Jean-Luc Marion on the Question of God's Existence 🤔

Does God exist? In this video, Prof. Jean-Luc Marion weighs in on the question, contending that the question of God's existence oftentimes is formulated without taking into account the counter-intentionality of the question itself.
See Prof. Marion's book God without Being at: www.amazon.com/God-Without-Be...
For Dr. Donald Wallenfang's Amazon Author Page, go to www.amazon.com/stores/Donald-...
For more rich content in Catholic theology, philosophy and spirituality, visit myinteriorcastle.com
#phenomenology #phenomenon #philosophy

[@avikchatterjee1945]

Marion has changed my life. His thoughts on prayer is just ineffably accurate.

[@anselmjacobsmith639]

I used Marion's God Without Being in conjunction with late Heidegger's ontology to write the final paper for my Philosophy Degree. It was the most fun I ever had writing a paper, besides one I wrote on Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument. I'm currently in Seminary, but I'm also considering Graduate Studies in Philosophy. I love Marion, he's the epitome of the thought I aspire to as a Catholic. I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to utilise his work over the course of my undergraduate studies and incorporate it into my priesthood formation.

[@die_schlechtere_Milch]

The priesthood is a very noble calling and much nobler than that of a philosopher. I think that Heidegger and Marion are not the best philosophers to be studied by ongoing priests, nor any other pretentious Frenchman for that matter. Regardless, I wish you all the best in seminary and in life. Today I will go to confession and pray for all fathers and (ongoing) priests. We the laity ask for good priests. One should not forget that faith is an unearned grace. Thank you for going to seminary. But concerning Marion:There is so much loose "thinking" in here that I am really amazed how people can fall for this. (Maybe it is the overly harmonic, dynamic and almost spherical music in the background? The French accent? The light, the colours of his clothes and the grain of the cloths?) He starts by "proving" that any concept is inadequate for God, by appealing to an "Augustinian principle", which he formulates as "If you comprehend it, it is not God". However, I think that here he conflates "comprehending" with "having a concept of". I can clearly have a concept of, say my spouse, even if at times I do not comprehend her, meaning that I do not comprehend her fully. Maybe my concept of my wife is then also "not adaequate", and I would be open to such a possibility (although I would find it ... you know ... a bit laughable and french. I clearly able to identify my wife and I do not mistake other women for her nor do I mistake her for other women. I would say that my concept of her is adaequate to her if and only if I am able to clearly identify my wife by using this concept.) but he then goes on to argue from this position, that we should not use any concepts to describe God, and that doing that would be "dogmatic", "idolatry" and all sorts of liberal booo-words. He rightly asserts that "the" concept of God (probably meaning any person's concept of God) is not identical with God, but he then adds "all the concepts, when they are used in a dogmatic way, in an affirmative way, lead to something like an idolatry". Now this thesis clearly does not follow from the premises given for this supposed conclusion. And how could you even argue for such a position without falling short of your own standards by usind concepts "affirmatively"? Clearly, God exists and we can say certain things about him, like we do when we utter the Nicean Creed. And confessing to this creed is not idolatry. But the most stupid thing he says here is probably: "to exist means to be outside of the mind, but to be outside of the mind means to have no concept of it ... because it is outside of the mind". I mean this is just ridiculous.

[@istvanhorvat5124]

Epic. I like your channel Donald.

[@ceh5526]

This is very engaging. I was expecting him to move into apophatic theology; not simply the negation of an affirmation, but the negation of that 'parasitic' or 'mirror image' negation, which assures freedom and non-idolatry. Instead he gave a 'lovely' account of Hegelian intersubjectivity, in that simultaneous ec-static and en-static mutual disclosure and gifting of the mystery of the God's self and myself to each other. I feel that this is remerging as a popular theme in ontology, and in a broader philosophy of culture and dynamic living (ecology, etc). I'm thinking in particular of Roger Scruton on this theme, both of beauty and on local 'green philosophy'. It seems to me that it is the prolegomenon to any theology that is worthwhile pursuing. Thanks for these videos - they are excellent.

[@die_schlechtere_Milch]

Hi, I am intruiged by your comment, but I am not sure if I understand you correctly. You write "I was expecting him to move into apophatic theology; not simply the negation of an affirmation, but the negation of that 'parasitic' or 'mirror image' negation, which assures freedom and non-idolatry." Would you mind to please clarify what assures freedom and non-idolatry? Is it the negation of the parasitic negation which assures freedom and non-idolatry, or is it the parasitic negation? Also, what is a parasitic negation? Btw, I also like Scruton, I think that he was a very earnest scholar.

[@SAK1855]

How would you put this in plain language? I worry that most theology is so divorced from lay understanding and behavior that it offers little of real import.

[@tbillyjoeroth]

​@@SAK1855I think that was the intent. Since philosophy itself is not much of a career one with a degree has to talk over the head of people as often as they get an opportunity to show how educated and erudite they are. Yes, one can teach. How many such jobs are there?

[@ultrak0w]

Yeah, he is into Nazis

[@avikchatterjee1945]

The crossing of the visible and Saturated phenomena : in excess are the two eye-opening books really. Trust me!

[@aisthpaoitht]

What's the background music?

[@kw91]

What are some places where I could do advanced studies on this kind of thought?

[@myinteriorcastle313]

Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit ;-)

[@peterg418]

The love between people comes into existence, and people fall out of love. What would the nature of God have been before humans were around to actuate the idea? And then I guess the idea can be abandoned. What did he really end up saying?

[@anilav2]

God is indeed blue 😊

[@ceh5526]

the meaning of which rather depends on which country He is in at the time

[@nawzadjamal]

indeed such preposition similar to god exists.

[@gabbytan1881]

why did u even thought of thus

[@assemblyofsilence]

Isn’t it the case that “exist” means “outside of being” (ex/“without” ist/“to be”)? If it’s the case that God is the Eternal Being then we mortals as children of God are at once separated from Eternal Being and yet are in fact some small manifestation of It.

[@myinteriorcastle313]

I think there is something true about your idea in terms of us personal creatures being completely distinct from God and yet made in the image of God. Another Greek etymological approach to the word "exist" is ex-sistere ("to stand out in one's being").

[@nawzadjamal]

The preposition 'god exists' is analytical not a synthetic one. Kant

[@ronaldgustavo6765]

en español :(

[@myinteriorcastle313]

Si vas a "configuración" en el video y haces clic en "traducción automática", puedes elegir que el video se reproduzca con subtítulos en español. Espero que esto ayude.

[@ronaldgustavo6765]

gracias por la ayuda.

[@anthonydecastro6938]

that "God exists" is perhaps the most banal statement that can be made... but even the banal can give occasion to the experience of a "saturated phenomenon."