Three Ways to Approach Christianity
DIFFERENT WAYS TO APPROACH CHRISTIANITY There is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to divide a pie. There are three approaches to the analysis and evaluation of Christianity that I have noticed, and they each have different advantages and disadvantages: I’m sure there are other approaches besides these … Three Ways to Approach Christianity
The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 2: MANY Skeptical Theories
WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft identifies FIVE Theories concerned about “what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday…” : 1. Christianity: “the resurrection really happened” 2. Hallucination: “the apostles were deceived by a hallucination” 3. Myth: “the apostles created a myth, not meaning … The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 2: MANY Skeptical Theories
The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 1: Three Serious Problems
FIVE THEORIES ABOUT JESUS’ ALLEGED RESURRECTION In Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft identifies Five Theories concerned about “what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday…” : 1. Christianity: “the resurrection really happened” 2. Hallucination: “the apostles were deceived by a hallucination” 3. Myth: “the apostles created a … The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 1: Three Serious Problems
Defending the Swoon Theory – INDEX
OVERVIEW In Chapter 8 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft (and his co-author Ronald Tacelli), makes a case for the resurrection of Jesus. He does so by attempting to “refute” or “disprove” four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view that God raised Jesus from the dead: Hallucination: … Defending the Swoon Theory – INDEX
An F-Inductive Argument from Consciousness for Theism, Revisited
Edited on 15-Feb-20While some theistic arguments are “God of the gaps” arguments, many, including those defended by Christian philosophers, are not “God of the gaps” arguments. Before accusing a theist of trotting out another “God-of-the-gaps” argument, atheists should first verify that the argument actually is a “God-of-the-gaps” argument.Here is the basic structure of a “God-of-the-gaps” … An F-Inductive Argument from Consciousness for Theism, Revisited
Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 22: Swoon Theory Implies Other False Theories
WHERE WE ARE Kreeft provides six sub-arguments in Objection #7. Three sub-arguments are given to support the key premises (B), (C), and (D), and in Part 20 I showed that those three sub-arguments FAIL to establish either (B) or (C) or (D), giving us three good and sufficient reasons to conclude that Objection #7 FAILS. … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 22: Swoon Theory Implies Other False Theories
Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 21: More Evaluation of Objection #7
WHERE WE ARE In Part 20 of this series of posts I showed that Kreeft’s three sub-arguments supporting key premises (B), (C), and (D) of his core argument constituting Objection #7 (against the Swoon Theory) all FAIL, and that the failure of just one of those three sub-arguments is sufficient reason to conclude that Objection #7 … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 21: More Evaluation of Objection #7
OFF TOPIC: 6 “FACTS” Presented by Trump’s Defense – Part 3
WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 I argued that three of the “six key facts” presented by Trump’s defense team are IRRELEVANT, and that another of the “six key facts” is relevant but INSIGNIFICANT, because based on the statements of politicians who had a strong vested interest in NOT telling the truth on this issue. … OFF TOPIC: 6 “FACTS” Presented by Trump’s Defense – Part 3