The great, the one, the only Joseph C. Schmid returns to the podcast to offer a comprehensive reply to (almost) every objection to the fine-tuning argument for theism. Ever worried about puddles? Inverse gamblers? Stalking horses? Boltzmann Brains? Alex Malpass? Well, fear no more: we define, describe, and dispel (or defend!) all these concerns and more. Not gonna lie guys, this is one of my favorite discussions so far. Hats off to Joe for being 10/10 great.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:46:12 #1 The puddle analogy refutes the FTA

00:05:49 #2 Other forms of life are possible!

00:08:58 #3 The multiverse explains fine-tuning

00:53:08 #4 Electrons in love

01:16:06 #5 We couldn't have observed a non-fine-tuned universe

01:21:09 #6 Maybe the constants are metaphysical necessary!

01:33:38 #7 Our universe is hostile to life

01:42:00 #8 Alex Malpass and the stalking horse objection

01:47:54 #9 We cannot get a grip on divine psychology

Dan Linford returns to the channel to offer his reply to my recent discussion with William Lane Craig, wherein he replied to critiques of his case for a cosmic beginning. We discuss probability theory, the BGV theorem, emergence of spacetime, and the relevance of quantum gravity to our scientific inferences about a beginning of the universe.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:01:24 Craig's modest claim

00:10:27 How to calculate the probability of a conclusion

00:15:21 The probabilistic fallacy in Craig's scientific case

00:21:56 Craig - "I'm ruling out classes of models"

00:26:33 Exceptions to the BGV theorem

00:29:22 Do theories of time make a difference?

00:42:28 Inference to the best explanation and low probability

00:51:25 Craig's inconsistency: temporally finite models of the universe

00:59:18 Why we need a quantum theory of gravity

01:12:04 The emergence of spacetime

David Enoch and Lance Bush face off over the question of whether objective moral truths exist. They debate the intuitiveness of moral realism, whether most people are moral realists, question-begging, radical skepticism, and much else besides.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:38 David's opening statement

00:13:21 Lance's opening statement

00:26:05 "I don't give a damn if most people aren't moral realists"

00:31:59 Who is begging the question on whom?

00:35:55 Is realism the intuitive position?

00:40:35 Is Lance a radical skeptic?

00:43:39 Realists misattribute metaethical claims to most people

00:57:48 "People in general are idiots"

01:02:06 Does ordinary moral discourse support realism?

01:10:42 What are the costs of realism and anti-realism?

01:18:15 On the strengths and weaknesses of analytic philosophy

01:22:33 What do you mean when you say something is “wrong,” Lance?