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
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 16: Aquinas’s Way #4
WHERE WE ARE AT WITH THE FIRST FIVE ARGUMENTS For the first five arguments in his case for God, Peter Kreeft makes use of the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas. Kreeft’s versions of four of those Five Ways are complete failures, because he does not bother to provide any support for the most important premises … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 16: Aquinas’s Way #4
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 15: Three More Thomist Arguments
EVALUATION OF KREEFT’S CASE SO FAR In Part 1 through Part 8, I reviewed the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s case for God in Chapter 3 his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), and I concluded in Part 9 that they provided ZERO evidence for the existence of God: Of the last ten arguments in Kreeft’s … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 15: Three More Thomist Arguments
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 14: Evaluation of Argument #2
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT #2 In Part 13, I clarified and analyzed the logical structure of the Argument from Efficient Causality, Argument #2 in Kreeft’s case for God. Here is the clarified version of Argument #2: 1a. IF there is no thing which is such that its present existence is uncaused, THEN all things need a … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 14: Evaluation of Argument #2
Problems With TASO – Part 2: My Favorite Objection
TASO The third inductive argument in Swinburne’s case for God is TASO (the Teleological Argument from Spatial Order): Teleological Argument from Spatial Order (e3) There exists a complex physical universe which is governed by simple natural laws, and in which the structure of the natural laws and of the initial conditions are such that they make the … Problems With TASO – Part 2: My Favorite Objection
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 13: Analysis of Argument #2
EVALUATION OF KREEFT’S CASE SO FAR I began this series by considering the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s case for God in Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). Those arguments appear to be ones that Kreeft viewed as weaker than his earlier arguments. NONE of those last ten arguments turned out … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 13: Analysis of Argument #2
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 12: The Argument for (3a)
THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT #1 SO FAR In Part 11 we saw that Argument #1 is UNSOUND, because it is based on the premise (F), and because Kreeft provides no support for (F), and because we have good reason to believe (F) to be FALSE. In this current post, I will examine the core argument in support … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 12: The Argument for (3a)
Problems With TASO: Part 1
INTRO TO TASO For several years, I have been working on an article about Richard Swinburne’s case for God. I’m currently revising the section of that article dealing with the third argument in Swinburne’s case: TASO (the Teleological Argument from Spatial Order). In working on that section of the article, I noticed that my favorite … Problems With TASO: Part 1