I really enjoy listening to Matthew's change in position as he follows the evidence and I love how he now owns a mic! Nicely done with this interview Pat.
Thanks, I really appreciate it! I think I'd be a lot more likely to be a protestant than a Catholic as I find much of Catholic moral teaching very hard to believe.
@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 fair enough, and hope I didn’t come across as you being a “project” to convert or anything like that because you’re clearly a smart guy who can think for himself. I still think Catholicism is true and correct and thus want everyone to convert, but I get the hesitation as our morality is kinda of 100% metaphysics based so if you’re not totally on board there it’s hard to accept the moral claims. Anyway thanks again and look forward to checking out more of your work
Many thanks. Great that the first objection you present to your first argumnet, fine tuning, is the argument that “the cosmos is just necessary” (25:40 ff). I'm not sure that your objections to that objection quite defeated it. All your counter examples are from things and events within the universe, and often point to the need to bring human agency into the explanation. But the “just necessary” objection concerns the whole universe as we find it, with the constants as we find them (& you are tending to a god-of-the-gaps by implying that “uninteresting” structures like “simple” cyclical movement or everything “collapsing in on itself” or “lesser complexity” could be necessary). You accept that all we have to play with metaphysically is the deterministic physical cause and effect, as we observe it, for instance, through the sciences. Then once you get to the level of the whole of nature of the cosmos, what right do you have to go beyond the cosmos? What meaning does probability have when the fact in question has no context? To my mind it is only if we first discern human intelligent agency as something non-material, free and moral (some of your “other” arguments?) that we are then equipped with concepts for going beyond the space-time cosmos, even one which is an interestingly structured unity.
Around 56:00, is there a failure to recognize the distinction between an actual infinite and the potential infinite? For example, the future would be potentially infinite as time would successfully add, this does not require an actual infinite though. Thoughtsv
Well, I was saying that you either have to be an a theorist or deny that time is infinite. B theorists think that all moments of time actually exist and there's no objective present, so it'd require an actual infinite.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/n.gif)
This was such a wonderful conversation.
Thanks!
I really enjoy listening to Matthew's change in position as he follows the evidence and I love how he now owns a mic! Nicely done with this interview Pat.
Thanks!
Thanks for having Matthew on Pat! I genuinely appreciate his humility and recent philosophical developments!
Thanks, very nice!
I really enjoy your podcast Pat, I am with you, I did something similar when I was a kid as well, the way you tell your story seems nostalgic to me.
Comments for the best channel
Matthew seems like a swell guy. Hope we get him to convert one day he’d be an awesome Catholic. Anyway great episode as always!
Thanks, I really appreciate it! I think I'd be a lot more likely to be a protestant than a Catholic as I find much of Catholic moral teaching very hard to believe.
@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 fair enough, and hope I didn’t come across as you being a “project” to convert or anything like that because you’re clearly a smart guy who can think for himself. I still think Catholicism is true and correct and thus want everyone to convert, but I get the hesitation as our morality is kinda of 100% metaphysics based so if you’re not totally on board there it’s hard to accept the moral claims. Anyway thanks again and look forward to checking out more of your work
@@kevinpulliam3661 Makes total sense--if Catholicism is right, then it makes sense to want people to convert.
Theistic Joe Schmid.
😂😂
Many thanks. Great that the first objection you present to your first argumnet, fine tuning, is the argument that “the cosmos is just necessary” (25:40 ff). I'm not sure that your objections to that objection quite defeated it.
All your counter examples are from things and events within the universe, and often point to the need to bring human agency into the explanation. But the “just necessary” objection concerns the whole universe as we find it, with the constants as we find them (& you are tending to a god-of-the-gaps by implying that “uninteresting” structures like “simple” cyclical movement or everything “collapsing in on itself” or “lesser complexity” could be necessary).
You accept that all we have to play with metaphysically is the deterministic physical cause and effect, as we observe it, for instance, through the sciences. Then once you get to the level of the whole of nature of the cosmos, what right do you have to go beyond the cosmos? What meaning does probability have when the fact in question has no context?
To my mind it is only if we first discern human intelligent agency as something non-material, free and moral (some of your “other” arguments?) that we are then equipped with concepts for going beyond the space-time cosmos, even one which is an interestingly structured unity.
Comment for traction 🎉🎉
There are three kinds of Sophistry: Sophistry, damned Sophistry, and Bayesian Analysis
Was not expecting the third one but so true haha
UP
Around 56:00, is there a failure to recognize the distinction between an actual infinite and the potential infinite? For example, the future would be potentially infinite as time would successfully add, this does not require an actual infinite though. Thoughtsv
Well, I was saying that you either have to be an a theorist or deny that time is infinite. B theorists think that all moments of time actually exist and there's no objective present, so it'd require an actual infinite.