Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism, Part 3
I’m now going to comment on Stan’s post, “What I Learned at Patheos.” Stan’s Integrity-Challenged Description of His Interactions at the Secular Outpost My foray into patheos–land is over. I don’t usually venture into other blogs because they are commonly infested with nasty hangers-on (PZ anyone?), but this one seemed different… at first. And it … Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism, Part 3
Atheists, Please Stop Saying These Things
Essential reading for atheists from Ed Brayton. LINK
Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism, Part 2
In my last post about Stan Stephens, I documented how he fundamentally misrepresents the purpose and nature of my evidential case for naturalism, in turn because he seems to fundamentally misunderstand inductive arguments. Let’s continue reviewing Stan’s post on empirical evidence. Now we can more readily see that not a single line item is a … Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism, Part 2
Critical Thinking – Part 1
What is ‘critical thinking’? Why is it important? Why should anyone try to be a critical thinker? What does critical thinking have to do with secularism and humanism and naturalism? There are two main ideas to consider behind the term ‘critical thinking’. First, and most obviously, we should consider the ordinary meaning of the word … Critical Thinking – Part 1
Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism
Stan Stephens has finally decided to respond to my list of sixteen (16) lines of empirical evidence which favor naturalism over theism. Here is the first sentence of his reply. Jeffery Jay Lowder provided a list of empirical proofs. (emphasis added) I’ve emphasized Stan’s use of the word “proofs” because it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding … Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism
An F-Inductive Moral Argument for Theism
Here is an F-inductive argument for theism based on ontologically objective moral values. Note that this argument assumes that such things exist. If you don’t think they exist, then you may want to skip reading this post. As usual, let B be our background information; E be the evidence to be explained (in this case, the existence of … An F-Inductive Moral Argument for Theism
Craig Responds to My Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
In my debate on the existence of God with Phil Fernandes, Fernandes defended the kalam cosmological argument. In my rebuttal, I provided objections. William Lane Craig, who so far has not debated me despite saying over a decade ago that he would so, responded to me on YouTube. William Lane Craig’s response is not new; … Craig Responds to My Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Interesting Blog Post about a Multiverse
“Where Are We in the Multiverse?” (@ Why There is and Why There Is Anything) Here’s the first paragraph: There are two avenues from modern physics to the belief that the universe we see around us is not all there is, but is instead one of infinitely many like it. The first is inflationary cosmology; … Interesting Blog Post about a Multiverse
Input Requested: Facts about Mental Properties Which Might be Relevant to Theism and Naturalism
I’m interested in collecting a list of mental properties which might be relevant to theism and naturalism. Examples: What else have I missed?
Must Atheists Have Deductive Proofs for God’s Nonexistence to Justify Atheism?
Yet another objection to the possibility of a sound argument for the nonexistence of a god can be found in the writings of Bertrand Russell. In order to understand the basis for Russell’s objection, we must first understand how Russell defined the terms ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic’: An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can … Must Atheists Have Deductive Proofs for God’s Nonexistence to Justify Atheism?