Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 6: Non-Standard Resurrection
THE NON-STANDARD RESURRECTION OBJECTION In this post I will state one objection to the logic of my thinking about the probability of the resurrection. I will also discuss and respond to this objection. In the next post I will state a second objection to the logic of my thinking about the probability of the resurrection. … Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 6: Non-Standard Resurrection
Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 5: Multiplication of Probabilities
INTRODUCTIONIn this post I will spell out the basic logic of my current thinking about the probability of the resurrection.First, I give an example of a probability tree diagram and calculation where the events are independent of each other (coin tosses). Next, I give an example of a probability tree diagram and calculation where the … Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 5: Multiplication of Probabilities
Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 4: Skepticism about the Supernatural
SKEPTICAL CLAIMS ABOUT SUPERNATURAL BELIEFS Two points from my List of Key Points about the resurrection relate directly to skepticism about the supernatural: 1. Nobody KNOWS that supernatural beings exist. 2. Nobody KNOWS that supernatural events occur. There are two more related points that should be added to the above two points: 21. Nobody KNOWS … Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 4: Skepticism about the Supernatural
Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 3: Improbability of the Resurrection
IMPROBABILITY Some Christians believe that it is certain that God raised Jesus from the dead; other Christians believe that it is very probable but not certain that God raised Jesus from the dead. Some people believe that it is probable but not very probable that God raised Jesus from the dead. Some skeptics believe that it … Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 3: Improbability of the Resurrection
Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 2: Skepticism about the Resurrection
SKEPTICISM Skepticism is the denial of knowledge. Universal skepticism denies the possibility of any kind of knowledge, or the actual existence of any kind of knowledge. Qualified forms of skepticism deny the possibility of knowledge in particular areas, or the actual existence of knowledge in particular areas, such as religious knowledge or knowledge of the … Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 2: Skepticism about the Resurrection
Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 1: List of Key Points
SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE RESURRECTION 1. Nobody KNOWS that supernatural beings exist. 2. Nobody KNOWS that supernatural events occur. 3. Nobody KNOWS that God exists. 4. Nobody KNOWS that miracles occur. 5. Nobody KNOWS that Jesus existed. 6. Nobody KNOWS that Jesus died on the cross. 7. Nobody KNOWS that Jesus was alive on Easter morning. … Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 1: List of Key Points
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 20: More on Argument #4
THE INITIAL INFERENCE IN ARGUMENT #4 In Part 19, I argued that the initial inference or sub-argument in Argument #4 (the Argument from Degrees of Perfection) of Peter Kreeft’s case for God is very unclear, and that based on my best guess at what the premises of that sub-argument mean, one premise begs the question … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 20: More on Argument #4
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 19: Premise (B)
The initial inference or sub-argument in Argument #4 of Peter Kreeft’s case for God is based on three premises, and all three premises are very UNCLEAR: A. These degrees of perfection pertain to being. B. Being is caused in finite creatures. 1a. IF these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 19: Premise (B)
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 18: Interpretation of Argument #4
In Part 17, I analyzed the logical structure of Peter Kreeft’s Argument #4, the Argument from Degrees of Perfection. That clarification of the logic of this argument, however, is not sufficient to make it possible to rationally evaluate this argument. The meanings of each and every premise in Argument #4 are UNCLEAR, making it impossible … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 18: Interpretation of Argument #4
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 17: Analysis of Argument #4
MOVING ON TO KREEFT’S VERSION In Peter Kreeft’s case for God, in Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), his fourth argument is based on the fourth way of Aquinas. Kreeft’s Argument #4 is the Argument from Degrees of Perfection. Because Aquinas’s version of this argument is clearer and more straightforward than Kreeft’s … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 17: Analysis of Argument #4