Majesty of Reason | Theism and the Argument from Material Causality | Dr. Felipe Leon @MajestyofReason | Uploaded May 2020 | Updated October 2024, 6 hours ago.
Interested in God's existence? Theism? Atheism? Thomism? Creation? Panentheism, pantheism, and Spinozism? The origin and cause of the universe? Russelian monism? Causal finitism? We have just the discussion for you.
Thanks to Dr. Felipe Leon and Micah Edvenson (from Crusade Against Ignorance channel) for joining me to discuss Felipe's argument from material causality against creation ex nihilo.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Near the beginning of the video, Felipe used the term 'classical theism' to describe people like Plantinga, Swinburne, and co. This is an incorrect usage of the term. But this is a mere terminological issue. He means 'traditional theists' or 'orthodox monotheism'. He doesn't mean to pick out the Big Four attributes characterizing classical theism: immutability, simplicity, impassibility, and timelessness.
He just means that the theists to which he refers affirm the omni attributes, monotheism, God's perfection, God's necessity, and God's causally originating and sustaining the universe ex nihilo. An alternative understanding of the term doesn't warrant not listening. It was a wonderful conversation.
Also, his target is ex nihilo creation. It's "classical theism*cvc*", i.e. classical theism plus classical view of creation. So, it doesn't really matter (in the present context) whether or not he gets immutability, timelessness, and so on correct. What matters is his characterization of ex nihilo creation, since that's his target. So, pointing out a misapplication of 'classical theism' with respect to something other than creatio ex nihilo is not quite relevant. His target is any view according to which there is creation ex nihilo. The specifics about the Divine nature are tangential.
I do want to stress, of course, that I disagreed with Felipe's use of 'classical theism'. Classical theism, as I use it, is meant to expressly pick out orthodox monotheism plus the Big Four: immutability, simplicity, timelessness, and impassibility. I would have preferred that he used 'orthodox monotheism' or 'traditional theism'. But the reason I didn't dwell on it or correct it in the dialogue was because (i) it's a terminological issue, and more importantly, (ii) it is irrelevant to his argument, since his argument has nothing to do with the Big Four but is instead aimed at ex nihilo creation.
Book: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B086G7KS52
Interested in God's existence? Theism? Atheism? Thomism? Creation? Panentheism, pantheism, and Spinozism? The origin and cause of the universe? Russelian monism? Causal finitism? We have just the discussion for you.
Thanks to Dr. Felipe Leon and Micah Edvenson (from Crusade Against Ignorance channel) for joining me to discuss Felipe's argument from material causality against creation ex nihilo.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Near the beginning of the video, Felipe used the term 'classical theism' to describe people like Plantinga, Swinburne, and co. This is an incorrect usage of the term. But this is a mere terminological issue. He means 'traditional theists' or 'orthodox monotheism'. He doesn't mean to pick out the Big Four attributes characterizing classical theism: immutability, simplicity, impassibility, and timelessness.
He just means that the theists to which he refers affirm the omni attributes, monotheism, God's perfection, God's necessity, and God's causally originating and sustaining the universe ex nihilo. An alternative understanding of the term doesn't warrant not listening. It was a wonderful conversation.
Also, his target is ex nihilo creation. It's "classical theism*cvc*", i.e. classical theism plus classical view of creation. So, it doesn't really matter (in the present context) whether or not he gets immutability, timelessness, and so on correct. What matters is his characterization of ex nihilo creation, since that's his target. So, pointing out a misapplication of 'classical theism' with respect to something other than creatio ex nihilo is not quite relevant. His target is any view according to which there is creation ex nihilo. The specifics about the Divine nature are tangential.
I do want to stress, of course, that I disagreed with Felipe's use of 'classical theism'. Classical theism, as I use it, is meant to expressly pick out orthodox monotheism plus the Big Four: immutability, simplicity, timelessness, and impassibility. I would have preferred that he used 'orthodox monotheism' or 'traditional theism'. But the reason I didn't dwell on it or correct it in the dialogue was because (i) it's a terminological issue, and more importantly, (ii) it is irrelevant to his argument, since his argument has nothing to do with the Big Four but is instead aimed at ex nihilo creation.
Book: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B086G7KS52
