LEVEL UP by avoiding these mistakes about God

Level up your philosophy of religion game by avoiding these common mistakes about models of God, divine simplicity, Thomism, and more.

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:12 Mistake 142
2:42 Mistake 143
4:06 Mistake 144
9:08 Mistake 145
10:12 Mistake 146
12:08 Mistake 147
15:30 Mistake 148
17:09 Mistake 149
25:39 Mistake 150
25:59 Mistake 151
32:54 Mistake 152
39:02 Mistake 153
40:28 Mistake 154
41:27 Mistake 155
41:58 Mistake 156
42:43 Mistake 157
43:05 Mistake 158
44:07 Mistake 159
45:35 Mistake 160
51:21 Mistake 161
52:36 Mistake 162
59:09 Conclusion

RESOURCES

THE USUAL...

[MajestyofReason]

*_List of mistakes for Part 6_*

1:12 Mistake 142: Defining omnipotence in terms of logical possibility
2:42 Mistake 143: “Omniscience and freedom entail perfect goodness!”
4:06 Mistake 144: If DDS is false, then God depends on his properties!
9:08 Mistake 145: “If God can change, then God can stop loving us”
10:12 Mistake 146: “A _necessary_ being must be _purely actual_”
12:08 Mistake 147: Merely asserting change is the actualization of potential
15:30 Mistake 148: “Divine simplicity is the simplest view!”
17:09 Mistake 149: Being uncritical about molinism
25:39 Mistake 150: Composition entails contingency
25:59 Mistake 151: Thinking non-CT views anthropomorphize God
32:54 Mistake 152: The label ‘theistic personalism’
39:02 Mistake 153: “God is being itself, he’s not a being”
40:28 Mistake 154: Conflating Thomism and classical theism
41:27 Mistake 155: “Analogical predication is non-literal”
41:58 Mistake 156: “If CT is true, God is just an abstract, causally impotent property”
42:43 Mistake 157: “Euthyphro dilemma proves DDS”
43:05 Mistake 158: “The God of non-CT is different from Zeus only in degree”
44:07 Mistake 159: “Only DDS secures monotheism”
45:35 Mistake 160: Common misunderstandings of existential inertia
51:21 Mistake 161: The simple modal collapse argument
52:36 Mistake 162: “Open theists deny divine omniscience”

[edercuellar]

As a Christian, I’ve loved this series, and has showed me many mistakes I myself have committed. Keep up the good work Joe.🎉

[brando]

Extraordinary mistakes require extraordinary Joe Schmid videos 🤓

[devheadache]

Have you ever covered the neoplatonic theology / metaphysics? Would be fun to see you on Proclus and Plotinus

[fubilosophy]

It’s interesting how many mistakes I had as a thinker in my 33 years of age, being addressed by only 3 hours of contents

Thank You Joe..!

[jordanh]

This is such high quality content. Thanks Joe as always!

[ellyam]

The biggest ethical dilemma I face every week is to continue working, or to first watch the new Majesty of Reason video before getting back to working on things that have 0 correlation to philosophy of religion. Oh, the struggle

[brendanmckenna]

I Love your videos Joe. Incredibly inspiring and helpful as always.

[Sage-bkzm]

As a Muslim this is a good video and I will keep this in mind, wonderful❤️❤️❤️

[not_enough_space]

I think I've seen a strange example of Mistake 152 "The Label Theistic Personalism". I've come across some unusual Christians on reddit who accuse atheists of primarily being critical of personalism, and they fashion this into an accusation that atheists are likely committed the content of Classical Theism (and its supposed opposition to personalism). They charge that atheists only deny the label 'Classical Theist' out of ignorance of what it entails.

(These people being big Jordan Peterson fans might explain some of this thinking. I'm not sure.)

[Blate]

Have you ever done a video on presuppositional apologetics? I’d love to see a rigorous response to that line of argumentation

[AtlasofReality]

8:55

If you reject nominalism and relational ontology or if you grant it to be false, and acknowledge the intrinsic attributes of God's ontology are dependent on His essence, you can argue deductively that this ontological dependency leads to contingency. Consequently, there are contingent aspects intrinsic to God's ontology that could be different in other possible worlds, indicating a change in God's ontology. Thus, if God can be otherwise, He is contingent.

how does this not follow?

[mattgarza]

Love this series Joe! I am curious what WLC wouls say about your critiques of Molinism that you bring up. If i remember correctly he rejects PAP and opts for a source incompatibilism.

[gergelyozsvar]

Would you like to do a debate with Chris Langan? He is underrepresented in the philosophical territory. I highly doubt that you would regret it! He is one of a kind.

[igbo]

I remember commenting about the euthyphro objection not long ago, and although it was a non-ct argument, objection 1a, 2, and 3 in the section of the ct video you referred to described my problems with it much better. So thank you very much.

[slashmonkey]

good to know that i never made any of these mistakes ever like a true boss😎😎😎

[confrontingcapital]

Joe, nice video. I am wondering, while you argue that divine simplicity is not that simple because of its ideological complexity, would you agree that it is at least exceedingly ontologically parsimonious, in that, fundamentally, there are no longer any distinct kinds of things, as all things are essentially just God viewed through different guises? (At least this is how I understand the view. I am not well read on this, so correct me if I'm wrong)

[bonbon__candy__]

have you ever read Mulla Sadra and Tabatabai? If so, what do you think about his ontological proof? Any videos on this topic? THANX!!

[CjqNslXUcM]

I'm LEVELING the hell UP. absolutely shredding that philosophy of religion. big gains.

[ILoveLuhaidan]

I dont understand how water being h20 is a metaphysical necessity and not just a physical one