Uploaded October 2023 | Updated September 2026, 4 days ago
In this video, I'll explain why the argument from religious evil fails, and show how Alvin Plantinga' "Free Will Defense" also applies to the argument from religious evil. You can find the paper here
jstor.org/stable/43670543
Also it shows up as argument 196 from Ex-Apologist's list of arguments for atheism: exapologist.blogspot.com/2022/06/120-or-so-arguments-for-atheism.html
#christianity #theology #theism #god
In this video, I'll explain why the argument from religious evil fails, and show how Alvin Plantinga' "Free Will Defense" also applies to the argument from religious evil. You can find the paper here
jstor.org/stable/43670543
Also it shows up as argument 196 from Ex-Apologist's list of arguments for atheism: exapologist.blogspot.com/2022/06/120-or-so-arguments-for-atheism.html
#christianity #theology #theism #god






![Russells Teapot
#atheism #theism #apologetics #philosophy #philosophyofreligion #epistemology
In this video Ill explain what Russells teapot is and four reasons why it is a poor analogy to belief in God
References
[1] R. Monk, Bertrand Russell: The Ghost of Madness, 1921-1970. New York: Free Press, 2000.
[2] S. James, “Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11: : Last Philosophical Testament 1943‐1968,” Reference Reviews vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 10–10, Jan. 1997, doi:10.1108/rr.1997.11.5.10.278
[3] B. Garvey, “Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence, and the Atheist’s Teapot,” Ars Disputandi, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 9–22, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1080/15665399.2010.1082001
[4] M. Truzzi, “Zetetic Ruminatrons on Skepticism and Anomalies in Science,” Citeseer_ vol. 12–13, pp. 7–21, 1987.
[5] A. I. Goldman, “What is Justified Belief?,” in Justification and Knowledge: New Studies in Epistemology, G. Pappas, Ed., D. Reidel, 1979, pp. 1–25.
[6] T. Reid, An Inquiry Into the Human Mind, 6th Ed. Bell & Bradfute, 1810.
[7] E. T. Bell, The Development of Mathematics. Courier Corporation, 2012.
[8] A. Hájek, “Interpretations of Probability,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2023., E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, Eds., Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2023. Accessed: Jul. 18, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/probability-interpret/
[9] N. J. Chambers, Reconsidering creation Ex Nihilo in Genesis 1. in Journal of theological interpretation supplements series. University Park, Pennsylvania: Eisenbrauns, 2020. Russells Teapot](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lKsqdTf0tpw/mqdefault.jpg)

![Humes Fallacy: Probability, Frequency, and Miracles
#philosophy #apologetics #davidhume #christian #philosophyofreligion
In this video, Ill explain the central fallacy in David Humes argument against miracles in Section X of his Enquiry Concenring Human Understanding.
Here is a video I made explaining the difference between Bayesian and Frequentist views on probability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWaRlVEIoDM
References:
[1] S. C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. HarperCollins, 2021.
[2] C. Taylor, A Secular Age. Harvard University Press, 2009. doi: 10.4159/9780674044289.
[3] A. Clayton, Bernoulli’s Fallacy: Statistical Illogic and the Crisis of Modern Science. Columbia University Press, 2021.
[4] N. L. Geisler, “4. Miracles & The Modern Mind,” in In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History, InterVarsity Press, 2014.
[5] A. Flew and R. A. Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Harper Collins, 2009.
[6] J. Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press, 2000.
[7] A. N. Kolmogorov and A. T. Bharucha-Reid, Foundations of the Theory of Probability: Second English Edition. Courier Dover Publications, 2018.
[8] D. Hume and E. Steinberg, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 2. ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.
[9] B. De Finetti, A. Machì, A. F. M. Smith, and B. De Finetti, Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment. Chichester, UK ; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
[10] T. Kelly, “Evidence,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2016., E. N. Zalta, Ed., Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2016. Accessed: Feb. 16, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/evidence/
[11] W. Adams, An Essay in Answer to Mr. Hume’s Essay on Miracles., 3d ed. London: White, 1767.
[12] C. Babbage, The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise. A fragment ... Second edition. Lea & Blanchard, 1841.
[13] M. Truzzi, “Zetetic Ruminatrons on Skepticism and Anomalies in Science,” Citeseer, vol. 12–13, pp. 7–21, 1987.
[14] P. Millican, “Hume, Miracles, and Probabilities: Meeting Earman’s Challenge,” 2003.
[15] R. Price, Four Dissertations. T. Cadell, 1777.
[16] Habermas, Gary R., and Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004. Humes Fallacy: Probability, Frequency, and Miracles](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mCAwaZhCfzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Simulation Theory Argument for the Existence of God
An argument from the likes of David Chalmers and myself. I dont think this will necessarily convince anyone that God Exists as much as being a useful exploration of probabilities and an interesting direction into Simulation Theology or Sim Theology
References:
[1] Nick Bostrom - Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?
[2] David J. Chalmers - Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy.
#christianity #simulation #philosophy #god The Simulation Theory Argument for the Existence of God](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nRqOo1wTaLU/mqdefault.jpg)
