I'd love to hear your thoughts on Dr. Sijuwade's debate with Christian Wagner on the Monarchical vs Thomistic explanation of the Trinity!

❤

All three are coeternal. Begotten and proceeding are just there to "explain" the relationships. Can we quit quibbling over this? God is triune. All three persons are eternal. Get it? Got it?

This has to be the best sermon on the Virgin Mary that I have ever heard. So glad that you are in communion with the fullness of the truth. 🙏

Do you recommend Norris Clarke's The One and the Many as an introduction to Thomistic Metaphysics to a philosophy undergrad?

Would you be able to tell me if the contents of Simone Weil’s Letter To A Priest are also in Waiting For God? Thanks.

Seems redundant to say intrinsic passive potency. Passive potency refers to contingent beings which already implies intrinsic. I think it’s similar to when people say irregardless.

Relation is not an accident of a human. In Thomistic metaphysics it is because of his Aristotle. That’s philosophically wrong, but absolutely right in context to criticizing Ratzinger. 34:15

Contra Pat here (I love Pat by the way), I think every theory bottoms out in a brute fact. Theism seems like it finds different language for talking about brute facts. The divine essence is a brute fact. You have to sneak an ontological argument in every time if you want an explanation, and this just adds fuel to the Humean critique, which seems to me like it was correct.

Speaking of aristotle's physics benedict's approach seems like an inversion of this.. When the objects of an inquiry, in any department, have principles, conditions, or elements, it is through acquaintance with these that knowledge, that is to say scientific knowledge, is attained. For we do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles, and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements. Plainly therefore in the science of Nature, as in other branches of study, our first task will be to try to determine what relates to its principles. The natural way of doing this is to start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature; for the same things are not 'knowable relatively to us' and 'knowable' without qualification. So in the present inquiry we must follow this method and advance from what is more obscure by nature, but clearer to us, towards what is more clear and more knowable by nature. The more thomistic/aristotlean approach of having a clear understanding of normal things, and from having an understanding of those through analogy coming to understand their cause (God) and see how that corresponds with revelation seems rather clear. The inverted approach of starting with the trinity (probably the least obvious thing in all of reality) then moving from that to try to understand normal things just seems really bizarre and kind of absurd. I don't even know what would motivate trying to take that approach.

Thanks for the conversation! It should be fantastic.

Hi Pat Flynn, I have 2 questions, first of, I see you have both of Pruss' works (Necessary Existence and Infinity, Causation and Paradox), did you but these off of Amazon or from a different site? These are really expensive but I still want to get a hold of them at some point? Is there somewhere you got them from that is cheaper than Amazon?. Secondly, I myself study Philosophy as a degree (undergraduate) but I'd say I can grasp most of these books fairly well, my issue is with finding books for friends and family that do justice to these wonderful arguments, but also are accessibly to a lay person, and I mean like LAY lay person, very basic stuff. It may also help me explain these arguments to skeptics with little/no experience in Philosophy. What would you recommend? Is your recent book accessible at that level or somewhere close? Thanks for your work!

Comment for traction. 🎉

Looking forward to this!! 47:30 bookmark

Ten minutes and not much Thomist metaphysics. Moving on

"All the language is going to fall flat at some point.." is reassuring. Heading deeper into this. In trust that cognitive clarity will potentially be yoked with somatic acceptance.

The question: Is Intelligent Design true? Answer: Without evidence the answer is NO...

LOVE the background man.

Comment for traction

Patt Flynn is my philosophical spirit animal. By that I mean that you’re the thinker that I’ve come across that most clearly and concisely articulated my own views on topics like this, including things that I didn’t have the language to put to words myself. Especially regarding your thoughts on the PSR, I think that’s right on the money. I don’t think it’s possible to actually live your life as though the PSR is false. The intellectual price tag of rejecting the PSR seems positively lovecraftian. And exempting the professional philosopher with their contrarian disposition, I think the only actual reason why people don’t want to commit to it is because they recognize that doing so puts them, if not all the way to classical theism, way too close for comfort. Great convo.

The best argument for god is that there are no logical arguments for no god.

Thanks for coming on the channel, man! Really enjoyed it!

How is Christ fully man and fully God if you can't have a multiplicity of substantial forms?

Jack has articulated much of what I've thought about the EI thesis, just much better than I ever could. It's always come across as a massive question beg against Thomistic metaphysics to me. Argue for your alternative metaphysical schema if you wish (I'm not a strict Thomist either) but EI is not a standalone objection at all and needs to be justified itself.

Traction

I wish we could get DBH on here for this. Sigh

Bad clarification*

Frustratingly, this topic can't be discussed in soundbites or short youtube comments. It would take me ten pages to explain exactly where and why I think Fr Rooney is mistaken, albeit sincerely and after having done some deep thinking. I appreciate his tone and willingness to dialogue. So, just some inadequate and brief thoughts that could be explored in depth. A big problem concerns the arrow of interpretation. As I see it (A) There are very strong philosophical, broad theological, and Biblical "prooftext" arguments favoring Christ-centric universalism (in a "confident" sense and not merely as a possibility; the latter is allowed in Catholic Church, as many have already noted) However, critics will say (B) There are very strong philosophical, theological, and Biblical prooftext arguments *against* universalism (either eternal conscious hell or absolute annihilation) Assuming scriptures don't actually contradict on this issue, one can interpret A through the lenses of B, OR one can interpret B through the lenses of A. So, in other words, one can say something like the following: (1) "Although the Bible and philosophy appear to show an everlasting conscious experience in hell (or annihilation), we know this can't be the case because *better* philosophical and Biblical analysis show that universalism is true, and hence the conventional view of hell must be mistaken and its prooftexts must be capable of being harmonized with the (better) arguments for universalism." However, someone else could say the following instead: (2) "Although philosophical arguments and Biblical analysis appear to demonstrate universalism, we know this cannot be the case because *better* philosophical arguments and Biblical analysis show that eternal conscious hell (or replace with annihilation) is true, and so the pro-universalism texts and arguments must be capable of being harmonized with the reality of eternal conscious hell (or annihilation)." I'm utterly convinced of 1, for reasons that have been painstakingly outlined in the second edition of Talbott's "Inescapable Love of God" (2014), the *second* edition of Parry's "The Evangelical Universalist" (2012), Andrew Hronich's "Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis" (2023), Reitan and Kronen's "God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism" (2011) and others (e.g. DBH's book is decent but better when read alongside his commentaries in his second translation of the New Testament). To be fair, Fr Rooney engages *some* of these arguments in some detail. It would, as I said, take me at least ten pages to begin (adequately) explaining why I disagree with him. So, all I can do is recommend the above works *alongside* the work of Fr Rooney and then just let the chips fall where they may. I am very tempted to attempt a few short arguments. Alas, I must be disciplined; I know it would open a can of worms lol. BUT I'm willing to clarify if anyone is interested. - the other Pat (the OG Meow MeowMeow, although that name has been taken so I can't reclaim it)

Good one! I love the whole topic of part/whole relationships, virtual existence, and scientific antirealism. If you know anyone thomists or others who have some different views on that could be an interesting conversation. It seems to get at the essence of metaphysics and why it's inaccessible to many modern people in a compelling way. I had a similar experience to pat, it just seemed like "Yeah this follows from the earlier principles, kind of weird but seems like it works" I used to be a hardcore naturalist and already saw that it didn't work. I can imagine that people who've thoroughly explored naturalism and found it unsatisfactory might have an easier time accepting the more mysterious unity of substances because they already know the alternative doesn't work.

Picky, but the illustration does not look at all like a 13th century Dominican.

The parables of jesus is extremely important and traditions of these philosophical influences is a tragedy.

🙏

Thank you for this Pat Flynn & Michael Gorman God bless you all!

Comment for traction. 🎉

Let me once again highly recommend Dr. Gorman’s book. If you’re at all interested in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, it’s a must read!

is prime matter not related to God`s power even though it exists and does not exist? Does it exist along side God relatively and always?

Thank you for another brilliant show. Yes, get Stump on ASAP!!!

I would present a universalist argument like this. Premise 1: God desires all people to reconcile with Him. Premise 2: God knows all possible factors that would lead each person to be willing to reconcile with Him, in a way that does not require the exclusion of others from reconciliation. Premise 3: God has the ability to cause the sufficient conditions in which each person would freely reconcile with Him either during their mortal or postmortem life. Conclusion 1: Therefore, God will create the sufficient conditions for each people to reconcile with Him. Conclusion 2: Therefore, all people will reconcile with God either during their mortal or postmortem life. On Fr. James' point of then why not give people the beatific vision immediately, I think of sanctification as requiring an opening of the heart, so to speak, for the Holy Spirit to dwell within. Paul talks about while we are away from the Lord, we life by faith and not by sight, so maybe this veiled faith provides additional opportunities for the Holy Spirit to work for our sanctification. It’s not the only opportunity, but it could allow for additional opportunity to an unveiled faith we'll later receive. This also seems to fit more neatly with the problem of divine hiddenness as to why it would be better for God not to make himself too overtly involved in creaturely lives.

what is the book you guys are talking about

31:56 Searle reference 1:01:15 bookmark

Thank you for your work, Fr. Hell! 😂 The “Two wills” simplification was helpful. Yes, if hell is bursting at the seams full, then it seems as if hell wins. I can only think of one being with full knowledge who would think that is a good outcome and his head/will is crushed by the Virgin. I hope to read your book one day. I hope many people read your book. Unfortunately, it seems hell is used as a mere weapon or a default position. An honest dialogue about hell can bring a greater understanding of our relationship with the Divine Simplicity.

theology with mario bgm?

First let me state that I'm not a biologist. I think Joshua has accused Mike of magical thinking about irreducible complexity. The parts of the flagellum motor could have evolved separately for other purpose and then later evolve the motor. Ok I can see that argument. But Joshua later goes down the evolutionary tree to say how different we are from chimps and how that looks like God was involved. In my opinion, that magical thinking is no different than Mike's. The only difference is that at least Mike provided some theory for his argument and Joshua just waved his magic wand and said God must have been involved. I think Joshua is riding both sides of the fence here and doesn't want to piss of his colleagues. I think Mike is more correct because he is starting at the molecular level and that is where you need to start to prove intelligent design. Joshua says he believes in intelligent design but offers no argument for it. You guys should work together instead of disagreeing with each other. And Joshua, your colleagues that don't believe in God should not be trusted. They have their own magical thinking about how molecules were created by chance.

Adding another traction comment since these are two of my favorites

Between the History of Philosophy at the Beginning and the answer about God knowing he’s not a brain in a vat Gaven absolutely crushed it this episode

"On Not Three Gods" by St. Gregory of Nyssa is way before the 9th Century dude. All the Orthodox have done is preserve the Cappadocian Trinity.

Dr. Peter Kreeft is also a beloved Thomist.

What page?

Is prison the best possible world for a homicidal maniac? If it is, or could be, then perhaps the world we have, in some sense, is the best possible world for is current inhabitants.