Hey Pat, I really enjoyed seeing you on Gavin's show. Truly, you always show up so well for these talks. Enthusiastic. Articulate. You are a blessing to have in this weird space of philosophical apologetics on the internet. Cheers, brother. Also, your most recent book is top-tier.
Gavin, as a Catholic, I appreciate you deleting the comments of scammers… so many RUclipsrs just leave them up. Also, I make 250K a day blah blah blah 😂
Jesus, hear my prayers. I’m holding on to my faith, as a single parent things are hard on me both of my sons are special needs and I’m constantly struggling to provide the basic necessities for them. I’m so ashamed. God hear my prayers. Every month I constantly struggle to pay my bills and struggle to provide groceries for my children. I KEEP FAITH because I know my Lord will save me.❤️💕
Thanks for another good one, Gav. My regards to you and yours. Both of the books discussed here are excellent and deserve a place in the library of anybody likely to be reading this comment.
Please, make a video where you explain in details the terms used in these philosophical arguments, like essence, existence, nature, various types of attributes, identity and energy. I am interested in these topics, but I am too often limited by that I don't know what these terms mean. I have definitions for some terms usually from mathematics, but I notice that how the terms are used in philosophy is incompatible with my definitions.
For professional atheist philosophers (not Internet ones) I think we're seeing a growing shift towards accepting the PSR but challenging the inference to God in Stage II.
Here is a comment we've made elsewhere that addresses how Atheists have traditionally attacked Contingency arguments that should be helpful: Firstly, there are many different versions of the Contingency Argument, so what may be an objection to one argument, may apply less to another. Second, different types of objections can be leveled to many of the argument's premises. For example, against some premises, we can offer an undercutting defeater to show that evidence in support of a particular premise of the argument is not sufficient for the inference in question. We can also provide a rebutting defeater, which shows that we have overriding reasons for rejecting a premise of a particular argument. Finally, the Contingency Arguments are often arrayed in two sages (see William Rowe's The Cosmological Argument (1998) for a good discussion). So, there can be different objections to the various stages. With that in mind, we can now outline some objections to the argument: I. We can directly attack the conclusion of the argument by offering reasons for thinking that a personal metaphysically necessary personal being is not metaphysically possible (see the discussion in J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, Richard Gale's On the Nature and Existence of God and J.H. Sobel's Logic and Theism). II. The lynchpin of Contingency Arguments is their reliance on a Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). We can offer undercutting defeaters to the PSR by showing that the arguments for the PSR are false (see Mackie's text above). We can offer rebutting defeaters to the PSR by showing that the PSR leads to modal collapse and that any contingency is ultimately going to lead to brute contingency (which is incompatible with the PSR; see Sobel's text and Rowe's text here). III. We can offer an alternative theory that provides a more explanatory and simpler view of reality than the conclusion of the Contingency argument, which forces us to accept a less lean ontology. This is Graham Oppy's approach, which Kenny Pearce outlines very well here: "Causal versions of the argument from contingency turn on a particular view about the causal structure of reality: they say that there is a non-physical (divine) cause that precedes all physical causes, and that this generates an explanatory advantage for the theist. This argument fails, as Graham Oppy convincingly argues, because whatever causal structure for the universe is supposed by the theist can be replicated by the naturalist (Oppy 2013). The naturalistic philosopher has wide latitude here, since there are many different live models in physical cosmology which exhibit different causal structures. To prefer one live physical hypothesis over another is not to go beyond natural science in the way the naturalist finds objectionable. Thus if the free action of God is supposed to be the indeterministic action of a necessary being, the naturalist is free to propose that the universe had an initial state which was itself necessary and indeterministically caused the organized cosmos we experience. If the theist introduces an infinite causal chain (perhaps of divine thoughts), the naturalist can introduce an infinite chain of earlier states of the universe (or parent universes). Finally, if the theist proposes an initial contingent being (rejecting divine necessity), the naturalist is free to accept an initial contingent state of the universe. Whatever advantage the theistic model is supposed to have will also be had by at least some physical models and therefore (at least as long as these models continue to be live options within physics) can be had within the confines of naturalism. Nor does it help to point out that God is supposed to be a necessary being, and no physical entity is necessary, for God’s alleged necessity must be either transparent or opaque. (That is, either we can see why God is necessary or we can’t.) If the argument depends on transparent necessity, then the argument from contingency can be introduced only after a successful ontological argument (see Kant [1781] 1998, A606/B634-A612/B640).4 If the argument from contingency is to stand alone, then God’s necessity must be opaque. That is, the argument should give us reason to believe that a necessary being (God) exists, although we do not (yet) understand why the existence of this being is necessary.5 However, if this is the theist’s position, then the naturalist is free to claim that some relevant part of physical reality possesses opaque necessity." IV. We can explain contingency by adopting a theory as Bede Rundle does in his book Why there is Something rather than Nothing, where we say that the idea of ontological nothingness is metaphysically impossible; that is to say, it is metaphysically necessary that some contingent entity or so exist. This way, we can explain contingency without appealing to a necessary being. As William Rowe says: "We know that although no horse in a given horse race necessarily will be the winner, it is, nevertheless, necessary that some horse in the race will be the winner." V. We can offer another theory where all non-initial or non-fundamental items have a contingent explanation, but the initial items don't. Here is a review of this objection from pg. 63 of Josh Rasmussen's and Alex Pruss's Necessary Existence: There are ways to account for the apparent instances of explanation in our world without appealing to any explanatory principle that implies the existence of a necessary foundation (Oppy 1999). So, for example, perhaps all non-fundamental contingent things have an explanation, while fundamental contingent things do not.25 Maybe fundamental contingent things cannot be brought into existence via assembly because they lack proper parts that are separable. The basic elements may be point particles or fields, which cannot be built from more basic elements. We may say, then, that compound objects are explained by the activities of pre-existing materials. But non-compound materials can’t be explained that way, since they aren’t made up from any pre-existing materials. So, perhaps the divide between the explained and the unexplained coincides with the divide between the compound and the non-compound. This hypothesis is fully compatible with our experience. And it stops short of requiring that every contingent thing requires an explanation for its existence. VI. Many of the above arguments attack Stage I of the arguments; we can also attack Stage II by showing that a Naturalist can accept a metaphysically necessity entity that is nonetheless compatible with Naturalism and Atheism. I would point you to the work of Quentin Smith and Graham Oppy on this front. That is an extremely brief summary, and there are other objections that can be offered, but hopefully, this should give you a sense of some of our objections. I hope this helps.
@@amu7379 I'm not so sure about this. Oppy, Rowe, Mackie, Sobel, Gale, Draper, and others have all rejected the PSR and have offered arguments against the possibility of a metaphysically necessary being. Not to mention there are much weaker principles of the PSR that can be accepted that don't entail the inference of a necessary entity.
@@RealAtheology very well researched, and believe me when i say that i do appreciate everything you commented here, but there is a flaw to all you have said, and this is where you see my playful side. You see, it seems that most of what you have said has gone passed my head, or else it is not in my interest, try as i may, to think about things to such a degree that it would so hurt my brain, so please, if you could be so inclined, to bear with my inadequacies. For the way that i see things, the true genius is in making the hard to understand simple for all to grasp; but that's just me. This may ask too much from you, but you wouldn't have a simple "take for instance", or an elementary "take for example" to each of your objections, now would you? If not, and all these formulations cannot be actualized to real world situations, and regardless of all this, thank you for your reply, and your patience and decency of it
Once you accept the possibility of theism or some entity out there that created everything in our universe, reasoning to Christianity is not difficult. Only a few religions have a being that is outside of the creation. Most other mythologies have the gods as being children of other beings and the world being created out of the slain bodies of their parents or whatever. They are just like us, they just have special powers. Only the Abrahamic religions really have a being that is the all in all. Apparently, ancient China had Shang Ti which was essentially The Most High. I think if we go back far enough monotheism was the norm and entropy brought it down to polytheism then do non-theism.
@@drinjj that's not actually true, your perspective is just limited. I assume you're talking about like The Resurrection and how we don't see people coming back to life.
@@joeinterrante7873 Sure! The first obvious one is global flood. Then there's in genesis 1, god created light after plants (my issue is not that plants require lights but rather than the order is wrong). Adam and Eve the common ancestors to all humans. The age of the earth and universe (this apply more specifically to YEC). Stars falling on earth. The Tower of Babel.
@@drinjj if you're open to the idea of a transcendent reality but consider Christianity a stumbling block, insofar as the Bible isn't true, then I can perhaps sketch a path forward: 1. Henry Bergson once said something like "the eyes can only see what the mind has words for" 2. Therefore, religious texts, if they have any truth at all in them, must be understood as myths, because if transcendent God exists, any act of his would defy human words. We would, per Bergson, be forced to use the closest relevant archetype that came to mind 3. For example, by way of analogy, all small children have "Boogeyman" in their vocabulary, but few have words for "tricks of light and shadow". So when mom comes in and looks in the closet, it does little to ease the child's mind 4. We have no idea what these religious authors experienced, and the past is, alas, irretrievable 5. So the starting questions shouldn't be "did such and such really happen the way Scripture, Dogma, etc say?". Instead, we should ask, "do the interrelationships between archetypes in these texts add to a deeper understanding of ideal transcendent reality?" and "is there anything in them that could help us progress towards actually living as if we were in that ideal reality?"
Pui Him Ip’s “Origen and Emergence of Divine Simplicity Before Nicaea” is the best I’ve read. It shows that the earliest Christian understanding of divine simplicity was aligned with Middle Platonism of the day and held the Father was the simple, transcendent One who is the source of all. Makes far more sense than the Thomist and Palamite systems that caanot explain transcendence/immanence of God.
Is it my imagination, or is there a marked renewal of interest in Origen and Platonism on Christian YT lately? FWIW, I agree with that stream of thought, and would point to Richard Rohr and Carl Jung as some of the clearest and most accessible modern incarnations of this approach to religion
From what you describe, I see no contradiction with Thomism. But I take it that you're saying that origin was more of a Platonist than an Aristotelian. Aquinas of course was crucial in reintroducing Aristotle to medieval thought.
@@JW_______ I would say a significant difference is a stronger doctrine of Divine Incomprehensibility in Origen. His view tended towards straight up apophaticism (sp?), something Thomists give lip service to, but then subtly lay out doctrine on the God of their imaginations
By every measure of my own human reasoning (which is admittedly very vulnerable to being wrong of course) I lean Protestant on just about every debate. But I have a lot of difficulty dismissing things that I have heard especially about Mary. There's really no way to deny that something appeared to those 3 children at Fatima that claimed to be Mary. 70,000 people saw it and it was only 100 years ago. Either it was Mary or a demon. It encouraged those children to pray the rosary. I heard a Catholic exorcist describing a time where he cast out a demon by forcing it to say a Hail Mary. If the supernatural being at Fatima was in fact a demon disguised as Mary, why would it encourage them to pray a prayer that demons clearly find so repulsive that it can be used to cast them out of possessed people?? I'm struggling with this question a lot. It's pretty much the only reason I am hesitant to dismiss Catholicism.
Calvinism seems to present a "wishful thinking doctrinal dodge" to the God of the Philosophers. The philosophers imagine an abstract realm of perfection which they define as God. Problem is, we exist in a concrete realm of imperfection. And, therefore, "you can't get there from here". Most healthy adults are 100% aware of their shortcomings that would exclude them from citizenship in Perfection, but can't pinpoint exactly what's holding them back. Calvinism takes sneaky advantage of this lack of clarity and pushes the metanarrative of Law on its victims, and easily brings them to their knees. It then lifts its puppet victims back to their feet with the imaginary strings of its "Gospel"--the "bait and switch" metanarrative--to all those who then buy into "predestioned election unto salvation through God-gifted belief in this supposed Gospel". Calvinism thus manufactures a once-and-for-all thought prison of a sacrament out of thin air with this "born again" ritual. It therefore appears Calvin was indeed prophetic of his own religion when he spoke of man as a factory of idols
As one who has been Born Again by God's Holy Spirit: I'm laughing at your verbose statements. I personally believe Molinism is a more accurate way predestination and Free work together. I don't believe God chooses people for hell and others for Heaven. Jesus states the Father must draw people to himself : that's an offer that works with our Free Will. God allows people to reject his leading: so irresistible Grace doesn't work when people harden their hearts against God's call. And the God's offer slowly fades away as we reject coming to Jesus: on the other hand if we accept the leading of God to come to Jesus: then that is can lead to our repentance and God sending His Holy Spirit into Our bodies that become the temple of God . Exactly what happened to me when I asked Jesus to be my LORD and Savior at the age of 6 years old. And experienced a kinesthetic awareness that the Holy Spirit entered my body. And , these arguments on this video just support my reality of my experience with the God of the Bible.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Molinism is certainly an improvement on Calvinism, and Weslyanism on Protestantism. At least they focus on the task at hand: Sanctification, so as to be able to breathe the rarified air of Heaven, as opposed to faith in predestined election unto justification through a single born again experience. Any good snake oil salesman first convinces convinces his targets they have the disease, and so naturally they don't demand a refund after receiving the remedy, lest the disease return
This conversation doesn't have anything to do with Calvinism, except to the extent that Calvinists adhere to the great Christian philosophical tradition of classical theism. FYI, Pat Flynn isn't a Calvinist or even a Banesian Thomist (he's a Maritainian Thomist).
@@JW_______ ooh! I wholeheartedly disagree on this point! Calvinism borrows from philosophy in positing God, but then it goes off on a Calvin-esque tirade against philosophy with lines like "how dare those impious blasphemous sacrilegious schoolmen speculate on the nature of God and the significance of human effort". It stands on the shoulders of giants to spit on them
@LadderOfDescent because it's circular to come to that conclusion. How can I know the church is infallible? Because God said so... how can I know God said so? Because scripture or tradition say so. How can I know that interpretation of scripture or tradition says so? Because the church infallible declares it such, therefore the church is infallible. This appears circular by definition.
If there's one good thing about Calvinism, it's the fact that each echo of it seems to be a less intense and shorter nightmare. First, we had the full on sleep paralysis horrors of Geneva and English Puritanism. Then came the so-so bad dreams of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and the Awakenings (which tended towards Arminianism). Recently we had the goofiness of the dudes with beards and flannels, and now the quaint oddity of seemingly sensitive coffeehouse intellectuals selling the doctrine. Of course, the same full throated witch hunting fervor that ultimately kills each incarnation of Calvinism is also what's required to keep it alive for more than a generation. So I don't expect the soft spoken Truth Unites or Gospel Simplicity version to have much longevity
I disagree about the wisdom of living a life of religious seeking, even if one were or could be 50/50 on the question of God. I don’t go to church, not only because I don’t believe in God and don’t want my kids to believe, at least while they’re children, but also because I’ve got more important things to do with my time.
I’m not complaining about anything. I’m sharing my opinion. I enjoy Gavin’s channel and I like thinking about philosophical ideas. And since I don’t have any friends who will discuss this type of thing with me I have to content myself with commenting on videos that interest me. Granted, it doesn’t usually result in a productive exchange. But as it turns out, I started regularly watching Gavin’s videos after a decent and meaningful exchange with him in the comment section of another channel.
Over 70% of people who become Christians are in the 4/14 window [4 to 14 years old]. "An Introduction to the 4/14 Window" ruclips.net/video/d7AS24VlydM/видео.htmlsi=1golF0VkieeraQok That's not surprising. I imagine it's the same for Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians etc. =)
Tim Mills (Harmonic Atheist) is going through a divorce. He has four kids 9 years old and under. They will soon start attending public school [as they have been home schooled]. He is in need of money for basic necessities & is behind on paying bills. If anybody [theistic or non-theistic] is inclined to help him, that would be much appreciated.
Curious how these arguments all fail as usual. They either can be used by any theist, or there is no evidence to suport them. The moral argument is always the most fun to see fail, since Christian morality is demosntrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can't show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn't have to follow these supposedly "objective" morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little more than might equals right. Fine tuning also fails since there is no evidence for it. Claims that this god somehow "chose" constants is rather amusing since these constants cause the sun to give humans cancer. This god is quite stupid or malicious.
Curious how you didn't respond to most of the arguments they made. Christian's disagreeing on what "list of morals" God wants doesn't equate to "there is no list of morals". I don't think you understand the moral argument. I also don't think you actually understand the fine-tuning argument. I'm not trying to be rude, but if you want to disagree with something you should at least understand it first.
@@IAmDLFL Curious how I have responded to those arguments, but do tell me which one you would like answered in more detail. Christians disagreeing on what morals their imaginary friend wants, and being unable to show their imaginary friend, does indeed show that there is no objective morality. This god could simply say what morals it wants, but alas, all that actually exist I know the moral argument quite well, and it's nice that you can't show that I don't, but have to do the usual Christian gaslighting, hopeing your lies will be accepted. The moral argument for god is based on two presuppositions: 1. objective morality exists. 2. this god is the source. Christians cannot show that their god is required, or exists, and that any of their many many sets of morals are god approved. They have killed each other over this nonsense. There is no evidence any morality is objective, and what morality seems to come from is the empathy and self-interest of human beings. Our morality is subjective and happily can change. You also fail hilariously in showing that I somehow don't understand the fine-tuning argument. Show where I'm wrong, DL. The fine-tuning argument is that a god is needed for life to exist and that eveyrthing must be precisely calibrated for human life, no other. No evidence that this is the case at all.
Loved chatting with you, Gavin, and hope we can do it again.
God bless!
- Pat
So glad to see you on here! Love your channel Pat!
Just bought your book!
Pat's the man
Flynn's the most interesting guest interviewed on Ortlund's Channel thus far. He's somewhere between a 5th century BCE Athenian & Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Hey Pat, I really enjoyed seeing you on Gavin's show. Truly, you always show up so well for these talks. Enthusiastic. Articulate. You are a blessing to have in this weird space of philosophical apologetics on the internet. Cheers, brother. Also, your most recent book is top-tier.
Ortlund outing himself as a fellow Costco enjoyer with the kirkland sparkling water at 0:38
Being a Costco executive member is the hardest flex
We're Costco Guys, of course we watch Gavin!
@@ddhello The chad Gavin Costco enjoyer vs. the virgin Meghan Basham Walmart fan.
Gavin, as a Catholic, I appreciate you deleting the comments of scammers… so many RUclipsrs just leave them up. Also, I make 250K a day blah blah blah 😂
I know! I see that EXACT thing on so many Christian Channels.... so ridiculous
Hallelujah! You are blessed! Who can i contact for- 🤣🤣
It boils my blood how people use the good name of Christ to prey upon the vulnerable and needy. I suppose that's nothing new though.
@@techguy6241Hahaha!
I suggest a Christian organization of your choice that takes care of the less fortunate, ummm...lesser blessed...than you 😁.
TruthUnites: Re-enchanting Reality by the Truth and Joy of the Gospel.
Gavin and Pat together is becoming my new favorite duo when it come to their discussions 👍
Jesus, hear my prayers. I’m holding on to my faith, as a single parent things are hard on me both of my sons are special needs and I’m constantly struggling to provide the basic necessities for them. I’m so ashamed. God hear my prayers. Every month I constantly struggle to pay my bills and struggle to provide groceries for my children. I KEEP FAITH because I know my Lord will save me.❤️💕
Thanks for the conversation! I already own both books 💪😂. I highly recommend.
Love this content! Thank you. Nice compliment to your other recent video - watched it three times. Will be ordering both books.
Thanks for another good one, Gav. My regards to you and yours. Both of the books discussed here are excellent and deserve a place in the library of anybody likely to be reading this comment.
This came out right as I'm reading Pat's book on Kindle! Super valuable resource
Definitely interested in a video on the argument from eternal truths
This was a lively discussion. Thank you as always Gavin.
Please, make a video where you explain in details the terms used in these philosophical arguments, like essence, existence, nature, various types of attributes, identity and energy. I am interested in these topics, but I am too often limited by that I don't know what these terms mean. I have definitions for some terms usually from mathematics, but I notice that how the terms are used in philosophy is incompatible with my definitions.
47:06 Fulfilled prophecy is when God does his own apologetic work.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
The contingent argument from the video. Am interested in what atheists have to say about this as a rebuttal, other than the rebuttal of "I don't know"
For professional atheist philosophers (not Internet ones) I think we're seeing a growing shift towards accepting the PSR but challenging the inference to God in Stage II.
Here is a comment we've made elsewhere that addresses how Atheists have traditionally attacked Contingency arguments that should be helpful:
Firstly, there are many different versions of the Contingency Argument, so what may be an objection to one argument, may apply less to another. Second, different types of objections can be leveled to many of the argument's premises. For example, against some premises, we can offer an undercutting defeater to show that evidence in support of a particular premise of the argument is not sufficient for the inference in question. We can also provide a rebutting defeater, which shows that we have overriding reasons for rejecting a premise of a particular argument. Finally, the Contingency Arguments are often arrayed in two sages (see William Rowe's The Cosmological Argument (1998) for a good discussion). So, there can be different objections to the various stages.
With that in mind, we can now outline some objections to the argument:
I. We can directly attack the conclusion of the argument by offering reasons for thinking that a personal metaphysically necessary personal being is not metaphysically possible (see the discussion in J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism, Richard Gale's On the Nature and Existence of God and J.H. Sobel's Logic and Theism).
II. The lynchpin of Contingency Arguments is their reliance on a Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). We can offer undercutting defeaters to the PSR by showing that the arguments for the PSR are false (see Mackie's text above). We can offer rebutting defeaters to the PSR by showing that the PSR leads to modal collapse and that any contingency is ultimately going to lead to brute contingency (which is incompatible with the PSR; see Sobel's text and Rowe's text here).
III. We can offer an alternative theory that provides a more explanatory and simpler view of reality than the conclusion of the Contingency argument, which forces us to accept a less lean ontology. This is Graham Oppy's approach, which Kenny Pearce outlines very well here:
"Causal versions of the argument from contingency turn on a particular view about the causal structure of reality: they say that there is a non-physical (divine) cause that precedes all physical causes, and that this generates an explanatory advantage for the theist. This argument fails, as Graham Oppy convincingly argues, because whatever causal structure for the universe is supposed by the theist can be replicated by the naturalist (Oppy 2013). The naturalistic philosopher has wide latitude here, since there are many different live models in physical cosmology which exhibit different causal structures. To prefer one live physical hypothesis over another is not to go beyond natural science in the way the naturalist finds objectionable. Thus if the free action of God is supposed to be the indeterministic action of a necessary being, the naturalist is free to propose that the universe had an initial state which was itself necessary and indeterministically caused the organized cosmos we experience. If the theist introduces an infinite causal chain (perhaps of divine thoughts), the naturalist can introduce an infinite chain of earlier states of the universe (or parent universes). Finally, if the theist proposes an initial contingent being (rejecting divine necessity), the naturalist is free to accept an initial contingent state of the universe. Whatever advantage the theistic model is supposed to have will also be had by at least some physical models and therefore (at least as long as these models continue to be live options within physics) can be had within the confines of naturalism.
Nor does it help to point out that God is supposed to be a necessary being, and no physical entity is necessary, for God’s alleged necessity must be either transparent or opaque. (That is, either we can see why God is necessary or we can’t.) If the argument depends on transparent necessity, then the argument from contingency can be introduced only after a successful ontological argument (see Kant [1781] 1998, A606/B634-A612/B640).4 If the argument from contingency is to stand alone, then God’s necessity must be opaque. That is, the argument should give us reason to believe that a necessary being (God) exists, although we do not (yet) understand why the existence of this being is necessary.5 However, if this is the theist’s position, then the naturalist is free to claim that some relevant part of physical reality possesses opaque necessity."
IV. We can explain contingency by adopting a theory as Bede Rundle does in his book Why there is Something rather than Nothing, where we say that the idea of ontological nothingness is metaphysically impossible; that is to say, it is metaphysically necessary that some contingent entity or so exist. This way, we can explain contingency without appealing to a necessary being. As William Rowe says: "We know that although no horse in a given horse race necessarily will be the winner, it is, nevertheless, necessary that some horse in the race will be the winner."
V. We can offer another theory where all non-initial or non-fundamental items have a contingent explanation, but the initial items don't. Here is a review of this objection from pg. 63 of Josh Rasmussen's and Alex Pruss's Necessary Existence:
There are ways to account for the apparent instances of explanation in our world without appealing to any explanatory principle that implies the existence of a necessary foundation (Oppy 1999). So, for example, perhaps all non-fundamental contingent things have an explanation, while fundamental contingent things do not.25 Maybe fundamental contingent things cannot be brought into existence via assembly because they lack proper parts that are separable. The basic elements may be point particles or fields, which cannot be built from more basic elements. We may say, then, that compound objects are explained by the activities of pre-existing materials. But non-compound materials can’t be explained that way, since they aren’t made up from any pre-existing materials. So, perhaps the divide between the explained and the unexplained coincides with the divide between the compound and the non-compound. This hypothesis is fully compatible with our experience. And it stops short of requiring that every contingent thing requires an explanation for its existence.
VI. Many of the above arguments attack Stage I of the arguments; we can also attack Stage II by showing that a Naturalist can accept a metaphysically necessity entity that is nonetheless compatible with Naturalism and Atheism. I would point you to the work of Quentin Smith and Graham Oppy on this front.
That is an extremely brief summary, and there are other objections that can be offered, but hopefully, this should give you a sense of some of our objections. I hope this helps.
@@amu7379 I'm not so sure about this. Oppy, Rowe, Mackie, Sobel, Gale, Draper, and others have all rejected the PSR and have offered arguments against the possibility of a metaphysically necessary being. Not to mention there are much weaker principles of the PSR that can be accepted that don't entail the inference of a necessary entity.
@@RealAtheology very well researched, and believe me when i say that i do appreciate everything you commented here, but there is a flaw to all you have said, and this is where you see my playful side. You see, it seems that most of what you have said has gone passed my head, or else it is not in my interest, try as i may, to think about things to such a degree that it would so hurt my brain, so please, if you could be so inclined, to bear with my inadequacies. For the way that i see things, the true genius is in making the hard to understand simple for all to grasp; but that's just me. This may ask too much from you, but you wouldn't have a simple "take for instance", or an elementary "take for example" to each of your objections, now would you? If not, and all these formulations cannot be actualized to real world situations, and regardless of all this, thank you for your reply, and your patience and decency of it
Once you accept the possibility of theism or some entity out there that created everything in our universe, reasoning to Christianity is not difficult. Only a few religions have a being that is outside of the creation. Most other mythologies have the gods as being children of other beings and the world being created out of the slain bodies of their parents or whatever. They are just like us, they just have special powers. Only the Abrahamic religions really have a being that is the all in all. Apparently, ancient China had Shang Ti which was essentially The Most High. I think if we go back far enough monotheism was the norm and entropy brought it down to polytheism then do non-theism.
Actually, getting to christianity is the hardest part to me. There are multiple claims in the bible which contradict what we observe in reality.
@@drinjj that's not actually true, your perspective is just limited. I assume you're talking about like The Resurrection and how we don't see people coming back to life.
@@drinjjany examples you want to share? Thank you
@@joeinterrante7873 Sure! The first obvious one is global flood.
Then there's in genesis 1, god created light after plants (my issue is not that plants require lights but rather than the order is wrong).
Adam and Eve the common ancestors to all humans.
The age of the earth and universe (this apply more specifically to YEC).
Stars falling on earth.
The Tower of Babel.
@@drinjj if you're open to the idea of a transcendent reality but consider Christianity a stumbling block, insofar as the Bible isn't true, then I can perhaps sketch a path forward:
1. Henry Bergson once said something like "the eyes can only see what the mind has words for"
2. Therefore, religious texts, if they have any truth at all in them, must be understood as myths, because if transcendent God exists, any act of his would defy human words. We would, per Bergson, be forced to use the closest relevant archetype that came to mind
3. For example, by way of analogy, all small children have "Boogeyman" in their vocabulary, but few have words for "tricks of light and shadow". So when mom comes in and looks in the closet, it does little to ease the child's mind
4. We have no idea what these religious authors experienced, and the past is, alas, irretrievable
5. So the starting questions shouldn't be "did such and such really happen the way Scripture, Dogma, etc say?". Instead, we should ask, "do the interrelationships between archetypes in these texts add to a deeper understanding of ideal transcendent reality?" and "is there anything in them that could help us progress towards actually living as if we were in that ideal reality?"
Pui Him Ip’s “Origen and Emergence of Divine Simplicity Before Nicaea” is the best I’ve read. It shows that the earliest Christian understanding of divine simplicity was aligned with Middle Platonism of the day and held the Father was the simple, transcendent One who is the source of all. Makes far more sense than the Thomist and Palamite systems that caanot explain transcendence/immanence of God.
Is it my imagination, or is there a marked renewal of interest in Origen and Platonism on Christian YT lately? FWIW, I agree with that stream of thought, and would point to Richard Rohr and Carl Jung as some of the clearest and most accessible modern incarnations of this approach to religion
From what you describe, I see no contradiction with Thomism. But I take it that you're saying that origin was more of a Platonist than an Aristotelian. Aquinas of course was crucial in reintroducing Aristotle to medieval thought.
@@JW_______ I would say a significant difference is a stronger doctrine of Divine Incomprehensibility in Origen. His view tended towards straight up apophaticism (sp?), something Thomists give lip service to, but then subtly lay out doctrine on the God of their imaginations
By every measure of my own human reasoning (which is admittedly very vulnerable to being wrong of course) I lean Protestant on just about every debate. But I have a lot of difficulty dismissing things that I have heard especially about Mary. There's really no way to deny that something appeared to those 3 children at Fatima that claimed to be Mary. 70,000 people saw it and it was only 100 years ago. Either it was Mary or a demon. It encouraged those children to pray the rosary. I heard a Catholic exorcist describing a time where he cast out a demon by forcing it to say a Hail Mary. If the supernatural being at Fatima was in fact a demon disguised as Mary, why would it encourage them to pray a prayer that demons clearly find so repulsive that it can be used to cast them out of possessed people?? I'm struggling with this question a lot. It's pretty much the only reason I am hesitant to dismiss Catholicism.
Please tell me this video goes over the de ente argument
It does! But it is not called by name.
Way over my head ...😮
Calvinism seems to present a "wishful thinking doctrinal dodge" to the God of the Philosophers. The philosophers imagine an abstract realm of perfection which they define as God. Problem is, we exist in a concrete realm of imperfection. And, therefore, "you can't get there from here". Most healthy adults are 100% aware of their shortcomings that would exclude them from citizenship in Perfection, but can't pinpoint exactly what's holding them back. Calvinism takes sneaky advantage of this lack of clarity and pushes the metanarrative of Law on its victims, and easily brings them to their knees. It then lifts its puppet victims back to their feet with the imaginary strings of its "Gospel"--the "bait and switch" metanarrative--to all those who then buy into "predestioned election unto salvation through God-gifted belief in this supposed Gospel". Calvinism thus manufactures a once-and-for-all thought prison of a sacrament out of thin air with this "born again" ritual. It therefore appears Calvin was indeed prophetic of his own religion when he spoke of man as a factory of idols
As one who has been Born Again by God's Holy Spirit: I'm laughing at your verbose statements.
I personally believe Molinism is a more accurate way predestination and Free work together.
I don't believe God chooses people for hell and others for Heaven.
Jesus states the Father must draw people to himself : that's an offer that works with our Free Will.
God allows people to reject his leading: so irresistible Grace doesn't work when people harden their hearts against God's call.
And the God's offer slowly fades away as we reject coming to Jesus: on the other hand if we accept the leading of God to come to Jesus: then that is can lead to our repentance and God sending His Holy Spirit into Our bodies that become the temple of God .
Exactly what happened to me when I asked Jesus to be my LORD and Savior at the age of 6 years old.
And experienced a kinesthetic awareness that the Holy Spirit entered my body.
And , these arguments on this video just support my reality of my experience with the God of the Bible.
Yap city
@@davidjanbaz7728 Molinism is certainly an improvement on Calvinism, and Weslyanism on Protestantism. At least they focus on the task at hand: Sanctification, so as to be able to breathe the rarified air of Heaven, as opposed to faith in predestined election unto justification through a single born again experience. Any good snake oil salesman first convinces convinces his targets they have the disease, and so naturally they don't demand a refund after receiving the remedy, lest the disease return
This conversation doesn't have anything to do with Calvinism, except to the extent that Calvinists adhere to the great Christian philosophical tradition of classical theism. FYI, Pat Flynn isn't a Calvinist or even a Banesian Thomist (he's a Maritainian Thomist).
@@JW_______ ooh! I wholeheartedly disagree on this point! Calvinism borrows from philosophy in positing God, but then it goes off on a Calvin-esque tirade against philosophy with lines like "how dare those impious blasphemous sacrilegious schoolmen speculate on the nature of God and the significance of human effort". It stands on the shoulders of giants to spit on them
Protestantism is a later accretion. I just don’t see the historical evidence for it
That's fair. I don't see that, however I see church infallible to be an accretion. Want to talk about it?
It would appear he does not want to talk about it
@@kylecityy Sure, why do you think the church is not infallible?
@LadderOfDescent because it's circular to come to that conclusion.
How can I know the church is infallible? Because God said so... how can I know God said so? Because scripture or tradition say so. How can I know that interpretation of scripture or tradition says so? Because the church infallible declares it such, therefore the church is infallible. This appears circular by definition.
@@kylecityy To be fair, everyone’s epistemology is circular at some point. If you are Protestant it’s circular within….sola scriptura.
If there's one good thing about Calvinism, it's the fact that each echo of it seems to be a less intense and shorter nightmare. First, we had the full on sleep paralysis horrors of Geneva and English Puritanism. Then came the so-so bad dreams of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and the Awakenings (which tended towards Arminianism). Recently we had the goofiness of the dudes with beards and flannels, and now the quaint oddity of seemingly sensitive coffeehouse intellectuals selling the doctrine. Of course, the same full throated witch hunting fervor that ultimately kills each incarnation of Calvinism is also what's required to keep it alive for more than a generation. So I don't expect the soft spoken Truth Unites or Gospel Simplicity version to have much longevity
Have not seen anyone mention a Jonathan Edwards essay in a long time! That should be a Jeopardy Question >>> I'll take Calvinism for $1,000.....
Why rely on arguments and not evidence?
I disagree about the wisdom of living a life of religious seeking, even if one were or could be 50/50 on the question of God. I don’t go to church, not only because I don’t believe in God and don’t want my kids to believe, at least while they’re children, but also because I’ve got more important things to do with my time.
Better things like complaining on Christian RUclips channels?
I’m not complaining about anything. I’m sharing my opinion. I enjoy Gavin’s channel and I like thinking about philosophical ideas. And since I don’t have any friends who will discuss this type of thing with me I have to content myself with commenting on videos that interest me. Granted, it doesn’t usually result in a productive exchange. But as it turns out, I started regularly watching Gavin’s videos after a decent and meaningful exchange with him in the comment section of another channel.
Over 70% of people who become Christians are in the 4/14 window [4 to 14 years old].
"An Introduction to the 4/14 Window"
ruclips.net/video/d7AS24VlydM/видео.htmlsi=1golF0VkieeraQok
That's not surprising. I imagine it's the same for Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians etc. =)
Thank you for watching and sharing this sentiment with Gavin's audience.
Tim Mills (Harmonic Atheist) is going through a divorce. He has four kids 9 years old and under. They will soon start attending public school [as they have been home schooled]. He is in need of money for basic necessities & is behind on paying bills. If anybody [theistic or non-theistic] is inclined to help him, that would be much appreciated.
Curious how these arguments all fail as usual. They either can be used by any theist, or there is no evidence to suport them. The moral argument is always the most fun to see fail, since Christian morality is demosntrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can't show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them.
They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn't have to follow these supposedly "objective" morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little more than might equals right.
Fine tuning also fails since there is no evidence for it. Claims that this god somehow "chose" constants is rather amusing since these constants cause the sun to give humans cancer. This god is quite stupid or malicious.
Curious how you didn't respond to most of the arguments they made. Christian's disagreeing on what "list of morals" God wants doesn't equate to "there is no list of morals". I don't think you understand the moral argument. I also don't think you actually understand the fine-tuning argument. I'm not trying to be rude, but if you want to disagree with something you should at least understand it first.
@@IAmDLFL Curious how I have responded to those arguments, but do tell me which one you would like answered in more detail.
Christians disagreeing on what morals their imaginary friend wants, and being unable to show their imaginary friend, does indeed show that there is no objective morality. This god could simply say what morals it wants, but alas, all that actually exist
I know the moral argument quite well, and it's nice that you can't show that I don't, but have to do the usual Christian gaslighting, hopeing your lies will be accepted. The moral argument for god is based on two presuppositions: 1. objective morality exists. 2. this god is the source. Christians cannot show that their god is required, or exists, and that any of their many many sets of morals are god approved. They have killed each other over this nonsense.
There is no evidence any morality is objective, and what morality seems to come from is the empathy and self-interest of human beings. Our morality is subjective and happily can change.
You also fail hilariously in showing that I somehow don't understand the fine-tuning argument. Show where I'm wrong, DL. The fine-tuning argument is that a god is needed for life to exist and that eveyrthing must be precisely calibrated for human life, no other. No evidence that this is the case at all.
@@velkyn1*sigh* This is why we can’t have nice things.
@@velkyn1Why don’t you write a lengthy script, then make a RUclips video out of it, and tag Pat in the title ? I think that’s a good idea.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns why would I bother? Pat knows where I am right here.