11 Questions for Gaven Kerr on God & Thomism
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 07. 2024
- 00:00:00 - Start
00:00:53 - Gaven, the Kung Fu Thomist
00:02:20 - Gaven on Conor McGregor
00:04:36 - Could Gaven beat McGregor?
00:05:51 - Can atheists rationally deny proofs for God? (Benjamin David Stowell)
00:19:23 - Strongest Objections to Thomism? (Alex Hening)
00:26:09 - Why is the De Ente Argument better than the Ontological Argument? (Mark Olivero)
00:34:16 - Immaterial God, Material Creation? (Patric Peters)
00:42:22 - Does God's knowledge change with creation? (John Michael)
00:51:43 - Aquinas philosophizing about existence? (Mika Pianist)
00:56:21 - Thomistic Epistemology: Externalism + Reliabilism? (Pat Flynn)
01:01:50 - Good Creator, Erroneous Creatures?
01:08:44 - Accidents, Esse, and Transubstantiation (N Hunter Olson)
01:13:20 - Angels and Accidental Changes (Callum Savage)
01:18:50 - Subsistent + Immaterial = Intellect? (Thurston Shaylor)
01:21:29 - Transcendentals (Andrew Joseph Villalobos)
01:29:58 - Gaven's New Books
Patreon: / intellectualconservatism
Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Podcast: intellectualconservatism.libs...
Facebook page: / intellectualconservatism
The purpose of Intellectual Conservatism is to defend the true, good and beautiful things of life that are jeopardized in mainstream academia and society. On this page, you will find artwork, music, satire, academic papers, lectures and my own projects defending the duty of conserving these true, good and beautiful things.
Came here for the philosophy, stayed for the accent! LOL ;)
What a great line-up of questions and answers! Thanks, Suan, for putting this together. And thanks to Dr. Gaven Kerr for answering the fascinating list of questions. I look forward to listening to the whole thing.
Great job. Great set of questions.
I greatly appreciated that explanation regarding the transcendentals. And yes, the transcendentals are a smaller part of Aquinas' thought. It seems that Aertsen may have over-emphasized the transcendental. All of this just shows the diversity of thought and interpretation going on among the Thomists.
30:02 Wow! It's one of our friend Joe's favorite phrases.
Lol. I had exactly the same thought.
01:21:29 - It is my firm belief that phenomenal consciousness is a transcendental. I wonder if any Thomist has ever taken this position.
I don’t see how consciousness can be a transcendental. Consciousness on a Thomistic view is dependent on sense organs, so it seems to be material. But material things can’t be transcendent. It’d follow then that consciousness cannot be transcendent.
@@appliedvirtue7731 Just because consciousness perceives sense objects does not mean it is material. When you study the arguments of the schools that have focused on consciousness (Advaita Vedanta for example), you realise that there seems to be an identity between consciousness and being. To be is always to perceive or be perceived. The Ipsum Esse being precisely the Supreme Consciousness (God is spirit). As the vedantins say: satcitananda: being-consciousness-bliss.
@@____-oc1bl That relation between intellect and being is why truth is a transcendental.
Hello Suan , do you have an email or way to contact you?
suan@ksu.edu
wow!! thanks for this interview. I still can't shake the feeling that if there is a proof of P, then that means if you walk someone through that proof and that person has sufficient intelligence/rationality to grasp all concepts involved and accept all real entailments, then necessarily that person will believe P. If someone doesn't believe P, either they were not walked through the proof (they are ignorant in this instance) or fail to grasp it (they are stupid/irrational in this instance)
Would Gaven say there are or could be demonstrations of the non-existence of God, and theists are rational for not accepting those? If there are proofs both for and against God, does that trivialize the notion of proof?
I'm going to state my opinion and say that yes, it does trivialize the use of proofs. A lot of the premises to almost all of the arguments are not demonstrable, but seem fundamental alternatives to one another. They can't both be true, but they also can't be demonstrated. The "most reasonable" position would be to stick with what we observe, and since most people haven't observed God, most people shouldn't believe in God. But that runs into Hume's whole problem that destroyed the basis of a lot of knowledge and experience.
@@educationalporpoises9592 the problem with that is that we can argue that observation leads to these conclusions: things which began to exist have outside causes of their existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe had an outside cause. What kind of cause could that be? Not a natural cause because natural causes don't yet exist. Of course this is just a very brief sketch and there can be a lot of back and forth, but I hardly see much engagement from online atheists with the work of Joshua Rasmussen, Alex Pruss, Rob Koons, etc. Suffice to say that for some scholars God can be observed via the power of reason.
@@bds8715 I think there's a few problems with assuming the causal premise of the Kalam, since what we observe technically preceded our ability to perceive it coming into existence. That is, insofar as our observations suggest, we can only say that what we observe is a rearrangement of prior states of matter. The question is whether or not this has always been the case, and I would say that if someone wants to insist on only observations, they'd have to say yes. But you and I would probably agree that there seem to be some large problems with implying that matter has always existed.
I think the only people I see engaging Pruss, Koons, and Rasmussen are Oppy and Alex Malpass. I dunno if Malpass addresses Thomism in its totality though. He seems to mainly address infinite and TAGs. Oppy has talked with Ed Feser but again, I'm not sure if he engages Thomists much.
What are good intro books on Aquinas? Sadly Kerr's book requires me to give an arm.
Fesers books are cheaper
@@callums6570 cool.
@@YovanypadillaJr garrigou lagrange synthesis on thomism is good and not as expensive, another is joseph owens an elementary on metaphysics
@@mauriciorocha5360 thanks man
Which books of his are super beginner friendly?
@@YovanypadillaJr get Feser's "Aquinas", it's very beginner friendly