arguments for atheism

Unapologetic Review – Part 1

John Loftus’ new book has just been released: Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2016) My copy arrived from Amazon by UPS yesterday. The text starts on page 7 (the Forward); the introduction starts on page 11, and the main body of the text ends on page 235.  There is Unapologetic Review – Part 1

The Essentially Good-vs.-Morally Responsible Argument for Atheism

In the spirit of Ted Drange’s 1998 article, “Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey,” I wish to sketch the following argument for consideration. Suppose we define “God” as a being who has, among other things, the following attributes: (m) essentially good; and (n) morally responsible for His actions. Using these definitions, we can construct the following argument. The Essentially Good-vs.-Morally Responsible Argument for Atheism

Cases for God

I’m thinking about which cases for the existence of God to focus in on, for my evaluation of Christianity.  Right now, I’m thinking about examining the cases of four well-known Christian apologists: I just realized that two of these philosophers are Thomists, and two are not Thomists. Geisler is a conservative Evangelical Christian, but his Cases for God

Is Christianity True?

As indicated in a previous post,  for the next four or five years I plan to focus on the question: Is Christianity true? I plan to do most of my Christianity-centered posts on my old Cross Examination blog site, where I have set up the initial logical structure of interconnected blog posts (including a number that Is Christianity True?

Skepticism and Conjunctions

Belief in God and belief in the Christian faith are both vulnerable to skepticism in view of the fact that both beliefs consist in conjuctions. Some of the key divine attributes are: In order for God to exist, there must be one and only one person who has all five of these divine attributes. If Skepticism and Conjunctions

An Evidential Argument from Evil: Natural Inequality

I want to quickly sketch an evidential (aka “explanatory” aka “abductive” aka “F-Inductive“) argument from evil, one which focuses exclusively on natural inequality.  The argument is not mine; it belongs to Moti Mizrahi. The key point of Mizrahi’s argument, which he credits to an insight of John Rawls, is this: … natural endowments are undeserved.Now, if An Evidential Argument from Evil: Natural Inequality

How Theists Can Avoid God-of-the-Gaps Arguments and Still Argue for God

Background: In the context of a review of Dan Barker’s book, Godless, Randal Rauser had a very brief, even cryptic, exchange in the combox for his about God-of-the-Gaps (GOTG) arguments. (See here and here.) That exchange led to his latest post, which you can read for yourself here. I’ve decided to post my response on my own blog here, How Theists Can Avoid God-of-the-Gaps Arguments and Still Argue for God