Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part III)
Ed, Russell’s argument is from Why I am not a Christian, which was a popular talk given to a general audience. As you say, almost certainly he was aiming at popular apologetics. He could, however, address the argument at a much more sophisticated level. I think his best response to cosmological arguments came in his … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part III)
Inductive Logic 101 (Updated 23-Apr-14)
Here is a very quick and very rough overview of inductive logic. Almost all of it is taken from sources other than me; I’ll try to identify where the material came from. The Difference between Deductive and Inductive Arguments Logic Type Unsuccessful Arguments Successful Arguments Deductive Logic Invalid* Valid* Inductive Logic Incorrect Correct *I’m oversimplifying … Inductive Logic 101 (Updated 23-Apr-14)
Simplicity, Theism, and Naturalism
In a recent post on his blog, Alexander Pruss presents an interesting argument regarding simplicity, theism, and naturalism. He writes: I have argued elsewhere, as my colleague Trent Dougherty also has and earlier, that when we understand simplicity rightly, theism makes for a simpler theory than naturalism. However, suppose I am wrong, and naturalism is the … Simplicity, Theism, and Naturalism
A Good F-Inductive Argument for Theism based on Consciousness
I was waiting for someone to bring this up in the combox on my recent post on Swinburne’s cosmological argument, but no one did. The argument from consciousness (to theism) is a parallel argument to the cosmological argument against theism. In the cosmological argument against theism, I pointed out that naturalism entails a physical universe … A Good F-Inductive Argument for Theism based on Consciousness
New Scientific Evidence for the Multiverse
I have always been a multiverse skeptic. If this article in New Scientist is accurate, however, it appears the recent confirmation of chaotic inflation also provided some evidence for a multiverse. LINK (HT: Ex-Apologist)
F-Inductive Arguments: A New Type of Inductive Argument
In his extensive writings, the prestigious philosopher Richard Swinburne makes a useful distinction between two types of inductive arguments. Let B be our background information or evidence; E be the evidence to be explained; and H be an explanatory hypothesis. “C-inductive argument”: an argument in which the premisses confirm or add to the probability of the conclusion, i.e., … F-Inductive Arguments: A New Type of Inductive Argument
Theistic Prejudice: A Case Study with Stan
Over at Randal Rauser’s blog, Stan wrote the following: Free thinking does not mean disciplined logical thought; it means being free to think that whatever you might think at the moment is Truth, including that there is no truth. Free Thought is much like removing the timing from your engine’s combustion system to allow it … Theistic Prejudice: A Case Study with Stan
Stan on Materialism and Morality
A reader named Stan recently posted many comments on another page on this blog about materialism and morality. I’m going to copy and paste several of his comments together to provide a convenient summary of his argument. Stan’s Definitions Here is a summary of Stan’s definitions. Materialism: functional materialism is the set of constraints on … Stan on Materialism and Morality
Hysterical Homophobe Fred Phelps Dies
I just got the message that the Rev. Fred Phelps has died: Phelps and his congregation became infamous by picketing funerals for those killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan with signs reading “Thank God for IED’s (Improvised explosive devices that accounted for many casualties).” Their “reasoning” was that God permitted American soldiers to be … Hysterical Homophobe Fred Phelps Dies
Response to Prof. Feser’s Response to…etc (Part II)
Ed, this will be a rather truncated response to these points because I will address just the arguments you present here. A fair treatment of your arguments would need to address your article on these topics in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. However, two physical realities—time and space—limit me here. The question I posed was why … Response to Prof. Feser’s Response to…etc (Part II)