Counter Apologetics

Emerson Green defends the motion “God probably does not exist” against John Buck. Moderated by the Non-Alchemist. YouTube: A Catholic and an Atheism Debate God and Religion Transcript of Emerson’s opening statement Follow John on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/WriterJohnBuck & Emerson here: https://twitter.com/waldenpod Support the podcast at patreon.com/counter linktr.ee/emersongreen Roadmap: Introduction (2 min) John’s Opening Statement (20 min) First Cross-Examination (5 min) Emerson’s Opening Statement (20 min) Second Cross-Exam (5 min) John’s Rebuttal (12 min) Emerson’s Rebuttal (12 min) John’s Closing Statement (5 min) Emerson’s Closing Statement (5 min) Audience Q&A

There are many famous examples of unintelligent design in nature, but what about malevolent design? Some natural systems are aimed at producing suffering: they cause suffering by acting in accordance with their natural purpose, function, or design plan. Why would we infer a benevolent, omnipotent designer from malevolent design? The fact that predation – a striking example of teleological evil – is a prominent feature of the biological order is very surprising on theism. Predation isn’t a feature of the biological order because animals are acting against their design plan – exactly the opposite. The fact that animals must savagely kill and devour each other in order to survive is strong evidence against the hypothesis that nature was designed, directly or indirectly, by an unsurpassably great being of perfect love and goodness. The Problem of Teleological Evil – Felipe Leon [exapologist] An Atheological Argument from Evil Natural Laws – Quentin Smith [infidels] Justin Schieber of Real Atheology interviews Quentin Smith (2017) [YouTube] 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

Here’s my appearance on Dry Apologist’s channel. We discuss arguments from evil, theodicies, and answer questions from the audience. The interview: https://youtu.be/WEBSV1HF9sE Linktree

We conclude our Devil’s Advocate series with religious experience, a summary of the arguments we’ve discussed, and why I’m still an atheist. I also offer a few thoughts on the debate between atheists and theists. The Full Series Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Subscribe on YouTube Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

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