What I said is that free speech is a constitutional right that must be interpreted in the context of the Constitution, and that the courts have the authority and responsibility to interpret it. Gag orders are indeed prior restraint, but courts have upheld them for the purpose of ensuring the constitutional right to a fair trial. Such orders seem a very limited constraint-the speech limitation is narrow and persists only for the life of a trial. I don't always agree with SCOTUS decisions (e.g. Dobbs), but I defer to them by default unless I encounter compelling arguments they're wrong. You've given none other than proclaiming unlimited free speech is a "human right".

Is there a situation where a gag order prohibits voicing something in the public interest or that is grossly unfair? Conceivably yes, but the constraint on Trump is a poor example of it. He's not harmed (as you noted- it's politically helpful to him to claim martyrdom), and there are no facts being withheld from the public. So again, your complaint seems based solely on free-speech absolutism as a "human right". Labelling me a "censor" for not agreeing with you seems ad hominem- not a rational case.

I never said they were targeting conservatives. I said they were targeting Trump. — NOS4A2

My bad, I jumped to the conclusion that you were parrotting GOP talking points. Sorry.

I acknowledge there's evidence Bragg was politically motivated to charge Trump. However that doesn't imply it's a false accusation, or even that it's unfair: Cohen went to prison but his co-conspirator didn't even get charged until Bragg indicted him.

Bragg's possible political motivation doesn't have any bearing on the federal charges brought by Smith. Rather, those charges are of the utmost seriousness and reflect on Trump's fitness for office. It's a pity if those cases are delayed until after the election; the public does have a right to know if the GOP candidate is a criminal.

One of the greatest stupidities of anti-Trumpism is to attribute to Trump's words some ill effect — NOS4A2

You tacitly acknowledged threats of violence occur, and applauded it:

Trump's "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks, contained disinformation, serve no positive purpose, and will almost certainly result in threats of violence — Relativist

The corrupt deserve to be threatened, and it is this corruption that almost certainly leads to the threats. — NOS4A2

And the problem is that so many Trump supporters are stupid and biased. Like Trump, they consider all Democrats corrupt. Their faith in Trump is astounding- they're incapable of considering the possibility he's guilty as charged; anyone who says otherwise is deluded and anti-Trump.

There certainly many who are apt to assume Trump guilty of anything. I'm not one of them. I explore the evidence. I've never met a Trump supporter who's familiar with the evidence. But all of them know which judges are Democrats.

There is no evidence for it. — NOS4A2

Yes there is. There's testimony from the Proud Boys acknowledging they were triggered by Trump's encouragement to "stand down and stand by".

Here's an article about some acts carried out by Trumpists:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889

even the appearance of a conflict of interest is inappropriate — NOS4A2

Being a Democrat appears to anti-Democrat bigots as a conflict of interest. No evidence of personal gain has been identified. Loren Merchan works for a firm that does digital campaigning and online fundraising. Those activities will continue irrespective of the outcome of the case.

It is also politically stupid. People notice when you justify censorship on such stupid grounds. It makes a martyr out of the censored. — NOS4A2

I had asked you to explain how Trump was hurt by the gag order, but it seems you believe it helps! So what's the problem?

You are a free-speech absolutist, so your judgement that the grounds (taint the jury pool and potential to incite violence) are stupid doesn't mean very much. Speaking of stupid, obeying a gag order does no harm to Trump, so it seems stupid to flout it. Reminds my of the sexual assault suit- Trump can't keep his stupid mouth shut, so it cost him financially.

The actions of the justice system itself is what undermines the justice system and leads to threats against those involved. — NOS4A2

You're parrotting a popular wing conspiracy theory. It is the irrational perception that the justice system is targeting Conservatives that is the problem. That perception is the product of cherry picking cases and proclaiming the allegation is proved- per the typical approach of conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what I was referring to: the GOP is encouraging this irrational conclusion and thus undermining the system.

Trump routinely alleges bias. He also asked for Judge Chutkin's recusal. In the Trump University case, Trump asserted that the Judge would be biased because he was "Mexican". You have parroted Trump's assertions, while providing no actual reasoning - with the exception of your applying your principle of free-speech absolutism. We simply disagree on that, as I explained. But on that front, I asked you to explain how Trump is harmed by the constraint on verbal attacks on the Judge's daughter, and you said:

"Not only does it hurt Trump’s chances at this sham trial over a this sham indictment, but it also denies the public access to this important information. "

The 2nd part is downright false: the public is already fully aware of the information. But you need to explain how ad hominem attacks on a judge's daughter helps his case. (Legal case? political case?)

Trump was absolutely right to point it out, and we’re all better off for knowing it. — NOS4A2

I'm fine with getting information out in the public, but it's ironic that this case is about Trump working to prevent information about himself from becoming public. Do you agree we're all better off knowing what he did: the affairs and election-interfering coverup?

This case is the weakest of the 3 federal cases, both in terms of Trump's actions and in terms of the strength of the case (apparently it depends on pinning other uncharged, federal crimes on Trump). But it's very interesting to see Trump's reactions, because they confirm his unfitness for office. A President should support the criminal-justice system, not try to undermine it. A reasonable person would simply argue his innocence, and that the facts presented at trial will demonstrate this.

You have judged the Judge to be corrupt based on what? — Relativist

He was censored for social media posts that point out the judge has a vested interest in Trump’s conviction, in Trump’s election loss, insofar as it pleases his daughter’s political clientele, who pay her ridiculous amounts of DNC donor cash to help them win elections. — NOS4A2

A familial connection to a daughter engaged in political campaigning does not entail a judge acting unfairly. What WOULD imply unfairness would be a pattern of questionable, one-sided decisions. Trump may hope that occurs because it will be grounds for overturning a conviction on appeal.

The gag order does not prohibit Trump from attacking the judge, but please explain why it's a good idea to do so. Also explain the negative impact to him for being unable to attack the daughter.

I'll speculate: it's the same pattern he has displayed in elections: "if I lose, it was because of corruption". It plays well to his base (critical thinking isn't their strong suit), in a way that is totally self-serving while also undermining trust in the criminal-justice system. That's one of the real dangers to Trump becoming President again. To his non-fans, his attacks spark outrage - diverting attention from the damning facts.

Why can’t Trump defend himself outside of trial? — NOS4A2

He can, so why doesn't he? Attacking a judge's daughter is not a defense of the crimes charged. At best, it's childish. At worst, it taints the jury pool and could lead to violence.

Free-speech is a right granted by the Constitution, and needs be interpreted in the context of that Constitution. That's the job of the Courts irrespective of the way you'd prefer it be treated.

Daniels and Cohen telling their perspectives through books is hardly the same thing as personal attacks. Trump is equally free to write a book explaining his perspective - that would be a rational way to defend himself.

A restraint on verbal attacks will not hurt his chances at trial. But if the judge does treat Trump unfairly, and this leads to conviction, he will have grounds for appeal. That's the way the system is designed to work- and with Trump's financial resources, he can take full advantage of Constitutional protections to ensure he is treated fairly. Contrast this with poor people who go to trial and can't afford to take every nuance all the way to the Supreme Court.

The corrupt deserve to be threatened — NOS4A2

Trump will have the opportunity to defend himself at trial, based on evidence. You have judged the Judge to be corrupt based on what?

Are you a fan of vigilanteism?

So the judge, using prior restraint, expanded an unconstitutional gag order against Trump to shield family members of the court from Trump’s criticism — NOS4A2

Gag orders are not uncommon, and are arguably constitutional (see this) - because there is a tension between personal free speech and the right (by both defense and prosecution) to a fair trial. Trump's previous appeal of a gag order was upheld, and it seems like this one would be also. Trump's "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks, contained disinformation, serve no positive purpose, and will almost certainly result in threats of violence. The political activities of a family member (or of a judge, for that matter) have no bearing on the ability of the judge to be an impartial arbiter.

The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice. — Mikie

Their approach to foreign policy also differs greatly. Trump is prone to a tactical approach that is often driven by impulse (e.g. Trump's dropping out of the Iran nuclear deal against the advice of his advisors; imposing tarriffs). Biden's more strategic approach is most apparent in his dealings with China (see this Brookings analysis).

Policies aside, the general approach of the MAGA "movement" is pretty troubling, with its embrace of conspiracy theories, alternative "facts", weaponization of victimhood, disrespect for rule of law, and courting of racists. The sooner this "movement" gets defeated, the better - so that there can be a greater emphasis on policy debate based on an agreed, common set of facts.

It is corruption that is the catalyst for populism. So while populism in ways is a problematic phenomenon, it is a reaction to a problematic status quo. This insight is what almost always lacks in discussions about how bad populism is. — Tzeentch

The problem is complicated by the fact that it is PERCEIVED corruption that triggers populism - and those perceptions can be manipulated through lies.

My favorite Protestant joke:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Relativist, maybe I believe some things uncritically. But I believe what the Catholic Church teaches, partly because I study documents from the Early Church. If you read them, I think you'll know that they confirm Catholicism instead of Protestantism. — BillMcEnaney

Protestants generally defer the Apostolic Fathers as well, but they deny they were necessarily of one voice. Regardless, the Reformation was a reaction to the undeniable corruption that grew in the Catholic Church. If the institution couldn't be trusted - where else to place their faith other than Scripture and reasoning?

Thanks to sola scriptura, Protestants have splintered into about 47,000 sects. — BillMcEnaney

Agreed. Here's a Protestant who also agrees.

IMO, the Protestants were right to mistrust the Church, and you're right to mistrust sola scriptura. All this shows is that Christianity is a human creation. If you get some good out of it, continue to embrace it. But recognize that others may gain something from their own unique beliefs- so why not let them embrace whatever they believe? No one can be proven right.

Entropy. Entropy isn't contingent on living things. — Benj96

Aren't you referring to the change in entropy over time? If you just mean the fixed value of entropy for a state of affairs, it explains nothing.

The guiding question of Aristotle's Metaphysics is the question of 'being qua being", that is, what it is for something to be the thing that it is. What is it, for example, that distinguishes man from other beings. And, what it is distinguishes Socrates from other men. The puzzle is laid out in Plato's Phaedo. Each attempted solution proves to be problematic. — Fooloso4

That is essentially my point. One cannot point to a set of necessary and sufficient properties as the essence of a thing, so what's left other than the assumption that there is some unanalyzable, immaterial aspect of a thing. The notion that a bread wafer is essentially flesh is based on some such assumption. Why accept it, other than to rationalize Catholic dogma?

One didn't fabricate this living organism from thin air. It gradually emerged. — Benj96

It's possible time doesnt exist outside the realm of what living things perceive. — Benj96

Those two statements seem inconsistent. How could something gradually emerge if there is no passage of time?

Sounds reasonable, and it sounds very much like Illusionism. From this:

"Illusionists deny that experiences have phenomenal properties and focus on explaining why they seem to have them. They typically allow that we are introspectively aware of our sensory states burt argue that this awareness is partial and distorted, leading us to misrepresent the states as having phenomenal properties. Of course, it is essential to this approach that the posited introspective representations are not themselves phenomenally conscious ones. It would be self-defeating to explain illusory phenomenal properties of experience in terms of real phenomenal properties of introspective states. Illusionists may hold that introspection issues directly in dispositions to make phenomenal judgements – judgements about the phenomenal character of particular experiences and about phenomenal consciouisness in general. Or they may hold that introspection generates intermediate representations of sensory states, perhaps of a quasi-perceptual knind, which ground our phenomenal judgementts. Whatever the details, they must explain the content of the relevant states in broadly function terms, and the challenge is to provide an account that explains how real and vivid phenomenal consciousness seems. This is the illusion problem. "

I had replied based on confusing you with RogueAI - so I based it on something he said. When I realized you were a different person, I erased that.

Just suggesting our technology will improve and allow us to see things we can't see now. But there's no way of knowing how much farther it will let us see, or if it will let us see as far as we need to for this line of thinking. — Patterner

I agree we'll expand what we can see - but there are things we will never see. For example, it's possible there is a multiverse - but because each universe is causally isolated - we'll never have empirical verification. At best, it will be entailed by theory - but theories that can't be empirically verified are less credible. That's a problem with String Theory - it's an elegant theory that explains a lot, but it defies empirical verification.

Catholics must believe that the essences of bread and wine became the essences of his body and blood. — BillMcEnaney

Then they have to accept the metaphysical assumption that there are non-physical essences to the objects of existence - including physical objects. Isn't it true that you uncritically accept this? If one denies this questionable metaphysical assumption, he could still interpret the Last Supper figuratively.

, I believe I've shown that Dr. Craig's theology is logically inconsistent with the Bible. So maybe you didn't find eough time to read the post where I argue that his theology is inconsistent. My point about the vicious infinite regress presupposes that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics and the PSR are true. So, if someone falsifies them, that will show that I argued unsoundly. — BillMcEnaney

I may have missed it, but my impression is that you've merely shown that Craig's theology is inconsistent with your interpretation of the BIble. Still, you admit your claim of an infinite regress depends on the premise of A-T metaphysics, so that doesn't entail an inconsistency on Craig's part.

Monothelites believe that Christ's only will his the divine will, and the will his the faculty a person chooses with. Can God the Father have a human. will when he hasn't adopted a human nature? No, he can't. That means that the divine will God the Father uses must be distinct from Christ's human one. Our Savior asks his Father to take Our Savior's suffering away if God the Father chooses to do that. But Jesus distinguishes between his will and the Father's will. So, if Christ's only will is the divine one, his prayer is self-contradictory. It's absurd to say "Not my will but mine be done." — BillMcEnaney

Craig associates a will with personhood, so that if Jesus has 2 wills then he is 2 persons (i.e. Nestorianism). This also implies there can't be a single "divine will" because that is contrary to there being a 3 person trinity. He references Luke 22:42 in the same link:

"When Jesus prays in the garden, “Not my will but thine be done” he is not praying to himself. That is not the human will of Christ talking to the divine will. That is the Son talking to the Father. The Son is saying, Not my will be done, but Father, thy will be done. I think this implies Monothelitism. Christ had a single will which was perfectly submitted to the will of the Father....
...If we define “mind” to mean a self-conscious subject, the doctrine of the Trinity is, I think, that there are three minds in God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If you think that God has a single self-consciousness, you are a unitarian...we want to affirm that there are three self-conscious subjects in the Godhead, and that these three all agree. In that sense, they are of one mind. They all agree. But that is in a metaphorical sense."

I agree, but after a million/billion/trillion years of searching and no other life and no account of abiogenesis, what do you think the implications for abiogenesis would be? I think they would be profound. — RogueAI

Show your reasoning and conclusion.

It wouldn't strike you as odd if it turns out we're the only life in the universe? That wouldn't be an incredibly surprising result? — RogueAI

I think it's a certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because the universe is so vast. That's very different from the question you asked. We only know life is possible, we don't know how probable it is. You suggested a scenario in which we searched for life for a million years and didn't find it. That would imply life is very rare: perhaps only one instance within a galaxy (it's physically impossible to search beyond our galaxy in a million years). That would still imply 2 trillion instances of life in the visible universe.

OK, assume a million years have gone by and we've surveyed countless worlds and we're the only one with life. And we still have no idea how it happened. How would that change your beliefs? — RogueAI

How many galaxies exist within a million light years of earth? Answer: 1. There are 2 trillion galaxies in just the observable universe.

Life exists today, but it didn't exist early in the life of the universe. If only the natural world exists - then it necessarily arose naturally.

I do not see that a failure to figure out abiogenesis somehow implies that something unnatural exists. If you think it does, then share your reasoning.

Do you think there are observations, measurements etc.. That we cannot know? — AmadeusD

Makes no sense. If we measured or observed something, we know what we measured/observed.

One such could be the observation that "Gene X, in concert with B, F and F^4, causes Life to arise out of sufficiently complex biological material". That is a fact which we, theoretically, could know.

If you're refering to cases where there is sufficient empirical evidence to develop theory - then sure, we'll probably develop theory. But our theories will necessarily be limited by what we can test and observe. Suppose there's a multiverse: other universes are causally isolated from us, so we could never verify such theory.

I am asking whether you accept, and are emotionally fine with, accepting that many of these we cannot actually know.

I accept our inherent limitations, and the consequences. That doesn't imply we should stop asking questions and investigating.

Are you all good with the possibility that we cant know some empirical facts? I.e we should 'just give up', philosophically speaking, on answering certain Qs in practical terms? — AmadeusD

What are "empirical facts"? Empirical evidence is a body of facts (such as observations, measurements...), so "not knowing" empirical facts sounds self-contradictory.

What if 10,000 years from now, we've surveyed millions of promising planets, have found no life anywhere else and still have no consensus on how it got started here? Would you just assume we got incredibly lucky somehow? — RogueAI

What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it?

Regarding your hypothetical, you seem to be suggesting that anything we haven't figured out within the next 10,000 years, should be deemed miraculous. Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations.

I did read the post in its entirety, and I still don't understand what you were agreeing with, when you said "I agree." You followed that assertion with:

"Pretending that everything will eventually fit a certain, current, descriptive paradigm probably isn't a good idea."

I'm merely explaining that I'm a naturalist, not defending any particular scientific paradigm.

That does not mean it wont fit into that framework either. But currently, is not explained by it. — AmadeusD


This is hte point. This is true. And this is why we're talking about it. The emergence of life is mysterious. So we explore :) It's one of hte only things we cannot yet explain under that paradigm. That is interesting in itself, even if it proves merely a longer run-up. — AmadeusD

It is indeed a scientific puzzle, and it's being investigated. The investigators obviously believe there's a natural origin. But their belief shouldn't persuade anyone. A theist's belief that God created life isn't threatened by the beliefs of these scientists, nor should those scientists belief in natural causes be threatened by the theist's belief. Metaphysically, it's moot: the existence of life is consistent with both naturalism and theism (or any other metaphysical system I can think of). The fact that we don't understand life's origin doesn't tip the scales in either direction. Do you agree or disagree with this?

There is no evidence of anything in the world that does NOT behave consistently with physics, so why should we assume otherwise?

I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's clear the natural world exists, and that its behavior is a entirely a consequence of laws of nature (approximated by physics). So I'd be very interested in hearing of something that disconfirms this.

Okay, so explain it to me in terms of chemistry and physics, I can wait. — NotAristotle

I'm neither a biologist, chemist nor physicist, but everything I've read in these fields is consistent with this statement (from a class on Physics for Biology and Pre-Health-Care Majors):

"Biology is integrative– Biological phenomena emerge from and must be consistent with the principles of chemistry, physics, and math. " (source)

This sort of thing is the basis for my belief. You're claiming the above is false, so please show how you justify that belief.

You said life "does not seem explicable by physical mechanisms". That seems unwarranted because every aspect of biological function is consistent with chemistry and physics. That seems to be why some theists focus on abiogenesis, rather than the physical processes of living creatures (albeit that they tend to make arguments from ignorance).

I began this discussion because I believe that I've found some flaws in his theology. — BillMcEnaney

The only "flaws" I've noticed is that his views aren't consistent with Thomist metaphysics. That's not a logical flaw that connotes incoherence; it's just disagreement on certain first principles. I've spent a good bit of time trying to understand Craig's philosophy, and it seems coherent - even though far-fetched (compared to naturalism), so I'd be very interested in examining an incoherence in his views. So please explain: are you claiming Craig's view is incoherent?

Perhaps you should start a thread where you show Thomist metaphysics is likely to be true. It appears to me that the Aristotelian concept of essence (which Thomas inherits) was embraced by the early church because it rationalized transubstantiation (and the Trinity). So you kind of need something like this to be true. However, it's an absurdity, and (IMO) that makes it a good reason to reject Catholicism. I'm eager to know if I'm wrong about it being an absurdity.

Which as a slight tangent leads me to think that should we create "artificial intelligence" using the same principles and laws of natural selection and replication in computing as nature has done with biology: then we ought to probably treat it as just an intelligent being. — Benj96

What do you mean by "intelligent being"? Why would it matter that we label it such? I grieve when my pets die, but I wouldn't grieve when a machine stopped functioning - even if it exhibited some sort of intelligence.

No Catholic expects the Catholic dogma about God's absolute simplicity to convince non-Catholics merely because it's a dogma. But suppose that dogma is true... — BillMcEnaney

Suppose that dogma is false.

The Catholic Church regards the great Protestant Reformers as heretics. I don't think Craig would mine being grouped with them. So I don't know why you obsess on the fact that Craig does not embrace Catholic dogma.

I'm an atheist (and former Catholic). I've examined Craig's theistic arguments and found their weaknesses. Why don't you do likewise: examine Craig's theology and find its weaknesses? It seems pointless to just dwell on his differences with Catholic dogma unless you can show thid dogma is more likely to be true.

What do you believe? — Benj96

I believe in metaphysical naturalism: everything that exists is part of the natural world, and all causes are natural. Our understanding of the natural world is incomplete, and this will probably always be the case. It seems silly to focus on one aspect of the world that is not fully understood and jump to the conclusion naturalism is false.

Let me sum up my point about a vicious infinite regress. In a YouTube video, Dr. Craig says that without creation, God is timeless and temporal after it. On the other and, classical theists believe that God is absolutely simple with no parts of any kind. And potentials are metaphysical parts. — BillMcEnaney

I'm pretty sure Craig would disagree that "potentials are...parts".

So, if God is purely actual, there's no potential in him. But Dr. Craig implies that God is metaphysical parts when he, Craig, says that God went from being possibly in time to being actually in it.

I doubt Craig believe God is "purely actual". Craig's view is that God is timeless "sans creation", and temporal with creation, but this temporal/timeless characteristic is a relational property, not an intrinsic property.

Any object with potential is a composed object. And each composed object needs cause to put the parts together.

Craig embraces divine simplicity; he does not embrace Thomist metaphysics. So what if he's inconsistent with a metaphysical system he does not embrace? If you are committed to Thomist metaphysics, then you can certainly reject Craig's philosophy. But perhaps you should reconsider Thomism.

Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only what we know of nature' — Wayfarer

That's an epistemological definition of "miracle". I prefer a metaphysical definition, wherein a miracle is an event involving something unnatural (irrespective of anyone perceiving it as such).

Re: Armstrong - his main achievement was the development of a comprehensive, physicalist metaphysics (described in A World of States of Affairs). I've found it a useful framework when debating theists who suggest that an unnatural basis is somehow needed to account for the natural world.

What's your issue with his theory of mind? He's influenced a lot of other philosophers.

Interesting you mention universals, they are not spoken of much in most contemporary discourse about naturalism. What's your view of their role? — Wayfarer

David Armstrong's physicalist metaphysics utilizes universals (existing immanently, not in a "third realm") and they're accepted by all law realists. I'm not aware of a more plausible alternative, so I accept them.

Their "role" is ontological. Single properties (and sets of properties) can be instantiated in multiple particulars. e.g. -1 electric charge is a universal, with multiple instantiations. Electron is a universal (a set of properties) instantiated in each individual electron.

naturalism assumes an order of nature, without which it wouldn't be able to get started. But it doesn't explain the order of nature - nor does it need to. — Wayfarer

The order in nature is observed, not merely assumed. Both metaphysical systems should explain it. Naturalism best explains it as law realism: there is order, because there are laws of nature that necessitate it; and laws of nature are relations between universals.

If theism explains order by assuming an omnipotent intelligence just happens to exist that chooses to establish order, that entails a rather enormous assumption.

Again, "substance" means "essence." So what do you mean by "inside" when I'm not talking bout spatial relationships. I'm doing metaphysics instead of science. — BillMcEnaney

Aren't you treating Thomist metaphysics as dogma? Why accept it? Isn't it to rationalize other dogma (including transsubstantiation)?

When you demand evidence for belief in God, I think a perfectly rational theistic response is 'look around you, you're standing in it'...And let's not forget that while science discovers and exploits the order of nature, it doesn't explain it. — Wayfarer

Naturalism is a metaphysical theory - just as is theism. A metaphysical theory provides the explanation. The theory must explain all the objective facts of world (what we see by "looking around") - both can do that, but theism depends on more ad hoc assumptions.

That's what I mean about the shortcoming of empirical demands - 'show me where this "god" is. You can't produce any evidence'. It's a misplaced demand. But, that said, I'm not going to go all-in to try and win the argument, it's take it or leave it, and most will leave it.

The proper demand is: show me evidence (facts) that can't be explained by naturalism.

The disciples knew that they were going to be persecuted, and apparently, most of them were tortured to death. — Brendan Golledge

There is no reliable evidence of disciples being tortured to death for their beliefs about Jesus. There was sporadic persecution by Rome for Christian's failures to give tribute to the state gods, and Nero used Christians as scapegoats for fires.

On the Reliability of Eye-Witness Testimony: — Brendan Golledge

What eyewitness testimony? The earliest Gospel was written ~5 decades after Jesus death by educated Greek speakers outside Palestine, not by his illiterate, Aramaic speaking disciples. There were stories being ciculated orally, some probably based on actual anecdotal accounts, but with legendary elements added. Also bear in mind the Gospels are not independent accounts: Matthew & Luke were largely copied from Mark and a source of alleged sayings of Jesus'.

Possible Explanation of Some Miracles — Brendan Golledge

Jesus seems to have had a reputation for faith healing and exorcisms. That does not entail actual miracles.

The bottom line: you give to much credence to the Gospels. Critical NT scholars extract some likely history; e.g. Jesus lived and was executed by crucifixion for Treason or sedition; he was probably an apocalyptic prophet, preaching the imminent end of the then-current world order and establishment of a "Kingdom of God" on earth.

God's nature establishes some truths that can't be contradicted. It still boils down to the logically possible.

BTW, I found a transcript wherein Craig discusses Ignatius, transubstantiation, and the Lutheran alternative of co-substantuation:


https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-the-church/the-doctrine-of-the-church-part-7

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-the-church/the-doctrine-of-the-church-part-8

Can an all-powerful God make a rock that he can't lift? No, he can't do that. The question implies that though he can do anything, there's something he. can't do.. It implies a self-contradiction. But that's alright because classical theists believe that God can do any logically possible thing that his nature allows. — BillMcEnaney

Craig agrees that omnipotence entails the ability to do anything that is logically possible. It is not a limitation to be unable to do the logically impossible.

if you read St. Ignatius of Antioch's 2nd-century letter to the Smyrnaeans where he warned them to avoid anyone who denied that bread changed into Christ's body and blood. — BillMcEnaney

Which implies that some people in the early 2nd century believed in transubstantiation.

Catholics pay attention to what the Early Church believed. But many Protestants ignore it because they believe sola scriptura. — BillMcEnaney

They believe scripture is the inspired word of God. The writing of the Apostolic fathers is not scripture.