I recently participated in a “devil’s advocate” debate on God’s existence. Today, we continue to take a closer look at the arguments I raised. We discuss the common consent argument, epistemic authorities, soteriology, universalism, eternal conscious torment, religious diversity, and divine hiddenness. This is part two of a three-part series. The full series is available now for patrons AND on YouTube for subscribers to the channel: https://youtu.be/qzV3E5NcDTA 00:00 Introduction & the argument from widespread theistic belief 11:00 The consensus of experts 15:57 Religious disagreement (diversity, discord, confusion, etc.) 37:06 Divine Hiddenness 47:02 A few more thoughts on religious disagreement 52:03 The value of disagreement 55:33 Final Thoughts Support the show on Patreon Subscribe on YouTube Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Transcript of my Opening Statement Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

I recently participated in a “devil’s advocate” debate on God’s existence. Today, we take a closer look at the arguments I raised. We talk about the general approach of building a cumulative case for naturalism and theism, the argument from the existence of consciousness, and the argument from psychophysical harmony. This is part one of a three-part series. The full series is available now for patrons AND on YouTube for subscribers to the channel: https://youtu.be/qzV3E5NcDTA 00:00 Introduction 01:08 Models of God 03:19 Methodology 08:27 The Existence of Consciousness – Is this understated evidence? 21:49 Psychophysical Harmony 33:17 Final Thoughts Subscribe on YouTube Support the show on Patreon Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Transcript of my Opening Statement Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

I recently participated in a “devil’s advocate” debate on God’s existence. I defended theism, and my opponent, a Catholic, defended atheism. Emerson Green vs. Kyle Alander (Christian Idealism) Transcript of Opening Statement Linktree

Dr. Dustin Crummett joins me to discuss a new argument from consciousness for theism. Though psychophysical harmony is evidence for theism, it may be equally good evidence for non-theistic hypotheses that I find interesting, like axiarchism and natural teleology. **In the initial presentation of the argument (the first ten minutes or so), we assume that epiphenomenalism—the idea that consciousness has no physical effects—is true, but this is just for convenience, as psychophysical harmony is a puzzle for all (or nearly all) metaphysical views of the mind. Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism (Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion)  Philip Goff & Joshua Rasmussen – The Nature of the Cosmic Mind  Philip Goff – Axiarchism, cosmopsychism, the fine-tuning problem (Aeon)  A Christian Philosopher Answers Common Objections to Same-Sex Marriage – Dustin Crummett  In Defense of Socialism | Dr. Dustin Crummett  Applied Ethics: Abortion & Gun Control | Dr. Dustin Crummett  dustincrummett.com /  /  / Subscribe on YouTube Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Consider supporting the show at patreon.com/counter or /waldenpod Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

Take a look at nearly any book on critical thinking and you’ll come across a list of fallacies: ad hominem, argument from ignorance, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, post hoc ergo propter hoc, god of the gaps, and so on. The problem is that many of these “fallacies” closely resemble good lines of reasoning. Overreliance on fallacy lists – common practice in the skeptic community – fosters shallow criticism, distracts from the substance of an issue, and doesn’t even accomplish the ostensible purpose of demarcating good and bad reasoning. I’m hard on skeptics in this episode, but that’s because I used to lean on this crutch myself. Over time, the usefulness of this approach struck me as less and less credible, and talk about fallacies tapered off. Fortunately, philosophers like Maarten Boudry and Michael Huemer, whose work you can find below, explained in clear terms what is so unhelpful about this mode of thinking. “Fallacy theory,” as Boudry calls it, is only one feature of a shallow, facile mode of philosophizing, one which isn’t very conducive to a genuine search for truth. I would suggest that one way of improving the quality of our discourse would be to lay off the fallacy accusations a bit. It would lead to a more fruitful search for knowledge and understanding. After the first five minutes or so of big picture criticism, the bulk of the episode is dedicated to concrete examples, focusing on the ad hominem fallacy, ad populum, “correlation does not imply causation” – the post hoc ergo propter hoc (or cum hoc) fallacy – and begging the question. Subscribe on YouTube The Fallacy Fork: Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory – Maarten Boudry Playing Fallacy “Gotcha!” – Maarten Boudry Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy – Michael Huemer The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life – Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci  Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Transcript Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

Jonathan MS Pearce is an author, speaker, and columnist who recently wrote an article on the meager moral fruits argument. Jonathan invited me on his YouTube channel, A Tippling Philosopher, to speak about the argument and a few common criticisms offered in response to it. We also discuss state atheism, liberalism, favorite books, and open theism. The interview on YouTube My version of the argument Jonathan’s article Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

Tarik D. LaCour is a Ph.D. student in philosophy and an M.S. student in psychology. He is a philosopher and cognitive scientist whose primary research interests are in the philosophy of psychology, cognitive science, and bioethics. He also writes about politics “from a conservative point of view,” and also on religion, from his perspective as a member of the LDS Church. Here’s an excerpt from a profile in Public Square Magazine entitled “A Latter-day Saint Empiricist”: “LaCour is a growing figure in the Latter-day Saint intellectual community, no doubt largely due to the unexpected nature of his takes on almost everything. His social media leaps from brooding observations on science and philosophy to deadpan quips about politics and sports. In fact, the way LaCour evades easy categorization is surely part of his draw. He’s pessimistic, but not cynical. He cares about social justice but frequently deviates from popular narratives. … He’s a devout member of the Church, but openly embraces scientism (his Twitter handle is @realscientistic).” Tarik and I discuss the LDS worldview and how it differs from other forms of Christianity. Mormons have deep disagreements with other Christians about the nature of God, soteriology, the afterlife, and much else. Further, these differences may provide philosophical advantages that favor Mormonism relative to other versions of Christianity. Tarik and I also discuss his scientism, empiricism, and eliminativism, and how these views intersect with his Mormonism. Watch on YouTube here The Scientistic Stance  Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod A few thoughts on Mormonism linktr.ee/emersongreen

Does Christianity bear the kind of fruit one might expect if it were true? Does naturalism or Christian theism better predict the moral fruits and lack thereof that we actually observe? Naturalists would expect Christianity to produce a mixed bag, like any other man-made institution. Christianity leads one to form loftier expectations. There’s much more to say about this argument than we cover today, but we manage to lay out the essential core of the argument: a Theological Premise, an Empirical Premise, and a Moral Premise. The Theological Premise is, roughly speaking, the claim that Christianity should bear appreciable moral fruit, and that Christian theism and naturalism make different predictions: they lead us to form different expectations about the world. The Empirical Premise is meant to establish some relevant fact about the world. The Moral Premise affirms a moral fact or normative judgment. We defend each of these premises and work the meager moral fruits argument into a cumulative case for naturalism. “I might believe in the Redeemer if his followers looked more redeemed.” – Nietzsche  For a discussion of Paul Draper’s original argument from meager moral fruits, see my video on Draper’s Case for Naturalism Subscribe on YouTube Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Transcript Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

I’m joined by Scott Clifton (Theoretical Bullshit) to discuss free will skepticism, compatibilism, moral responsibility, revenge, and killing coyotes. Video version – Is free will an illusion? Scott’s channel Follow me @waldenpod and TBS @TheoreticalBS Consider supporting Counter Apologetics here or Walden Pod here linktr.ee/emersongreen

For the believer who advances the argument from miracles, the question of why God won’t heal amputees can be a thorn in the side. If God is willing to perform healing miracles – miracles that should convince anyone – why hasn’t God restored the lost limbs of amputees? Consider supporting the show YouTube Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Transcript  Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here linktr.ee/emersongreen