The Sci-Phi Show

In this episode of the Sci-Phi show, we examine hidden assumptions in the fine-tuning argument for God's existence with Professor Neil Manson. Manson is a philosopher who specializes in design arguments for God's existence. We consider the claim that multiverse is fallacious and take a deep dive into Neil'ss paper 'How not be generous to fine tuning skeptics'. The episode features Phil Halper and Alex Malpass.

Atheist philosophers Alex Malpass and Dan Linford join me, Phil Halper, to thoroughly debunk the claims of mathematician and well known Christian apologist John Lennox.

There is now a "new" Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence based on Benardete paradoxes, such as the Grim Reaper. meant to establish causal finitism. What are these paradoxes? And how can a critic of the Kalam respond? Our very own Alex Malpass has teamed up with Joe Schmid of the Majesty of Reason and published a paper in Mind, one of the world's leading philosophy journals. (Article available here: https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHBPC [https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHBPC].) We talk about all of that and much more in this episode of the Sci-Phi Show!

Christian apologist Frank Turek says he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist, but he really doesn't have enough knowledge. In this video, leading atheist thinkers Alex Malpass and Dan Linford join host Phil Halper to expose Turek's never-ending errors, especially concerning infinity and cosmology. How many mistakes can a Christian apologist make in 8 minutes? Place your bets.

Many contemporary models of the Big Bang from The Hartle Hawking model to Loop Quantum Cosmology to String Gas Comsology, the Janus Universe, Carroll Chen, Aguirre-Gratton, and CPT symmetric universe, can be interpreted as giving the universe an hourglass-like structure. In this episode of the SciPhi Show, leading atheist philosophers Alex Malpass and Dan Linford examine what this might mean for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In particular, we show that it faces an "interface dilemma" where defenders of the argument, like William Lane Craig, must give up one of the Kalam's fundamental premises.