Majesty of Reason Philosophy Podcast (Majesty of Reason)

"Without God, all things are permitted." Wrong. Here's why.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

ADDITIONS

Here are some additions bolstering my points pertaining to the standard, WLC-style moral argument.

First, I didn’t get into many specific theories or accounts as to what grounds the rightness or wrongness (or im/permissibility etc.) of certain actions in a way that doesn’t involve God, but there are boatloads of such accounts. This alone shows that God isn’t needed to ground moral properties like rightness and wrongness.

A small sampling:

(1) Utility: an act’s moral properties could be grounded facts about utility — i.e., facts about what would/wouldn’t maximize well-being [understood perhaps in terms of pain/pleasure, or desire dis/satisfaction, or flourishing/languishing, etc.]

(2) Kantian universalizability: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in facts about universalizability [e.g., whether one could, in performing the act, consistently will that everyone does the act]

(3) Kantian ends-in-themselves: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act treats someone as a mere means rather than an end in themself

(4) Contractualism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether principles allowing the act would be justifiable to others in a fair decision situation. Put differently (and with a Scanlonian vibe): an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the norms or rules underpinning one’s behavior could reasonably be objected to if they were to be agreed upon from an informed and unbiased vantage point.

(5) Virtue ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act is one a virtuous person would do (or in whether it expresses a virtuous/vicious disposition)

(6) Care ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act is one a caring person would do

(7) Ideal observer: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether an ideally situated observer would approve of the act

(8) Railton’s naturalism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in objective facts concerning the maximal fulfillment of idealized desires, which are what individuals would want themselves to desire if they had access to all the relevant information

(9) Discourse ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in universalizable presuppositions that underpin discourse between persons (see William Rehg’s work)

(10) Pluralism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in a plethora of the aforementioned potential grounds for morality OR in particular facts about actions on a case-by-case basis (e.g., gross power imbalances, infliction of pain without consent or benefits accrued to the victim, etc.)

(11) Natural law: an act's moral properties could be grounded in whether it contravenes the ends built into one's nature

More generally, as Kevin Scharp rightly note

What times exist? Should we be A-theorists or B-theorists? Can God change the past? If he can, does this defend theism against the problem of evil? I'm joined by Sam Lebens and Ryan Mullins to discuss temporal ontology, hypertime, and more!

What is philosophy? What's the value of philosophy? How should we think philosophically? What are some book recommendations for philosophical reasoning? I answer these questions and more.

Map of Philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxBSh...

My response to Nemes: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

You asked hundreds of questions, and I answered!  

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

LINKS

Preface to my forthcoming Springer book: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K... 

My 3k AMA Answers video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0QRt...

My website: https://www.josephschmid.com 

My PhilPapers Profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

In this third installment of my common mistakes series, I cover mistakes relating to the Kalam cosmological argument and contingency arguments.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Aquinas's Third Way aims to demonstrate God's existence. But does it succeed?

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

From Necessary Being to Purely Actual Being? https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

Today I discuss Trent Horn's (@TheCounselofTrent) responses to Alex O'Connor's (@CosmicSkeptic) and Drew McCoy's (@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic) criticisms of the argument from change. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

William Lane Craig responded to my video with Dr. Daniel Linford and Phil Halper on what Craig gets wrong about science and the beginning of the universe. Here, we respond in turn.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Introduction1:42 Craig’s response2:39 Thermodynamics and entropy7:53 Philosophical case9:03 Craig’s approach12:38 Hartle-Hawking model17:57 No viable beginningless models?18:44 Craig and Sinclair’s argument26:06 Singularity and BGV theorems34:05 Beginningless models (again)46:16 Mischaracterizing science48:11 BGV Theorem (again)51:01 Timeless physical things1:08:03 Craig misunderstands Joe1:12:33 Joe’s VICIOUS ad hominem ATTACK1:14:33 Craig misuses Vilenkin’s quote1:17:11 Misusing science1:21:30 Concluding commentsRESOURCES(1) The podcast to which we're responding ( @ReasonableFaithOrg ): https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/does-william-lane-craig-misuse-science(2) Our previous response to Craig: https://youtu.be/7CiOudgSdeE?si=qBdm3IrulDrfKx61(3) Dan and I respond to the scientific case and stage two: https://youtu.be/35tICdYtHsQ?si=oQ-LfJuWjSo6mWYb(4) Dan's dissertation, “Cosmic Skepticism and the Beginning of Physical Reality”: https://philarchive.org/archive/DAN_SA-15(5) Phil’s book, “Battle of the Big Bang”: (a) https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo244963115.html (b) https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Big-Bang-Cosmic-Origins/dp/0226830470(6) My Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR(7) My responses to the Grim Reaper Kalam: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/2024/05/28/responses-to-the-grim-reaper-kalam/(8) Linford, “A modal condition for the beginning of the universe”: https://philarchive.org/rec/LINAMC-2(9) Linford, “Neo-Lorentzian Relativity and the Beginning of the Universe”: https://philarchive.org/rec/LINNRA-3(10) Linford, "Big Bounce or Double Bang? A Reply to Craig and Sinclair": http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17188/1/FORTHCOMING_Big_Bang_or_Double_Bounce_Erk_Sub.pdf(11) Linford, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Meets the Mentaculus”: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16833/1/Online_Final_BJPS_Kalam_Mentaculus_Submission.pdf(12) Halper, "The Kalam cosmological argument: Critiquing a recent defence": https://philarchive.org/rec/HALTKC (13) My Springer book with Dan: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2(14) My website: https://josephschmid.com

What is scientific realism? Why should we believe it? Why should we disbelieve it? Buckle up for some juicy philosophy of science with Kane B.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Kane B’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/kanebaker91

RESOURCES  

Wanna dig deeper into scientific realism and anti-realism? Check these out:

Scientific Realism (SEP): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sc...

Realism and Theory Change in Science (SEP): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/re...

Scientific Realism and Antirealism (IEP): https://iep.utm.edu/sci-real/

Constructive Empiricism (SEP): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...

Mizrahi (2020), “Key Arguments Against Scientific Realism” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...

Kane B’s excellent video series on philosophy of science (1) and

Peter Singer argues that you are morally obliged to donate to charity even at considerable personal cost. Is he right?Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidRESOURCES(1) Peter Singer's famous paper "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", originally published in 1972: https://personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/mm/articles/Singer_1972Famine.pdf(2) Applied Ethics: An Impartial Introduction: https://www.amazon.com/Applied-Ethics-Introduction-Elizabeth-Jackson/dp/1647920116(3) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2(4) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

I'm joined by Dr. Dustin Crummett and Trent Horn to discuss the ethics of abortion. And... enjoy the bonus soccer while you're here :)

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) Dustin's PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/dusti...

(2) Some of Dustin's papers on abortion: (a) https://philpapers.org/rec/CRUVDA and (b) https://philpapers.org/rec/CRUMDN

(3) Dustin's YouTube channel (@Dustin Crummett): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWPF...

(4) The physicalist view of personal identity that Dustin defended in the discussion is based on chapter 1 of Jeff McMahan's "The Ethics of Killing". Dustin doesn't actually hold the view because he's a mereological nihilist, which he defends here [ https://capturingchristianity.com/two... ] and which Kane B describes here [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07PZ1... ].

(5) Trent's YouTube channel (@The Counsel of Trent): https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCounselo...

(6) Many of Trent's articles on aborti

Should you wager on God? Let's find out.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro and outline2:48 Key background15:52 The wager23:36 Many gods objection32:16 Mixed strategies objection39:00 Al’s dilemma51:21 Pascal’s mugging1:01:02 Is wagering even possible?1:10:34 Is wagering impious?1:14:25 St. Petersburg Paradox1:30:17 Closing remarksLINKS(1) The paper Liz and Al co-authored on Pascal's wager: https://philpapers.org/archive/HAJPEA.pdf(2) Liz's YouTube channel ( @lizjackson111 ) and website: https://liz-jackson.com/(3) Al's PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/alan-hajek(4) Some of Liz's papers on Pascal's wager: (i) https://philpapers.org/rec/JACFTP-2 (ii) https://philpapers.org/rec/JACAPD-9 (iii) https://philpapers.org/rec/JACSPW(5) Some of Al's papers on Pascal's wager: (i) https://philpapers.org/rec/HJEWWO (ii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/(6) An earlier video I made with Liz on Pascal's Wager: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qTC7OZB_1A(7) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2(8) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Is moral realism true? What should our metaethical methodology be? Does the evolutionary debunking argument work? Are there categorical reasons? I'm joined by Russ Shafer-Landau and Kane B to discuss these questions and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) Russ' website: https://philosophy.wisc.edu/staff/sha...

(2) Kane's channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/KaneB

(3) My website: https://www.josephschmid.com/

If God is identical to God’s act of creation as divine simplicity requires, does creation exist necessarily? And does God have the potential to have created another universe if he's purely actual? I cover these questions and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Many thanks to Parker from @Parker's Pensées for allowing me to upload the discussion on my channel. The original discussion is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTLwj...

You can find Parker’s podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...

The paper we're discussing is:

Schmid, J.C. Forthcoming. “The fruitful death of modal collapse arguments”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Link: https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHTFD-5

Wanna explore over a DOZEN more modal collapse arguments? Check out my video “Arguments Against Classical Theism | Part 1/3”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sByg...

My new website! Link: https://www.josephschmid.com

If the pro-life view is correct, should we prioritize abortion over every other issue in politics and voting? Dustin Crummett argues that the answer is no.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro0:50 Overview3:30 Body Count Reasoning8:04 Four notes13:18 Embryo Rescue Case19:17 Objection: death vs. unjust killing20:57 Objection: committing unjust killing23:25 Objection: cooperating with evil29:22 Objection: timing of abortion31:59 Objection: non-inferential beliefs38:20 Crummett himself52:02 ConclusionRESOURCES(1) Crummett (2023), "Is abortion the only issue?", https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/ergo/article/id/2270/(2) McNabb and DeVito's response paper, "Basic Beliefs, the Embryo Rescue Case, and Single-Issue Voting", https://www.pdcnet.org/ncbq/content/ncbq_2021_0021_0002_0203_0208?file_type=pdf(3) Debate between  @TheCounselofTrent  and  @dustin.crummett : https://youtu.be/RKfa4vAAaPI?si=uaDtEoQXZ-6-_jgR(4) Crummett's interview on  @going_awoll : https://youtu.be/7m0fSYIWn8g?si=U04p-u-Hc4dzzB8c(5) My Applied Ethics playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaYPueOwJRE0CPj6xyIWfxb(6) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Interested in grim reapers, causal finitism, the (in)finite past, and modality? I have just the conversation for you.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): 

https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): 

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Josh and Alex also discuss the Grim Reaper Paradox (GRP) here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfCQB...

Also check out Josh's blog posts on the GRP: 

https://joshualrasmussen.blogspot.com... https://joshualrasmussen.blogspot.com...

Also check out my discussion with Alex on the GRP: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoTMs...

And, finally, check out Alex's channel Thoughtology: 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwbA...

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...   

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

The Kalam’s causal principle says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. But should we accept this principle? That’s the topic of today’s (epic) video.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Suan (@intellectualcatholicism) and I chat about philosophy research, writing philosophy papers, how to publish in philosophy, and so much more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

In this two-part series, I explain and assess arguments for classical theism. In a separate two-part series, I'll examine arguments against classical theism.

Salem's channel, Inspiring Christianity: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCykf...

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason​

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Outline for Part 2:

3.5.4 Other 

3.5.4.1 Vallicella, Nemes, Spitzer, Pruss, and others 

Vallicella’s Broadly Neo-Platonic Argument  

Nemes’ This-Such Argument

Spitzer on Unconditioned Reality  

Juliano on Creatio Ex Nihilo  

Pruss’ Argument from Worship

A Pruss-inspired Argument from Transcendence  

The Argument from Beginnings against Divine Temporality  

An Anti-Aristotelian Argument for DDS

The Composition-to-Contingency Argument  

Pruss’ Finitist Argument for DDS  

Pruss’ Perdurantist Argument for Timelessness

Pruss’ Mereological Perfection Argument  

Pruss’ Centrality of Life Argument  

Koons’ Passage of Time Rendition of the First Way

Vecchio’s Coconut Argument 

3.5.4.2 Explicability 

3.5.4.3 Ontological arguments

Vecchio’s ontological argument from pure actuality         

Vecchio’s Thomistic Modal Ontological Argument        

Nemes’ Phenomenological Ontological Argument for Pure Actuality

3.5.4.4 Closing the Gap Problem 

Koons: God = God’s nature

         Potency Dependence

         Koons: God = God’s nature, part 2

         Koons: God = God’s existence

         Koons: Composition and Coincidence

3.5.4.5 Creation Argument 

3.6 Perfect Being Theism  

Prisoner of Time  

Platonic Argument

Note: The Link to the document is removed because it is under significant construction for my series "Arguments Against Classical Theism". The link will be placed in the description of the latest video in that series.

And the usual links:

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/<

Do numbers, propositions, and universals exist? Dr. Kenny Boyce doesn't think so. In this video, he defends fictionalist nominalism against objections.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

LINKS

Here's the document we prepared for the discussion! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YPKD...

God and Abstract Objects Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

Kenny's PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/kenne...

Website: https://www.josephschmid.com

Would you plug in? Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Naturalism vs. classical theism — who would win the world philosophy championship?

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

Schmid, J.C. Forthcoming. “Naturalism, classical theism, and first causes”. Religious Studies, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journa...

Classical theism playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

DDS/Trinitarianism post: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

My website: https://josephschmid.com

OUTLINE

Many thanks to Stephen Woodford from Rationality Rules for designing the thumbnail!

Can there be infinite regresses of causes? Can infinity be traversed? Is infinity even coherent? 

Buckle up for an infinitely edifying video.  

Outline of topics covered:  

1. What is a paradox? What is infinity? 

2. Grim Reaper supertask 

3. Paper Passers and beginningless past 

4. Ross' Urn 

5. Infinite Fair Lottery 

6. Hilbert's Hotel 

7. Vicious circularity and infinite regresses 

8. Potential Solutions 

9. Implications (God's existence)  

Curious to learn more? Check out my book and website!  

Website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/  

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

From Anselm to Descartes to Pruss and Nagasawa, ontological arguments have captivated philosophers and laity alike. In this video, I analyze eleven such arguments for God's existence.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

100+ Argument Resource Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q...

LINKS

My website: https://josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

Interested in the Grim Reaper Paradox, Causal Finitism, the Kalam, and patchwork principles? I have just the video for you. I'm joined by Alex Malpass and Wes Morriston to review my Kalam discussion with Rob Koons.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

My discussion with Rob Koons on Intellectual Conservatism: https://youtu.be/9jV2AfeIC60

My Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

Note: Patrons have access to the document I'm using :)

My website: https://josephschmid.com

How do you know you’re not a brain in a vat? Is skepticism self-defeating? What are some responses to skepticism? I’m joined by Dr. Andrew Moon to discuss these questions and more. Buckle up for some juicy epistemology.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason​

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Andrew’s links:

A playlist of all Andrew’s YouTube appearances: 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

PhilPapers: 

https://philpeople.org/profiles/andre...

Andrew’s paper on skepticism and memory, downloadable here: https://philpapers.org/rec/MOOSAM-3

Books mentioned in the video:

Richard Feldman’s book, “Epistemology" 

https://www.amazon.com/Epistemology-R...

Alvin Goldman and Matthew McGrath’s book, “Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction” https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/e...

Kevin McCain’s book, “Evidentialism and Epistemic Justification” https://www.routledge.com/Evidentiali...

Michael Bergmann’s book, “Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition" https://global.oup.com/academic/produ...

Keith DeRose’s book, “The Appearance of Ignorance" https://global.oup.com/academic/produ...

And the usual links:

My book: https://

Today I discuss McIntosh's Philosophy Compass article "Nontraditional Arguments for Theism". 

Among the philosophers discussed are Ed Feser, Josh Rasmussen, and Brian Leftow.  

Paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/e...

Website: www.majestyofreason.wordpress.com 

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

What is existence? Are there different ways to exist? Is ‘being’ univocal? Dr. Trenton Merricks joins me to discuss these questions and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Link to Merricks’ paper, “The Only Way to Be”: ​​https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...

If you don’t have institutional access to the paper, here’s a pre-print PDF: https://philpapers.org/archive/MERTOW...

Merricks’ website: https://www.trentonmerricks.com/

And the usual links:

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

My PhilPapers profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

Could there be a barber who shaves exactly those who don’t shave themselves? Could there be a God who knows exactly those acts of knowledge that aren’t of themselves? The answer might surprise you. Everything is at stake.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) Rasmussen, “How to Expand God’s Sight”, wherein he argues for a dynamic view of God’s knowledge based on the Russellian paradox: https://c4ort.com/essays/how-to-expan...

(2) How to Discuss the Nature of Reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qtrx...

(3) My website: https://josephschmid.com

NOTES

(1) I'm kind of incompetent at Zoom, as you can tell from the beginning of the video. Lol

(2) Thumbnail photo of Josh is credited to Cameron Bertuzzi from Capturing Christianity.

Can there be true contradictions? If so, could they arise in theology and philosophy of religion? Jc Beall and Mike DeVito join me to talk about these questions and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) Mike DeVito's channel (w/ Dr. Tyler McNabb): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOlN...

(2) Jc's book, "The Contradictory Christ": https://www.amazon.com/Contradictory-...

(3) Beall's book, "Logic: The Basics": https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Basics-J...

(4) Embracing the contradiction of Christ's incarnation (@The Analytic Christian): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIcP8...

(5) Is Christ's nature contradictory? Beall vs Anderson (@Capturing Christianity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQHOc...

(6) Beall's SEP article on the Liar Paradox: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/li...

(7) My website: https://www.josephschmid.com/

​@Capturing Christianity and Dr. Chad McIntosh created a video covering 150+ arguments for God's existence. Here's my take on the arguments. Buckle up for some juicy philosophy.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

Every resource mentioned in the video is found in here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q...

LINKS

My website: https://josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

Ontological arguments aim to prove God's existence from the armchair. In this video, I assess four ontological arguments in under twelve minutes. Buckle up for rapid-fire philosophy.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Ontological Arguments Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

Website: https://www.josephschmid.com

Here's part two of my video on McIntosh's Philosophy Compass article "Nontraditional Arguments for Theism". 

Among the philosophers discussed are Augustine, Trent Dougherty, and Al Plantinga.  

Paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/e... 

Website: www.majestyofreason.wordpress.com  

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

There seems to be widespread moral disagreement across cultures, societies, time periods, and even individuals. Many people think this poses a serious problem for moral realism. In this epic lecture, I evaluate a number of arguments to this effect.

Presentation Outline  

0 Introduction and Definitions 

1 Tolerance 

1.1 Conflates theoretical and practical reasons 

1.2 Absurd extensions 

1.3 It’s not actually intolerant 

1.4 Premise (2)

1.5 Self-defeat 

2 Self-evidence 

2.1 Premise (2) 

2.2 Premise (1) 

3 Inference to the Best Explanation

3.1 Realist-friendly alternative explanations of moral disagreement 

3.2 Fallacy of understated evidence 

3.3 Is moral disagreement in need of explanation? 

3.4 Does widespread, deep moral disagreement really exist? 

3.5 Holistic explanatory assessment 

3.6 Self-defeat 

3.7 IBE-argument extended

3.8 Summary 

4 No Method Argument 

4.1 Premise (1) 

4.2 Premise (2) 

5 Rationally irresolvable disagreement 

5.1 What is rational irresolvability? 

5.2 Justification vs. dialectical efficacy 

5.3 Epistemic peerhood

5.4 Why accept premise (1)? 

6 Undermining realist epistemology 

6.1 Knowledge doesn’t require knowledge-how 

6.2 Proves too much 

6.3 Not really an argument from disagreement 

7 Self-defeat

8 The extent of moral disagreement 

9 Moral Disagreement as evidence for realism?

Enoch, David. “How is Moral Disagreement a Problem for Realism?”: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aBcq...   

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!):  https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Does the Grim Reaper Paradox prove causal finitism? Are there other, better ways of killing the paradox? Buckle up for an infinitely fun discussion.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!):

https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason 

Alex's channel "Thoughtology": https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwbA...

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Pantheism vs. The Kalam — who would win the world philosophy championship?

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

LINKS

Original video with @Brain in a Vat: https://youtu.be/2e_HDPRHyS4

Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

My website: https://josephschmid.com

Many thanks to Stephen Woodford from Rationality Rules for designing the thumbnail!

Effective altruism faces a serious dilemma. How might the effective altruist solve it? I'm joined by Dr. Travis Timmerman to explore this question as well as the actualism/possibilism debate in ethics.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro1:18 Effective altruism9:22 Actualism and possibilism18:20 Not Demanding Enough Objection22:11 Bad Behavior Objection25:25 Non-Ratifiability Problem29:03 Worst Outcome Objection34:34 Asymmetry Objection38:58 Hybridism51:40 Dilemma for effective altruism1:08:21 A hybridist solution?1:15:15 Other practical implicationsRESOURCES(1) Dr. Timmerman's website: https://www.travistimmerman.com/(2) "Effective Altruism's Underspecification Problem": https://philpapers.org/rec/TIMEAU(3) Dr. Timmerman's co-authored SEP entry on actualism and possibilism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism-possibilism-ethics/(4) "Sweatshops and Free Action: The Stakes of the Actualism/Possibilism Debate for Business Ethics": https://philpapers.org/rec/TIMSAF(5) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Trent Horn ( @TheCounselofTrent ) recently explained the new case for God's existence. In this video, I rebut his new case for God's existence.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro1:04 Trent’s preliminaries3:49 Argument from change27:14 Kalam29:27 Scientific case30:59 Hilbert’s Hotel1:08:09 Benardete paradoxes1:24:40 Modal contingency argument1:49:42 Fine-tuning argument2:00:29 Argument from miracles2:18:45 Moral argument2:33:18 Conclusion2:34:16 A story2:41:38 Bonus soccerLINKS(1) Want the script? Become a patron :)(2) Trent's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22qUGVZXlGg&pp=ygUKdHJlbnQgaG9ybg%3D%3D(3) Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR(4) Argument from Change playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka2JpwLJaSaXdDZlBYkd9Cn(5) Response Videos playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaNtpoOwEZm9fuJq423BUrW(6) Moral Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaUcAQpHXN9ZNF2RxZLe7U_(7) Contingency Argument playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZkl5I5QDUXW5CauOfO_bs1(8) Classical Theism playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka0E9laGDA83gN2UbQoa4F2(9) Design Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkax5OrwZmkqE1fY446O4i6g(10) My Free Will playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka4SMFOH-KH-hdJoTz6fG5F(11) My Common Mistakes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK(12) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Here I explain Paul Draper's decisive evidence argument for atheism. Does it succeed?Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro2:35 Decisive Evidence Argument4:13 The syllogism7:23 Why accept the premises?7:38 First premise8:21 Second premise10:54 Third premise20:33 Responses20:56 Contra premise (1)25:35 Contra premise (2)26:59 Contra premise (3)28:58 Conclusion30:32 Bonus soccerRESOURCES(1) Draper's SEP entry, "Atheism and Agnosticism": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/(2) My 12-hour long video responding to 150+ theistic arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP0Mh42jvV4&pp=ygUfbWFqZXN0eSBvZiByZWFzb24gMTAwIGFyZ3VtZW50cw%3D%3D(3) Over 200 arguments for atheism: https://exapologist.blogspot.com/2023/03/200-or-so-arguments-for-atheism.html(4) My Ontological Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t(5) My Bonus Soccer playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkb7WN8KlASj2P9ewLpXGeML(6) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Can an actual infinite be formed by successive addition? I'm joined by Wes Morriston to discuss this question and more.

Here's Wes' excellent 2021 paper that we are discussing in the video: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...

[DM me on Facebook if you don't have access]

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

Malpass’ (2021) paper criticizing Craig’s successive addition argument: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z07W...

Malpass and Morriston’s (2020) paper criticizing the Hilbert’s Hotel argument: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15XuA...

Malpass, Hedrick, and Morriston video on the Craig-Malpass debate on  @Thoughtology : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYSj...

Malpass’ response to Craig’s five-point reply to Malpass & Morriston: https://useofreason.wordpress.com/202...

My Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irfj8...

And the usual links:

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website

From Aquinas to Leibniz to Pruss and Rasmussen, cosmological arguments have a long and formidable pedigree. I this video, I analyze twenty such arguments for God's existence.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

100+ Argument Resource Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q...

LINKS

My website: https://josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

Level up your philosophy of religion game by avoiding these common mistakes about models of God, divine simplicity, Thomism, and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Platonism has been the subject of much criticism, as has theistic conceptualism. Do such criticisms work? That's the question we investigate in this video.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) Scott's book, "Platonism and the Objects of Science": https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/platoni...

(2) Gunther's book, "The Unnecessary Science": https://www.amazon.com/Unnecessary-Sc...

(3) God and Abstract Objects playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

(4) My video with Scott on his book: https://youtu.be/ZrDMkQQ6aGg

(5) My website: https://www.josephschmid.com

What is religion? What is naturalism? Can naturalism and religion be combined? Is religious naturalism viable? I'm joined by Graham Oppy and Eric Steinhart to discuss these questions and more. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Here's your comprehensive guide to the modal ontological argument for God's existence!

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro & Outline

2:06 General structure of MOA

12:55 Representative argument

15:16 Simpler variant

16:17 Criticisms

26:43 Symmetry Breakers

32:59 Presumption of possibility

40:45 Conceivability

45:07 Deontic

56:12 Ontomystical

1:06:33 Motivational centrality

1:11:05 Godelian

1:27:25 Maximal God

1:33:07 Modal continuity

1:44:23 Desire

1:54:08 Open-mindedness

1:59:30 Explicability

2:06:39 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) My co-authored SEP entry with Oppy and Rasmussen: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

(2) The paper on PhilPapers: https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHSBF-2

(3) Ontological Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t

(4) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: https://josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

What are the norms governing sexual behavior? Is sex outside of marriage wrong? What about homosexuality? Hear two professional ethicists discuss these questions and others, arising from the Natural Law tradition in ethics.  

Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydrtF...   

Dustin's link: http://dustincrummett.com/  

Brian's link: http://bbesong.weebly.com/  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Here I discuss a new companions in guilt argument against causal finitism. What do you make of it? Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Richard Swinburne, one of the most influential philosophers of religion in the 20th and 21st centuries, joins me and my friend Ashkan to discuss Swinburne's latest book on substance dualism, titled, "Are We Bodies or Souls?"

Today I’m joined by Justin Mooney and Luis Oliveira to discuss a new aspects of the problem of evil.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro1:45 Summary of the paper28:40 Symmetry argument34:33 Necessary evil theodicies56:32 Necessary permission theodicies1:12:03 Divine right theodicies1:26:28 Final thoughts1:34:00 ConclusionRESOURCES(1) Justin's website with all his papers: https://www.justinmooney.net/(2) Luis' PhilPeople profile with all his papers: https://philpeople.org/profiles/luis-r-g-oliveira(3) Luis' article "God and gratuitous evil: between the rock and the hard place": https://philpapers.org/archive/OLIGAG.pdf(4) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Also known as the Argument from Motion, Aquinas's First Way aims to demonstrate God's existence. But does it succeed? Buckle up for some juicy philosophy, a (bad) Trump impression, and exciting Patreon news.  

Patreon link: https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason   

SLIDE CORRECTION: It's q2a3 :)

Moorean Defeaters Resources  

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTsSW...  

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hCRG...  

(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK46W...

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPuE_...  

(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_lqq...  

(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX6di...  

(7) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U...

(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcZFf...  

(9) https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...  

(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watXa...

(11a) https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(11b) https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

And, of course, the usual resources... :)

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Is divine simplicity compatible with there being one God in three persons? Buckle up for a very illuminating exchange.

Rob's relational qua-object paper:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fb2c.

Ryan's three papers on Trinitarianism:

(1) https://www.academia.edu/31860370/Has...  

(2) https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/th...  

(3) https://www.academia.edu/1971708/Divi...

Rob's website: http://robkoons.net/

Ryan's website: https://www.rtmullins.com/

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Trent Horn ( @TheCounselofTrent ) recently argued that atheists cannot blame Christians for anything. In this video, I explain why he's wrong.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro1:00 Definitions1:48 Trent’s video4:24 Are atheists blaming Craig?6:05 ‘Should’ implies alternative possibilities?8:14 Power to change the future8:50 Linguistic incaution10:39 Sapolsky11:49 Trent’s core argument16:11 What’s the difference???20:12 Leeway freedom24:22 Atheism and reductive physicalism25:51 Humans vs. animals28:24 Libertarianism and laws of nature32:55 Does theism preclude moral responsibility?38:56 Luck objection42:43 Punishment and moral responsibility47:07 Old Testament God = North Korea48:53 Clarifying compatibilism51:54 Trent contra compatibilism54:19 Trent’s second argument57:21 Frankfurt cases1:04:20 Flickers of freedom1:11:02 Resources and conclusionCORRECTIONS(1) In the section entitled "Should’ implies alternative possibilities?", I contest the idea that 'S should φ' implies 'S could do something alternative to φ-ing'. I think my counterexamples to that idea are correct, but I don't think they actually address Trent's claim in the preceding clip. In particular, Trent's claim was instead that 'S should φ' implies 'S could φ'. Importantly, though, many of my examples can be modified to motivate denying this claim too. For instance, just imagine the boulder-trapping-arm case to be one in which you're compelled *not* to hack off your arm by your psychology (maybe you're very queasy). Still, it seems like you *should* hack off your arm!LINKS(1) My Response Videos playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaNtpoOwEZm9fuJq423BUrW(2) My Free Will playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka4SMFOH-KH-hdJoTz6fG5F(3) My Common Mistakes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK(4) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4(5) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

In this two-part series, I explain and assess arguments for classical theism. In a separate two-part series, I'll examine arguments against classical theism.

Salem's channel, Inspiring Christianity: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCykf...

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason​

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Outline for Part 1:  

1 Purpose and Dialectic

2 Models of God: Classical and Neo-classical Theism  

2.1 A closer look 

3 Motivations for Classical Theism: A survey  

3.1 Euthyphro Dilemma

3.2 Securing monotheism  

3.3 Aseity  

3.4 Theological

3.4.1 Preserving Trinitarianism   

3.4.2 Tradition, Authority, Magisterium   

3.4.3 Biblical

3.5 Natural Theology   

3.5.1 Feser    

3.5.1.1 Aristotelian

3.5.1.2 Neo-Platonic    

3.5.1.3 Augustinian    

3.5.1.4 Thomistic

3.5.1.5 Rationalist   

3.5.2 The Five Ways    

3.5.2.1 First Way

3.5.2.2 Second Way    

3.5.2.3 Third Way    

3.5.2.4 Fourth Way

3.5.2.5 Fifth Way   

3.5.3 Aquinas’s De Ente Argument

Note: The Link to the document is removed because it is under significant construction for my series "Arguments Against Classical Theism". The link will be placed in the description of the latest video in that series.

Note on defining 'classical theism': there is some controversy over how to define classical theism.It's going to be difficult to find unanimous support for certain theses across all traditions (e.g. Eastern traditions like (strands of) Hinduism, Eastern Orthodox and Palamite traditions, Islamic and Jewish traditions, Western Christian traditions, etc.). The definition of classical theism I use (which follows classical theist scholars like Rogers, Brower, Grant, Bergmann, Dolezal, Stump, and so on) is broadly situated in the tradition following Augustine, Boethius, Lombard, Maimonides, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. and on through contemporary thinkers like Kate Rogers and W. Matthews Grant. I focus less on versions/variations of classical theism found in (e.g.) Scotus, Palamas, and so on. [Though, note that the vast majority of things I say in this series of videos apply mutatis mutandis to such variations.]

And the usual links:

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Molinism is a popular view of divine providence, but it has serious problems. I'm joined by Daniel Rubio to explore these problems and more.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro1:50 Key definitions19:30 Molina’s argument23:34 Theological utility35:00 Mooney’s argument37:37 Hasker’s ‘might’ argument44:42 Objective probability argument48:30 Grounding objection58:42 TSB argument1:03:55 Bruteness argument1:08:15 Explanatory priority argument1:14:28 Swenson’s dilemma1:24:00 Explaining freedom away1:31:50 God’s unlucky day1:33:37 Voodoo Argument1:41:07 Kryptonite argument1:45:45 Providential collapse argument1:54:54 Tier List1:56:59 ConclusionRESOURCES(1) Dr. Rubio’s website: https://www.danielkfrubio.com/(2) Climenhaga & Rubio, “Molinism: Explaining Our Freedom Away”: https://philpapers.org/archive/CLIMEO.pdf(3) Rubio, “Still Another Anti-Molinist Argument”: https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/84353(4) Law, “If Molinism is true, what can you do?”: https://philpapers.org/archive/LAWIMI.pdf(5) Rasmussen, “On creating worlds without evil given divine counterfactual knowledge”: https://philpapers.org/rec/RASOCW(6) Rusavuk, “Molinism’s Kryptonite: Counterfactuals and circumstantial luck”: https://philpapers.org/archive/RUSMKC.pdf(7) Zimmerman, “Yet another anti-molinist argument”: https://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/Anti.Molinist.arg.proofs.pdf(8) Mooney’s argument for molinism (by  @TheAnalyticChristian ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzv37U2alAo(9) Swenson’s argument against molinism (by  @TheAnalyticChristian ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE0fxXY3hjE(10) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

How should we solve paradoxes of infinity like the Grim Reaper Paradox? One candidate solution is causal finitism. In this video, Alex Malpass and I argue that there’s a better solution: the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis (UPD).Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro1:45 Summary of the paper3:08 Grim Reaper paradox8:07 The Kalam9:52 Causal finitism12:55 The UPD23:16 Problems with causal finitist solution44:30 Mysterious force objection56:47 Patchwork objection1:13:20 Finite Benardete-like paradoxes1:15:35 Final notesLINKS(1) The original video from  @PhilHalper1 : https://youtu.be/vgLzMkxhEiQ?si=cIM4SZzykNmoOvod(2) The paper discussed in the video is “Benardete Paradoxes, Causal Finitism, and the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis”, Mind (Forthcoming, with Alex Malpass): https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHBPC(3) My Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR(4) Here are four other papers of mine mentioned in the video:(4.1) “Branching Actualism and Cosmological Arguments”, Philosophical Studies (2023, with Alex Malpass): https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHBAA-22(4.2) “Benardete paradoxes, patchwork principles, and the infinite past”, Synthese (2024): https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHBPP-3(4.3) “The End is Near: Grim Reapers and Endless Futures”, Mind (Forthcoming): https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHTEI-19(4.4) “Grim Reaper Paradoxes and Patchwork Principles: Severing the Case for Finitism”, Journal of Philosophy (Forthcoming, with Troy Dana): https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHGRP-4(5) My Springer book with Dr. Dan Linford: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2(6) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Want irrefutable proof of atheism? Watch this.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) Kabay, P.D. 2008. "A Defense of Trivialism". Dissertation, University of Melbourne. https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb...

(2) My contingency argument playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

(3) My website: https://www.josephschmid.com/

Can the God of classical theism extrinsically change? If not, does this pose problems for classical theism? Dr. Ryan Mullins joins me for an illuminating discussion on these (and many more) questions.  

Outline  

1. Defining terms (classical theism, relation (medieval and contemporary understandings), real/logical relations, intrinsic/extrinsic properties, extrinsic change) 

2. Can the God of classical theism extrinsically change? Hear what scholars (new and old) have to say on extrinsic change, the No Real Relations Doctrine, Divine Timelessness, and much more. Among such scholars are: Paul Helm, Bill Craig, JP Moreland, Lombard, Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, and Anselm. 

-----2.1 Zimmerman & Chisholm on Anselm and Cambridge change 

-----2.2 Extrinsic change entails temporality 

3. Does denial of extrinsic change pose problems for classical theism? 

-----3.1 Relational (accidental) properties like Lord, Redeemer, Creator 

-----3.2 The tension between (i) timelessness & (ii) omniscience and presentism

-----3.3 Impossibility of God’s being in a personal relationship with you 

-----3.4 Incarnation  

Curious to learn more about our work? Check these out:  

Reluctant Theologian Podcast: https://www.rtmullins.com/podcast  

Ryan's book on timelessness: https://www.amazon.com/Timeless-Oxfor...  

Joe's book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

Joe's website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/ 

* No, I'm not Dr. Schmid. Please don't sue me. It's a meme, bruv! In all likelihood, I'll be Dr. Schmid in about 8(ish) years. Stay tuned!

Is God’s comprehensive foreknowledge of the future incompatible with free will? Let’s see where reason takes us.  

Here’s another argument that I didn’t cover in the video but which will be of interest to y’all:  

(1) It is not under your control that God believed 1000 years ago that each of your actions would occur. 

(2) Necessarily, if God believed 1000 years ago that each of your actions would occur, then each of your actions occur. 

(3) If P necessarily entails Q, and P is not under your control, then Q is not under your control. 

(4) So, the occurrence of each of your actions is not under your control. 

(5) If (4), then you are not free. 

(6) So, you are not free.  

This argument is interesting. I would probably challenge premise (1). It is precisely because you are free in each of your actions that you are in control of past facts specifying what your free actions will be. In other words, while you don’t cause the past to be how it is, there’s a kind of counterfactual dependence of the past on your choices: had you chosen A instead of B, God would have foreknown that you chose A.

Here’s another example. Presumably, it was true before you were born that you would read this sentence today. And — by the same kind of reasoning that would presumably motivate (1) — this truth is not under your control (since you didn’t even exist to causally influence the past). And, moreover, this truth necessarily entails that you do in fact read this sentence today. So, it would follow from all of this that you are not free in reading this sentence! And we didn’t even need to invoke God’s foreknowledge here. All we needed was a truth prior to your birth.  

Surely, then, the argument has gone wrong somewhere. I suggest — as I did in the case of the foreknowledge argument — that it’s simply false that you have no control over truths prior to your birth. Rather, it is precisely because you are free and in control of your present actions that you thereby have control over truths prior to your birth. The explanation of your actions doesn’t flow from the past truth to your actions; rather, it’s the opposite. Your actions explain the past truth. Don’t put the cart before the horse.  

Website: https://www.majestyofreason.wordpress...  

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Today I'm joined by John DeRosa, host of the Classical Theism podcast, to discuss methods for productive and loving dialogue across ideological barriers.  

Curious about what's to come on my channel in the next 6(ish) weeks? Here's a preview:  

- Discussing a new argument against divine impassibility with the author of a recent IJPR article 

- Discussing an argument from the PSR against classical theism with Chad McIntosh 

- Aquinas's First Way (lecture video) 

- Aquinas's Third Way (lecture video) 

- A User's Guide to Existential Inertia (lecture video) 

- And more...   

John's link: http://www.classicaltheism.com/  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Steven Nemes joins me for a cordial discussion on a potential path from contingent being to the God of classical theism.  

~ 

I wish to add some clarifications on my response near the end of the video, as I could have been clearer concerning the thrust of my response.

Steven's argument against the (live epistemic) possibility of a composite necessary being roughly proceeded as follows:  

Composite beings are always a mixture of two distinct principles: a principle of intelligibility (which is, of itself, universal and not tied down to any concrete particular) and a principle of individuation (which is, of itself, particular and indeterminate). Because neither of the two principles demand that they be combined with one another, there must be some extrinsic cause or principle which accounts for their unity.

I have three primary responses to this that I did not sufficiently disentangle in the video:  

(1) In the case of a metaphysically necessary being (e.g. the neo-classical theistic God of Bill Craig, Ryan Mullins, and co.), it's precisely because it is a metaphysically necessary being that its principle of intelligibility and principle of individuation are necessarily conjoined or united with one another. That need not be explained in virtue of some extrinsic cause -- it's explained in virtue of the being's metaphysical necessity. We would presumably only need a causal explanation if the composite being were such that its two principles are merely contingently united. But that wouldn't be the case for a necessary composite being. And we cannot derive contingency from mere composition, since from the fact that x and y are distinct, it doesn't follow that they could come apart, or that one is accidental to the other, or that they are separable, or that they are possibly absent from reality. For instance, the properties having a radius and having a circumference are distinct but nevertheless inseparable, non-accidentally related, necessarily co-instantiated, and so on.

(2) It seems question-begging to claim that ‘neither of the two principles demand that they be united with one another’. This is the very question at issue -- namely, whether there could be a being with distinct parts/principles but which is nevertheless such that its distinct principles demand that they be conjoined and necessarily instantiated in reality.

(3) Not in and of itself a response to the argument, but something worth bearing in mind: the argument relies on heavy metaphysical background assumptions that many philosophers deny.

Note that these considerations are NOT the end of the discussion, and that Steven himself will have responses, I'll have responses to his responses, Steven... and so on. Hopefully this gives a taste, however, of the complexities involved!

~

For Steven Nemes' work, check out his Academia page! https://fuller.academia.edu/StevenNemes

For my work, check out my book and blog!

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Blog: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

I’m joined by Josh Rasmussen and Amy Karofsky to explore whether there’s any contingency in reality. It’s a MUST watch. (Or maybe not?)

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

There's no use crying over spilled milk. The past is over and done with -- it's fixed. But if (i) you have no control over the past, (ii) God believed 1000 years ago that you would watch this video, and (iii) God's believing this entails its truth [since God is infallible], doesn't it follow that you have no control over watching this video? I'm joined by Dr. Taylor Cyr and Sean Clements to discuss this question and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Taylor's Free Will Show [YouTube]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7J6...  

Taylor's Free Will Show [Website]: https://thefreewillshow.com/

Taylor's PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/taylo...

Note that the slide with the formalized argument with logical notation had a couple typos. The corrections are found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F...

Sean's PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/sean-... 

Sean's TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@leftlogic?lan...

Wanna dig deeper into Taylor's work on the problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom? Check out:

(1) His discussion with Dr. Philip Swenson on Capturing Christianity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPl2h...

(2) His discussion on The Analytic Christian about why timelessness alone doesn't solve the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G82Wt...

(3) His discussion and assessment of a variety of responses to the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XoVp...

And, of course,

Dr. Eric Olson joins me to discuss various puzzles of material constitution and composition. Do birds exist? Do tables? Do you? Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Dr. David Builes and I chat about laws of nature, the metaphysics of persistence, existential inertia, and so much more. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Interested in God's existence? Theism? Atheism? Thomism? Creation? Panentheism, pantheism, and Spinozism? The origin and cause of the universe? Russelian monism? Causal finitism? We have just the discussion for you.  

Thanks to Dr. Felipe Leon and Micah Edvenson (from Crusade Against Ignorance channel) for joining me to discuss Felipe's argument from material causality against creation ex nihilo.

IMPORTANT NOTE: 

Near the beginning of the video, Felipe used the term 'classical theism' to describe people like Plantinga, Swinburne, and co. This is an incorrect usage of the term. But this is a mere terminological issue. He means 'traditional theists' or 'orthodox monotheism'. He doesn't mean to pick out the Big Four attributes characterizing classical theism: immutability, simplicity, impassibility, and timelessness.

He just means that the theists to which he refers affirm the omni attributes, monotheism, God's perfection, God's necessity, and God's causally originating and sustaining the universe ex nihilo. An alternative understanding of the term doesn't warrant not listening. It was a wonderful conversation.

Also, his target is ex nihilo creation. It's "classical theism*cvc*", i.e. classical theism plus classical view of creation. So, it doesn't really matter (in the present context) whether or not he gets immutability, timelessness, and so on correct. What matters is his characterization of ex nihilo creation, since that's his target. So, pointing out a misapplication of 'classical theism' with respect to something other than creatio ex nihilo is not quite relevant. His target is any view according to which there is creation ex nihilo. The specifics about the Divine nature are tangential.

I do want to stress, of course, that I disagreed with Felipe's use of 'classical theism'. Classical theism, as I use it, is meant to expressly pick out orthodox monotheism plus the Big Four: immutability, simplicity, timelessness, and impassibility. I would have preferred that he used 'orthodox monotheism' or 'traditional theism'. But the reason I didn't dwell on it or correct it in the dialogue was because (i) it's a terminological issue, and more importantly, (ii) it is irrelevant to his argument, since his argument has nothing to do with the Big Four but is instead aimed at ex nihilo creation.

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Ontological arguments have captured philosophers’ attention since Anselm. But are they any good? I’m joined by an elephant (@Elephant_Phil) to discuss this question.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Ontological Arguments Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

Mostrar menosWebsite: https://www.josephschmid.com

I'm joined by philosophers Michael Huemer and Don Loeb to discuss whether moral realism is true.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) Huemer's book, "Ethical Intuitionism": https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Intuit...

(2) Huemer's papers: http://www.owl232.net/papers.htm

(3) Loeb's papers: https://philpeople.org/profiles/don-loeb

(4) My PhilPapers Profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

(5) My website: https://www.josephschmid.com/

Abstract objects like numbers, propositions, and universals pose some serious challenges to God’s existence. I’m joined by Felipe Leon to discuss these challenges and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Felipe’s excellent blog, “Ex-Apologist”: http://exapologist.blogspot.com/

Felipe’s Academia page: https://elcamino.academia.edu/FelipeLeon

RESOURCES

Leon (2019), “A Priori (Atheism)”, available for free here: https://www.academia.edu/37063589/A_P...

Gould (ed.) (2014), Beyond the Control of God?: Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Control...

And the usual links:

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Interested in Arguments from Motion, the Kalam, the Moral Argument, and Žižek and Swinburne impressions? I have just the video for you. Here, I respond to Trent Horn's (@The Counsel of Trent) recent case for God.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

Here's the document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cL00...

"So you think you understand Existential Inertia?": https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

LINKS

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website [new website coming soon…]: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

My PhilPapers profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

SMALL NOTE: I said, in the video, that Paul Audi (2019) explicitly rejects a

Does Feser's Augustinian proof succeed? Is Theistic Conceptualism compatible with Divine Simplicity? And should we prefer Theistic Conceptualism to Platonism? I explore these questions and more in an epic discussion with @Parker's Pensées.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) The original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rflji...

(2) God and Abstract Objects playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

(3) My website: https://www.josephschmid.com

IMPORTANT NOTE:

At one point in the discussion I say, roughly, that "Anderson says something like 'God's thoughts aren't about anything'". But I would like to make an important clarification about this.

Here's what I was thinking. At minute 53 in his discussion with Malpass, Anderson says that “divine thoughts don’t have propositional content”.

I take this to imply that divine thoughts aren’t about propositions. So, God’s thought that ‘Paris is the capital of France’ is not about Paris’ being the capital of France, ie, the meaning expressed by the aforequoted sentence. What, then, is it about? It can’t be about itself, since Anderson had—just prior to the time stamp above—denounced the self-reflexivity that engenders infinite regress. But if God’s thought that ‘Paris is the capital of France’ is not about Paris’ being the capital of France, and if it’s also not about itself, I took this to imply that God’s thought here isn’t about anything. (What’s any other plausible candidate for what it’s about? Cheeseburgers?)

In essence, I understood Anderson’s claim to imply, by clear and innocuous inferences, the claim that God’s thoughts aren’t about anything.

Now, in retrospect, I should have been more cautious in what I said. I should have said that Anderson said God’s thoughts have no propositional content, and that this pretty clearly (read: clear to my mind) entails that they aren’t about anything. And so I apologize for not being as clear as I should have and thereby suggesting something Anderson did not explicitly say.

Could anything have been otherwise? Amy Karofsky thinks not. In her view, absolutely everything is necessary. Today we discuss arguments for and against this view. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Ontological arguments seek to prove God's existence from the armchair. But are they any good? Let's tour some prominent ontological arguments and some prominent objections to help us find out. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Does logic prove God? I don't think so. In this video, I explain why. Enjoy the bonus soccer, too ;)

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) God and Abstract Objects playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

(2) The Lord of Non-Contradiction: https://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_L...

(3) My website: https://www.josephschmid.com

Chad McIntosh recently criticized my 12-hour-long video as "unfair", "academically lazy", and "poor form". In this video, I explain why these allegations are mistaken -- and ironically so.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

Over 100 Arguments for God ANSWERED: https://youtu.be/iP0Mh42jvV4

Resources for Answering 100+ Arguments for God: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q...

@Furthering Christendom's video: https://youtu.be/0Dueky7E9HE

LINKS

My website: https://josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

THANKS

Many thanks to Cameron Bertuzzi for helping design the thumbnail!

And, as always, thanks to my patrons for their undying love and support.

What is effective altruism? What motivates it? And what about the many objections to effective altruism? JD Bauman and Matthew Adelstein join me to talk about these topics and more.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro1:16 What is effective altruism?4:04 Motivating effective altruism9:25 Utilitarianism objection15:57 Incommensurability objection23:44 Demandingness objection29:10 Earn-to-give objection33:26 Individualism, institutional critique, and capitalism39:28 Too longtermist47:50 Triviality objection50:10 Sociological criticisms at the margins56:15 Epistemic objection1:00:08 Timmerman’s dilemma1:10:08 Incompatible with Christianity1:11:38 ConclusionRESOURCES(1) GiveWell (for a well-researched list of effective charities): https://www.givewell.org/(2) Christians for Impact (JD's organization): https://bit.ly/3Ca1sLT(3) 80,000 hours website: https://80000hours.org/(4) EA for Christians: https://www.eaforchristians.org/(5) One For the World (1% pledge): https://1fortheworld.org/(6) Giving What We Can (10% pledge): https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/(7) Matthew's YouTube channel:  @deliberationunderidealcond5105 (8) Matthew's substack: https://benthams.substack.com/(9) JD's YouTube channel:  @eaforchristians460 (10) My video with Dr. Travis Timmerman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mySfT7wMVRo(11) The MacAskill & Pummer article I mentioned: https://philpapers.org/rec/PUMEA(12) My Applied Ethics playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaYPueOwJRE0CPj6xyIWfxb(13) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

In this video, I rank theists from best to not-so-best. I also spice things up with some bonus soccer.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) The clip of Josh Rasmussen on meaning without God is from the following: https://youtu.be/Y-p33YkCHXA

(2) Ray Comfort proves God: https://youtu.be/BXLqDGL1FSg

(3) Jeff Lowder’s video, “The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXWTc...

(4) Kalam Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

(5) Moral Argument Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

(6) Feser on Schmid on the Aristotelian Proof: ​​https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(7) Feser on Schmid on Existential Inertia | A Comprehensive Response: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(8) So you think you understand Existential Inertia: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(9) Bonus Soccer Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

(10) My website: https://josephschmid.com

Feser’s Neo-Platonic proof reasons from composite beings to the existence of an absolutely simple being. In this video, I critically evaluate the argument.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

This video is based on:

Schmid, J.C. Forthcoming. “Simply Unsuccessful: The Neo-Platonic Proof of God's Existence", European Journal for Philosophy of Religion.

The article above is a proper part of Chapter 9 of my book. I've linked that chapter below! [I'm currently speaking with various editors at different presses regarding this book, so I can't share the whole book.]

Chapter 9: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dXMB...

Existential inertia links, for those interested:

(1) IJPR paper: https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHEIA...

(2) Response to Hsiao and Sanders: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(3) A User’s Guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr44d...

(4) Response to Intellectual Conservatism, Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dG1H...

(5) Response to Intellectual Conservatism, Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3pn4...

(6) Response to Nemes: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(7) Response to RM and HoH: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(8) Response to Thomistic Disputations: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(9) Discussion with Oppy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?

Daniel Rubio joins me to make a tier list of arguments for and against God’s existence.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro0:28 Old Kalam5:00 New Kalam16:31 Contingency arguments23:27 Thomistic arguments25:18 Scotistic arguments28:25 Anselm’s ontological argument32:40 Modal ontological argument36:15 Moral argument39:32 Moral knowledge44:49 Paley’s design argument46:53 Fine-tuning argument57:20 Psychophysical harmony1:03:30 Nomological harmony1:11:11 Miracles1:12:48 Religious experience1:17:18 Problem of evil1:21:28 Divine hiddenness1:24:00 God is superfluous1:25:22 Improvability argument1:26:16 ConclusionFURTHER RESOURCES(1) Daniel's website: https://www.danielkfrubio.com/(2) Daniel's papers: https://philpeople.org/profiles/daniel-rubio(3) List of arguments for God's existence: https://www.camcintosh.com/theistic/(4) List of arguments against God's existence: http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2023/03/200-or-so-arguments-for-atheism.html(5) Over 100 Arguments for God ANSWERED: https://youtu.be/iP0Mh42jvV4?si=2qiyco0OXNsw3GIz(6) My interview with Brian Cutter: https://youtu.be/1oEp_UVCm8M(7) My Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR(8) My Contingency Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZkl5I5QDUXW5CauOfO_bs1(9) My Argument from Change playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka2JpwLJaSaXdDZlBYkd9Cn(10) My Existential Inertia playlist: https://youtu.be/Jr44d_1_sGk?si=TFMubHijCyAAK8Vf(11) My Ontological Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t(12) My Moral Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaUcAQpHXN9ZNF2RxZLe7U_(13) My Design Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkax5OrwZmkqE1fY446O4i6g(14) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

God, let’s talk about your feelings. Today I chat with Dr. Ryan Mullins about his new book “God and Emotion” with Cambridge University Press.  

Among many other things, we discuss: What is divine impassibility, and what are the arguments for and against it? And what are emotions? Does God empathize with us? Can God suffer along with us?  

Video Outline:  

0. Introducing the book 

1. Chapter One: Emotions 

2. Chapter Two: The Impassible God 

3. Chapter Three: The Passible God 

4. Chapter Four: The Love of God 

5. Chapter Five: The Wrath of God and Other Moral Judgments 

6. Chapter Six: Divine Empathy and the Problem of Creepy Emotions 

7. The Problem of Arbitrary Creation for Impassibility  

Link to the book: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elemen...   

Ryan’s paper “Can the Impassible God Suffer?”: https://philpapers.org/rec/MULWCT   

Ryan's paper "The Problem of Arbitrary Creation for Impassibility": https://www.degruyter.com/view/journa...    

Ryan's website & podcast: https://www.rtmullins.com/  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

What is religion? What is philosophy of religion? Does God exist? What are some different models of ultimate reality? I discuss these questions and more in this philosophy of religion crash course.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Original video from @LS Philosophy: https://youtu.be/1Ajm9SFxMzE

LINKS

My website: https://www.josephschmid.com

My PhilPapers Profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of doubt, Or to take Arms against a Sea of skepticism, And by opposing end it: to wager, to believe; No more; and by a belief, to say we end The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks That eternal damnation promises?

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Outline  

Introduction 

Background 

The Wager 

Objections

-----Many gods objection 

-----Mixed strategies objection 

-----Doxastic voluntarism

-----Evidence-sensitivity and pragmatic-sensitivity 

-----The gratuity of Pascal’s Wager 

-----Universalism 

-----Pascal’s Mugger

Links 

Liz’s website: http://liz-jackson.com/ 

Liz’s paper on Pascal’s wager: https://philpapers.org/archive/JACSPW...

Liz's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/lizjacks...

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Cosmological arguments aim to arrive at some uncaused cause or necessary being. But why think this necessary being is God? 

In this episode, we explore some potential paths. 

Buckle up for some philosophy.  

Here's the Pruss-Koons paper we referenced: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.100...  

 Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Website: https://www.majestyofreason.wordpress...

I explain a new argument against classical theism (more specifically, the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) and rebut three objections to it.

~

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason... 

Blog post mentioned at the end: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

What is philosophy? Why is it valuable? And how do we do it well? Here I talk about these topics and more.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro0:56 The nature of philosophy11:43 The value of philosophy14:30 Is reason beautiful?19:07 Intellectual virtues25:34 How to communicate and engage philosophically33:45 Pervasive mistakes36:55 Mind changes40:11 Personal factors46:31 RecommendationsLINKS(1) Original video with  @NaHoa : https://youtu.be/3TPIgKRvc7o?si=eNRYtjUqjDFZozwO(2) Doing Philosophy playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkbOGcxCZPjybRASmKynBfGN(3) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4(4) How to Analyze Arguments like a Philosopher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5_2p-vUjs&pp=ygUqaG93IHRvIGFuYWx5emUgYXJndW1lbnRzIGxpa2UgYSBwaGlsb3NvcGh5(5) Common Mistakes series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK(6) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Proponents of the Kalam often mount arguments based on paradoxes of the infinite. But these arguments face a grim problem: symmetrical, future-tensed arguments showing that the future must come to an end. I’m joined again by Alex Malpass to discuss this problem.

At the end is some bonus soccer for kicks (ha!) and giggles. Enjoy!

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): 

https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): 

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Alex’s channel “Thoughtology”: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwbA...

Song at the end: “Time” by Jungle.

RESOURCES

Morriston’s (2021) paper criticizing Craig’s successive addition argument: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qUJz...

Malpass’ (2021) paper criticizing Craig’s successive addition argument: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z07W...

Malpass and Morriston’s (2020) paper criticizing the Hilbert’s Hotel argument: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15XuA...

Shackel’s (2005) paper defending the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis: https://orca.cf.ac.uk/3801/1/shackel%...

Cohen’s (2015) paper criticizing para

Does the Modal Ontological Argument prove God's existence? Here's a guide to help you think critically about this question.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

Original video: https://youtu.be/k8pdvUT4LSI

Than's channel @Exploring Reality: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChhu...

Ontological Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

Document I'm using [fair use rules apply]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15...

Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2GZc...

My website: https://josephschmid.com

Stage one of Feser’s Aristotelian proof reasons from the reality of change to the existence of a purely actual actualizer. In this video, I critically evaluate the argument. 

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... 

This video is based on:

Schmid, J.C. Forthcoming. “Stage One of the Aristotelian Proof: A Critical Appraisal”, Sophia. Link: https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHSOO... [The abstract should say 'this question' lol]

Also: Here's a supplemental document to the video in which I level yet another criticism toward the Aristotelian proof -- namely, that it seems to actually entail existential inertia. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A79x...

Existential inertia links, for those interested:

(1) IJPR paper: https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHEIA...

(2) Response to Hsiao and Sanders: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(3) A User’s Guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr44d...

(4) Response to Intellectual Conservatism, Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dG1H...

(5) Response to Intellectual

New atheism is dead (and this video killed it). But what can we learn from it? 

Today I discuss and build upon Kaufman's Philosophy Compass article "New Atheism and its Critics".  

Article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...  

Website: www.majestyofreason.wordpress.com  

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

What times exist? Should we be A-theorists or B-theorists? Can God change the past? If he can, does this defend theism against the problem of evil? I'm joined by Sam Lebens and Ryan Mullins to discuss these questions and more. Plus some bonus soccer :)

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Sam’s links:

Website: https://www.samlebens.com/

The Principles of Judaism:

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Jud...

Article on hypertime: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/35...

Ryan’s links:

Website: https://www.rtmullins.com

Reluctant Theologian Podcast: https://www.rtmullins.com/podcast

The End of the Timeless God: https://www.amazon.com/Timeless-Oxfor...

And my new website! WOOT!

https://www.josephschmid.com

Stop using Hilbert's Hotel. Here's why.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) Want access to the document in the video? Become a patron :)

(2) Reference document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p...

(3) My Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

LINKS

My website: https://josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

Can you prove God’s existence from your armchair? Ontological Arguments promise as much. But do they work? Today I’m joined by Dr. Tyron Goldschmidt to discuss these questions and more. Buckle up for a discussion than which no greater discussion can be conceived.  

Link to our document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13...

ARGUMENTS  

Anselm’s OA  

"GOD" = That than which a greater cannot be conceived

1. “GOD” is understood. (Premise) 

2. If “GOD” is understood, GOD exists in the understanding. (Premise) 

3. Even if GOD exists only in the understanding, it can be conceived to exist in reality. (Premise) 

4. GOD is greater if it exists in reality than if it exists only in the understanding. (Premise) 

5. It is impossible to conceive of something greater than GOD. (Premise)

6. If GOD exists in the understanding, then GOD exists only in the understanding or in the understanding and in reality. (Premise) 

7. Therefore, GOD exists in the understanding. (From 1 and 2) 

8. Therefore, GOD exists only in the understanding or in the understanding and in reality. (From 6 and 7)

9. Therefore, GOD can be conceived to exist in reality. (From 3 and 7) 

10. Therefore, if GOD exists only in the understanding, then it is possible to conceive of something greater than GOD. (From 4 and 9) 

11. Therefore, GOD does not exist only in the understanding. (From 5 and 10) 

12. Therefore, GOD exists in reality. (From 8 and 11)

Descartes’ OA  

-----Simple reconstruction  

1. A perfect being, by definition, has every perfection. 

2. Existence is a perfection. 

3. Therefore, a perfect being has existence (i.e., exists).

-----Elaborate reconstruction  

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive (understand, apprehend) to belong to the nature or essence of a thing does belong to its nature or essence. 

2. Whatever belongs to the nature or essence of a thing can be truly affirmed of that thing. 

3. Therefore, whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to the nature or essence of a thing can be truly affirmed of that thing.

4. I clearly and distinctly perceive that existence belongs to the nature or essence of a supremely perfect being.

5. Therefore, existence can be truly affirmed of a supremely perfect being (i.e., a supremely perfect being exists).

Plantinga’s Modal OA  

1. There is some possible world where maximal greatness is instantiated. (Premise) 

2. If so, then there is some world where a being has maximal excellence in every world. (Premise) 

3. If there is some world where a being has maximal excellence in every world, then the being has maximal excellence in every world. (Premise)

4. If some being has maximal excellence in every world, then it is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in every world. (Premise) 

5. Therefore, some being has maximal excellence in every world. (From 1-3) 

6. Therefore, some being is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in every world. (From 4 and 5)

7. Therefore, some being is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in the actual world. (From 6)

FURTHER READING ON OA’s:

(1) Ontological Arguments (Opp

Recently, Tyler McNabb had William Lane Craig respond to new objections to the Kalam. In this video, I explain why Craig's responses fail. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

What is existential inertia? What are some metaphysical accounts of existential inertia? And where should you go to learn further about it? Buckle up for discussion of these questions and more.  

Want to read my IJPR paper, "Existential inertia and the Aristotelian proof"? 

Check out these links:  

(1) https://link.springer.com/article/10....  

(2) https://rdcu.be/b6HXP    

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

I chat with Michael Jones (@InspiringPhilosophy) about contingency arguments, idealism, the argument from limits, and so much more. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Here I interview Brian Cutter in person to talk about the psychophysical and nomological harmony arguments.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro0:24 Best arguments for God4:01 Consciousness & psychophysical harmony10:00 Evolution13:08 Normative error theory18:00 First-person realism parody?25:08 Contingent normative roles30:30 A priori physicalism36:36 Strengthens the problem of evil46:52 Revenge problem51:35 Nomological harmony1:06:53 ConclusionFURTHER RESOURCES(1) Cutter & Crummett, "Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism", https://philarchive.org/archive/CUTPHA(2) Cutter & Saad, "The Problem of Nomological Harmony", https://philarchive.org/archive/CUTTPO-9(3) Cutter's PhilPeople profile with his papers: https://philpeople.org/profiles/brian-cutter(4) Cutter explaining psychophysical harmony on  @CapturingChristianity : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_TlYmVuxQQ&pp=ygUmY3V0dGVyIGFuZCBnb2ZmIHBzeWNob3BoeXNpY2FsIGhhcm1vbnk%3D(5) A blog post critical of the psychophysical harmony argument: https://naturalismnext.blogspot.com/2023/03/introduction-note-1-this-post-is.html(6) Cutter explaining nomological harmony on  @TheAnalyticChristian : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k90r59vwbG4&t=40s&pp=ygUaY3V0dGVyIG5vbW9sb2dpY2FsIGhhcm1vbnk%3D(7) Builes, "Eight Arguments for First-Person Realism", https://philarchive.org/archive/BUIEAF(8) Design Arguments playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkax5OrwZmkqE1fY446O4i6g(9) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Christian Coons claims to have proved that some acts have moral properties. I doubt he's done that.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

RESOURCES

(1) Coons' (2011) paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10....

(2) Brown's (2013) paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10....

(3) Moral Argument playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

(4) My website: https://www.josephschmid.com

Intellectual Conservatism recently held a discussion criticizing existential inertia. I don't think their criticisms work. In this two-part series, I explain why. 

Existential Inertia Defended, Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dG1H...  

A User's Guide to Existential Inertia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr44d...  

Intellectual Conservatism's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQJgV...

Link to my IJPR paper: https://rdcu.be/b6HXP  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

From the complexity of the biological world to the fine-tuning of the universe, design arguments are among the most powerful arguments for God's existence. In this video, I assess 12 such arguments.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

NOTES

(1) There are several responses to fine-tuning arguments (FTAs) that I didn't mention in the video. The reason is because I simply haven't researched them in enough depth to have a strong view on them. For instance: (a) some philosophers mount the multiverse hypothesis in response to FTAs; (b) some philosophers and scientists question whether there even is fine-tuning; (c) some philosophers and scientists argue that FTAs suffer from the problem of non-normalizable probability measures; and (d) some philosophers and scientists argue that FTAs suffer from the the problem of old evidence. I haven't adequately researched these to have views on them. (My research focus lies more in cosmological and ontological arguments -- sorry!)

(2) Philip Goff has recently argued (in Scientific American and Capturing Christianity) that the multiverse objection to the FTA commits the inverse gamblers fallacy. I don't think this is correct for several of the reasons spelled out in philosopher Neil Manson's recent Philosophy Compass article on the multiverse, FTA, and the inverse gambler's fallacy [here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KWsP... ]. James Fodor also discusses Goff's criticism in a recent video [here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQxCZ... ].

More generally, I highly recommend Neil Manson's work criticizing the FTA. You can find his papers at https://philpeople.org/profiles/neil-...

(3) I don't think the objection to FTAs appealing simply to the observation selection effect works. This is why I didn't discuss this objection in the video.

(4) A perceptive viewer of my original video raised an objection (in personal correspondence) to my/Manson's criticism of FTAs concerning the near-infinitude of ways God could actualize the good of conscious, moral beings without a finely

Does contingency give us reason to believe in God? The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA) answers in the affirmative. In this video, I explain Alex Pruss’ LCA from the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.  

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): 

https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

Presentation Outline  

1 Introduction 

2 Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) 

-----2.1 Self-evidence 

-----2.2 Koons-Pruss epistemological argument 

-----2.3 Evolution (Induction in science) 

-----2.4 Inference to best explanation 

-----2.5 Precluding chaos 

-----2.6 Nature of modality

----------2.6.1 Narrowly logical account of modality 

----------2.6.2 Lewisian modal realism 

----------2.6.3 Platonic account of modality 

----------2.6.4 Aristotelian-essentialist account of modality 

----------2.6.5 Aristotelian-causal account of modality 

----------2.6.6 The argument

-----2.7 Philosophical argumentation 3 Objections to PSR 

-----3.1 Modal imagination argument 

-----3.2 Van Inwagen’s modal fatalism argument 

-----3.3 Quantum mechanics 

-----3.4 Contrastive explanation

4 Global Causal Principles (CPs) 

-----4.1 Objection: causing the causing 

5 Toward a first cause 

-----5.1 The PSR 

-----5.2 Objections

----------5.2.1 Can we even form BCCF? 

----------5.2.2 HECP 

----------5.2.3 Taxicab Problem 

-----5.3 CP for wholly contingent states

6 The Gap Problem 

-----6.1 Agency 

-----6.2 Goodness 

-----6.3 Divine Simplicity? 

-----6.4 Gellman’s argument for uniqueness and omnipotence

Links  Pruss, “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument”: http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA....   

Craig and Moreland, “The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology”: https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/u...J._P._Moreland_The_BlackwellBookZZ.org-2.pdf

Baddorf, “Di

You asked, I answered! Enjoy :)

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/