Blog

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. Check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6. This post is Part 7, which deals with everything Feser says in his section ‘An argument against EIT’. In my next post, I’ll collect all the parts together into a single post.

Read more “Feser on Schmid on Existential Inertia: An Argument Against EIT + More Demonstrable Misrepresentation | Part 7”

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. Check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. This post is Part 6, which deals with everything Feser says in his section ‘Theoretical vices’. There is only one more installment of the series after this one: Part 7, which addresses everything Feser says in his section ‘An argument against EIT’. After Part 7, I’ll collect all the parts together into a single post.

Read more “Feser on Schmid on Existential Inertia: Theoretical Virtues and Vices | Part 6”

I’ve had the privilege of helping both Stephen and Cameron in their fruitful debate on the Kalam. (For those interested, I’ve also discussed the Kalam on numerous occasions with Alex Malpass, Josh Rasmussen, and others in this playlist here.) Today, I want to briefly discuss Cam’s response to the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis (UPD) in his closing statement video.

Read more “Cam’s Kalam and the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis”

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. Check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. This post is Part 5, which deals with everything Feser says on the metaphysics of existential inertia. There are only two more installments of the series left: Part 6, which deals with everything Feser says in his section “Theoretical vices”, and Part 7, which addresses everything Feser says in his section ‘An argument against EIT’.

Read more “Feser on Schmid on Existential Inertia: Vicious Circularity and the Metaphysics of EIT | Part 5”

Richard Swinburne, one of the most influential philosophers of religion in the 20th and 21st centuries, joins me and my friend Ashkan to discuss Swinburne’s latest book on substance dualism.

Among the topics discussed are arguments for substance dualism, mitigated modal skepticism (a la Peter van Inwagen and Felipe Leon), animalism, and conservation laws. Check it out! 🙂

Author: Joe

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. Check out Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. This post is Part 4, which deals with the prior or intrinsic probability of P-EIT and EET as well as Feser’s summary of my paper’s stage-setting.

Read more “Feser on Schmid on Existential Inertia: The Prior Probability of EIT | Part 4”

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. Check out Part 1 and Part 2. This post is Part 3, which deals again with Feser’s false (and misrepresentative, and uncharitable) claim that I claim that his Aristotelian proof assumes, without justification, the falsity of EIT. It also deals with the entailments of EIT.

Read more “Feser on Schmid on Existential Inertia: EIT, Entailment, and Extrinsic Explanation | Part 3”

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. Check out Part 1 here. This post is Part 2, which deals with some of Feser’s claims about my characterizations of EIT and EET and more.

Read more “Feser on Schmid on Existential Inertia: On Presupposing EIT’s Falsity and Explaining Inertial Persistence | Part 2”

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. This post is Part 1, which addresses Feser’s complaints about the length of my previous blog post reply to his first blog post.

I have multiple things to say in response to Feser’s complaints.

Read more “Feser on Schmid on Existential Inertia: On Length | Part 1”

Feser has recently responded to some of my work on the Aristotelian proof. I thank Feser for his engagement — much love <3 .

Before I start, here is decisive proof that Feser’s Aristotelian proof fails.

Here’s an informal outline of this post. Buckle up, it’s long. But that’s how I roll. (You could say… that’s how I Rickroll. *Ba dum tsss*) Anyway, I begin by addressing Feser’s suspicions about me being the person behind the anonymous and annoying requests. I then summarize my thus-far publicized criticisms of the Aristotelian proof. I next systematically proceed through Feser’s blog post. Finally, I articulate new, thus-far unpublicized criticisms of the Aristotelian proof.

Here’s a formal outline:

A tip for navigation: If you would like to jump around or refer backwards or forwards to sections, use your computer’s command F function to find the relevant section(s).

Read more “Feser on Schmid on the Aristotelian proof”