Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Counter Apologetics
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Counter Apologetics
Counter Apologetics episodes
- CA107 The Participation Theodicy — w/ John Buck
The participation theodicy holds, reasonably enough, that it would be good to create an ideal world. Since it would be good for God to do so, it would also be good for us to do so (as well as any other beings). The goodness would only be multiplied through our participation and contribution to the creation of an ideal world. The defender of the participation theodicy doesn’t deny that God could’ve created a much better world than ours — or even created us in heaven — and that this would be a good thing. Rather, they compare the goodness of creating a heavenly world ex nihilo to the goodness of creaturely participation in the creation of the same heavenly world. A unilateral divine act of ex nihilo creation would preclude the creative activities of other creatures. To quote my guest today, “The best sort of thing God could do would be to create the very best type of world for creatures to inhabit. But for creatures to be spontaneously generated in an ideal state of the world would be for them to miss out on helping God bring about that ideal world. So God, being generous, would have good reason to initially create creatures in a non-ideal state of the world, so that they could contribute towards bringing about its idealization, so that they too could do the very best type of thing that they could have done.”
Subscribe on YouTube
and watch the interview here
Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here
Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here
Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.
Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod and John @WriterJohnBuck
linktr.ee/emersongreen
2 hr 26 min - CA106 One Hell of a Problem – w/ Real Atheology & Counter ApologistI’m joined by Counter Apologist and Ryan from Real Atheology to discuss eternal conscious torment.First, we take a closer look at the views of William Lane Craig, who famously denies the possibility of an actual infinite in the context of the kalam, yet seems to argue that the guilt of those who reject God is an actual infinite. As he says, finite sins only merit finite punishment. But since the guilt of those who reject a relationship with God is infinite, their punishment in hell is justified.We also touch on free will, postmortem salvation, the rejection of God, religious diversity, universalism, and David Bentley Hart’s case that everlasting torment is morally indefensible.Watch the video hereClarification: I used the words “ignorance or limitations/imperfections” several times (e.g., “No one would reject a relationship with a being of perfect love without some ignorance or imperfection”). “Ignorance” in this context would include lack of knowledge of God’s existence or his exact nature. “Imperfection” or “limitation” was usually intended to refer to our rational faculties. So if a person is rejecting a being of perfect love, I think that person must be lacking information or ability to assess that information, most likely. As David Bentley Hart argues, “no rejection of God on the part of the rational soul is possible apart from some quantum of ignorance and misapprehension and personal damage.”Subscribe on YouTubeConsider supporting the show at patreon.com/counter or patreon.com/waldenpodListen to our sister show, Walden Pod hereMusic by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.Follow me on Twitter @waldenpodlinktr.ee/emersongreen1 hr 46 min
- Metaethics & Moral Realism w/ Michael Huemer
Dr. Michael Huemer joins me to discuss moral realism vs. antirealism, ethical intuitionism, phenomenal conservatism, moral disagreement, and much else in moral philosophy. (This aired originally on YouTube and Walden Pod.)
Ethical Intuitionism
Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy
William Lane Craig vs. Erik Wielenberg
Linktree
/ The Five Metaethical Positions /
Noncognitivism/expressivism: Moral statements are neither true nor false. Evaluative predicates do not evenpurportedly refer to any sort of property, nor do evaluative statements assert propositions.
Error theory/nihilism: Moral statements (that imply that something has an evaluative property) are all false.
Subjectivism: Some moral statements are true, but not objectively. For a thing to be good is for some individual or group to (be disposed to) take some attitude towards it.Moral Naturalism: There are objective moral properties, but they are reducible.Evaluative truths are reducible to descriptive truths. Additionally, moral statements can be justified empirically.Moral Non-Naturalism/Intuitionism: There are objective moral properties, and they are irreducible. Evaluative truths are not reducible to descriptive truths. Additionally, at least some moral truths are known intuitively.
/ Timestamps /00:00 Introduction01:05 Objective vs. Subjective06:45 Five Metaethical Views36:45 Fictionalism50:40 Phenomenal Conservatism, Scientism, Skepticism1:15:00 Moral Disagreement1:25:00 Theism and Moral Realism1:41:00 Companions in Innocence1:46:30 Evolutionary Debunking Arguments2:00:00 Huemer’s soul is not in Colorado nor is it in Michigan2 hr 4 min - CA105 Responding to Trent Horn’s “5 Atheist Double Standards”This is my response to Catholic apologist Trent Horn’s recent video entitled “5 Atheist Double Standards.” (The first minute is a cold open. It makes more sense if you’re watching the video version.)Watch on YouTubeInterview on the Sentientism podcastThe Meager Moral Fruits ArgumentMy devil’s advocate debateFollow me on Twitter @waldenpodlinktr.ee/emersongreenTimestamps:00:00 Coming Up01:00 Introduction01:48 Trent’s Introduction (No disagreement!)03:13 Ancient Historical Documents (Double Standard 1)05:36 God is evil, nothing is evil (Double Standard 2a)19:43 Divine Command Theory25:18 Moral Realism vs. Atheism (Double Standard 2b)36:35 Bad Christians vs. Bad Atheists (Double Standard 3)42:17 Ridiculing Christian censorship while excommunicating atheist heretics (Double Standard 4)47:49 Atheists refuse to criticize Islam (Double Standard 5)55:39 Outro57 min
- Debate Breakdown w/ Ben Burgis: Christopher Hitchens vs. David Berlinski
This is my appearance on Ben Burgis’s channel. Ben and I listen to and comment on a debate between Christopher Hitchens and David Berlinkski over the motion “Atheism poisons everything.”
The video
Linktree
2 hr 19 min - CA104 How did religion evolve? w/ Naturalism NextNaturalism Next joins me to discuss “the cognitive science argument against theism.” We talk about the psychology of religion, hyperactive agency detection, signaling theory, and more on the evolutionary origins of religious belief. Crucially, theories from modern cognitive science of religion are antecedently more likely on naturalism than on theism, and so provide good evidence against theism.We have plausible natural mechanisms that account for religious belief and practice – how they form and how they spread. The persistence and prevalence of religious belief can be understood through the framework of evolutionary theory and cognitive science of religion, providing us an answer to the question, “If God doesn’t exist, why does nearly everyone believe in God?”The first half of this episode is about the cognitive science of religion, and the latter half is on why the cognitive science of religion is evidence favoring naturalism over theism. Something for the psychology of religion nerds and philosophy of religion nerds alike.Naturalism Next (YouTube)Naturalism Next (Blog)Subscribe on YouTubeConsider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod hereListen to our sister show, Walden Pod hereMusic by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.Follow me on Twitter @waldenpodlinktr.ee/emersongreen1 hr 31 min
- Bonus: The Fall – w/ Christian Idealism & Invoking Theism
I’m joined by Christian Idealism and Invoking Theism to discuss how they see the Fall as non-young earth creationists. This was an impromptu recording in my hotel room at the Capturing Christianity conference in Houston. (You also might recognize the introductions from the previous episode.)
Subscribe on YouTube
Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here
Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here
Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.
Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod
linktr.ee/emersongreen
18 min - CA103 Defeat, Evil, & Hell – w/ Christian Idealism & Invoking Theism
I’m joined by Christian Idealism and Invoking Theism to discuss the problem of evil, the defeat condition, eternal conscious torment, alternative models of the afterlife, and whether we can have sex in hell. We’re also joined on mic by John Buck for a few minutes. This was an impromptu recording in my hotel room at the Capturing Christianity conference in Houston.
Subscribe on YouTube
Support the podcast at patreon.com/waldenpod or /counter
Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here
Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.
Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod
linktr.ee/emersongreen
42 min - CA102 The Most Plausible Form of ChristianityI outline a version of Christianity that doesn’t suffer from some of the problems that I find the most troubling. Universalism, in conjunction with a handful of other views, seems capable of smoothing over some of my biggest reasons for rejecting theism.This is a clip from a longer interview on Adherent Apologetics. We didn’t plan on covering this subject, but I was asked near the end of the interview about what I considered to be the most viable form of Christianity. Universalism has been on my mind a lot in the past month or so, and this seemed like a good way of kicking off the exploration on this podcast. If we’re to steelman Christianity and attack it at its best, this is to my mind the version that deserves our attention.Watch the full interview hereDavid Bentley Hart – That All Shall Be SavedKeith Derose – Universalism and the BibleElenore Stump – Closer to TruthJoe Schmid w/ Trent Horn – Is explicit knowledge of God necessary for a relationship with him?Subscribe on YouTubeConsider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod hereListen to our sister show, Walden Pod hereTwitter @waldenpodlinktr.ee/emersongreen26 min
- CA101 Five Arguments Against God w/ Jonathan MS Pearce
I’m joined by the author of “30 Arguments Against The Existence of ‘God’: Heaven, Hell, Satan, and Divine Design” to discuss five arguments raised in his new book.
Watch the interview on YouTube here
Jonathan’s column on OnlySky
Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod
Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here
linktr.ee/emersongreen
1 hr 52 min
About Counter Apologetics
From the publisher's feed
with Emerson Green