Classical Theism and Divine Timelessness | Dr. Kate Rogers & Dr. Ryan Mullins

[@anglozombie2485]

We need more Ryan Mullins

[@coleyoung912]

This is the first time I’ve actually heard Ryan speak and his vocal tone took me by surprise! I expected his tone of voice to be about an octave higher lol. Loving this conversation so far, Ryan has a voice that could easily be on the radio!

[@MajestyofReason]

Haha! I've had Ryan on my show many times before. I'm sure you'll enjoy checking those videos out, too! :)

[@directordissy3101]

Wow! Dr. Kate Rogers teaches at UD.... didn't know philosophers even existed here in Delaware

[@crabking6884]

That was a very fun discussion. I don't think I'm fully convinced that Dr. Kate Rogers position on freedom isn't just some sort of compatibilist position because if modal collapse(modal simplicity) is true, it's not possible for you to do otherwise. Honestly, I'm not even sure if any free will is possible under her model, maybe not in the sense of hard determinism, but it seems as though I'm necessarily typing out this comment to this awesome discussion.

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

Really excellent interview! You both showed how to highlight a thinker, pursue clarification, and get many ideas on the table. I'm intrigued to hear more about her 'modal simplicity' (even though I don't go in that direction myself), and I'm also interested in how she understands 'creation' and/or 'creation ex nihilo' (as well as how she navigates various magisterial statements--given that she is Catholic).

[@MajestyofReason]

Much love

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

@@MajestyofReason thanks for linking that; I'll definitely check it out.

[@josecantu8195]

@@MajestyofReason Same here! Thanks for the link!

[@nathanfosdahl7525]

As the first view recorded, I'm proud to say that I'm the fifth to give a thumbs up.

[@ericpowell8563]

1:02:29 I find this exchange really interesting. The strongest argument against eternalism in my estimation is what Ryan presents here. If we exist at each moment then there are parts of me that are in a moment of eternal bliss and parts of me that are eternally existing in a state of suffering. Kate seems to miss Ryan’s point here by directing the conversation to whether or not we will remember our suffering as that makes us a whole person. The point still stands though, that on isotemporalism there are infinite parts of “me” that exist in a moment of suffering and sin.

[@quart5extakkord]

From a christian perspective I found WLC's objection problematic. Because this would mean that Christ ist eternally hanging on the cross and so there is always a Christ who hasn't fullfiled his sacrifice. Or am I missunderstanding Ryans point here?

[@kensey007]

17:30 - - A being that can decompose itself has a power that a being that cannot decompose itself does not have. Thus, a being that compose itself is a greater being. #pandeism Really, I struggle with how in the world we would ever define "greater" in this context.

[@RadicOmega]

totally stoked

[@carsonwall2400]

You should have David Bentley Hart on the show to decimate arguments for an eternal hell.

[@MajestyofReason]

Hart vs. Feser lol

[@carsonwall2400]

@@MajestyofReason Haha that would be pretty spicy. Honestly I would prefer Eleonore Stump to Feser.

[@dubbelkastrull]

Hart vs James White

[@yourfutureself3392]

Very interesting

[@DryApologist]

Great discussion

[@grayham_and_eggz]

Dang, was Kate ever throwing shade at William Hasker! ;) Jokes aside, I recently received "God, Time, and Knowledge" in the mail. I have yet to read it, but elsewhere Hasker makes a good case for Open Theism.

[@haydendupree8032]

Kate is like the sweet little grandma that lives down the road but is also a heavyweight philosopher who’s way smarter than me lol

[@copernicus99]

How can a timeless being create a universe?? Creating is an inherently temporal act (e.g., Genesis!).

[@dogsdomain8458]

Joe you should come! It'll prob be recorded

[@ajhieb]

18:26 _"Can you imagine it having failed to exist?"_ I'm not sure I can get on board with any test, or any argument that literally relies on one's own imagination. Sounds to me like an attempt to legitimize an argument from incredulity/ignorance.

[@gg2008yayo]

Does anyone know if Dr.Mullins is a christian if not a thiest? Just curious

[@MajestyofReason]

He’s Christian

[@gg2008yayo]

@@MajestyofReason JOE!! I didnt expect you to respond but thank you for clarifying! Now that I have you here may i ask as someone whos still in highschool how could i learn the basics of philosophy? Also i saw your interview with capturing Christianity were you said you had held to naturalism is that correct? If so is that still the case now? Anyways thanks again for your amazing informative content!

[@MajestyofReason]

@@gg2008yayo happy to help🙂 To learn the basics of philosophy, here’s where to start: (1) watch my video “how to analyze arguments like a philosopher” and pick up (and read) the books at the end! (2) watch my video “what is philosophy?” and read the dozen (or so) AMAZING books at the end. These will give you a really solid footing in the basics of philosophy, how to think philosophically, analyze arguments, etc. Finally, and more generally, check out my Doing Philosophy playlist❤️

[@iwilldi]

19:20 decomposing god? Leibnitz suggested, we are not really things that can decompose, we are things that are simple. We are monades. The universe can not really be decomposed. The set of all material things still exists, if all things have been decomposed. So i can think of the universe as being simple. This chair may consist of parts. But it is really simple, because i can strip down all parts and only carry the simple chair around. But here is a thing. if the simple thing is never thought about by any decomposing brain, does it exist?

[@iwilldi]

36:00 if god is the creator of the best of all worlds, whence comes salvation? we clearly see that death is not a human creation, so death must be the best solution (to make a reality an escapable reality ?) ! Here comes the question, why salvation, why conquering death?

[@josephpatterson2513]

I will never study or know as much as divine timelessness as Dr. Rogers and the same goes with the work of Dr. Mullins. They both have done more study than most people with regular jobs will ever have time to do so how can an average joe with a 8-5 job and raising a family supposed to figure this all out?

[@MajestyofReason]

Great question! I would say that it just takes patience. Perhaps find a book that works for you and your interests, and perhaps just chip away at the book every day. Maybe you can read 20 minutes a day (or whatever works for you), or maybe you can read 5 or 10 pages a day, or what have you. A book that is *very* accessible w.r.t. God and Time (and it's cheap and it's short and it's by a top scholar and it summarizes most of the debates very well!!!) is Natalja Deng's book in the Cambridge Elements series entitled "God and Time". That is an excellent place to start. To dig deeper, you could then go to Ryan's book "The End of the Timeless God". It's actually relatively accessible. Ryan has a knack for writing in an accessible manner. And from there you could follow certain books or articles that catch your eye that are referenced by Natalja Deng or Ryan Mullins. (They both have great references/recommendations in these books I've mentioned.) Hope this helps! :)

[@ObsidianTeen]

Aquinas was probably a libertarian on free will. W Matthews Grant has some work on how choices can be libertarianly free even if they're caused by God. ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/opbJhISXd55-Zrs ) That said, free choices are random (cause is identical for both effects, "is causally blind," so the agent-cause QUA cause can't ensure what the effect/choice is) which makes the doctrine of hell very stupid. The knowledge of the choice is in the effect...it comes too late. Re: necessity of the present -- Can someone explain what this is?

[@copernicus99]

I fail to understand how a supreme mind/intelligence ('God') can be simple. The human mind/intellect is highly complex- and so is the physical brain upon which the human mind/intellect depends- in fact, the human brain may very well be the most complex object in the universe. God, being supremely more intelligent, must therefore be supremely more complex than humans.