10k AMA Answers!

You asked hundreds of questions, and I answered!
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
LINKS
Preface to my forthcoming Springer book: docs.google.com/document/d/1K...
My 3k AMA Answers video: • 3k AMA Answers!
My website: www.josephschmid.com
My PhilPapers Profile: philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

[@MajestyofReason]

TIMESTAMPS 0:00:00 Intro 0:01:35 Future philosophy plans 0:02:36 Meaning in life 0:04:27 Defining philosophy + My book 0:06:35 Interest in soccer + the meaning of sports 0:08:24 What would convince me of theism? 0:09:27 Phil Mind + Analytic Idealism 0:13:02 Redesigning the education system 0:16:52 Advice to my younger self 0:20:17 Do I identify as a philosopher? 0:21:07 Democracy 0:21:39 Swinburne’s cumulative case for theism 0:22:56 Top 10 Philosophy papers 0:23:50 Future of channel 0:24:17 Hume and miracle arguments 0:25:32 Psychedelics + Personal religious experience 0:26:18 Introspective Argument + Calvinism 0:32:28 Frege-Russell-Quine view of existence 0:36:38 Metaphorical investigation 0:37:12 Gun control 0:37:36 Best arguments for theism/atheism 0:40:23 Credence in world religions 0:40:58 Causal theory of reference 0:43:48 Wheels vs Doors 0:44:18 Biggest regrets + Best decisions 0:48:40 Atheist content creators 0:49:30 Mathematical Platonism 0:51:02 Questions for future-Christian-Joe 0:52:52 Quantum mechanics interpretation 0:53:09 Why am I an Arsenal fan? 0:54:19 Contingency Argument vs Second Way 0:59:23 Brute necessity vs Brute contingency 1:02:12 S4 vs S5 Modal Logic 1:10:11 Video on common atheist arguments 1:11:03 Kant’s Transcendental Idealism 1:14:19 Bored with Phil Rel? 1:15:04 Future of Phil Rel 1:17:03 Personal identity 1:19:00 Objective morality: Why? 1:27:47 Gap Problem 1:28:24 Agnostic prayer 1:29:35 Free Will + Universals 1:34:21 Is math/logic needed for Phil Rel? 1:36:59 Music taste 1:37:55 Books to learn philosophy 1:39:24 Future of Phil Rel x2 1:41:23 Best atheist book + Zombie argument 1:43:09 Assessing Args Against Free Will 1:48:19 Thought Adventure Podcast 1:48:23 Philosophy courses and theology 1:49:29 Non-classical logic 1:49:43 Popularity of deism/non-religious theism + Euthyphro 1:50:35 How to navigate args about God + Shoe brand 1:52:02 Veganism 1:52:23 Best arg for Platonism 1:52:52 Aristotelian vs Platonic theories 1:54:35 Death note + Transcendental Argument for God 1:58:25 Most overrated philosopher 1:59:17 Arguments from prophecy 2:01:05 Why moral realism? [See “Objective Morality: Why?”] 2:05:07 Non-realist Christianity 2:06:11 Phil Mind impacting Phil Rel + Views on death 2:07:54 Divine temporality 2:11:47 Book: Philosophy in the Flesh 2:12:09 Normative ethics 2:12:21 Mistakes made in popular Phil Rel 2:13:46 Atheistic grounding of morality + Invite Rasmussen 2:18:16 What motivates me to have this channel? 2:20:54 Apparently apparent proofs 2:21:16 Purpose of discussing undefined God 2:22:19 MacIntyre + Hacking 2:23:21 Abortion + Political Philosophy + Fav movie 2:24:36 How to financially survive PhD in philosophy 2:25:32 Is long-term agnosticism an acceptable outcome? 2:27:26 Undecided topics that would impact my worldview 2:28:09 Kierkegaard 2:29:09 Aim of philosophy + philosophical knowledge 2:30:27 Cereal =/= Soup + attributes of non-existent things 2:32:02 Why something rather than nothing? 2:32:21 Stage 2 Cosmo Args + multiverse theodicy 2:33:24 Polytheism and Paganism 2:34:23 Potential collaborations 2:35:03 Antinatalism 2:35:55 How aliens would impact Phil Rel 2:37:38 Theological positions I’d accept if I were a theist 2:44:50 Highest order of knowledge 2:45:53 Objections to Oppy 2:50:08 Ontology of time 2:51:28 Full-time KZbin? Future KZbin plans? 2:52:27 Free will 2:53:28 Roe v Wade + Presuppositional Apologetics 2:54:22 Why you so lazy? 2:54:40 Soccer or Philosophy: Which is more enjoyable? 2:55:26 Am I happy with my current life? 2:56:29 Muslim philosophy 2:57:22 Polytheism + Many Necessary Beings 2:59:27 Favorite paper of all time 3:00:14 Agnostic prayer + Feeling there is/isn’t a God 3:02:45 Explaining theoretical virtues to laypeople 3:05:14 Polytheism + Many Necessary Beings x2 3:05:52 One book for rest of my life 3:06:31 Politics, gender, and hot topics 3:07:14 Is atheism incoherent? 3:07:44 Gap Problem + Thumbnails 3:09:57 EAAN + Religious rituals 3:10:53 External world skepticism 3:11:45 Explain God with reason or vice versa? 3:12:40 Videogames + Reformed Epistemology 3:15:46 Mind changes on arguments in Phil Rel 3:17:47 Oppy, B-Theory, and explaining necessity 3:20:53 One’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens 3:22:33 Presupps, Impassibility, and Arbitrary Creation 3:24:00 Practical consequences of agnosticism 3:24:39 Unicorns, elves, ghosts, and dragons: oh my! 3:25:35 Moral realist arguments [cf. earlier] 3:26:43 Do I speak Spanish? 3:27:00 William Norris Clarke + TJump’s epistemology 3:27:48 Name the trait argument 3:29:42 Hinduism 3:30:19 Shifts from agnosticism 3:31:24 More theist argument content? 3:32:21 Objective morality and intuition’s frailty 3:34:57 Fav args for theism or atheism 3:35:20 Necessary vs brute 3:37:43 Does coherence break symmetry for MOA? 3:48:41 Henry Bergson 3:49:08 Phenomenal conservatism and Bayesianism 3:51:51 Kalam series 3:52:48 Does omniscience imply omnipotence? 3:53:43 Foreknowledge and freedom + Collab 3:54:43 Engaging non-Christian arguments for theism 3:55:52 Argument from limits + Linguistic arguments 3:56:34 Essentialism 3:58:56 IQ + Vegan? + More formal debates? + Ears 3:59:28 Non-philosophy KZbinrs I watch 4:00:15 My academic background 4:02:26 Philosophy tutor + Favorite footballer 4:03:28 Academic/apologetic divide re: moral argument 4:05:01 Philosophy of perception + traditionalism 4:05:29 Afterlife w/out God + Interviewing God + CS Lewis 4:07:05 DBH’s The Experience of God + Oberle article + EIT 4:11:02 Are abstracta causally effete? 4:12:35 Is self illusory? Spirituality? + Book I’m reading 4:14:23 Could God be libertarianly free? 4:15:08 Cutting edge Phil Rel + Underrated a/theist stuff 4:19:21 Religious and mystical experience 4:20:58 Open future 4:22:47 Trin Electro’s questions 4:30:48 BONUS SOCCER

[@DigitalGnosis]

Can you put these timestamps in the description so they become chapters in the play bar?

[@rationalityrules]

@@DigitalGnosis I second this!

[@TK19]

@@DigitalGnosis if I had to guess, it's to do with the character limit of the description box?

[@MajestyofReason]

@@DigitalGnosis sorry mate, it’s way too long for the description!

[@jakek.403]

@@DigitalGnosis RIP looking at the playbar. Would probably look like an infinitely divided finite line.

[@jakek.403]

Wow, 4 hours. That shows impressive time and commitment to answer your viewers questions. I think that’s really cool.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Hey, nice to see you here, Jake. :)

[@jakek.403]

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco :)

[@JoeDiPilato]

This is great! Thanks for answering these questions man!

[@calebp6114]

Thanks for your answers, Joe! I’m at an intensive Latin course rn, so a philosophy break is much needed 🐐

[@josemigueltahhandoumat248]

Thank you for your answer! Have a great day!

[@TheNonAlchemist]

Love these AMAs, thanks for the shout out!

[@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785]

Thanks dude .. thanks for answering all of these questions 🖤i love your works

[@MACHO_CHICO]

Thanks for doing this :) P. S. My order of knowledge (for lack of a better phrase) question really plagues me because it seems so essential to how we prioritise what’s the most important lens to view reality. Anyway congrats on 10k!

[@davisdahlberg8345]

Congratulations Joe! Love the channel and all the work you do. Future video idea, I’d love to get an explanation on the different theories of time and the pros and cons of the different theories.

[@Swishead]

Thank you for answering my questions! I am doing a PhD in number theory, which usually implicitly uses naive set theory rather than the rigorous tools of mathematical logic so I can't claim expertise. Nonetheless I am often frustrated by misrepresentations of mathematical ideas in popular philosophy, and on the converse I am impressed with your mathematical literacy.

[@MajestyofReason]

❤️

[@sneakysnake2330]

Your sneaky snake impression was wonderful, God bless you

[@thephilosophynerd7292]

The intro was the best! Also congrats on 10 K

[@iannovak5223]

That Zizek impression; Chef's kiss 😘

[@bigfoot3763]

Thank you Joe Mama for this great video. Classic "I would've gone D1 but I was injured." Thanks for all the work you put into this channel!!

[@MajestyofReason]

❤️

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Schmid answered my question at 2:53:28. 😄 thanks!

[@greentheam629]

3:59:48 , you said "I've put down five here" exactly like vsauce 😂

[@DaKoopaKing]

For a physicalist option to philosophy of mind I recommend Keith Frankish's illusionism. He has a 10 hour KZbin series on it and in the 4th lecture he goes over objections to it like the no-appearance-reality-distinction. His paper Quining Diet Qualia is also really good.

[@calebp6114]

Thanks for the recommendation!

[@christaylor6574]

Congrats on 10k! Death note is a Japanese animated drama/thriller series. The basic premise is about a notebook that grants a person the supernatural ability to kill anyone who has their name written in it. The plot is then focused between the main character - who finds the notebook and decides to use it to kill criminals and the detective trying to arrest him. It's quite good and interesting. Each character is trying to outwit the other to uncover the other person's identity. It has some interesting thoughts on what justice is, morality as it relates to capital punishment etc and delusions of grandeur. Barely any action - I would describe it as more of a psychological thriller, I suppose. Makes it one of the more unique, Japanese animations out there (which tend to be action heavy).

[@angelokid7348]

Thanks Joe! 😎

[@brunoarruda9916]

Edited: I wrote a comment and then realized that you addressed it at 2:08:00. Leaving it here for the algorithm.

[@alexmarkadonis7179]

I wish I could easily respond to your answers how you can in Medium articles. I applaud your answers, especially the education reform comments.

[@josephtnied]

1:43:00 - First, congrats for pronouncing my name correctly the first time, and second, thanks for answering! I'm not formally trained in philosophy, so thanks for exploring my questions in-depth. In my first argument, I was indeed trying to get at that ultimate "but HOW could a choice be both non-deterministic and non-random" question (wasn't trying to be trick!), and in my second question, the "luck objections" to libertarian free-will you gave earlier in the video were what I was trying to construct. I'll have to read more literature. I genuinely can't comprehend the "solutions" to libertarian free will I've heard so far. Just for fun, here are my initial thoughts to your replies before approaching the literature: For the stock libertarian free-will response you provided for the first question ("reasons and desires explain the choice without rendering it inevitable") I'd simply say that seems like it's kicking the can down the road without clarifying the mechanism for how it's not inevitable/random (aren't there identifiable external explanations for one's reasons and desires? Aren't our reasons and desires themselves not "chosen," thereby making them still either random or deterministic? Doesn't the initial problem still remian?). For my second question, I think the idea that "experiences, psychology, and so on can differentially influence the result without deterministically causing it" is the idea is that your experiences/psychology/etc. restrict the range of choices you can possibly make but aren't the ultimate decision determiners. However, that's again avoiding the root question of what IS that factor that allows one choice to be made over another. The "luck objections" seem to be what I'm getting at (if it's possible that you could've chosen otherwise, then if we rolled back the clock and you made a different choice with every influencing factor being the same, why?). I think that's a super compelling question that I would really need a satisfying answer to before I could take libertarian free-will seriously. Thanks again for a great video!

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Here's another excellent video you might consider recommending to your viewers on presuppositional apologetics: "What's Wrong With Presuppositional Apologetics | A Response to Greg Bahnsen" by _Faith Because of Reason._

[@jakek.403]

Bahnsen is a meme tbqh. I think even theists should be embarrassed by him.

[@alexmarkadonis7179]

Your Oppy impression is getting better. Your Zizek is really good.

[@DigitalGnosis]

Do you think that your "non descript non physicalism of sorts" about minds is ontologically distinct from a crude ontologically reductive position that says mental states are ontologically reducible to certain kinds of physical states? I guess how you answer this depends on what you mean when you talk about certain physical states (possibly) having mental properties, what you think a property is and how properties are grounded and understood in your broader worldview.

[@MajestyofReason]

Great question - so I could/should have clarified further in the video. By non-Descript non-physicalist, I’m basically just attributing to myself a relatively high credence in the negation of physicalism, but that my credence in the negation of physicalism is broken up into various different credences in property dualism, substance dualism, neutral monism, and panpsychism. So really ‘non-descript non-physicalism’ isn’t a view as such; it’s a description of my credences toward other, extant views that deny physicalism. If - to use Oppy’s phrase - my toes were put to the fire, I would bet on property dualism.🙂

[@newglof9558]

1:59:00 hehehe I'm a Catholic and probably philosophically closest to being Thomist (although Scotus and even the nouvelle theologie people are growing on me) but before you even finished the Q I had a feeling it would be Aquinas. I think they're getting better but for a while the Thombros had no chill. Also, some were weirdly unaware of contemporary Thomists outside of Feser, even non-theistic ones like Anthony Kenny

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Also Joe: hearing you complain about reviewers is so cathartic for me 😆 😆

[@robertlewis2855]

I think the main difficulty with all metaphysical theistic arguments is getting from stage 1 - the necessary/first-mover type being to stage 2 - that being has a mind/personhood such that it cares about you. My suspicion is that most god-believers wouldn't care about the outcome of stage 1 if it wasn't needed for stage 2. Hence, I reckon most people take the "personal experience" route, which is to say, either they have had a personal experience of God or they could. God as the absent biological father, as it were, is irrelevant to many if not most religious people. God's importance is as the acting father

[@jeremymr]

3:30 - Evil Joe Schmid be like... We should cultivate vice!

[@drugin4168]

Joe, can you do a video with Michael Heumer talking about his argument for reincarnation and a soul. He is an atheist to my knowledge. Id want to see your objections to his arguments.

[@deathnote4171]

Thanks for your answers! But I don't know what's *what* 👉👈

[@fabianrydin8913]

Yay i was featured

[@TheBrunarr]

at first I thought it meant that you gave 10k answers. lol

[@phoebejean7193]

First time here. Very interesting.

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

Joe, What are your thoughts on the psr argument that koons/pruss lay out in their recent paper? Do you think it does cause an issue for people like oppys view? That it gives a hostage to the skeptic.

[@Wardoon]

3:39 What is that "phil" paper you refer to at the beginning of your answers when you were talking about the purpose and meaning of life? You said that you are not alone in that realistic position regarding purpose or meaning of life.

[@karlnauman9388]

I think it's "Philosophers on Philosophy: The 2020 PhilPapers Survey" by David Bourget and David Chalmers

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

13:35 I actually feel like the step away from rigorous routine has most people wasting their time instead of expanding their creativity. Also on the topic of naturalism The indifference seems to fit creatures tearing each other to shreds, but does it matter in the grand scheme of things when even millions of years is a BLIP on the radar for an eternal being. I'm not sure I still buy the problem of evil being as hard to solve as some atheists believe. I still don't even think on a purely naturalist stage could humans even recognize evil or good.

[@Hello-vz1md]

Your discussion with TAP would be great. About Muhammad hijab your response is understandable but in his defence I would like to say although I agree that some of his acts were wrong but few *arguably* was not wrong but I personally think those were not necessary. But as for Muhammad hijab in general he is a nice and friendly person he did many debates and discussions with many famous people and ordinary people he was nice and friendly like he did a podcast with Dr Josh Rasmussen on Necessary being. He is also doing his pdf on The Contingency arguments and wrote a Scholarly book *The Burhān: Arguments for a Necessary Being Inspired by Islamic Thought* which is available for free (I sent you the free pdf link with other Muslim philosophy resources by an email few weeks ago ) . If you like ibn sina or M.S. Zarepour's work then I think you may also like his book

[@Hello-vz1md]

His book is only 60 pages long like M.S.Zarepour's book which is 70+ pages. so you can easily finish reading that in a small amount of time whenever you are free

[@robertlewis2855]

If gears count as wheels (which they probably should all things considered) there are way more wheels than doors

[@bluenotesessions1]

Talk to me about Zinchenko, Jesus, and Viera! Are we going to win the league or what?

[@MajestyofReason]

Brilliant signings. Defo not win the league - that’s City again - but we’re serious contenders for top 4, and potentially even top 3🤩

[@bluenotesessions1]

@@MajestyofReason I haven’t been this excited to be a Gooner in a very long time. We just need some cover for Bukayo and Partey. Surely Pepe and Elneny won’t cut it. Found your channel recently and truly love your content. I always smile when I see you making sound arguments in Arsenal apparel.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@bluenotesessions1 ❤️ and COYG

[@iannovak5223]

Was it hard to edit this video? How long did it take?

[@MajestyofReason]

Very, very long lol

[@ebrietassmaragdina1063]

I know this may be sudden, but I would like to be cleared of a doubt I have. I apologize if I am being inopportune. I have been thinking about contingency and necessity. It seems to me that if we understand by contingency that being which has no explanation of its existence in itself but in another, the explanation of contingent beings goes back ultimately in the necessary being. However, if the necessary being is brute, it means that ultimately the explanation of contingent beings keeps its explanation in nothingness, since the necessary being is the one who would do the explanatory work of contingent beings so to speak. So we seem to be committed to accepting that the necessary being explains itself. I hope I have not been talking nonsense. After all, it is something that occurred to me recently when I had free time to ramble.

[@photon4076]

The multiverse theodicies I know normally say that God is doing some kind of maximising of goods and that "universes-without-suffering + universes-with-suffering" allows for more goods than just "universes-without-suffering". My own version of the multiverse theodicy would go like this: Assumptions: 1) God doesn't lack anything, so he creates a (sentient) creature not for His benefit, but for the benefit of that creature. 2) God created an afterlife where the suffering of a sentient creature can be ended/healed/redeemed. With these assumptions I think it would make sense for God to create every possible creature that will be redeemed, or every possible creature that can choose redemption. If our universe, or rather all the (sentient) creatures in it, are redeemable, then this universe would be expected. (I know there has been some discussion on multiverse theodicies in philosophy, but I haven't really researched it so far, so I don't know what versions and what objections have been presented so far.)

[@anitkythera4125]

Re: consciousness is more expected on theism than on naturalism. Doesn’t naturalism predict that due to its incredible complexity, that consciousness, if it arises at all, would be exceedingly rare and that seems to be the case for the vast majority of time on earth and heck…99.999997% of the universe seems to preclude the emergence of such complexity…whereas theism can kinda predict all levels of consciousness saturation of the universe. Thoughts?

[@MajestyofReason]

Right, there are more specific facts about consciousness that are more expected on naturalism than on theism, Eg, what you’ve pointed out here. But this is consistent with the claim that the very existence of any consciousness at all (which is a more general fact) is evidence for theism over naturalism🙂

[@dominiks5068]

"Matt Dillahunty... no." lmao

[@allisonsutherland1144]

Could you share with me the link to the document at 1:02:12 please?

[@allisonsutherland1144]

Nevermind, I just saw that it was for Patreons.

[@Hello-vz1md]

Thanks joe for answering my questions 3:37:18 I asked this question because according to islamic holy books Allah or God have a face, 2 *Right* hands , multiple fingers and eyes and he is above his Arsh or throne and the throne is above heavens.The traditional view is that this is literal but those are non human or unlike anything in his creations .Thanks for your interesting point you gave me something to think about . I asked can *a* Necessary being have 2 *Right* hands* *NECESSARILY* ? By this I wanted to asked can a NB necessarily have this kind of random or arbitrary things like instead of 2 right hands it could have been 2 left hands or 20 hands or 2000 hands or 1 hand or No hand at all. Does this limit the NB ? The typical response by Muslims are that God is infinite and we can't understand his nature fully. Context: this question was inspired by the recent famous debate between Jake the Muslim metaphysician and Dr Khalil Andani on TAP Which also got alot of attention by many Christians and atheists

[@inquiringreality1354]

Look everybody it’s the nerd version of Tom Holland

[@laplacesdemon82]

God : "Did you love?" Joe : "from now on I shall make love everyday"

[@snowforest6487]

So what you're saying is canadian Catholic is the best philosopher and debater?nah nah jk congratulations on 10k

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

I'm mad no one ask you what is your favorite food. Now we will never know!

[@jameymassengale5665]

I haven't watched it all, but so far this is one of your best videos. So far I've seen nothing that prevents you from being the type of theist that I am. I am for example an atheist to most definitions of theism as they are extenuated philosophically. I'm not especially agnostic with regard to most philosophical speculation although I am agnostic to certain questions I have myself. I am a theist only in this narrow definition, that YHVHJESUS is the only sufficient definition of theism that agrees with all my sensory input intuition and reason I shall be able to identify with in this universe. I don't see how I could without either being a god or having sufficient knowledge of the GODMAN, and I say "the" rather than "a" because I'm defining God as the singularity and creator of the space-time manifold we inhabit. I consider the manifest humanity of that God necessary to address all questions that may arise from my human condition. From there the proof is two parts 1. If YHVHJESUS made the claim 2. If YHVHJESUS produced evidence sufficient for the claim As for 1, It's recorded he made the claim and said his resurrection was sufficient evidence because it would logically prove A) he has the reason for his existence within himself, causality, and B) it would prove the God with control over the 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS agrees. From there, I take it YHVHJESUS affirms the old testament, and he is also an atheist in regard to philosophical theism and that neither old nor new testament support philosophical theism and that he is only agnostic concerning the day and hour of his return (I take this to be not principally agnosticism so much as inexplicability, even in the first century there was speculation concerning 2000 more years, and with all the calendar controversies he would have had to form an answer sounding like the song THE AGE OF AQUARIUS which still wouldn't supply the day or the hour. IN FACT, I think that his answer goes to his credibility and knowledge of counterfactuals you would not expect from a fraud). MY SUGGESTION IS THEN, as it was for myself, what evidence would be sufficient for me to believe he resurrected, then ask him to help me meet my gold standard, and then I would have both sufficient evidence to believe that the event occurred and to trust him. Outside of that your just pissing in the wind.

[@whatsinaname691]

Spider-Man complaining about a spider on his foot? Curious

[@brunoarruda9916]

A follow up from your remarks on divine temporality: what is your take between the tensed and tenseless theories of time? Kind of related, what about the neo-lorentzian interpretation of relativity defended by WLC? Just looking for quick answers out of curiosity, I know that I’m late and should have asked it on the other video in order to get something more substantial. Haha

[@philosophicaljay3449]

I find your view that a god needs to be perfect to be worthy of worship interesting. It reminds me of this part from Greer's book, 'A World full of Gods', "Imagine to pursue this further, that a god were to manifest himself in the skies of Earth in some apocalyptic event along the lines of the Second Coming. One of the things the god seeks to communicate is an accurate account of his nature and powers. He explains that theologians have made several mistakes. Although powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it, he is not omnipotent; he cannot, say, violate the laws of physics. Although vastly wise and knowledgeable, in addition, he is not omniscient; perhaps he cannot actually know what human beings are going to do before they do it. The god goes on to explain that the theologians had the rest of it more or less right: he is the only god in the universe, he is omni-benevolent, full of infinite love for human beings, and eager to grant salvation and eternal bliss to any person who returns that love and strives to do good to other people. Would it be reasonable to turn up one’s nose and reject the god, on the grounds that he’s not infinite enough for one’s taste?" I think something similar could very well be constructed based on the idea of 'perfection', especially if that perfection requires being the source of everything apart from yourself. I mean, I do have disagreement that that would be required for perfection, but. even if I grant it, I don't see why perfection should then be seen as necessary for a being to be a god (in a similar way as Greer's above quote when it comes to omni-traits).

[@jakek.403]

Hi! I’ve seen some of your posts around before, and I wanted to ask: do you know of any other books, perferably more serious and academic, on polytheism, and it’s benefits/arguments? I guess those are kind of hard to come by. I’ve seen you post about Greer, and I’ll check him o sometime soon. Thanks

[@philosophicaljay3449]

@@jakek.403 There are very few books out there on the subject, but what I can recommend are: "A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism" by John Michael Greer (the one I just quoted from). "The Case for Polytheism" by Steven Dillon (serves as a good 101 intro to the topic, isn't too in depth) Steven Dillon does have another book coming out Monday called "Pagan Portals - Polytheism: A Platonic Approach", don't know if it is going to be good or not. "Essays on the Metaphysics of Polytheism in Proclus" by Edward Butler "God Is Dead, Long Live the Gods: A Case for Polytheism" by Gus diZerega (I haven't read it yet, have been recommended it by a good friend though) And then I can recommend just reading the works of Proclus, as modern Neo-Platonists draw a lot from him (and Plato, obviously). I am in the process of writing a book myself, but it is quite a ways off.

[@jakek.403]

@@philosophicaljay3449 thanks

[@deepfritz225]

Based and redpilled

[@phoebejean7193]

I do hope you watch Death Note

[@kostylin_TFA]

Imagina si vieran nuestras conversaciones donde te hablo en español y me respondes en inglés XD

[@MajestyofReason]

Lolol

[@DigitalGnosis]

Sixth

[@MajestyofReason]

first reply to your comment!

[@omarhassan7627]

I agree with you that Mohamed Hijab is a tribalist, aggressive and hypocrite person. But Hamza Trotzti is a different person, hones, respectful and more knowledgeable than Hijab. Try to contact with him if you are interested in debating or having conversation with Muslim apologetics. You look honest go ahead.

[@achristian11]

Doesn’t comedy prove that God exists? Premise 1 If God didn’t exist neither would comedy Premise 2 comedy exists Conclusion: God exists God gave you intelligence and He made you to be really funny. That’s not fair! 😤

[@robertlewis2855]

You say that if you were to pick a most-plausible religion, you'd pick Christianity... I find this surprising as it makes many of the same claims as Judaism about god, but then adds all the Jesus stuff on top. This is surely less simple, not to mention the concern of contradiction regarding the trinity and the addition of extra miracles

[@MajestyofReason]

Right, but I don’t think there are reasons for thinking Judaism is true (Eg, miracle claims, exodus stuff, etc.) that are comparable in strength to arguments for Jesus’s resurrection. This doesn’t, of course, mean that the latter has very strong reasons; I’m simply making a comparative claim (by my lights)

[@robertlewis2855]

@@MajestyofReason Thanks for taking the time out of your day to reply to this! I think the thing with Christianity is that Jesus probably took the old testament to be true (being a rabbi in the Roman era). Jesus likely believed in some of the claims as literal that science has now forced into the sphere of allegory. So believing in Jesus as the son of God - which I would think includes believing what Jesus seems to have believed - entails believing that Judaism is true. All that is just to say, if you grant the divinity of Jesus, you likely grant the truth of the Jewish tradition that existed in his time. And therefore if you have evidence to believe that Christianity is true in its claims about the godliness of Jesus, then that evidence works equally in favour of Judaism (it simply makes some additional claims about the divinity of Jesus). I suppose you could rebuff that by saying that it would only be because of the strength of Jesus' resurrection evidence that the old testament's claims even hold water. That is, Jewish claims add nothing and only the person of Jesus validates their plausibility. But I would say that's a questionable move for an agnostic to make without due justification

[@philosophicaljay3449]

@@MajestyofReason I know you said you disagree with polytheism, but I think that one thing that can be pointed out is that Jesus's resurrection does not necessarily conflict with polytheism. We have multiple historic documents where pagans viewed YHWH and Jesus as just more gods that exist, and they would have no issue thinking that Jesus died and rose. In fact, the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr once said, "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." From here, and combined with some texts (like the Greek Magical Papyri, as an example), it is clear that the polytheist can view Jesus being divine, in some way, and even Jesus rising from the dead could still be consistent with polytheism. This means that the arguments for the resurrection should be combined with arguments for the oneness of God to reach strict Christianity. IF there are convincing arguments for polytheism, then an argument for the resurrection of Jesus would not be, imo, sufficient to prove Christianity.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@philosophicaljay3449 good points. I would argue, though, that P(Christ’s resurrection | Christianity) is greater than P(Christ’s resurrection | some brand of polytheistic paganism). A priori, polytheistic paganism doesn’t seem to give us much reason to expect that Christ would raise from the dead, even though it’s *compatible* with Christ’s resurrection. Ofc, I’m open to being mistaken here🙂

[@philosophicaljay3449]

​@@MajestyofReason I will concede that if no other arguments are considered that Christ's resurrection under Christianity is more likely than under just some vague polytheism. I do think, however, that if one concludes that Christ did resurrect that it raises the probability of miracles in general (including non-Christian miracles) as being true as well, and that this can then lead to doubts of Christianity as being strictly true (instead of just YHWH and Jesus being divine). This is why I would think it is important to not only provide an argument for the resurrection, but also for the oneness of God, as, otherwise, it opens up the door for a polytheist to easily provide arguments for the multiplicity of the Gods. [EDIT: For an example of a non-Christian miracle, we can look to Plutarch's 'The Life of Coriolanus' where the number of credible witnesses were so great to the statue of the goddess Fortuna spoke. While Plutarch, being a skeptic of this event, was able to explain other miraculous phenomena, the number of accounts from eye-witnesses, credible ones at that, forced him to conclude that a sort of mass hallucination occurred (does this not seem familiar to arguments against the resurrection?). There are, of course, numerous others we can look to, ones that would be better attested by records we still have today (rather than relying on attestation of records no longer available to us). I just used an example I was already somewhat familiar with.]

[@zsoltnagy5654]

Hm. So the phrase _"One’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens."_ is supposed to represent most dilaktics and arguments - *_unless_*_ of course there are independent reasons given for asserting the antecedent rather than denying the consequent?_ In my opinion to any such syllogisms/arguments there are three positions: 1st position - proclaimer of P1/P2/C: P1) If X, then Y. P2) X. C) Therefore, Y. 2nd position - C/P1 denyer: P1') ~Y. P2) X. C') Therefore, ~(if X, then Y). 3rd position - C/P2 denyer: P1) If X, then Y. P2'') ~Y. C'') Therefore, ~X. *All relevant things considered* I don't think, that the phrase _"One’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens."_ is capable of representing this dilaktic. It's worse than that - I think, that the phrase _"One’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens."_ is actively conveying the false impression of most dilaktics/arguments and debates being about dichotomies, when it is actually in most cases not that dichotomous. Just sayin.

[@vulteiuscatellus4105]

You’re really reading into that statement. A modus ponens argument CAN be others’ modus tollens, but it doesn’t NEED to be. Also, please stop flooding Alexander Pruss’s blog with your condescending, arrogant ramblings.

[@vulteiuscatellus4105]

I really think people humor you too much.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@vulteiuscatellus4105 Well, if a modus ponens argument doesn't NEED to be another's modus tollens argument, then the phrase _"One Man's Modus Ponens is another Man's Modus Tollens"_ doesn't also NEED to be a common phrase - well, since it is also already not accurate in the first place. Besides, P1) I wouldn't flood Alexander Pruss's blog with well formed objections, if and only if Alexander Pruss wouldn't present and give notoriously bad arguments on his blog. P2) Alexander Pruss presents and gives notoriously bad arguments on his blog currently. C) Therefore, I flood Alexander Pruss's blog with well formed objections currently. You see, I kinda have to do that in order for the above argument to remain sound. And how is it going about that objection of mine some theists committing a kind of prosecutor's fallacy, when arguing about something being more evident for one theory over another theory probably, when it is only known or demonstrated, that that thing is more probable on one theory than over that another one theory? Did you already come up with a better objection of yours than me being apparently only according to you a _"condescending arrogant"_ person?!? It seems to be not the case, that you have anything better or actually substantial than that. I'm so sad about you not being capable of stepping up your game a notch.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@vulteiuscatellus4105 Well, ironie is not everybody's cup of tee. But it is apparently my and some other one's cup of tee regarding humor or comedy. I'm sorry, if you and I do not share that same kind of humor. I guess, the Creator of supposedly everything (excluding the Creator itself) didn't bother creating every person equally with finding same things being humorous even though supposedly we are all with different images created in that Creator's one image. That's the way, it is, I guess unironicaly (wink, wink).

[@vulteiuscatellus4105]

@@zsoltnagy5654 Your objections are rambly and point-missing and stupid, and no matter how many times people try to smack sense into your deluded, thick skull - you carry on your merry way with fallacy after fallacy. Your bone-headed inference about a common phrase just proves this point.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Good video sp far! On Calvinism: it's not the case that Calvinists hold that external factors to the agent cause them to do what they do. Calvinism (at least the aspects you're talking about) affirms that God ordains and decrees all that happens (but so do Molinists). It affirms that God's grace is casually active in producing/generating good, but he doesn't ever produce or infuse evil into people. He only ever gives people over to evil or withdraws his influence as a judgment. Further, God decrees actions to fall out according to the nature of contigent causes. So if God decrees that Joe does x, he decrees that Joe freely does so--i.e he actualizes the state of affairs in which you freely do x, he doesn't override your freedom or set you up in a causal nexus that makes you do x. Any goodness in x is owing to God's influence, whereas any evil is owing to us (since God always gives enough such that you are not forced to evil by some causal nexus) And even your good actions, while brought about through God's active influence, is still free (think benevolent Frankfurt scenarios)

[@MajestyofReason]

As you’re illustrating here, the matters are immensely complicated - even more so than my brief discussion of Calvinism lets on!!🙂

[@silverharloe]

If you're going to say agnostic prayer is rational, why not go full hog and cover all your bases properly? Consider, as a starting point for composing such a prayer, the "possibly proper death litany" from the agnostic priest in Zelazny's Creatures of Light and Darkness: "Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to ensure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen."

[@james1098778910]

I find the whole debate around mathematical platonism misguided. The word 'exists', like every word, is a sound we have agreed to use under circumstances (and not use under others). It makes no sense to ask whether the plus function exists. There is nothing that counts as the plus function existing. That's like asking what red tastes like. That's not how we use the word 'exist'.

[@dominiks5068]

"it's just like sleep, death isn't bad" is the biggest cope ever. of course death is bad, nothing is more obvious (Arrival is indeed a glorious film :))

[@MajestyofReason]

Much love Dominik❤️ I know you’re just addressing the idea that death’s being like sleep means death isn’t bad, however just for people who haven’t watched that portion, we should note that I was just answering whether I’m scared of death - I do, indeed, think death is bad! I accept a deprivation account of its badness. There are lots of things that are bad but that I’m not scared of - Eg, the animal suffering hundreds of millions of years ago. Thanks for watching and commenting my dude 🙂

[@dominiks5068]

@@MajestyofReason Sure, you are right that those are somewhat separate issues - one is more of a philosophical question and the other is more psychological in nature

[@francoisbolduc444]

I don’t mind the believing in some non descriptive God entity. But men I hope you don’t give credit to religion (any religion).

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Obviously there is a difference in knowledge about God and fine-tuning arguments and actually having an Experience with God's supernatural Spirit! You understand the fine-tuning of the Universe but it seems not to effect your agnosticism! Free will etc. All Apologetics only supports my Experience with God at age 6 when God sent His Holy Spirit into my life ( body). This was a kinesthetic awareness of an outside Spirit entering my body when I repented and asked Jesus to be my Lord and Savior . You could like other Skeptics say it was only a self-fulfilling psychological wanting that was a self-delusional experience! But I was there: these Skeptics were NOT and only responding out of their presuppositions that anything not in the material reality is a fantasy. They deny all Spiritual knowledge from All cultures in many different Religions. Many Religions are Not an argument against Christianity but actually a pro argument for Spiritual beings that exist in All religions: Christianity just presents A personal God that wants relationship with his creation. There are many gods Elohim) but only 1 creator God( Elohim ). The Most High EL Elyon is YHWH the God of the Jews. Even though many Jews fell into idolatry and worshiped the god's of the canaanite pantheon. You will never come to God through knowledge alone: but only by an actual experience with God's Spirit: Me saying U should repent of your sin is usually where atheists have a hyper epileptic attack and start throwing F bombs because they don't want God to exist and they don't feel sinful: they feel they R Good and don't need any improvement by a Sky Daddy! Maybe have a discussion with Hugh Ross astrophysicist and Christian who didn't grow up as a Christian but came to Christ because of the Harmony of the Bible and science when the Bible is interpreted as the Biblical writers intended : even though the Bible isn't a Scientific text book. Do you stop to breathe ? Just kidding 😂. So why do we have beauty or a desire for abstract thinking about higher supernatural beings if we are only a product of irrational random processes? Some Cultures don't develop these ideas that torturing babies is wrong: our culture of that comes from our Christian Heritage: atheists in America are conditioned by our Heritage of Christianity. A culture in Papua New Guinea had treachery as their highest cultural value before they became Christians. It isn't always a tragedy that Christianity changes Primitive cultures like anthropologist think. So Christians helped you become an agnostic: seems very ungrateful! But we all go through phases! .You're missing the Muslim questions Allah has 2 Right hands ! Daughters also. Maybe talk to Apostate Prophet! Salvation is Free : God didn't make it contingent on a high level of Education or IQ: you seem to be talking yourself out of the possibility of believing in God! Sad : I will pray 4 U that God opens your eyes and heart or kidneys which is what the Hebrew word actually is and is actually connected to your emotions in Chinese medicine of acupuncture. Unicorn is a Greek word and is only a one horned animal like the wooly rhino. The Biblical Unicorn isn't a flying horse with a horn. The Dragon or sea monster in Genesis isn't literal either it's the idea of a chaos god living in water ( chaos) Environment . Dr.Michael S.Heiser can help your understanding of the Ancient Hebrew context of the Bible especially Genesis 1-11. This post was long but NOT nearly as long as you're video. Open U R mind and heart to God: God isn't afraid of U R Skepticism: He actually likes a challenge : challenge Him to do something that only an intelligent supernatural being could do ! Asking God to show himself to you is a death wish : atheists think that is All God needs to do: but then like Matt Dillahunty he will still deny his sense of seeing God. You have probably heard everything I have said before but the one thing I see as different in you're nature: you don't seem like an angry person which I am very happy 4. And hope you take this post in its context of concern and not in anyway of a religious attack against you.

[@visions269]

42:40 Joe loves to extol embodying theoretical virtues, in particular epistemic humility, yet speaks so authoritatively on Santa Claus when he clearly has never engaged with the Problem of Cookies and Milk (why are they gone on Christmas morning?). Really a disappointing oversight.

[@huntertobey6965]

I challenge you to debate a competent vegan like mouthy infidel or dr avi or ask yourself, you will get clapped

[@mega1chiken6dancr9]

remain respectful bruh

[@logicalliberty132]

lmao, joe has read far more formidable proponents of veganism than youtubers, like professional philosophers such as Michael Huemer

[@huntertobey6965]

@@logicalliberty132 have him debate one of them then and see how it turns out. He will get clapped, there is no justification for the animal Holocaust

[@francoisbolduc444]

Animal eating animal = circle of life, the way of nature. Human (animal) eating animal = holocaust, horror, disgusting.

[@huntertobey6965]

@@francoisbolduc444 we don’t base our morality off of what animals do. Animals also rape eachother. Animals don’t have moral agency and they have to eat out of survival, so I cannot hold them morally accountable. Unlike humans who do have moral agency and don’t need to eat animals to survive. So unless you think a behavior is justified because an animal does it (animals rape eachother, kill their own species, kill their own babies, torture, etc) i recommend you rethink your position

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

2:57:10 It's quite frustrating to have to refute this for what seems like the 1000th time for me, especially when it's coming from someone as critical as yourself but here we go. HIJAB NEVER PULLED ANY ANTICS: Let us assess some of cosmic skeptic's claims; *Mic cutting out:* literally had nothing to do with Hijab whatsoever and if hijab is blameworthy for that then so is Abdullah al Andalusia right? why would Muslims cut out the mic when he is reciting a verse that has 100s of millions of views on YT Quran recitations? *Hijab being a bit aggressive:* that was because Alex started by using quite vulgar language when it came to our prophet in one of his videos, so Hijab had to push back, exactly the same logic you yourself used when you posted " Trent Horn rebutted" because he did it first *misquoting him:* Hijab never misquoted him and he responded to that allegation in his video and showed that Alex actually misquoted him later in an interview, and it was a lot less vague than Hijab's "misquotings" like there was no room for interpretation *censoring comments:* you, as well as everybody else who watched CosmicSkeptic's video probably don't know this but Hijab has been censoring comments since day 1 on his channel and he does it to positive and negative comments alike! I really don't know why he does it, but it clearly has nothing to do with his academic integrity, I will admit it's annoying seeing as I have had some of my comments censored but it's his channel and he can do whatever right? bonus: you can check my channel for a brief clip showing how actually Alex was the ignorant one during that debate.

[@deathnote4171]

You forgot about hijab's editing his recitation of Quran in the debate which was originally not present in the debate. About mic cutting out you forgot that alex showed how when mic cut out during hijab's speech it became good within seconds but in Alex's speech it took minute(s) as far I can remember. About your video 30 s video Oh God! You used video from alex acting as a fake Christian where he defends argument for God as a fake Christian. He was explaining CA in that footage. Moreover alex is a hard determinist he argued in that debate that if everything is deterministic then things can't be differently from its current situation therefore nothing is contingent and everything is necessary. Few philosophers have actually wrote papers on this and defended this argument. I don't know did alex changed his position over the years but in that debate hijab misunderstood alex.

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

@@deathnote4171 ok I agree with the mic point, but still, it has nothing to do with Hijab, whoever was responsible for editing the audio is, not Hijab. Alex wasn’t acting at all dude, he said “ yea that’s logically possible”

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

@@deathnote4171 the other points all stand still

[@deathnote4171]

@@ILoveLuhaidan alex was explaining the contingency argument to Stephen. He did the same with joe in his God tier list video explaining CA doesn't mean that you agree with CA .Just go and watch his debates with hijab and cam where he use deterministic argument against CA .And watch the podcast with Stephen again carefully. And hijab also didn't let alex upload the full debate. Saboor Ahmed said hijab don't have control over this it's up to S.A.L.A.M organization but later a Russian guy uploaded the whole debate in his language with hijab's permission

[@theonetruetim]

Hi, Here are my comments 1. A: "G-d" exists. Absolutely (literally; absolutely) zero intelligent way to connect It to religions, tho. (except...see last comment) In other words, there is no Logical predicate, or good argument to connect The answer to infinite regress w/ v to Judeo-Christian-Islamic monoethical Theistic whatevers via their revelations, scriptures, stories, etc. (or is there...) (there isn't, but if u are going to pretend, have a good argument for it, and admit where there is weakness in it. Unlike Philosophy professors who are Christian apologists do. THEY abuse jargon. Joe does not. That is why I am hundreds of hours in - to Majesty Of Reason content, currently!) "All hail The Logos; reject Christianity" -Heraclitus. (just never mind trying to resolve my belief in flux and Cause, say I, at this juncture. That can be answered for. But, Christians, Jews, Muslims ain't got nuthin', & we got a lot mo comment to run thru... so , maybe later.) Either way; The historical record is clear on religious/mythological/historical/institutional corruption. Pretending otherwise, like kind-but-evil* (my definition of evil may differ from yours, which is consistent w/ every standard used to define "evil". Tis inconsistent, by it's imagined nature.) folks such as Tim Pawl, and Josh Rasmussen, no less WLC & the like do, is absurd. The record is plain. Nonetheless, infinite regress don't stand, considering most viable physical explanations. B: Cultivation of Vice is Moral. See: Wllm Blake. Otherwise, I am mostly in agreement w/yr assessment of what 'Moral' may be.(lots more to say on this, but i burned up a lot of attention, I'm sure, above. Moving on...) 2. Philosophy = Love of Wisdom. Don't get it twisted. (But; word, [published v not] on the Epistemics and the Beautiful variety, otherwise) 3. +1 Mind 4. Education Reform: Love it. ( Love is a word like evil*... Yr welcome for the education. ; p) Something to consider, which i believe you do, as you mentioned the importance of sleep schedules and other beneficial physiological concerns, is the fractious nature of human sensitivity. If education is to be idealized, we have to remember that not all folks are goats. Some are sheep. Not saying The Republic is a good rx, but... (See Prometheism) Thar be a human nature problem that is becoming more and more imbalanced & obvious er day. The Ivory Tower, ironically, is lacking in this perspective. Also, re: Academia; The incentives that drive publication, and funding are corrupt. (also) for further evidence of exponentiating and dark trends See: inequality, stagnant social mobility, and much more!!. This problem is not ez... Quality v Balance is a roadblock to improving our capacity. Problems and aids abound. We have advanced faster than we have advanced. "Who is the we?". Society has still not found the time to answer this, so addressing education reform, sadly is moot. Hegelian dialectics are being pumped up on steroids, and geo-political info contests are well under way, etc.... so...education, currently, is another sign of the inequality which exhausts our failing "equilibrium". Shame, cuz reform woulda been nice... The End is really f$#%^&*g nigh! (also) Per the concerns you address in #5 also! (fun!) 👇 5. advice: good stuff. You offer valuable insight and awareness. 6(66). Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole of The Law Love is The Law, Love under Will -at 19 minutes in, on a 4 hour video i want to watch..... I will conclude my comment/per/your comment/commentary scheme. But, I hope I may have sparked a lil sumpin deeper in yr psyche, if not today, perhaps, on another - may the seeds not fail. Some religions aid process. Others pervert it. All Hail The Logos! (the True One) Love ya Joe & Co., T-

[@theonetruetim]

don't worry; i get less wordy. But, I have a love of, well... (see above) -don't knock The Logos (the Reason w/i), y'all. Word. (psssst; apologists: Septuagint was first, not Hebrew stuff. Jesus schemes are absurd. etc. DO NOT take for granted that spark of Reason w/i. ... you sinners, you. Mind your if/thens, screw yr jargon. Catholics and Jesus both trafficked lil boys and play cover for one another through a liturgical tradition stretching back centuries. Not polemic, true.) look it up, in Greek b4 the scribes and medieval lies. What's True; is True. Decorum & form-fetish b damned. Stop covering for evil, but well-dressed, in Mithraic sun-laden regalia, lies.

[@lanceindependent]

I remain baffled that you'd endorse epistemic realism. There's no especially good reason to think epistemic realism is true, any more than moral realism. It's not even clear such views are intelligible.

[@philosophicaljay3449]

"There's no especially good reason to think epistemic realism is true, ANY MORE THAN MORAL REALISM. It's not even clear such views are intelligible." I mean, from the newest PhilSurvey, ~65% of meta-ethicists hold that moral realism is true. I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion of 'no good reason' or 'not intelligible' without addressing the reasoning behind its popularity.

[@lanceindependent]

@@philosophicaljay3449 I didn't jump to any conclusions, I didn't do so quickly, and I have addressed its popularity.

[@MajestyofReason]

I take intuitions to be reasons-giving to those who have hm; and since I have quite strong intuitions pertaining to epistemic realism, I have reason to think it’s true. So I don’t think it’s right to say there’s no good reason to accept it. Note: I don’t take my intuition to be evidentially salient to *your* reasons. Justification is person-based. It’s similar to how the LNC might not strike an alien as true in the slightest sense, and yet I still take myself to be perfectly justified in accepting it based on its intuitive obviousness. To be sure, there may be defeaters for my aforementioned intuition; but that’s a separate question from whether the intuition provides me any reason whatsoever. (And if it doesn’t, I would argue we’d be cast into radical skepticism. But that’s a topic for another day!)

[@lanceindependent]

@@MajestyofReason Great to hear from you. I stand by the claim that I don't think you have any especially good reason to endorse epistemic realism. The issue here isn't so much a clash of intuitions (i.e., you have your intuitions, and I have contrary ones), but has more to do with methodological/metaphilosophical issues. This reliance on intuitions is itself part of the problem. I think this intuitions talk is largely something made up by philosophers, that there isn't really any substantive sense of "intuitions" shared among ordinary people, that it represents a kind of trained and strange way of thinking that contemporary philosophers are inducted into using, and that you are likely operating within the flawed metaphilosophical framework of contemporary analytic philosophy. I also take it to be a rather serious problem that philosophers appear incapable of communicating what they're talking about when they refer to various types of normative realism (epistemic, moral, etc.). They don't see the issue here, apparently. And I think this, too, stems from problems with analytic philosophy. I suspect that analytic philosophers have trained themselves into a host of linguistic and conceptual confusions, and that epistemic and moral realism are two byproducts of this practice. There's no way for me to readily convince you or anyone else of either claim in a KZbin comment. But if you want to get more of a bird's eye view and look at some of the criticisms not of epistemic or moral realism, but of analytic philosophy itself, check out Horwich's book, "Wittgenstein's Metaphilosophy." Of course, I could be wrong about both points above, and would be happy to discuss metaphilosophy and methodology with you some time.

[@philosophicaljay3449]

@@lanceindependent "and I have addressed its popularity" In the comment I responded to you did not. Only in your response to Joe did you do so, at least within the comment section here. Maybe you have addressed it elsewhere as well, but I have never talked with you before now nor do I know who you are (thus you cannot expect me, even if you can expect certain others, to having all the context of previous discussions). Within the comment I responded to, there was nothing to address the popularity. I am not taking its popularity as it being true, just that good justification needs to be provided to say it is "not even clear such views are intelligible" considering its popularity among academics. Only now, 4 hours after this comment I am responding to, have you given your justification here, and thus opened up a real possibility for discussion on the topic.

[@PrOBOY251]

Debating God's existence is pointless; if when you die you cease to exist....In my opinion, if you believe God exist you should believe in an afterlife, otherwise, who cares!!!