Another Paper by Moti Mizrahi: “New Puzzles About Divine Attributes”
European Journal for Philosophy of Religion (forthcoming) Abstract: According to traditional Western theism, God is maximally great (or perfect). More explicitly, God is said to have the following divine attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. In this paper, I present three puzzles about this conception of a maximally great (or perfect) being. The first puzzle about omniscience … Another Paper by Moti Mizrahi: “New Puzzles About Divine Attributes”
Moti Mizrahi’s New Paper: “The Problem of Natural Inequality: A New Problem of Evil”
Forthcoming in Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel. Pre-publication copy available here. Abstract. In this paper, I argue that there is a kind of evil, namely, the unequal distribution of natural endowments, or natural inequality, which presents theists with a new evidential (not logical or incompatibility) problem of evil. The problem of natural inequality is a … Moti Mizrahi’s New Paper: “The Problem of Natural Inequality: A New Problem of Evil”
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 5: Reply to RD Miksa
In the combox on Victor Reppert’s Dangerous Idea blog, RD Miksa posted a thoughtful, four part assessment of the evidential argument from history of science (AHS). In this post, I want to reply to Miksa. Miksa’s Reply to the Informal Statement of the Argument The Definition of “Science” Miksa correctly points out that my post … The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 5: Reply to RD Miksa
New Puzzles about Divine Attributes
Abstract: According to traditional Western theism,God is maximally great (or perfect). More explicitly, God is said to have the following divine attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. In this paper, I present three puzzles about this conception of a maximally great (or perfect) being. The first puzzle about omniscience shows that this divine attribute is incoherent. … New Puzzles about Divine Attributes
My Guest Post on Randal Rauser’s Blog
In case you don’t already follow Randal Rauser’s blog, The Tentative Apologist, he has been posting a series of guest posts by prominent atheists on his blog about “why they don’t believe.” Rauser just posted my short essay, for which I am truly grateful. Rauser offered a few comments on my short essay. I, in turn, would … My Guest Post on Randal Rauser’s Blog
Draft chapter on Humanism, Science and Skepticism for comments….
Humanism: Science, Reason and Skepticism[1] What are science and reason? Humanists expound the virtues of science and reason. But what are science and reason? And we should we think it wise to rely on them? By science, I shall mean that approach to finding out about reality based on the scientific … Draft chapter on Humanism, Science and Skepticism for comments….
The Atheist named Richard Swinburne
I was reading the Martyrdom of Polycarp recently, which is “the oldest written account of a Christian martyrdom outside the New Testament.” (The Apostolic Fathers, updated edition, edited and revised by Michael Holmes, p.222; hereafter: TAF). Polycarp was killed between 155 and 160 C.E: The Martyrdom of Polycarp sets out quite clearly both the issue … The Atheist named Richard Swinburne
Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 2
I want to continue where I left off in part 1 of my response to Metacrock on the use of Bayes’ Theorem (BT) to measure evidence about God. Here is Metacrock: Bayes’ theorem was introduced first as an argument against Hume’s argument on miracles, that is to say, a proof of the probability of miracles. … Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 2
Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 1
Over at the Christian Cadre, “Metacrock” has written a post entitled, “Bayes Theorum [sic] and Probability of God: No Dice!” Metacrock makes a number of points regarding the use of Bayes’ Theorem (BT) with evidence about God’s existence. I want to comment on many of those points. It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy … Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 1
Thoughts on the “Logical vs. Evidential” Distinction
Chris Hallquist recently questioned the significance of the distinction between logical arguments from evil and evidential arguments from evil. He writes: In general, the insistence of people who follow these issues on classifying versions of the problem of evil as either “logical” or “evidential” is weird. It isn’t something you see with any other kind … Thoughts on the “Logical vs. Evidential” Distinction