Majesty of Reason | Has Trent Horn Disproved Christianity? @MajestyofReason | Uploaded August 2021 | Updated October 2024, 3 hours ago.
Interested in Arguments from Motion, the Kalam, the Moral Argument, and Žižek and Swinburne impressions? I have just the video for you. Here, I respond to Trent Horn's (@TheCounselofTrent) recent case for God.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid
RESOURCES
Here's the document: drive.google.com/file/d/1cL00z0YJ4X-iTjpph6jDEXEOf9R41jIY/view?usp=sharing
"So you think you understand Existential Inertia?": majestyofreason.wordpress.com/2021/07/31/so-you-think-you-understand-existential-inertia
OUTLINE
0:00 Intro and Prelims
3:05 Trent’s Opening Statement
4:58 Argument from Change/Motion
1:30:03 Kalam
1:54:15 Moral Argument
2:07:30 Trent’s First Rebuttal
2:19:30 Trent’s Second Rebuttal
2:39:45 Conclusion
LINKS
My book: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B086G7KS52
My website [new website coming soon…]: majestyofreason.wordpress.com
My PhilPapers profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid
SMALL NOTE: I said, in the video, that Paul Audi (2019) explicitly rejects an argument from the second law of thermodynamics against EIT. This is correct in one sense, incorrect in another sense. It is correct insofar as Audi explicitly discusses the relationship between EIT and the second law, and he actually thinks the second law gives some reason to think EIT is true. He says, e.g., on p. 6 that "I think the most we
get from entropy is a reason to think the EIT is true, but not an
explanation of why." And since he thinks EIT gives some reason to think EIT is true, this is why I said he rejects an argument to the effect that EIT and the second law are incompatible. So what I said is mostly correct. The sense in which it's incorrect is as follows. Strictly speaking, Audi doesn't address any specific argument from the second law to the falsity of EIT, and consequently he doesn't go on to say something like 'I reject the/a argument from the second law against EIT'. So my claim is mostly correct, but also slightly incorrect. But I've corrected and clarified things now!
Interested in Arguments from Motion, the Kalam, the Moral Argument, and Žižek and Swinburne impressions? I have just the video for you. Here, I respond to Trent Horn's (@TheCounselofTrent) recent case for God.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid
RESOURCES
Here's the document: drive.google.com/file/d/1cL00z0YJ4X-iTjpph6jDEXEOf9R41jIY/view?usp=sharing
"So you think you understand Existential Inertia?": majestyofreason.wordpress.com/2021/07/31/so-you-think-you-understand-existential-inertia
OUTLINE
0:00 Intro and Prelims
3:05 Trent’s Opening Statement
4:58 Argument from Change/Motion
1:30:03 Kalam
1:54:15 Moral Argument
2:07:30 Trent’s First Rebuttal
2:19:30 Trent’s Second Rebuttal
2:39:45 Conclusion
LINKS
My book: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B086G7KS52
My website [new website coming soon…]: majestyofreason.wordpress.com
My PhilPapers profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid
SMALL NOTE: I said, in the video, that Paul Audi (2019) explicitly rejects an argument from the second law of thermodynamics against EIT. This is correct in one sense, incorrect in another sense. It is correct insofar as Audi explicitly discusses the relationship between EIT and the second law, and he actually thinks the second law gives some reason to think EIT is true. He says, e.g., on p. 6 that "I think the most we
get from entropy is a reason to think the EIT is true, but not an
explanation of why." And since he thinks EIT gives some reason to think EIT is true, this is why I said he rejects an argument to the effect that EIT and the second law are incompatible. So what I said is mostly correct. The sense in which it's incorrect is as follows. Strictly speaking, Audi doesn't address any specific argument from the second law to the falsity of EIT, and consequently he doesn't go on to say something like 'I reject the/a argument from the second law against EIT'. So my claim is mostly correct, but also slightly incorrect. But I've corrected and clarified things now!
