Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 5
The first phase of Swinburne’s case for God is in his book The Coherence of Theism, where he argues that the sentence ‘God exists’ is a meaningful declarative sentence that makes a coherent statement. The middle section of this book covers his concept of a ‘contingent’ God, which is basically the God of traditional theism … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 5
Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 4
Does the utterance of the words ‘God exists’ amount to a meaningful utterance? Does this utterance express a statement? Two considerations support the claim that this is a meaningful utterance:1. ‘God exists’ is a grammatical sentence.2. The word ‘exists’ has an established meaning. The main question to consider is whether the word ‘God’ has a … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 4
Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 2
The purpose of the first of five phases of Swinburne’s case for God is to show that the statement ‘God exists’ makes a coherent factual (logically contingent) statement. He thinks he has accomplished this in his book The Coherence of Theism (revised edition, hereafter: COT) for a somewhat pared-down concept of God, that he calls a ‘contingent … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 2
Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 1
Richard Swinburne’s case for God can be broken down into five phases: I. The Coherence of TheismII. The Nature of the Universe as Evidence for GodIII. The Nature of Human Life as Evidence for GodIV. Religious Experience as Evidence for GodV. The Life of Jesus as Evidence for God Phase I is presented in Swinburne’s book … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 1
Louise Antony’s NYT Editorial on Good without God
LINK (HT: Ex-Apologist)
Catalog of Bayesian Arguments in Philosophy of Religion
I’ve created a new page, with a permanent link near the top of the screen, to a catalog of Bayesian arguments in the philosophy of religion, including Bayesian arguments for and against God’s existence. This is a work-in-progress, so please leave a comment on that page to let me know of any additions, edits, etc. … Catalog of Bayesian Arguments in Philosophy of Religion
LINK: Rosalind Carey’s Review of Michael Martin’s ATHEISM, MORALITY, AND MEANING
LINK Related articles: here, here, here, and here
The Implausibility of Appealing to the Many-Worlds Hypothesis to Defeat the Fine-Tuning Argument
I know what I am about to write will be controversial among atheists–one of them may (?) be a certain professional physicist who writes regularly for The Secular Outpost–but I have never agreed with the idea of appealing to the hypothesis of multiple universes (“multiverse”) as an objection to the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence. … The Implausibility of Appealing to the Many-Worlds Hypothesis to Defeat the Fine-Tuning Argument
Summary and Assessment of the Craig-Drange Debate (1997)
(This is yet another old debate summary and assessment from my archives. I think I wrote this around 1998. I am posting it here unchanged.) On February 26, 1997 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, William Lane Craig debated Theodore Drange of West Virginia University. The topic was, “Does God exist?” Note: video of … Summary and Assessment of the Craig-Drange Debate (1997)
Fine-Tuning Argument: Having and Eating the Cake
Richard Swinburne adopted the Fine Tuning Argument as the heart of his ‘Teleological Argument from Spatial Order’ (The Existence of God, 2nd ed., p.167-190). The key premise of this argument mentions tuning: “…the universe…[is] tuned–that is, such as to allow and indeed make significantly probable the existence of human bodies.” (EOG, p.188)Here is another statement … Fine-Tuning Argument: Having and Eating the Cake