Non-Traditional Arguments for God (w/ @ApologeticsSquared) (Ep. #146)

Thanks for having me on! :)

Good overview!

I really appreciated this conversation. I'd love to see Apologetics Squared back on again, as this might be my favorite interview you have done on the show! I do have one comment to make on the Onto-Omniscience argument. I really liked this argument and it seems as though the skeptic doesn't have many options to get out of it. Either they have to bite the bullet and affirm that there is a possible being who is omniscient and knows everything about @ but doesn't exist in @, OR they could try to turn the argument around and say that this proves that even the possibility of God is incoherent, because if God were possible but non-existent then He would be omniscient and know everything about @ without being in @ or even existing, but that seems to run into the metaphysical voodoo that Squared was talking about. So the only real option I see a skeptic taking here is to deny that God even possibly exists. And I think that's basically what the ontological argument does as well, but this onto-omniscience argument is even better in my opinion because it forces the skeptic to either choose between biting two bullets. They can either deny that God is possible, which is very strange, or they can bite the bullet on the metaphysical voodoo and affirm that God knows everything about @ while not being in @ or even existing. The being knows that it doesn't exist and knows everything about @ including all of the contingent things, while not even existing. So those are my thoughts, and again I loved the conversation! Keep up the good work. God Bless!

After listening to this I can tell you why they are non traditional arguments for god. Because they are garbage.