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?

Joshua Rasmussen explains his cosmological argument for God's existence: the existence of contingent things requires an explanation, and God fits the bill. Roughly stated, for sure, but that's the idea.

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

00:00:57 Why the question matters

00:10:29 Is ultimate reality beyond logic?

00:14:55 Contingent vs. necessary things

00:20:44 Stage #1 - From contingent things to a necessary being

00:26:38 What is an "explanation"?

00:36:23 Why should there be an explanation of all contingent things?

00:47:37 Should we trust what intuition tells us?

00:55:56 Conflicting empirical generalizations - a la Joe Schmid

01:04:04 Stage #2 - From a necessary being to God

01:12:52 Even a limitless God requires explanation

01:23:37 Graham Oppy's necessary initial state of nature

William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher and apologist, returns to the channel to defend his use of cosmology in support of the kalam cosmological argument. In particular, we focus on recent critiques of his work from Daniel Linford, Phil Halper, Niayesh Afshordi, and others.

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 Introduction

00:06 Craig's case for a cosmic beginning

02:55 "We don't have a quantum theory of gravity"

09:24 Has Craig misunderstood probabilities?

15:44 Can you give a parody argument against a beginning?

20:23 Finite past vs. beginning to exist

24:08 The emergence of spacetime

28:05 The Malament-Manchak theorem

35:42 The BGV theorem and its limits

42:08 The generalized second law of thermodynamics

44:26 Sean Carroll's model of an eternal universe

47:58 Why don't all cosmologists agree about a beginning?

50:39 Does your scientific case require your philosophical case?