About Me
I graduated Purdue University with a B.A. in Philosophy, and I do scholarly and popular-level work in philosophy. On the scholarly level, I’ve published lots of articles on metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of time. I’ve also authored the books Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs (Springer, Forthcoming, co-authored with Daniel Linford) and The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy (Kindle Direct Publishing, 2020). On the popular level, I create lecture videos and host discussions on my YouTube channel, Majesty of Reason. I also run a blog by the same name.
Majesty of Reason YouTube Channel
Majesty of Reason creates lectures and discussions on philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and more.
You can also listen to these videos in podcast form here!
Blog Posts
Pawl and Grant on the Aloneness Argument: A Response
Nov 29, 2021
Tim Pawl and W. Matthews Grant—two philosophers whom I greatly admire and from whose work I have immensely benefitted and learned—have recently responded in the journal Religious Studies to my co-authored article with Ryan Mullins. I extend my utmost gratitude to Pawl and Grant for their engagement, and I aim to offer a cordial and thoughtful response in this post. Here’s an outline of …
Read more “Pawl and Grant on the Aloneness Argument: A Response”
A Failed Demonstration of God’s Existence
Sep 11, 2021
Interested in arguments from contingency and change, the Kalam, causal finitism, the gap problem, existential inertia, and more? I’ve got just the rebuttal for you. In this video, I respond to Trent Horn’s defense of his case for God. Outline 0:00 Intro, Prelims, & Outline1:47 Argument from Contingency42:57 Argument from Change1:44:56 Existential Inertia1:58:04 Models of …
Feser’s Argument from Change for the Act-Potency Distinction
Aug 23, 2021
As Feser (2014, pp. 34-35) reads it, Parmenides’s argument against change runs: Change would require being to arise out of non-being or nothingness. But from non-being or nothingness, nothing can arise. So, change is impossible. Where does the argument go wrong? Here’s Feser’s answer:
A Step-by-step Argument for Causal Finitism [Pre-Print!]
Aug 13, 2021
My article, “A Step-by-step Argument for Causal Finitism”, has recently been accepted for publication in the journal Erkenntnis. For those interested, you can find the pre-print version here. Some notes about the article: (1) I’m still not 100% convinced by the argument I develop in the article. I think it’s fascinating and nicely adds to …
Read more “A Step-by-step Argument for Causal Finitism [Pre-Print!]”
