Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Word on Fire Institute course

My six-part video course on Six Arguments for the Existence of God is available for free from the Word on Fire Institute.  A short preview and sign-up information are available here.  An interview about the course can be read here.

Posted by at

39 comments:

  1. AnonymousJuly 24, 2024 at 9:29 PM

    Thanks for the course, Dr. Feser. I liked the interview. Do try and get some exercise. Prof. William Lane Craig is in excellent condition. He even wrote about it. "Maintaining physical stamina Craig "

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJuly 25, 2024 at 3:12 AM

    I completed the course and very much enjoyed it! Thanks!

    -Paul

    ReplyDelete
  3. BillJuly 25, 2024 at 1:48 PM

    Excellent! Question: Are there apologetic materials along this line for students, including charts/diagrams for teenagers? It would be great to have introductory resources for students in public and private schools.

    ReplyDelete
  4. NormJuly 26, 2024 at 1:19 PM

    I'd like to take this opportunity to commend Dr Feser, as a model of charity and engagement . I think Dr Feser is often unfairly maligned on this issue. But the fact that he chooses to do a course for the Word on Fire institute run by Bishop Barron, someone with whom he has very strong theological disagreements especially regarding Balthasar, Delubac and the natural/supernatural distinction (I tend to side with Dr Feser on this issue). He also must have vigorously condemned Bishop B's blurb on James's Martin's book on prayer, which ought to have been condemned.
    Dr Feser always makes his thoughts clear and to the point. He won't hide his disapproval. But at the same time he is willing to work together for a substantive cause. He is always willing to give people a chance to explain themselves. He hardly ever cancels someone as evidenced by his lenient regulation of this blog's comment section. Anyone who says that Dr Feser is uncharitable in engagement and disagreements needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. His very arguments in his book Five Proves involves drawing upon thinkers with whom he otherwise has vast disagreements barring Augustine and Aquinas ofcourse. I do hope and pray that this course bears much fruit. To any atheist who comes across this course, be rest assured that you will come across a critical and fair minded thinker whose arguments and presentation are creative and ought to merit your serious consideration. Thank You Dr Feser for all your work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJuly 27, 2024 at 9:13 AM

    I will second what Norm said. Besides, anyone who is a comic book aficionado like Ed Feser is has to be a cool guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 1, 2024 at 2:00 PM

      Or a connoisseur of Steely Dan.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousAugust 1, 2024 at 4:57 PM

      https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/167f8tl/steely_dan_oc/

      Delete
  6. Eric VestrupAugust 1, 2024 at 10:40 AM

    Dr Feser, I watched the first video, and it was very good, like a compressed version of the first chapter of your Five Proofs book. Given my own muddleheadedness on this topic, I personally wish you would've discussed why the First Actualizer must be purely actual.

    The first chapter of your book lays out the objection nicely near the end, where you say (for argument's sake) that perhaps the First Actualizer has some potential that is not yet actualized, or may never be actualized. Your argument there is solid (I think) showing that this hypothetical potential cannot be being-related, but I don't see how it shows that there couldn't be a non-being-related potential in the FA.

    This could all very well be to my own deficiencies in knowledge of the matter, and I've known myself to harp on stuff that is almost axiomatic before, but this part of the argument still gets me. Any suggestions? Is it "obvious" that in the argument chain the FA must be Pure Act and I'm just missing what's in front of my face?

    Regardless, I'm looking forward to the other videos in the series, and you're doing the Purely Actual Actualizer's work (heh) here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 2, 2024 at 8:01 AM

      My best understanding is that the first actualizer must have no potentials for existence. A coffee cup has potential to be in different locations, and this potential must be actualized in order for the coffee cup to exist. But with the first actualizer, it can have no potential that must be actualized for existence, and thus, cannot have any potential. In pretty new to philosophy so please correct me if I am wrong Dr. Feser!

      Delete
    2. Eric VestrupAugust 2, 2024 at 10:41 AM

      In your second video, you discuss why the FA must be purely actual, and you use simplicity to buttress that claim (right?). The way my thinking goes is that I would've wanted the Neo-Platonic argument first, and then the Aristotelian argument second. But that's just my subjective preference based on how I'm picking up on things. Another really good video!

      Delete
    3. Eric VestrupAugust 2, 2024 at 1:54 PM

      Anon --- that's why I specified "non-being-related potential". I agree that the FA can't have a being-related potential.

      Delete
    4. Matthew HiltsAugust 3, 2024 at 11:28 AM

      Ah gotcha, I missed that part! Just thinking out loud here, but are there any non-being-related potentials? If so what are some examples?

      Delete
    5. BillAugust 4, 2024 at 12:11 AM

      Eric writes:

      Your argument there is solid (I think) showing that this hypothetical potential cannot be being-related, but I don't see how it shows that there couldn't be a non-being-related potential in the FA.

      All change is being-related. Raising my left hand is a state of existence with my hand raised. And while my hand is raised, I cannot at the same time have said hand resting at my side. Potency reduction to act enables a subject to exist in a manner not realized previously, but it does not enable all states of reality.

      Recall that a potency is not only a capacity for change (acquiring or losing states of reality), it is also a limiting principle of being. Potency limits being to a range of possible effects with respect to the kind of thing a subject is. A dog has the potency to bark, but it doesn’t have the potency to give a speech about what it means to bark because it doesn’t have a rational nature. In other words, it doesn’t have a principle of existence which enables rational thought. So, if God has no being-related potencies, then there are no inactive states of realities in Him; He simply is. If there were, He would be a composite of actuality and potentiality—His essence would be limited to certain states of reality in need of an actualizing principle more fundamental than He.

      A self-explanatory being (being simpliciter, Pure Actuality) is existence without qualification. Since it simply is, no further explanation is necessary. There is no limiting principle in pure being and no further explanation to get it to be something it currently is not (because it already exists without qualification). But something that has the potential to be exists with qualification. It stands in need of being raised to being because a limiting principle of existence is part of its essence. Seeing the causal chain’s Prime Mover is to see Pure Actuality.

      Delete
    6. Eric VestrupAugust 5, 2024 at 9:52 AM

      Thanks Bill. Let me study this. When you say "All change is being-related" this seems believable to me, and it would seem to imply that you're saying that the concept of a "non-being-related potential" really doesn't make any sense. Am I correct in getting that implication? Again, thanks for the reply.

      Delete
    7. BillAugust 5, 2024 at 2:10 PM

      @Eric, yes, that's correct.

      Delete
    8. Walter Van den AckerAugust 6, 2024 at 12:04 AM

      And that's the main problem for Thomism. The "first" created being must come from God. But God is immutable and simple, so nothing can come from Him.
      So the created being must come from nothing. But ex nihilo nihil fit.

      Delete
    9. BillAugust 6, 2024 at 12:09 PM

      @Walter,

      And that’s the main problem for Walter. He’s been told multiple times why that isn’t an issue at all, but instead of engaging the argument, he repeatedly falls back on his empty claim that it is impossible. So, to echo his reply, since he’s interacted with nothing, his claim is nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

      Delete
    10. Walter Van den AckerAugust 7, 2024 at 1:00 AM

      Nothing is ever an issue at all for someone who is stuck in Thomistic reasoning.
      In reality I have never encountered any serious argument for how it would even in principle be possible, but who knows?
      I won't be holding my breath, though.

      Delete
    11. Eric VestrupAugust 7, 2024 at 10:15 AM

      @Bill Thanks for the replies. It gives me something to think about as I study this. Unfortunately, there is asymmetry between the amount of your replies and mine because I'm still learning this stuff and appear to be far behind you, and thus have not much to contribute other than questions.

      Delete
    12. AnonymousAugust 7, 2024 at 10:41 AM

      @Walter, as stated, you've been told multiple times. You have never replied with an argument. All you offer are empty denials. Indeed, I don't think you even remember what the arguments are. Thus, you need to quit replying until you can come up with a cogent rebuttal.

      Delete
    13. Walter Van den AckerAugust 8, 2024 at 12:43 AM

      Anonymous

      What you think is of no interest to me. I most certainly do remember what the arguments are and I have replied with counter arguments. You don't accept those arguments, but do not pretend they do not exist.
      I use an argument in this very thread. That you fail to understand it doesn't mean it isn't there.
      I think it is quite arrogant coming from an anonymous poster to tell me what I need to do. I do exactly what I want to do and if Ed doesn't want to publish my comments, that's his decision, not yours.

      Delete
    14. AnonymousAugust 8, 2024 at 8:03 AM

      @Eric,

      No problem. Ask any question. I certainly had a ton when I began studying classical theism. There comes a moment when it all clicks, and then it's really easy to see.

      Ed is a fabulous teacher, but so are others (e.g., Dolezal). There's no shame in asking questions. My beef is with those like Walter who criticize the system without even understanding it.

      Delete
    15. BillAugust 8, 2024 at 12:33 PM

      @Walter,

      The "anonymous" poster is me, Bill. Whenever I post on my phone, I have to manually enter my name, and I forgot to do so twice now. Anyway, the "argument" you offer here is a repetition and comes nowhere close to engaging what we've said which shows that you DO NOT understand them at all.

      Delete
    16. Walter Van den AckerAugust 9, 2024 at 12:43 AM

      Well, Bill, it's still arrogant that you tell me what I need to do.
      As to my argument, it is fairly simple. There are two possibilities and neither of those come off the ground. IIRC, you were trying to knock down strawmn and never actually engaged with what I actually claimed, but I might be confusing you with another poster.

      Delete
    17. BillAugust 13, 2024 at 7:26 AM

      @Walter, yes, you must be confusing me with another poster because I directly engaged your argument multiple times, and there are NOT only two possibilities, as you've been told multiple times.

      Delete
    18. Walter Van den AckerAugust 13, 2024 at 1:36 PM

      Yes, the magical Thomistic third option. How could I forget about that.?
      Creation comes from God or it comes from nothing it it comes from something else. Just like nothing can exist for even instant without God actively creating and sustaining it, except for a man's so called free decision. Because, as we all know, the characters in a book are free to act the way they want, despite the fact that the author wrots the complete story.
      Very convincing. Ik should now become a theist.

      Delete
    19. BillAugust 13, 2024 at 11:09 PM

      @Walter, you completely missed the option I'm referring to, but that's no surprise. It's clear to everybody here but you that you don't have a clue what you're criticizing, but you continue to do so with abandon. If you actually understood what you're critiquing, you'd formulate an argument. But when you base your claims on a total misunderstanding of our position, even after having been told numerous times, you prove yourself disingenuous.

      Any teacher who told you that misstating arguments is a great way to persuade others ought to be sued for malpractice, or did you come up with that all by yourself?

      Delete
    20. Walter Van den AckerAugust 15, 2024 at 10:42 AM

      Bill

      I have bever seen a viable third option.
      I have seen you misstating (or maybe just misunderstanding) my arguments.
      At this moment there is nothing to discuss.

      Delete
    21. BillAugust 16, 2024 at 12:03 AM

      @Walter, of course there's nothing to discuss because, as usual, you never offer an argument. You just make bald claims about things you don't understand. And you don't even know what "third option" I'm referring to. Amazing.

      Delete
    22. Walter Van den AckerAugust 16, 2024 at 11:24 AM

      I know what third option you're referring to and I have explained why it isn't viable.

      Delete
    23. AnonymousAugust 17, 2024 at 8:29 AM

      @Walter, no you don't because I put "third option" in scare quotes. You don't have a sweet clue what I'm talking about, even though I've explained it multiple times. You NEVER argued why is isn't viable. A bald denial isn't an argument, genius.

      Delete
    24. Walter Van den AckerAugust 17, 2024 at 10:56 AM

      Whatever makes you happy, Bill.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousAugust 2, 2024 at 7:54 PM

    I don't think most people come to a belief in God through philodophical reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 3, 2024 at 1:36 PM

      I did.

      I had some secular philosophers that I enjoyed listening to who did long-form podcasts on various philosophical thinkers/topics.

      They got to cosmological arguments for the existence of God and their portrayal of the subject immediately made me suspicious because the objections they presented to the arguments seemed so obvious that I was left confused why anyone in history found those arguments convincing at all. So I sought out some theistic philosophers and it became clearly apparent that the way theistic philosophers had versions of the arguments that were susceptible to the objections the secular philosophers weee making.

      It was around here that I found Prof. Feser and others and found the arguments for the immateriality of the mind very compelling and realized that I had internalized a mindset that favorable to materialism even though I thought arguments for materialism weren't very good. Then, being open to arguments which conclude with the existence of particular immaterial things, I gradually became convinced that the theistic arguments were not just plausible, but convincing, and that I did not find the objections compelling at all.

      Delete
    2. TonyAugust 4, 2024 at 10:54 AM

      Even if it is the case that many people won't come to a belief in God, or in the Christian God, through philosophical reasoning, it happens some of the time and this is sufficient good reason to put out sound and excellently prepared reasoned arguments for God. I know of at least 2 others who also came to Christianity through such philosophical investigations, and I probably would have lost my faith had I not had Thomism to assist and support my belief.

      The reality is that people come to truth through many distinct pathways, and we should expect that because truth is all of a whole. That is, all parts of truth tend toward buttressing other parts of truth, because true things cannot be true AND be in absolute contradiction to other truth.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousAugust 2, 2024 at 7:56 PM

    I meant philosophical reasoning.
    I'm typing on my damn cellphone.

    ReplyDelete
  9. PaoloAugust 3, 2024 at 10:23 AM

    Big news, the book "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" in now available as audiobook (at least on Audible)!! I read the book in paperback format, but I love to have now the opportunity to revisit it in my commute.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousAugust 29, 2024 at 8:47 PM

    Dr. Feser, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for you and your work. I've had previous students of mine read significant portions of your "Five Proofs of the Existence of God," with some being profoundly affected by it. I think that your video lectures have the effect of making that book even more accessible. If have opportunity to teach using it again, I will definitely have them watch the videos, as well. I say all of this as a committed conservative Protestant, of the Reformed tradition.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)