@@bakari60 same here...David Bentley Hart and Feser does put in solid reasons to be a classical theist but none of their responses are satisfactory for Mackie's problem of evil to be solved.
@@bakari60 you might take a look at Dr. Eleonore Stump's treatment of the problem of suffering. She is a Thomist, like Feser, and presents a defense for the problem of suffering. The book is called Wandering In Darkness. Her approach was incredibly illuminating for me, and I've read quite a bit in this area. You may find her "second-person narrative" approach more inviting than the typical Plantinga-style "free will defense." Like you, Feser is my favorite philosopher because of his writing style and sharp mind.
@@bakari60 or, here is a lecture she gives on the book. Its worth a look if you're interested in solving the problem of evil. czcams.com/video/qEPzp7-kmJ0/video.html
I could listen to Dr. Feser all day. He has helped me so much, in that he speaks clearly and firmly and helps me understand classic theistic philosophy.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Please explain how the spirit proceeding from the father AND the son removes the father as the ultimate causal principal. And I've never seen anyone but E-Orthodox and angry protestants talk smack about the filioque, so obviously I'm going to assume you're one of those. And I'm not a sedevacantist, so I don't care about your opinion on that particular monastery.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Wait a minute, you are not orthodox, but talk smack about the filioque as being heresy, and send me to read Palamas? tell me the truth. You're an E- Orthobro aren't you? you're saying you're not protestant, orthodox, sede, and by your treatment of the filoque as heresy not catholic. So you're either lying, or an irreligious which is overly concerned with religion. Also lmao, at the 'go read the book', why don't you instead explain it with your own words, unless you're just full of rhetoric and bullshit. I can easily say 'go read more theology on the doctrine', and it'll save me actually having to argue. Which is a cheap copout.
I'm a big fan of Dr. Feser for his clarity as a principal exponent of these arguments, even as I demur about some of them... It seems perhaps an unnecessary medieval mystification to say things in existence require an ontological hierarchical chain of supporting entities up to the First Mover (speaking hierarchically and not sequentially). I am not exactly sure why things in existence require other things to sustain them in existence, though I probably need to reread that part of his argument again. There is also the problem of the quantum foam, which I continue to think gainsays his main argument that only God could be the pure essence that exists, the uncaused actualizer. So too could the quantum foam be.
Dr. Feser's talk was edifying. I would caution that a play on words about God being hard to understand because He's so simple can tend toward irreverence by making you laugh in such proximity to thoughts about the divine being. "With God is terrible majesty," and "Who knows the power of Your anger?"
can there be a distinction between God’s essence (=existence) and his energies, as the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe? They also apparently affirm the doctrine of divine simplicity; I would presume that this is because God’s energies come from God-but are not a “part” of Him, they are of Him.
I'm not sure. Saint Gregory Palamas was affirming both divine simplicity and the distinction, but I never really understood the full reasoning behind it, only the general motive
@JL-CptAtom Could you explain the position of the Latin Church and how St Basil contradicts it? I don't remember any Dogma or Doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity in the Latin Church. To me it has always been a Thomistic theological opinion, as the Franciscans have a version of Simplicity similar to the Orthodox
Check this catholic guy out! czcams.com/video/Jcafuc_zoQU/video.html EDIT: I just saw that the guy above posted the exact same link lol. Anyways it’s a great video so check it out
It is beyond my capability to understand how a purely actual being with no potentialities can DO anything. Such a being has no potential to create or sustain a universe, answer prayers, perform miracles, etc. Such a being would be completely inert. Indeed, Feser argues that God is immutable. But how can an immutable (i.e., changeless) being be the cause (i.e., actualizer) of anything? I would be grateful if someone could help me comprehend this seemingly incomprehensible mystery.
You need to distinguish between active and passive powers. When you refer to God having the 'potential to do' anything, you are designating an active power on God's part; a power to bring about an effect. It is not a 'potential' in the sense of an ability to be effected or acted on by another. A power, in general, is a kind of actuality rather than potentiality (even though in created things it is a potentiality relative to the activity it underlies). God can, then, create and cause without actualising any potentials in Himself. Thus the answer to your question.
@@ob4161 to me, your last sentence makes way more sense if one word gets changed…“God can, then, create and cause BY actualizing any potentials in Himself” Similar to the OP, the term “Pure Actuality” was driving me crazy when I read Fesser’s book. I kept replacing the term (whenever he used it) with “Self Actualizing.” As the OP said, I too kept picturing an inert God “Stuck Frozen” in an actualized state with how things are worded (purely actual). But “Self Actualizing” makes sense to me…and this God would be self actualizing His Potentialities. If I was walking, and if I was a self sustaining eternal entity who didn’t contingently rely on anything to cause my effects…then every single time I place my back leg in front of my front leg I would be self actualizing my leg’s potentiality to step forward. That wording makes sense to me. But to refer to me as “Frozen in an actuality state” makes me imagine “Actualizing” my right leg in front of my left…and that’s it, I’m eternally frozen there since I’m “100% Purely Actual!!” Because change/motion is a constant back & forth process of potentiality to actuality…there’s no back & forth whatsoever if you either ONLY have potentiality, or if you ONLY have actuality. Lol that’s why the wording (purely actual) was driving me crazy 😜
If God is the purely actualized actualizer , where are the potentials that he is actualizing? Essentially what you'd have is the actual actualizer and then this endless sea of potentials that he chooses to actualize from. But that's a picture of God that seems either dualistic or just not congruent with how he's traditionally concieved. If you want to move the infinite potential into God, you lose the ability to say that God is a "purely actual" actualizer because that would contradict it. Another objection is how can a purely actual actualize actualize anything if there is no change within him? If you want to say God is timeless and therefore all the actualiztions already exist within him eternally, then you 1- get into a fully hard deterministic universe with no human free will 2- deny divine free will and 3- forfeit any explanation for why there is a passage of time in the first place, because all the actualizations must happen simultaneously, you'd get into this weird eastern idea that the passage of time is just illusory.
If the existence of God is identical to His essence, doesn't this collapse the Trinity into one divine hypostasis? The Father is not The Son, and neither The Father nor The Son are The Holy Spirit. But, doesn't this also entail that the existence of The Father is not the existence of The Son, and that neither of these existences are the existence of The Holy Spirit? (seeing as how the distinction between essence and existence is precisely on the level of hypostasis e.g. Peter and Paul are both humans according to essence but separate entities according to hypostasis; therefore, their existences are distinct from their essences) And, if the existence of The Father is not the existence of The Son, and neither of their existences are the existence of The Holy Spirit, BUT all three existences precisely ARE identical with the One Divine Essence, doesn't this entail a flat-out logical contradiction? It's like saying "Father is not Son is not Spirit=Father is Son is Spirit."
"Now distinction in God is only by relation of origin, as stated above (I:28:2 and I:28:3), while relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent, for the divine essence subsists." - St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Q. 29, A. 4. www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm Since everything (including the Divine Persons) about God IS his divine essence - then I don't see any issues here.
Wouldn't Divine Simplicity go against the Biblical God? if I understand correctly, Divine Simplicity implies a "generic" God, the same way Muslims and Jews believe. How do we reconcile that definition with the personal biblical God? that's my only problem with Divine Simplicity; it seems to make the unique, personal biblical God into something generic and more open to syncretisms.
You've understood incorrectly. Divine Simplicity is nothing else than God is not made out of parts. As something composite must be caused by something else, God can not be composite.
I went to this talk in person when I went to SCS. Pray for Seminarians.
my favourite philosopher. I am not theist, but his books are amazing.
Why aren't you a theist?
because, problem of suffering
@@bakari60 same here...David Bentley Hart and Feser does put in solid reasons to be a classical theist but none of their responses are satisfactory for Mackie's problem of evil to be solved.
@@bakari60 you might take a look at Dr. Eleonore Stump's treatment of the problem of suffering. She is a Thomist, like Feser, and presents a defense for the problem of suffering. The book is called Wandering In Darkness. Her approach was incredibly illuminating for me, and I've read quite a bit in this area. You may find her "second-person narrative" approach more inviting than the typical Plantinga-style "free will defense." Like you, Feser is my favorite philosopher because of his writing style and sharp mind.
@@bakari60 or, here is a lecture she gives on the book. Its worth a look if you're interested in solving the problem of evil. czcams.com/video/qEPzp7-kmJ0/video.html
I could listen to Dr. Feser all day. He has helped me so much, in that he speaks clearly and firmly and helps me understand classic theistic philosophy.
"In" suggests parts when Dr. Feser says that in God, there's something analogous to what we call "power."
Great lecture, enjoyed it. Also, might be the best book plug i ever heard :D Genuinely laughed.
Set your phasers on fun!
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese crazy protestant detected. The pope is the anti Christ, the Vatican is Babylon, they're pagans, blah blah blah, right?
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese found the orthodog
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese let me keep guessing... Sede?
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Please explain how the spirit proceeding from the father AND the son removes the father as the ultimate causal principal. And I've never seen anyone but E-Orthodox and angry protestants talk smack about the filioque, so obviously I'm going to assume you're one of those. And I'm not a sedevacantist, so I don't care about your opinion on that particular monastery.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Wait a minute, you are not orthodox, but talk smack about the filioque as being heresy, and send me to read Palamas? tell me the truth. You're an E- Orthobro aren't you? you're saying you're not protestant, orthodox, sede, and by your treatment of the filoque as heresy not catholic. So you're either lying, or an irreligious which is overly concerned with religion. Also lmao, at the 'go read the book', why don't you instead explain it with your own words, unless you're just full of rhetoric and bullshit. I can easily say 'go read more theology on the doctrine', and it'll save me actually having to argue. Which is a cheap copout.
Excellent work
The existence of a thing is the fact that it exists? If that's true, it doesn't tell me what existence is in itself.
I'm a big fan of Dr. Feser for his clarity as a principal exponent of these arguments, even as I demur about some of them...
It seems perhaps an unnecessary medieval mystification to say things in existence require an ontological hierarchical chain of supporting entities up to the First Mover (speaking hierarchically and not sequentially). I am not exactly sure why things in existence require other things to sustain them in existence, though I probably need to reread that part of his argument again.
There is also the problem of the quantum foam, which I continue to think gainsays his main argument that only God could be the pure essence that exists, the uncaused actualizer. So too could the quantum foam be.
Could you please post the q & a ?
Reminds me of those Paul spoke to who liked getting their “ears tickled”.
Set your Feser to fun
10:30 so then how do you get the trinity if God is pure existence and no essence?
43:06
Why no Q&A 🤔🤔🤔. Good talk though.
Dr. Feser's talk was edifying. I would caution that a play on words about God being hard to understand because He's so simple can tend toward irreverence by making you laugh in such proximity to thoughts about the divine being. "With God is terrible majesty," and "Who knows the power of Your anger?"
I don’t understand how that’s not accurate. Simple things are naturally difficult to understand, like Mozartian melodies.
You sound like Jorge from The Name of the Rose
2:52
27:00
can there be a distinction between God’s essence (=existence) and his energies, as the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe? They also apparently affirm the doctrine of divine simplicity; I would presume that this is because God’s energies come from God-but are not a “part” of Him, they are of Him.
vaticancatholic.com for the truth
I'm not sure. Saint Gregory Palamas was affirming both divine simplicity and the distinction, but I never really understood the full reasoning behind it, only the general motive
Palamas taught that the essence of God infinitely transcends the energies, and His Essence could therefore fully subsist in all his energies
@JL-CptAtom What I stated was mentioned in the triads by Palamas quoting Maximos
@JL-CptAtom Could you explain the position of the Latin Church and how St Basil contradicts it? I don't remember any Dogma or Doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity in the Latin Church. To me it has always been a Thomistic theological opinion, as the Franciscans have a version of Simplicity similar to the Orthodox
Anyone know or wanna link me to an explanation of how Divine Simplicity and the Holy Trinity are compatible?
Jong Lee
Here is something short:
czcams.com/video/Jcafuc_zoQU/video.html
Check this catholic guy out!
czcams.com/video/Jcafuc_zoQU/video.html
EDIT: I just saw that the guy above posted the exact same link lol. Anyways it’s a great video so check it out
@@ijp7578 haha I was going to reply with CT
Tl;dr they're not
Doesn't the "simplicity" refer to God's *essence*, not necessarily His *nature/person* ?
It is beyond my capability to understand how a purely actual being with no potentialities can DO anything. Such a being has no potential to create or sustain a universe, answer prayers, perform miracles, etc. Such a being would be completely inert. Indeed, Feser argues that God is immutable. But how can an immutable (i.e., changeless) being be the cause (i.e., actualizer) of anything? I would be grateful if someone could help me comprehend this seemingly incomprehensible mystery.
Eastern Orthodoxy claims to have an answer - essence and energy distinction. Jay Dyer has a lot of videos on this topic
You need to distinguish between active and passive powers. When you refer to God having the 'potential to do' anything, you are designating an active power on God's part; a power to bring about an effect. It is not a 'potential' in the sense of an ability to be effected or acted on by another. A power, in general, is a kind of actuality rather than potentiality (even though in created things it is a potentiality relative to the activity it underlies). God can, then, create and cause without actualising any potentials in Himself. Thus the answer to your question.
@@ob4161 to me, your last sentence makes way more sense if one word gets changed…“God can, then, create and cause BY actualizing any potentials in Himself”
Similar to the OP, the term “Pure Actuality” was driving me crazy when I read Fesser’s book. I kept replacing the term (whenever he used it) with “Self Actualizing.” As the OP said, I too kept picturing an inert God “Stuck Frozen” in an actualized state with how things are worded (purely actual). But “Self Actualizing” makes sense to me…and this God would be self actualizing His Potentialities.
If I was walking, and if I was a self sustaining eternal entity who didn’t contingently rely on anything to cause my effects…then every single time I place my back leg in front of my front leg I would be self actualizing my leg’s potentiality to step forward. That wording makes sense to me. But to refer to me as “Frozen in an actuality state” makes me imagine “Actualizing” my right leg in front of my left…and that’s it, I’m eternally frozen there since I’m “100% Purely Actual!!” Because change/motion is a constant back & forth process of potentiality to actuality…there’s no back & forth whatsoever if you either ONLY have potentiality, or if you ONLY have actuality. Lol that’s why the wording (purely actual) was driving me crazy 😜
If God is the purely actualized actualizer , where are the potentials that he is actualizing?
Essentially what you'd have is the actual actualizer and then this endless sea of potentials that he chooses to actualize from. But that's a picture of God that seems either dualistic or just not congruent with how he's traditionally concieved.
If you want to move the infinite potential into God, you lose the ability to say that God is a "purely actual" actualizer because that would contradict it.
Another objection is how can a purely actual actualize actualize anything if there is no change within him? If you want to say God is timeless and therefore all the actualiztions already exist within him eternally, then you 1- get into a fully hard deterministic universe with no human free will 2- deny divine free will and 3- forfeit any explanation for why there is a passage of time in the first place, because all the actualizations must happen simultaneously, you'd get into this weird eastern idea that the passage of time is just illusory.
His intellect contains all possible worlds. He chose one.
If the existence of God is identical to His essence, doesn't this collapse the Trinity into one divine hypostasis? The Father is not The Son, and neither The Father nor The Son are The Holy Spirit. But, doesn't this also entail that the existence of The Father is not the existence of The Son, and that neither of these existences are the existence of The Holy Spirit? (seeing as how the distinction between essence and existence is precisely on the level of hypostasis e.g. Peter and Paul are both humans according to essence but separate entities according to hypostasis; therefore, their existences are distinct from their essences) And, if the existence of The Father is not the existence of The Son, and neither of their existences are the existence of The Holy Spirit, BUT all three existences precisely ARE identical with the One Divine Essence, doesn't this entail a flat-out logical contradiction? It's like saying "Father is not Son is not Spirit=Father is Son is Spirit."
No
I am a father, son and grandfather and husband and friend etc etc all at the same time but I'm one person. Don't over think it.
@@markgalletly3726 This sounds more like an analogy for Sabellianism than Trinitarianism.
"Now distinction in God is only by relation of origin, as stated above (I:28:2 and I:28:3), while relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent, for the divine essence subsists." - St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Q. 29, A. 4. www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm
Since everything (including the Divine Persons) about God IS his divine essence - then I don't see any issues here.
Yeah, the trinity is absurd.
As soon as you say “God IS” you’re done. That’s a constant.
What?
Wouldn't Divine Simplicity go against the Biblical God? if I understand correctly, Divine Simplicity implies a "generic" God, the same way Muslims and Jews believe. How do we reconcile that definition with the personal biblical God? that's my only problem with Divine Simplicity; it seems to make the unique, personal biblical God into something generic and more open to syncretisms.
czcams.com/video/9dysQxxRpLc/video.html
@@kakuto435 Ou você visita os mesmos lugares que eu...
You've understood incorrectly. Divine Simplicity is nothing else than God is not made out of parts. As something composite must be caused by something else, God can not be composite.