Does Contingency Argument entail a Pagan Greek Conception of God? | Podcast Highlight (2022-04-19) ​

0:00:00 um we're all sunnis and so
0:00:02 uh our
0:00:04 position is pretty much
0:00:06 i don't want to use the word dogma but
0:00:09 it's it's considered orthodox to uh
0:00:12 reject divine simplicity so we actually
0:00:14 reject divine simplicity
0:00:24 um
0:00:26 so now i think maybe we could get to
0:00:28 that question now right um let's do it
0:00:31 divine simplicity right i think that's a
0:00:33 question question right that's a
0:00:34 question so i i don't know i think uh
0:00:36 we've we've
0:00:38 i don't know are you are you are you a
0:00:39 divine citizen that's a do you do you
0:00:41 hold to divine simplicity well
0:00:44 it's interesting because even my work
0:00:47 and how reason can lead to god it's
0:00:49 caused me to reflect not just like on
0:00:52 whether god exists but sort of the
0:00:53 nature of fundamental reality just
0:00:55 really thinking about
0:00:57 that nature
0:00:58 and it's also caused me to think about
0:01:00 different ways of characterizing
0:01:01 simplicity
0:01:03 and so i would say that at this point my
0:01:06 working model is that
0:01:07 there is a
0:01:09 fundamental
0:01:10 reality whose fundamental nature
0:01:14 is
0:01:15 either
0:01:16 simple
0:01:17 or just grounded in the fundamental
0:01:19 reality which itself is simple so
0:01:22 this is hard to describe in a way
0:01:23 because
0:01:24 you can hardly describe fundamental
0:01:26 reality without describing its basic
0:01:28 features
0:01:31 but
0:01:33 the ground of
0:01:34 everything i would say is not itself
0:01:37 a mixture of
0:01:39 fundamental complexity
0:01:42 so
0:01:43 any kind of complexity would be
0:01:47 non-fundamental
0:01:48 that's how i would put it whether in
0:01:50 attributes or in actions
0:01:53 but by that and jake is going to come in
0:01:55 here because he's going to have a lot to
0:01:56 say but um
0:01:58 so you say there's no complexity because
0:02:00 we were talking about things like you
0:02:02 know power goodness right um you know
0:02:06 uh
0:02:07 so these do seem to be aspects right of
0:02:10 fundamental reality and yeah
0:02:12 we want to say they're limitless right
0:02:14 now
0:02:16 so in that sense like
0:02:17 so is there a real distinction between
0:02:20 these aspects is is it's kind of the
0:02:22 question ah man so
0:02:26 my latest thinking about this is sort of
0:02:27 verging on this um
0:02:29 question about
0:02:32 whether even these attributes
0:02:34 could be
0:02:37 sort of manifestations of the
0:02:39 fundamental
0:02:41 particular
0:02:42 if that makes sense
0:02:45 but what i do want to say is that
0:02:48 these particular attributes
0:02:50 are
0:02:53 see with power it doesn't seem like you
0:02:55 can generate power
0:02:57 just in terms of power because that
0:02:58 seems to be circular
0:03:00 so
0:03:02 it does seem to me that the foundation
0:03:04 of power
0:03:06 um
0:03:07 it can't be power and so that which has
0:03:09 the power is going to have that power
0:03:12 in a way that's not arbitrarily limited
0:03:15 now maybe there's this weird way and
0:03:16 this is this is why i'm like this you
0:03:19 can maybe help me think about this but
0:03:21 there's this weird way in which like
0:03:23 could the particular ground
0:03:25 limits in its fundamental attributes
0:03:28 i mean i wouldn't expect that
0:03:30 i mean because i wouldn't expect the
0:03:32 particular to sort of ground a limit in
0:03:34 its power it seems like
0:03:38 that would then be arbitrary why would
0:03:39 it ground that limit rather than a
0:03:41 different limit
0:03:42 and so what i would expect is that the
0:03:44 fundamental attributes of the
0:03:46 fundamental reality
0:03:48 aren't going to be
0:03:49 limited attributes
0:03:52 but then that leaves open whether there
0:03:54 are non-fundamental attributes
0:03:57 of the fundamental reality that
0:04:01 is complex
0:04:03 if that makes it would the fundamental
0:04:04 fundamental algebra because i have a lot
0:04:06 to say here but i'm going to let jay
0:04:07 come in because he's he's
0:04:09 uh divine simplicity is is
0:04:11 something that that jake is into but
0:04:13 then um so the fundamental attributes we
0:04:15 could say they're unlimited uh but um
0:04:19 i'm not sure i i you answered this maybe
0:04:21 you did but i didn't uh hear it
0:04:23 um
0:04:24 are they distinct in the sense that like
0:04:26 the so you've got the power and then
0:04:28 you've got the goodness or then you've
0:04:30 got let's say
0:04:31 so whatever other aspects are yeah
0:04:34 they're already collapsible
0:04:36 they wouldn't
0:04:38 they wouldn't be identical unless
0:04:39 you run this kind of
0:04:41 sort of exotic
0:04:42 trope theory where you say well
0:04:45 maybe our understanding of them and in
0:04:47 our concepts
0:04:49 diverge it's like my understanding of
0:04:51 knowledge is different than my
0:04:52 understanding of power
0:04:54 but that both of these understandings
0:04:55 are windows into this sort of
0:04:58 original thing that is power
0:05:01 is knowledge yeah um but that isn't my
0:05:04 working model okay so i'm on my working
0:05:06 model right now just sitting with you
0:05:07 guys
0:05:08 um this is my hypothesis is that these
0:05:11 are non-identical
0:05:13 aspects so the fundamental power is not
0:05:15 the same as the fundamental
0:05:17 knowledge
0:05:18 um
0:05:19 that's good we'd like to hear that yeah
0:05:21 so that's my working model and that and
0:05:23 then that anything that would be
0:05:26 let's say limited
0:05:27 um like a cube or something that would
0:05:30 come out of
0:05:31 some kind of activity um
0:05:36 yeah because it seems to me like you're
0:05:37 understand and the reason i said this
0:05:39 earlier and jake you're gonna need to
0:05:41 jump in whenever you can because i'm
0:05:42 gonna keep asking questions but
0:05:44 because because it seems like from
0:05:47 from what you like like you you you
0:05:49 wrote about like um
0:05:51 pure actuality right
0:05:53 it seems like your understanding of that
0:05:55 is is just
0:05:56 slightly different than you know the
0:05:58 typical uh
0:06:00 explanation we get from yeah exactly
0:06:02 that's almost explanation of pure
0:06:04 actuality and it seems like you do kind
0:06:06 of account for it in terms of limits
0:06:08 right
0:06:09 um so i don't know if that's right but
0:06:10 then it it seems like in that sense it
0:06:13 wouldn't be that traditional thomas find
0:06:15 simple listening model can i address
0:06:17 that here because i've got
0:06:19 a little bit since writing that so i
0:06:21 think that what i really want to do is i
0:06:23 want to think of pure actuality in terms
0:06:25 of there being no potentiality within
0:06:28 the fundamental nature of fundamental
0:06:30 reality there's no potentiality in there
0:06:33 that allows for potentialities to be
0:06:35 non-fundamental and then i do tie it to
0:06:38 limits because then i do think as a
0:06:40 matter of argument
0:06:41 that if the fundamental nature
0:06:44 of fundamental reality had limits like
0:06:46 the shape of a tree or a pinecone then
0:06:48 it would have
0:06:50 um potentialities because it could have
0:06:52 a different shape and so that's a reason
0:06:54 that i would have to think that
0:06:56 fundamental reality is purely actual has
0:06:58 no potentiality in its fundamental
0:07:00 nature and therefore no fundamental
0:07:02 limits and then again that allows for
0:07:04 non-fundamental um
0:07:06 variations yeah
0:07:08 right
0:07:09 i think that makes sense
0:07:11 yeah i think maybe we can
0:07:14 explain what our position is uh
0:07:17 the although there is diversity uh
0:07:19 within the
0:07:20 islamic tradition the one that we hold
0:07:23 to anyway because i don't know how
0:07:25 familiar you are but there's broadly
0:07:27 speaking of sunnis and the shia
0:07:30 we're all sunnis and so
0:07:33 uh our
0:07:34 position is pretty much
0:07:37 i don't i don't want to use the word
0:07:38 dogma but
0:07:39 it's it's considered orthodox to
0:07:42 reject divine simplicity so we actually
0:07:44 reject divine simplicity
0:07:46 and we believe that um of course we
0:07:48 believe in one god but we believe that
0:07:51 he has real attributes that are not
0:07:53 identical to each other
0:07:55 so like what you said not not identical
0:07:57 and obviously power knowledge um are
0:08:00 some of them so
0:08:03 um
0:08:04 and this is actually surprising to some
0:08:06 people who are not that familiar with
0:08:08 the islamic tradition because many
0:08:10 people think oh they they rejected
0:08:12 trinity so they must be like um strict
0:08:15 divine simplicities but no um
0:08:18 we actually don't um accept divine
0:08:20 simplicity um primarily for you know
0:08:24 textual reasons
0:08:25 but um
0:08:27 so yeah our conception is of course we
0:08:30 believe that god is necessary being
0:08:32 fundamental reality but we believe that
0:08:35 he has multiple attributes that are not
0:08:38 identical to each other nor are they
0:08:40 identical to the essence the the wording
0:08:42 that's used um
0:08:44 trying to translate it from arabic is
0:08:46 that they subsist uh within god's
0:08:49 essence so to speak
0:08:51 um
0:08:52 so
0:08:53 uh that's i that's why i have a lot of
0:08:55 questions about this because on there
0:08:57 there are two sides of this that that
0:08:58 are really interesting yeah some people
0:09:01 think that
0:09:03 and you're an expert on i think anyway
0:09:06 you're an expert on the contingency
0:09:07 argument some people from our tradition
0:09:11 um and maybe even some of the muslims
0:09:13 watching
0:09:14 because they know and have an
0:09:16 understanding that we we can't really
0:09:18 accept um divine simplicity at least not
0:09:22 um
0:09:23 under quote-unquote orthodoxy um so
0:09:26 there's a concern that when people hear
0:09:28 us using this argument
0:09:31 they think that it's it's going against
0:09:33 the tradition because
0:09:35 well
0:09:36 it leads necessarily to divine
0:09:39 simplicity
0:09:40 so um
0:09:42 maybe before i go too far
0:09:44 because i've seen your other
0:09:47 talks and discussions especially the one
0:09:50 um recently
0:09:52 i forget the other guy's name but um you
0:09:55 mentioned him earlier the atheist guy
0:09:56 where you guys were talking about uh
0:09:58 fundamental reality and it being mental
0:10:02 and it seemed obvious to me that you
0:10:05 don't affirm divine simplicity at least
0:10:07 not in the way that i understand it so
0:10:09 yeah what would you say to
0:10:12 maybe some of the people that think and
0:10:14 it's it they're two sides of the
0:10:16 spectrum
0:10:17 first it are those that reject divine
0:10:20 simplicity and because uh they do that
0:10:23 they're therefore skeptical to use the
0:10:25 contingency argument
0:10:26 and then also those who accept divine
0:10:29 simplicity that think that the
0:10:31 contingency argument necessarily entails
0:10:35 divine simplicity you see there's a
0:10:37 concern from sort of both
0:10:40 camps but i don't think that that's true
0:10:43 it doesn't seem that you do either
0:10:44 because you're a proponent of the
0:10:45 argument and also
0:10:47 you don't accept divine simplicity at
0:10:49 least in the way that um
0:10:52 many people conceive of it so what would
0:10:54 your response uh be to sort of both
0:10:57 sides of that coin yeah i'm totally with
0:11:00 you yeah so my argument
0:11:02 from arbitrary limits and shaving those
0:11:04 off
0:11:05 does not take us to
0:11:07 a kind of radical simplicity that
0:11:10 collapses all the attributes there might
0:11:12 be other reasons that one could think
0:11:14 about with respect to that but as far as
0:11:16 this argument
0:11:18 um no i mean all it does is it shaves
0:11:20 off the arbitrary limits the unexplained
0:11:21 limits
0:11:22 but as long as the different attributes
0:11:24 of god are grounded
0:11:26 in the fundamental attributes of god
0:11:28 which you could say are grounded in god
0:11:30 that will allow for there to be a
0:11:32 plurality of attributes uh plurality of
0:11:34 aspects within god's nature and again i
0:11:37 mean that is my own working model
0:11:39 right now so
0:11:41 that is very helpful i'm glad you're
0:11:42 bringing this up for your audience
0:11:43 because i have on occasion
0:11:46 received some emails from
0:11:48 from some muslims who have asked me this
0:11:50 question about whether shaving off the
0:11:53 arbitrary limits
0:11:55 would still allow there to be a kind of
0:11:57 diversity of aspects and absolutely it
0:12:00 does i mean you can have different
0:12:02 aspects that are rooted in the
0:12:03 fundamental reality
0:12:05 as long as you don't have arbitrary
0:12:07 unexplained limits
0:12:08 so yeah i i think that's an important
0:12:10 distinction to make here
0:12:13 right yeah because we get questions um
0:12:16 from muslims because uh we tried to
0:12:18 represent the contingency argument here
0:12:20 and so there are some genuine concerns
0:12:23 of of whether or not there there is a
0:12:25 problem
0:12:26 but um yeah so you guys have heard it
0:12:28 here josh is a leading expert on the
0:12:32 contingency argument and he he also does
0:12:34 not
0:12:35 affirm at least in the domestic sense of
0:12:38 of divine simplicity
0:12:40 so
0:12:41 but on that then dealing with the other
0:12:44 side there be pushback from people who
0:12:48 accept the contingency argument and
0:12:50 divine simplicity and think that it
0:12:52 entails it now i know that you addressed
0:12:53 it but there are some other questions
0:12:56 related to that one of which is
0:12:59 okay we have the fundamental layer of
0:13:01 reality and
0:13:03 um within god i don't know whether you
0:13:05 want to call it the essence of god or
0:13:08 i don't know what the best term would be
0:13:09 to use in that case
0:13:11 but then you have also these
0:13:14 attributes that for example knowledge
0:13:16 power and goodness
0:13:18 just using the three that you've given
0:13:20 that are not identical to the essence
0:13:22 and they're not identical to each other
0:13:24 right
0:13:25 and so
0:13:27 the question is if god
0:13:29 is basically
0:13:31 uh his essence plus his attributes for
0:13:34 lack of better way of expressing it
0:13:37 then wouldn't this be a conflict with
0:13:39 the
0:13:40 uh contingency argument in the sense
0:13:42 that
0:13:43 um
0:13:44 he's dependent upon his attribute so
0:13:47 there's a dependency relationship
0:13:49 between god and his attributes uh by the
0:13:52 fact that he's composite in some sense
0:13:55 he depends on his attributes and so
0:13:58 would that be
0:13:59 how would you resolve that problem i
0:14:01 guess
0:14:02 if there's a composite where the um
0:14:06 the parts are prior to the hole i mean
0:14:08 maybe one could think that the hole is
0:14:10 somehow prior
0:14:11 to the parts
0:14:13 i mean i do want to just affirm that
0:14:15 even in my own thinking i'm i'm trying
0:14:17 to kind of leave open some different
0:14:18 models including even how to interpret
0:14:20 some of the thomistic
0:14:22 models those are things i'm also still
0:14:24 exploring
0:14:26 but as far as just this cosmological
0:14:28 argument it certainly leaves that open
0:14:29 and i would say it even does leave open
0:14:31 the idea that you could have
0:14:33 some kind of composite as long as
0:14:36 the whole is explanatory prior to its
0:14:39 parts
0:14:40 because otherwise we're back to the
0:14:42 problem of arbitrarily
0:14:44 limited numbers of parts you know like
0:14:46 why those numbers
0:14:48 why why why would those be all the
0:14:50 pieces you know if god if they're
0:14:51 fundamental it seems like they have to
0:14:52 be anchored more deeply um so that
0:14:55 that's how i would think about that
0:14:57 yeah so then you would just say that um
0:15:00 if somebody wanted to go that route
0:15:03 that the the whole would be prior to the
0:15:05 part so to speak and this isn't language
0:15:08 that we necessarily use but um the whole
0:15:10 would be uh prior to the parts in some
0:15:12 sense
0:15:13 and that maybe
0:15:15 um the proponent of divine simplicity
0:15:18 who's
0:15:19 sort of maybe driving this critique
0:15:21 is working with an assumption a sort of
0:15:25 neurological assumption about the nature
0:15:27 of parts the nature uh between a hole in
0:15:31 its parts etc that um
0:15:34 people like us or others who want to
0:15:36 explore
0:15:37 this
0:15:38 type of complexity so to speak
0:15:41 are
0:15:42 somewhat free to reject and there's you
0:15:44 know at least room for discussion on
0:15:46 that is that how you would see it
0:15:48 yeah like i like how you put that
0:15:50 yeah okay
0:15:52 yeah yeah okay and um
0:15:55 so let's see what else can we talk about
0:15:57 with divine simplicity okay so another
0:15:59 issue is
0:16:01 um
0:16:02 you know in what's called classical
0:16:04 theism a lot of times
0:16:06 the
0:16:07 certain attributes are linked together
0:16:09 like god's simplicity
0:16:11 um
0:16:12 his
0:16:13 timelessness his changelessness
0:16:16 and so on and a model in which
0:16:20 god changes or has genuine succession in
0:16:23 his life over moments of time if you
0:16:26 reject
0:16:27 timelessness
0:16:29 how would you explain
0:16:32 how the necessary being
0:16:34 could still be the necessary being and
0:16:36 yet
0:16:37 he's
0:16:38 different over time does that make sense
0:16:41 i think so so um my working model and
0:16:44 you can come back on this right now is
0:16:46 um that
0:16:48 time depends on change
0:16:50 so
0:16:51 time involves earlier and later than
0:16:54 relations
0:16:55 between states of affairs and that these
0:16:57 are relations themselves are grounded in
0:17:00 changing systems and so
0:17:02 i'm kind of thinking that like
0:17:04 in a possible world where god doesn't
0:17:06 create anything if there were such a
0:17:08 possible world um there would be no
0:17:10 change and therefore no time
0:17:12 and so in that sense
0:17:14 god wouldn't be like in his essence a
0:17:18 temporal being but would be able to
0:17:20 exist in a world without time but then
0:17:22 in a world where there is change
0:17:25 my current model on my current model um
0:17:28 god is related to the changing things so
0:17:31 like god is present right now with us in
0:17:34 that sense god would be
0:17:36 in time i'm not constrained by time but
0:17:39 operating within
0:17:40 time
0:17:41 as something that is part of a changing
0:17:44 world or the foundation of a changing
0:17:45 world so come back to me and maybe
0:17:47 clarify your question i'm not sure yeah
0:17:49 so
0:17:50 what i'm saying on under that model
0:17:52 where um
0:17:55 god can can change with respect at least
0:17:58 relationally to creation and you can
0:18:00 even i mean
0:18:02 depending on how you want to construe it
0:18:04 even his actions that maybe he performs
0:18:07 different actions at different times
0:18:08 right yeah so in that sense he's
0:18:10 changing or
0:18:13 we could even go to his knowledge of
0:18:14 tense facts if we want to go over there
0:18:17 too so in in those uh situations because
0:18:21 you brought up like possible worlds
0:18:23 there's a possible world
0:18:25 even uh from a muslim conception i think
0:18:27 that we agree on this um in which god
0:18:30 didn't create anything in other words uh
0:18:33 creation was a free act of his he was
0:18:36 not compelled to create he could have
0:18:37 chosen not to create and so
0:18:40 i guess the question is if uh god is the
0:18:44 necessary being and so he exists in each
0:18:46 possible world but yet he's not
0:18:49 identical
0:18:50 in each possible world and there's one
0:18:52 in which
0:18:53 he's changeless let's say and then
0:18:56 there's one
0:18:58 in the actual world in which he changes
0:19:00 in some sense at least with respect to
0:19:02 his actions
0:19:05 how would you account for
0:19:08 him still being necessary or the
0:19:10 fundamental layer of reality in other
0:19:12 words what are you identifying
0:19:15 as an asses necessary being because if
0:19:17 we say okay god without creation is
0:19:19 necessary and fundamental and then god
0:19:23 plus creation
0:19:24 is necessary and fundamental
0:19:27 they're not identical right so i don't
0:19:29 know if that's making sense i think i
0:19:30 get that yeah i mean there are different
0:19:32 models here too but kind of the way that
0:19:34 i think about it is there's a sense in
0:19:36 which the change in god is sort of
0:19:38 extrinsic maybe even from our
0:19:40 perspective
0:19:41 um
0:19:42 i do think of it in terms of
0:19:44 real relations um yeah so god
0:19:48 and even there there's different ways of
0:19:49 analyzing that i think a lot of times
0:19:51 maybe when cultures divide sometimes
0:19:54 there can be vocabulary differences that
0:19:56 actually
0:19:57 mask
0:19:58 potential places of of unity
0:20:01 um
0:20:02 that go beyond the vocabulary
0:20:03 differences so i want to even be careful
0:20:05 here in how i use my language but but
0:20:07 the way that i think about it is that
0:20:09 the sort of necessary reality
0:20:13 includes the knowledge power and
0:20:15 goodness
0:20:16 that's fundamentally unchanging
0:20:18 but there can still be extrinsic
0:20:20 relations
0:20:22 of knowing us
0:20:24 knowing what we're talking about now or
0:20:26 seeing us in this moment that changes
0:20:28 from time to time in world to world so
0:20:31 that would be kind of extrinsic change
0:20:33 whereas the intrinsic nature would be
0:20:35 necessary i would think
0:20:38 um
0:20:40 but even in that sense like so
0:20:44 if we think of god's knowledge
0:20:47 and he has knowledge of
0:20:50 say tensed facts or things that are
0:20:53 changing for example god knows that
0:20:55 we're talking right now
0:20:57 um he knows that we hopefully will be
0:21:00 talking in five minutes from now but he
0:21:03 doesn't know that right now in other
0:21:05 words
0:21:06 his knowledge of those things
0:21:09 um change at least with respect to their
0:21:11 tense in some way if he has knowledge in
0:21:15 a tense fashion of course you can think
0:21:17 that his knowledge is simple or
0:21:19 just has this intuitive grasp and he
0:21:21 doesn't experience
0:21:23 um
0:21:24 you know knowledge in that sort of way
0:21:26 but if he were to
0:21:28 um then
0:21:30 it would seem that that attribute of
0:21:33 knowledge would be um
0:21:35 changing in some sense does that make
0:21:37 sense i think that that's right i would
0:21:39 think of that as involving a relation of
0:21:41 of awareness
0:21:43 um
0:21:44 so like right now i'm aware of i guess
0:21:46 my hand or at least a visual experience
0:21:48 of my hand something like this
0:21:50 whatever is out there
0:21:51 and i would think that whatever is there
0:21:53 god would be able to just be aware of it
0:21:55 and sort of a single act of awareness
0:21:58 but then since the contents of the
0:22:00 awareness are changing there is that
0:22:01 sense in which
0:22:03 god is changing
0:22:06 and and i know there are debates about
0:22:08 whether we're going to analyze this as
0:22:10 intrinsic to god or extrinsic is god's
0:22:12 knowledge intrinsic to him extrinsic but
0:22:14 i do think there is a kind of relation
0:22:16 of awareness
0:22:17 and that the contents of awareness are
0:22:19 the things that are changing
0:22:20 not the
0:22:22 let's say awareness itself
0:22:24 the awareness is almost like the field
0:22:26 in which the contents
0:22:28 swim and move and have their being and
0:22:30 then the field is just there
0:22:32 yeah so that's kind of where i'm at on
0:22:34 that
0:22:36 um
0:22:37 yeah i mean i would tend to think that
0:22:39 it's intrinsic because i guess i don't
0:22:42 know what
0:22:43 extrinsic knowledge would really be
0:22:46 um
0:22:48 in the sense that i think it's
0:22:50 partially being
0:22:52 explained or described by god and also
0:22:56 um the things that he's related to but
0:22:58 anyway
0:23:00 yeah yeah you can say it's
0:23:01 it's intrinsic to god to have that
0:23:03 awareness
0:23:05 yeah
0:23:06 yeah can you say it's in in sorry yeah
0:23:11 intrinsic and non-essential in the sense
0:23:13 that um yeah yeah
0:23:15 so you do have the essential right
0:23:17 attributes that make god god but there
0:23:19 could be an intrinsic something that's
0:23:21 intrinsic and not essential such as like
0:23:23 his
0:23:24 like contingent knowledge or
0:23:26 you know act of creation so i almost
0:23:28 kind of wonder if it's like there's this
0:23:29 intrinsic
0:23:30 act of awareness like this sort of field
0:23:33 of awareness
0:23:34 and then what's extrinsic would be the
0:23:36 contents of that awareness those things
0:23:37 are changing so there's this kind of
0:23:39 weird way in which the intrinsic and
0:23:41 extrinsic come together in god's
0:23:43 knowledge
0:23:44 so maybe part of the way that
0:23:47 dialectical partners can make progress
0:23:48 on this question is it's just sort of
0:23:50 clarifying the intrinsic aspect and the
0:23:54 extrinsic aspect and just getting those
0:23:56 terms very clear
0:23:58 um but yeah i think i'm with what what
0:24:00 you're saying
0:24:01 yeah and so i mean if we move on from
0:24:04 knowledge i i probably just have like
0:24:06 one more question on this
0:24:08 um
0:24:09 we were talking about before god's
0:24:11 actions and the fact that he has power
0:24:13 and we would also say he has will he he
0:24:15 exercises that power uh and performs
0:24:19 actions he's he's a genuine agent and um
0:24:22 so
0:24:24 the we also mentioned before that
0:24:26 there's a possible world in which god
0:24:27 doesn't create anything right and so if
0:24:30 that's the case
0:24:32 his act of creation is a contingent act
0:24:35 is it not
0:24:37 in that case yeah yeah okay so if if his
0:24:41 act is contingent
0:24:43 and that's something that is ascribed to
0:24:45 him and how do we explain
0:24:48 how the necessary being could have
0:24:50 contingent properties or attributes
0:24:54 um well so i like the analysis earlier
0:24:57 that
0:24:58 god's will could
0:25:01 make the difference between the
0:25:03 necessary and the contingent
0:25:04 um you know god decides
0:25:07 to make a world
0:25:08 because he loves us you know he loves he
0:25:10 finds us a very interesting world
0:25:13 so that might at least be a part of an
0:25:15 explanation there
0:25:16 yeah what i'm saying is
0:25:18 if if we're talking about the necessary
0:25:21 being
0:25:22 um
0:25:24 is it problematic to say that the
0:25:25 necessary being is is partly necessary
0:25:29 and partly contingent
0:25:31 so i wouldn't use that that language i'm
0:25:34 not thinking of the necessary being as
0:25:35 like having parts where one part is
0:25:37 necessary and the other is contingent
0:25:39 i'm thinking of it more like maybe
0:25:40 having states
0:25:42 i'm actually kind of working through
0:25:43 these distinctions in the current book
0:25:45 i'm writing because i'm talking about
0:25:46 the nature of persons so i make this
0:25:48 distinction between parts properties
0:25:51 states you know this is like analytical
0:25:53 surgery here and once we get all very
0:25:55 clear then what i would want to say here
0:25:57 and i think maybe this is consistent
0:25:59 with with your thought is that
0:26:01 um
0:26:02 the fundamental reality could have some
0:26:04 states that are necessary like its
0:26:06 independent nature but then it could
0:26:08 have other states that are
0:26:10 um contingent like the state of knowing
0:26:13 what's going on for example
0:26:16 and or even um performing actions like
0:26:19 was saying but in that state
0:26:21 yeah performing action or even being in
0:26:23 our world like the state of being in a
0:26:24 non-empty world would be an example yes
0:26:27 but then
0:26:29 in that state if that state is
0:26:30 contingent then the question is if that
0:26:33 state is contingent
0:26:35 how does that affect god's modal status
0:26:38 in other words how would it not make god
0:26:41 then contingent i guess is the question
0:26:44 so you could have a necessarily existing
0:26:46 thing
0:26:47 that has attributes or states that are
0:26:50 not uh let's say essential to it
0:26:53 um you know that that's how i would
0:26:55 think about it like right now i exist
0:26:57 and i'm not necessarily existing as far
0:26:59 as i know um but i exist and i can
0:27:01 change my state see i'm like changing my
0:27:03 states so like maybe god could do the
0:27:05 same thing you know he could have a kind
0:27:06 of necessary existence
0:27:08 and that but he could still
0:27:10 change in relation to what's going on
0:27:13 um
0:27:14 can i can i say because maybe there's
0:27:16 something that you i think
0:27:18 you've said before that might relate to
0:27:21 this and that when you're talking about
0:27:23 limits when you say that you know there
0:27:25 could be no arbitrary limits in the
0:27:27 foundation well because well
0:27:29 a limit needs to be explained and well
0:27:31 the foundation is
0:27:32 you can't explain it but then the the
0:27:35 necessary foundation or the necessary
0:27:37 being could have not like limits that
0:27:40 are non-foundational or non-essential
0:27:43 so
0:27:43 that might that be related to the
0:27:45 contingent versus non-contingent
0:27:46 attribute right yeah absolutely yes
0:27:50 okay yeah that makes sense
0:27:52 um and then
0:27:53 one other question is
0:27:55 i was thinking and um i noticed that of
0:27:58 course your your your youtube channel
0:28:01 and uh your name is worldview design so
0:28:04 uh as a metaphysician right you try to
0:28:07 see how the different views that you
0:28:09 have how they mesh with each other yeah
0:28:13 so um
0:28:14 this is just something i was thinking
0:28:15 about um because i've been reading your
0:28:18 your book on defending uh the
0:28:20 correspondence theory of truth
0:28:22 and um
0:28:24 and so it's something that i'm
0:28:26 interested in as well as divine
0:28:28 simplicity so i just want to get your
0:28:30 your thoughts on this
0:28:32 when we talked earlier about um
0:28:35 the
0:28:36 the
0:28:37 sort of supreme nature
0:28:39 of the a fundamental reality and has
0:28:41 these three attributes or properties at
0:28:44 least of knowledge power and goodness
0:28:47 do you see any relation between that
0:28:51 and
0:28:51 the correspondence theory of truth and
0:28:53 how it relates to divine simplicity if
0:28:56 you don't get what i mean by that maybe
0:28:57 i'll explain it a bit more in the sense
0:29:00 that um
0:29:02 when we talk about knowledge power and
0:29:05 goodness right
0:29:07 and we say that the the fundamental
0:29:10 layer of reality uh has them
0:29:13 how does that relate to the the question
0:29:15 of
0:29:16 correspondence theory of truth in the
0:29:18 sense that
0:29:21 shouldn't it be that
0:29:23 there's a real correspondence between
0:29:26 those attributes and what we're actually
0:29:28 saying such that
0:29:30 it provides evidence
0:29:33 if i can say it in a polite way that it
0:29:35 would provide evidence against
0:29:38 divine simplicity
0:29:40 yeah and yeah very much and to put it in
0:29:43 a positive way provides evidence for a
0:29:45 view out of your your tradition um and
0:29:47 also that i hold as well which is that
0:29:50 there can be diversity of attributes
0:29:52 within god and
0:29:54 i like what you're saying here because
0:29:56 it's connected to the correspondence
0:29:57 theory so the idea is that
0:29:59 uh maybe we can say of god that god is
0:30:02 powerful and then we can say of god that
0:30:04 god has knowledge
0:30:05 and then these are two different things
0:30:06 that we're saying but on the
0:30:08 correspondence theory of truth those
0:30:10 things are true only if they correspond
0:30:12 to a reality
0:30:13 so then that points to
0:30:16 a reality of power and a reality of
0:30:18 knowledge and those are different
0:30:20 realities now let me just say let me
0:30:22 just add this just for the sake of kind
0:30:24 of getting all the models on the table
0:30:27 one thing i have been wondering about is
0:30:29 if it's possible that
0:30:31 you can have a common core
0:30:33 that is a
0:30:35 a truth maker for
0:30:37 different
0:30:38 um
0:30:39 attributions um so like for example we
0:30:43 could say that that lois lane this is
0:30:45 fictional right but we could just
0:30:46 imagine it's like so in the fictional
0:30:47 world of superman lois lane loves
0:30:51 superman and then you have lois lane
0:30:53 loves clark kent
0:30:56 and you might think that there's
0:30:57 actually one basic
0:30:59 fact out there in the world that makes
0:31:01 both of those true now maybe not i mean
0:31:03 that's where you could debate that
0:31:05 but i have kind of wonder if if like
0:31:08 could power talk be like our window
0:31:11 into fundamental reality through the
0:31:13 concept of power and then knowledge talk
0:31:16 be a window into the same fundamental
0:31:18 reality through the window of our
0:31:20 knowledge concept
0:31:23 that's kind of like just this idea that
0:31:24 i've been thinking about but but putting
0:31:27 that to the side i do think that the
0:31:29 correspondence theory does point at
0:31:30 least to some reality that these
0:31:33 propositions correspond to and that
0:31:35 would provide some kind of evidence i
0:31:36 think for
0:31:38 for a diversity of attributes anchored
0:31:40 in in one being
0:31:43 yeah i mean in the sense that um they
0:31:46 would be um truth makers
0:31:48 um
0:31:49 for um what is being described now
0:31:53 that's certainly right i mean
0:31:55 some people in the tradition hold to
0:31:57 that that
0:31:58 god's essence um that god is basically
0:32:01 knowing um through his essence he has
0:32:03 power through his essence but not
0:32:05 through
0:32:06 this attribute which is knowledge or
0:32:08 power etc yeah um but
0:32:11 i i think the question is going back to
0:32:14 the the superman of clark kent analogy
0:32:17 that seems to be due to
0:32:20 um epistemic limitations in that maybe
0:32:23 you're you don't know that superman is
0:32:25 actually clark kent and so we would have
0:32:28 to then analyze these concepts like
0:32:31 power knowledge um goodness etc and see
0:32:35 well is it really the same type of thing
0:32:38 is it really analogous are we does it
0:32:40 seem like we're missing something that
0:32:42 um or are these things really different
0:32:45 uh does that make sense yeah absolutely
0:32:47 i think that is the question i think
0:32:48 that's why there is kind of this debate
0:32:50 over whether
0:32:51 our concepts of knowledge power and
0:32:53 goodness are kind of just analogies of
0:32:56 the original reality or whether they're
0:32:58 sort of you difficult terms
0:33:01 that we understand to actually apply to
0:33:03 the original reality now my own view has
0:33:05 been
0:33:06 that just just what you're describing
0:33:08 that these are really distinct
0:33:10 attributes
0:33:11 um
0:33:12 but you know i'm just sort of thinking
0:33:14 about all the possible models we could
0:33:16 think about
0:33:18 so i think there are some options still
0:33:20 on the table here yeah yeah no
0:33:22 definitely i just um because i i've been
0:33:24 reading your book on correspondence
0:33:27 theory and i'm just i like to see how
0:33:30 these different views that we hold how
0:33:32 we they fit together you know what's the
0:33:34 best way of trying to conceive of it and
0:33:37 i i haven't seen you speak about it too
0:33:39 much so i just wanted to run that idea
0:33:41 off of you i'm sure you've already
0:33:43 thought about how that relates to um god
0:33:47 and his attributes etc but just wanted
0:33:49 to run that thought by you guys if you
0:33:51 guys have anything you want to come in
0:33:53 here i know we're uh we've been going
0:33:55 for
0:33:56 uh quite a while now this is this is so
0:33:58 good
0:34:08 you