Uploaded December 2021 | Updated September 2026, 1 day ago
Arguments from contingency are widely considered to be among the strongest offered in defense of God. So why don’t I spend more time worrying about cosmological and contingency arguments?
Even those unfamiliar with cosmological arguments will have encountered the perennial "Why is there something rather than nothing" out in the wild. If a theist wants to know why there is something rather than nothing, then, for the sake of argument, I'll say that however they explain the existence of God, that's how I explain the existence of nature.
Philip Goff, responding to Joanna Leidenhag: philpapers.org/archive/GOFPCF.pdf
Graham Oppy - An argument for atheism from naturalism philpapers.org/archive/OPPAAF.pdf
Graham Oppy - The Best Argument Against God amazon.com/Best-Argument-against-Palgrave-Pivot/dp/1137354135
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2021/12/07/why-dont-i-spend-more-time-on-contingency-arguments
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
01:36 Oppy and “Whatever range of options…”
06:16 Rowe and Stage II
07:15 Goff’s reply to theists
10:32 Final thoughts
11:37 goodbye
Arguments from contingency are widely considered to be among the strongest offered in defense of God. So why don’t I spend more time worrying about cosmological and contingency arguments?
Even those unfamiliar with cosmological arguments will have encountered the perennial "Why is there something rather than nothing" out in the wild. If a theist wants to know why there is something rather than nothing, then, for the sake of argument, I'll say that however they explain the existence of God, that's how I explain the existence of nature.
Philip Goff, responding to Joanna Leidenhag: philpapers.org/archive/GOFPCF.pdf
Graham Oppy - An argument for atheism from naturalism philpapers.org/archive/OPPAAF.pdf
Graham Oppy - The Best Argument Against God amazon.com/Best-Argument-against-Palgrave-Pivot/dp/1137354135
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2021/12/07/why-dont-i-spend-more-time-on-contingency-arguments
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
01:36 Oppy and “Whatever range of options…”
06:16 Rowe and Stage II
07:15 Goff’s reply to theists
10:32 Final thoughts
11:37 goodbye






![Has Physics Debunked Panpsychism? Answering Sabine Hossenfelder
Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder recently published a widely-cited critique of panpsychism. Hossenfelder argues that physics has ruled out panpsychism. However, her article is mired in confusion, and one doesn’t need to be a panpsychist to notice.
Read her criticism, Electrons Don’t Think, here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-think.html
“Why do the Deniers ignore a long line of distinguished materialist predecessors and ally themselves with Descartes, their sworn enemy, in holding that experience can’t possibly be physical—thereby obliging themselves to endorse the Denial? The answer appears to be that they share with Descartes one very large assumption: that we know enough about the physical to be certain that experience can’t be physical.”
- Galen Strawson
“What a physiologist sees when he examines a brain is in the physiologist, not in the brain he is examining.”
- Bertrand Russell
“[M]aterialism ... is the philosophy of the subject who forgets himself in his calculation.”
- Schopenhauer
Transcript: https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/30/has-physics-debunked-panpsychism-answering-sabine-hossenfelder/
Listen to Walden Pod: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Follow on Twitter @waldenpod
Support the podcast at Patreon.com/waldenpod
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
01:47 Hossenfelders critique
04:12 Two interpretations of her critique
09:47 Unfalsifiable or falsified?
11:29 Further points of confusion evident in Hossenfelders critique Has Physics Debunked Panpsychism? Answering Sabine Hossenfelder](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BUIWW_2afBU/mqdefault.jpg)

![11 Objections to Panpsychism - Answered
We respond to eleven common objections to panpsychism.
Listen to the podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
[References and further links are in the show notes of each episode]
Check out our sister show, Counter Apologetics, here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
/ / / / / / /
00:00 Introduction
05:20 (1) “The incredulous stare,” or an argument from strangeness, which appeals to our common sense and argues that panpsychism is forbiddingly counter-intuitive.
8:54 (2) Falsifiability. Isn’t panpsychism unfalsifiable?
11:03 (3) Isn’t physics entirely on the side of materialism?
17:33 (4) Wouldn’t panpsychism force us to add a particle to the standard model?
24:50 Interlude — a few advantages of panpsychism
27:13 (5) Pan-nifty-ism. Dan Dennett’s reductio cuts to the heart of the issue: is Nagelian consciousness reducible? Is what-it-is-like-ness analogous to élan vital or fluidity?
29:38 (6) Mysterianism. Should we even expect consciousness to be rationally intelligible?
33:36 (7) The woo accusation
35:29 (8) Is [insert inanimate object here] conscious?
36:19 (9) Won’t science eventually solve consciousness?
38:47 (10) Doesn’t panpsychism open the door to parapsychology and other pseudoscience?
42:31 (11) The Combination Problem. Widely considered to be the most serious difficulty facing panpsychism, the Combination Problem deserves a little extra time. The exact nature of the problem depends on your view of fundamental reality (the parts that are being combined) and the self (what is being formed through combination). We also discuss Galileo, the fusion view, Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory, and a few other related issues. 11 Objections to Panpsychism - Answered](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CVquyZepZxM/mqdefault.jpg)

