Dr Huemer's unreasonably confident opinion is a very strong demonstration of error theory 😹 Shouldn't the existence of moral controversy undercut one's confidence in the more obvious moral "facts"?

Why can Brian defer to non human animals in the case of consent, but when we point to homosexual relationships among non human animals to support the “permissibility” of same sex couples, suddenly he pivots to “human” nature as being distinct in that case? I mean, we are a social species, so arguably consent is important for our flourishing.

Joe can you make a video about analytic philosophy and logical positivism

Any chance you would do an in depth defense video of simple foreknowledge? I’m somewhere between it and open theism. I still have some hang ups as to how useful God having simple foreknowledge is, hence why I’d love to see a video on it.

1:36:58 The problem is they would have done whatever they did regardless of what you said. You are acting as if there is an ability to act in a way that effects or changes the world. But whatever you do or don't do has already happened. So there is no point in acting because the only 1 outcome has already happened.

Your my favorite philosopher who looks like Tom holland, always wares jerseys, and talks to fast. lol

Watching you sike over philosophy books literally made my year.

Great video! Now I'm curious (and a little nervous!) to know in which tier you and Daniel would place my argument against Molinism. (The argument in "If Molinism is True, What Can You Do?") :)

So why aren't you just atheist then? Is there an equivalent to answer atheist arguments?

Awesome video, Thank you Dr. Rubio!

I want to focus on a very unusual and peculiar objection at 34 minutes. This video claims that "Dr Craig's response to the problem of hell is racist." This is such an odd and unfounded objection it is hard to even know where to start! To set some context: Dr Craig’s “racist proposal” is an attempt to respond to the problem of the unreached lost: Namely, how can God be both just and loving and also condemn a person who never hears the gospel, due to the fact they were born in a time and place where the gospel never reached them? To put it another way, are some “lost by geographical accident”? And if so, how is this just? Dr Craig responds by arguing that God knows, in His Middle Knowledge, that there are some people who would not be freely saved in any circumstances God could have placed them. Such persons are Transworld Damned (TD). He argues that it is at least possible that anyone who is unreached and lost in the actual world could be TD, and would not be saved in any other situation God may have placed them in. So such persons are not lost by “geographical accident”. Now consider the reconsider the claim that this is racist. Who is supposed to be racist here? The one offering the response? Or God if He works this way? Let's consider each option: Firstly, is someone racist for using this response? Surely not. Such a response is not motivated by racial prejudice. Rather, it is an attempt to explain and reconcile several apparent facts: 1 Some people never hear the gospel and they are lost. 2 God exercises at least some degree of providential control over the world. 3 God is perfectly just. Anyone who wants to affirm these facts needs to find some way to reconcile the apparent inconsistency. So we all need to do some leg work here, whatever our preferred view of providence is. This problem is not unique to molinism. One route is simply to deny 1, that the un-evangelised go to hell: There are plenty of alternatives. For example we could argue that many of the unreached are saved through general revelation and special revelation like dreams and visions (so they are not actually lost). In the case of those who don’t find God, we could argue they don’t really go to hell (e.g. annihilationism of the soul or of hell itself). Now consider 1 “Some people never hear the gospel and they are lost.” A molinist may contemplate this and feel a deep burden and compassion for those who never hear and are lost. They have no choice in the matter of who these people are, what race they are or where they live (but based on the fact we *have* heard the gospel, such unreached people inevitably belong to other cultures). In love and obedience to the gospel the molinist may even set out to share the gospel in far flung places. There is no racism here. Suppose furthermore, that God does actually work like this, ordering the world such that anyone who is lost in a time and place unreached by the gospel is TD. This is at least plausible. Would the molinist then cease to be racist, since it turns out their view was correct? Hopefully you can see the absurdity of the racism claim now. Secondly then, is God racist for providentially arranging the world in this way? Such a question could almost be answered by simply affirming God’s moral perfection. We could add that all humans are made in God’s image and also that God wishes none to perish but all to come to repentance. Note all of these facts are entirely consistent with the problem of the unreached lost. But let's press the objection a little further. Does this response to the problem of the unreached-lost make God racist? No. Consider the fact that if God is planning a world in which He uses His people (who are themselves free) to share His message to the world, naturally some places will be more exposed to the gospel and other places reached later or not at all. Where does God choose to reveal Himself first? And which places receive the gospel later? This is not an arbitrary choice for a God who is concerned with saving an optimal number of people. Surely God’s solution to this providential challenge is not a matter of just picking on a particular race because they have a different color of skin to Himself! (Excuse my joking here - I want to highlight the absurdity of the racism claim!) Consider the fact that if God knows a creaturely essence has a complete set of counterfactuals, such that they suffer from TD: That is a truth about the possible person, whatever nation or race God places them in. So God’s providential decision has nothing to do with their race and everything to do with the way they freely respond to Him in the circumstance in which they could be placed. God knows this about the person logically prior to creating them in any body or with any skin color. So there just is no racism here. This really only leaves one concern: If this is how God has in fact ordered the world, then we are required to believe something about the unreached; namely they may well suffer TD. Such a view is not racist, but I fear it could lead to a kind of unloving fatalism - an apathy to share the gospel with them. Can you see how misguided this would be! They are only unreached if no one freely chooses to take the good news of the gospel to them! By lovingly obeying our call to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, we genuinely play our part in minimizing the number of people who are unreached, we create a providential landscape that is more favorable to salvation, and if God is even able to save one person - it is so worth the journey to the ends of the earth. NOTE In the video they incorrectly discuss his response to the problem of hell (in general). Craig doesn’t discuss geographical issues in his response to the more general problem of hell.

I could watch this 100 times. So i will.

bookmark, videomark or wtv 32:05

Listening to this video, I am even more astonished at the mental gymnastics that Christians have to put themselves through, to explain why this alleged deity allegedly created this reality the way it did. And that they have to keep coming up with ways to limit what this god CAN do, or WHY it wants to or doesn’t, etc. I mean, Simon Biles can’t even begin to compete!

Plenty of brilliant people believe in molinism but I can’t make heads or tails of it. By the way, is there a majority view among professional philosophers on this. In particular, those who have specialized in this. What’s the view on the grounding issue. The heart and sole of molinism.

Craig is NOT a Molonist. You should invite Christian Wagner on, he made a video on that.

Peter Singer is the moral monster. Why does he think his misguided morality applies to everyone? Who made him the Grand PuuBaugh?

I very much get the feeling Joe isn't an aganostic but an atheist who's not willing to admit it to himself, in other videos in the series the vast majority of errors are Christian ones but here all of them are. Not ot mention in his videos in general hardly any talk about atheist mistakes but a lot about Christian ones. 29:23 Agh man quotes the Catholic Church but then doesn't mention the catechism saying that the Old Testament contains things that are provisional and flawed. 36:32 There can be these but there's no way to pick one as opposed to another if they contradict since there's no mind cleverer than humanity (except dolphins?) on atheism. People trying to have objective morality on atheism beyond x or y helps us to surive as a species doesn't mean these attempts succeed.

The God of Judeo-Christianity, as portrayed in scripture and theological tradition, exhibits a level of complexity that defies the notion of divine simplicity. This deity is described as possessing a multitude of attributes, including omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, each of which implies a sophisticated form of consciousness and capability. Furthermore, the biblical narrative presents God as experiencing a range of emotions, from love and compassion to anger and jealousy, suggesting a complex emotional landscape. The concept of the Trinity in Christianity adds another layer of intricacy, proposing a God who is simultaneously one and three persons. Additionally, God's interactions with humanity throughout biblical history demonstrate a nuanced, often unpredictable nature, involving intricate plans, covenants, and interventions that seem far removed from the idea of a simple, unchanging entity. These various aspects collectively paint a picture of a deity with depth, dynamism, and complexity that challenges the traditional philosophical notion of divine simplicity. Classical theism, negative theology, Neoplatonism, and the doctrine of divine simplicity are dangerously close to atheism!

Yes, yes it is.

55:42 Ugh it's Matt Fradd the radtrad. 🤮

Well, that's the "go-to" argument for atheism (horrific suffering) because you claim that your god is perfectly moral, which means that it can't perform or allow an evil action, or, if it does, there's an overriding reason for its doing so that justifies the action. This means that, by your lights, the Holocaust (say) is morally justified. And that's psychotic.

But Trent.... if someone gets their arm cut off you dont tell them "Oh well, nothing is wrong, your body has just EXTENDED"... no, you say they LOST an arm. You no longer consider it part of you in the same way when grandma dies and little timmy is crying you dont tell him that Grandma has EXTENDED to heaven, you say that that body IS NOT grandma any more So unless you are going to cry over your lost hair/fingernails your whole claim to an organism being as a whole just doesn't work You also tried to "gotcha" Dustin by talking about split brain, but you have the EXACT SAME PROBLEM with your view of an organism being a body

TMD must be achieved

This whole thing is just absolutely POINTLESS The issue here is about bodily autonomy, and to be clear (before some moron screams out about the zygote's bodily autonomy) we are talking about NOT TAKING AWAY SOMEONE'S BODILY AUTONOMY as being what is immortal/wrong So preventing someone from having an abortion is TAKING AWAY someone's bodily autonomy But this isn't the case for having an abortion, an unborn child has NEVER HAD BODILY AUTONOMY (they rely on the mother to survive), and thus because they have never had it, you are not taking it away and thus not doing anything immoral And if you want ABSOLUTE PROOF that what I am saying is true, lets use the good old "Violinist" argument to prove it In order to get into the situation of the violinist, a person "just wakes up attached to someone"... you have had to TAKE AWAY someone's bodily autonomy to get into this situation, which means you have already committed some immoral act to get there, and thus detaching yourself is correcting the previous violation of bodily autonomy, it is NOT analogous to abortion because the unborn child never had bodily autonomy but the attached violinist did This concept applies in all cases - Someone who is brain dead LOST their bodily autonomy due to illness or accident and thus pulling the plug isn't violating their bodily autonomy, its already gone - A person being put in prison isn't having their bodily autonomy removed, but merely postponed because THEY violated the bodily autonomy of others or violated the laws of the land THEY AGREED to follow and benefitted from (If they dont like it, then they are free to go live on an island) - Self defense is again preserving your own bodily autonomy from others trying to take it away - Accidental death isn't the same as first degree murder because there was not an "intention" to take away bodily autonomy even if it is the result - Killing in wars is again protecting/preserving the bodily autonomy of those you are defending from others who are trying to take it away

4:40 The problem still remains nowhere in the Bible does it say that any rando can just pick up the Bible and know what the heck they're on about. To say ''Haaa! The Bible says whatever, checkmate Christians'' is to lump all Christians in with Protestants and their sola scriptura. I can also make an internal critique of the internet new atheist types with their Nietzschean so-called morality. On this worldview then oh well God was the ubermensch and did what he felt like so really it was OK on their view. 5:50 Yes but these groundings don't come from atheism itself. Theists could also ground morality in flourishing or whatever. 45:31Well clearly there wasn't a worldwide flood, only a local flood. Also would people stop saying Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac? He was only told to do so to test his loyalty, he wasn't actually supposed to sacrifice him, only to see if he would IF ordered to. smh These are some of the worst arguments for theism but Joe's criticisms aren't too good either. Moving on to the next video.

This is dope ❤

If free will is predictable based on the nature and circumstance, does that mean God's choice of creation was predictable?

Upload more videos like this

I look up Bernardete's book paradox and the first result was a paper Joe himself did. 38:20 Well God doesn't depend on some other being exist for Him to exist, that's what necessary being means. 1:05:50 If the past were infinite we'd still be in it but by defintion the past is what came before today.

I had trouble understanding this because I never got a hold on what a CCF is, and I think I narrowed that problem to my not having an intuitive understanding of "counter factual" that matches the literature. When I hear "counter" I think "against and thus not" and therefore that "counter factual" means "not true" or "false". Is "counter factual" perhaps a name which is grand fathered in from a time when "counter" meant something else? Or am I missing some shade of meaning of "counter" which is obvious to everyone who is not me? Or I should ask, "does 'counter' mean the same thing in 'counter factual' and 'counter argument'?

*whistle Man's starting what a heavy one. 17:20 Ouch. I think he let himself in for it though. 18:08 I thought Dillahunty was very much a new atheist. 37:58 39:21 but then there's also this lumping together of atheism with social liberalism. If these are linked then this gives an additional reason for socially conservative believers ot oppose both atheism and liberalism. Gave the first video a thumbs up but none for this one. 39:54 Well some of them very much talk like new atheists. I think those particular agnostics are in fact atheists. If it walks like a duck...

3:02:31 ''Gender-affirming healthcare'' ugh the framing never stops in America.

Man Daniel Rubio is so smart. But he needs to take some speaking lessons. He has such a distracting cadence!

Craig is so funny on this. He's got: middle-knowledge feasible optimal ratio of saved counterfactuals What is this?

It seems so ad-hoc. Leave it for the theists.

It's a totally irrational video that just bury the question. If God doesn't exist, all is neutral, all is natural. Killing is the same as the falling of a rock.

He was my phil teacher freshman year, wish I got into phil before taking his class. I'm a phil major now, partially to his credit :)

Even the Russian judge would give the Molinist 10s for mental gymnastics.

*Why I reject so-called "Molinism"* If you are a fan of the theological scene, you probably have come across the term "Molinism" or someone who claims to be a "Molinist." It is often presented as an opposing alternative to Calvinist soteriology; it's basically, the idea that God considered tons of different worlds, and then chooses to make one based on how people react in it. As a Classical Armininan, I see a real difference with Molinism and the Arminian simple foreknowledge view. It's not that I deny middle knowledge, but Molinism makes a certain claim about what God uses it for. In general those who label themselves Molinists seem to be theologians who want to posit the idea that God specifically uses this middle knowledge to decide what world to actualize. I believe in classical free will and omniscience, but to suppose that God uses his knowledge of future free choices to decide whether to create possible worlds seems to me, to be wrong on two levels, both morally and logically. It is wrong for God to do this morally, for it does not allow the full freedom of self-expression in choosing for or against God, unless it adds some prior condition being met; in other words, it seems to me, God is tampering with the quality of the choice by only creating it if it is going to choose a certain thing. Thus it is not really a free expression, because it has prior conditions on it, and the quality of freedom is altered. If God were to use middle knowledge to create a world, he could simply only create people whom he knew would freely choose the good; this is a simple idea, and there is no logical problem with it. On the other hand, of course, there might be people that reject God in all possible worlds. But we Libertarians argue God can't tamper with free will, and so can't force the decision the creation makes. Deciding to make something based on what it will choose in the future is a form of tampering with freedom, a similar moral dilemma. God is being selective and manipulative over the self-expression of his creation by denying the existence of any creation that doesn't choose a certain way. The second way I think this understanding of Molinism fails, is it is logically untenable as well. The reason for this is that it is not circumstantial or peer pressure by which people decide what ultimate spiritual choices they make; there is not a way to influence or coerce them through the potential world being conceived, because these choices are not made for such shallow reasons as whether our best friend chooses Christ or not, or whether we are born in a country that accepts or prohibits the preaching of the Gospel. This "trans-world" depravity of all who would fundamentally choose to reject God means that alternate scenarios cannot decide or alter the number of saved or damned individuals. Tweaking the input factors will always have the same number of people saved and lost. Using middle knowledge is an inadequate means to pressure or manipulate people into accepting Christ, for their decisions will remain the same under any scenario, and the Bible instructs that we are not even supposed to let circumstances dictate these important spiritual choices. If you think about it, Molinism is trying to solve the problem of evil in a creative way by positing God has given everyone an optimal chance at salvation by factoring in everyone's future free will choices before creating them; this is intended to reduce the problem we all intuitively feel that God has allowed some people to be victims of other peoples' choices. But if this solution does not logically work and we notice that some people don't seem to get "a fair shake," that is, this Molinistic world hypothesis in fact leaves people in what appears to be a less than optimal state, we will not solve the problem of offense at God for what he has allowed. God has allowed people's sins to hurt other people: and fundamentally we just find that offensive, and Molinism will not somehow patch up that offense. We should not offer people a cheap solution to a perceived moral dilemma about God's actions; we should all rather seek God ourselves to overcome and develop the faith and consecration necessary to put God above the problem of evil and mystery of why he allowed Adam and others to hurt so many. And if God is creating these "pre-world" conditions for whether or not he will actualize you, he is altering the quality of the freedom, and putting constraints and conditions upon it. God decides, "I will only create Person A if they fit in to a maximally gracious world B," and thus there is preconditions upon Person A's free choice, he will only be created if he chooses a certain way. This means, Person A does not get to be created with a real un-manipulated libertarian choice of for or against God for the fundamental reason of simply choosing or rejecting God for who he is, but only if he will choose or reject God for the inferior and idolatrous reasons of how his circumstances pan out, which basis for a choice for God is thoroughly condemned in Scripture. Even if we are encouraged to consider the negative consequences sin will leave us in, we cannot simply use God as a pawn to get what we want. God would not use sinful motivations to plan worlds that determine who gets saved, and who doesn't. That's not a pure motivation for choosing or rejecting God. We don't accept God only because we experience or see evil, we accept God because by grace we realize God's worth. It is true evil can discipline or chastise us, causing us to see the terribleness of our sin, but this cannot be said to be the fundamental reason to choose God to begin with: it is merely an extra mercy to refine an impurity. Adam and Eve did not need evil to be able to make the right choice, nor to be maximally graced to make the right choice. The need for evil to chastise or persuade only comes after original sin has already forced the world to be inherently permeated with injustice. In judgment God remembers mercy, the judgments are not mercy itself. God could certainly use his middle knowledge to minimize judgments and maximally grace people under the current conditions, but not to set up the world to begin with and only create people when they choose under certain conditions. The real reason God allows evil to happen, is not just the expression of love or freedom, because those don't necessitate the amount of collateral damage, the horrific consequences that the current evil entails. God could have just zapped Adam and Eve out of existence the very moment they put their mouths on that fruit. No, God allows the consequences of evil to be so horrendous to give weight and importance to the quality of the choice as being an opportunity to glorify and honor God for who he is, an expression of God's own worth. The proper theodicy is a free will choice based on the holiness of God, not on "soul-building" properties; God's right to be glorified and devalue those who devalue him. Also realize, another tangential objection is there being no logical reason God could not use middle knowledge to simply never create beings he knows will be freely evil under this system; where is the objection when the purpose is just to maximize good choices? Or why could God not simply eliminate beings as soon as they make an evil choice, instead of allowing that evil choice to hurt other people? If allowing evil is simply to create more good instead of glorify God, where is the objection anymore? Do those evil beings God creates become the best possible world to necessarily help other beings choose better choices? That seems like justifying the ends with the means, using an evil thing to bring about a good thing; but not as a last recourse, as a primary directive! And overcoming the objection to the possibility of sin in heaven is actually surprisingly easy to overcome logically: we can choose our future choices now; since only those who have chosen not to sin will enter heaven, nothing will any longer inhibit that choice. So what am I left with under Classical Arminianism? That God foreknows choices but does not "tweak" or "alter" the conditions of creation to influence and manipulate those choices, for that would be altering the quality of the choice and devaluing it. God has to "play the cards he is dealt," as some Calvinists so poignantly like to state, and this also explains why the majority of human history seems to be quite a failure from man's side, yet God still creates it. God is willing to take "snake eyes" to allow that quality of choice to stand for what is, without deciding to create it based on how it will choose, which otherwise would not be fully and truly free in regards to the object of the choice. In the end, it may seem less interesting or exciting to simply believe that God foreknows autonomous choices and reacts in accordance to them, rather than decide to create based on foreknowing them, but it is the straight and Biblical way to harmonize sovereignty and free will. Although God does possess middle knowledge and uses it for many things, it would be wrong to determine the actualization of certain worlds to alter the number of saved and damned in some optimal way. And we must always remember God may very well not always act on all the foreknowledge he has, for he is under no moral obligation to do so. Because of the above objections I can't accept Molinism and stick with simple Arminianism.

The!

Is it accepted that Plantinga's FWD relies on Molinism being true? If so, that seems like a big issue for the FWD. Oh, and #COYG

So excited for this 🫡

The concept of divine foreknowledge is incoherent with a timeless God. There is no such thing as foreknowledge, only knowledge. God simply knows every fact about every point in time. Indeed, when God created time, he must have created everything simultaneously from his reference frame. Literally, everything is being directly created by God right now, even these very words.

As a hopeful molinist, I would love to hear Dr. Ryan Mullins respond to some of these objections. (Although I believe he admits some difficulties to be sort of unresolved I guess) Please make it happen! I know he's been here before, so it's possible. Haha.

I’d love to see a discussion on this (and other topics) with Matthew Adlestein!

How does molinism avoid fatalism? Under molinism, God still decides to create a universe in which he knows everything that will happen thereby making everything destined to occur, no?

I didn’t know you were so sympathetic to simple foreknowledge, Joe! I guess I should rethink my objections to it. When I read Hasker he really convinced me that SF is useless, it just does nothing lol

Excellent discussion, the Explaining our Freedom argument is incredibly strong, it seems like Molinism must be false after hearing that. Very useful to see the comparison of arguments for and against side by side- striking how bad the arguments seem for Molinism in that context, and even then missing arguments like Greg Welty's Molinist Gunslingers. Another fun fact: Robin Parry of Evangelical Universalist fame became convinced of the truth of universalism after reading William Lane Craig's arguments for exclusivism and being shocked at how bad they seemed to him.

I go to the university Daniel teaches at. Will be starting graduate school this year!