infinity associated with the object should be less problematic than the universes actually infinite size.
The last problem I have with this objection is that it seems to be saying that because the A/T analysis of change is committed to potentials being real properties of things, and we can imagine a scenario involving an actual infinity of real properties (the potential temperature of the coffee) that therefore the A/T analysis of change is problematic. I don't see how this is a real problem though because either actual infinites are possible and there is no problem with this scenario, OR actual infinites are not possible in which case the coffee just wouldn't have an infinite number of real properties so the objection wouldn't even get off the ground. Nowhere in the analysis of change being discussed is any commitment to the reality of an infinite number of potentials. All it says is that potentials are real properties of things, whether or not something could or could not have an actual infinity of properties is irrelevant in my opinion.
Ultimately I think that the objection is confused because Alex has to assume the existence of the infinity that he then wants to go on to argue is problematic.
If I'm understanding Alex's objection, it's that all future instances entailed by a potential infinity would be compressed into an actual infinity if all of an object's potential future states were a real thing possessed by said object.
The "no actual infinities of things" argument only works when you apply it to things that are localized in spacetime and can't overlap, i.e. follow an exclusion principle. Possible attributes don't fall into that category. Just the use of "possible" indicates that more than one thing can be,.
I agree completely. The question starts and ends with whether or not actual infinities exist or not, and neither answer is problematic for the argument. By saying that the coffee has infinite potentials in regards to its temperature, you have to accept that the coffee will actually traverse an infinite number of temperatures in a finite time as it cools down in the real world. I don’t see how one of these infinities is acceptable while the other is not.
I think Alex’s objection addresses someone with beliefs like this: Suppose I believe that
1. actual infinities do not exist in reality, and
2. that the notion of a “continuum of temperature” makes sense.
Then in this case, I believe my coffee can take on an actually infinite number of different temperatures. Thus, i believe my coffee has the potential to actualize all infinitely many temperatures. However, since I do not believe actual infinites exist in reality, I cannot assign these potentials the same ontological status of “existing in reality” that Feser seems to require for the argument.
I.e. whether the argument fails seems to depend on what kinds of “non-existing-in-reality actual infinities” are allowed in one’s theory.
@@ethanmartin2781 Yes I agree, but my problem is with the second premise. By accepting the notion of a "continuum of temperature" or "an infinite spatial universe" we are allowing a real infinity to exist at that point so how can we then hold premise one to be true as well?
Alex you are one of the great philosophers of our time! I’m not formally educated but I’m very passionate about the subject. I think about the rebuttals to the arguments presented to you and you say exactly what my thoughts are! I appreciate what you do!
The clarity Alex has in his 20s, this boy is going to be very influential thinker of our times eventually
I loved the guest. Very smart fellow.
These discussions are so much better than "Christianity debunked!!" type content.
yeah i hope he writes a book or something.
This discussion is basically the Kalam Cosmological argument rehashed. It's functionally the same thing in way more words.
I love that you won't leave any stone unturned, Alex.
I think this argument immediately folds under determination because potentiality as a concept is incoherent under determinism.
Things either are or they are not, and they only are as they are and will only ever be as they have to be pending prior causes.
Hence your hand is never potentially anywhere. It is in X1 and will be in X2, wherein X2 is not a "potential" of X1, but the inevitable extension of X1.
Because potentiality does not exist as an actual phemonenon in this view, all appeals to potential are incoherent.
Secondly, there's a linguistic trap here in saying something like a stick "has the potential to move a rock".
I would argue this is incoherent regardless your view on causality because a stick is an object and has no other qualities except the ones that make it a stick. The grammatically correct way of thinking of the stick in terms of its "potential to move a rock" is that the stick "has" the potential to be used to move a rock. This is not a trivial distinction because to say that an object may "be used" is to immediately recognize that the potential in respect to use is not a property of the stick but of the person picking it up.
The properties of the stick in relation to moving the rock is therefore not directly related to movement, but related to matters like the stick's structural integrity(not breaking when used to apply leverage etc) and only that.
HOWEVER, and importantly, under any model of determinism, we are all sticks. So nothing has self-actualizing properties. People aren't "moving sticks" any more than "sticks are moving rocks".
If nothing has, as far as we observe, self-actualizing properties, then you cannot use induction to postulate a first self-actualized domino. What's more, the postulation of such a domino is no different than the exercise of doing so in linear causality, such as in the case of your run of the mill cosmological arguments.
Thirdly, considering the two previous points, it's readily apparent that the distinction between linear and hierarchical causality is a red herring, if even coherent in respects to an argument for God's existence.
Fundamentally, the issue with reality, following Alex's example of people hanging with their hands interlinked from a cliff, is that we neither see the cliff nor the end of the chain and that there's no real distinction between positing a hierarchical first "self-actualized" cause and a linear unmoved first mover/uncaused first cause.
As far as we're concerned, all we're privy to is a seemingly endless line of people with their hands interlocked. Whether you want to posit that there's a first man per linear causality, who was born from nothing together with a cliff to hold the rest of us as we jumped off one by one, or that the cliff and man was simply there always holding all of us, is immaterial to the question of how this is justified via induction or deduction when all we've ever seen is the chain and the chain itself contains no traces of this cliff or first man.
Plus, even granting most of the argument, maybe the "base" in the hierarchical dependency is just the cliff i.e. some inanimate structure that's just the nature of the universe.
@@niceguy191
Exactly
"Hence your hand is never potentially anywhere. It is in X1 and will be in X2, wherein X2 is not a "potential" of X1, but the inevitable extension of X1."
Just because an outcome is inevitable doesn't change that it is a potential. You seem to be confusing potential with possible, as if potential implies that at any moment any possibly event could result X1. That's not required here for the idea of potentials and seems to misunderstand potentials. Even if we don't talk about things, like coffee or bananas or whatever, and instead talk about events or states, there are still potentials. An event or state can have the potential to bring about various other events or states, and that's regardless which potential events or states do in fact become actual. X2 can never be actual if it weren't at least previously a potential. But, potentials must exist within something actual, so perhaps it is in X1. But that doesn't mean that the only potential in X1 is X2. There could be X3 or X4, even if those never become actual because of how X1 actually is.
In fact, Aristotle actually gave an answer for why there is this causal regularity where certain specific things (whether states, events, or substances) being a certain specific way (and not any other way) regularly, if not inevitably, results in certain specific outcomes being a certain specific way (and not any other). This is what Aristotle and his followers understood by final causes. The philosophers and scientists of the enlightenment misunderstood Aristotelian final causes quite dramatically, and thus rejected it without refuting it, and it very quickly lead to Hume presenting the problem of causality and the serious problems for scientific knowledge as a result. Much of the time from Hume on was trying to grant Hume's conclusion that we can't really know anything about external reality and redefining truth and knowledge around that. Recently, though, philosophers of science have began recognizing that returning to Aristotle, and rejecting Hume, seems to be the answer.
I would recommend you search "Feser Faith Reason Gonzaga" on RUclips and find Part 1 of a two-part lecture by Feser, which should help you clear this confusion up. Jump to 8min40 to skip the intro.
PS This is all granting hard determinism, but there is no solid reason to grant this. But I thought I would for the sake of the point.
@@billyg898
Ignore the first response. My youtube bugged out and made it look like this was a reply to a different post than what it was.
In either case, all you seem to be doing is assert without argument the very thing I was rejecting in the first place.
There's no meaningful distinction between possible or potential to my mind here, and trying to delineate is nothing but a vacuous semantic game.
My fundamental contention here is that possibilities and potentials are both just abstract linguistic trappings that don't describe any meaningful concrete features of reality.
When you see a pebble on a lawn, you can conceive of the pebble being somewhere else on the lawn. When you see coiled spring, you can conceive of it as uncoiling.
We think of these as "possible" alternatives and the "potentials" of objects/phenomenon respectively.
What I'm arguing is that either is meaningless nonsense.
Objects are where they are, nowhere else. They were where they were, and nowhere else. They will be where they will be, and nowhere else. And, only springs that are determined to uncoil by preceding phenomenon will uncoil. Hence to speak of springs as "having the potential to uncoil" in a generic sense is nothing but a linguistic construct of practicality that humans employ because we don't have perfect knowledge of which springs will uncoil or which won't.
It's not a linguistic structure that describes how reality actually operates. To say "X has potential Y" in premises of arguments meant to describe the nature of reality is therefore confused.
It's mistaking the map for the territory in the premise of an argument meant to describe the territory, not the map.
Also, I think there are plenty of good reasons to grant hard determinism - the greatest being that I don't think there are any coherent non-deterministic models of reality. Determinism is the only model parsimonious with the cause-effect relationships that constitutes seemingly everything we observe and measure except particles on the quantum level. But why one would expect those to be random given everything else simply because they appear that way, is uncertain. Furthermore, the fact that quantum randomness appears completely divorced from prediction on the macro scale of events also means it has no bearing the claim that the universe operates deterministically.
@@hian "There's no meaningful distinction between possible or potential to my mind here"
There is, but this comment would get too long to clarify and perhaps the distinction doesn't really matter for what you say after this. Suffice it to say that Aristotle would say that an object can have many potentials but given the current state of the object and it's current interactions with the objects around it, the outcome would be that a particular potential would become actual and not anything else.
"Objects are where they are, nowhere else. They were where they were, and nowhere else. They will be where they will be, and nowhere else."
Perhaps I can explain the problem with your thinking, which was something that was refuted about a 100 years ago (but some people still push the thinking). Let me ask you something: Say you have a glass in your hand. Let's say it's a reasonably thin glass. If we say that the glass is brittle, what does that mean? I assume you would agree that this means that it wouldn't take much force for the glass to shatter. However, let's say there isn't, never was, and never will be a situation where the glass is hit with such force and shatters. By your reasoning, no matter whether we speak of possible or potential, the glass simply is incapable of shattering. Thus, in what sense can we say that the glass is brittle then? We would have to conclude that the glass is not brittle or saying that it is brittle is incoherent because the glass can never and will never never shatter. If someone was swinging a hammer near your glass and you say "Whoa, be careful! This glass is brittle. You could possibly shatter it if you aren't careful", you'd be saying something incoherent because, according to you, there is no such thing as what "could possibly" happen.
This is a problem, among many, that arose toward a long standing post-enlightenment view called positivism, and basically caused a fundamental problem with being able to claim any kind of scientific knowledge. Science becomes incapable of giving us actual knowledge. It can only give us beliefs which are either coherent or incoherent. This problem can be extended to any thing we say about anything at all, including where an object is. For example, if you say that the glass can be 2 meters to the left from where it currently is, but it isn't there, never was there, and never will be there, you'd have to conclude that it couldn't ever be there. But, then you can't say at all where a glass will be.
If you say that we can know, at least in principle if we had sufficient knowledge of physics, where it will be by applying the laws of physics we've learned through scientific investigation and map out all the points in space this glass would be at every moment across time, you'd still run in to the problem of assuming that the laws of physics will apply to the glass in all those moments. To say that the glass follows the laws of physics is no different to saying that the glass is brittle. Is there a law that says that the glass must follow the laws of physics? If so, why must that law be followed? Because of another law? See the problem?
Aristotle's understanding of potentials and final causes avoids this problem altogether while still make sense of cause and effect relationships as we observe them. It was precisely because the enlightenment thinkers abandoned final causes that this problem arose in the first place. As I noted in my previous post, philosophers of science are beginning to see that these ideas from Aristotle perhaps should NOT have been abandoned, although they use more modern terminology.
"Determinism is the only model parsimonious with the cause-effect relationships that constitutes seemingly everything we observe"
I'd say that it depends entirely how you understand the cause and effect relationships. But, this comment is long enough.
There is an infinite number of ways this argument goes me a headache
What I love about Alex is that he pushes until questions I have are addressed, if not answered 😊 Some can't be answered... and that's ok.
The problem I have with this argument is that of infinity as it applies to actual things, as Alex brought up. For a potential to be actual, it seems to me that it then has properties (a point about 80% into the video) like "red" or "sixty degrees" or whatever. As soon as you ascribe properties to "a potential" then that potential becomes a discreet entity. This is what leads to the infinity problem, that you can't have an infinite number of discreet entities in a space at any given time.
Thus, I think the difficulty is with defining potential in the way Edward Feser (and Aristotle? Sorry, can't keep track!) does here - as an actual entity that exists - which then disrupts the argument's very foundations.
Anyway, that's my take.
Thank you for great content, Alex, and thank you Dr. Feser!
Interesting thoughts. I would respond that I don't see how giving properties to a potential becomes a separate entity. To use Freser's ping pong ball example. A better example (i think) of the ping pong ball's potential reality is that it is bouncy. But that property of the ping pong ball's potential reality doesn't create a new distinct ping pong ball.
Potential is necessarily discreet. It has a linearity because the actual sets up the frame for the potential. You could say there are infinite possibilities, but the context (including history and co-existing actualities) limits those possibilities to a set of probabilities for what is likely to actualise or as many would say "realise". Everything that exists in spacetime has near infinite interactions, influences, and consequences/potentials, but we only perceive certainty parts of that near-infinity. Chaos theory explores this rather well.
a ping pong ball is bouncy by virtue of being a ball made out of a certain kind of matter. One such ball sitting n the ground has only the potential to bounce. It will only do so really or actually when dropped or thrown. It's not obvious to me that this analysis runs into the infinity problem. There's no need for the worry of actually existing infinites - potentials are not actually existing beings, so they don't take up any space in themselves. Similarly, even granting the ball has the potential qua material object in space to be at an infinite number of spatial locations, it doesn't follow these potentials are all actually existent. They are mere potentials not physically attached to any thing. It appears your problem is just a category error. Material things can only ever actually be in one location at any instant. Hence there is no way for the problem of actual infinities to arise
These problems exist because this argument is a philosophical construction framed in (poorly defined) language. Any interpretation of the language needs a bundle of hidden assumptions, such as an understanding of the infinite.
Philosopher Alvin Plantigina defined philosophy very simply, “Thinking very hard about something.” This podcast is Exhibit A proving his point. I love it! Thank you Alex for having Feser on! His book was difficult to get through but every page I turned I loved that I was being challenged to think deeper. And it’s podcasts like yours that do the same thing as Feser’s book (and I’m a Christian)! You are easily in my top five most watched channels on RUclips.
I just realized while watching this video that we have never observed any unmoved thing. It might be wholly baseless to assume there is any need for a mover at all.
There’s no such thing as an object at rest❤
@Tigerjones444 I beg to differ...you should see my brother-in-law - buh dum tsss.
Thats the point there is only one unmoved mover
@@sndpgryou have zero evidence an unmoved mover exists or is needed for everything to exist. All you have are claims
@@sndpgr Why can't motion just be the default?
30 minutes of Ed patiently trying to explain to a novice to Thomistic thinking that he isn’t making Bill Craig’s argument and therefore Alex’s objection is irrelevant. Derivative causality in a vertical hierarchy is the key point.
Verticality is what’s being questioned though.
12:38 Didn't the Greeks, Aristotle included, have a belief in 'gods'. I know, not one primary God, well maybe Zeus, but a lot of them. Wouldn't that have influenced Aristotle's formation of his ideas?
Aristotle saw those gods as more akin to powerful entities like angels or demons, but not the underlying grounding of reality.
The unmoved mover is not the creator for matter was eternal. It only thinks of itself and not individual and accidental things, so we can throw all of the nonsensical ideas concerning "prophecies" into the fire.
None of this is a problem for atheism. Why are we even calling the unmoved mover "God"? Because these pagans had no problem calling a rock "God". Simply because it is meta-necessary? The unmoved mover is not aware of individual things or beings within the universe in a personal or conscious manner. It doesn't have knowledge of particulars because it doesn't engage in specific thoughts or intentions. The only Gods that are a problem for atheism are the ones proposed by various world religions that, strangely, are concerned with a specific carbon-based lifeform found on this planet.
Love the philosophers you get on this show. Can you do Michael Della Rocca next? He's probably the best defender of the monism that Feser is trying to avoid. I'm convinced views like Spinoza's offer the most effective refutation of Thomism and classical theism more generally.
Are you kidding me? Spinoza is low tier in sophistication compared to Aquinas.
Philosophy nerd 🤓
@@Lerian_V This comment is wearing a fedora.
Spinoza is an interesting figure, but to say he offers "the most effective refutation of Thomism and classical theism" is silly. Thomism and classical theism shouldn't even be strictly equated. The classical theism of the eastern fathers, for instance, shares little in common with manualist Thomism
@@Joeonline26 I didn't equate them, I said Spinoza refutes both of them.
Absolute actuality is potential itself. So the argument of the yellow chair needing the potential to stay yellow is actuality. Change (potential) is the actuality because change is required to remain constant because reality is pure energy. In this case, God would be energy itself with no moral bearings, neither good nor evil. It is everything.
If only Alex was a moderator for Joe Schmid and Feser
So you are aware of Joe's criticism in existential inertia 😂
I don't agree with the formation of the premises. We are trying to describe things as they really are in this discussion. When ascribing these properties to objects what are the objects we are talking about? Lets say its an apple, the apple is made of atoms and sub atomic particles, and the substance and properties of the apple are all rearrangements of these particles (or whatever particles break down as being in their essence). The fundamental particles do not have the properties of green or sweet. These properties are emergent and subjective. Without someone to taste there is no sweet. So what i am saying is the formulation of this argument is based on a lack of understanding of reality.
40:00 _"We've got to recognize something like potentiality as a real feature of the world that's distinct from actuality"_
How is that different from modality ?
X has the _"potential"_ to do/become Y.
X can be different, it can be Y.
And more importantly, why does that need to be in _"reality"_ ? Modality is often conceived in terms of conceivability : I can conceive of a world in which X were Y (had property Y). Why wouldn't it be the same for _"potentiality"_ ?
1:13:51 _"The basic idea is this that um the the yellowness is there in the chair already it's not potentially yellow it is yellow whereas the redness is not in the chair already"_
That seems to lend credence to the idea that actuality/potentiality is nothing more than modality. Because modality is the study of the possibility to be different... The consideration of alternatives. So _"redness"_ is an "alternative" for the yellow chair.
And the rule according to which _"something actual is required to actualize a potential",_ would be like saying that a "possibility" in a modal sense, needs to be actualized in the sense that the actual world needs to "move" towards the possible world in which the alternative is true, through that movement, the possible becomes actual.
1:27:40 _"Even if that were correct this the four-dimensional object that is the universe would be something that in which we can distinguish its essence or nature what it is from its existence it would be a contingent thing that could have failed to exist and yet it doesn't fail to exist so why does it exist well we need to appeal to something outside of that imparts existence to that the nature of the universe"_
Yep, that pretty much is the Leibnizian contingency argument... Lending even more credence to the idea that potential/actual is nothing more than modality.
There are no contingencies in existence. Necessitarianism is true and it has do with change, not existence.
@@CMVMic *-"There are no contingencies in existence. Necessitarianism is true and it has do with change, not existence."*
It has to do with change, not existence ? So necessitarianism is true, and it means that there are no contingencies, and that means that there is no change ?
@@MrGustavier No, there is still change but what happens, happens necessarily. In other words, things could not have happened any other way.
Parmenidese implies "oneness of God" through denying multiplicity and change while Aristotle implies "the power of God to actualize" through tracing the source of change.
There’s a major difference between “God” as described by several religions, held to standards…
…And the idea that everything which exists does so within a container of itself in the form of all things real or imagined.
A monotheistic god is in essence exactly what you described, god being the container and everything else, both realised and unrealized potential existing within the container. The religious differentiation comes down to the claim of transcendental laws and this is where the idea of objective morals sits.
For example let's assume the container is the English alphabet. Within this container is an infinite number of potential combinations of different letters, but one could infer that a law of sorts in this container is that any possible combination must abide by the convention of the English alphabet.
A rather crude example, but explains how montheistic religions make claims to objective moralities within the framework of a universe of seemingly infinite potentialities. The Christian view for instance is that objective moralities are defined by the nature of god (the container), so these ideas are not mutually exclusive, instead I would argue religious world views are an attempt at defining the nature of the container that we exist within.
@U90722 yes
@@jakobdowney355
You’re describing a group.
Singularity is unrepresentatable
Existence is a relationship.
The container is imaginary.
Labeling existance has nothing to do with human on human manipulation
@@jakobdowney355 I think it’s a more basic thing and all that though… A person might ask themselves, “do I want to be the one teaching or do I want to be the one learning? Which has the greater value?”
@@mitzzzu_tigerjones444 I mean it depends how you define value. I do not know how one defines value outside of a religious framework so that's an incredibly difficult idea to tackle. Within a religious framework it's easier as you assume a definition of value.
"There is nothing more dangerous than to confide in our own strength, and trust to feelings of fervor. We are full of malice, and capable of committing the most enormous crimes, unless God supports us.”
-Fr. Ignatius of the Side of Jesus, p. 85-86
Feser is fantastic.
Should read his book on the death penalty fyi, lol
I refute the entire premise of something being purely actual and at the same time it can interact with the world. It must have states of being after actualization that are different if it can assert it's will or self upon others. It has the potential to cause the first change, but at some point it had not yet done so.