Uploaded September 2023 | Updated September 2026, 49 minutes ago
Alex Strasser and John Buck debate the merits of finite theism, the view that God is limited in power. Theistic finitism is less vulnerable to the problem of evil than perfect being theism, but are there other trade-offs that make the notion of a finite God less defensible overall?
John is defending the view that strong versions of omnipotence avoid problems of vagueness, arbitrariness, ad hocness, lack of predictive power, and complexity that limited models of God suffer from. John also thinks that a new problem of evil arises that is particular only to limited views of God.
Alex will give a cosmological argument and fine-tuning argument for finite theism, and further argue that omni-theism is not a fruitful research program due to serious issues with coherence and the analysis of omni-properties. Theistic finitism is rarely discussed in the philosophy of religion, and Alex wants to invite us to take finite theism more seriously and to investigate it carefully.
Summary of theistic finitism: britannica.com/topic/theism/The-idea-of-a-finite-God
Previous limited god debate: youtu.be/K8f5gensQF0?si=SjGkdvxlaWH01MVs
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
03:41 John's Opening
22:00 Alex's Opening
39:16 Problem of Evil
1:02:51 God's Power
1:16:26 Miracles & the Bible
1:22:22 Simplicity as a Theoretical Virtue
1:29:53 Fine-tuning Redux
1:55:19 Biblical & Theological Constraints
2:03:30 Necessity
2:06:30 Worship & Hell
2:17:46 Parting Thoughts
Alex Strasser and John Buck debate the merits of finite theism, the view that God is limited in power. Theistic finitism is less vulnerable to the problem of evil than perfect being theism, but are there other trade-offs that make the notion of a finite God less defensible overall?
John is defending the view that strong versions of omnipotence avoid problems of vagueness, arbitrariness, ad hocness, lack of predictive power, and complexity that limited models of God suffer from. John also thinks that a new problem of evil arises that is particular only to limited views of God.
Alex will give a cosmological argument and fine-tuning argument for finite theism, and further argue that omni-theism is not a fruitful research program due to serious issues with coherence and the analysis of omni-properties. Theistic finitism is rarely discussed in the philosophy of religion, and Alex wants to invite us to take finite theism more seriously and to investigate it carefully.
Summary of theistic finitism: britannica.com/topic/theism/The-idea-of-a-finite-God
Previous limited god debate: youtu.be/K8f5gensQF0?si=SjGkdvxlaWH01MVs
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
03:41 John's Opening
22:00 Alex's Opening
39:16 Problem of Evil
1:02:51 God's Power
1:16:26 Miracles & the Bible
1:22:22 Simplicity as a Theoretical Virtue
1:29:53 Fine-tuning Redux
1:55:19 Biblical & Theological Constraints
2:03:30 Necessity
2:06:30 Worship & Hell
2:17:46 Parting Thoughts
![Why I dont care about logical fallacies [Full Podcast Episode]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p4wDWMzvkA0/mqdefault.jpg "Why I dont care about logical fallacies [Full Podcast Episode]
Take a look at nearly any book on critical thinking and you’ll come across a list of fallacies: ad hominem, argument from ignorance, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, post hoc ergo propter hoc, god of the gaps, and so on. The problem is that many of these “fallacies” closely resemble good lines of reasoning. Overreliance on fallacy lists – common practice in the skeptic community – fosters shallow criticism, distracts from the substance of an issue, and doesn’t even accomplish the ostensible purpose of demarcating good and bad reasoning.
I’m hard on skeptics in this episode, but that’s because I used to lean on this crutch myself. Over time, the usefulness of this approach struck me as less and less credible, and talk about fallacies tapered off. Fortunately, philosophers like Maarten Boudry and Michael Huemer, whose work you can find below, explained in clear terms what is so unhelpful about this mode of thinking. “Fallacy theory,” as Boudry calls it, is only one feature of a shallow, facile mode of philosophizing, one which isn’t very conducive to a genuine search for truth. I would suggest that one way of improving the quality of our discourse would be to lay off the fallacy accusations a bit. It would lead to a more fruitful search for knowledge and understanding.
After the first five minutes or so of big picture criticism, the bulk of the episode is dedicated to concrete examples, focusing on the ad hominem fallacy, ad populum, “correlation does not imply causation” – the post hoc ergo propter hoc (or cum hoc) fallacy – and begging the question.
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
The Fallacy Fork: Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory - Maarten Boudry https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html
Playing Fallacy “Gotcha!” - Maarten Boudry https://maartenboudry.be/2018/01/playing-fallacy-gotcha.html
Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy - Michael Huemer https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Reality-Value-Mostly-Philosophy/dp/B091F5QTDS
The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life - Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci https://philpapers.org/rec/BOUTFT
Twitter @waldenpod
Transcript https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/04/21/logical-fallacies/
/ Counter Apologetics /
Consider supporting at https://www.patreon.com/counter
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0xp05xgyg04BWh0U1tCZ0z
/ Walden Pod /
Consider supporting at https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5It3kjkrB9CTDen1Sx3aGl?si=fZ6MENZ4TdSLDPLAJ_6dAA&nd=1
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Introduction & the Big Picture
05:31 Post hoc ergo propter hoc
07:36 ad hominem
16:36 ad populum
19:19 Begging the question
23:27 Conclusion")
