Majesty of Reason Philosophy Podcast

Is God’s comprehensive foreknowledge of the future incompatible with free will? Let’s see where reason takes us.   Here’s another argument that I didn’t cover in the video but which will be of interest to y’all:   (1) It is not under your control that God believed 1000 years ago that each of your actions would occur.  (2) Necessarily, if God believed 1000 years ago that each of your actions would occur, then each of your actions occur.  (3) If P necessarily entails Q, and P is not under your control, then Q is not under your control.  (4) So, the occurrence of each of your actions is not under your control.  (5) If (4), then you are not free.  (6) So, you are not free.   This argument is interesting. I would probably challenge premise (1). It is precisely because you are free in each of your actions that you are in control of past facts specifying what your free actions will be. In other words, while you don’t cause the past to be how it is, there’s a kind of counterfactual dependence of the past on your choices: had you chosen A instead of B, God would have foreknown that you chose A. Here’s another example. Presumably, it was true before you were born that you would read this sentence today. And — by the same kind of reasoning that would presumably motivate (1) — this truth is not under your control (since you didn’t even exist to causally influence the past). And, moreover, this truth necessarily entails that you do in fact read this sentence today. So, it would follow from all of this that you are not free in reading this sentence! And we didn’t even need to invoke God’s foreknowledge here. All we needed was a truth prior to your birth.   Surely, then, the argument has gone wrong somewhere. I suggest — as I did in the case of the foreknowledge argument — that it’s simply false that you have no control over truths prior to your birth. Rather, it is precisely because you are free and in control of your present actions that you thereby have control over truths prior to your birth. The explanation of your actions doesn’t flow from the past truth to your actions; rather, it’s the opposite. Your actions explain the past truth. Don’t put the cart before the horse.   Website: https://www.majestyofreason.wordpress...   Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

How do we facilitate the flow of insights across ideological barriers? How do we have productive, loving dialogue? Is there such a thing as rational disagreement, and (if so) how should we respond to it? What are some neglected intellectual virtues?   Today I'm joined by Dr. Josh Rasmussen to discuss these questions and more. Warning: this episode is amazing.   Outline   1. Productive and loving dialogue across ideological barriers  2. The nature of rational disagreement  3. Extra-rational barriers to belief  4. Intellectual virtues  5. The tension between maximizing true beliefs and minimizing false beliefs   Links  Josh's website: https://joshualrasmussen.com/ Josh's youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXVv...   My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/   My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Can the God of classical theism extrinsically change? If not, does this pose problems for classical theism? Dr. Ryan Mullins joins me for an illuminating discussion on these (and many more) questions.   Outline   1. Defining terms (classical theism, relation (medieval and contemporary understandings), real/logical relations, intrinsic/extrinsic properties, extrinsic change)  2. Can the God of classical theism extrinsically change? Hear what scholars (new and old) have to say on extrinsic change, the No Real Relations Doctrine, Divine Timelessness, and much more. Among such scholars are: Paul Helm, Bill Craig, JP Moreland, Lombard, Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, and Anselm.  -----2.1 Zimmerman & Chisholm on Anselm and Cambridge change  -----2.2 Extrinsic change entails temporality  3. Does denial of extrinsic change pose problems for classical theism?  -----3.1 Relational (accidental) properties like Lord, Redeemer, Creator  -----3.2 The tension between (i) timelessness & (ii) omniscience and presentism -----3.3 Impossibility of God’s being in a personal relationship with you  -----3.4 Incarnation   Curious to learn more about our work? Check these out:   Reluctant Theologian Podcast: https://www.rtmullins.com/podcast   Ryan's book on timelessness: https://www.amazon.com/Timeless-Oxfor...   Joe's book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...   Joe's website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/  * No, I'm not Dr. Schmid. Please don't sue me. It's a meme, bruv! In all likelihood, I'll be Dr. Schmid in about 8(ish) years. Stay tuned!

Cosmological arguments aim to arrive at some uncaused cause or necessary being. But why think this necessary being is God?  In this episode, we explore some potential paths.  Buckle up for some philosophy.   Here's the Pruss-Koons paper we referenced: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.100...    Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason... Website: https://www.majestyofreason.wordpress...

Isn’t Neo-classical theism silly? Not so fast. In this video, Dr. Ryan Mullins, Micah Edvenson, and I discuss prominent classical theist objections to Neo-classical theism (“Theistic Personalism” as some folk call it).   Here are the criticisms we cover: 1. Prisoner of Time objection (against Divine temporality)  2. Aseity entails DDS  3. Composition entails causal dependence              3a. The argument from this-such-ness (Nemes, Vallicella)               3b. Feser’s Neo-Platonic proof                 3c. Thomistic essence-existence argument  4. Neo-CT entails God is a creature              4a. Anthropomorphism  5. Biblical arguments for CT  6. Simplicity is necessary to rule out polytheism (Feser)  7. Platonic argument from perfection  8. Problems for passibility               8a. Horny God objection                8b. Interminable suffering and hell Abbreviation key:   CT: Classical Theism  Neo-CT: Neo-Classical Theism  DDS: Doctrine of Divine Simplicity   Curious to learn more about CT, Neo-CT, and the work of those features in the discussion? Check these out:   Ryan’s podcast: https://www.rtmullins.com/podcast   Micah’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5PC...   My blog post on CT: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...   My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...   Here’s a special link to our show notes:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/19...

Can there be infinite regresses of causes? Can infinity be traversed? Is infinity even coherent?  Buckle up for an infinitely edifying video.   Outline of topics covered:   1. What is a paradox? What is infinity?  2. Grim Reaper supertask  3. Paper Passers and beginningless past  4. Ross' Urn  5. Infinite Fair Lottery  6. Hilbert's Hotel  7. Vicious circularity and infinite regresses  8. Potential Solutions  9. Implications (God's existence)   Curious to learn more? Check out my book and website!   Website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/   Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Steven Nemes joins me for a cordial discussion on a potential path from contingent being to the God of classical theism.   ~  I wish to add some clarifications on my response near the end of the video, as I could have been clearer concerning the thrust of my response. Steven's argument against the (live epistemic) possibility of a composite necessary being roughly proceeded as follows:   Composite beings are always a mixture of two distinct principles: a principle of intelligibility (which is, of itself, universal and not tied down to any concrete particular) and a principle of individuation (which is, of itself, particular and indeterminate). Because neither of the two principles demand that they be combined with one another, there must be some extrinsic cause or principle which accounts for their unity. I have three primary responses to this that I did not sufficiently disentangle in the video:   (1) In the case of a metaphysically necessary being (e.g. the neo-classical theistic God of Bill Craig, Ryan Mullins, and co.), it's precisely because it is a metaphysically necessary being that its principle of intelligibility and principle of individuation are necessarily conjoined or united with one another. That need not be explained in virtue of some extrinsic cause -- it's explained in virtue of the being's metaphysical necessity. We would presumably only need a causal explanation if the composite being were such that its two principles are merely contingently united. But that wouldn't be the case for a necessary composite being. And we cannot derive contingency from mere composition, since from the fact that x and y are distinct, it doesn't follow that they could come apart, or that one is accidental to the other, or that they are separable, or that they are possibly absent from reality. For instance, the properties having a radius and having a circumference are distinct but nevertheless inseparable, non-accidentally related, necessarily co-instantiated, and so on. (2) It seems question-begging to claim that ‘neither of the two principles demand that they be united with one another’. This is the very question at issue -- namely, whether there could be a being with distinct parts/principles but which is nevertheless such that its distinct principles demand that they be conjoined and necessarily instantiated in reality. (3) Not in and of itself a response to the argument, but something worth bearing in mind: the argument relies on heavy metaphysical background assumptions that many philosophers deny. Note that these considerations are NOT the end of the discussion, and that Steven himself will have responses, I'll have responses to his responses, Steven... and so on. Hopefully this gives a taste, however, of the complexities involved! ~ For Steven Nemes' work, check out his Academia page! https://fuller.academia.edu/StevenNemes For my work, check out my book and blog! Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason... Blog: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

I explain a new argument against classical theism (more specifically, the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) and rebut three objections to it. ~ Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  Blog post mentioned at the end: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

Interested in God's existence? Theism? Atheism? Thomism? Creation? Panentheism, pantheism, and Spinozism? The origin and cause of the universe? Russelian monism? Causal finitism? We have just the discussion for you.   Thanks to Dr. Felipe Leon and Micah Edvenson (from Crusade Against Ignorance channel) for joining me to discuss Felipe's argument from material causality against creation ex nihilo. IMPORTANT NOTE:  Near the beginning of the video, Felipe used the term 'classical theism' to describe people like Plantinga, Swinburne, and co. This is an incorrect usage of the term. But this is a mere terminological issue. He means 'traditional theists' or 'orthodox monotheism'. He doesn't mean to pick out the Big Four attributes characterizing classical theism: immutability, simplicity, impassibility, and timelessness. He just means that the theists to which he refers affirm the omni attributes, monotheism, God's perfection, God's necessity, and God's causally originating and sustaining the universe ex nihilo. An alternative understanding of the term doesn't warrant not listening. It was a wonderful conversation. Also, his target is ex nihilo creation. It's "classical theism*cvc*", i.e. classical theism plus classical view of creation. So, it doesn't really matter (in the present context) whether or not he gets immutability, timelessness, and so on correct. What matters is his characterization of ex nihilo creation, since that's his target. So, pointing out a misapplication of 'classical theism' with respect to something other than creatio ex nihilo is not quite relevant. His target is any view according to which there is creation ex nihilo. The specifics about the Divine nature are tangential. I do want to stress, of course, that I disagreed with Felipe's use of 'classical theism'. Classical theism, as I use it, is meant to expressly pick out orthodox monotheism plus the Big Four: immutability, simplicity, timelessness, and impassibility. I would have preferred that he used 'orthodox monotheism' or 'traditional theism'. But the reason I didn't dwell on it or correct it in the dialogue was because (i) it's a terminological issue, and more importantly, (ii) it is irrelevant to his argument, since his argument has nothing to do with the Big Four but is instead aimed at ex nihilo creation. Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Why does anything exist? Is there something that necessarily exists? If so, what is its nature?  Today I discuss Dr. Josh Rasmussen's Philosophy Compass article "Cosmological Arguments from Contingency".   ~ Article: https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpr... Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason... Website: www.majestyofreason.wordpress.com/