ex-apologist: Schellenberg’s New Paper on the Logical Problem of Evil
ex-apologist: Schellenberg’s New Paper on the Logical Problem of Evil: Schellenberg, J.L. “A New Logical Problem of Evil“, in McBrayer, Justin & Daniel Howard-Snyder (eds.), Companion to the Problem of Evil (Blackwell, forthcoming). Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
LINK: Aikin and Talisse’s Atheistic Argument from Ugliness
LINK (HT: Ex-Apologist) Since the authors note that the argument from beauty is one type of teleological argument and the argument from ugliness is the atheistic twin of the argument from beauty, perhaps I will need write a post on this argument for my series about atheistic teleological arguments. Your name Your email Subject Your … LINK: Aikin and Talisse’s Atheistic Argument from Ugliness
Index: The Evidential Argument from the History of Science (AHS)
Informal Statement of the Argument If there is a single theme unifying the history of science, it is that naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) explanations work. The history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones. Indeed, naturalistic explanations have been so successful that even … Index: The Evidential Argument from the History of Science (AHS)
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 2: Detailed Reply to Randal Rauser
Introduction Theists hold that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person (God) who created the universe. Metaphysical naturalists, on the other hand, hold that the universe is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it. Metaphysical naturalism (N) denies the existence of all supernatural … The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 2: Detailed Reply to Randal Rauser
Argument from the History of Science (AHS): Randal Rauser’s Objection and My Reply
I’m flattered to have received a reply to AHS by Randal Rauser. His reply may be found here. I’ve updated my original post on AHS with a reply to Rauser. My reply may be found here. Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
Index: The Argument from Silence
The purpose this post is to provide an index for all of my Secular Outpost articles regarding the argument from silence. “Part 1: The Bayesian Interpretation“: the logical form of an explanatory argument from silence “Part 2: Peter Kirby’s First Argument from Silence Against the Empty Tomb“: a formal analysis and critique of Kirby’s argument … Index: The Argument from Silence
Hardening Their Hearts: Intentional Hiddenness Argument
The argument from Divine Hiddenness[1] put forth by J.L. Schellenberg argues that if a perfectly loving God exists, then all creatures (who haven’t freely shut themselves off from God) capable of having a meaningful relationship with God ought to be able to by just attempting to. In order to have a meaningful relationship with God, … Hardening Their Hearts: Intentional Hiddenness Argument
Ryan Stringer’s “Evil and Skeptical Theism”
The following was just published in the Secular Web’s Modern Library: “Evil and Skeptical Theism” by Ryan Stringer Abstract: In this paper I critique a response to atheistic arguments from evil that has been called “skeptical theism.” I start by formulating a simple atheistic argument from evil and briefly justifying its two premises. Then I … Ryan Stringer’s “Evil and Skeptical Theism”
“Alvin Plantinga on Paul Draper’s evolutionary atheology: implications of theism’s noncontingency” (DOI) 10.1007/s11153-012-9361-6
My article with the above name will appear in an upcoming issue of The International Journal of Philosophy of Religion, and has just been made available online to anyone with access to an institution with a SpringerLink license. Here is the abstract taken from SpringerLink (http://www.springerlink.com/content/237w067637655738/): In his recently published Where the Conflict Really Lies: … “Alvin Plantinga on Paul Draper’s evolutionary atheology: implications of theism’s noncontingency” (DOI) 10.1007/s11153-012-9361-6
Basic Structure of My Evidential Arguments
Epistemic Interpretation of ProbabilityIn this article series, when I refer to probability I shall be adopting the epistemic interpretation of probability. The epistemic probability of a statement is a measure of the probability that a statement is true, given some stock of knowledge. In other words, epistemic probability measures a person’s degree of belief in … Basic Structure of My Evidential Arguments