apologetics

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

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1

|

THE CONTEXT Peter Kreeft and his co-author Ronald Tacelli open their Handbook of Christian Apologetics  (hereafter: HCA) with these words about their “reasons for writing this book”: Kreeft and Tacelli believe that heaven and hell are in the balance for every human being, when it comes to acceptance or rejection of “the Christian faith”.  So, it … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 9: The Argument from Change

|

MY EVALUATION OF THE SECOND HALF OF KREEFT’S CASE In Part 1 and Part 2 I argued that eight out of ten (80%) of the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s collection of twenty arguments (from Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Chapter 3; hereafter: HCA) are AWFUL arguments that are not worthy of serious consideration, that we should thus toss them aside, and ignore … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 9: The Argument from Change

Feser’s Case for God – Part 8: Actualization of a Potential

|

FESER’S ANALYSIS OF CHANGE A key idea in Chunk #1 of Feser’s Aristotelian argument is his analysis or understanding of change: A. The occurrence of any change C presupposes the actualization of a potential of some thing or substance S which changes. There are three phrases that constitute the key components of Feser’s analysis of change: the actualization of… …a … Feser’s Case for God – Part 8: Actualization of a Potential

2017 in the Rearview Mirror

|

I had hoped to answer the question “Does God exist?” in 2017, at least to my own satisfaction.  No such luck.  That was a bit too aggressive of a goal.   However, I did make some good progress.  I learned that Norman Geisler’s case for God (in When Skeptics Ask) is a steaming pile of dog … 2017 in the Rearview Mirror

Feser’s Case for God – Part 7: Feser’s Concept of Change

|

FOCUS ON CHUNK #1 We are examining the first few premises of Edward Feser’s lengthy (i.e. containing fifty statements) Aristotelian argument for the existence of God, in Chapter 1 of Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG).  What I call Chunk #1 of this argument consists of the following premises and inferences: (FPEG, Location 477-493, p.35-36) Let’s … Feser’s Case for God – Part 7: Feser’s Concept of Change

Feser’s Case for God – Part 5: Potential Attributes vs. Contingent Attributes

|

POTENTIAL ATTRIBUTES VS. CONTINGENT ATTRIBUTES I think (i.e. strongly suspect) it is important to understand the relationship between Edward Feser’s concept of the potential attributes of X and logical possibility.  Feser does not provide clarification on this point, at least not in Chapter 1 of his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: … Feser’s Case for God – Part 5: Potential Attributes vs. Contingent Attributes