Is Divine Simplicity True? Joe Schmid (@Majesty of Reason) Vs. Fr. Gregory Pine Debate

Fr. Pine and Joe Schmid debate Divine simplicity. NOTE: We posted this back in April but for some reason the video stopped working.

🔴 SPONSORS

🔴 GIVING

This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.

🔴 LINKS



🔴 SOCIAL

[alexjurado]

I didn’t know Tom Holland was a philosopher!

[nathanaelculver]

*INTRODUCTIONS*
Joe (4:20)
Fr. Pine (5:45)

*OPENING ROUND*
Fr. Pine: what is divine simplicity (7:20)
Joe’s Response: five objections (25:00)
1. Providential Modal Collapse (26:20)
2. The Proposition Argument (30:50)
3. The Aloneness Argument (34:50)
4. The Changing Knowledge Argument (36:22)
5. The Explanatory Difference Argument (39:05)

*DISCUSSION*

*Round one - Fr. Pine Responds (**45:30**)*

Scene setting (46:15): conceptual cautions regarding predication. Critique (51:06) of the aloneness argument.

Joe responds. (56:35)

Fr. Pine last word. (1:04:10)

*Round two - Joe critiques Fr. Pine (**1:10:10**)*

The Quinque Via don’t require divine simplicity. Non-classical theists can accept all the premises.

In response, Fr. Pine asks Joe (1:14:38) to pick one of the Via. Joe selects the First Way. Non-classical theists would say there’s a non-sequitur from _unmoved_ to _unmovable._

Fr. Pine responds (1:17:38).

Joe and Fr. Pine ask each other questions (1:25:30)

Joe: Who’s your favorite saint? (1:25:37)
Fr. Pine: What do you _really_ think? (1:26:37)
Joe: How do you respond to the changing knowledge argument? (1:29:20)

Joe’s favorite saint (1:32:45).

*QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS*

To Fr. Pine: (1:35:15) Are there other ways you might reformulate divine simplicity to respond to Joe’s criticisms?

To Joe: (1:40:16) If it were shown that divine simplicity were true, would you become a theist?

To Fr. Pine: (1:42:14) Respond to Joe’s argument that one could escape the causal circularity by positing God as the source of his own change.

To Fr. Pine: (1:45:21) Are the divine ideas distinct from each other or are they ultimately one?

[azrela]

It’s 3 am, and I don’t understand 10% of this discussion, but I’m still intrigued…

[phoult]

I loved Fr. Pine's question 1:25:03. It really humanizes the discussion and the answer reveals that Mr. Schmid is still very much searching.

[secundemscripturas]

nobody:
thomist: "as it were"

[aquinasadefenseforgod]

As a believer in scholastic metaphysics, how I would answer the question of God's knowledge in regards to knowing something without experiencing it, is like this. So Mary studied everything about color and how humans see color, yet when she experience color for the first time, she learns something. Yes, I agree.
God, however, is not just all knowing of the subject data like Mary was. God has knowledge Mary could never have. God has knowledge of what it is like for every human, every animals, every animate thing to experience the world around them. So his knowledge being total, includes how it is to experience everything including himself from one eternal act always experiencing himself and thus everything. Thus there is no new experience for God that could possibly add knowledge to him.
Thanks for reading. I rebut more of Schmid's ideas against Classical Theism on my channel.

[zavalajoseraul]

I like this dude. I don't find all his arguments compelling or plausible, but he seems legit. I'll like to see more interactions with him, debates in pints with Aquinas, Trent or jimmy responding to him, etc. It's my perception that they tend to interact with much worse thinkers and it tends to be kind of boring in the long run. This dude I think has a 2 hours response to the first way, something worth engaging

[toddstone]

Why is it that, when every time I have a question about the Catholic faith, I come across a Pints with Aquinas video about it within 24 hours?

[thedivinenames]

Schmid's style is very analytic-- the idiom of the last 80 or so years in most philosophy departments. Very smart, but the arguments rely on certain fixed meanings of words and phrases (e.g. 'classical theism', 'proposition', 'necessity' etc.). Clarification of terms are important, but when our arguments are based on fixed understanding of living terms, the scope of our conclusions are limited and largely irrelevant to, say, who God IS and who He is for us today.
Father Pine is a Thomist, obviously, but he does not parrot the words of Thomas as one disconnected to the source of influence that animates Thomas's philosophy and theology. Philosophy, in the first order, is a practical art, and Thomas lives on in the traditions that inherit him. Long Live Thomas! And thank you Father Pine for proving his relevance!

[asiaaviator]

Was it fitting, that, Fr. Gregory gave more _simple_ answers than Joe's more complicated answers? ;-)

[anitkythera]

I appreciate the honest approach both take to illuminating this critical concept. No screaming or ascription of mal intent just an intellectual adventure.

[heartrocketblast]

I'm amused by how Fr. Pine just (with all due respect to Schmid, who seems quite lovely and intelligent) obliterates his opponent with such deference and modesty that the average observer wouldn't even be able to tell it's anything but just a mutually reciprocal exchange of two equally perfectly reasonable positions.

[GeminiChaos]

With regards to God having potential, this raises several concerns:

1) It introduces an infinite regress into God. If God has potential, then how did he get to the current state? For example, if God can be hot or cold, and he's hot, how did he not get to cold?

2) It means our salvation is not assured. If anything has potential in God, then all things must, including his love for us. Meaning that our salvation may change to non salvation, our existence to non-existence.

3) Certain realities require God to always have been and always be doing an action. An example is the numbering of the uncountable (unlistable) infinites. In short, To count all of them requires one to have never started counting them, and to have never stopped counting them. Alot of issues with reality and existent vs. non-existent arise of there are starts and stops to any part of God.

4) Potential introduced into God then requires a why and/or how. If property X of God is A but COULD BE B, then some factor y must change to result in property X to Change from A to B. Property X cannot be the cause of its own change which introduces infinite regress, and if it is the cause of its own change, how that is distinct from God yet still part of him.

[abelj]

I think Fr Pine wasn't familiar with the arguments presenter today, and that's fine I would love to hear his reflections on this. Personally this has been an excellent debate/discussion there's quite a few questions that were explored that's quite fascinating to think about. Especially about God's knowledge being contingent, that's something I can't seem to find a way out of. Overall this was great, reminds me how much I have no idea about haha. Cheers.

[BriannaCaito-zirl]

Both did a great job. They are both very intelligent. But, I had a hard time keeping up with Joes opening. Maybe, next time he debates, he could slow down and try to simplify his ideas. I understand it's a complex topic, but to win a debate, I think the audience should understand what you're talking about easily. Otherwise, I was impressed by his achievements and his intelligence. Great debate.

[saraalpay]

Great!I was looking for this to continue and was like where did it go .

[eliasarches]

After listening to Joe’s opening argument, I’m wondering if he fundamentally misunderstands Thomism and is importing a bunch of philosophical assumptions into his arguments.

[TacosnZorro]

Honestly I just want to see Fr. Gregory take on someone like Vaush. The guy is intelligent but so misguided and hes one of the biggest if not the biggest skeptic YouTuber right now. And he doesn't hold a candle to Fr. Greg's intellectual power.

[BryceCarmony]

The confusion comes from the kid thinking things are intrinsic to God that aren't

[DaddyBooneDon]

I'm at the start, just hearing the aff, and I don't know how Schmid will respond, but my question is how does the doctrine of the Trinity fit with Divine Simplicity? I know that the Persons are not considered parts of God, but doesn't their distinction from each other complicate the matter of simplicity?