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.
Joe's podcast: kzbin.info/door/vWR...
Joe's book: www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...
Fr. Pine's podcast: godsplaining.org/
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquinas.com/understa...
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Catholic Chemistry: catholicchemistry.com
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquinas.com/support/
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
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd

[@alexjurado6029]

I didn’t know Tom Holland was a philosopher!

[@petery6432]

Nah, he's a Historian

[@eugengolubic2186]

I'm sorry we didn't see these versions of Spider men in No way home, but if they are not in Doctor Strange 2, I hope they make a movie with Tom Holland philosophy student and Tom Holland historian.

[@Aidanrvb09]

Haha😂

[@banantoniofaleiro]

😂😂

[@azrela8277]

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

[@finallythere100]

I must be losing brain cells ...

[@nathanaelculver5308]

*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?

[@SDILUYNTsiu39fnd]

Ayee you're the same guy that made the time marks in the 100 arguments for Gods 3existence video. Thanks for your work.

[@nathanaelculver5308]

@@SDILUYNTsiu39fnd yeah, that was mean. Thanks for the encouragement.

[@toddstone3139]

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?

[@phoult37]

Holy spirit?

[@jesusacuna309]

You're a good guesser

[@secundemscripturas992]

nobody: thomist: "as it were"

[@abelj5145]

Thanks for the re-upload!!!!

[@edjones5046]

Outstanding, high quality, highly informative discussion and dialogue. I’ve being trying to digest Plotinus’ Enneads, and this seems very germane. This Protestant is going to listen again, take notes, and order the five volume Summa Theologica ASAP. Thank you PWA!

[@phoult37]

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.

[@fujiapple9675]

This was the first time I watched the debate. (I was out of town when it was live). That was *by far* my favorite part. Despite our metaphysical disagreements, it is always interesting to find out what Joe thinks. We are actually friends on Facebook, and he will probably add anyone else interested in these topics.

[@Lerian_V]

You mean 1:25:03 ?

[@phoult37]

@@Lerian_V Yes you are right! typo, my bad! I will edit.

[@thedivinenames3325]

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!

[@elawchess]

"Very smart, but the arguments rely on certain fixed meanings of words and phrases (e.g. 'classical theism', 'proposition', 'necessity' etc.)." Well that's a good thing. A continental philosopher I argued with on consciousness who was using arguments from someone called DBH had arguments with a lot of equivocation in them. Meaning one thing in one sentence and meaning another thing in the other sentence. Slippery invalid arguments. Then using that to make grand claims that materialism has been proven false. Pathetic.

[@thedivinenames3325]

@@elawchess it's definitely never a good idea to equivocate. I'm just saying -- echoing the insights of ordinary language philosophy, the philosophic modality I was initially trained in -- that words, naturally, do not have fixed propositional content, but that their meanings are inextricably tied to their uses in the lives we live together. When philosophy gets overly theoretical, it loses its relevance, applicability, and adequacy-- disconnecting itself from the living phenomena it purports to clarify and criticize.

[@elawchess]

@@thedivinenames3325 yeah but your critique is very theoretical. I often hear people say this but they don't say how what they are offering improves or rectifies the situation. Can you give a very small example of what's going wrong with Joe's approach and how your approach rectifies that?

[@matthewluisantero5051]

Awesome! Thanks for reuploading.

[@TheBrunarr]

Why did it need to be re uploaded?

[@matthewluisantero5051]

@@TheBrunarr the orignal livestreamed video failed to play for some reason

[@saraalpay9891]

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

[@aquinasadefenseforgod1254]

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.

[@inrisalvatore9520]

If God is the actual actualizer, then He doesn't change. The logic of having to experience something in order to get a knowledge of something only applies to those who can change

[@CDUTT360]

​@@inrisalvatore9520 False. God is a living Being, and thus has experience. For example, Christians would say The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, experience each other's love eternally; this, by the way, is from where creation comes from in Christian theology. More to your comment and to Aquinas as Defense for God's comment, though (and assuming his comment to be more true than false): God may eternally experience what it is like for every kind of creature (a dog, a human, a bird, etc.) to have experiences themselves, including experience of God Himself, and therefore God has knowledge of creation without going through successive stages of knowledge and so never gains new knowledge, and so does not experience change, and so is still the changeless changer (unmoved mover). You are right though, in so far as the logic of having to experience something in order to gain knowledge of it does apply to finite creatures; but this logic does not apply to God because he is eternal; and thus, a different logic applies to God: he has knowledge of what it is like for His creatures to experience successive change without experiencing that kind of change Himself: He experiences everything in an eternal now. Of course, what it is like to have that kind of experience may be beyond our capacity, because we are finite creatures. But, if God exists as eternal and infinite, then this must be the case.

[@ibrahimcoster604]

The problem is that you are trying to reduce knowledge of what it is like to propositional knowledge, so you are not explicating how God could have experiential knowledge__you're denying the problem by denying the essential distinction between experiential and propositional knowledge. In the thought experiment Mary is supposed to have all the relevant propositional knowledge concerning color perception she could possibly have.

[@aquinasadefenseforgod1254]

@@ibrahimcoster604 I explained that God has all proposition knowledge and experiential knowledge. In order for humans to gain experiential knowledge, we must experience with our senses because we are sensed beings. God is not. Also, in Catholicism, angels are not. Angels are metaphysical beings that have knowledge directly from God, divine knowledge given to them. They don't have to experience the world in order to have experiential knowledge for it is imparted to them by God. You would have to show why it is not possible for a metaphysical being to have experiential knowledge unless he had experiences with senses. I am saying experiential knowledge exists as God always. It is we that discover this knowledge via are senses.

[@mathewsamuel1386]

I'm not a philosopher, but if I understand your argument, it would require that everything is determined, at least in God's foreknowledge. How do you account for the free will of sentient creatures of God, then, given your explanation? God surely can't know something unless it already exists in His foreknowledge, and His knowledge couldn't be perfect if that thing doesn't materialize, and if it does, then it was always determined, so there can't be free will.

[@anitkythera4125]

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

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@asiaaviator5353]

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

[@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

[@zavalajoseraul]

Plus. And I have to make this remark. He seems humble, and truly trying to comprehend and represent his opponent properly. I like him

[@quandaledingle351]

I like how he is very honest and humble and gives very digestible analysis of various topics. Also he is so active and well read/aware of the philosophical landscapes of the things he discusses, and again even when he isn’t, he’ll say so.

[@yf1177]

How can a mind be simple? If God is a supreme intellect then he must be supremely complex. To be utterly simple he would have to be utterly mindless. You can't have both intelligence and simplicity. Make up your mind!

[@sebaspc2445]

Thats a non sequitur

[@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.

[@StJoanGuideMe]

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 KZbinr right now. And he doesn't hold a candle to Fr. Greg's intellectual power.

[@joshvarges9230]

dont drag good father down to that level

[@umg4774]

@@joshvarges9230 Yeah, independently of what one thinks of Vaush's intellectual capabilities, his character is unworthy of being hosted on a Catholic channel.

[@trosenthal3711]

Vaush is very very dishonest in debates and would never have an open mind to any arguments whatsoever, so sadly it wouldn’t work. Besides, he has said and done some very questionable stuff in the past.

[@lebeccthecomputer6158]

What I thought was intellectual ability in Vaush is nothing more than impressive rhetorical skill combined with shamelessly taking bad propositions to their rotten logical conclusion. Especially since I stopped watching him in 2021, he seems to have completely abandoned all reason and sense of intellectual honesty for the sake of his own agenda. And the funny/sad thing is he will pretty much tell you to your face that that’s exactly what he’s doing. That fucker goes beyond misology into pure evil. But to your point, he doesn’t really talk about religion so much as politics, so I don’t think there would be much discussion to be had between him and Father Gregory

[@oldmanjenkins44]

lol that advertisement killed me

[@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.

[@travissharon1536]

I'm excited for this debate. As far as I understand. For divine simplicity to be true, we must take philosophy more serious than the actual inspired words of God.

[@abelj5145]

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.

[@dri-fit9712]

I think that’s what really breaks the neck of divine simplicity.

[@davidcoleman5860]

@@dri-fit9712 What? The alleged contingency of God's knowledge? God's knowledge isn't contingent.

[@Daniel-cz9gt]

@@davidcoleman5860 I don't know about op reasons but I’m on the same boat, knowledge of the world has to be contingent if the world is also contingent.

[@davidcoleman5860]

@@Daniel-cz9gt How so?

[@Daniel-cz9gt]

@@davidcoleman5860 Knowledge of the world requires a correspondence between our mental representations and reality itself. For something to count as knowledge, the intrinsic content of our thoughts and beliefs must accurately match or map onto the actual state of affairs in the external world. If the world were to change in significant ways but our mental representations remained static and unaltered, those representations would no longer qualify as knowledge. They would become false beliefs out of sync with reality.

[@BriannaCaito-zi1rl]

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.

[@eliasarches2575]

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.

[@davidcoleman5860]

I've lodged similar criticisms of Schmid's arguments. When he describes the Thomist system, I'm thinking, "That's not our rationale." I can give him credit for making what appears to be a good faith effort to understand Thomism, but his youth and inexperience has led him to popping off his criticisms prior to investigating the matter with experts in the field. Minding your Ps and Qs ahead of time will save you embarrassment down the road. Young people tend to not consider that option and plow ahead with condemnations of what they consider flaws in the system. Schmid should have written some Thomist scholars on how they address his objections (if he could not find them in literature), and if he were then incapable of finding an answer, criticism would be warranted. He is obviously very bright, and when he wants to be, he can be very gentlemanly. He does, however, have a healthy dose of hubris and snark when somebody challenges him.

[@eliasarches2575]

@@davidcoleman5860 totally agree!

[@cadestekly6410]

I was thinking the same thing with the knowledge bit in his opening.

[@toonyandfriends1915]

@@davidcoleman5860 why does such criticism doesn't follow for you? He's criticising arguments for divine simplicity and they are reasonable objections. Not everybody who believes in divine simplicity is a thomist, it's erroneous to think so.

[@toonyandfriends1915]

@@cadestekly6410 what are these assumptions?

[@BryceCarmony]

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

[@FrostinthePines]

Spoiler: yes it is 😉

[@Miatpi]

🙌

[@danielm1991]

Why was the talk on animal pain released today taken off?

[@DaddyBooneDon]

I really want that shirt

[@austinespi1793]

I think God fits into the moving spotlight theory

[@dubbelkastrull]

54:51 bookmark

[@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?

[@paterlehnert3929]

Audio works but video shut off a couple minutes in

[@wardandrew23412]

I'm not sure I understand the argument Joe is making with respect to God's knowledge "changing over time". Consider the proposition, "Walter is four years old". Suppose that proposition is true now, which means it will not be true a year from now. Does that mean that God's belief about Walter's age will change? Not necessarily. The proposition, "On April 26, 2021 Walter is four years old," doesn't change over time. It will be no less true a year from now, so God's belief about Walter's age now shouldn't change. The difficulty only appears if we state the proposition with less precision, for example: "Walter is 4 years old now", where the temporal designator "now" could mean anything, depending on when "now" is. But this is just a linguistic problem which could be sidestepped merely by phrasing the sentence more clearly. However, I suppose Joe could still object that God's belief about what constitutes the *present moment* would have to change over time, because it clearly makes no sense to say, "Walter is four years old today and he is four years old a year from now. Perhaps this is what he has in mind, but it isn't clear from his examples.

[@Oskar1000]

I don't think it's a problem for people who hold to a b-theoretic notion of time. But for people who hold to a-theory things in fact change so it might be a bigger worry. Maybe we can say that on a-theory God has this big thought about everything and that thought never changes, so breaking it up into small propositions like that is just not how God thinks about it.

[@wardandrew23412]

@@Oskar1000 I have to confess that the b-theory of time has never made much sense to me. For example, the proposition that God created the universe, logically implies that there was some prior state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. But according to b-theory, the propositions, "The universe does not exist," and "The universe does exist," are both true simultaneously, which is a contradiction. I also don't see how the claim that temporal succession is only an illusion helps us understand b-theory. For even if it were true that our experiences of events occurring one after the other is only an illusion, it would still be the case that those illusory experiences occur in temporal succession, which the b-theory of time cannot allow.

[@Oskar1000]

@@wardandrew23412 But on a-theory there are going to be facts that do change. Take the proposition, "now it has been less than 2100 years since Christ sacrificed himself on the cross". That's true now but it will be false given a-theory. If you were a b-theorist you could have God know the whole block of time in one go but that won't work on a-theory I think.

[@Biblig]

@@Oskar1000 I think the OP kind of already addressed this. I'm not sure why there is requirement that God know "tensed" propositions. It seems like a purely semantic notion even on a theory. Not sure why it can't just be a hyper specification of "on June 4th 2020 it has been x amount of time from the resurrection".

[@Oskar1000]

@@Biblig So on a-theory facts do change. God's knowledge would need to change, if I ask God "what time is it now" it feels weird if I had to specific "I'm speaking at 18.05 gmt+1". Then I just gave him the answer

[@sunblaze8931]

Fr. Pines hurt my brain with this debate

[@johnnypop-tart335]

You can find Joe at mamas house

[@ilocosrugnao1910]

James Dolezal is wonderful!

[@dvforever]

Spider Man should be a Christian in the next movie!

[@shamispirit5314]

Its like a real life version of the chad vs the virgin meme lol

[@Mattt5]

dont say this

[@aisthpaoitht]

LOL the Chad Thomist vs the Virgin Skeptic

[@sophiajohnson8608]

Joe Schmid's ideas are ridiculously complicated. I found this hard to follow.

[@Gataista]

clapped tom holland

[@m.l.pianist2370]

Good discussion! I find Joe far more persuasive here. Father Pine only addressed one of Joe's objections (the aloneness argument) and I don't think he succeeded in rebutting the objection.

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

How old is Joe shmid? just curious.

[@kylemyers971]

20

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

@@kylemyers971 Wow we have almost the same age

[@yf1177]

He's 14 and a genius

[@ThatisnotHair]

ݑ

[@Miatpi]

Why reupload?

[@phoult37]

description

[@Miatpi]

@@phoult37 thx

[@dubbelkastrull]

Old vid didn't work

[@rafaelgvsmao28]

Joe won

[@daveciarametaro7934]

I'm sorry, but it would really be helpful to have these sorts of discussions in language that people can understand. This debate was far more difficult to understand than it had to be. Matt, you're not helping people or effectively evangelizing by making things so complicated

[@dfhyland]

I disagree. It is never a bad thing for me to realize, in humility, that complex discussions on complex subjects do at times outstrip my ability to easily follow them. Pints With Aquinas has a range of discussions, from the popular or even conversational level to the more advanced, and I appreciate that range.

[@josephtnied]

I feel like this is more of an intellectual, philosophical discussion than an accessible evangelization effort aimed at the broadest audience. Even if I didn't understand it all, it was still thought-provoking and gave me places to start learning. These types of discussions are totally fine, and should happen too.

[@yf1177]

Welcome to philosophy. And thousands of years later, we are debating the same things...

[@ramielkady938]

That ain't no debate ... That is a lecture by a white kid.

[@PickleRickGSF]

a ton of effort on made up ideas while throwing in "god" as if that helps any argument...ever

[@trosenthal3711]

Why am I not surprised that you’re a Rick and Morty fan