Original video on YouTube – From YEC to Atheist My Channel Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

I argue that the notion of eternal conscious torment (ECT) leads to absurdities, and that theists can easily avoid these absurdities by abandoning ECT. For example, a believer in ECT must defend the following proposition: “A perfectly good, merciful, just, and loving God superintends the eternal conscious torment of human beings.” This proposition is incoherent simply in virtue of the meaning of those words. (The word “superintend” implies responsibility without suggesting that God is directly involved in the minutia of operations.) If a being oversees the eternal torment of humans, that being is not perfectly loving, good, merciful, or just. But these divine attributes are far more central to theism than ECT. Since ECT leads to conflicts with core aspects of theism, and since ECT is not itself a core aspect of theism, theists should not believe ECT. So, either God doesn’t exist, and there isn’t anything to worry about; or God exists, and we shouldn’t fear eternal conscious torment precisely because the God of theism exists. If God’s nature is anything like theists have traditionally affirmed – good, merciful, just, and loving – eternal conscious torment is not a feature of the world. Whether atheists or theists are right, there is no reason to be afraid of eternal conscious torment. YouTube Support on Patreon here Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Glenn Peoples vs. Ben Watkins on Hell, Annihilationism, and Universalism Ben Watkins – Brief on Hell  Transcript  Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. linktr.ee/emersongreen

Arguments from contingency are widely considered to be among the strongest offered in defense of God. The results of the 2020 PhilPapers Survey have cosmological arguments ranked as the strongest family of arguments for theism. So why don’t I spend more time worrying about cosmological and contingency arguments? Even those unfamiliar with cosmological arguments will have encountered the perennial “Why is there something rather than nothing” out in the wild. If a theist wants to know why there is something rather than nothing, then, for the sake of argument, I’ll say that however they explain the existence of God, that’s how I explain the existence of nature. YouTube Support on Patreon Philip Goff – responding to Joanna Leidenhag Graham Oppy – An argument for atheism from naturalism Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Transcript (w/ links & references) Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. linktr.ee/emersongreen

Naturalists, according to David Papinau, author of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on naturalism, urge “that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’.” Naturalism “has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy” beyond this, along with an emphasis on science as a means to understand the natural world. Naturalism is the view that there is only the natural world. I defend this simple conception of naturalism, ward off a few criticisms, and argue that there’s a kind of parity between the terms “theism” and “naturalism.” In other words, if you don’t have a problem with the term “theism,” you shouldn’t have a problem with “naturalism.” Originally posted on Walden Pod – subscribe here watch the video here Luke Roelofs – Combining Minds: How to Think about Composite Subjectivity Is God the Best Explanation of Things? A Dialogue – Joshua Rasmussen & Felipe Leon (this wasn’t mentioned in the episode, but Leon does a wonderful job fleshing out “liberal naturalism” Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God Sean Carroll – Poetic Naturalism Galen Strawson – Real Naturalism William Lycan – Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction Naturalism – SEP / / / linktr.ee/emersongreen YouTube Transcript  Rate the show on iTunes Support on Patreon here Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism / / / a few elaborations of naturalism… “By ‘naturalism’ I mean the view that the world contains a single basic type of stuff, whose behavior is governed by a single set of simple, general laws, and that these laws are those revealed by science. The most common version of naturalism among contemporary philosophers is physicalism, the view that the world is entirely made up of matter, and matter is exhaustively described by physics. But some philosophers reject physicalism, even while accepting naturalism, holding that matter is not exhaustively described by physics—there are fundamental aspects of matter that physics is blind to. In particular (they tend to say), there are certain things each of us can know about matter, such as that one particular portion of matter (the one between our ears) sometimes feels and thinks and experiences, which go beyond both what physics itself says and what can be deduced from any physical description, no matter how detailed. Because facts about my consciousness are left out by any purely physical descriptions, these ‘naturalistic anti-physicalists’ infer that consciousness must be itself a fundamental feature of reality, no more derivable from physical properties than mass is derivable from charge.” Luke Roelofs “Naturalism is a philosophy according to which there is only one world — the natural world, which exhibits unbroken patterns (the laws of nature), and which we can learn about through hypothesis testing and observation. In particular, there is no supernatural world — no gods, no spirits, no transcendent meanings. I like to talk about a particular approach to naturalism, which can be thought of as Poetic. By that I mean to emphasize that, while there is only one world, there are many ways of talking about the world. “Ways of talking” shouldn’t be underestimated; they can otherwise be labeled “theories” or “models” or “vocabularies” or “stories,” and if a particular way of talking turns out to be sufficiently accurate and useful, the elements in its corresponding vocabulary deserve to be called real.” Sean Carroll “Naturalism says that causal reality is natural reality: the domain of causes is nothing more nor less than the natural world. Atheism says that there are no gods; in consequence, atheism says that there is no God. Naturalism entails atheism: if causal reality is natural reality, then there is no (supernatural) cause of natural reality, and, in particular, there is no God. But atheism does not entail naturalism: to deny that there are gods is not to insist that causal reality is natural reality. . . . Supernaturalism says that causal reality outstrips natural reality: there are supernatural causes. . . . This ‘minimal’ conception of naturalism relies on a prior understanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural (as did our ‘minimal’ conception of theism). We shall proceed on the assumption that we do understand this distinction well enough. If we come to have doubts about whether we do understand this distinction well enough, then we can return to give it more careful consideration. ‘Minimal naturalism’ admits of elaboration in many different – mutually inconsistent – ways. Any suitably elaborated naturalism will hold that some features of the natural world are primitive – not susceptible of further explanation – whereas other features of the natural world are fully explained in terms of those primitive features. Thus, for example, some naturalists suppose that all of the primitive features of the natural world are physical features – i.e. features that lie in the proper domain of the discipline of physics. Other naturalists suppose that there are features of the natural world . . . that cannot be fully explained in terms of the fundamental physical properties. The key point to note is that all naturalists suppose that there are no supernatural causal properties…” Graham Oppy

The Discovery Institute, an ID thinktank, has a list of “Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.” On this list is an article authored by Michael Behe, alleging to prove the irreducible complexity of certain protein binding sites. However, his experiment demonstrated the exact opposite point as intended. He had to rig his study to an incredible degree, only to fall short nonetheless. Watch it on YouTube here: Intelligent Design Theorist Accidentally Produces Scientific Evidence Against Intelligent Design Behe’s article, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues” For more on intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and evolutionary biology, check out my Biology and Design playlist Rate the show on iTunes! Support on Patreon here Transcript  Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. linktr.ee/emersongreen

watch the video version here Support at patreon.com/counter or /waldenpod Follow on Twitter @waldenpod Transcript  Linktree Answers in Reason – Ten Questions for Theists Braxton Hunter – Ten Questions for Atheists my responses to Braxton and here are links to a few of the arguments I mentioned in Question 7: Schellenberg’s argument from hiddenness Rowe’s evidential argument from evil the meager moral fruits of theism teleological evil Draper’s biological role of pain and pleasure argument the problem of heaven Oppy’s argument from naturalism

We’ll be exploring what the discovery of evolution potentially means for religion. Is evolution evidence against theism? If so, why? Is it incompatible with Christianity, as some Christians maintain? What is the conceptual landscape vis-à-vis evolution and theism—as in, what is the range of potential options available to a religious believer when it comes to evolution? We also briefly discuss evolutionary evil as evidence against God’s existence, and argue that the acceptance of evolution does not dissolve all the problems that arise between evolution and theism. Accepting evolution doesn’t mean you’re off the hook. linktr.ee/emersongreen YouTube Transcript (and further links) Support the Show Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Joe Schmid & Micah Edvenson on Evolutionary Evil Joe Schmid & Non-Alchemist on Evolutionary Evil

Human beings seem cosmically unimportant. Though certainly from God’s perspective, we are more important than stars, rocks, vast stretches of empty space and time, and other things that don’t seem to possess any value in and of themselves, the latter group seems to have been afforded the lion’s share of the cosmos. Human beings, presumably the jewel of God’s creation, don’t seem to be the main event. So, does this favor naturalism or theism? Is the unimaginable vastness of time and space, and the lack of human centrality therein more probable on naturalism, or on theism? If the universe is indifferent to human life, it’s no surprise that humans seem cosmically unimportant, not occupying a position of centrality or significance in an incomprehensibly vast ocean of space. The reality of our situation is sharply contrasted with the one our ancestors imagined themselves to be in. As William Lane Craig put it, “on the cozy, pre-Copernican cosmology—what C. S. Lewis called ‘the discarded image’ of the cosmos—theism seemed vastly more probable than atheism. Like a Fabergé egg, the little universe centered on the Earth, with the spheres of the planets and fixed stars revolving about it, cried out for an explanation in terms of a Cosmic Designer.” We also discuss the “symmetry of evidence” and get a bit into the weeds of Bayes’ theorem. linktr.ee/emersongreen Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here YouTube Transcript Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. / / /  On likelihoodism observation O is evidence for hypothesis H over ¬H iff P(O|H) > P(O|¬H).  Since P(O|H) + P(¬O|H) = 1 and P(O|¬H) + P(¬O|¬H) = 1, we can insert it into the prior formula to get an interesting result: 1 – P(¬O|H) > 1 – P(¬O|¬H) P(¬O|¬H) > P(¬O|H) So, in English, O is evidence for H over ¬H iff ¬O is evidence for ¬H over H. The means that you can have evidence for a hypothesis iff you can have evidence against a hypothesis. Two other ways of expressing the same point that “O is evidence for H over ¬H iff ¬O is evidence for ¬H over H”: P(h|e) > P(h) iff P(h|~e) < P(h) E being evidence for H entails that ~E is evidence for ~H Read more here from Hugh Jidiette or here from Michael Huemer William Lane Craig – Does the Vastness of the Universe Support Naturalism? Emily Thomas – Does the size of the universe prove God doesn’t exist? Carl Sagan – The Cosmic Calendar After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right – NYT New Scientist – Vatican admits Galileo was right Arguments from Scale – Tim Mulgan

Today, I’m speaking with The Non-Alchemist about the trials and tribulations of deconversion, reasons for being an atheist, lacktheism, Calvinism, Christian double-standards regarding testimonial evidence, the state of apologetics, what stuff is real, and more. Here’s this interview on YouTube with video (this episode was recorded on Streamyard and originally posted on YouTube). NA’s channel Emerson’s appearance on NA’s channel Follow us @waldenpod and @AlchemistNon Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here Linktree

Here’s my debate with Zac of Adherent Apologetics on the problem of evil, hosted by the Non–Alchemist. I focus on the problem of animal suffering and defend an argument called the teleological argument from evil. Video of the debate here linktr.ee/emersongreen Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here YouTube emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod