Month: February 2016

Here’s One Way to Resist Naturalistic Arguments: Lack Belief that Matter Exists!

A Christian apologist writing under the pseudonym ‘InvestigativeApologetics’ stated the usual objection to atheism, namely, that it’s impossible to prove or give evidence for the non-existence of God. The fact is that atheists who yell that “there is no evidence for God (or Christianity)” are protesting too much, so to speak, and they are, in Here’s One Way to Resist Naturalistic Arguments: Lack Belief that Matter Exists!

I.I. Sponsors Internet Debate on God’s Existence: God or Blind Nature?

(redated post originally published on 9 July 2007) After five years of planning, preparation, and work, the Internet Infidels will officially announce on July 1 the first installment of its “Great Debate” project, God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence. (I’ve been given the OK to post this early.) The project, coordinated by agnostic I.I. Sponsors Internet Debate on God’s Existence: God or Blind Nature?

I Don’t Care

Thomas Aquinas pulled a classic BAIT-AND-SWITCH move in Summa Theologica:  “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.” “Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”  “Therefore we cannot but admit the existence I Don’t Care

Are Pain and Suffering the Only Evidence for Atheism?

Frank Turek is a Christian apologist, debater, and author or co-author of several books, including I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (see my rebuttal here). He recently tweeted the following: Truth? https://t.co/MobF1LkyjF #truth #apologetics pic.twitter.com/hb8cfJobtX — Frank Turek (@Frank_Turek) February 11, 2016 Make sure you click on the link that begins with Are Pain and Suffering the Only Evidence for Atheism?

Weighing Theistic Evidence Against Naturalistic Evidence

In the next-to-last paragraph of his book, C.S. Lewis’ Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, Victor Reppert makes a very interesting statement: However, I contend that the arguments from reason do provide some substantial reasons for preferring theism to naturalism. The “problem of reason” is a huge problem for reason, as serious or, I Weighing Theistic Evidence Against Naturalistic Evidence