Majesty of Reason Philosophy Podcast

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of doubt, Or to take Arms against a Sea of skepticism, And by opposing end it: to wager, to believe; No more; and by a belief, to say we end The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks That eternal damnation promises? Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... Outline   Introduction  Background  The Wager  Objections -----Many gods objection  -----Mixed strategies objection  -----Doxastic voluntarism -----Evidence-sensitivity and pragmatic-sensitivity  -----The gratuity of Pascal’s Wager  -----Universalism  -----Pascal’s Mugger Links  Liz’s website: http://liz-jackson.com/  Liz’s paper on Pascal’s wager: https://philpapers.org/archive/JACSPW... Liz's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/lizjacks... My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Interested in divine simplicity, divine timelessness, temporal ontology, modal collapse, and divine and human freedom? I've got just the discussion for you. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!):  https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason    If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... Ryan's link: https://www.rtmullins.com/ Kate's link: https://www.philosophy.udel.edu/facul...  My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...   My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Does contingency give us reason to believe in God? The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA) answers in the affirmative. In this video, I explain Alex Pruss’ LCA from the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.   Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!):  https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... Presentation Outline   1 Introduction  2 Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)  -----2.1 Self-evidence  -----2.2 Koons-Pruss epistemological argument  -----2.3 Evolution (Induction in science)  -----2.4 Inference to best explanation  -----2.5 Precluding chaos  -----2.6 Nature of modality ----------2.6.1 Narrowly logical account of modality  ----------2.6.2 Lewisian modal realism  ----------2.6.3 Platonic account of modality  ----------2.6.4 Aristotelian-essentialist account of modality  ----------2.6.5 Aristotelian-causal account of modality  ----------2.6.6 The argument -----2.7 Philosophical argumentation 3 Objections to PSR  -----3.1 Modal imagination argument  -----3.2 Van Inwagen’s modal fatalism argument  -----3.3 Quantum mechanics  -----3.4 Contrastive explanation 4 Global Causal Principles (CPs)  -----4.1 Objection: causing the causing  5 Toward a first cause  -----5.1 The PSR  -----5.2 Objections ----------5.2.1 Can we even form BCCF?  ----------5.2.2 HECP  ----------5.2.3 Taxicab Problem  -----5.3 CP for wholly contingent states 6 The Gap Problem  -----6.1 Agency  -----6.2 Goodness  -----6.3 Divine Simplicity?  -----6.4 Gellman’s argument for uniqueness and omnipotence Links  Pruss, “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument”: http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA....    Craig and Moreland, “The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology”: https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/u...J._P._Moreland_The_BlackwellBookZZ.org-2.pdf Baddorf, “Di

In this engaging discussion, philosopher Dr. Alex Malpass, an expert on infinity and the Grim Reaper paradox, dives into the intricacies of causal finitism and the Kalam cosmological argument. He challenges traditional views on infinite causal chains and explores various thought experiments that question their foundations. The conversation seamlessly links logical paradoxes with theological implications, particularly regarding divine knowledge and time. With a touch of whimsy, Malpass encourages listeners to reflect on the complexities of metaphysical inquiry and the limits of human understanding.

Can you prove God’s existence from your armchair? Ontological Arguments promise as much. But do they work? Today I’m joined by Dr. Tyron Goldschmidt to discuss these questions and more. Buckle up for a discussion than which no greater discussion can be conceived.   Link to our document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13... ARGUMENTS   Anselm’s OA   "GOD" = That than which a greater cannot be conceived 1. “GOD” is understood. (Premise)  2. If “GOD” is understood, GOD exists in the understanding. (Premise)  3. Even if GOD exists only in the understanding, it can be conceived to exist in reality. (Premise)  4. GOD is greater if it exists in reality than if it exists only in the understanding. (Premise)  5. It is impossible to conceive of something greater than GOD. (Premise) 6. If GOD exists in the understanding, then GOD exists only in the understanding or in the understanding and in reality. (Premise)  7. Therefore, GOD exists in the understanding. (From 1 and 2)  8. Therefore, GOD exists only in the understanding or in the understanding and in reality. (From 6 and 7) 9. Therefore, GOD can be conceived to exist in reality. (From 3 and 7)  10. Therefore, if GOD exists only in the understanding, then it is possible to conceive of something greater than GOD. (From 4 and 9)  11. Therefore, GOD does not exist only in the understanding. (From 5 and 10)  12. Therefore, GOD exists in reality. (From 8 and 11) Descartes’ OA   -----Simple reconstruction   1. A perfect being, by definition, has every perfection.  2. Existence is a perfection.  3. Therefore, a perfect being has existence (i.e., exists). -----Elaborate reconstruction   1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive (understand, apprehend) to belong to the nature or essence of a thing does belong to its nature or essence.  2. Whatever belongs to the nature or essence of a thing can be truly affirmed of that thing.  3. Therefore, whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to the nature or essence of a thing can be truly affirmed of that thing. 4. I clearly and distinctly perceive that existence belongs to the nature or essence of a supremely perfect being. 5. Therefore, existence can be truly affirmed of a supremely perfect being (i.e., a supremely perfect being exists). Plantinga’s Modal OA   1. There is some possible world where maximal greatness is instantiated. (Premise)  2. If so, then there is some world where a being has maximal excellence in every world. (Premise)  3. If there is some world where a being has maximal excellence in every world, then the being has maximal excellence in every world. (Premise) 4. If some being has maximal excellence in every world, then it is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in every world. (Premise)  5. Therefore, some being has maximal excellence in every world. (From 1-3)  6. Therefore, some being is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in every world. (From 4 and 5) 7. Therefore, some being is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in the actual world. (From 6) FURTHER READING ON OA’s: (1) Ontological Arguments (Opp

There seems to be widespread moral disagreement across cultures, societies, time periods, and even individuals. Many people think this poses a serious problem for moral realism. In this epic lecture, I evaluate a number of arguments to this effect. Presentation Outline   0 Introduction and Definitions  1 Tolerance  1.1 Conflates theoretical and practical reasons  1.2 Absurd extensions  1.3 It’s not actually intolerant  1.4 Premise (2) 1.5 Self-defeat  2 Self-evidence  2.1 Premise (2)  2.2 Premise (1)  3 Inference to the Best Explanation 3.1 Realist-friendly alternative explanations of moral disagreement  3.2 Fallacy of understated evidence  3.3 Is moral disagreement in need of explanation?  3.4 Does widespread, deep moral disagreement really exist?  3.5 Holistic explanatory assessment  3.6 Self-defeat  3.7 IBE-argument extended 3.8 Summary  4 No Method Argument  4.1 Premise (1)  4.2 Premise (2)  5 Rationally irresolvable disagreement  5.1 What is rational irresolvability?  5.2 Justification vs. dialectical efficacy  5.3 Epistemic peerhood 5.4 Why accept premise (1)?  6 Undermining realist epistemology  6.1 Knowledge doesn’t require knowledge-how  6.2 Proves too much  6.3 Not really an argument from disagreement  7 Self-defeat 8 The extent of moral disagreement  9 Moral Disagreement as evidence for realism? Enoch, David. “How is Moral Disagreement a Problem for Realism?”: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aBcq...    Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!):  https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...   My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Aquinas's Third Way aims to demonstrate God's existence. But does it succeed? Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason... Website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/ From Necessary Being to Purely Actual Being? https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

What is philosophy? What's the value of philosophy? How should we think philosophically? What are some book recommendations for philosophical reasoning? I answer these questions and more. Map of Philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxBSh... My response to Nemes: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com... My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason... My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Also known as the Argument from Motion, Aquinas's First Way aims to demonstrate God's existence. But does it succeed? Buckle up for some juicy philosophy, a (bad) Trump impression, and exciting Patreon news.   Patreon link: https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason    SLIDE CORRECTION: It's q2a3 :) Moorean Defeaters Resources   (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTsSW...   (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hCRG...   (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK46W... (4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPuE_...   (5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_lqq...   (6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX6di...   (7) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U... (8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcZFf...   (9) https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...   (10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watXa... (11a) https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com... (11b) https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com... And, of course, the usual resources... :) My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason... My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Is classical theism compatible with eternalism? Is Christianity compatible with eternalism? Does Christianity actually require eternalism, as Alex Pruss argues? Helsinki Hero Dr. Ryan Mullins joins me to discuss these questions and more. Outline below!   1. Defining terms  -----Eternalism and presenting  -----Four-dimensionalism (of which perdurantism and stage theory are versions) and endurantism  -----Classical theism and neo-classical theism  -----The method of perfect being theism  -----Christian theism 2. Classical theism and eternalism  -----Creation ex nihilo  -----Act and potency  3. Perfect being theism and eternalism  4. Christian theism and eternalism  -----Undefeated/Unredeemed evil  -----Personal identity over time and life after death  5. Christianity entails eternalism? (Alex Pruss)  -----The Christian life and Christ’s suffering  -----Salvation and the gift of grace