Month: February 2013

Cavin and Colombetti on the Resurrection of Jesus Part 2: The Failure of the Resurrection ‘Explanation’

What I want to do in this post is to summarize (and offer my own interpretation of) Cavin’s second main contention in his debate with Michael Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus: CC2. The Resurrection Theory is a dismal failure as an explanation of the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus—being ad hoc and Cavin and Colombetti on the Resurrection of Jesus Part 2: The Failure of the Resurrection ‘Explanation’

William Lane Craig’s silly views on animal pain further debunked

This brand new video exposes in some detail the absurdity of William Lane Craig’s ongoing attempt to defend his silly, unscientific views regarding animal pain (his view is that animals other than higher primates are unaware they have it – which is a great comfort to animal lovers like himself). This video responds to Craig’s William Lane Craig’s silly views on animal pain further debunked

Update on Comments Migration

1. There were seven (7) comments submitted while I was migrating the new site to use Disqus for commenting. I had those held in a moderation queue while I tried migrating comments (so that they would not be lost)  and then I forgot about them. Tonight I tried “approving” them in the moderation queue and Update on Comments Migration

Robert Oerter’s Fine-Tuning Argument for Naturalism

Robert Oerter has written an interesting post on his blog outlining what he calls a fine-tuning argument for naturalism. It’s important to keep in mind that Oerter doesn’t actually believe that this argument is a good argument for naturalism. Rather, he thinks it’s useful for showing what’s wrong with the fine-tuning argument for theism. Rather Robert Oerter’s Fine-Tuning Argument for Naturalism