Dan Linford returns to the channel to offer his reply to my recent discussion with William Lane Craig, wherein he replied to critiques of his case for a cosmic beginning. We discuss probability theory, the BGV theorem, emergence of spacetime, and the relevance of quantum gravity to our scientific inferences about a beginning of the universe.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:01:24 Craig's modest claim

00:10:27 How to calculate the probability of a conclusion

00:15:21 The probabilistic fallacy in Craig's scientific case

00:21:56 Craig - "I'm ruling out classes of models"

00:26:33 Exceptions to the BGV theorem

00:29:22 Do theories of time make a difference?

00:42:28 Inference to the best explanation and low probability

00:51:25 Craig's inconsistency: temporally finite models of the universe

00:59:18 Why we need a quantum theory of gravity

01:12:04 The emergence of spacetime

David Enoch and Lance Bush face off over the question of whether objective moral truths exist. They debate the intuitiveness of moral realism, whether most people are moral realists, question-begging, radical skepticism, and much else besides.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:38 David's opening statement

00:13:21 Lance's opening statement

00:26:05 "I don't give a damn if most people aren't moral realists"

00:31:59 Who is begging the question on whom?

00:35:55 Is realism the intuitive position?

00:40:35 Is Lance a radical skeptic?

00:43:39 Realists misattribute metaethical claims to most people

00:57:48 "People in general are idiots"

01:02:06 Does ordinary moral discourse support realism?

01:10:42 What are the costs of realism and anti-realism?

01:18:15 On the strengths and weaknesses of analytic philosophy

01:22:33 What do you mean when you say something is “wrong,” Lance?

Joshua Rasmussen explains his cosmological argument for God's existence: the existence of contingent things requires an explanation, and God fits the bill. Roughly stated, for sure, but that's the idea.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:57 Why the question matters

00:10:29 Is ultimate reality beyond logic?

00:14:55 Contingent vs. necessary things

00:20:44 Stage #1 - From contingent things to a necessary being

00:26:38 What is an "explanation"?

00:36:23 Why should there be an explanation of all contingent things?

00:47:37 Should we trust what intuition tells us?

00:55:56 Conflicting empirical generalizations - a la Joe Schmid

01:04:04 Stage #2 - From a necessary being to God

01:12:52 Even a limitless God requires explanation

01:23:37 Graham Oppy's necessary initial state of nature

William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher and apologist, returns to the channel to defend his use of cosmology in support of the kalam cosmological argument. In particular, we focus on recent critiques of his work from Daniel Linford, Phil Halper, Niayesh Afshordi, and others.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you're awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00 Introduction

00:06 Craig's case for a cosmic beginning

02:55 "We don't have a quantum theory of gravity"

09:24 Has Craig misunderstood probabilities?

15:44 Can you give a parody argument against a beginning?

20:23 Finite past vs. beginning to exist

24:08 The emergence of spacetime

28:05 The Malament-Manchak theorem

35:42 The BGV theorem and its limits

42:08 The generalized second law of thermodynamics

44:26 Sean Carroll's model of an eternal universe

47:58 Why don't all cosmologists agree about a beginning?

50:39 Does your scientific case require your philosophical case?

Robyn Faith Walsh, professor of New Testament at the University of Miami, discusses how people in antiquity would have understood the concept of "resurrection", whether Jesus or Paul was the true founder of Christianity and what Paul meant when he said that we will be raised with "spiritual bodies", and what facts the historian can establish concerning the events before and after Jesus' death.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:07 Can historians verify miracles?

00:06:37 Did the ancients take their myths literally?

00:08:31 What did Paul think about the resurrection?

00:19:22 Did Paul preach a spiritual resurrection?

00:25:56 Do historians take the case for the resurrection seriously?

00:44:18 Fact #1: Was Jesus crucified?

00:46:56 Fact #2: Was Jesus buried in a tomb?

00:52:10 Fact #3: Was Jesus' tomb found empty?

00:54:35 Fact #4: Did Jesus' followers report appearances of Jesus alive?

01:00:00 Fact #5: The origin of the Christian faith

01:06:07 Was Paul the real founder of Christianity?

01:08:00 How to be objective when studying Jesus

Alex Malpass and I sit down to hash out our differences surrounding the fine-tuning argument for theism. The debate is a veritable blood bath of ruthless repartee and, at times, intellectual genius - and we hope you enjoy.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction00:00:36 Miles's opening statement00:06:56 Alex's opening statement00:19:36 Does the stalking-horse objection prove too much?00:31:11 Can you prove aliens didn't raise Jesus from the dead?00:46:03 Is theism more likely than augmented naturalism?00:55:53 What if our universe is a computer simulation?00:57:11 Even an omnipotent God couldn't make belief rational.01:00:00 "I don't think you're an idiot, Alex!"01:03:05 Is theism a simple hypothesis?01:15:00 Miles's closing statement01:17:48 Alex's closing statement

Michael Huemer returns to the channel to answer YOUR best objections to his case for free will. While I originally styled this as a "bonus" episode, it is not a bonus. It's the main weekly thing. Forgive me. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

Check out our original discussion about free will.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:21 Objection #1 - You've got the wrong definition of "free will".

00:03:10 Objection #2 - Free will is incoherent.

00:07:48 Objection #3 - Free will leads to an infinite regress.

00:09:06 Objection #4 - Philosophers can't agree on what "free will" even means.

00:13:38 Objection #5 - Mike's argument is question-begging.

With the gracious hosting of Amos Wollen, myself and Noah McKay debated Alex Malpass and Nathan Bray on the question of God's existence - specifically, theism versus naturalism. Noah and I defended theism via appeal to a historical case for miracles and the fine-tuning of the universe for life. Alex and Nathan contended that theism was no better an explanation for these phenomena than naturalism, and that because naturalism is simpler than theism then, all thing being equal, we ought to prefer it to theism. This was an exciting, substantive exchange, and I hope you like it.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

01:50 Miles's opening statement

07:15 Noah's opening statement

13:29 Nathan's opening statement

19:28 Alex's opening statement

25:58 Cross-examining Miles

46:39 Cross-examining Noah

01:06:48 Cross-examining Nathan

01:27:09 Cross-examining Alex

01:47:12 Closing statements