Alex O’Connor deconstructs Ben Shapiro and Ed Feser (REBUTTED)

In this episode Trent examines Alex O’Connor’s (aka “the Cosmic Skeptic”) and Genetically Modified Skeptic's objections to the argument from change for the existence of God as put forward by Ben Shapiro and Catholic philosopher Ed Feser.

Original Videos:

[ReginaCæliLætare]

Sitting here pretending to understand anything

[someguyontheinternet]

When I watched Alex's response video to Ben Shapiro, I immediately said "Boy, Alex did a good job with his replies. It would be cool if Trent did a rebuttal to see his perspective on the matter" well, it seemed like I got what I wished for lol.

[tylerwyat]

I think Alex forgets that by quantum theory, energy is quantized and not continuous. That was the whole "ultraviolet catastrophe" issue.

[EstudioVoitheia]

Very IMPORTANT! It is absolutly not true that there is an infinity number of degrees that the cofee can be colled neither the distance between hands can not be reduced infinitively. the reason for that is that physics show that space and time are not continous but discret. We cannot add and infinity amount of decimals points to the T° of the coffee. The smaller distance and time period is given by the planck scale. That is the principle of quantum physics.

[IWasOnceAFetus]

This is such a good reply to Alex.

As a protestant, you've helped me understand a lot of things in philosophy, Trent.

[HodgePodgeVids]

Love philosophy and metaphysics. Makes my brain hurt

[paularnold]

Alex O'Connor's objection using a block theory of the universe actually explains the eternity of God. In a block universe nothing is simultaneous (spatially or temporally) to observers who are part of the block universe, but for the Eternal God EVERYTHING is simultaneous.

[mariobaratti]

Challenging Feser... that's bold Alex

[diannalaubenberg]

Thank you, Trent. I understand these arguments better now!

[edwardanderson]

Comment for the algorithm.

I’m grateful for Cosmic Skeptic’s rational manner. It seems to me that he isn’t out to score points, just to pursue the truth in good faith. I’m even more grateful Trent’s rigour. Great channel!

[mike-ccdd]

If I had a dollar for every scholar who reverted to occams razor to "debunk" miracles but somersaulted through mental gymnastics to reject a creator....
I'd have enough to pay all their student loans.

[Vtorch]

The potential of my head hurting after watching this happened. 😁

[lionorfieldgules]

It seems neither of the atheists have really spent time pondering the concept of Divine Simplicity. Most of Aquinas' proofs are, first and foremost, an argument that Divine Simplicity is necessary to explain the complexity of this world.

[xaviervelascosuarez]

The answer to the problem of "potential actuality" you give is spot on and I was happy that one of my philosophical heroes was brought to bear. When I saw Alex's video, Boethius' definition of eternity immediately came to mind. "Interminabilis vita, tota, simul et perfecta possessio." I believe that many (if not most) of atheists' most challenging challenges come from a defective understanding of eternity (evil, free will, etc.). Now, eternity (like everything else about God) is intricately bound to the divine simplicity, and I wonder how apologists such as WLC manage to fair so well in their debates without having this notion very clear. I think he (Dr. Craig) would save himself some intellectual acrobatics if he did come to understand that God's perfection calls for eternity and perfect simplicity.

[MrsYasha]

So now the argument is 'change does not exist, so God does not exist'?
Am I the only one who thinks that is a bit far fetched?

I like my 8year olds reasoning for God, when I told him some people don't believe.
"Who do they think made the Universe? The sun? Have they even looked at Nature?"
The answer that they think it all happened by coincidence did not even remotely impress him.

I like children. They bring stuff to the point.

[djo-dji]

Alex's arguments are so easily defeated that my brain almost hurts while listening to him. And as a former ultra-confident atheist now converted to the Catholic Faith, I say this with no sarcasm or ill intentions whatsoever.

[nathanbustamante]

I like that Alex shared his patron only segment on Ed feser. That was generous

[Zosso-]

I feel a bit bad for Alex O’Connor that you put him next to Genetically Modified Skeptic…

[isaiahertel]

Alex's objection using the B theory of time seems to purely rely on redefining the term change. Change seems to be the difference between an object at two different times. Even if all things exist in a time block it is not immediately obvious that change cannot have the same definition in this way of thinking about time. With Theory A an object can change from one moment to another. In the B theory of time an object can change from one moment to another, it just possesses new characteristics at different time points, but this seems to be change as originally defined. If I am missing something here, please let me know!

[tafazzi-on-discord]

I think I have an easier to explain objection to Alex's first point:
He says that potential is not an actual property of an object, but I don't think he would say that the past isn't an actual property of an object. So if an object can have a past, and in its past it went from one quantity of a continous property to another quantity of that same property (like from 61 degrees to 60), then it already has in its past an infinite number of intermediate states. Potential is something that is as much of a property as its past, meaning that if you accept as true the abstractions some branches of physics use where there's supposedly infinitely many intermediate states in a change, then since that leads you to accept an infinite amount of past states, it should also lead you to accept an infinite amount of possible future states.

One could challenge the idea that continous properties exist, but that's besides the point. If you need a continous property to arrive at the conclusion that potential is infinite, you also arrive at the conclusion past is infinite, and since everyone agrees the past is an actual property of an object, you need a different argument to prove that potential cannot be a property of the object.