Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 4: More Problems with Objection TRF5
WHERE WE ARE TRF5 is the fifth objection presented by Josh McDowell against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF). The objection TRF5 can be stated in terms of a brief argument: 1. Hallucinations REQUIRE that a person who has an hallucination of circumstance C previously had a hopeful expectation or wish … Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 4: More Problems with Objection TRF5
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 3: The “No Expectancy” Objection
WHERE WE ARE I generally argue in defense of the Apparent Death Theory, not in order to prove it to be TRUE, but in order to show that this skeptical theory about the alleged resurrection of Jesus is still viable and that the objections raised against it by Christian apologists FAIL to refute it. However, … Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 3: The “No Expectancy” Objection
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 2: More Objections to the Hallucination Theory
In The Resurrection Factor (1981; hereafter: TRF), Josh McDowell raises seven objections against the Hallucination Theory, a skeptical theory that explains the origin of the early Christian belief that Jesus rose from the dead in terms of one or more of his followers having an “hallucination” (or non-veridical sensory experience) of Jesus being alive sometime … Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 2: More Objections to the Hallucination Theory
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 1: The Hallucination Theory
On the issue of the alleged resurrection of Jesus, I usually argue in defense of the Apparent Death Theory. I do this NOT because I believe that the Apparent Death Theory is true, but in order to show that, contrary to the claim of Christian apologists, the Apparent Death Theory is a viable theory, that … Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 1: The Hallucination Theory
Feser’s Perverted Faculty Argument – Part 1: The Core Argument
HSIAO’S PERVERTED FACULTY ARGUMENT I have REJECTED Timothy Hsiao’s Perverted Faculty “Argument” against homosexual sex NOT because it was a bad argument, but because it was a FAUX argument, and not an actual argument. The core “argument” by Hsiao consists of three declarative sentences that were so UNCLEAR that they cannot be rationally evaluated, and … Feser’s Perverted Faculty Argument – Part 1: The Core Argument
Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 8: Legal Definitions
WHERE WE ARE Sometimes, Christian philosophers put forward pieces of crap that they pretend to be philosophical arguments, but that are just word salads that are posing as philosophical arguments. The core “argument” in Tim Hsiao’s article “A Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument against Homosexual Sex” (hereafter: PFA) appears to me to be one … Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 8: Legal Definitions
Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 11: Bad Guidelines
In previous posts I have presented some reasons for rejecting the idea that the book of Leviticus was inspired by God, and for rejecting the view that this book is a reliable source of truth or wisdom. In this post I will discuss, or begin to discuss, two more reasons for rejecting the idea that … Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 11: Bad Guidelines
The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 11: The Argument for Premise (2)
WHERE WE ARE Norman Geisler has FAILED to show that premise (1) of his Thomist Cosmological Argument is true, but premise (1) is obviously true. Since premise (1) is obviously true, we should not reject TCA just because Geisler FAILED to prove that (1) is true. Since premise (1) seems to be obviously true, we should accept … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 11: The Argument for Premise (2)
The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 10: Geisler’s Argument for Premise (2)
WHERE WE ARE In his book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler presents his general version of a Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA). I analyze this argument in Part 2 of this series. The first premise of Geisler’s TCA is this: 1. Finite, changing things exist. (WSA, p.18) Geisler provides a very brief argument … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 10: Geisler’s Argument for Premise (2)
Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 7: Definitions of “Sexual Activity”
In Part 6 of this series, I argued that the phrase “sexual activity” is unclear, and that the meaning of this phrase is NOT obvious. I used examples and information about the use of this phrase in the medical and health arena. I plan to also look at some information about the use of the … Aquinas and Homosexual Sex – Part 7: Definitions of “Sexual Activity”