How far can arguments like the Grim Reaper paradox, divine conceptualism, and the problem of evil really take us in deciding whether theism is philosophically credible?
My links: https://linktr.ee/frictionphilosophy.
1. Guest
Alex Malpass's work focuses on philosophical logic, philosophy of time, philosophy of physics, and more. His website is https://useofreason.wordpress.com/, and he runs the Thoughtology YouTube channel.
2. Interview Summary
Alex explains that his route into philosophy was basically driven by curiosity: as a kid he read a book of “great philosophers,” latched onto Socrates as a model of irreverent questioning, and then just kept following whatever topics struck him as interesting. He emphasizes that he approaches philosophy as an independent hobby—doing it because it’s fun rather than because he’s representing an institution or defending a fixed “doctrinal” package—so he’s comfortable treating big debates (including the ‘fine-tuning argument’) as open-ended problems where you can explore multiple frameworks without having to “take a view on everything.”
The first major topic is the ‘Grim Reaper paradox’ (presented as a descendant of a “Benedetti/Benedetti paradox” in the transcript): Alex walks through how you can set up an infinite sequence of “reapers” (or triggers) arranged so that any given event is prevented by an earlier one, and yet there’s no first event—pushing you toward an inconsistent description of what happens. He discusses why this is often taken to be evidence against an actually infinite past, and he engages an objection that uses a kind of “copy-and-paste”/recombination principle (if one reaper-scenario is possible, why not infinitely many?), explaining how the paradox is meant to show that certain infinite constructions you might have thought were coherent actually aren’t.
From there the conversation broadens into several connected philosophy-of-religion disputes. On abstract objects, he discusses the move to ‘divine conceptualism’—treating things like mathematical truths as ideas in God’s mind—and sketches a critique that leans on intentionality: if thoughts are essentially about something, then we still owe an account of what a “divine thought” is about without silently reintroducing the very abstracta we were trying to explain. He then turns to the problem of evil and “perfect being” expectations, arguing that re-describing evil as a privation (often associated with Augustine) doesn’t really touch the evidential force of suffering, and he discusses what a “defense” needs to accomplish (logical consistency rather than plausibility) while also criticizing aspects of traditional Christian narrative like inherited guilt. He also touches modal issues (including ‘modal collapse’ and skepticism about God knowing counterfactuals for merely possible situations), and ends with remarks about Alvin Plantinga–style evolutionary worries: he’s cautious about quick debunking stories, stressing that rationality looks like a gradual capacity that can be repurposed and amplified culturally over time. Summary based on the provided transcript.
3. Interview Chapters
00:00 - Introduction
00:46 - What got you into philosophy?
03:28 - Grim Reaper paradox
13:34 - Omniscience and infinity
16:16 - Lord of non-contradiction
25:15 - Other divine conceptualist views
27:30 - Non-propositional knowledge
29:26 - Platonism and naturalism
36:10 - Intentionality of phenomenal states
36:52 - Divine simplicity
37:45 - Principle of sufficient reason
47:26 - Argument against Christianity
55:20 - Privation theory of evil
1:01:00 - Transworld depravity
1:10:55 - Evolutionary argument against naturalism
1:21:50 - Act and potency
1:28:30 - Is "existence" a predicate?
1:29:58 - Free will
1:35:22 - Conclusion
