arguments for atheism

Link: Darwin’s Argument from Evil by Paul Draper

Draper’s chapter was published in Yujin Nagasawa (ed.), Scientific Approaches to the Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan. 49 (2012). It’s available online for free courtesy of Google Books. LINK Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)

Link: Why the Argument from Causal Closure Against the Existence of Immaterial Things is Bad

I am quoting the abstract of this paper here, without comment pro or con, for interested readers who may wish to read the paper for themselves. Feel free to debate in the combox. Abstract. Some argue for materialism claiming that a physical event cannot have a non-physical cause, or by claiming the ‘Principle of Causal Closure’ to Link: Why the Argument from Causal Closure Against the Existence of Immaterial Things is Bad

Whitcomb’s Grounding Argument for Atheism and Reply by Rasmussen et al

I am quoting the abstract of these papers here, without comment pro or con, for interested readers who may wish to read the papers for themselves. Feel free to debate in the combox. Whitcomb’s argument for atheism: Abstract I’m going to argue that omniscience is impossible and therefore that there is no God. The argument turns on Whitcomb’s Grounding Argument for Atheism and Reply by Rasmussen et al

Did God Create Nuclear Weapons?

Christians and other believers in God often say, ‘God created everything.’  If we take this literally, as a young child would do, we might start thinking of some objections or possible counterexamples: ‘Did God create nuclear weapons?’ ‘Did God create the ebola virus?’ etc.  The doctrine of divine creation leads quickly to the problem of evil. Did God Create Nuclear Weapons?

Draper’s Reply to Welty

Philosopher Greg Welty wrote a brief response to Paul Draper’s brief summary of his position regarding God and the burden of proof. Here is Draper’s reply to Welty. Greg Welty has written an interesting reply to my post on “God and the Burden of Proof”.  He does a very good job of explaining my argument (for Draper’s Reply to Welty

If Theism is True, Why Is There Moral Progress and Not “Moral Prophecies”?

If theism is true, why aren’t there “moral prophets” in the sense that they clearly perceive objective moral truths which are ahead of their time, such as someone 2,000 years ago declaring slavery is wrong, misogyny is wrong, etc.? Why do we instead observe moral progress? For example, why did much of humanity, for most of human If Theism is True, Why Is There Moral Progress and Not “Moral Prophecies”?