Joe Schmid replies to Craig: Why God’s Proof Backs Atheism

In this video, philosopher Joe Schmid delivers a powerful rebuttal to William Lane Craig’s recent criticisms of his paper — published in Nous — which claims that the modal ontological argument traditionally used to support God’s existence gives an advantage to the atheist. Previously on this channel, Joe explained the core arguments from his paper. Craig attempted a quick defense in response. Now, Joe returns to defend his conclusions, expose the flaws in Craig’s critique, and show why this classic Argument for God may favour atheism instead. You can read Joes paper here : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1... and you can see William Lane Craig's full reply here: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast... CORRECTION FROM JOE : Thanks to Wade Tisthammer (in a comment under this video) for bringing my attention to the following error in the video. The error is at 1:05:38, where I misstate what Craig said. The immediate context is Kevin talking about normal systems weaker than S5. He then paraphrases me as arguing that the RMOA only requires KT, whereas the MOA requires not only KT, but additional axioms. In response to this, Craig says "You can get K systems that he [Joe] refers to by adding axioms to... S4, but these K systems are not included in S5, they are not a subset of S5". I, however, mistakenly interpreted Craig as saying K systems as such are not a subset of S5. Instead, Craig says "these" K systems, referring to ones earlier in his sentence. I sincerely apologize for this misinterpretation. Mea culpa, and I'll do better next time. I also consequently retract and apologize for my remark that Craig seems not to understand S5. Notably, though, as Tisthammer points out, even under this corrected interpretation, Craig still seems to be seriously misunderstanding the paper here. Craig talks about the K systems that I refer to , but I only refer to K systems that are subsets of S5. (This is what threw me off in my interpretation, btw.) Nowhere do I talk about a K system which adds axioms to S4 which are not part of S5. So, it seems to me that Craig has still misunderstood this part of the argument (and he wouldn't have to be seemingly guessing what we were arguing if he had carefully read the paper). Also, for Table 1 at 1:06:40, "equivalence" should say "euclidean" 00:00 Introduction to the Ontological Argument 01:33 Explaining the Modal Ontological Argument 03:06 The Reverse Argument for Atheism 04:59 Logical Asymmetry in Arguments 06:24 The Paper's Contribution to Atheism 06:58 Craig's Response to the A Priori Argument 07:44 Value Argument and Its Implications 09:30 Responses to the Value Argument 11:13 Modal Continuity and Its Controversies 13:40 Infinite Degrees of Value 16:31 Craig's Dilemma on Infinity 19:00 Qualitative vs Quantitative Value 20:24 Symmetry Restoration in Arguments 25:16 Disvalue and Its Implications 28:50 Maximal Greatness and Its Nature 30:34 The Absurdity of the Symmetry Breaker 32:16 Structuring the Argument: Clarity vs Complexity 37:12 Parody Arguments and Their Implications 38:11 Justifying the First Premise 44:11 Controversies in Modal Logic 49:48 The Strength of the Reverse Modal Argument 59:46 Debunking Misconceptions in Modal Logic 01:05:51 The Validity of the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument 01:11:59 Philosophy Beyond Exercises: The Seriousness of Argumentation 01:16:31 Addressing Misrepresentations and Academic Integrity