Aseity vs Necessity

Подписаться 152 тыс.

Просмотров 2,7 тыс.

50% 1

Dr Craig explains the difference between two important theological categories!
For more information visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Follow Reasonable Faith on Instagram: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@reasonablefai...

Опубликовано:

21 фев 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 92

@ericwantsbbd 4 месяца назад

This man has to believe this otherwise his entire worldview falls apart. Never mind there is zero evidence of this God, nor has there ever been evidence, it’s necessary because otherwise the worldview doesn’t work. Which is a problem when one’s career and livelihood is based on this fact.

@drcraigvideos 3 месяца назад

Evidence? You mean besides a contingent, finite, finely-tuned, mathematically describable universe that contains rational creatures, objective morals, and a historically credible resurrection? - RF Admin

@ericwantsbbd 3 месяца назад

@@drcraigvideos evidence. What you’ve shared is not evidence. It’s just your beliefs.

@PiRobot314 3 месяца назад

I do think we should be careful about saying "zero evidence." The evidence may or may not be convincing to an individual, but it is certainly not "zero evidence"

@ericwantsbbd 3 месяца назад

@@PiRobot314 name one piece of evidence.

@PiRobot314 3 месяца назад

@@ericwantsbbd (I'm not convinced by this, but I do think there is something to the cosmological find-tuning argument). It's not convincing to me, but I still will give it the charity of at least being called evidence in some sense. It may very well increase the probability of theism even if only slightly. (The reason it doesn't convince me is because I need to hear it presented by someone who is an expert in cosmology, so it won't help for anyone to try and persuade me in RU-vid comments.)

@XYisnotXX 4 месяца назад

"Nothing is that which rocks dream about" Aristotle.

@PiRobot314 3 месяца назад

I have heard philosophers mix up these two terms, and I'm glad to see someone pointing out the difference between aseity and necessity. They are different things. Maybe they go hand in hand, but one can exist without the other. (At least something can have aseity without being necessary, I'm not sure about the other way around)

@MetaphysicalArchive1 3 месяца назад

by the start of the video i had my own opinion by the end of the video it fit perfectly with you reconciliation of both views.

@elsiervo121 4 месяца назад

The scope and range of "possibility," as he is employing it here, is delimited according to the arbitrary boundaries of conceiveability. The ontological space of possibility is much broader than the conceiveability alloted to the potentiality of our rational abilities.

@conversative 4 месяца назад

Then wouldn’t that space be utterly meaningless? By definition it's inconceivable and therefore inexpressible according to human rationality, meaning we cannot even talk about it. Even if it exists, it's totally irrelevant to any reality that we can perceive and participate in, effectively negating itself as far as human beings are concerned.

@Dizerner 4 месяца назад

@@conversative Well, although it seems a bit paradoxical, I think we can attribute meaning as to "that which is beyond what we can think." The mere thought of something more than what we currently have is within what we currently have-graciously granted to us. Eye has not seen, ear has not heard-but God revealed.

@conversative 4 месяца назад

@@Dizerner I appreciate your response. And I love that verse. I absolutely agree that merely trying to understand God is not sufficient. It is only by loving Him that we can know and participate in the deep things of God (1 Cor. 2:9-10). Indeed, we are told that we can "know" something that "surpasses" knowledge (Eph. 3:19). This is not a mental knowing but experiential knowing. To say something "is beyond what we can think" still includes that thing in logical space, making it expressible (that is, we can describe it as "beyond what we can think"). Actually, now that I am thinking (typing) out loud, it depends on how we understand "the potentiality of our rational abilities." I firstly understood it to mean the entire space of logic (and by 'logic' I mean the most robust kind that is dictated by consistency). In which case, my first comment holds. But if we understand that phrase to mean "what a certain person can understand mentally," then obviously it would be smaller than the entire space of logic. The ontological space of possibility must be bound by logical consistency (by definition). And what is argued in the video concerning the necessity of God is within that space.

@Dizerner 4 месяца назад

@@conversative I personally see logic as a creation of God rather than a part of his being. I know WLC is in disagreement on that point. So although God has bound himself to logic of his own volition in many ways, this leaves open some certain possibilities that might otherwise seem closed.

@elsiervo121 4 месяца назад

@conversative What I intended to denote by "the pontentiality of our rational abilities" had been something to the effect of "All (x) such that we are capable of conceptualizing (x) by way of 'ratiocination' ". What I am proposing is that we are restricted in what we are capable of rationally transferring from the complete ontological space to the ratiocinative horizontal of conceptual space. The qualification of "fintude" to the ontological sphere immediately localizes our ratiocinative apprehension to a participatory sub-sphere of the ontological.

@junbiok7188 4 месяца назад

Space cannot have an infinite past because there couldn't have been not enough time for the present to happen yet before it did with an infinite past. Yes, I know my grammer.

@kristheobserver 4 месяца назад

grammar.

@Christs_Apologet 4 месяца назад

@@kristheobserverlol

@jesuschristbiblebiblestudy 4 месяца назад

It is well explained. Keep in mind though, that both terms are not equal paradigms, since they represent different categories. God bless.

@TheBrunarr 4 месяца назад

It's clear that something can be modally necessary but ontologically contingent and hence per aliud, but it's absurd that something could be a se and modally contingent

@NG-we8uu 4 месяца назад

Divine simplicity is true

@drcraigvideos 4 месяца назад

Only in the sense that God doesn't have proper parts. However, the stronger Thomistic claims that God's essence *is* his existence, that he is Pure Act, and that he has no potentiality - these are all highly implausible and, at best, theologically untenable. - RF Admin

@TheBrunarr 4 месяца назад

@@drcraigvideos it's theologically untenable if you want to have heterodox theology, sure, and it's highly implausible if you don't want God to be formally distinct from a creature, sure

@aderitopaiva5171 4 месяца назад

What do you mean when you say “possible worlds”? Thank you for your help

@RowanAldridge 4 месяца назад

"Possible world" terminology is often used by philosophers to discuss modal claims (that is to say, claims about possibility and necessity). A possible world is simply a complete and consistent description of a way that things could have been. So if a philosopher says, for example, "there is a possible world in which the sky is green", they are merely saying that it could have been the case that the sky was green instead of blue. It's important to clarify that when philosophers talk about possible worlds, they typically do not think that the worlds they are speaking of are actually real (though a small minority do). Rather, possible worlds are simply imagined states of affairs which are used to express opinions about whether something could be the case. When speaking about the real world, philosophers will use the term "actual world" (as Dr Craig does in this video). Hope this helps!

@elsiervo121 4 месяца назад

"Possible worlds" is an idiom, something of a metaphor, which western analytic philosophers have employed to aid them in understanding and systematizing the limits of what can be conceived or imagined within the boundaries of applied logic.

@michelangelope830 4 месяца назад

God is easy to explain and impossible to understand because we can not comprehend infinitude, and infinitude exists because from nothing can not be created something. To understand God exists you have to understand reality is eternal because from nothing can not be created something. Nothing is absence of existence. What has a beginning of existence must be created from what is eternal. Why humanity believe in God when God can not not exist? To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I will rephrase the atheist logical fallacy to facilitate the understanding. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because "sky daddy" doesn't exist. Could there be more than one God? Could there be more than one reality? Could one God not be aware of the existence of other Gods? Could one God have created the universe we live in and other Gods have created other worlds? Could our fate be different because more than one God exists?. God is a reality of an infinite or eternal nature that created a reality of a finite nature and all is one reality, all is God, all is everything that ever existed, exist and would exist. Thank you.

@Dizerner 4 месяца назад

Really makes my mind go to some weird places some of these ideas. I like the term Sky Daddy. It's kinda cool though.

@velkyn1 4 месяца назад

a typical word salad from a cultist who needs to claim we can't understand this god, until he wants to say he knows what this god wants. How convenient for these failures.

@user-vm5yk2js6w 4 месяца назад

Nice subjective belief. The universe never was nothing. Matter exist since always and will always exist. In 4 billion years the sun will expand to a red giant and burn the earth to a metal clump. The universe will still exist long after the Earth and all its religions disappeared.

@damianabbate4423 4 месяца назад

You can come up with anything when you negotiate with your holy book and rely on philosophical ideas to attempt to prove the existence of a non existent god. You may as well go ahead and add that your god is a bright green color too.

@PiRobot314 3 месяца назад

I would go further. Argue that your God is *necessarily* a bright green color. Then no one will be able to argue with you. Lol

@augustuscb 4 месяца назад

For absolute creationists out there, I have a hard time understanding how math is a creation of God. That implies that there was a point in which math did not exist but God did (even if math does exist necessarily). But this is problematic from a Christian worldview since God has always been a Trinity, and the very notion requires the eternal existence of the number 3! Does it not? The same can apply similarly to logic and morality, I think.

@msmd3295 4 месяца назад

That's one thing about the human "intellect", in some cases the conclusions people make are not very intelligent. Take the concept of Aseity... "the property by which a being exists of and from itself." In other words... a thing that was not created and exists for all time, everywhere and for every purpose. Now you might think just based upon the confidence of Craig that such a being is "real". But he has no evidence whatsoever of a god. ALL such theological arguments are premised upon NOTHING, no evidence, no reason, just pseudo-logical assertions. But everyone should know, logic in and of itself doesn't prove anything. In order for a logical conclusion to be "true" the premises that a person argues from must ALL be fact [true]. There are NO true premises when one argues in favor of god. No one has ANY empirical evidence of a designer or creator.

@velkyn1 4 месяца назад

agreed. Aseity is nothing more than special pleading.

@elsiervo121 4 месяца назад

I dearly hope you are well under 30.

@velkyn1 4 месяца назад

@@elsiervo121 what does being younger than 30 have to do with anything? Still no evidence for any imaginary friends that theists invent.

@elsiervo121 4 месяца назад

@velkyn1 It's a curiosity of mine for sociological-data collection. Moreover, we need not bother wasting energy typing anything more on the subjects of theology or philosophy (beyond this notice); Your attitude is indicative of a temperament that has been engendered by the hostilities of a non-rational sphere (while The "rational", in the western sense ---as I am employing it, is not of the highest value, your use of terms assumes that it is; and simply put, your attitude is not in the service of such a view of rationality).

@velkyn1 4 месяца назад

@@elsiervo121 BS, dear. you said you "hoped" for something, so much for your attempt to lie. it's hilarious when you try to use big words to seem important. "It's a curiosity of mine for sociological-data collection. Moreover, we need not bother wasting energy typing anything more on the subjects of theology or philosophy (beyond this notice); Your attitude is indicative of a temperament that has been engendered by the hostilities of a non-rational sphere (while The "rational", in the western sense ---as I am employing it, is not of the highest value, your use of terms assumes that it is; and simply put, your attitude is not in the service of such a view of rationality)"