Bradley Bowen

I was a devout Evangelical Christian from 1970 to 1982. The study of philosophy, especially philosophy of religion, led me to see that my Christian faith was founded on weak and faulty arguments. I followed where reason led me, and left Christianity in favor of skepticism, critical thinking, and a secular humanist worldview. Background in Philosophy - B.A. in philosophy from Sonoma State University. M.A. in philosophy from University of Windsor. Candidate for PhD in philosophy from University of California at Santa Barbara.

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 25: The Argument for Premise (3a) of Objection #7

|

WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In Part 24 of this series, I showed that the … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 25: The Argument for Premise (3a) of Objection #7

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 24: The Core Argument of Objection #7

|

WHERE WE ARE In Part 23 of this series, I provided a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #7 (Who Moved the Stone?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In this current post, I will begin to carefully evaluate … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 24: The Core Argument of Objection #7

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 23: A Careful Analysis of Objection #7

|

WHERE WE ARE In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus. An important part of their case for the resurrection of Jesus is an attempt to refute some skeptical theories, such as the Swoon Theory. If they FAIL to refute the Swoon Theory, … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 23: A Careful Analysis of Objection #7

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 21: Premise (D) of Objection #6

|

WHERE WE ARE In Part 19 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of the argument constituting Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. In Part 20 of this series, I showed that premise (G) was FALSE, and thus that the core argument of Objection #6 is UNSOUND and … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 21: Premise (D) of Objection #6

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 20: The Core Argument of Objection #6

|

THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #6 The core of the argument for Objection #6 (Who Overpowered the Guards?) against the Swoon Theory has three premises: D. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN Jesus did NOT overpower the Roman soldiers who were guarding his tomb on the weekend after Jesus was crucified. F. It is … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 20: The Core Argument of Objection #6

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Evaluation of the Objections Based on John

|

WHERE WE ARE In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus. An important part of their case for the resurrection of Jesus is an attempt to refute some skeptical theories, such as the Swoon Theory. If they FAIL to refute the Swoon Theory, then their … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Evaluation of the Objections Based on John

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 19: A Careful Analysis of Objection #6

|

WHERE WE ARE In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus. An important part of their case for the resurrection of Jesus is an attempt to refute some skeptical theories, such as the Swoon Theory. If they FAIL to refute the Swoon Theory, then their … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 19: A Careful Analysis of Objection #6

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 18: Why Objection #5 Cannot Be Repaired

|

THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH OBJECTION #5 The main problem with Objection #5 is that a key premise of the core argument for this objection is FALSE. Specifically, the key premise (E) is FALSE. Here, once again, is the core argument for Objection #5: E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 18: Why Objection #5 Cannot Be Repaired

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 17: Continued Evaluation of Premise (E)

|

THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #5 As we saw in Part 14 of this series, the core argument for Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory has two premises: E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 17: Continued Evaluation of Premise (E)