OMV: Peter Kreeft on the Existence of God, Part 1

[mk2escortvan]

Bloody hell. I was ready to give this guy a fair hearing, then he says that the question of god's existence does not need addressing, and that anyone who thinks it does is a fool. What a wanker.

[dylkim]

i did NOT see the British accent coming! haha, i love Dr. Kreeft too!

[dgraycroft1]

This is laughably poor logic. He uses 'proof' before marriage as a metaphor for proof of god. Except he doesn't explicitly qualify proof of what? Whether or not you should marry this person? Whether or not they can make you happy in some sense? How about whether or not your marriage will last and be happy. If such a thing is so easily proven, why do half of all marriages end in divorce, even within Dr Kreeft's Catholic religion? So much for that premise.

[detsufaigo]

Thanks for putting this vid.

[omvusa]

@detsufaigo, your welcome. Dr. Kreeft is a good man and it is good to see that his talk has inspired a lively debate.

[themanhootch]

The problem of atheism is that they want space-time evidence for the existence of God. If God exists, He exists outside of space-time, for before the beginning of the universe, there was no space-time, yet to be God, He must be "prior" to the universe, but then there was no space-time. Now, try to imagine something that is not defined by space-time, the five senses. Impossible. So all we can do is look for His "fingerprints" on the universe, as it were.

[2nDoppelganger]

Did Kreeft just call me a fool?

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

@2nDoppelganger,

@2nDoppelganger That's all you got out of this? It will be more beneficial if you pay attention instead of dismissing it out of hand.

[2nDoppelganger]

@IgnatiusOfAntioch Im sorry for not posting an essay entailing all of my dismissals.

[Maarttttt]

This isn't a philosphical proof for the existence of God either. If anything, it's spiritual.

[boscol91]

a great professor at BC. His books, Heaven the hearts deepest longing, Knowing the truth of God's love, The Three Philosophies of life, Because God is Real . . all amazing!!!

[mexman48]

This guy is full of crap. Not worthy of being listened to for one minute. I quit listening after 50 seconds.

[pedrohqb]

@mexman48 well, of course, it seems that you are just an agnostic. The latin word from a greek word which means IGNORANT. 

[kavuz777]

como siempre haciendo comentarios ignorantes , por si no lo sabes este hombres es cristiano Peter Kreeft is Professor of Philosophy at Boston College. He has degrees from both Calvin College and Fordham University, where he also earned his Ph.D. He has taught a broad range of courses covering scores of topics related to philosophy and religion and has written numerous books on similar topics, including Socrates Meets Jesus: History's Greatest Questioner Confronts the Claims of Christ.

[EhJayJC]

@mexman48 Haha, with all due respect, that's kind of silly. I listened for the first 50 seconds and he hadn't even made a single point yet; how could you possible judge that's he's full of "crap" that soon?

[cablepanos]

God is love? Really?

3 Biblical Propositions:

1) ....God is love

1 John 4:8

2) Love is not jealous

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

3) You shall not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

Exodus 34:14

God ≠ Love

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos You misunderstand Exodus in your part 3. The meaning of jealous there is that God wants you to know the truth. If there is one true God and you follow idols then He is jealous in the sense that He wants you to know the truth. God is immutable so he has no emotion (that is for creatures) and is not "jealous" as humans are. This is basic theology. If you know enough to look up those verses in the bible how do you not know this?

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection I read the words in the Bible using definitions that are accepted by most people. I guess one can change definitions of words to suit their purposes or fit their beliefs as you have. God is described with very human emotions throughout the Bible. How do Christians find out the true attributes of God other than what is written in the Bible? Use their imaginations I suppose. If God is immutable, how did he decide to create the universe? Basic theology is bullshit.

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos You shouldn't use your imagination. You should use your reason. God created us in his image as a rational creature. The pagan view is that we should follow our passions and emotion. Your argument is not against theology but against philosophy. You dislike rational thought and just happen to be encountering how it applies to theology. We could be discussing Socrates and the same issues would be at play.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection I am not using MY imagination regarding God at all, that is you. I don't believe a God exists. I use only rational thought. WTF are you talking about? Where is rational thought absent from my comments?

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos You need to understand the context of the literature before you insert it into your syllogism. Your reference to Exodus in your third point is demonstrably in error based on rational thought and literary analysis. You can find many atheists who would agree with me. If you read Song of Songs would you conclude that God is only interested in having passionate sex? I am only trying to help you strengthen your argument. Don't take it personal. 

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection You have not demonstrated to me how I am in error. You said "He is jealous in the sense that He wants you to know the truth." How does that make any sense, other than changing the meaning of the word jealous? RE; "Don't take it personal" How else should I take "You dislike rational thought"? Is that not a judgement of me? Why not use your "rational thought" to answer my question; If God is immutable, how did he decide to create the universe? How can a changeless mind create?

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos The limited space makes me abbreviate responses that are incomplete. The basic problem I am trying to make you aware of is your assumption that God being jealous means the same thing as man being jealous is incorrect. You are constructing a straw man argument here. You need to look at the totality of what scripture reveals to see if this makes sense. If God is all knowing and can create out of nothing how could he be jealous of his creature?

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection It is not a strawman argument, it is a direct quote from the "inerrant word of God". You are not using rational thought. What you are doing is called rationalization. "If God is all knowing and can create out of nothing how could he be jealous of his creature?" That is exactly the kind of point I am making. Only the conclusion is different. My conclusion being that the Bible is wrong.

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos The word is innerant but man often interprets it with error. You are taking a verse out of context and constricting your version of what jealous means. I agree with you that if God was arbitrary and punished out of jealousness that would not be love. All of scripture and all but the extreme fundamentalist interpreters would not read it this way. There are many skeptic and atheist scholars who get this from there expertise in reading ancient texts and an understanding of philosophy.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection There are plenty of demonstrably inaccurate and flat out wrong statements in the Bible. By "interprets" you seem to mean rationalizes. How am I taking the verse out of context? In what context does jealous mean something other than the definition of jealous? All you have done here is change the definition of jealous to suit your idea of what you want god to be. That is called rationalization. Also, you will have to go to the video to see my other responses. i.e God/Time, etc

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos To fully explain I would need to go into great detail regarding the meaning of covenant etc. It is as though you have your brand new Websters dictionary and you are planning to travel back in time to tell Moses what the word means. It would be like me grabbing some yarn and going down to the physics department and thinking I could use it to disprove Sting theory. When they try to give their definition of string I could just use your reasoning that they are just rationalizing.

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos Sorry for the "dislike rational thought". Trying to write shorthand. Creating strawman arguments can be done by those who value rational thought but make errors in doing it. I stand guilty of being judgemental, I am sorry. The immutable question is easy, God is outside of time, it being one of his creations, and does not exist before creation but outside of it. He does not change because of the presence of matter. His nature is eternal.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection Oh dear, I fear you have swallowed W.L. Craig's sorry apologetics. Without time, there is no change. Without change there is no creation. It is a simple logical fallacy. Also, if God exists outside of the universe, how do you know he is there?

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos Have no idea who W.L. Craig is. If God created the universe out of nothing he must exist out of time. That is self evident. Matter can change but it does not mean that a transcendent being would need to change. You know God is their by his action in the world. We may understand the Higg's particle or what gravity really is some day but I do not deny the existence of gravity just because science can describe its result but struggles yet to define its essence.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection "If" is the big word there. You presuppose the existence of a god and that he created the universe. A changeless mind is by definition non-functioning, THAT is self evident. For something to go from not existing to existing requires change. Outside of time, there is no change. Creation cannot come about without change, and change cannot come about without time. It is that simple. Unless you want to say "God can do anything", or "He used magic". Continued....

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos I chose the word "if" out of deference to you. I am not asking you to believe in a transendent God but simply to engage rational logic regarding how such a proposed god would function. A human mind is not functioning if it is not changing but that does not apply to God. You seem to want to form a pantheistic notion of a pagan god and impose that concept on Jewish history. This is very anachronistic. You don't seem to be familiar with the Jewish concept of creation and monotheism.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection I understand the Jewish concept of creation and monotheism just fine. I just find it laughably and demonstrably wrong, as I have demonstrated.

"simply to engage rational logic regarding how such a proposed god would function." This is what I am doing by saying 'For something to go from not existing to existing requires change. Outside of time, there is no change. Creation cannot come about without change, and change cannot come about without time.' Continued......

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection How are you using rational logic by saying "that doesn't apply to God." You provide no reason for this, it is just wishful thinking, or faith, which in my opinion, is the same thing.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection "You know God is their by his action in the world." No, I don't know he is there by his action in the world. Where is the evidence of this? The whole world has waited several thousand years to see evidence of god in our world. I know there are people who make claims, but there is no evidence. People like to say "look around, everything is evidence", etc. Just because we don't know where everything came from, doesn't mean God did it. That is another logical fallacy.

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos The main reasons for faith are 1. Prophecies fulfilled 2. Miracles 3. The establishment of a church that has has as its members the most incompetent people and yet still teaches the same doctrine as when it began. Of course you can't prove a spiritual being with material experiments. Nor can you prove that god does not exist with simply material data. The brightest thinkers at least know their limits regardless of which side they are on.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection 1. Prophecies; only convincing to the already faithful.

2. Miracles; only convincing to the already faithful.

3. Establishment of church; Maybe you should consider becoming Muslim as well, I think they have a pretty big following too. Also, there are over 38,000 denominations of Christianity. Do they all teach the same doctrine as when it began? I don't think I can disprove god at all. I simply reject claims using simple logic. "Brightest thinkers", are you calling me stupid?

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos Not calling you stupid, I was thinking of Dawkins.

“A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative.”

-- Richard Dawkins

You for the first time made it clear you cannot disprove God. From your previous posts I was not sure of that and appreciate the clarification.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection I am glad for the clarification of the fact that I cannot disprove God. On the other hand, you seem quite sure there is a god. Maybe you could clarify your position on that for me.

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos Regarding your response to the three points I am not trying to convince you but point out that throughout history many intelligent atheists have been converted by these three issues. I am not asking you to care about them but just checking your knowledge of history. Muslims converted by force, had no prophecies predicting Mohammed and do not (as I understand it) believe in miracles. Regarding the denominations they are by definition rejecting the original Catholic teaching.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection Not all Muslims were converted by force. You have heard of the Inquisitions, haven't you? So, that point (in my mind at least) is null. Re; prophecies of Christ. Is it not possible that the writers of the NT had read the OT and created Jesus to fit the prophecies? On a side note, I find it ironic that "God's chosen people" will go to hell because they do not accept Jesus as their lord and savior. Continued....

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos The Inquisitions were not about converting people. Christianity spread while being persecuted. Islam spread by persecuting anyone who objects. Using force to convert someone has always been against the faith but was set in official church doctrine in the 700's. To consider that equal is like denying the Holocost. You really need to learn some history. Jews will not go to hell because they do not accept Jesus as their messiah. Where did you drudge that up from?

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos Continued: Only one the Catholic church still teaches the same doctrine. Read the Didache and compare it to the Catechism for an example. The number of denominations proves the principle of sola scriptura is illogical but does not apply to the Catholic church.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection This is a first, I usually hear from Christians that Catholics are not true Christians. I always found that funny because Catholicism predates their denominations, etc. WOW, I think we almost agreed on something there. It can be argued, however, that nobody follows the scriptures exactly, therefore nobody follows Christianity. For example; I don't think you will be showing up at my house with a basket of rocks to stone me for speaking against your God.(Deuteronomy 13)

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos The bible is not a list of individual commands. It requires a nuanced understanding of typology, salvation history, etc. To pull an OT Deuternomic code out is very funny. And no I will not be showing up with rocks. I prefer to imagine we sit on Mars Hill having a picnic and enjoying discussion. The Christians that deem Catholics as not true Christians are doing so out of ignorance. The history is pretty clear on that.

And in response to your other post I certainly do believe in God,

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection What I find funny is that one can read a specific command, and shrug it off by saying you have to take the Bible as a whole in order to understand that specific command. Is that how the Catholic church can read not to create idols, and then make a church full of idols? How about that Vatican? It doesn't look like anything that Jesus had in mind when he said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos Re your point on shrugging off commands. You seem to have a very fundamentalist understanding of the bible. A rational thinker will try to understand the essential character and derive universal principles. You remind me of the sophists that Socrates delt with. You throw random complaints about Christianity out but cannot understand the underlying principles that hold together salvation history in one continuous thead. Your arguments are just angry tantrums with no real point.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection There is a point. It is that Christians cheery pick bits out of the Bible using their own sense of morality and throw out the bits that go against their own sense of morality. Then they hold the Bible up as the one and only god given objective morality. It's bullshit, and you can't see it because you are blinded by your faith. You have a cognitive dissonance you use to guard against these contradictions. You claim I don't understand it, but I do. I just find to be bullshit.

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos The fact that you characterize all Christians the same shows your unwillingness to have a rational discussion. Many atheists know history and use rational discourse. I would not put them all in the same category as you do with Christians. You have ran from each of my responses to a new ahistorical tirade. You really would do well to study logic and history. You owe that to your fellow atheists. You also would Christians a favor by engaging in real discussions not tantrums.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection I never said "all Christians" cherry pick, only that Christians do cherry pick. You would do well to look up cognitive dissonance.

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos I am familiar with cognitive dissonance. A cmmon ad hoc type of comment.

[braineyeconnection]

@cablepanos I often have encountered arguments just like this by atheists who don't take the time to understand the faith seriously. Mind you, if you read Aquinas he anticipated these types off questions in the 1200's. I am not suggesting at all that you take a leap of faith. You can hold on to your disbelief. It's just that proposing that disbelief proves rationality is not based on rational thought. It is based on postmodern denial of truth.

[cablepanos]

@braineyeconnection When did I propose that disbelief proves rationality? Rational thought brought me to disbelive in your "truth".

"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on it's own merit."

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday singing, "Yes gravity is real! I will have faith!."

-Dan Barker, former evangelical minister

[ambbc08]

For one the Vatican, not a red sox fan from New Jersey, is the primary authority in making such evaluations and two Socrates was neither Christian nor Catholic. He is an odd man with a bizzare following which I believe has contributed to a broad dislike of Christianity as well as served as a confirmation of the prejudicial views of people like Richard Dawkins and the like.

[ambbc08]

Well I can think of dozens of examples of people expressing such views of Kreeft. it is often very surprising, almost unchristian. On one such occasion a man asked Kreeft whether he specially communicated with God, on another whether he was a saint. It is strang when one considers the fact that Kreeft has claimed that Socrates is a saint.

[ambbc08]

Kreeft sounds like a great professor but he is among the least like at BC. It is interesting I find that students often tell me thier relative a BC grad told them to take his course because he is "famous" and end up not liking him, often understanding and disagreeing with him, and 99/100 hating him.  I am convinced more there are more atheists alive today because of Kreeft. He is a friend of mine but do not express love of him or hold cultish views on him.

[omvusa]

@ambbc08, I don't know of people who hold a "cultish" view of him, but I do know many, many people who like Dr. Kreeft, his writings, and his classes. The Chapel was filled to the brim on the day he spoke. Personally, I have had many, many professors over my many years of college (I have three degrees). I had Dr. Kreeft for six classes and he is by far the best professor I have ever had in a college course.

[nilofc]

@ambbc08 It is because you do not understand him.

[holdenesme]

@ambbc08 AAMBBC - I have never heard anything negative about Kreeft as a professor, a person, an apologist or likable personality.

The man teaches philosophy!!! IF you have ever taken a college level philosophy class and YOU DIDN'T have some very lively arguments with the professor, I would say that you never really took a philosophy course.

If Kreeft directly challenges his students, which I know he does, then God bless him for what he does.

[holdenesme]

@ambbc08 Dr. Kreeft has written the standard textbook for Christian Apologetics. It is used in Catholic and Protestant seminaries and universities. He is very well received in ecumenical circles as a Christian apologist, despite the fact that he is a devout Roman Catholic.

In this regard he reminds me very much of C.S. Lewis in that Lewis is embraced by virtually all of Christianity as a very accessible and readable Christian theologian, despite the fact that he was a devout Anglican.

[ambbc08]

@holdenesme I disagree. Kreeft is interesting but to be honest he wins over some for agreeing with them not so much for putting forth great philosophy. I give him a lot of credit for summarizing arguments of philosophers he agrees with. He does a poor job of providing a broad base of philosophy that I paid 50,000 a year for while a student at the school he teaches. I would encourage diversity of oppinion at the university and greater debate.

[EhJayJC]

@ambbc08 I find that really hard to believe; if they hate him for disagreeing with him, that isn't him making them atheists. That's atheists hating (frankly) truth. If they do hate him, they are simply, "killing the messenger." I've always found Kreeft to be an excellent, logical and loving individual, based from his written work and audio only (unfortunately). :)

[ambbc08]

@EhJayJC

People dislike Kreefts approach to teaching that combined with a basicly theisist attitude towards tends to make people less interested in his teaching in effect promoting the opposite of what he intends. Im not saying that people who resent Catholicism also resent Kreeft when I made the above remark.

[Sirchud68]

I love Dr. Kreeft!