(October 17, 2019 at 6:07 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

Belaqua Wrote:Omnipotent, for them, means the full actualization of all potentiality.

In other words, you are saying that Thomism is a form of Pantheism? I don't think that's true.

Oh, man, no way.

Pantheism is when the universe and God are made of the same substance. 

In Thomism, God has no substance, no material existence.

(October 17, 2019 at 6:29 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(October 17, 2019 at 6:07 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: In other words, you are saying that Thomism is a form of Pantheism? I don't think that's true.

Oh, man, no way.

Pantheism is when the universe and God are made of the same substance. 

In Thomism, God has no substance, no material existence.

If God has no potency, but is somehow perfect, then it has to have all the essence in the world. And, if you claim God has all the essence there is in the world, then you are a Pantheist.

(October 17, 2019 at 8:43 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: If God has no potency, but is somehow perfect, then it has to have all the essence in the world. And, if you claim God has all the essence there is in the world, then you are a Pantheist.

I think you're maybe not clear on what the terms mean.

When Christians say that God is immanent in everything, or that all forms are contained in the mind of God, that is not the same as pantheism. 

In conversation of course it's not strict, but if you're going to be critiquing theology it would make sense to use the precise terms the way the experts do.

(October 17, 2019 at 6:47 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 17, 2019 at 8:43 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: If God has no potency, but is somehow perfect, then it has to have all the essence in the world. And, if you claim God has all the essence there is in the world, then you are a Pantheist.

I think you're maybe not clear on what the terms mean.

When Christians say that God is immanent in everything, or that all forms are contained in the mind of God, that is not the same as pantheism. 

In conversation of course it's not strict, but if you're going to be critiquing theology it would make sense to use the precise terms the way the experts do.

OK, maybe. But these are all just giant ad-hoc hypotheses, they aren't worth learning. The Problem of Inconsistent Revelations, the Problem of Natural Evil and the Omnipotence Paradox can all be presented in a few sentences that are easy to understand, the theological responses to them are hard-to-understand books that are not based on evidence.
Was that you who commented on my YouTube video? If not, I'd encourage you to, you can probably comment more intelligently than most of the people who will comment.

(October 18, 2019 at 7:39 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: But these are all just giant ad-hoc hypotheses, they aren't worth learning. 

Well, I'm not sure how you can know that if you don't know what they say. Doesn't it sound as if you're begging the question when you begin with the assumption that what you don't know isn't worth learning? 

Quote:The Problem of Inconsistent Revelations, the Problem of Natural Evil and the Omnipotence Paradox can all be presented in a few sentences that are easy to understand, the theological responses to them are hard-to-understand books that are not based on evidence.

But your arguments against them aren't based on evidence either, are they? Metaphysics is grounded in observations but conducted through logical argument. 

Do you have empirical evidence that the omnipotence paradox is a problem, or do you only have a logical argument? 

The fact that revelation is inconsistent -- does that really require a whole volume? Can't we just say that revelation is unreliable? Or that a lot of what people take to be revelation isn't really? Or that there is no revelation at all, but there is a God who doesn't use revelation? 

I think we can dismiss inconsistent revelation as a proof against God pretty easily. The whole field of Natural Theology is designed to argue for the existence of God without reference to revelation. Traditionally they say that certain things about God can be demonstrated merely through self-evident statements (e.g. things in the world change) and the logical consequences of those, while certain other things (e.g. the Trinity) cannot. Many people have accepted the demonstrated parts without the revealed parts. 

The fact that some definitions of omnipotence seem paradoxical also does nothing to prove that there's no God. The outlines of a rejection of your claim can be presented in a paragraph. 

Anyway, why should theology NOT require big thick books to understand? Understanding quantum physics takes big fat books with advanced math, and you wouldn't dismiss it for that reason. Some subjects are just difficult. 

Quote:Was that you who commented on my YouTube video? If not, I'd encourage you to, you can probably comment more intelligently than most of the people who will comment.

That's kind of you to say! But no, I haven't watched the video. 

Here's what I think: I think you're beginning by affirming the consequent (a logical fallacy). You seem to have accepted a priori that theological arguments are ad hoc and not worth learning, while not having a very solid grasp of them. 

Whatever you do, don't follow Dawkins on this. His "rebuttal" of Aquinas' 5 Ways, for example, is so wildly wrong that it's laughable. He has also begun with the notion that because theology is inherently stupid he doesn't have to work very hard to knock it down. As a result he gets all five of the arguments wrong -- I'm not saying that he fails to accept them (I don't accept them as is either) but that he fundamentally doesn't know what they're saying. So he makes this argument that satisfies himself, but which leaves anyone educated in the field slack-jawed in disbelief. This has been explained in print several times, yet he refuses to apologize or withdraw his "arguments." Now in his new book he has also written a number of historical falsehoods, apparently because he was relying on an amateur's web site, and didn't bother to do any fact checking. 

Here's a good lecture series that lays out clearly many of the main ideas in theology. The whole thing is valuable, as far as I can see, but you could also sample different classes that interest you. It would at least give a flavor. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yat0ZKdu...nUVl-KBNSM

If there's something from this series that catches your interest, that might be something we could discuss. Not that I'm guaranteed to have anything smart to say about it!

Belacqua Wrote:Doesn't it sound as if you're begging the question when you begin with the assumption that what you don't know isn't worth learning?

No, for about the same reason saying astrology isn't worth studying isn't begging the question.

Belacqua Wrote:But your arguments against them aren't based on evidence either, are they?

Well, the omnipotence paradox isn't, it's an a-priori argument based on logic alone. So, it's not based on evidence about the same way Pythagorean Theorem isn't based on evidence. It's not a strictly empirical statement.
Inconsistent revelations and natural evil are based on so much evidence they even appear to be self-evident.

Belacqua Wrote:Can't we just say that revelation is unreliable?

Why would an omnipotent and benevolent God let that happen?

Belacqua Wrote:Or that a lot of what people take to be revelation isn't really?

Again, why would an omnipotent and benevolent God let that happen?

Belacqua Wrote:Or that there is no revelation at all, but there is a God who doesn't use revelation?

And why would that God then let people believe those things? Besides, saying that is basically admitting that whole Christianity (and for that sake, Islam, and quite a few other religions) is completely wrong.

Belacqua Wrote:The whole field of Natural Theology is designed to argue for the existence of God without reference to revelation.

And it's perhaps only slightly less flawed than other parts of theology.

Belacqua Wrote:The fact that some definitions of omnipotence seem paradoxical also does nothing to prove that there's no God.

And what would be the point of prayer if God is not omnipotent? Admitting that God is either not omnipotent or not benevolent (or both) is basically admitting that prayer is pointless, don't you agree?

Belacqua Wrote:Anyway, why should theology NOT require big thick books to understand?

It's not just about understanding it. It's about proving that it works. Proving at least the basic premises of it. You don't need big thick books to prove that computer science works: the proofs that it works are all around you (the fact that you can type on this forum). You don't need big thick books to prove that the Earth is round: the theory that the Earth is approximately spherical with a circumference of around 40'000 kilometers correctly predicts how far you can see from a certain height at the sea, it correctly predicts at which angle you can see the horizon from a certain heigh on an airplane, it's the basis of how navigational systems work, and it takes a ridiculous conspiracy theory to assert that it's false.

Belacqua Wrote:Understanding quantum physics takes big fat books with advanced math, and you wouldn't dismiss it for that reason.

How can you compare quantum physics with subjects from theology? Quantum physics is the basis of how transistors and diodes work, without it, modern electronics, including the Internet, wouldn't exist. Even when we didn't have modern electronics, it was quite obvious classical physics was at least incomplete: it provided no satisfactory explanation of the photoelectric effect, it provided no satisfactory explanation of colors...
Theology doesn't give us any such useful explanations, it doesn't even give explanations theologians themselves would agree on.
Even with very incomplete understanding of the subjects, one can easily tell the difference between theology and quantum physics.
Sure, the explanations sciences give sometimes aren't that useful. Historical linguistics perhaps will never give us useful answers. But it talks about phenomena that are demonstrably there: no reasonable person would deny that Latin 's' in the beginning of a word corresponds to Greek 'h' at a rate that it's just absurd to suppose it's due to chance. You can perhaps say it's less wrong to deny historical linguistics than it is to deny quantum physics, but it's far less wrong to deny theology than either of those things.

Belacqua Wrote:But no, I haven't watched the video.

Why? Do you also have trouble with the ISPs? Damn, Optima ISP has postponed giving me a connection to the Internet for three weeks due to technical difficulties, and now they have postponed it for the next two weeks, again due to supposed technical difficulties on their part. Makes me wonder if they are building some system to secretly spy on their users, and are hiding that by repairing the supposed technical difficulties.
I mostly use the cellular Internet (as I am doing right now) and sometimes Wi-Fi hotspots (as I was doing when I was uploading that video to YouTube). I haven't really watched YouTube videos for months now.
I don't know if I should switch my ISP. A1 is, as far as I hear, more expensive than Optima, and promises higher Internet speed (20 mbps), but actually the Internet they give is worse due to very high packet loss: the websites randomly time out and you need to refresh them again and again. The T-COM ISP is even more expensive, and, although it's service is superior, it requires you to sign unfair contracts, that you basically can't legally switch your ISP for the next few years if you sign that contract. The CARNET ISP doesn't promise much, it promises 3 mbps Internet speed (Optima ISP promises 8 mbps), and it gives even less (I hear it rarely gets above 1 mbps), and there is little doubt it spies on its users.

Belacqua Wrote:His "rebuttal" of Aquinas' 5 Ways, for example, is so wildly wrong that it's laughable

My perception is that Aquinas didn't really present those arguments for God in a good way. This especially applies to the Ontological Argument. I think that his version is one of the worst. I mean, he made a premise that, when we talk about about some property, each property we talk about has some maximum in the real world, that "hotter" means something that's closer to the hottest ("ad eum quod maximum est"), and the hottest thing is supposedly fire. That's so obviously wrong, and it's not even clear what he means. How the hell is fire the hottest thing there could possibly be? Some fires are obviously hotter than others: some fires melt glass and some don't.
The version of the Ontological Argument with the possible worlds at least makes *some* sense. Anselm probably had the same idea, but he just worded it a bit poorly. But not as bad as Aquinas did, if you ask me.

(October 18, 2019 at 4:02 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

Belacqua Wrote:But no, I haven't watched the video.

Why? Do you also have trouble with the ISPs? 

No, it's because I find your arguments weak and uninteresting, and your reasoning to be pretty poor. Sorry, somebody else can deal with this, but I don't currently have the energy. 

Karl Popper pointed out that if you want to overthrow your opponent's position, you have to attack it in its strongest version. If you attack the weak version and defeat that, then you still have all the hard work left to do, and the strong version is still standing. 

Like so many Internet atheists, you are attacking Ken Ham and other simpletons, and various straw men. Since you don't know what theology really says and you don't want to learn it, that's where it will stay for the time being. 

Again, I apologize, but I'm not inclined to teach theology 101 at this point.

(October 18, 2019 at 8:15 am)Belacqua Wrote: I think we can dismiss inconsistent revelation as a proof against God pretty easily. The whole field of Natural Theology is designed to argue for the existence of God without reference to revelation. Traditionally they say that certain things about God can be demonstrated merely through self-evident statements (e.g. things in the world change) and the logical consequences of those, while certain other things (e.g. the Trinity) cannot. Many people have accepted the demonstrated parts without the revealed parts.

Without reference to revelation, most every argument for [the existence of] God that I've encountered (and that I can recall off the top of my head) has turned out to be an argument, at least in "skeletal" form, for a naturalistic case as much as for some being that's "beyond nature". Considering such arguments aren't compelling enough to make a strong case for God, then I don't think one can reasonably say that theologians have been able to establish the existence of God through some compelling arguments, irrespective of the strength of their convictions. And in this light, theology remains a field in which the theologian must assume (rather than has been shown) the existence of God has been well established when making arguments about the non-existential aspects of such a being.

Furthermore, in the case of Christianity, a lot of Christian theologians nevertheless appeal to revelation even when they sometimes make arguments for God without reference to revelation, and so when you say that the "whole field of Natural Theology is designed to argue for the existence of God without reference to revelation", this is true, but it also comes off as a little "hand-wavy" regarding the fact that famous theologians like Aquinas have still nevertheless appealed to revelation in some of their arguments.

---

(October 18, 2019 at 4:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Like so many Internet atheists, you are attacking Ken Ham and other simpletons, and various straw men. Since you don't know what theology really says and you don't want to learn it, that's where it will stay for the time being.

No, he has also critiqued Aquinas, and you didn't really address his critique regardless of the reason you have stated for not addressing it and regardless of whether his critique was weak or not.

(October 18, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Grandizer Wrote: No, he has also critiqued Aquinas, and you didn't really address his critique regardless of the reason you have stated for not addressing it and regardless of whether his critique was weak or not.

And what he said about Aquinas was strange. 

Again, I don't find the 5 ways persuasive as they stand either. But we have a duty to describe them accurately. 

As far as I can tell, Flat is referring to the 4th way when he mentions fire being hot. It's not an ontological argument really, but about degrees of quality. 

Since what Flat says about Aquinas is unclear and part of a long post full of different problems, I don't have the energy to deal with it.

(October 18, 2019 at 4:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 18, 2019 at 4:02 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: Why? Do you also have trouble with the ISPs? 

No, it's because I find your arguments weak and uninteresting, and your reasoning to be pretty poor. Sorry, somebody else can deal with this, but I don't currently have the energy. 

Karl Popper pointed out that if you want to overthrow your opponent's position, you have to attack it in its strongest version. If you attack the weak version and defeat that, then you still have all the hard work left to do, and the strong version is still standing. 

Like so many Internet atheists, you are attacking Ken Ham and other simpletons, and various straw men. Since you don't know what theology really says and you don't want to learn it, that's where it will stay for the time being. 

Again, I apologize, but I'm not inclined to teach theology 101 at this point.

I didn't quote any creationists in the video. And I agree with you that apologetics has devolved a lot over the centuries: a thousand years ago, Aquinas was trying to convince people that a God exists using logic alone or using what he considered obvious statements and what, according to him, follows from them. These days, apologetics is mostly composed of conspiracy theories, which is what Young-Earth-Creationism is (the statements such as that the measurements of the parallaxes of the stars have been faked to make stars seem further away than they really are). Sure, today there are attempts to translate the ontological argument into modern logic. But that argument is rarely used by popular apologetics and, even then, I think it's somewhat dishonest to argue that way: the usual objection to the ontological argument is not that it doesn't logically follow (though Kant claimed that), but that the first premise (that a perfect being exists in some possible worlds) is dubious.

You didn't answer the basic question I asked: Why do you think theology holds any more merit than, for instance, astrology?

(October 18, 2019 at 5:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 18, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Grandizer Wrote: No, he has also critiqued Aquinas, and you didn't really address his critique regardless of the reason you have stated for not addressing it and regardless of whether his critique was weak or not.

And what he said about Aquinas was strange. 

Again, I don't find the 5 ways persuasive as they stand either. But we have a duty to describe them accurately. 

As far as I can tell, Flat is referring to the 4th way when he mentions fire being hot. It's not an ontological argument really, but about degrees of quality. 

Since what Flat says about Aquinas is unclear and part of a long post full of different problems, I don't have the energy to deal with it.

Look, sometimes, famous philosophers and scientists in history do get things wildly wrong. Aquinas did express some very interesting thoughts, like empiricism, the correspondence theory of the truth, that time and causality are not logical principles but simply the properties of the universe we inhabit (though it's a bit hard to conceive how could somebody realize that and still think the Cosmological Argument is valid)... But the argument that a perfect being has to exist just because we can talk about perfection, and that we can talk about hotness just because fire exists, is obviously wildly wrong. Do you think Richard Feynman was wrong for criticizing Spinoza's obviously incoherent text about the concept of substances?