apologetics

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 7: 1st Argument for Changing Things

In his book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler presents his general version of a Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA).  The first premise of Geisler’s TCA is this: 1. Finite, changing things exist.  (WSA, p.18) Geisler provides a very brief argument in support of (1) in WSA.  In Part 4 of this series I The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 7: 1st Argument for Changing Things

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 4: Finite Changing Things Exist?

In his book When Skeptics Ask (1990), Norman Geisler presents a Thomist Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (although he FAILED to conclude the argument with the claim that “God exists”!).  I am now going to start evaluating the first premise of this argument: 1. Finite, changing things exist.  (When Skeptics Ask, p. 18; hereafter: WSA.) The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 4: Finite Changing Things Exist?

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 3: Norman vs. Bradley

I’m having fun with critical examination of Norman Geisler’s Thomist cosmological argument in When Skeptics Ask.  There is also a more detailed and in-depth presentation of this argument in Chapter 9 of Geisler’s much older book The Philosophy of Religion (1974). I previously thought that the first premise of his Thomist cosmological argument was obviously The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 3: Norman vs. Bradley

Was Joshua’s Slaughter of the Canaanites Morally Justified? Part 11: Moral Warrant

CHILD SACRIFICE AS A MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR MERCILESS SLAUGHTER In the previous post,  I examined the following historical question: Did the all of the various peoples who were actually living in the towns of the Promised Land between 1350 and 1250 BCE regularly and frequently practice child sacrifice?  I reviewed the first four pieces of evidence provided Was Joshua’s Slaughter of the Canaanites Morally Justified? Part 11: Moral Warrant

Was Joshua’s Slaughter of the Canaanites Morally Justified? Part 10: Child Sacrifice

DEFENSE #1 FAILS Here are the defenses of Jehovah and Joshua to which I am replying: Joshua’s MERCILESS SLAUGHTER of the Canaanites (and Jehovah’s command to perform this slaughter) was MORALLY JUSTIFIED because: 1. The people in the Canaanite towns were given the chance to flee, before Joshua and the Israelites MERCILESSLY SLAUGHTERED men, women, Was Joshua’s Slaughter of the Canaanites Morally Justified? Part 10: Child Sacrifice

Was Joshua’s Slaughter of the Canaanites Morally Justified? Part 9: Joshua

MOVING ON FROM MOSES TO JOSHUA The evidence from Numbers and Deuteronomy indicates that Jehovah did NOT demand that advanced warnings be given to towns that Moses and the Israelites were going to attack so that people had the opportunity to leave the town and thus avoid being MERCILESSLY SLAUGHTERED, and that Moses did NOT Was Joshua’s Slaughter of the Canaanites Morally Justified? Part 9: Joshua

Was Joshua’s Slaughter of the Canaanites Morally Justified? Part 8: Warnings?

I promised that I would address the question of whether, according to the OT, Moses and Joshua consistently provided advanced warnings before they attacked a town or city, so that people had at least a few days to leave and escape “utter destruction” and “extermination” by the army of Israel, and I will begin to Was Joshua’s Slaughter of the Canaanites Morally Justified? Part 8: Warnings?