Month: August 2016

LINK: “Ethics and Evolutionary Theory” by Erik J. Wielenberg

I haven’t read this, but I’m posting the link because (1) I respect the author; and (2) I think the topic will of interest to many of our readers. LINK (Note: this article is behind a paywall) Reminder/Disclaimer: Posting links does not necessarily constitute endorsement. Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)

McDowell’s Trilemma – Part 3: An Eternally Omniscient Person

McDowell’s Trilemma Argument (hereafter: MTA), can be found in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (hereafter: NETDV) by Josh McDowell (see pages 158-163).  The first key premise of MTA is this: There is no good reason to believe that Jesus claimed to be God.  None of the canonical Gospels report Jesus as having asserted the claim “I McDowell’s Trilemma – Part 3: An Eternally Omniscient Person

McDowell’s Trilemma – Part 2: An Eternally Omnipotent Person

McDowell’s Trilemma Argument (hereafter: MTA), can be found in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (hereafter: NETDV) by Josh McDowell (see pages 158-163). ================= …Jesus definitely claimed to be God (see below and in Chapter 6).  So every person must answer the question: Is His claim to deity true or false?   (NETDV, p.158) ================= The first McDowell’s Trilemma – Part 2: An Eternally Omnipotent Person

McDowell’s Trilemma – Part 1: An Eternally Bodiless Person

Here are the basic premises of McDowell’s Trilemma Argument (hereafter: MTA), from The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (hereafter: NETDV by Josh McDowell: ================= …Jesus definitely claimed to be God (see below and in Chapter 6).  So every person must answer the question: Is His claim to deity true or false?  This question deserves a McDowell’s Trilemma – Part 1: An Eternally Bodiless Person

An Evidential Argument from Evil: Natural Inequality

I want to quickly sketch an evidential (aka “explanatory” aka “abductive” aka “F-Inductive“) argument from evil, one which focuses exclusively on natural inequality.  The argument is not mine; it belongs to Moti Mizrahi. The key point of Mizrahi’s argument, which he credits to an insight of John Rawls, is this: … natural endowments are undeserved.Now, if An Evidential Argument from Evil: Natural Inequality

OK, so That’s What he Really Means

The following are recent statements by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, and the explanations of those statements by his staff. [Note: Yes, this is satire. I am explicitly noting this since the Trump candidacy is proving Poe’s law that reality can become so bizarre that it is indistinguishable from satire.]  Trump: Yeah, shoot crooked Hillary. OK, so That’s What he Really Means

LINK: Would the World Be Better Off Without Religion? A Skeptic’s Guide to the Debate

I am linking to this, but not endorsing it. In fact, I haven’t even read the entire thing yet! LINK What I am about to write is not necessarily about the linked article, but about the article’s topic. My hunch (or bias?) is that the question posed in the title of the article is an extremely complex LINK: Would the World Be Better Off Without Religion? A Skeptic’s Guide to the Debate

Are we Addicted?

As an entrepreneur, a heroin pusher has a big advantage. His customers become addicts; they cannot do without the product he sells. Pushers have no problem with getting repeat customers. Heroin addiction is a terrible national problem, but it is far from the most widespread addiction. According to an article in today’s Houston Chronicle, “The Are we Addicted?