apologetics

G&T Rebuttal, Part 4: Chapter 5

Chapter 5. The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe? In this chapter, G&T defend a design argument focused on the first life. They also present a variety of objections to scientism and materialism. I will provide a very brief summary of their points, before providing my critique. (i) Argument to Design of the First G&T Rebuttal, Part 4: Chapter 5

G&T Rebuttal, Part 3: Chapter 4

Chapter 4. Divine Design G&T provide a brief introduction to what they call ‘the’ Teleological Argument, which they formulate as follows. 1. Every design had a designer. 2. The universe has a highly complex design. 3. Therefore, the universe had a Designer. (95) Like the cosmological argument, this argument is deductively valid. Again, my plan G&T Rebuttal, Part 3: Chapter 4

G&T Rebuttal, Part 2: Chapter 3

Chapter 3. In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE G&T tell us that the “Cosmological Argument is the argument from the beginning of the universe” (74). That is sloppy; G&T have conflated the family of arguments known as ‘the’ cosmological argument with one specific version of that argument (the kalām cosmological argument). But let G&T Rebuttal, Part 2: Chapter 3

G&T Rebuttal, Part 1: Introduction

The book’s introduction divides into six parts: (i) the crucial role that beliefs about God play in worldviews; (ii) an overview of three major “religious” worldviews; (iii) a discussion of the role of faith and facts in religion; (iv) three categories of problems with Christianity; (v) the faith of an atheist; and (vi) a high-level G&T Rebuttal, Part 1: Introduction

Index: Rebuttal to Geisler’s and Turek’s “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Review of Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004).  Like all apologetics books, both Christian and non-Christian, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist book takes a partisan approach to the philosophy of religion. Of course, by itself, the fact that it is a Index: Rebuttal to Geisler’s and Turek’s “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Swinburne’s Argument from Religious Experience – Part 3

Previously, I have only considered the very simple case where one person has a memory of having previously had a theistic religious experience (hereafter: TRE) of a generic sort–an experience in which it seemed (epistemically) to him/her that God was present.  There were a couple of basic points made about probable inferences in contrast to Swinburne’s Argument from Religious Experience – Part 3

Swinburne’s Argument from Religious Experience – Part 2

Richard Swinburne’s argument from religious experience (AFR) as given in The Existence of God (2nd ed.- hereafter: EOG) is based on three key epistemological  principles: EXPERIENCE …(in the absence of special considerations), if it seems (epistemically) to a subject that x is present (and has some characteristic), then probably x is present (and has that characteristic)… (EOG, p. 303) Swinburne’s Argument from Religious Experience – Part 2

Lessing’s Broad Ditch and Brad’s Lesser Ditch

LESSING’S BROAD DITCH Quotations are from Lessing’s essay “On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power” from Lessing’s Theological Writings (hereafter: LTW), edited by Henry Chadwick. Reports of Miracles are not the same as Direct Observation of Miracles “The problem is that reports of fulfilled prophecies are not fulfilled prophecies; that reports of miracles are not Lessing’s Broad Ditch and Brad’s Lesser Ditch