Uploaded September 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 days ago
Does philosophy of language give us reason to think that God, if he exists, is more like us than classical theists expect? I’m joined by philosopher of language Joseph Lawal to discuss an argument from his paper, 'God An Alien or An Alien God?' His argument aims to push us away from the strongest versions of divine simplicity and aseity, but is also potentially a problem for theistic personalists who affirm God's timelessness. The argument, which focuses on the *otherness* of God (on non-finitist views), leads us to the conclusion that ordinary theological language is either false or meaningless on classical theism. (E.g., “God loves you” would either be false or meaningless.) This poses a major problem for the religious theist and destroys their ability to make predictions and inferences about God based on his attributes. This would not only undermine natural theology, but also harm the sorts of inferences we make about God in ordinary life.
*In the conversation, I use the word “prediction” at a few points where it probably would have been clearer to use the word “inference” instead.
**There is a lot of information packed into this episode; it may be beneficial to listen more than once.
Joseph's channel: youtube.com/@ldsphilosophy6015
SPECIAL THANKS TO JOSEPH NIED FOR THE MUSIC FOR THIS EPISODE
Support the show: https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Does philosophy of language give us reason to think that God, if he exists, is more like us than classical theists expect? I’m joined by philosopher of language Joseph Lawal to discuss an argument from his paper, 'God An Alien or An Alien God?' His argument aims to push us away from the strongest versions of divine simplicity and aseity, but is also potentially a problem for theistic personalists who affirm God's timelessness. The argument, which focuses on the *otherness* of God (on non-finitist views), leads us to the conclusion that ordinary theological language is either false or meaningless on classical theism. (E.g., “God loves you” would either be false or meaningless.) This poses a major problem for the religious theist and destroys their ability to make predictions and inferences about God based on his attributes. This would not only undermine natural theology, but also harm the sorts of inferences we make about God in ordinary life.
*In the conversation, I use the word “prediction” at a few points where it probably would have been clearer to use the word “inference” instead.
**There is a lot of information packed into this episode; it may be beneficial to listen more than once.
Joseph's channel: youtube.com/@ldsphilosophy6015
SPECIAL THANKS TO JOSEPH NIED FOR THE MUSIC FOR THIS EPISODE
Support the show: https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
