Today I return to the wonderfully-dressed, beautifully-mustached Steven Nemes and his recent musings on existential inertia. In particular, I propose to fact check Steven’s video.Read more “Fact-Checking Nemes on Existential Inertia”
So, this will be a short post, as I’m incredibly busy with schoolwork. The wonderfully-dressed and beautifully-mustached Steven Nemes recently criticized portions of my paper on existential inertia. For a proof of the truth of existential inertia, click here.
In the podcast, he first criticized (what has come to be called) the Earlier Account as not providing any account of that in virtue of which things persist, citing the discussion on Intellectual Conservatism. (I have responded to this discussion in a two part video series.)Read more “Nemes on Existential Inertia: The Earlier Account”
My friend Matthew Luis Delgado has recently criticized my simple, confessional argument against classical theism. This post is my response to his criticism(s). Once again, I want to stress that I am extremely grateful to Matthew for his time, energy, friendship and engagement. I deeply value and appreciate Matthew’s insights and, more importantly, Matthew himself. Finally, I wish to remind everyone of the tone of my original post (a confessional one, not one that proclaims to have decisively demonstrated something).Read more “A Simple, Confessional Argument Once Again”
I’m starting to appreciate the confessional nature of arguments. Arguments are avenues for thinkers simply to confess to their dialectical partners what strikes them as convincing, true, or clear. They aren’t attacks, weapons, or anything of that sort. They’re simply confessions ― revelations of personal sight. “I simply confess to you that these premises seem true to me” is a motto I (and, I think others) should get accustomed to using.Read more “A simple, confessional argument against classical theism”
I thought up the greatest possible joke. Because it would be greater for it to exist in reality than for it to exist in my mind alone, it also exists in reality. You just read it.
Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity recently posted an ‘experimental’ ontological argument for God’s existence, which runs like so:
Note first that Cameron doesn’t claim to accept this argument, nor does he claim to find it successful or devoid of flaws. Oftentimes he shares arguments like this for experimental or testing purposes — and that’s beautiful! I want to emphasize, then, that his sharing an argument on social media doesn’t automatically imply that he accepts it or thinks it’s successful.
But let’s just focus on the argument itself and its proffered justifications. What to make of them?
Welcome back my dudes. This is a short post outlining a couple tools for evaluating theodicies. A theodicy is a purported identification of one or more reasons God has for doing or allowing (some subset of) evil. Contrast this with a defense, which is (roughly) the identification of one or more reasons God could (for all we know) have for allowing evil. A defense is intended to show the logical compatibility of God’s existence (and character) and the existence of evil, whereas a theodicy aims to pinpoint an actual reason God (plausibly) has for allowing evil.
I’ve had some wonderfully informative and engaging interactions on the topic of classical theism, and I am so grateful to all participants in such discussions. Consider this post an extension of this grand topic, one concerning the fundamental nature of reality and our place in it. As such, I extend my deepest gratitude to Suan, Christopher, and Gaven for their insights into this grand topic.
Check it out:
I am eternally grateful to the group of philosophers and philosophy students who have provided wonderful insights on my post.