The laws of logic are not causal, they are descriptive. Also, I agree with Dr.Anderson that they are necessary truths, and that being so means they are not contingent on anything, including a God, else they wouldn't be necessary.

Omniscient has an 's' in it

In the spirit of the content you shared, I have some questions to gain full understanding... But first - thanks for creating this video and spending the time to unpack how you read to understand philosophical books. That said, the context of my questions is related to the query I typed in to find your video. "active learning reading a book" I am looking to do a better job of not just reading a book (mostly business-related books) but truly knowing/understanding what I am reading so I can appreciate and level up my business skills. With that here are my questions: How do you know the most important points as you go through a book for the first time? How do you properly summarize key points? How do you take conceptual notes vs structure or dialectical? Thanks ahead of time for your response and help!

Can somebody clarify why that which you have seen cannot be identical to that which you have not seen?

Full circle, I read this book like 20 years ago and now am watching this video. Must be bc I saw a snake eating a frog at 5 which shattered my idyllic worldview as the concept of death & my own impending mortality caused me to seek out smart strong men whose philosophic & religious musings provide a distracting & reassuring affirmation of life which my father demonstrated but ever articulated. Watch that ice Jim.

Happy to see you guys are doing freaky Friday again !

The boys are back in town!

Howdy, partnas. I was just wondering who you (Pat) are studying under at GCAS, that is, who is your supervisor. I am looking at the program too. Thanks.

Why do we need to avoid necessitarianism?

Comment for traction. 🎉

Isn’t h20 just essentially a zoom in on what we call water, and then we start calling it h20 in the context of chemistry? Does the words really have anything to do with its real nature? It is what it is no matter what we call it?

Everything God does is good. Our claims are irrelevant. God simply is good. He is love. He is justice. He is purity. Am I missing something? Can God "choose" to be something other than what he is?

They are back this is awesome

I know I've mentioned this before, but I wanted to let you know that I really enjoy your recent book ("The Best Argument for God"). I am re-reading it currently and I appreciate the conversatioanl tone of it. Would you consider writing another one, please? Thank you for the work you do and God bless you. 😊

Philip Rieff' went from one of Freud's best students 'Mind of the Moralist' to greatest critic in his 'The Triumph of the Therapeutic' (1966) .. a masterwork.

Looking forward to reading more Freud. Buenas noches.

The insatiability of man’s desire is a very interesting topic. Aquinas also talked about this. I’m also interested in hearing how Marcuse fits in, as well as his discussion of Eros.

I remember my intro to psychology professor towing the mainstream view of Freud and psychoanalysis in class: very scientistic. And I mean that in the most academic sense. He said if Carl Jung was alive now he would be considered an archaeologist.

Iconic duo. I've missed this a lot! Also, I read Freud's "Question of Lay Analysis," and I honestly like him a lot more than I thought I would.

Super pumped to see these two together again

Ordinary humans are not expected to understand the depths of the workings of God: if they did they would contend with God, as did Satan because of their resultant pride, the root of all sin.

Glad you guys are back! I have been reading a bagillion books, so I am glad to your poetical musings have returned for me to draw ideas from.

what can we understand from 60 minutes explanatory video about philosophy?

I loved this more consice coverage of Suan's part one and two podcasts on the same topic. Really excellent stuff. More than anything I hope pur Protestant brethren will consider the misleading statements by Gavin Ortlund that Suan highlights so clearly.

The problem here is that “thoughts” are not adequately defined. In every instance we can verify, thoughts are emergent properties of an interconnected system that requires time to work. So using the word “thoughts” loosely to refer to entities in the mind of God allows you to take a great leap in logic.

The Catholic teaching "Filioque" that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is a heresy. The correct teaching according to the two councils of Nicaea and Constantinople is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son. How do we know this? From the Baptism of Christ, when the heavens open: the Father affirms the Son, and the Holy Spirit descends from the Father and dwells on the Son. Does not a Holy Spirit ascend from the Son, to meet with the Holy Spirit from the Father to form the heresy of the "holy fourth".

Dang I think I only read two philosophy books this year. I really need to change that.

Did I hear Freaky Fridays making a comeback? Let’s gooo!!!

Hi Pat, please can I ask is your and Jim's paper on the problem of evil available for buying/downloading anywhere? Thank you so much for this conversation between you too as well and for all your other content.

Where can we find jim

🦥🇬🇧

Comment for traction. Happy new year Enjoyed thinking about thinking

I really liked Hendricks on Skeptical Theism. His book was really accessible and while I disagreed with some of it, I found it funny and well-argued.

Mei Culpa. Re-reading.

I sense Dr. Jim going down a certain kind of path. God help us, a year or so from now, if he is telling us about Jordan Peterson's "We Who Wrestle With God." :) I only needed to hear Jim say he was adding Eliade to that course he is teaching, and I would have put money on this. I'm only kidding, but also, I'm not completely kidding. I have the impression Jim might be confronting some skepticism about metaphysics. I think this is a good thing. Thanks for the talk, Pat and Jim. Always a pleasure hearing from you both.

All 3 persons are Eternal and no one cones from anyone this is not a Russian doll. 😶‍🌫️

I think my fundamental issue with the idea that the problem of evil could have an effect on the notion of God's existence, that it is really an "in house" argument about God's nature, rather than a questioning of whether God exists. Put simply, can God be All Powerful and All good, whilst there is evil in the world? Well say God is not all powerful, just enormously powerful, say he could only have made a universe like this one, and not one in which we have both free will and no suffering, that doesn't impinge on the existence of god, just changes the characteristics a little.

What a great discussion on Catholic Atonement. I believe there is a salvific element in suffering. Rather than say 'Why me, Lord?'

This isn’t true naturalism because you’re relying on science to define reality in our understood terms

I’ve watched most of the videos on Aristotle, because he’s confusing, I needed/need the help. I’ve only “studied” ( loosely speaking because I hate reading) Your discussions on Aristotle are probably the most useful that I’ve seen ( as being applicable to actual life). And as an aside, the "cherry on top" is you’re kind of like the people I used to hang out with; i.e., metal-heads, jujitsu all that sort of thing. That’s like oxygen to me, because most people, including my “friends” have lost their minds, and their roots, since they let the media rip their foliage from reality like a weed separated from its roots still buried in the earth, and thrown on a compost pile to rot, and they seem to have no idea they ever had roots. It’s Twilight Zone insanity. The reason why I LOVE Aristotle is that most of what Aristotle says, or MUCH of what Aristotle says, are things I’ve always thought - even THE MOST taboo ideas/FACTS. I thought I might be crazy, or if not crazy or just dumb, then I discovered Aristotle. Thanks for the great discussions.

I am interested in Bernard Lonergan and Personalism.

What would Suan’s response be to the objection that the church only fallibly settled the canon until Trent?

I think the part of this argument that carries the most weight is the disclosure problem, but I don't think Suan developes it completely here. He suggests that it has two conditions - something that is only known with certainty by God, and also not being discernable by human intellect. But in his argument about the canon he seems to use it to say that since the canon is only known with certainty by God, therefore it cannot be reasoned to by means of intellect. It seems like his conclusion is sneaking into the argument. But I think the question of how the canon (an artifact of revelation) could be attained by human reasoning is a good one. However I think the answer is just that when God speaks to us, his word can carry the authority of infallibility just because it is God's word addressed to us. He is God, so he can do this even when he uses fallible means. I think it was his plan to do it this way. For us to try to introduce a basis of infallibility for knowing what is the word of God just because we think it should be there would be a mistake on our part.

55:00 Catholics often say that if Catholicism were false they would be Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglican, but honestly to me I'm with Pat on "Catholicism or bust", I think the falsity of Catholicism would entail a very liberal form of Protestantism

I've lately been characterizing the Canon problem as not an epistemological problem but rather as a metaphysical problem. Namely, a charism of infallibility is a necessary condition to establish an infallible canon. Whatever church has the true Canon could have only determined that Canon by way of this charism. Protestants often characterize the Canon problem as an epistemological argument which misses its point. The tension within protestantism is having to admit that the selection of Canon was inspired by an infallible charism while simultaneously denying that any ecclesial body has such a charism. They can only make sense of the Canon as an extraordinary act of grace that occurred during the time of the Reformation, but this extraordinary act, centuries after the close of the apostolic age, itself is not found within the deposit of Revelation.

Edith Stein. Little Flower. St Faustian. Theresa de Avila. St John of the Cross. Augustine. CS Lewis. All who had to fight to defend the Catholic faith. St. Patrick’s up there. St. Joseph. And Our Blessed Lady is first amongst them ALL.

Suan: “The Protestant dilemma regarding the reasoning from human means to the Platonic canon resembles the Tower of Babel.” I am unclear about what is meant by "human means" and how it relates to the classical Protestant understanding. Recognizing and preserving the canon is part of God's providence and grace working through human means. It is important to distinguish between the church being a reliable means and it being an infallible means for recognizing Scripture. One can have a very high level of confidence in the canonicity of the Protestant Bible without requiring infallible certainty. Having a high level of confidence in the reliability of the universal church to have recognized 100% the books in the Protestant canon to be scripture requires an extremely high level of evidence, if not an insurmountable amount, to argue otherwise (to remove any of those books). Furthermore, the concept of infallible certainty ultimately comes down to faith. We cannot definitively know if the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has correctly established its canon infallibly. Ultimately, our certainty is based on our subjective evaluations of the purported authority and infallibility of the RCC.

"wide-ranging explanatory power". Indeed. Very well said.

A response to the presentation! kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5-Xl4mKg7SEabMsi=p43jgmIzjJ0ggqMN