Uploaded September 2022 | Updated September 2026, 6 days ago
00:00 Introduction
03:51 General form of a theistic argument that gets labeled as “god of the gaps”
06:24 Where is the “gap” in this argument?
08:16 The conditional premise used to justify Premise 1
14:10 Scientific advances that may make this argument unsuccessful
23:56 Divine agency expectations and supernatural explanations
28:15 Arguments in support of Conditional (1d)
32:43 Forms of two arguments that are immune to the shrinking gap objection
40:23 Q&A
56:14 Summary and Conclusion
Dr. Greg Ganssle is a professor of philosophy at Biola University, and published an essay critiquing the "God of the Gaps" objection in the Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity.
Link to book: amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Science-Christianity/dp/1444335715#:~:text=Bringing%20together%20some%20of%20the,intersection%20of%20science%20and%20Christianity.
Link to Dr. Gannsle's publications: https://www.biola.edu/directory/people/greg-ganssle
-----------------------------------------------GIVING------------------------------------------------
One Time:
You can leave a Super Thanks or give on PayPal
paypal.com/paypalme/theanalyticchristian
Monthly:
To become a patron, go to patreon.com/theanalyticchristian
------------------------------------------MERCHANDISE-----------------------------------------
To purchase TAC shirts, mugs, phone cases, and more, go to
theanalyticchristian.com
----------------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------------
If my videos have been of service to you, I'd love to hear how you have benefitted from them. You can reach me at
theanalyticchristian@gmail.com
----------------------------------------------WEBSITE---------------------------------------------------
theanalyticchristian.com
00:00 Introduction
03:51 General form of a theistic argument that gets labeled as “god of the gaps”
06:24 Where is the “gap” in this argument?
08:16 The conditional premise used to justify Premise 1
14:10 Scientific advances that may make this argument unsuccessful
23:56 Divine agency expectations and supernatural explanations
28:15 Arguments in support of Conditional (1d)
32:43 Forms of two arguments that are immune to the shrinking gap objection
40:23 Q&A
56:14 Summary and Conclusion
Dr. Greg Ganssle is a professor of philosophy at Biola University, and published an essay critiquing the "God of the Gaps" objection in the Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity.
Link to book: amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Science-Christianity/dp/1444335715#:~:text=Bringing%20together%20some%20of%20the,intersection%20of%20science%20and%20Christianity.
Link to Dr. Gannsle's publications: https://www.biola.edu/directory/people/greg-ganssle
-----------------------------------------------GIVING------------------------------------------------
One Time:
You can leave a Super Thanks or give on PayPal
paypal.com/paypalme/theanalyticchristian
Monthly:
To become a patron, go to patreon.com/theanalyticchristian
------------------------------------------MERCHANDISE-----------------------------------------
To purchase TAC shirts, mugs, phone cases, and more, go to
theanalyticchristian.com
----------------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------------
If my videos have been of service to you, I'd love to hear how you have benefitted from them. You can reach me at
theanalyticchristian@gmail.com
----------------------------------------------WEBSITE---------------------------------------------------
theanalyticchristian.com






![A Defense of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (Dr. Andrew Moon)
0:00 Introduction
01:14 What got you interested in the evolutionary argument against naturalism?
02:47 What is the Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism (EAAN)?
05:03 What are the specific premises and conclusion of EAAN?
11:40 Definition of terms in order to understand the Defense of Premise 1 [P(R|N&E) is low]: Materialism, Mental Properties, Content Properties, NP, Reductive Materialism, Non-reductive materialism
13:57 How does Plantinga defend premise 1 [P(R|N&E) is low]?
15:06 Defense of Premise 1: what follows from non-reductive materialism?
19:30 Defense of Premise 1: what happens if reductive materialism is true?
27:59 Objection to Premise 1: But doesn’t it still seem like having faculties that produce true beliefs are more likely to make a creature survive?
32:53 Defense of Premise 2: Anyone who accepts (believes) N&E and see that [P(R|N&E) is low has a defeater for R.
37:04 Objection 1 to EAAN: EAAN depends on externalism
43:17 Objection 2 to EAAN: EAAN is self-defeating
47:50 Question #1: if the naturalist holds a concept of truth other than the correspondentist one (like Putnam’s internal realism), does the EAAN still work against him? Greetings from Brazil!
49:50 Question #1 follow-up: Does the argument presuppose correspondence theory of truth?
50:20 Question #2: Dr. Moon, do you think that if the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable is inscrutable, the argument would still work?
52:44 Question #3: What is the conditional objection aka objection 3?
57:43 Question #4: What do you say about Richard Swinburne’s objections to Plantinga’s argument?
58:31 Question #5: Are there any books or resources to learn about the discussion of mind/soul, neuroscience and materialism that you’d recommend to mortals like me?
59:47 Question #6: Could a bias towards simplicity solve the problem? A possible world where belief contents are randomly associated with neurological states (i.e. if you change a single, or a single atom in a neuron or environment, you don’t automatically generate a random belief).
01:04:34 Question #7: Does this argument work the same if someone holds to dualism, idealism or Thomism?
01:07:04 Question #8: Why do the content propositions need to be selected for because of their true in order for the cognitive faculties to be reliable? Isn’t it enough that they supervene on things which are selected for?
01:08:38 Question #9: Do you think evolutionary debunking arguments against moral realism that presupposes naturalism has a self-defeating argument?
01:10:24 Question #10: Does Plantinga think that we are left with a certain choice to make in rejecting either naturalism, evolution or both?
01:11:52 Question #11: What do you think of the following argument? 1. Our cognitive faculties are generally unreliable. 2. (1) is more expected given Naturalism rather than Theism. 3. So, (1) is evidence for N.
In this interview, Dr. Andrew Moon will summarize Plantingas Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN), then respond to some objections. For a short animated summary of the argument, check out the video linked below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qap_FyQxILM
To go more in depth, check out Dr. Moons recent paper, Global Debunking Arguments linked below.
https://philpapers.org/rec/MOOGDA
Please consider becoming a patron. Go to https://www.patreon.com/theanalyticchristian
For merch and more, go to https://www.theanalyticchristian.com A Defense of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (Dr. Andrew Moon)](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LIMFJaaL_ZE/mqdefault.jpg)


![STOP Sanitizing the Bible’s Violence — How Churches Should Really Handle It
Link to Dr. Seiberts book:
https://www.amazon.com/Redeeming-Violent-Verses-Troublesome-Ministry/dp/0664264689
0:00 Intro
0:36 Prevalence of Violence in the Bible
2:04 Three Categories of Violent Texts
4:32 Violent Verses in Church?
9:35 Seven Strategies for Redeeming Violent Verses
25:33 Deconstructing Violent Views of God
32:40 Objection: You Ignore the Violent Side of Jesus in the NT
36:58 Objection: Your View is Neo-Marcionism
42:43 Where to Go Next
I am in need of your financial support. After losing several patrons recently, giving is down about $150/month. Please consider becoming a patron for as $5, $10, or $25 per month. To partner with me go to
https://www.patreon.com/theanalyticchristian
If you have questions or suggestions for future videos, please email me at
theanalyticchristian[at]gmail[dot]com STOP Sanitizing the Bible’s Violence — How Churches Should Really Handle It](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MGCoiCV19no/mqdefault.jpg)
