Claim OwnershipCounter Apologetics
Subscribed: 306Played: 14,417
Subscribe
Description
An informal look at religious apologetics and philosophy from an atheist and naturalist perspective.
164 Episodes
Reverse
I’m interviewed by Fuad Abdullah Harahap (@fubilosophy) about my deconversion, the sad state of Christian apologetics, my issues with the skeptic community, free will, the afterlife, agnosticism, and a few other topics. Fubilosophy Linktree
What would convince you of God’s existence? Specifically, the Christian God. What would change your mind and cause you to convert? I name three things: Christian aliens, miracles, and religious experience. That’s not an exhaustive list, but those things would dramatically raise my credence in Christian theism. I spend the most time talking about religious … Continue reading CA131 What would convince you? →
The world is religiously ambiguous: It can be interpreted in various incompatible ways, and the interpreters are not necessarily violating any standards of rationality in doing so. As for me, I don’t feel any position being forced on me by the evidence. My best efforts to judge the total balance of evidence weighing for and … Continue reading CA130 Am I Agnostic? →
Returning guest John Buck joins me to debate universalism, eternal conscious torment, and other topics related to hell and the afterlife. My Playlist on Hell Linktree
I respond to the wildly popular Redeemed Zoomer video about proving God’s existence with math. To see the open hangout that took place afterwards, you can watch the original livestream (unedited with no postscript) on YouTube Linktree
We wrap up our series on the moral argument for theism, summarize several problems with the argument famously associated with William Lane Craig, and discuss two other moral arguments for God that are not abysmal failures like the standard moral argument. Linktree
Today, we continue our series on the moral argument for theism. We discuss the Euthyphro dilemma, Hume’s Law, and explore a back-and-forth between William Lane Craig and Michael Huemer on the question, “Why obey God?” Common Mistakes about the Moral Argument | Majesty of Reason Majesty of Reason – Moral Arguments for God: An Analysis … Continue reading CA126 Euthyphro’s Revenge →
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And morality. The standard moral argument popularized by William Lane Craig and others goes as follows: (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (2) Objective moral values do exist. (3) Therefore, God exists. Today, we cast some doubt on the … Continue reading CA125 The Moral Argument for God →
Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently announced her conversion to Christianity. But has she only adopted a form of cultural Christianity? I examine her reasons for becoming a Christian and draw some parallels between Ayaan and another political convert: Andrew Tate. I think her reasons for adopting Christianity are quite clearly explicated, even though some Christians have … Continue reading CA124 Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Conversion to Christianity →
I recently asked for your questions, and I posted my responses on YouTube here. We touch on compatibilism, NDEs, aliens, euthanasia, abortion, death anxiety as an atheist, idealism, incest, Islam, Mormonism, subjectivism, psychophysical harmony, and more. (For those listening via podcast, I left the introduction in to preserve the timestamps for those who want to skip … Continue reading AMA →
I’m joined by Andrew Hronich, author of Once Loved, Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis. We discuss universal reconciliation, eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, and much else! Watch the interview here Linktree
Here’s my appearance on Adherent Apologetics to talk about the recent series of Counter Apologetics episodes on epistemology. Where New Atheist Epistemology Goes (Very) Wrong | @EmersonGreen | Ep. #259 5 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology 4 Things I Learned About Epistemology Epistemology playlist on YouTube Linktree
Alex Strasser (Protestant) and John Buck (Catholic) debate the merits of finite theism, the view that God is limited in power. Theistic finitism is less vulnerable to the problem of evil than perfect being theism, but are there other trade-offs that make the notion of a finite God less defensible overall? John is defending the … Continue reading Debate: Is God Finite? →
Dr. Michael Huemer joins me to defend interactionist substance dualism, the view that the mind and body are composed of different substances and can exert causal influence over each other. Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy Linktree
Today I’m speaking with Dr. Dale Allison, historian and author of many books, including The Resurrection of Jesus, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, and our subject today, Encountering Mystery: Religious Experience in a Secular Age. The subtitle of the book notwithstanding, the unusual experiences we discuss are not explicitly religious. They’re usually interpreted … Continue reading CA121 Encountering Mystery w/ Dale Allison →
Today, I defend the controversial idea that ordinary and extraordinary claims don’t require the same evidence. Linktree
LDS Philosophy and Dry Apologist join me for a debate on the nature of God. We compare the virtues of a limited model of God versus a model on which God is unlimited in power, as well as simple, impassible, etc. Are the classical models of God too impersonal and abstract, incapable of sustaining a … Continue reading CA120 Debate: Limited vs. Unlimited God →
We close out our series on atheism and epistemology with the epistemic value of intuition, the issue of lacktheism, and whether or not I’ve been charitable to my fellow atheists throughout these episodes. Linktree
Can we really trust the testimony of others? Does testimony provide any evidence or justification for a claim? I defend the idea that we should trust testimony, and that the epistemic value of testimonial evidence is supported by induction, the principle of charity in interpretation, and coherence. Linktree
This is part two of a five-part series. For even more on epistemology, check out Walden Pod for a completely different epistemology series. Understanding Knowledge – Michael Huemer Linktree
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
So he agrees there IS a distinction between properly basic beliefs and what almost everyone recognizes as faith, but insists we expand the definition of faith to obscure that line and enable the religious sophists who are the only other ones who use that definition? Just because? And that's the only point he's making? What a waste of time.
I rarely do comment on podcasts as I like to listen to a wide range of them but this was just presupposition overload with the unfortunate tactic of speaking in a disparaging way about one world view in order to make your atheistic one sound better... a real shame. This is why Justin Brierley's 'Unbelievable' is hands-down the best place for Atheist, Buddhist, Christians to engage with opposing ideologies not CA which is just another unchallenged propagandist platform for atheism.
the 40% I believe is wong.. that is creationist alone... young earthers are less than 10% from figures I recall.
Excellent synopsis of the conundrum of slavery in the bible. The cognitive dissonance I incurred on this topic led to a deeper examination of the Bible and honest self examination. As an African American, how can I justify being Christian?
This has always been one of the more interesting arguments from Plantinga and the theistic apologetics in general and this episode fleshed out a good deal of it, although a longer episode would have been perfect, exploring more of epistemology from an evolutionary perspective. On that note, would you be doing an episode of his more complex reformed epistemology though? I feel like it pairs well to talk about his view on epistemology alongside what he thinks evolutionary epistemology would entail, he has the whole sensus divinitatus and the idea of basic beliefs in his which are tricky and ingenious to be honest. It still isn't convincing though but yet, I'd like to see it discussed given how we are already into Plantinga's ideas here. Cheers, this is by far my favorite podcast. :)
You make an interesting counterargument, however, it's unfortunately flawed logic by being a Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. It could very well be that there are other situations in which life exists but it's pure speculation. It's like executing people for crimes they could have committed.