Swinburne is the most convincing theist I’ve read (his book The Existence of God). He does give Oppy a run for his money. Swinburne will build a cult following after his death.
Your channel has great guests, but whenever I try to watch one of the videos, I always turn it off because the audio issues make it hard for me to understand you. It's as if the start of each sentence is cut off. Seemingly, the audio quality is perfectly acceptable for many viewers. Still, for what it's worth, if you improved your audio setup, I would watch more of your videos.
Poor Richard suggests his view is simpler because his god has only one property... omnipotence, which is, of course, infinite and hence hardly one property but every property. Not so simple it seems. Laplace and Ockham win again.
It would be more accurate to focus on Consciousness which is described as ‘the hard problem’ today in philosophy. In the East the definition of God is: Consciousness; Existence; Bliss. As humans we share in the Consciousness and in the Existence but unfortunately, so far, not in the Bliss. That may have to wait for an afterlife, although from the experience of the Saints maybe Bliss is attainable here also if we reign in or egos and align ourselves with Reality. The assumption that Reality (all that exists) ultimately is God: everywhere, all-knowing; all powerful, would bring the idea of God as abstract (transcendent) but also immanent as God could be both; not being confined to either/or.
Mr. Lance repeats over and over again that the stance independence of moral facts is "gibberish" without adequately explaining himself. Dr. Samson repeatedly answered Lance's concerns, to no avail. This is a clear instance of the invincible ignorance fallacy. Lance seems not to be aware that he commits this fallacy over and over again, and that it becomes quite tedious by the end of the episode.
Wow, this is possibly the weakest argument for moral realism I've ever heard. If you strip out Lance and just listen to Eric I would have thought he was an anti-realist making a bad strawman...
U = finely tuned universe D = intelligent design A = additional hypothesis about the designer (the "rigging" part) The posterior probability that intelligent design be true given the finely tuned universe is equal to : P(D|U) = P(U|D)P(D)/P(U) = P(U&D)/P(U) And The posterior probability that intelligent design & additional hypothesis about the designer be true given the finely tuned universe is equal to : P(D&A|U) = P(U|D&A)P(D&A)/P(U) = P(U&D&A)/P(U) The theist wants to defend that rigging the intelligent design hypothesis (D&A) so that it increases the likelihood of the data given the hypothesis, does not correspond to an equivalent decrease in the prior probability of the D&A hypothesis, and therefore that the new posterior P(D&A|U) is superior to the old one P(D|U). To check that we check that the ratio of posterior probabilities between the new (D&A) and old (D) hypotheses is superior to one... The ratio of posteriors is equal to : P(D&A|U)/P(D|U) = P(U&D&A)/P(U&D) = P(A|U&D) The ratio of posteriors is superior to one when P(A|U&D) > 1 Which is impossible, since a probability is never > 1. Therefore the posterior probability of a new, rigged hypothesis can never be greater than the posterior probability of the old hypothesis.
Inwagen is wrong about Chomsky. Chomsky is libertarian. He stated billions of times that the decision is independent of internal and external states. Inwagen and his stupid classification that reformulated the historical dispute, confuses him. I mean to say that Chomsky is compatibilist is the dumbest straw mann ever.
Im surprised that Detroyer has gotten hundreds of academics on his show but not philosophers like Kastrup or Garfield, which are comparatively bigger "gets"
really enjoyed this but his take on fodors criticism of evolution is childish. It wasn't a response to insist he was senile, maybe that was true but how exactly was he wrong? I'd love to see a good critique of the argument, but it's often not understood or just dismissed.
Alex laid out the grim reaper argument and around the 8 minute timestamp he said something like "now I don't know if you can point out a direct contradiction in this but ..." I think one can draw out a strict logical contradiction. If it's the case that there are an infinite amount of grim reapers that aren't allowing me to move, but it's not the case that any grim reaper will be the one that stops me from moving, then it seems like all you have to do is tie in the fact that in the former, I can't move (because there's an infinite number of these reapers making sure I don't move), and in the latter, I can move (because there is no particular grim reaper that can be the one to stop me). From there, it seems pretty trivial that we will get a statement of the form P&~P. We can even formalize it. P1) If there are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving, then I can't move. P2) There are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving. C1) Therefore, I can't move. P3) If there are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving, then I can move. P4) There are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving. C2) Therefore, I can move. So we can see the two conclusions contradict from P2 and P4. The propositions clearly contradict one another if all of them are taken to be true. Now maybe someone has a problem with P1 and/or P3, but I tried to capture what Alex was saying when giving his thought about the implications of the grim reaper paradox as he laid it out in the beginning. It seemed like he was saying that if there are an infinite number of grim reapers stopping your movement, then it trivially follows that you can't move. And conversely, it seems like a trivially true entailment that if there are no grim reapers that can be the one to stop you from moving, then you can move. So if those entailments are true, I think we can derive a contradiction from the propositions that correspond to P2 and P4: 1) There are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving. 2) There are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving. If that's not what Alex was saying then I would like to be corrected if anyone does know what he was saying. Edit: I should have waited to comment because Alex immediately went on to clear up my confusion 😂
"Consistency" understood syntactically is a very fragile and a very language dependent relation. Consistency understood as "truth in a possible model" sounds pretty "modal" already. "Consistency" is a modality.
A stage theorist and a worm theorist walk into a bar. "What can I get you?" asks the bartender. The stage theorist says: "Nothing for me, but someone else who looks exactly like me will have a dry martini; and nothing for the worm guy - he hasn't finished his previous drink yet"
altho I am confused about the happiness with which you react to his rejection of essentialism and possible worlds talk: textbook justification for the introduction of natural kinds was the desire to explain why references to "things" persist through re-conceptualizations, through changes of descriptions, through the scientific revolutions and periods of intellectual savagery. Without that persistence, invariance there is no such thing as scientific progress - instead of progress we simply have people talking about different things using perhaps the same world. How do you and him (seems you appear to agree on unimportance of modal characterization) explain that persistence? Scientific knowledge is the paradigm of knowledge, and one of the main , perhaps THE main reson for trusting it is that it is cumulative. Being cumulative, allowing for the notion of progress in conversation about the same topic. -as opposed to time-indexed sequence of fads - is an extremely strong requirement in itself, and for now the best explication involved modalized story about natural kinds
26:50 So Lance really said that: if I want to eat food, then I have a reason to eat food, and if there is no desire to eat food, then there is no reason to eat food?? That's just obviously false, since I can have a reason to eat food no matter if I have a desire or not. Just imagine the case where your lack of appetite is caused by using drugs or something, or after a 2 day rave on a festival. Of course you have a reason to eat food even if there is zero desire to eat food, matter of fact you might feel like having a need to puke just on the mention of food. But you do have much better reason than any other imaginable reason to eat food at the moment when there is zero desire to eat food. The reason is obviously nutritional deficiency that might put your health or life in danger. So Lance evidently didn't reason this well
This was 2 and half years ago, but it seems nothing changed with Malpass, who is stupid enough to actually make a PhD in tense logic and still doesn't understand time. Malpass works with concepts he actually doesn't understand, which we saw when Bill Craig literally raped him in the debate. I mean, how ignorant you must be to actually claim that you can get actual infinity by successive addition? Malpass doesn't get that you can't get actual infinity neither by container view of the world, nor by collection view. Incredible! Malpass is an embodiement of Dunning Krueger effect.
