1
00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:07,840
Speaker 1: Life Audio. As you've been defending the existence of God

2
00:00:07,920 --> 00:00:11,520
Speaker 1: for more than four decades, in debates and in writings

3
00:00:11,560 --> 00:00:14,800
Speaker 1: and in conversation, how would you assess the state of

4
00:00:14,840 --> 00:00:15,760
Speaker 1: the debate today?

5
00:00:16,000 --> 00:00:20,520
Speaker 2: I think that there has been a tremendous revival of interest.

6
00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:25,000
Speaker 2: Why does anything at all exist? Why is there something

7
00:00:25,640 --> 00:00:30,720
Speaker 2: rather than nothing? The Bible says God resists the proud,

8
00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:35,800
Speaker 2: but gives grace to the humble. If we truly want

9
00:00:35,840 --> 00:00:39,839
Speaker 2: to find God, then we must approach him in humility

10
00:00:40,120 --> 00:00:42,200
Speaker 2: and not in arrogance.

11
00:00:43,479 --> 00:00:46,280
Speaker 1: Have the arguments for the existence of God been defeated

12
00:00:46,720 --> 00:00:49,080
Speaker 1: or if they still stand, how strong are they when

13
00:00:49,080 --> 00:00:52,840
Speaker 1: the toughest objections are raised against them? Our guest today,

14
00:00:52,920 --> 00:00:56,760
Speaker 1: doctor William Lane Craig, is perhaps the foremost contemporary defender

15
00:00:56,840 --> 00:01:00,600
Speaker 1: of the existence of God. In his latest volume of

16
00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:04,720
Speaker 1: his Systematic Philosophical Theology, which is not written for lay people,

17
00:01:05,080 --> 00:01:09,080
Speaker 1: by the way, he defends six arguments for God's existence

18
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:12,080
Speaker 1: that he finds convincing. We're going to talk about them

19
00:01:12,120 --> 00:01:14,680
Speaker 1: and the state of the debate today, and we'll invite

20
00:01:14,720 --> 00:01:18,800
Speaker 1: you back Tuesday live at four thirty Pacific Standard time.

21
00:01:19,120 --> 00:01:22,399
Speaker 1: I'll be joined by another talbot, Professor to respond to

22
00:01:22,480 --> 00:01:26,920
Speaker 1: your questions and objections from this post. You can email

23
00:01:27,000 --> 00:01:30,040
Speaker 1: me questions at Sean mcdoll dot org or write them

24
00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:32,920
Speaker 1: in here and we will take your best, toughest questions,

25
00:01:33,400 --> 00:01:36,600
Speaker 1: Doctor Craig, Thanks for coming back. It's always a treat

26
00:01:36,640 --> 00:01:37,160
Speaker 1: to have you on.

27
00:01:38,040 --> 00:01:39,760
Speaker 2: Always enjoy doing your show.

28
00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:43,600
Speaker 1: Sean, Well, let's jump right in, and this question might

29
00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:46,240
Speaker 1: be this first one that I'm most curious about. Because

30
00:01:46,280 --> 00:01:49,680
Speaker 1: you've been defending the existence of God for more than

31
00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:53,480
Speaker 1: four decades in debates and in writings and in conversation,

32
00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:57,320
Speaker 1: how would you assess the state of the debate today

33
00:01:57,880 --> 00:01:58,920
Speaker 1: versus when you began.

34
00:02:00,360 --> 00:02:04,360
Speaker 2: I think that there has been a tremendous revival of

35
00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:10,480
Speaker 2: interest in the arguments of natural theology over the last generation.

36
00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:17,120
Speaker 2: The number of philosophers working on these arguments includes some

37
00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:22,400
Speaker 2: of the best philosophers working today, and so this is

38
00:02:22,480 --> 00:02:25,520
Speaker 2: really a flourishing cottage industry, I think.

39
00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:30,800
Speaker 1: Well, one of the most articulate and thoughtful critics of

40
00:02:30,840 --> 00:02:33,400
Speaker 1: this movement would be Graham Api, and he's claimed that

41
00:02:33,480 --> 00:02:38,080
Speaker 1: there are no good theistic arguments. Why do you differ

42
00:02:38,160 --> 00:02:41,080
Speaker 1: with him? And what are the criteria in your mind

43
00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:43,080
Speaker 1: that you think makes an argument good.

44
00:02:44,560 --> 00:02:48,400
Speaker 2: I have a discussion of this question in the introduction

45
00:02:48,880 --> 00:02:53,440
Speaker 2: to this volume, and I think that Professor Api sets

46
00:02:53,480 --> 00:02:59,840
Speaker 2: the standard for what counts as a good argument unrealistically high.

47
00:03:00,600 --> 00:03:08,359
Speaker 2: He measures an argument's goodness by its success in persuading

48
00:03:08,440 --> 00:03:11,840
Speaker 2: people to change their minds. But I don't think that

49
00:03:11,919 --> 00:03:16,200
Speaker 2: the goodness of an argument is measured by its success,

50
00:03:16,400 --> 00:03:21,040
Speaker 2: which could be impeded by all sorts of psychological and

51
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:27,120
Speaker 2: other factors. And what counts as success, well, according to

52
00:03:27,360 --> 00:03:33,240
Speaker 2: Appi's account, as successful argument is one that ought to

53
00:03:33,320 --> 00:03:40,200
Speaker 2: persuade all reasonable people who have reasonable views about the

54
00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:45,720
Speaker 2: matter to change their minds. Well, that is unrealistically high

55
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:49,640
Speaker 2: as a standard of success. On that basis, there are

56
00:03:49,800 --> 00:03:56,080
Speaker 2: no good philosophical arguments for anything, including API's own arguments,

57
00:03:56,240 --> 00:04:02,640
Speaker 2: so the standard of success persuading all reasonable people is

58
00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:09,080
Speaker 2: simply unrealistic. I think that the arguments that I present

59
00:04:09,200 --> 00:04:14,200
Speaker 2: are good arguments. They are deductive arguments, and a good

60
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:22,040
Speaker 2: deductive argument must be logically valid, have true premises, and

61
00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:28,080
Speaker 2: then have premisses that are supported by the evidence in

62
00:04:28,240 --> 00:04:32,479
Speaker 2: such a way as to have a particular epistemic value

63
00:04:33,480 --> 00:04:38,200
Speaker 2: for us. Now, exactly what that value is is very

64
00:04:38,240 --> 00:04:42,160
Speaker 2: difficult to say. It certainly doesn't need to be certainty,

65
00:04:43,240 --> 00:04:49,160
Speaker 2: is it probability plausibility? Well, in the theistic arguments that I defend,

66
00:04:49,360 --> 00:04:54,000
Speaker 2: I think that the probability of the conjunction of their

67
00:04:54,040 --> 00:05:01,359
Speaker 2: premisses is in every case pretty clearly greater than fifty percent,

68
00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:06,160
Speaker 2: so that these are arguments demonstrate their conclusions to be

69
00:05:06,279 --> 00:05:11,600
Speaker 2: more probable than not, and therefore, in my judgment, they

70
00:05:11,640 --> 00:05:14,040
Speaker 2: are very good arguments.

71
00:05:14,440 --> 00:05:17,240
Speaker 1: I really appreciate that point that we're not talking about certainty,

72
00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:20,920
Speaker 1: but more probable than not, and of course leaning into

73
00:05:20,960 --> 00:05:25,040
Speaker 1: what's the best explanation for some of these phenomena. Now

74
00:05:25,040 --> 00:05:27,320
Speaker 1: you have six arguments here, and for each one, I'm

75
00:05:27,320 --> 00:05:29,960
Speaker 1: gonna ask you to just kind of briefly explain what

76
00:05:30,240 --> 00:05:33,119
Speaker 1: the argument is, and then I'll have at least one

77
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:36,800
Speaker 1: objection to one of these, to each of these, and

78
00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:39,360
Speaker 1: then invite your response. And again people watching going, wait

79
00:05:39,360 --> 00:05:42,760
Speaker 1: a minute, there's more objection than this. Right, your objections

80
00:05:42,800 --> 00:05:45,200
Speaker 1: in and we'll be back live Tuesday at four point

81
00:05:45,200 --> 00:05:48,920
Speaker 1: thirty with a professor from Taboschool Theology in the Philosopher

82
00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:51,479
Speaker 1: of Poljets Department, and we will do our best to

83
00:05:51,560 --> 00:05:54,560
Speaker 1: respond to those as well, so let's start with the

84
00:05:54,760 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 1: argument from contingency. What's that argument?

85
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:04,680
Speaker 2: This argument asks the question why does anything at all exist?

86
00:06:05,279 --> 00:06:09,960
Speaker 2: Why is there something rather than nothing? And I think

87
00:06:10,000 --> 00:06:15,480
Speaker 2: a persuasive formulation of this argument is as follows. Premise one,

88
00:06:15,760 --> 00:06:23,520
Speaker 2: everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either

89
00:06:23,880 --> 00:06:28,360
Speaker 2: in the necessity of its own nature or in an

90
00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:35,440
Speaker 2: external cause. Two, if the universe has an explanation of

91
00:06:35,520 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 2: its existence, that explanation is God. And three the universe exists. Now,

92
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:49,520
Speaker 2: from those three simple premises, it follows with logical necessity

93
00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:53,560
Speaker 2: that therefore the universe has an explanation of its existence.

94
00:06:54,040 --> 00:06:57,200
Speaker 2: And from that it follows that therefore the explanation of

95
00:06:57,240 --> 00:07:01,839
Speaker 2: the universe is God. The premises of the argument I

96
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:04,760
Speaker 2: don't have time in our interview today to defend them,

97
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:09,760
Speaker 2: but you can look at the book for detailed defenses

98
00:07:09,760 --> 00:07:11,040
Speaker 2: of each of the premises.

99
00:07:11,600 --> 00:07:13,720
Speaker 1: You know, and I interviewed one hundred apologists for what

100
00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:17,280
Speaker 1: they consider the best argument, the one we're coming to

101
00:07:17,680 --> 00:07:20,040
Speaker 1: next is the one that you considered the best or

102
00:07:20,040 --> 00:07:23,760
Speaker 1: your favorite argument. Only one Protestant, I'm sorry, not a

103
00:07:23,840 --> 00:07:27,880
Speaker 1: single Protestant apologist mentioned the contingency argument. It was only

104
00:07:27,960 --> 00:07:32,040
Speaker 1: Trent Horne, who's a Catholic, who mentioned it, and then

105
00:07:32,080 --> 00:07:35,480
Speaker 1: he followed up and got a whole bunch of Catholic

106
00:07:35,520 --> 00:07:40,080
Speaker 1: philosophers and apologists who view this as the most compelling argument,

107
00:07:40,760 --> 00:07:41,560
Speaker 1: so they yeah.

108
00:07:41,840 --> 00:07:46,600
Speaker 2: People like Alexander Pruss, for example, who is Catholic, has

109
00:07:46,720 --> 00:07:51,360
Speaker 2: written extensively in defense of the contingency argument.

110
00:07:52,200 --> 00:07:55,120
Speaker 1: So part of the argument is if things exist, then

111
00:07:55,240 --> 00:07:58,520
Speaker 1: either it comes from their contingent, they come from something

112
00:07:58,560 --> 00:08:02,520
Speaker 1: that's necessary, or the things such as God or somebody

113
00:08:02,520 --> 00:08:05,200
Speaker 1: could argue maybe the laws of logic in some sense

114
00:08:05,720 --> 00:08:10,320
Speaker 1: necessarily exist. Perhaps the most common objection I've heard to

115
00:08:10,400 --> 00:08:14,760
Speaker 1: this is people say, well, the universe exists necessarily, it's

116
00:08:14,920 --> 00:08:18,880
Speaker 1: a brute fact things in the universe. And sometimes they'll

117
00:08:18,880 --> 00:08:21,240
Speaker 1: put a nuance and say, well, even if things in

118
00:08:21,280 --> 00:08:25,960
Speaker 1: the universe are contingent, the universe itself is not. So

119
00:08:26,000 --> 00:08:28,680
Speaker 1: what would be your response to that common objection?

120
00:08:30,320 --> 00:08:36,280
Speaker 2: This is actually two different objections. Sean to say that

121
00:08:36,360 --> 00:08:40,400
Speaker 2: the existence of the universe is a brute fact is

122
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:46,920
Speaker 2: to say that the universe exists contingently, but without any

123
00:08:47,000 --> 00:08:51,880
Speaker 2: explanation at all for why it exists, rather than not.

124
00:08:52,840 --> 00:08:55,480
Speaker 2: And I think the problem with this objection is that

125
00:08:55,520 --> 00:09:00,959
Speaker 2: it commits what Alexander Prus calls the taxi cab fallacy.

126
00:09:01,800 --> 00:09:03,800
Speaker 2: That is to say, it assumes that you can just

127
00:09:04,000 --> 00:09:08,080
Speaker 2: dismiss the principle of sufficient reason like a taxi cab,

128
00:09:08,640 --> 00:09:14,040
Speaker 2: whenever you want to, and it is arbitrary and unjustified

129
00:09:14,640 --> 00:09:18,240
Speaker 2: to dismiss that principle when you come to the universe.

130
00:09:19,120 --> 00:09:25,080
Speaker 2: Richard Taylor, the great metaphysician, gave a wonderful illustration of

131
00:09:25,160 --> 00:09:28,200
Speaker 2: this point. He said, imagine you're walking in the woods

132
00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:32,360
Speaker 2: and you come across a ball lying on the floor

133
00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:36,960
Speaker 2: of the forest. You would naturally wonder how it came

134
00:09:37,000 --> 00:09:40,040
Speaker 2: to be there. And if someone said to you, oh,

135
00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:45,679
Speaker 2: don't ask that question, it just exists inexplicably, you wouldn't

136
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:49,320
Speaker 2: accept that. Now, Taylor said, suppose the ball were the

137
00:09:49,360 --> 00:09:54,440
Speaker 2: size of an automobile, same question. Suppose it were the

138
00:09:54,480 --> 00:09:58,120
Speaker 2: size of a house, same question. Suppose it were the

139
00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:02,360
Speaker 2: size of a planet, same question. Suppose it were the

140
00:10:02,400 --> 00:10:08,360
Speaker 2: size of the universe, same question. Merely increasing the size

141
00:10:08,400 --> 00:10:12,920
Speaker 2: of the object does nothing to obviate the need for

142
00:10:12,960 --> 00:10:18,520
Speaker 2: an explanation of its existence, and therefore those who try

143
00:10:18,559 --> 00:10:22,120
Speaker 2: to exempt the universe from the principle of sufficient reason,

144
00:10:22,200 --> 00:10:27,320
Speaker 2: I think are guilty of the taxicab fallacy. Now, the

145
00:10:27,480 --> 00:10:32,880
Speaker 2: other objection you mentioned is much more radical. It says

146
00:10:33,360 --> 00:10:38,440
Speaker 2: that the universe, yes, does have an explanation of its existence, namely,

147
00:10:38,960 --> 00:10:44,120
Speaker 2: the universe exists by a necessity of its own nature.

148
00:10:44,640 --> 00:10:48,920
Speaker 2: And I think this is enormously implausible and therefore has

149
00:10:48,960 --> 00:10:56,280
Speaker 2: attracted very few proponents. Scientifically speaking, the universe seems to

150
00:10:56,320 --> 00:11:03,920
Speaker 2: be contingent. For example, physicists explore different alternative models of

151
00:11:04,000 --> 00:11:08,280
Speaker 2: the universe than the standard model of particle physics. Many

152
00:11:08,400 --> 00:11:12,160
Speaker 2: have explored string theory, for example, and that is a

153
00:11:12,320 --> 00:11:17,560
Speaker 2: different universe, and no one would refute string theory by

154
00:11:17,559 --> 00:11:22,360
Speaker 2: saying it's metaphysically impossible. This is a scientific question to

155
00:11:22,440 --> 00:11:27,040
Speaker 2: be settled by the evidence, not by metaphysics. Or think

156
00:11:27,080 --> 00:11:33,679
Speaker 2: of different cosmological models of the universe, the steady state model,

157
00:11:33,920 --> 00:11:41,480
Speaker 2: oscillating models, vacuum fluctuation models. The universe scientifically speaking, seems

158
00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:48,000
Speaker 2: clearly contingent. Now, philosophically speaking, I would say it's very

159
00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:53,640
Speaker 2: plausible that a different collection of fundamental particles, say quarks,

160
00:11:54,200 --> 00:11:58,360
Speaker 2: could have existed instead of the quarts that do exist.

161
00:11:58,760 --> 00:12:03,480
Speaker 2: But in that case, the universe exists contingently. Think about

162
00:12:03,880 --> 00:12:08,880
Speaker 2: your desk. If your desk, which is made of wood,

163
00:12:09,880 --> 00:12:14,880
Speaker 2: were made of ice instead, it wouldn't be the same desk.

164
00:12:15,440 --> 00:12:20,400
Speaker 2: It would be an ice desk, the same size and

165
00:12:20,520 --> 00:12:23,000
Speaker 2: shape as your wooden desk, but it would not be

166
00:12:23,080 --> 00:12:26,960
Speaker 2: your wooden desk. So similarly, if the universe were composed

167
00:12:27,000 --> 00:12:30,559
Speaker 2: of a different collection of quarks, as seems perfectly plausible,

168
00:12:31,040 --> 00:12:33,200
Speaker 2: the universe must be contingent.

169
00:12:34,920 --> 00:12:36,760
Speaker 1: That's a great response, and I think in many ways

170
00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:40,280
Speaker 1: leads us naturally to the second argument, which you cited

171
00:12:40,400 --> 00:12:43,680
Speaker 1: as your top argument for these is to god, if

172
00:12:43,800 --> 00:12:47,000
Speaker 1: forced to pick one, and it's no surprise.

173
00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:51,160
Speaker 2: Well, if I might interrupt, I like to keep the

174
00:12:51,320 --> 00:12:57,640
Speaker 2: argument separate, because then you have independent lines of probability

175
00:12:58,280 --> 00:13:02,360
Speaker 2: that are added together and increase the probability of the

176
00:13:02,400 --> 00:13:05,920
Speaker 2: overall case. But in fact, the second argument that we're

177
00:13:05,960 --> 00:13:08,520
Speaker 2: going to talk about in a minute is I think

178
00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:12,960
Speaker 2: a coup de grass against the claim that the universe

179
00:13:13,040 --> 00:13:16,720
Speaker 2: exists necessarily, because it shows that the universe had a beginning,

180
00:13:17,160 --> 00:13:20,360
Speaker 2: and if the universe had a beginning and came into being,

181
00:13:20,880 --> 00:13:24,760
Speaker 2: then it is clearly not a necessarily existing object.

182
00:13:25,520 --> 00:13:29,000
Speaker 1: Perfect that's such a helpful clarification. So why don't you

183
00:13:29,000 --> 00:13:32,320
Speaker 1: walk us through basically what is the cosmogical argument? And

184
00:13:32,320 --> 00:13:34,360
Speaker 1: then I've got two or three of what are some

185
00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:37,000
Speaker 1: of the most prominent objections I want to get your

186
00:13:37,000 --> 00:13:37,560
Speaker 1: response to.

187
00:13:37,840 --> 00:13:42,640
Speaker 2: All Right, as I formulated this argument, it goes as follows.

188
00:13:42,679 --> 00:13:48,240
Speaker 2: Premise one, whatever begins to exist has a cause. Premise

189
00:13:48,280 --> 00:13:54,480
Speaker 2: to the universe began to exist. Three, Therefore the universe

190
00:13:54,559 --> 00:13:58,559
Speaker 2: has a cause. And then you do a conceptual analysis

191
00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:02,000
Speaker 2: of what it is to be a cause of the universe,

192
00:14:02,559 --> 00:14:09,000
Speaker 2: and a number of striking theologically significant properties can be

193
00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:12,480
Speaker 2: recovered by such an analysis. It turns out that there

194
00:14:12,559 --> 00:14:19,840
Speaker 2: must exist and absolutely first uncaused beginning, less change, less

195
00:14:20,560 --> 00:14:28,760
Speaker 2: immaterial time, less space, less enormously powerful personal creator of

196
00:14:28,800 --> 00:14:32,840
Speaker 2: the universe, which is the core concept of God.

197
00:14:33,800 --> 00:14:38,520
Speaker 1: It's a remarkable conclusion from two premises alone, which is

198
00:14:38,560 --> 00:14:40,600
Speaker 1: why it is one of my favorite to use in

199
00:14:40,680 --> 00:14:44,280
Speaker 1: conversation with people. But one of the most common objections

200
00:14:44,320 --> 00:14:46,960
Speaker 1: that comes up. You've obviously heard about this and dealt

201
00:14:46,960 --> 00:14:50,960
Speaker 1: with this, is that quantum physics, in which there seems

202
00:14:51,000 --> 00:14:56,400
Speaker 1: to be weird uncaused things, can maybe explain the universe

203
00:14:56,960 --> 00:14:59,400
Speaker 1: without a cause or a universe from nothing.

204
00:15:01,000 --> 00:15:04,880
Speaker 2: This is just false, Sean. It's based on a misunderstanding.

205
00:15:05,480 --> 00:15:12,040
Speaker 2: In quantum physics, the vacuum is not nothing. Rather, it

206
00:15:12,080 --> 00:15:18,680
Speaker 2: is a royal ing sea of energy, constantly fluctuating. And

207
00:15:18,760 --> 00:15:22,960
Speaker 2: so in these models, the universe does not emerge from nothing.

208
00:15:23,400 --> 00:15:30,920
Speaker 2: It has a physical basis in, for example, the quantum vacuum.

209
00:15:31,160 --> 00:15:33,600
Speaker 1: You know, Bill, every time there's a worship song that

210
00:15:33,680 --> 00:15:36,320
Speaker 1: in the line says nothing is greater than you or

211
00:15:36,400 --> 00:15:39,360
Speaker 1: nothing is greater than God, I always think an argument

212
00:15:39,520 --> 00:15:42,840
Speaker 1: because you say nothing is not something that's greater than God,

213
00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:46,760
Speaker 1: it means not anything is greater than God. And the

214
00:15:46,800 --> 00:15:50,760
Speaker 1: same kind of confusion is taking place here quantum physics.

215
00:15:50,800 --> 00:15:53,680
Speaker 1: It's not in a realm of nothing in the way

216
00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:57,200
Speaker 1: that we mean not anything. And so you're in my

217
00:15:57,320 --> 00:15:59,640
Speaker 1: mind when we sing that worship song. I'm like, yep,

218
00:16:00,280 --> 00:16:03,760
Speaker 1: hosobological argument. All right. So here's a second one that

219
00:16:03,800 --> 00:16:06,200
Speaker 1: I think is maybe a little tougher to do with.

220
00:16:06,280 --> 00:16:10,400
Speaker 1: You had a debate with Sean Carroll, outspoken atheist, and

221
00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:13,640
Speaker 1: he asked this question. I'm hoping you can respond. He said, Now,

222
00:16:14,000 --> 00:16:16,400
Speaker 1: how in the world can the author of the board

223
00:16:16,560 --> 00:16:22,200
Speaker 1: gooth Valenkan theorem say the universe is probably eternal.

224
00:16:24,000 --> 00:16:27,000
Speaker 2: Our listeners need to understand that this has to do

225
00:16:27,280 --> 00:16:32,000
Speaker 2: with a gimmick that Carol pulled in the debate of

226
00:16:32,200 --> 00:16:36,600
Speaker 2: showing a photograph of Alan Gooth, one of the authors

227
00:16:36,640 --> 00:16:40,880
Speaker 2: of the board Valencan theorem, holding up a little sign

228
00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:46,520
Speaker 2: saying the universe is probably past eternal. And the real

229
00:16:46,720 --> 00:16:50,360
Speaker 2: question is not the one Carol asks. The real question

230
00:16:50,480 --> 00:16:54,560
Speaker 2: is how in the world could vill Leenkan say that

231
00:16:54,600 --> 00:16:58,280
Speaker 2: the theorem shows that the universe probably had a beginning,

232
00:16:58,920 --> 00:17:03,520
Speaker 2: and yet Gooth says quite the opposite, that it probably

233
00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:07,600
Speaker 2: did not have a beginning. Well, I found out later

234
00:17:07,800 --> 00:17:12,720
Speaker 2: that there's a backstory to this puzzle a few years later,

235
00:17:12,800 --> 00:17:16,520
Speaker 2: when I had a debate with the British philosopher Daniel

236
00:17:16,800 --> 00:17:22,520
Speaker 2: Came at Trinity College in Dublin. Came had seen the

237
00:17:22,640 --> 00:17:26,000
Speaker 2: video of my debate with Carroll, and so had written

238
00:17:26,040 --> 00:17:30,320
Speaker 2: to Alan Gooth asking him, what did you mean by

239
00:17:30,359 --> 00:17:33,800
Speaker 2: that little sign that the universe is probably past eternal?

240
00:17:33,920 --> 00:17:38,600
Speaker 2: And lo and behold, Gooth wrote back to Daniel Came,

241
00:17:38,720 --> 00:17:45,600
Speaker 2: explaining that he was talking about Sean Carroll's own model

242
00:17:45,720 --> 00:17:51,040
Speaker 2: of the universe. The Carol Chen model, which features a

243
00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:55,119
Speaker 2: reversal of times arrow at some point in the past.

244
00:17:55,160 --> 00:17:59,000
Speaker 2: And I actually read the correspondence from Gooth that came

245
00:17:59,119 --> 00:18:06,280
Speaker 2: had received, and in the debate I had exposed the

246
00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:11,040
Speaker 2: Carol Chen model to extensive criticism, showing how in fact

247
00:18:11,400 --> 00:18:15,760
Speaker 2: it did not avoid, but actually implied the beginning of

248
00:18:15,800 --> 00:18:20,520
Speaker 2: the universe, and Carol refused to defend it. And so

249
00:18:20,880 --> 00:18:25,199
Speaker 2: it turned out, ironically that that was what guth was

250
00:18:25,600 --> 00:18:26,439
Speaker 2: talking about.

251
00:18:27,400 --> 00:18:30,720
Speaker 1: So maybe quickly remind us what's so significant about the

252
00:18:30,800 --> 00:18:35,119
Speaker 1: board youth Valenkin theorem? Why does that matter so much

253
00:18:35,720 --> 00:18:36,439
Speaker 1: in this debate?

254
00:18:37,440 --> 00:18:42,680
Speaker 2: Well, it strengthens the conclusion of the Hawking Penrose singularity

255
00:18:42,720 --> 00:18:48,080
Speaker 2: theorems that the universe cannot be past eternal. The universe

256
00:18:48,600 --> 00:18:52,480
Speaker 2: can be infinite toward the future, but it cannot be

257
00:18:52,600 --> 00:18:56,840
Speaker 2: infinite toward the past. At some point in the finite past,

258
00:18:57,400 --> 00:19:03,680
Speaker 2: you reach a boundary point before which time cannot be extended.

259
00:19:04,760 --> 00:19:07,879
Speaker 1: So that of course strongly supports the idea that the

260
00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:12,840
Speaker 1: universe had a beginning. The second premise, Okay, yes, this

261
00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:15,800
Speaker 1: one I heard recently from Alex O'Connor and I listened

262
00:19:15,840 --> 00:19:18,040
Speaker 1: to it a few times, so I hope I'm representing

263
00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:22,080
Speaker 1: it as accurately as I can. He suggests that the

264
00:19:22,280 --> 00:19:26,840
Speaker 1: Colomb cosmogical argument may be circular, and he says it

265
00:19:26,880 --> 00:19:29,040
Speaker 1: this way. Says, since the universe is all that began

266
00:19:29,119 --> 00:19:34,160
Speaker 1: to exist, everything else is a result of matter being rearranged.

267
00:19:34,320 --> 00:19:38,840
Speaker 1: According to Alex, then the first premise is basically the

268
00:19:38,960 --> 00:19:45,040
Speaker 1: universe began to exist, which is the same as the conclusion. Thus,

269
00:19:45,080 --> 00:19:49,680
Speaker 1: he asked the question, is the klom cosmogical argument circular?

270
00:19:51,320 --> 00:19:56,520
Speaker 2: Well, this objection is nutty sean. The conclusion of the

271
00:19:56,600 --> 00:20:01,120
Speaker 2: Colomb cosmological argument is not that the universe began to exist,

272
00:20:01,680 --> 00:20:06,120
Speaker 2: but that the universe has a cause. And even if

273
00:20:06,200 --> 00:20:10,320
Speaker 2: the universe were the only thing that ever began to exist,

274
00:20:10,880 --> 00:20:15,480
Speaker 2: it still remains a factual question whether it could come

275
00:20:15,720 --> 00:20:21,360
Speaker 2: into being uncaused from nothing or must have a cause

276
00:20:21,840 --> 00:20:25,080
Speaker 2: that brought an into being. So the argument is certainly

277
00:20:25,560 --> 00:20:27,680
Speaker 2: not circular or question begging.

278
00:20:28,400 --> 00:20:30,199
Speaker 1: Good a response. All right, So let's move to the

279
00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:34,960
Speaker 1: third argument, which warms my wife's heart because she is

280
00:20:34,960 --> 00:20:39,679
Speaker 1: a high school math teacher. Really yeah, she actually uses

281
00:20:39,760 --> 00:20:42,480
Speaker 1: your short video on this kind of the animated video

282
00:20:42,520 --> 00:20:45,000
Speaker 1: shows it to our high school students every single year,

283
00:20:45,040 --> 00:20:48,240
Speaker 1: and they talk about it, and this is the argument

284
00:20:48,280 --> 00:20:52,480
Speaker 1: from the applicability of mathematics. So let's start with what

285
00:20:52,600 --> 00:20:54,600
Speaker 1: is that argument, and then I've got an objection for you.

286
00:20:55,680 --> 00:21:00,000
Speaker 2: This argument is more difficult to state, it's more complex,

287
00:21:00,240 --> 00:21:05,480
Speaker 2: but I've reduced it to three simple statements. Number One,

288
00:21:05,840 --> 00:21:11,800
Speaker 2: if God does not exist, then the applicability of mathematics

289
00:21:12,119 --> 00:21:18,239
Speaker 2: to physical phenomena is just a happy coincidence. Two, the

290
00:21:18,280 --> 00:21:23,119
Speaker 2: applicability of mathematics to physical phenomena is not just a

291
00:21:23,200 --> 00:21:28,280
Speaker 2: happy coincidence, from which it follows three. Therefore God exists.

292
00:21:30,160 --> 00:21:33,399
Speaker 1: That's awesome. So we're moving from the applicability of math

293
00:21:33,840 --> 00:21:38,600
Speaker 1: suggesting something about the world and a divine purpose behind it.

294
00:21:39,560 --> 00:21:42,480
Speaker 1: One of the objections that people say is something to

295
00:21:42,480 --> 00:21:46,840
Speaker 1: this effect, the applicability of mathematics to the physical realm

296
00:21:47,000 --> 00:21:50,320
Speaker 1: is a brute fact. So in some ways this is

297
00:21:50,320 --> 00:21:53,520
Speaker 1: a similar response to one of the objections of contingency

298
00:21:54,200 --> 00:21:56,520
Speaker 1: is that all of us have to stop at some

299
00:21:56,760 --> 00:22:00,480
Speaker 1: point with something that can't be explained further, and so

300
00:22:00,520 --> 00:22:03,080
Speaker 1: they're saying, this applicability of math to the physical realm

301
00:22:03,160 --> 00:22:06,360
Speaker 1: is a brute fact. It's a mystery that doesn't require

302
00:22:06,440 --> 00:22:10,000
Speaker 1: further explanation let alone points to God.

303
00:22:12,840 --> 00:22:19,240
Speaker 2: I would respond that it's really counterintuitive that mathematics should

304
00:22:19,280 --> 00:22:26,200
Speaker 2: be applicable to physical reality, since abstract mathematical objects, even

305
00:22:26,240 --> 00:22:31,480
Speaker 2: if they exist, have no causal connection with the physical world,

306
00:22:32,080 --> 00:22:38,119
Speaker 2: and because mathematics is pursued on the basis of mathematical

307
00:22:38,320 --> 00:22:44,040
Speaker 2: beauty rather than scientific utility. So the fact of the

308
00:22:44,080 --> 00:22:49,960
Speaker 2: applicability of mathematics to physical phenomena seems to cry out

309
00:22:50,400 --> 00:22:54,679
Speaker 2: for some sort of explanation. And I think that the

310
00:22:54,760 --> 00:23:00,919
Speaker 2: existence of a transcendent intelligence who planned the universe on

311
00:23:01,160 --> 00:23:06,199
Speaker 2: a mathematical model that he had in mind, provides a

312
00:23:06,240 --> 00:23:11,879
Speaker 2: good explanation of that applicability, and therefore it should be preferred.

313
00:23:13,080 --> 00:23:16,040
Speaker 1: That's a great response. So I want to make sure

314
00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:18,080
Speaker 1: that people listening he are grasping this because this can

315
00:23:18,080 --> 00:23:20,640
Speaker 1: be one of the harder arguments for people to follow,

316
00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:23,560
Speaker 1: maybe not quite as hard as the ontological argument, which

317
00:23:23,560 --> 00:23:27,119
Speaker 1: we will get to. But if we start from not

318
00:23:27,240 --> 00:23:30,399
Speaker 1: the fact that most people we live our lives, assuming

319
00:23:30,680 --> 00:23:33,600
Speaker 1: that math applies to the natural world we live in

320
00:23:33,680 --> 00:23:37,720
Speaker 1: such a science dominated culture. But if we start from

321
00:23:37,760 --> 00:23:43,280
Speaker 1: the perspective of worldview, a theist should not be surprised

322
00:23:43,320 --> 00:23:45,680
Speaker 1: that there's a connection between the two of them. Because

323
00:23:45,720 --> 00:23:48,520
Speaker 1: God is rational, He made the world orderly, and of

324
00:23:48,520 --> 00:23:51,320
Speaker 1: course on a Christian count called us to understand and

325
00:23:51,359 --> 00:23:55,880
Speaker 1: subdue the earth. But if you start with a naturalistic worldview,

326
00:23:56,600 --> 00:24:00,800
Speaker 1: that's where the surprise comes in. Is that a fair summation?

327
00:24:02,880 --> 00:24:08,280
Speaker 2: Yes? Absolutely. I had a wonderful dialogue with Sir Roger

328
00:24:08,560 --> 00:24:12,920
Speaker 2: Penrose in London a few years ago where Penrose says

329
00:24:13,000 --> 00:24:17,919
Speaker 2: there are three domains, as it were, of reality, the

330
00:24:18,200 --> 00:24:24,159
Speaker 2: domain of the mind, the domain of mathematics and abstract objects,

331
00:24:24,640 --> 00:24:29,200
Speaker 2: and then the physical domain. And he said, the puzzle

332
00:24:29,320 --> 00:24:32,880
Speaker 2: is how do you put these three together? He had

333
00:24:33,040 --> 00:24:38,000
Speaker 2: no answer for how you can have a unified worldview

334
00:24:38,119 --> 00:24:42,280
Speaker 2: incorporating these three domains. And I said to him, theism

335
00:24:42,359 --> 00:24:48,119
Speaker 2: is the answer. There is an ultimate transcendent mind who

336
00:24:48,320 --> 00:24:54,199
Speaker 2: grasps the truths of mathematics and logic in his own intellect,

337
00:24:54,680 --> 00:24:59,520
Speaker 2: and who has created the physical world on the model

338
00:24:59,560 --> 00:25:02,720
Speaker 2: that he had in mind. And Penroe said, I've never

339
00:25:02,800 --> 00:25:03,920
Speaker 2: thought of that before.

340
00:25:04,400 --> 00:25:04,680
Speaker 1: Wow.

341
00:25:05,040 --> 00:25:09,040
Speaker 2: After the show was over, he thanked me for sharing

342
00:25:09,080 --> 00:25:12,200
Speaker 2: that alternative with him because it was a new thought

343
00:25:12,240 --> 00:25:12,600
Speaker 2: to him.

344
00:25:13,280 --> 00:25:15,720
Speaker 1: That is amazing to me. On a few levels. Number One,

345
00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:18,480
Speaker 1: that he hadn't thought about that somebody so brilliant and

346
00:25:18,640 --> 00:25:23,160
Speaker 1: influential and has clarity on these issues and what needs

347
00:25:23,200 --> 00:25:27,359
Speaker 1: to be solved in some ways, that's quite revealing. And

348
00:25:27,520 --> 00:25:29,000
Speaker 1: last thing I'll point out is I want to make

349
00:25:29,000 --> 00:25:32,720
Speaker 1: sure people understand that your argument works here. Whether you

350
00:25:32,800 --> 00:25:36,560
Speaker 1: take a realist or a non realist, a fictionalist view

351
00:25:36,760 --> 00:25:42,200
Speaker 1: of mathematics, there's still agreement that science works so to speak,

352
00:25:42,240 --> 00:25:46,000
Speaker 1: and relies upon this mathematical connection. So it cries out

353
00:25:46,000 --> 00:25:49,280
Speaker 1: for this explanation regardless of whether you think numbers are

354
00:25:49,320 --> 00:25:54,119
Speaker 1: real or not. Right, Okay, good, all right, excellent, Okay,

355
00:25:54,160 --> 00:25:56,720
Speaker 1: so let's move on. We are halfway there. We have

356
00:25:56,760 --> 00:26:01,280
Speaker 1: three arguments down, three to go. The argument fine tuning.

357
00:26:02,680 --> 00:26:07,080
Speaker 2: This argument can be very simply formulated. Number One, the

358
00:26:07,800 --> 00:26:13,320
Speaker 2: fine tuning of the universe can be explained by either

359
00:26:13,880 --> 00:26:22,160
Speaker 2: physical necessity, chance or design premise. Two, the fine tuning

360
00:26:22,640 --> 00:26:28,240
Speaker 2: is not explained by physical necessity or chance. Three, Therefore

361
00:26:28,760 --> 00:26:30,600
Speaker 2: it is due to design.

362
00:26:32,280 --> 00:26:34,719
Speaker 1: Bill Sometimes people will formulate this. I think if her

363
00:26:34,840 --> 00:26:41,240
Speaker 1: Demski formulate that it's chance, necessity or third a combination

364
00:26:41,560 --> 00:26:44,800
Speaker 1: of the two, and it's not any of those three,

365
00:26:45,520 --> 00:26:47,520
Speaker 1: why wouldn't you include that? Or do you feel like

366
00:26:47,560 --> 00:26:50,720
Speaker 1: the response to the two is sufficient and that extra

367
00:26:50,760 --> 00:26:53,200
Speaker 1: premise is included in the argument itself.

368
00:26:53,680 --> 00:26:57,760
Speaker 2: Yes, that's my intention, Sean, is that to combine chance

369
00:26:57,840 --> 00:27:03,600
Speaker 2: and necessity is not to all a new explanation or account.

370
00:27:03,960 --> 00:27:08,000
Speaker 2: It's just saying that those two things account for the

371
00:27:08,040 --> 00:27:11,200
Speaker 2: fine tuning of the universe, and yet neither of them does,

372
00:27:11,400 --> 00:27:14,240
Speaker 2: either individually or even in concert.

373
00:27:15,040 --> 00:27:17,080
Speaker 1: The fine tuning argument was one of the top ones

374
00:27:17,160 --> 00:27:20,239
Speaker 1: cited by the hundred apologists that I interviewed, and I've

375
00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:23,160
Speaker 1: also heard a lot of skeptics, even people like Christopher Hitchins.

376
00:27:23,280 --> 00:27:26,879
Speaker 1: Citing the fine tuning argument has given him some pause.

377
00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:30,600
Speaker 1: If there had to be some argument that pointed towards

378
00:27:30,640 --> 00:27:35,240
Speaker 1: the existence of God. Two big objections, one of them

379
00:27:35,480 --> 00:27:38,720
Speaker 1: atheist Dan Barker has suggested that we have the fine

380
00:27:38,720 --> 00:27:43,160
Speaker 1: tuning argument backwards, so rather than the universe being fine

381
00:27:43,200 --> 00:27:47,880
Speaker 1: tuned for complex life, we are fine tuned to the universe.

382
00:27:49,359 --> 00:27:55,840
Speaker 2: This response seems to be crazy. The constants and quantities

383
00:27:55,880 --> 00:27:59,879
Speaker 2: which are the objects of the fine tuning have existed

384
00:28:00,160 --> 00:28:03,320
Speaker 2: since the beginning of the universe. They are not the

385
00:28:03,400 --> 00:28:09,000
Speaker 2: product of human perception. On the contrary, we human beings

386
00:28:09,000 --> 00:28:13,439
Speaker 2: would not even be here without the fine tuning of

387
00:28:13,440 --> 00:28:15,520
Speaker 2: the initial conditions of the universe.

388
00:28:17,200 --> 00:28:20,720
Speaker 1: I think you're right about that, because for there to

389
00:28:20,760 --> 00:28:25,280
Speaker 1: be any complex life, not just our complex life, these

390
00:28:25,400 --> 00:28:29,320
Speaker 1: laws have to be set within a very narrow range.

391
00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:31,720
Speaker 1: It's not like you shift the laws and you get

392
00:28:31,720 --> 00:28:35,720
Speaker 1: different life. You shift the laws and there's no stars, planets,

393
00:28:35,840 --> 00:28:40,560
Speaker 1: or even the possibility of life. That's the level of

394
00:28:40,600 --> 00:28:44,600
Speaker 1: fine tuning we're talking about here. So I think he

395
00:28:44,640 --> 00:28:48,040
Speaker 1: misses the vote on that one. Now, a more common objection,

396
00:28:48,680 --> 00:28:52,240
Speaker 1: perhaps the number one objection. I speak on college campuses regularly,

397
00:28:52,280 --> 00:28:54,440
Speaker 1: and every time I talk about fine tuning, as far

398
00:28:54,440 --> 00:28:57,480
Speaker 1: as I remember, this objection comes up, and there's different

399
00:28:57,480 --> 00:28:59,920
Speaker 1: words for it. Sometimes it's called the many worlds type.

400
00:29:00,600 --> 00:29:03,680
Speaker 1: There's the multiverse hypothesis, and I think there's not just one.

401
00:29:04,360 --> 00:29:07,240
Speaker 1: But there's this idea that many people have if we're

402
00:29:07,320 --> 00:29:10,560
Speaker 1: the only universe that exists and is fine tuned, maybe

403
00:29:10,560 --> 00:29:13,440
Speaker 1: it points towards God. But if there's many or infinite

404
00:29:13,560 --> 00:29:17,920
Speaker 1: number of universes, that seems to give a plausible explanation

405
00:29:18,040 --> 00:29:21,160
Speaker 1: for why there would at least be one universe that's

406
00:29:21,200 --> 00:29:22,880
Speaker 1: fine tuned. What's your response?

407
00:29:24,320 --> 00:29:29,520
Speaker 2: This is in fact the main competitor to intelligent design

408
00:29:30,840 --> 00:29:35,520
Speaker 2: in the debate today over fine tuning, and the basic

409
00:29:35,680 --> 00:29:43,320
Speaker 2: idea is that in a multiverse, finally tuned universes will

410
00:29:43,320 --> 00:29:50,080
Speaker 2: appear somewhere in the collection by chance alone, and only

411
00:29:50,240 --> 00:29:57,960
Speaker 2: such universes could be observed by us. The fallacy lies

412
00:29:58,120 --> 00:30:05,480
Speaker 2: in thinking that owns finely tuned universes are observable. In fact,

413
00:30:05,480 --> 00:30:10,040
Speaker 2: it appears that it is far far more probable that

414
00:30:10,320 --> 00:30:17,680
Speaker 2: most observable universes in the multiverse would beverse universes populated

415
00:30:17,720 --> 00:30:24,239
Speaker 2: by freak observers called Boltzmann brains. These are brains that

416
00:30:24,440 --> 00:30:32,280
Speaker 2: fluctuate into existence out of the vacuum with illusory perceptions

417
00:30:32,320 --> 00:30:36,360
Speaker 2: of an external world. And therefore, if you adopt the

418
00:30:36,440 --> 00:30:41,880
Speaker 2: multiverse hypothesis to explain fine tuning, you have to believe

419
00:30:41,960 --> 00:30:46,040
Speaker 2: that you are all that exists, and that everything else

420
00:30:46,080 --> 00:30:51,760
Speaker 2: around you is an illusion which no sane person believes.

421
00:30:53,120 --> 00:30:55,000
Speaker 1: This is correct me if I'm wrong in this, But

422
00:30:55,040 --> 00:30:57,440
Speaker 1: I think the response you've given here is a reductio

423
00:30:57,600 --> 00:31:01,000
Speaker 1: ad absurdum that says, okay, if we take the many

424
00:31:01,040 --> 00:31:06,280
Speaker 1: world hypotheses to explain a it leads to other absurdities

425
00:31:06,320 --> 00:31:10,160
Speaker 1: which nobody is going to accept, namely that we can't

426
00:31:10,200 --> 00:31:13,120
Speaker 1: trust really our minds at all, or we'd expect to

427
00:31:13,200 --> 00:31:16,880
Speaker 1: find a different kind of universe than we're in. Therefore,

428
00:31:16,920 --> 00:31:19,960
Speaker 1: we have reason to question the many world hypotheses. Is

429
00:31:19,960 --> 00:31:22,160
Speaker 1: that a fair way to put this response?

430
00:31:23,240 --> 00:31:26,520
Speaker 2: That would be a sort of generalization. In other words,

431
00:31:27,840 --> 00:31:31,760
Speaker 2: what you're saying is that if we were just a

432
00:31:31,880 --> 00:31:38,600
Speaker 2: random member of a world ensemble of many worlds, we

433
00:31:38,640 --> 00:31:44,480
Speaker 2: could never be certain of anything that we perceive with

434
00:31:44,560 --> 00:31:48,560
Speaker 2: our senses around us, because it is more probable that

435
00:31:48,640 --> 00:31:53,040
Speaker 2: we are one of these Boltzmann brains than a normal observer.

436
00:31:53,640 --> 00:31:57,680
Speaker 2: But the reason that leads to skepticism, Sean, is that

437
00:31:57,760 --> 00:32:01,080
Speaker 2: then we can't trust the evidence is of our senses

438
00:32:01,120 --> 00:32:05,320
Speaker 2: that we exist in a multiverse, so that the multiverse

439
00:32:05,400 --> 00:32:10,040
Speaker 2: hypothesis not only fails to explain fine tuning, but it

440
00:32:10,160 --> 00:32:15,840
Speaker 2: is also self defeating because in a multiverse, you wouldn't

441
00:32:15,880 --> 00:32:20,520
Speaker 2: be able to trust your scientific inferences and perceptions to

442
00:32:20,880 --> 00:32:22,800
Speaker 2: say that you are in a multiverse.

443
00:32:23,760 --> 00:32:26,440
Speaker 1: That's really helpful. Now, there's some other issues we could

444
00:32:26,440 --> 00:32:29,280
Speaker 1: talk about here, and we won't about what is the

445
00:32:29,320 --> 00:32:34,160
Speaker 1: actual evidence for a multiverse? Is God consistent with a multiverse?

446
00:32:34,560 --> 00:32:37,480
Speaker 1: But we're coming back tuesday. If you have those further objections,

447
00:32:37,560 --> 00:32:40,480
Speaker 1: write your objections in and I will bring a talent

448
00:32:40,560 --> 00:32:43,440
Speaker 1: professor of philosophy with me, and we'll do our best

449
00:32:43,440 --> 00:32:47,000
Speaker 1: to respond. All right, So let's move to the fifth argument,

450
00:32:47,680 --> 00:32:48,600
Speaker 1: the moral argument.

451
00:32:50,600 --> 00:32:54,120
Speaker 2: I've defended a very simple version of the moral argument.

452
00:32:54,160 --> 00:32:58,360
Speaker 2: There are many versions. Mine goes like this premise. One,

453
00:32:58,800 --> 00:33:05,400
Speaker 2: if God does not exhist then objective moral values and

454
00:33:05,560 --> 00:33:11,440
Speaker 2: duties do not exist. Two, But objective moral values and

455
00:33:11,520 --> 00:33:16,720
Speaker 2: duties do exist, from which it follows logically three, therefore

456
00:33:17,120 --> 00:33:18,040
Speaker 2: God exists.

457
00:33:19,560 --> 00:33:22,000
Speaker 1: I know we don't have time to totally go into

458
00:33:22,120 --> 00:33:25,920
Speaker 1: detail here, but that second premise is where I find

459
00:33:26,120 --> 00:33:29,280
Speaker 1: students pushing back and challenging this. Sometimes, in fact, in

460
00:33:29,360 --> 00:33:32,800
Speaker 1: my class here, teach class here at Biola, and we

461
00:33:32,880 --> 00:33:35,720
Speaker 1: talk about the moral argument, and the students are like,

462
00:33:35,800 --> 00:33:38,560
Speaker 1: we agree with you, we're with you, but role play

463
00:33:38,600 --> 00:33:40,480
Speaker 1: with us so we can think about this. They're like,

464
00:33:40,560 --> 00:33:45,320
Speaker 1: how do we really know that morality is objective? How

465
00:33:45,320 --> 00:33:47,920
Speaker 1: do we prove or how do we demonstrate this? Maybe

466
00:33:47,920 --> 00:33:52,120
Speaker 1: give us one key way you would support that second premise.

467
00:33:52,760 --> 00:33:56,120
Speaker 2: I think that ninety eight percent or more of people

468
00:33:56,320 --> 00:34:00,880
Speaker 2: really do believe in objective moral value and duty Sean,

469
00:34:01,080 --> 00:34:06,400
Speaker 2: even if they give lip service to moral relativism or neholism.

470
00:34:06,920 --> 00:34:10,120
Speaker 2: And the best way to help people to see this

471
00:34:10,320 --> 00:34:14,400
Speaker 2: is just to ask questions. So, for example, I was

472
00:34:14,440 --> 00:34:19,640
Speaker 2: approached after one university talk by a black student who said,

473
00:34:19,800 --> 00:34:24,000
Speaker 2: I don't think that there are objective moral values. And

474
00:34:24,040 --> 00:34:29,440
Speaker 2: I said, really, so you think that racial discrimination is

475
00:34:29,520 --> 00:34:33,719
Speaker 2: not wrong? And he was kind of set back on

476
00:34:33,760 --> 00:34:36,239
Speaker 2: his feet and he says, well, I guess I do,

477
00:34:37,320 --> 00:34:42,279
Speaker 2: and that he doesn't believe in objective moral values. So

478
00:34:43,120 --> 00:34:52,239
Speaker 2: use illustrations like religious persecution, the crusades. If the religious

479
00:34:52,320 --> 00:34:56,200
Speaker 2: right were to round up all the homosexuals and put

480
00:34:56,200 --> 00:34:59,720
Speaker 2: them in concentration camps, do you really think that's morally

481
00:34:59,840 --> 00:35:03,480
Speaker 2: new neutral? And if they're honest with you and not

482
00:35:03,600 --> 00:35:06,800
Speaker 2: just putting up a smoke screen, as I say, over

483
00:35:06,880 --> 00:35:09,799
Speaker 2: ninety eight percent of people will say, yes, we do

484
00:35:09,920 --> 00:35:14,399
Speaker 2: believe in objective moral values and duties. After all, this

485
00:35:14,520 --> 00:35:18,959
Speaker 2: generation of students, though they've been taught to give lip

486
00:35:19,000 --> 00:35:25,920
Speaker 2: service to relativism, are deeply committed to values like inclusivity,

487
00:35:26,520 --> 00:35:33,160
Speaker 2: open mindedness, diversity, equity, and so forth, and so they

488
00:35:33,719 --> 00:35:38,080
Speaker 2: really do believe in the objectivity of moral values and duties.

489
00:35:38,719 --> 00:35:41,440
Speaker 1: That's my experience as well, is that some of the

490
00:35:41,600 --> 00:35:45,239
Speaker 1: live and let live and tolerance of maybe the nineties

491
00:35:45,320 --> 00:35:50,200
Speaker 1: is gone, and we have a very judgmental generation willing

492
00:35:50,320 --> 00:35:54,200
Speaker 1: to shame somebody who does something wrong, and whether I

493
00:35:54,239 --> 00:35:57,000
Speaker 1: agree with the tactics which it's done or not, there's

494
00:35:57,080 --> 00:36:01,480
Speaker 1: a deep intuition behind that that there's things such as justice,

495
00:36:01,520 --> 00:36:04,520
Speaker 1: there's things such as human values, we ought to live

496
00:36:04,560 --> 00:36:08,239
Speaker 1: a certain way, and so your strategy is encouraging to me.

497
00:36:08,280 --> 00:36:10,480
Speaker 1: It's interesting you said ninety eight percent, because I've had

498
00:36:10,640 --> 00:36:14,320
Speaker 1: hundreds of conversations and I've had only two students bite

499
00:36:14,320 --> 00:36:16,319
Speaker 1: the bullet and say the Holocaust is not wrong, one

500
00:36:16,360 --> 00:36:19,799
Speaker 1: at Berkeley and one at a university in Singapore. But

501
00:36:19,920 --> 00:36:22,160
Speaker 1: of course I pushed back and tell them I don't

502
00:36:22,200 --> 00:36:25,080
Speaker 1: think you really believe this. And next time you're watching

503
00:36:25,120 --> 00:36:28,200
Speaker 1: the news and you find yourself judging something as being moral,

504
00:36:28,640 --> 00:36:32,920
Speaker 1: remind yourself you don't actually think that's wrong. And so

505
00:36:33,000 --> 00:36:37,160
Speaker 1: in many ways, you're appealing to this deep intuition and

506
00:36:37,280 --> 00:36:41,680
Speaker 1: knowledge that we have. Okay, so here's a response one,

507
00:36:41,719 --> 00:36:44,680
Speaker 1: and again, folks, there's a lot more responses than this.

508
00:36:44,880 --> 00:36:47,040
Speaker 1: You can write him in. We'll come back live Tuesday

509
00:36:47,440 --> 00:36:49,160
Speaker 1: and do our best to address them. But you also

510
00:36:49,200 --> 00:36:53,520
Speaker 1: had a debate with Eric Wheelenberg, and he offered, I

511
00:36:53,520 --> 00:36:57,959
Speaker 1: thought a fascinating atheistic account of objective morality that's called

512
00:36:58,040 --> 00:37:03,360
Speaker 1: godless normative realism. Now, of course people can go watch

513
00:37:03,480 --> 00:37:06,880
Speaker 1: the whole debate and make up their own minds. But

514
00:37:06,960 --> 00:37:10,440
Speaker 1: why do you ultimately find his account and attempt to

515
00:37:10,480 --> 00:37:14,000
Speaker 1: get objective moral values and duties without God? Why do

516
00:37:14,000 --> 00:37:14,680
Speaker 1: you find it lacking?

517
00:37:15,640 --> 00:37:21,480
Speaker 2: Wielenberg defends an account of objective morality based on Platonism,

518
00:37:22,360 --> 00:37:29,359
Speaker 2: namely the view that moral values exist as abstract objects,

519
00:37:30,080 --> 00:37:34,920
Speaker 2: and I raise three objections against such a view. First

520
00:37:34,920 --> 00:37:39,759
Speaker 2: of all, I think the account is unintelligible. I understand

521
00:37:39,800 --> 00:37:43,000
Speaker 2: what it means to say that a person is just,

522
00:37:43,760 --> 00:37:49,000
Speaker 2: or loyal or faithful, but I draw an absolute blank

523
00:37:49,160 --> 00:37:52,360
Speaker 2: when I'm told that in the absence of any people,

524
00:37:53,040 --> 00:37:59,520
Speaker 2: that justice just exists, or that loyalty exists as an

525
00:37:59,560 --> 00:38:05,960
Speaker 2: abstract object, or fidelity exists. I do not understand how

526
00:38:07,000 --> 00:38:11,560
Speaker 2: these sorts of moral qualities can exist as abstract objects.

527
00:38:12,000 --> 00:38:17,440
Speaker 2: Apart from persons. Secondly, the account gives no explanation of

528
00:38:17,480 --> 00:38:22,120
Speaker 2: objective moral duties. It attempts to show that moral values

529
00:38:22,280 --> 00:38:30,440
Speaker 2: are these abstract objects, but whence arises my obligation to

530
00:38:30,960 --> 00:38:35,640
Speaker 2: conform my life to these values, presumably on Platonism, there

531
00:38:35,719 --> 00:38:46,400
Speaker 2: are also objective moral vices that exist, like sloth, avarice, jealousy, cruelty,

532
00:38:46,960 --> 00:38:50,920
Speaker 2: and so forth. So why am I morally obliged to

533
00:38:51,000 --> 00:38:55,360
Speaker 2: align my life with one set of these abstract objects

534
00:38:55,440 --> 00:38:59,640
Speaker 2: rather than another? The account has no answer. And then, finally,

535
00:38:59,680 --> 00:39:05,960
Speaker 2: the count cannot explain why the natural realm, governed by

536
00:39:06,000 --> 00:39:10,840
Speaker 2: the laws of physics, and the moral realm happened to

537
00:39:11,000 --> 00:39:18,800
Speaker 2: perfectly match. How is it that the blind physical processes

538
00:39:18,880 --> 00:39:26,239
Speaker 2: have yielded a creature whose moral duties exactly correspond to

539
00:39:26,360 --> 00:39:30,000
Speaker 2: those that are based in the abstract realm, which has

540
00:39:30,040 --> 00:39:33,360
Speaker 2: no causal connection with a physical realm. It seems to

541
00:39:33,400 --> 00:39:37,560
Speaker 2: me far more plausible to think that both the natural

542
00:39:37,600 --> 00:39:42,400
Speaker 2: realm and the moral realm are under the hegemony or

543
00:39:43,360 --> 00:39:49,560
Speaker 2: direction of a natural and moral lawgiver who has created

544
00:39:49,600 --> 00:39:54,080
Speaker 2: the world in such a way that these match each other.

545
00:39:54,920 --> 00:39:57,200
Speaker 1: I think all three of those are very fair objections.

546
00:39:57,239 --> 00:40:00,400
Speaker 1: The last one, how kind of the natural world lines

547
00:40:00,520 --> 00:40:04,080
Speaker 1: up with the moral world. It's not only a problem

548
00:40:04,160 --> 00:40:08,719
Speaker 1: for that view, but it's arguably a positive case for design,

549
00:40:09,360 --> 00:40:12,840
Speaker 1: because for there to be this principle of justice that exists,

550
00:40:13,400 --> 00:40:16,320
Speaker 1: and that we would evolve to the point without any

551
00:40:16,520 --> 00:40:20,440
Speaker 1: mind or intention whatsoever, that we would grasp that be

552
00:40:20,560 --> 00:40:24,080
Speaker 1: capable of living that way feel a duty to carry

553
00:40:24,160 --> 00:40:28,160
Speaker 1: that out. Seems far more probable that there's design behind

554
00:40:28,160 --> 00:40:31,680
Speaker 1: it than there is just some blind process. But of

555
00:40:31,680 --> 00:40:34,600
Speaker 1: course someone could write a doctoral dissertation and flesh that

556
00:40:34,640 --> 00:40:37,960
Speaker 1: one out in a little bit more detail. All right,

557
00:40:38,040 --> 00:40:42,439
Speaker 1: So the last one, the ontological argument, before we jump in, Bill,

558
00:40:42,480 --> 00:40:44,759
Speaker 1: you know, I taught high school Bible for twenty one

559
00:40:44,840 --> 00:40:47,759
Speaker 1: years full time at part time, and my last few

560
00:40:47,840 --> 00:40:51,480
Speaker 1: years I would teach an honors Bible class with students,

561
00:40:51,520 --> 00:40:55,880
Speaker 1: so these are juniors and seniors, And each year I

562
00:40:55,960 --> 00:40:58,880
Speaker 1: did this, they wanted to spend more time on the

563
00:40:58,920 --> 00:41:03,239
Speaker 1: ontological argument than any of the other arguments, and it

564
00:41:03,560 --> 00:41:07,680
Speaker 1: fascinated me. So as best as you can, I only

565
00:41:07,719 --> 00:41:09,319
Speaker 1: frame it that way, not because I don't think you're

566
00:41:09,360 --> 00:41:12,800
Speaker 1: capable of Because this is a difficult argument explain to

567
00:41:12,880 --> 00:41:15,400
Speaker 1: us the heart of the ontological argument.

568
00:41:16,000 --> 00:41:20,120
Speaker 2: Yes, at the heart of the argument is the idea

569
00:41:20,120 --> 00:41:25,440
Speaker 2: of a maximally great being, and a maximally great being

570
00:41:25,560 --> 00:41:34,000
Speaker 2: is defined as a being which is necessarily existent, omnipotent, omniscient,

571
00:41:34,440 --> 00:41:39,640
Speaker 2: and morally perfect. And the argument goes like this. One

572
00:41:40,000 --> 00:41:46,120
Speaker 2: it's possible that a maximally great being exists. Two. If

573
00:41:46,120 --> 00:41:50,440
Speaker 2: it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a

574
00:41:50,480 --> 00:41:56,279
Speaker 2: maximally great being exists in some possible world. Three. If

575
00:41:56,320 --> 00:42:01,160
Speaker 2: a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then

576
00:42:01,280 --> 00:42:06,399
Speaker 2: it exists in every possible world. Four. If a maximally

577
00:42:06,480 --> 00:42:11,640
Speaker 2: greed being exists in every possible world, then it exists

578
00:42:11,800 --> 00:42:16,360
Speaker 2: in the actual world. Five. If a maximally great being

579
00:42:16,480 --> 00:42:24,040
Speaker 2: exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. Six. Therefore,

580
00:42:24,600 --> 00:42:27,400
Speaker 2: a maximally great being exists.

581
00:42:28,560 --> 00:42:31,239
Speaker 1: I think it's a brilliant argument. Now, maybe before we

582
00:42:31,320 --> 00:42:35,360
Speaker 1: come to the objection, can you clarify what's meant by possibility,

583
00:42:35,360 --> 00:42:41,360
Speaker 1: Because there's physical possibility, metaphysic possibility, logical possibility. When you

584
00:42:41,440 --> 00:42:47,000
Speaker 1: say a maximally great being possibly exists, clarify what we

585
00:42:47,120 --> 00:42:49,000
Speaker 1: mean by possibly exist.

586
00:42:49,120 --> 00:42:53,160
Speaker 2: Please, that's that's crucial, Sean. We are talking here about

587
00:42:54,120 --> 00:43:05,000
Speaker 2: metaphysical possibility, not merely epistemic possibility. Epistemic possibility means for

588
00:43:05,120 --> 00:43:08,920
Speaker 2: all I know, And so you might say, well, for

589
00:43:09,080 --> 00:43:12,839
Speaker 2: all I know, it's possible that God exists, and it's

590
00:43:12,880 --> 00:43:16,600
Speaker 2: possible that God does not exist, but that is not

591
00:43:18,120 --> 00:43:22,319
Speaker 2: possible in a metaphysical sense. It's one or the other,

592
00:43:22,520 --> 00:43:27,000
Speaker 2: not both. To illustrate, suppose you see a complex mathematical

593
00:43:27,080 --> 00:43:32,080
Speaker 2: equation on the whiteboard and you want to know whether

594
00:43:32,160 --> 00:43:36,799
Speaker 2: or not it's true. Well, you might say, well, it's

595
00:43:36,920 --> 00:43:42,439
Speaker 2: possible that it's true, but it's possible that it's not true. Well,

596
00:43:42,480 --> 00:43:46,440
Speaker 2: that's the case only in an epistemic sense. In a

597
00:43:46,480 --> 00:43:51,680
Speaker 2: metaphysical or logical sense, that equation is either necessarily true

598
00:43:51,880 --> 00:43:56,400
Speaker 2: or it's necessarily false. So similarly, when we say that

599
00:43:56,480 --> 00:44:01,480
Speaker 2: it's possible that a maximally great being exist, what we

600
00:44:01,560 --> 00:44:05,480
Speaker 2: mean is it's metaphysically possible that there is such a being.

601
00:44:06,760 --> 00:44:09,560
Speaker 1: Okay, So this means we can move from the mere

602
00:44:10,040 --> 00:44:15,120
Speaker 1: metaphysical possibility of God to the existence of God. And

603
00:44:15,160 --> 00:44:19,560
Speaker 1: so the critic has to show that the metaphysical existence

604
00:44:19,640 --> 00:44:23,719
Speaker 1: of God is impossible that's the burden of proof that

605
00:44:23,719 --> 00:44:26,560
Speaker 1: the critic would have to show, and is the only

606
00:44:26,600 --> 00:44:29,960
Speaker 1: way to do that is to show that it's logically impossible,

607
00:44:30,400 --> 00:44:33,319
Speaker 1: because if something's logically impossible, then by definition it would

608
00:44:33,320 --> 00:44:36,960
Speaker 1: be metaphysically impossible. Expect what the critic has to do

609
00:44:37,080 --> 00:44:39,800
Speaker 1: to overturn the argument, Well.

610
00:44:39,719 --> 00:44:42,920
Speaker 2: What the atheist has to say is not simply that

611
00:44:42,960 --> 00:44:46,000
Speaker 2: God does not exist. He has to say that it's

612
00:44:46,040 --> 00:44:50,680
Speaker 2: impossible that God exists, because the argument shows that if

613
00:44:50,719 --> 00:44:55,880
Speaker 2: it's possible that God exists, then he actually exists. Now,

614
00:44:57,200 --> 00:44:59,800
Speaker 2: it is not correct to say that he has to

615
00:44:59,840 --> 00:45:03,920
Speaker 2: sho show that the concept of God is logically incoherent,

616
00:45:04,520 --> 00:45:12,160
Speaker 2: because there are metaphysical impossibilities that do not involve a

617
00:45:12,320 --> 00:45:17,680
Speaker 2: logical contradiction. I gave one earlier in the podcast My

618
00:45:18,200 --> 00:45:24,000
Speaker 2: Desk could have been made of ice. That's metaphysically impossible,

619
00:45:24,080 --> 00:45:28,680
Speaker 2: but there's no strict logical contradiction in that. One of

620
00:45:28,719 --> 00:45:33,240
Speaker 2: my favorite examples is given by Alvin Planige. He says,

621
00:45:33,320 --> 00:45:37,759
Speaker 2: the prime minister could have been a prime number, while

622
00:45:37,800 --> 00:45:43,160
Speaker 2: there's no logical contradiction in that, but nevertheless it's clearly

623
00:45:43,239 --> 00:45:50,520
Speaker 2: metaphysically impossible. So the atheist has to give he's to

624
00:45:50,560 --> 00:45:54,560
Speaker 2: be justified, give some reason for thinking that it is

625
00:45:55,640 --> 00:45:57,560
Speaker 2: impossible that God exists.

626
00:45:58,920 --> 00:46:00,719
Speaker 1: In case able, I just want to make understand. So

627
00:46:00,760 --> 00:46:04,800
Speaker 1: if something is logically impossible, then by definition, it's also

628
00:46:04,880 --> 00:46:10,120
Speaker 1: metaphysically impossible. But there can be a metaphysically impossible that

629
00:46:10,280 --> 00:46:15,760
Speaker 1: aren't logically impossible, like my wooden desk is ice correct. Okay,

630
00:46:15,960 --> 00:46:19,200
Speaker 1: So here's one of the common objections that I'll hear

631
00:46:19,480 --> 00:46:21,680
Speaker 1: is I guess some people might call it the reverse

632
00:46:21,800 --> 00:46:25,600
Speaker 1: onto logical argument. Instead of saying it's possible that a

633
00:46:25,719 --> 00:46:30,360
Speaker 1: maximally great being does exist, they'll say it's possible that

634
00:46:30,440 --> 00:46:34,799
Speaker 1: a maxim great being does not exist. Why is that

635
00:46:34,920 --> 00:46:35,799
Speaker 1: not convincing to you?

636
00:46:36,960 --> 00:46:40,040
Speaker 2: I just see no reason to think that this premise

637
00:46:40,480 --> 00:46:44,279
Speaker 2: is true. I think that we have much better reasons

638
00:46:44,640 --> 00:46:48,120
Speaker 2: for thinking that it's possible that a maximally great being

639
00:46:48,440 --> 00:46:53,600
Speaker 2: exists than that it's possible that a maximally great being

640
00:46:53,640 --> 00:46:59,120
Speaker 2: does not exist. But I'm content to just lead the questioner.

641
00:47:00,320 --> 00:47:04,240
Speaker 2: I'm content to just leave the question with my interlocutor,

642
00:47:05,160 --> 00:47:07,319
Speaker 2: Just leave him with the question, what do you think

643
00:47:07,400 --> 00:47:12,120
Speaker 2: do you think it's possible that God exists? If you

644
00:47:12,200 --> 00:47:15,000
Speaker 2: want to deny the existence of God, you have to

645
00:47:15,040 --> 00:47:18,759
Speaker 2: think that it's impossible that God exists. So what do

646
00:47:18,800 --> 00:47:22,880
Speaker 2: you think, Is it possible that God exists or impossible?

647
00:47:22,960 --> 00:47:26,200
Speaker 2: And I think that puts us great Cocoa likes to

648
00:47:26,239 --> 00:47:29,520
Speaker 2: say a stone in his shoe to give him something

649
00:47:29,600 --> 00:47:33,560
Speaker 2: to think about, and so I'm content with even just

650
00:47:33,640 --> 00:47:34,440
Speaker 2: doing that much.

651
00:47:34,840 --> 00:47:37,759
Speaker 1: That's really fair. Now, of course, there's many more objections

652
00:47:37,760 --> 00:47:40,320
Speaker 1: to each one of these, and again put him in here, folks,

653
00:47:40,360 --> 00:47:42,040
Speaker 1: and we're going to come back Tuesday at four thirty

654
00:47:42,080 --> 00:47:45,319
Speaker 1: Pacific center time and do our best to respond to

655
00:47:45,360 --> 00:47:49,239
Speaker 1: some of these. But you picked six arguments. Why did

656
00:47:49,280 --> 00:47:52,520
Speaker 1: you pick these six to include in the latest volume

657
00:47:52,640 --> 00:47:55,239
Speaker 1: of your Systematic philosophical Theology?

658
00:47:56,880 --> 00:47:59,480
Speaker 2: Well, these are the sex that I've worked on over

659
00:47:59,520 --> 00:48:05,080
Speaker 2: the years, beginning with the klam cosmological argument in my

660
00:48:05,360 --> 00:48:10,920
Speaker 2: doctoral research at the University of Birmingham in England, and

661
00:48:10,960 --> 00:48:15,240
Speaker 2: then most recently with the argument from the applicability of mathematics.

662
00:48:15,239 --> 00:48:18,640
Speaker 2: So these are simply the ones that I have studied

663
00:48:18,680 --> 00:48:23,319
Speaker 2: in considerable depth and find to be very persuasive.

664
00:48:24,960 --> 00:48:28,920
Speaker 1: So roughly three decades ago, Avan Planigo gave a lectra

665
00:48:29,080 --> 00:48:33,000
Speaker 1: called two dozen or so arguments, and then a book

666
00:48:33,160 --> 00:48:35,440
Speaker 1: was published kind of a compulation with a lot of

667
00:48:35,440 --> 00:48:39,560
Speaker 1: these arguments after that, and it really helped motivate a

668
00:48:39,680 --> 00:48:43,239
Speaker 1: generation of scholars to defend God's existence. Back to my

669
00:48:43,360 --> 00:48:46,279
Speaker 1: first question to you about where we are at with

670
00:48:46,320 --> 00:48:50,400
Speaker 1: these arguments, Avan Planago played a massive role in that.

671
00:48:51,480 --> 00:48:55,200
Speaker 1: I'm curious, how many good theistic arguments do you think

672
00:48:55,280 --> 00:48:58,719
Speaker 1: there are beyond these six that are at least convincing?

673
00:48:58,760 --> 00:49:01,080
Speaker 1: Would you put a number or an estimate on it,

674
00:49:01,160 --> 00:49:04,040
Speaker 1: like how would you land that plane if possible?

675
00:49:05,440 --> 00:49:09,440
Speaker 2: Oh? Man, I just don't know, Sean. Certainly, there are

676
00:49:09,680 --> 00:49:14,160
Speaker 2: many more good arguments for the existence of God than

677
00:49:14,160 --> 00:49:16,960
Speaker 2: the ones that I've had time to work on in

678
00:49:17,000 --> 00:49:20,319
Speaker 2: my finite lifetime. But I wouldn't be able to put

679
00:49:20,360 --> 00:49:24,799
Speaker 2: a number on how many good arguments for God's existence

680
00:49:24,880 --> 00:49:25,279
Speaker 2: there are.

681
00:49:25,800 --> 00:49:28,880
Speaker 1: That's fair. I suggested you might respond that way. I thought,

682
00:49:29,120 --> 00:49:32,319
Speaker 1: maybe he'll give me a number. But you're such a

683
00:49:32,400 --> 00:49:35,799
Speaker 1: careful thinker, and you've studied these six, so you know,

684
00:49:35,840 --> 00:49:38,400
Speaker 1: if Alvin Planagas said it, in some ways, that settles

685
00:49:38,400 --> 00:49:41,560
Speaker 1: it that minimally there's a lot more arguments than these six.

686
00:49:41,960 --> 00:49:45,400
Speaker 1: But I think you argue that these arguments themselves are sufficient,

687
00:49:45,680 --> 00:49:50,400
Speaker 1: especially taking cumulatively. Maybe you could clarify for our views.

688
00:49:50,440 --> 00:49:52,880
Speaker 1: You said earlier that you take these kind of one

689
00:49:53,000 --> 00:49:57,440
Speaker 1: by one, but you also talk about how they're accumulative case,

690
00:49:58,160 --> 00:50:01,000
Speaker 1: So how do you combine those who angles one by

691
00:50:01,040 --> 00:50:04,280
Speaker 1: one with cumulative for the existence of God?

692
00:50:05,200 --> 00:50:08,160
Speaker 2: Well, I think the analogy here would be the case

693
00:50:08,280 --> 00:50:13,640
Speaker 2: presented by a prosecution in a court of law. If

694
00:50:13,840 --> 00:50:16,920
Speaker 2: the prosecution is trying to show that the accused is

695
00:50:16,960 --> 00:50:25,880
Speaker 2: guilty of murder, he'll give DNA evidence for the DNA

696
00:50:25,960 --> 00:50:30,120
Speaker 2: of the accused being on the knife, for example. He'll

697
00:50:30,120 --> 00:50:35,880
Speaker 2: appeal to the videotape evidence from the ring doorbell. He'll

698
00:50:35,920 --> 00:50:41,720
Speaker 2: appealed to eyewitness evidence who saw the accused walking by

699
00:50:41,800 --> 00:50:46,480
Speaker 2: the house at the time, and any one of these

700
00:50:47,120 --> 00:50:51,040
Speaker 2: might be sufficient for conviction of the accused.

701
00:50:51,680 --> 00:50:52,840
Speaker 1: But when you put.

702
00:50:52,640 --> 00:50:57,960
Speaker 2: Them all together, the cumulative force of these arguments is

703
00:50:58,120 --> 00:51:03,239
Speaker 2: mutually reinforcing and makes for a very powerful case. And

704
00:51:03,320 --> 00:51:06,319
Speaker 2: I think that that is what we have in the

705
00:51:06,360 --> 00:51:10,960
Speaker 2: case of theism. What's striking about these arguments is that

706
00:51:11,000 --> 00:51:18,400
Speaker 2: they appeal to so many different sectors of human exploration

707
00:51:18,600 --> 00:51:30,640
Speaker 2: and knowledge, cosmology, philosophy, mathematics, physics in the fine tuning

708
00:51:30,719 --> 00:51:34,960
Speaker 2: of the universe, ethics in the moral argument, and the

709
00:51:35,080 --> 00:51:41,480
Speaker 2: very diversity of the things to be explained makes the

710
00:51:41,480 --> 00:51:45,240
Speaker 2: theistic hypothesis such a powerful one.

711
00:51:46,880 --> 00:51:49,400
Speaker 1: One of the illustration of views, maybe you could explain,

712
00:51:49,520 --> 00:51:52,240
Speaker 1: is the difference between like a chain where one link

713
00:51:52,400 --> 00:51:57,400
Speaker 1: is connected to the other, and chain mail. Explain how

714
00:51:57,440 --> 00:51:59,960
Speaker 1: the arguments work more like change than kind of a link.

715
00:52:00,160 --> 00:52:04,600
Speaker 2: Yes, in a chain, the chain is only as strong

716
00:52:04,640 --> 00:52:08,719
Speaker 2: as the weakest link. If that weak link breaks, the

717
00:52:08,840 --> 00:52:15,440
Speaker 2: chain falls apart. But in a coat of chain mail,

718
00:52:15,880 --> 00:52:19,560
Speaker 2: such as a medieval night might wear over his chest,

719
00:52:20,160 --> 00:52:24,040
Speaker 2: it is not true that the coat of mail is

720
00:52:24,160 --> 00:52:28,240
Speaker 2: only as strong as its weakest link, because the links

721
00:52:28,280 --> 00:52:32,680
Speaker 2: all reinforce one another, and so even if there are

722
00:52:32,760 --> 00:52:37,440
Speaker 2: some weak links in the coat of chain mail, the

723
00:52:38,080 --> 00:52:44,480
Speaker 2: coat is much stronger than any single link considered in isolation.

724
00:52:45,000 --> 00:52:48,600
Speaker 2: And that is certainly the way we should consider these

725
00:52:48,680 --> 00:52:53,359
Speaker 2: theistic arguments in a cumulative case for God's existence.

726
00:52:54,120 --> 00:52:58,279
Speaker 1: In debates on God's existence, you've included religious experience at

727
00:52:58,280 --> 00:53:03,360
Speaker 1: times and the resurrection. Why not include those in this volume?

728
00:53:05,480 --> 00:53:10,319
Speaker 2: I talk about the experience of God in volume one

729
00:53:10,480 --> 00:53:15,879
Speaker 2: of my systematic philosophical theology, because I am not presenting

730
00:53:15,960 --> 00:53:21,960
Speaker 2: an argument from religious experience. Rather, I'm saying that you

731
00:53:22,200 --> 00:53:27,439
Speaker 2: can know that God exists without any arguments, simply through

732
00:53:27,480 --> 00:53:33,399
Speaker 2: having a personal experience of God. The belief in God,

733
00:53:33,440 --> 00:53:36,839
Speaker 2: I think, is a properly basic belief that is grounded

734
00:53:37,600 --> 00:53:40,480
Speaker 2: in the experience of God, just as my belief in

735
00:53:40,520 --> 00:53:47,120
Speaker 2: the external world is grounded in my sensory experience of

736
00:53:47,200 --> 00:53:52,719
Speaker 2: the world. You don't infer the existence of the external

737
00:53:52,760 --> 00:53:56,200
Speaker 2: world from your sense experience. Rather, you form the belief

738
00:53:56,239 --> 00:54:00,200
Speaker 2: in the external world in a basic way, and it

739
00:54:00,239 --> 00:54:04,480
Speaker 2: is a properly basic belief because it is grounded in

740
00:54:04,719 --> 00:54:09,520
Speaker 2: experience and there are no good defeaters to deny the

741
00:54:09,600 --> 00:54:12,560
Speaker 2: verticality of that experience. And I would say that that

742
00:54:12,719 --> 00:54:16,279
Speaker 2: is the same with theism. It's not an argument for

743
00:54:16,440 --> 00:54:21,120
Speaker 2: God from religious experience, but it is again the claim

744
00:54:21,320 --> 00:54:24,400
Speaker 2: that you can know that God exists in a properly

745
00:54:24,520 --> 00:54:29,920
Speaker 2: basic way by having an immediate experience of God that

746
00:54:30,080 --> 00:54:32,240
Speaker 2: grounds that properly basic belief.

747
00:54:33,480 --> 00:54:35,440
Speaker 1: How about the resurrection? Is that something you're going to

748
00:54:35,520 --> 00:54:38,400
Speaker 1: come back to later in your systematic philology.

749
00:54:38,560 --> 00:54:42,040
Speaker 2: Honestly, the reason that I would sometimes include that in

750
00:54:42,120 --> 00:54:47,600
Speaker 2: debates is for evangelistic purposes. I don't want people simply

751
00:54:47,640 --> 00:54:50,239
Speaker 2: to come to believe in God. I want them to

752
00:54:50,280 --> 00:54:54,120
Speaker 2: come to believe in the Christian God. And I think

753
00:54:54,120 --> 00:54:59,279
Speaker 2: that the resurrection is key to making that transition from

754
00:54:59,400 --> 00:55:05,799
Speaker 2: generic theism to Christian theism. But I would say your

755
00:55:06,080 --> 00:55:13,719
Speaker 2: argument from the evidence for the resurrection is vastly, vastly

756
00:55:13,840 --> 00:55:19,560
Speaker 2: stronger if you do your natural theology first, you first

757
00:55:19,719 --> 00:55:24,080
Speaker 2: establish the existence of a creator and designer of the

758
00:55:24,200 --> 00:55:28,759
Speaker 2: universe who is absolutely good, and then you look at

759
00:55:28,760 --> 00:55:32,760
Speaker 2: the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and his personal

760
00:55:32,800 --> 00:55:38,960
Speaker 2: claims to show that this creator has specially revealed himself

761
00:55:39,440 --> 00:55:43,200
Speaker 2: in Jesus of Nazareth. So I would say that the

762
00:55:43,200 --> 00:55:46,920
Speaker 2: best apologetic case is one that begins with the arguments

763
00:55:46,920 --> 00:55:52,759
Speaker 2: of natural theology and then transitions to the evidence for

764
00:55:52,840 --> 00:55:57,960
Speaker 2: the resurrection of Jesus. On that conclusion, two.

765
00:55:57,880 --> 00:55:59,719
Speaker 1: Last questions for you and will wrap up as you

766
00:55:59,800 --> 00:56:02,520
Speaker 1: were on these six arguments. And I know this systematic

767
00:56:02,520 --> 00:56:05,120
Speaker 1: philosophical theology is going to take you some time to

768
00:56:05,200 --> 00:56:07,640
Speaker 1: work it through. But if you were to study a

769
00:56:07,840 --> 00:56:11,120
Speaker 1: seventh argument, I'm curious what that would be because I

770
00:56:11,120 --> 00:56:13,319
Speaker 1: remember I interviewed you maybe two or three years ago,

771
00:56:13,760 --> 00:56:17,200
Speaker 1: and you said you didn't really have this plan laid

772
00:56:17,239 --> 00:56:19,920
Speaker 1: out exactly where all of your research was going, but

773
00:56:20,000 --> 00:56:22,520
Speaker 1: just things that kind of fascinated you along the way

774
00:56:22,560 --> 00:56:24,840
Speaker 1: and got your interest. So if you're like, you know what,

775
00:56:24,880 --> 00:56:27,040
Speaker 1: here's the seventh argument I left to pour in to

776
00:56:27,200 --> 00:56:29,279
Speaker 1: and study. Is there one? Or are you not even

777
00:56:29,400 --> 00:56:30,640
Speaker 1: sure which one that might be?

778
00:56:32,160 --> 00:56:35,120
Speaker 2: Yes, there is, And I was almost tempted to included

779
00:56:35,200 --> 00:56:37,920
Speaker 2: it would be an argument from the reality of mind.

780
00:56:38,760 --> 00:56:43,880
Speaker 2: I think we can give very good arguments for mind

781
00:56:44,040 --> 00:56:51,240
Speaker 2: body dualism, interactionism, that physicalism with respect to human beings

782
00:56:51,800 --> 00:56:57,840
Speaker 2: is false. We are not just bags of chemicals on bones.

783
00:56:57,920 --> 00:57:03,400
Speaker 2: We have minds, have of phenomenal states of awareness like

784
00:57:03,480 --> 00:57:08,400
Speaker 2: self consciousness, intentionality, freedom of the will, and moral agency,

785
00:57:09,120 --> 00:57:15,640
Speaker 2: and the reality of mind sean makes far far better

786
00:57:15,760 --> 00:57:20,400
Speaker 2: sense on theism than it does on naturalism. On theism,

787
00:57:20,480 --> 00:57:26,800
Speaker 2: you already have an ultimate, transcendent, unembodied mind who has

788
00:57:26,920 --> 00:57:31,120
Speaker 2: created and designed the universe, and so it's hardly surprising

789
00:57:31,200 --> 00:57:37,200
Speaker 2: that there might be finite embodied minds which God has created.

790
00:57:37,800 --> 00:57:42,880
Speaker 2: So I think that this is a seventh, very powerful

791
00:57:43,000 --> 00:57:45,920
Speaker 2: argument for the existence of God. I love it.

792
00:57:45,960 --> 00:57:50,000
Speaker 1: Good stuff. Now I have your other two philosophical Systematic

793
00:57:50,080 --> 00:57:55,280
Speaker 1: philosophical theologies here, Volume one, Volume two A. This one

794
00:57:55,320 --> 00:57:58,080
Speaker 1: is not out yet at the time we're recording this,

795
00:57:58,200 --> 00:58:00,720
Speaker 1: but you can pre order it, can get it now.

796
00:58:00,760 --> 00:58:04,200
Speaker 1: This is not written for lay people. I think most

797
00:58:04,240 --> 00:58:06,680
Speaker 1: of it is very readable. Some of the higher math

798
00:58:06,720 --> 00:58:11,040
Speaker 1: we you're defending that the universe has beginning non specialists

799
00:58:11,040 --> 00:58:12,840
Speaker 1: and I don't have a background math. Some of that

800
00:58:13,040 --> 00:58:16,160
Speaker 1: was challenging. But as a whole, this seems to be

801
00:58:16,200 --> 00:58:19,280
Speaker 1: the most up to date defense of the arguments for

802
00:58:19,320 --> 00:58:22,080
Speaker 1: the exists of God that you've published, So skeptics and

803
00:58:22,120 --> 00:58:26,200
Speaker 1: believers alike, I would strongly encourage you to dive into

804
00:58:26,560 --> 00:58:30,240
Speaker 1: and read those. It's an excellent volume. Love it. Last question,

805
00:58:30,240 --> 00:58:33,240
Speaker 1: what encouragement would you give to somebody? He says, Okay,

806
00:58:33,760 --> 00:58:35,760
Speaker 1: you know you made some good points, Bill, but I'm

807
00:58:35,840 --> 00:58:39,440
Speaker 1: just I'm not quite convinced. I don't know. I'm still

808
00:58:39,480 --> 00:58:41,800
Speaker 1: wrestling with these What would your final words be?

809
00:58:43,320 --> 00:58:48,200
Speaker 2: My advice to such a person, Sean, is to realize

810
00:58:48,280 --> 00:58:51,480
Speaker 2: in a very self conscious way, that the question of

811
00:58:51,520 --> 00:58:57,120
Speaker 2: God's existence is not simply an intellectual question, but rather

812
00:58:57,360 --> 00:59:02,960
Speaker 2: is a deeply spiritual quest question. The Bible says God

813
00:59:03,360 --> 00:59:09,720
Speaker 2: resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. If

814
00:59:09,760 --> 00:59:14,600
Speaker 2: we truly want to find God, then we must approach

815
00:59:14,680 --> 00:59:21,120
Speaker 2: him in humility and not in arrogance. The Bible says

816
00:59:21,200 --> 00:59:26,280
Speaker 2: that God, by his spirit, is working to convince you

817
00:59:26,680 --> 00:59:31,920
Speaker 2: of your sin and to draw you to himself if

818
00:59:31,960 --> 00:59:36,640
Speaker 2: you will simply be open to his grace. So while

819
00:59:36,720 --> 00:59:40,480
Speaker 2: we look at the arguments critically and think about them hard,

820
00:59:40,560 --> 00:59:45,560
Speaker 2: we must not ignore the inner voice of God speaking

821
00:59:45,600 --> 00:59:47,080
Speaker 2: to our own hearts.

822
00:59:47,520 --> 00:59:50,800
Speaker 1: Bill, I love it, always enjoy talking. Thank you for

823
00:59:50,920 --> 00:59:53,640
Speaker 1: your work on this. Thoroughly enjoyed the volume. I've read

824
00:59:53,680 --> 00:59:56,800
Speaker 1: all three volumes in their entirety, and I look forward

825
00:59:56,800 --> 00:59:59,320
Speaker 1: to getting a physical copy and I'll probably go back

826
00:59:59,320 --> 01:00:02,520
Speaker 1: through it another So I hope our listeners will pick

827
01:00:02,560 --> 01:00:05,120
Speaker 1: it up. Remember to join me and I'll have another

828
01:00:05,200 --> 01:00:10,080
Speaker 1: tabot or Apologecks Professor here Tuesday, four thirty Pacific Standard

829
01:00:10,080 --> 01:00:12,440
Speaker 1: time live to take your questions. You can send me

830
01:00:12,480 --> 01:00:16,200
Speaker 1: your questions questions at Sean McDowell dot org, or you

831
01:00:16,240 --> 01:00:19,000
Speaker 1: can post them right here in the YouTube video and

832
01:00:19,160 --> 01:00:22,280
Speaker 1: do our best to come back and address them. Make

833
01:00:22,360 --> 01:00:25,280
Speaker 1: sure you hit subscribe because we've got some other videos

834
01:00:25,320 --> 01:00:28,560
Speaker 1: like this coming up, including in April, we're doing a

835
01:00:28,560 --> 01:00:32,320
Speaker 1: three part series with Doug Ax, Jay Richards and Steven

836
01:00:32,400 --> 01:00:35,600
Speaker 1: Meyer on three different evidences for the Existence of God

837
01:00:35,640 --> 01:00:37,760
Speaker 1: where we're going to do a deep dive and then

838
01:00:37,960 --> 01:00:41,080
Speaker 1: also do live engagement. You won't want to miss it.

839
01:00:41,120 --> 01:00:43,440
Speaker 1: If you've thought about studying apologics, we'd love having in

840
01:00:43,480 --> 01:00:47,080
Speaker 1: our m a phil Program or our Apologize program. There's

841
01:00:47,120 --> 01:00:50,520
Speaker 1: information below. Doctor Craig, thanks for your time, thanks for

842
01:00:50,560 --> 01:00:50,960
Speaker 1: coming on.

843
01:00:52,080 --> 01:00:53,920
Speaker 2: Always a pleasure. Sean, thank you.

844
01:00:54,240 --> 01:00:56,920
Speaker 1: Hey friends, if you enjoyed this show, please hit that

845
01:00:57,040 --> 01:00:59,880
Speaker 1: fall button on your podcast app. Most of you tuning

846
01:01:00,080 --> 01:01:02,360
Speaker 1: and haven't done this yet and it makes a huge

847
01:01:02,400 --> 01:01:05,120
Speaker 1: difference in helping us reach and equip more people and

848
01:01:05,160 --> 01:01:09,560
Speaker 1: build community. And please consider leaving a podcast review. Every

849
01:01:09,760 --> 01:01:12,880
Speaker 1: review helps. Thanks for listening to the Sean McDowell Show,

850
01:01:13,000 --> 01:01:16,840
Speaker 1: brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University,

851
01:01:16,880 --> 01:01:20,240
Speaker 1: where we have on campus and online programs and Apologetic

852
01:01:20,280 --> 01:01:23,520
Speaker 1: Spiritual Formation, Marriage and Family, Bible and so much more.

853
01:01:23,600 --> 01:01:26,600
Speaker 1: We would love to train you to more effectively live, teach,

854
01:01:26,720 --> 01:01:29,520
Speaker 1: and defend the Christian faith today and We will see

855
01:01:29,560 --> 01:01:31,400
Speaker 1: you when the next episode drops.