Coffee With Philosophers

In this episode of the Coffee with Philosophers podcast, Pat Flynn unpacks the core arguments of his book, 'The Best Argument for God'. Watch to grasp the essence of Pat's work as he articulates his endorsement of classical theism and its key role in offering a compelling case for theism over naturalism. Pat skillfully employs the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and the method of inference to the best explanation to secure his argument. Explore the costs of denying the PSR and discover strategies for minimizing brute facts to align with it. Pat provides a thoughtful response to Graham Oppy's critique of reducing brute facts down to zero. He also explains how God serves as the best explanation for the world's coherence and stability. So, please grab a coffee and join us for a stimulating discussion!

In this episode of Coffee With Philosophers, Dr. Daniel Rubio discusses his paper "Intrinsically Good, God Created Them." Dr. Rubio offers a new conception of intrinsic value, then he casts doubt on arguments by Eric Wielenberg and Mark Murphy, who argue that creatures do not have intrinsic value. Rubio also examines the role of the absolute goodness of God and the additivity of intrinsic value in Murphy's argument. He further considers the reference objection and the challenges of interpreting religious language. Rubio provides advice for reading philosophy of religion and shares his views on capital punishment.

In this episode of Coffee With Philosophers, Dr. Max Baker-Hytch discusses his paper "On Sin-based Responses to Divine Hiddenness," highlighting a neglected way of responding to hiddenness arguments. We look at three camps such responses fall into, and we explore three objections all such accounts must overcome. Dr. Baker-Hytch offers fruitful avenues to explore in future research. Though he doesn't embrace a universal solution to hiddenness from sin, he does think sin-based approaches may factor into a response to probabilistic versions of the argument. Please grab a coffee and join us for a stimulating exploration of a fascinating topic!

Why did God create anything at all? Why did Christ incarnate and atone for our sins? A framework for divine action tries to capture and predict such theological data. In their paper "God of Holy Love," Jonathan Rutledge and Jordan Wessling argue that their love-centered framework better predicts the data than Mark Murphy's holiness-centered framework. I chat with Dr. Rutledge about their view in this episode of the Coffee With Philosophers podcast. Please grab a coffee and join us!

Augustine gives a little-known cosmological argument in his Confessions. Most people don't know this argument exists. Dr. Keith Hess and Dr. Matthew Flummer are changing this. They're working to articulate and classify Augustine's argument. Join us as we chat about Augustine's fascinating argument.

I'm joined by Dr. Eric Yang to discuss his fascinating article "Heaven and the Problem of Eternal Separation." According to traditional Christian commitments, these two claims hold: (1) Some human beings will be in heaven eternally enjoying bliss and union with God; and, (2) Some human beings will be eternally separated from God (and therefore eternally miserable) in hell. The problem of eternal separation exposes a tension between these two claims. Any person in heaven that loves those they loved on earth, and is aware that those loved ones are now eternally damned, cannot have perfect bliss in heaven. They cannot possess eternal blessedness. So, given that (2) holds, (1) cannot be true at the same time. Dr. Yang offers a defense of the two traditional commitments. He canvasses two solutions that show how it's possible for the claims to hold at the same time. The first solution involves people in heaven possessing quasi-impassibility. The second solution involves a "refrigerium" whereby people in heaven are temporarily reunited with their loved ones that are suffering in hell. Join us in exploring this fascinating problem!

I'm joined by Brandon Rickabaugh to discuss his new book "The Substance of Consciousness." The book is co-authored with J.P. Moreland. It offers a robust and novel defense of substance dualism. Join us to get the overall thesis of the book, understand major positions in the consciousness debate, grasp a key argument in the book, and explore fascinating avenues of future research. We have some fun, too!

Theological compatibilism is the thesis that God decreeing everything that will happen is compatible with you acting freely and being morally responsible for what you do. A majority of philosophers are compatibilists about causal determinism and moral responsibility. If you endorse causal (natural) compatibilism, should you also endorse theological compatibilism? Dr. Taylor Cyr offers an intersting argument that "Natural Compatibilists Should Be Theological Compatibilists." In this episode of the Coffee With Philosophers Podcast, we explore Dr. Cyr's article and discuss the fun and fascinating manipulation argument against compatibilism.

Watch part two of my chat with Dr. Kevin McCain. We apply his view of justification to a fascinating case involving a medical miracle. We look at a case that's problematic for Phenomenal Conservatism (PC) but his view handles well. We discuss Kevin’s take on Liz Jackson’s forthcoming article, “Against the Phenomenal View of Evidence,” and we finish with two excellent tips for budding Christian philosophers.

In this episode, we chat with Dr. Kevin McCain about his new theory of epistemic justification. Phenomenal Explanationism (PE) overcomes problems with other views. When applied to religious belief it makes sense of how someone is justified in believing that God exists. We work through his article in The Cambridge Handbook of Religious Epistemology. We have fun along the way, and in the end he reveals his take on the problem of divine hiddenness. Enjoy the conversation!

Joe Schmid joins us to discuss his excellent paper, "Classical Theism, Arbitrary Creation, and Reason-Based Action." Listen to this episode to learn what classical theism is, why the debate over classical theism matters, R.T. Mullins' argument from impassibility against classical theism, Joe's worry about that argument, Joe's revision of the argument to avoid the worry, and how a classical theist might begin responding to the problem.