Debriefing Philip Goff's Conversion to Christianity

"very unique form of Christianity"

look inside

its 20th century modernist protestantism.

jokes aside, im very very happy to see this development. i really like philip Goff and his sincerity

Just a minor question, did Flew convert to theism? I thought he became a deist.

I loved the interview. I found Philip Goff refreshingly honest and exhibiting humility. It was actually lovely to hear someone not certain about everything.

I think if he's only at 30% right now he probably should have waited before making this interview. But this is good to hear anyway.

Those questions are all worth asking though.

I'll check up on those two theologians to see what you mean If they're supposedly theologians and they disagree with the virgin birth, that honestly does make me doubt their credibility; but I can't hold a random guy like Philip Goff to the same standard.

Oh I'm at the end of the video now.
If he doesn't affirm the bodily resurrection he's not a Christian yet, even if he is over the 50% mark.
He's moving in the right direction though, I hope he'll get there eventually.

Very cool development! I read his recent book where he argues against God's existence, so this is quite a change :0

Ya many live as Psalm 88 describes! Good Stuff!

I wonder if Goff would like Thomas Jay Oord's account of non-interventive "amipotence", as described in The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence (2023). Provides a good case against God's omnipotence imo

God need not be finite in power but only self-limiting in creation to account for the existence of evil. I would suggest that the very idea of creation, as opposed to cloning, entails the bringing into being of something other than God--Not-God, if you will--which accordingly must be freed, at least in large part, from direct omnipotent control. And let me also suggest that what's true for the creation is true for the incarnation; i.e., that God chose to be fully human and thereby to subject Himself to all mortal limitations. Is not this the thrust of perhaps the earliest Christology to come down to us, the kenotic hymn apparently quoted in Philippians?

Yes, God can be the creator even if not omnipotent.
A man can create a machine that is more powerful than him after it is built, that does not mean that he didn't create that machine.
For example, humans could creata a AI that is more powerful than humans, that does not mean that it was not created by humans

As an agnostic who doesn't know much about theology I find this very interesting/confusing. It makes me wonder: can a being who is not all powerful even be called "God" (with a capital G)? Isn't omnipotence one of the main differences between God and the so-called "false gods" of polytheistic religions?

Profesor, I have to say that I am surprised on your push against unitarianism and yet you are quick to jump over half the Old Testament statements. Maybe the omnipotent statements should be judged in the same way you judge the commands to kill, etc

"Mere" Christianity.

Only Christ can define, not men.

I really appreciated your point about how thinking carefully about one's doctrine will very commonly end in a unique version of Christianity!

Your God still only exists as an imaginary character and nothing fundamentally changed about reality.

Good evaluative review . I know this is somewhat incidental and an aside to the theme of the above address but I have a response to make regarding Randal's comment about the Anglican Church's putative hospitality towards doctrinal and theological diversity . When , several years ago , I decided to reconnect with institutional Christianity here in Australia after decades of disengagement , I opted to attend a local Anglican congregation because of my belief that they were indeed an inclusive entity. ( Not that my own theology is especially radical ) Anyhow although the parishoners were generally quite wecoming , the clergy insisted that it was necessary for me to attend a series of formalized doctrinal inductive lessons and also obligatory for me to undertake baptism before I could have full participatory status with the church or receive Communion . As my knowledge of Christian theology and history , and my personal spiritual committment was patently obvious to them , I was of course acutely disenchanted . I've never believed that unrestricted fellowship should be granted only after one completes qualifying rituals and formal determinative examinations . So anyway , for those reasons I immediately quit , and since then have been happily embraced by both parishoners and clergy at the Uniting Church ( The Methodist Church as you call them in North America ) where no such irrelevant and inhibiting eligibility conditions apply .

Goff has been looking for comfort rather than understanding for a long time.

I found the faith question quite interesting. I don't think one can quantify faith in terms of hope or probabiltity.
I also tend to faith being some kind of trust, that is based on a relationship.
In the past I thought faith was when I was convinced of what I heard or was taught.
Today I feel differently. When you listen to the gospel, it makes you want to have your own experiences with the God, who gives his life to save humanity. And then I started to have more and more of such personal experiences, me asking for something and receiving it. Putting trust in God's trustworthiness leads to personal experiences and that is what makes my faith. Even if doctrines may change I will never deny what I experienced. This is relationship.
Thomas

I think if we press Goff he would lower the threshold of confidence for faith to far less than 30%. As a science-adjacent thinker, I believe he would agree with “significantly above zero” which might be as low as 10, 5, or even 1%+

You gain the spirit of God informed consent encoded blueprint encoded. Legible universe readable mind created for that task . GOD inspired by for thru. Can't ever pin point what you don't know but if you had to it in the space between perfect perculating permiautation around all his idealistic forces of faith & physical laws & works of men .

We have super historical ocd textal critique of biblical archeology. We have a lose sloppy generalization of its neighboring conflicts from greeko assyrian babyl umbrella . This has found its way in the separated carved up gen of new wokism which is as pagan cog in the wheel dualism as it gets. Sad because many was originally orientated & directed well but parents of grandparents was weak or just submitted to 1945s Smith_mundt act specialized secual career or else your not an expert.
The ultimate precision instrument ✝️ xyzt tunes all atoms and adams and the keys to cosmos metamorphosis in reverse textualism methodology Christian objectivism is powerful.
Its esoteric math mapping formulism built our world.
Its the one fundamental feature reality gives pragmatic common sense Christian phylosphy its congruent unbroken thermodynamical line of measure.
Newton used it classically it's association with prayer logic whataboutism conservatism Abraham, Moses key #3 our prenticious clocklike view where Jesus is nailed upon deterministic atom within environmental decay.
Freeing the servitude we and science uses 2nd key a more specific entangled specific approximated measures to relational reality feedback loop thermodynamical systems.
Obviously key #1 infinite sums of complex bound up tension in space alpha omega spirit hovering over the waters of cosmos nature building breathe of life giving.

Xyz manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations
Mother womb e=mc

You know it from American founding .

If i said we echo the father's universe out of the mothers womb e=mc Id mean it the deepest ways possible Mary's virgin history, physically ,astronomical, literally, algorithmic & symbolic but yet it wouldn't be worth losing the conversation to argue physical attributes outside of what i can prove in such regards.. could make a strong case gospels stand behind it 100%..
Living life out as a measure of faith takes alot of society being theologically active in encrypting and encoding it in all rich avenue of life. Can't do it when political correctness ot reppression speech finger pointing denys its along the way.

Id say you find it to be an ultimate reductionism of learning creater through his creation where as its less physical attribute searching for a personification and more of trying to keep God in the space between.
Idealistic faith & physical works turn god inspired.
Word is inspired. God acts upon moves through at his own discretion by for thru etc etc hard to speak of greater than .
What your essentially saying in relational reality Christianity is that its not a 1 to 1 eco system or feedback loop of measure between xyz and prayer but its also merited responsibility that when we dig up hidden axioms of complexity put it in our world tech and material sciences successful social behavior including Christians must maintain eqaulibrium between mind body and soul things like moral realism use of court laws based on Moses commandments and physical laws or bills of the state are similar byt different.
That we are tested and by default must veiw God Graced the helenistic enlightenment of generations but he called upon new generations to take the next step which means becoming at peace with reformation & enlightenment in concert with free press.
Now its a new paradigm and a new calling upon the generations one that American founders like goerge Washington 3rd company really names and works towards even though it may seem rather masonic lodge for men eastern star for woman esoteric and all its really proved to be blessed .
If we are to accept improving the human condition is good then it must be Devinly inpired if only in earthly manners.

Once you learn this type of stuff youll be shocked at how much you already know.
Wording or how its been plagerized and re allocated somewhere else will be very entertaining if nothing else.
Weve all been exposed to the same evidence in the world and in theological threads one way of another.

I find the problem of evil to be somewhat absurd. It occurs to me that it resembles one amoeba asking another if it believes in humans. There's nothing in their capabilities or perspective that would allow them to reasonably approach such a question. Similarly, I think it is a systemic flaw amongst both theists and atheists to believe they have any sort of capacity to make a meaningful point about good vs evil on a divine scale. I don't see anything any human is capable of conceiving that could possibly move the needle one way or the other on how a divine being should or would behave.

If you accept the divine revelation of a particular faith as true then you can of course draw conclusions from that. You can argue over what was going with the God of the Bible not stopping the Holocaust or something like that. That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the pure logical problem of evil where a perfect being wouldn't allow evil to exist. Posing the question at all requires an assumption that humans have the capacity to make judgments about an infinite being's thoughts or actions.

randal. Have you read " the inescapable love of God" by Thomas Talbot and " hope for all by Gerry Beauchemin PDF" and "the christian doctrine of apokatastasis a critical assessment from the bible to Eriugena by illaria ramelli PDF". Blessings 🕊️🕊️🕊️

Love CREATED the univers. " God is love". God saves all god loves. ISIAIH says we have ALL got lost like sheep Jesus says I will seek find and save ALL lost sheep and I will bring ALL people to myself and I will save ALL I bring. "Do we not ALL have one Father has not one God created us all ?". God our Father doesn't throw away and burn HER HIS ungrateful wicked children. Would you burn yours ? Jesus says " God is kind to the ungrateful and wicked". The Father says " ALL people SHALL know me I will forgive their sins remember them no more and give them new hearts". Who can stop or shorten the saving arm of God. " Look to me creator AND SAVIOR". God is equally Savior of ALL God creates

Randal. Have you read " the only true GOD" by Eric H.H. Chang. ? Christian Monotheism 😊😊😊😊😊🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️

I agree with you that hope is the most important thing. Being attracted to the beauty of Christianity is enough to make one a Christian in my opinion. But to me, that makes the idea of inerrant scripture problematic. If hope is enough, how can we say that a scriptural (or papal for that matter) authority is absolute? I've noticed that Roman Catholics have come to have trouble defining what papal infallibility means. They claim that it's infallibility when the pope "speaks ex cathedra," but when is that? I remember reading that the conservative Society of St. Pius X asked Pope John Paul II to make a ruling on whether Vatican II was infallible, and he declined to do that. I think people realize that the more you say things are infallible, the more problems you run into.

The lottery example is especially intriguing, though the whole video really illuminates quite a bit. I imagine your book on the subject would be a great read.

People hop from one intellectual system to another across their lives, looking for one that will soothe their egos and make them comfortable, create a temporary sense of meaning.
But God is not a system, is rather the source of being itself. To approach him with intellect alone is like trying to drink the ocean through a straw. Concepts are only pale approximations of lived reality.
Fortunately, God's mind and our minds are not distant from each other. He communicates directly, as millions across the millennia have attested. Then it is up to each person to decide: accept and trust or harden one's ego against the message.

You can call Goff whatever you want, just don’t call him a Christian.

Great review.

Cameron's interview with Philip was really thought provoking. As is your follow up... Many thanks brother 🙏

Hope as a basis for the existence of faith, notwithstanding extremely low odds of it being true, sounds like William Lane Craig's statement about a year ago, leading some to derisively call him "Low Bar Bill." If faith means belief, then I don't think that his suggestion makes sense, and it's particularly nonsensical for someone like Craig who have long touted "reasonable faith," claiming it to be REASONABLE to believe what he claims to believe.

As always, I agree with much.
As always, I cringe at several points as well.
--
There's no way you have a coherent understanding of the Trinity.
There is no such thing as a tiny percent who do.
Nobody does. Because it's really not a concept. It's a gaslighting mechanism designed to confound, in order to help generate the mind-fog that's so essential to a religious domain built upon clinical Narcissism.

Sheep who profess to understand it ... are caught up in an Emperor's New Clothes fear of exclusion.
Clergy are just pretending, because they understand what the real purpose of it is.
It's a way to make the peasant-class of sheeple feel further from grasping the mysteries of "God" so that they'd keep deferring to the Catholic (and later, the Protestant) leaders as more qualified to investigate, gather, and dispense spiritual insights.

Excellent commentary. It's very difficult to intelligently design a God.

It was expected. He’s stupid arguments for pantheism were similar to a person who needs God. I always found his reasoning quite unsophisticated. Now he proved it.

In Buddhism we also have secular Buddhists. They are valid, welcomed, and encouraged in their path without judgement, coercion, or manipulation. You Christians need to grow out of your childish puritanicalism.

What do you think about the response by skydive Phil and Alex Malpass did saying Goffs view doesn’t make sense?

Thanks Randal! Few answers:
1. I think if God were all-powerful, universalism would be true. But perhaps God can't save people who really aren't up for it, so I'm agnostic between universalism and annihilationism.
2. On my Allison-inspired view it was the physical stuff of the body itself which was transformed into a new kind of physicality. I describe it as 'non-bodily but physical' rather than than 'spiritual body'. Only insistence is that it can't be perceived with the senses. My colleague the distinguished Catholic theologian Karen Kilby thinks it's non-heretical even by Catholic standards.
3. I think God could set the numbers in physics at the beginning, can incarnate in highly specific circumstances (I have a paper under review on this), and can allow creatures to experience their presence if they are in the right frame of mind. I suspect God has some further limited power to interact but I don't think we know what that is.