The Uncertainty Podcast

The great, the one, the only Joseph C. Schmid returns to the podcast to offer a comprehensive reply to (almost) every objection to the fine-tuning argument for theism. Ever worried about puddles? Inverse gamblers? Stalking horses? Boltzmann Brains? Alex Malpass? Well, fear no more: we define, describe, and dispel (or defend!) all these concerns and more. Not gonna lie guys, this is one of my favorite discussions so far. Hats off to Joe for being 10/10 great.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X because you’re awesome.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:46:12 #1 The puddle analogy refutes the FTA00:05:49 #2 Other forms of life are possible!00:08:58 #3 The multiverse explains fine-tuning00:53:08 #4 Electrons in love01:16:06 #5 We couldn't have observed a non-fine-tuned universe01:21:09 #6 Maybe the constants are metaphysical necessary!01:33:38 #7 Our universe is hostile to life01:42:00 #8 Alex Malpass and the stalking horse objection01:47:54 #9 We cannot get a grip on divine psychology Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dan Linford returns to the channel to offer his reply to my recent discussion with William Lane Craig, wherein he replied to critiques of his case for a cosmic beginning. We discuss probability theory, the BGV theorem, emergence of spacetime, and the relevance of quantum gravity to our scientific inferences about a beginning of the universe.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X because you’re awesome.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:01:24 Craig's modest claim00:10:27 How to calculate the probability of a conclusion00:15:21 The probabilistic fallacy in Craig's scientific case00:21:56 Craig - "I'm ruling out classes of models"00:26:33 Exceptions to the BGV theorem00:29:22 Do theories of time make a difference?00:42:28 Inference to the best explanation and low probability00:51:25 Craig's inconsistency: temporally finite models of the universe00:59:18 Why we need a quantum theory of gravity01:12:04 The emergence of spacetime Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Lance Bush, a pragmatist-leaning philosopher who favors normative quietism, and David Enoch, a defender of robust moral realism, clash over objective moral truth. They debate whether realism is intuitive, the role of ordinary moral talk, question-begging, empirical psychology’s relevance, and whether the realism dispute should be dissolved or defended.

Joshua Rasmussen explains his cosmological argument for God's existence: the existence of contingent things requires an explanation, and God fits the bill. Roughly stated, for sure, but that's the idea.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X because you’re awesome.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:57 Why the question matters00:10:29 Is ultimate reality beyond logic?00:14:55 Contingent vs. necessary things00:20:44 Stage #1 - From contingent things to a necessary being00:26:38 What is an "explanation"?00:36:23 Why should there be an explanation of all contingent things?00:47:37 Should we trust what intuition tells us?00:55:56 Conflicting empirical generalizations - a la Joe Schmid01:04:04 Stage #2 - From a necessary being to God01:12:52 Even a limitless God requires explanation01:23:37 Graham Oppy's necessary initial state of nature Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher and apologist, returns to the channel to defend his use of cosmology in support of the kalam cosmological argument. In particular, we focus on recent critiques of his work from Daniel Linford, Phil Halper, Niayesh Afshordi, and others.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X because you're awesome.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00 Introduction00:06 Craig's case for a cosmic beginning02:55 "We don't have a quantum theory of gravity"09:24 Has Craig misunderstood probabilities?15:44 Can you give a parody argument against a beginning?20:23 Finite past vs. beginning to exist24:08 The emergence of spacetime28:05 The Malament-Manchak theorem35:42 The BGV theorem and its limits42:08 The generalized second law of thermodynamics44:26 Sean Carroll's model of an eternal universe47:58 Why don't all cosmologists agree about a beginning?50:39 Does your scientific case require your philosophical case? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Robyn Faith Walsh, professor of New Testament at the University of Miami, discusses how people in antiquity would have understood the concept of "resurrection", whether Jesus or Paul was the true founder of Christianity and what Paul meant when he said that we will be raised with "spiritual bodies", and what facts the historian can establish concerning the events before and after Jesus' death.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:07 Can historians verify miracles?00:06:37 Did the ancients take their myths literally?00:08:31 What did Paul think about the resurrection?00:19:22 Did Paul preach a spiritual resurrection?00:25:56 Do historians take the case for the resurrection seriously?00:44:18 Fact #1: Was Jesus crucified?00:46:56 Fact #2: Was Jesus buried in a tomb?00:52:10 Fact #3: Was Jesus' tomb found empty?00:54:35 Fact #4: Did Jesus' followers report appearances of Jesus alive?01:00:00 Fact #5: The origin of the Christian faith01:06:07 Was Paul the real founder of Christianity?01:08:00 How to be objective when studying Jesus Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Alex Malpass and I sit down to hash out our differences surrounding the fine-tuning argument for theism. The debate is a veritable blood bath of ruthless repartee and, at times, intellectual genius - and we hope you enjoy.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:36 Miles's opening statement00:06:56 Alex's opening statement00:19:36 Does the stalking-horse objection prove too much?00:31:11 Can you prove aliens didn't raise Jesus from the dead?00:46:03 Is theism more likely than augmented naturalism?00:55:53 What if our universe is a computer simulation?00:57:11 Even an omnipotent God couldn't make belief rational.01:00:00 "I don't think you're an idiot, Alex!"01:03:05 Is theism a simple hypothesis?01:15:00 Miles's closing statement01:17:48 Alex's closing statement Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Michael Huemer returns to the channel to answer YOUR best objections to his case for free will. While I originally styled this as a "bonus" episode, it is not a bonus. It's the main weekly thing. Forgive me. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.Check out our original discussion about free will.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:21 Objection #1 - You've got the wrong definition of "free will".00:03:10 Objection #2 - Free will is incoherent.00:07:48 Objection #3 - Free will leads to an infinite regress.00:09:06 Objection #4 - Philosophers can't agree on what "free will" even means.00:13:38 Objection #5 - Mike's argument is question-begging. Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

With the gracious hosting of Amos Wollen, myself and Noah McKay debated Alex Malpass and Nathan Bray on the question of God's existence - specifically, theism versus naturalism. Noah and I defended theism via appeal to a historical case for miracles and the fine-tuning of the universe for life. Alex and Nathan contended that theism was no better an explanation for these phenomena than naturalism, and that because naturalism is simpler than theism then, all thing being equal, we ought to prefer it to theism. This was an exciting, substantive exchange, and I hope you like it.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction01:50 Miles's opening statement07:15 Noah's opening statement13:29 Nathan's opening statement19:28 Alex's opening statement25:58 Cross-examining Miles46:39 Cross-examining Noah01:06:48 Cross-examining Nathan01:27:09 Cross-examining Alex01:47:12 Closing statements Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Michael Huemer returns to the channel to discuss arguments for and against skepticism, the thesis that we cannot know much of anything, including whether or not we are dreaming right now. Other topics discussed: direct realism about perception and the arguments from illusion and hallucination, phenomenal conservatism, and the costs and benefits of self-publishing.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:44 What got Michael into self-publishing?00:08:35 How do I know I'm not dreaming right now?00:21:46 The argument for external world skepticism00:26:57 A critique of phenomenal conservatism00:32:29 Is a "real external world" the best explanation of our evidence?00:46:00 Direct versus indirect perceptual realism00:51:08 The argument from illusion00:56:11 The argument from hallucination01:03:05 Can we know we're not in a simulation?01:12:01 The problem of other minds Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe