Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 26: The Unclarity of Argument #7
WHERE WE ARE AT There are only two more arguments in Kreeft’s case that we need to evaluate: Argument #7 (the Argument from Contingency) and Argument #6 (the Kalam Cosmological Argument). In Part 24, I did an initial analysis of Argument #7, and I pointed out some significant problems with that argument, based only on … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 26: The Unclarity of Argument #7
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 25: Clarification of Argument #7
WHERE WE ARE AT There are only two more arguments in Kreeft’s case that we need to evaluate: Argument #7 (the Argument from Contingency) and Argument #6 (the Kalam Cosmological Argument). In Part 24, I did an initial analysis of Argument #7, and I pointed out some significant problems with that argument, based only on … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 25: Clarification of Argument #7
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 24: The Argument from Contingency
WHERE WE ARE AT There are only two more arguments for the existence of God left to consider out of the twenty arguments in Peter Kreeft’s case for God from Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In this post I will analyze Argument #7: the Argument from Contingency. THE CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENT … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 24: The Argument from Contingency
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 23: Five Remaining Arguments
WHERE WE ARE AT I have previously argued that the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s case in Chapter 3 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) fail to provide us with a good reason to believe that God exists. I have argued that the first five arguments, which Kreeft appears to think are among … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 23: Five Remaining Arguments
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 22: Kreeft’s Reply
MY BAIT-AND-SWITCH OBJECTION In Part 21 I reiterated a criticism of Kreeft’s case for the existence of God that has been a theme in my critique: very few, if any, of Kreeft’s twenty arguments are actually arguments for the existence of God, thus Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) appears to be … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 22: Kreeft’s Reply
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 21: Bait and Switch?
WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 1 through Part 8, I argued that the last ten of Peter Kreefts twenty arguments for God in Chapter 3 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) are all bad arguments and fail to provide us with any good reason to believe that God exists. In Part 9 … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 21: Bait and Switch?
Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 7: Dynamic Probability Objection
THE DYNAMIC PROBABILITY OBJECTION The dynamic probability objection to my reasoning about the resurrection is based on the general logic of Richard Swinburne’s case for the resurrection. In his book The Existence of God, Swinburne argues that various inductive arguments for God form a cumulative case that makes the existence of God “more probable than … Why I Reject the Resurrection – Part 7: Dynamic Probability Objection
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 20: More on Argument #4
THE INITIAL INFERENCE IN ARGUMENT #4 In Part 19, I argued that the initial inference or sub-argument in Argument #4 (the Argument from Degrees of Perfection) of Peter Kreeft’s case for God is very unclear, and that based on my best guess at what the premises of that sub-argument mean, one premise begs the question … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 20: More on Argument #4
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 19: Premise (B)
The initial inference or sub-argument in Argument #4 of Peter Kreeft’s case for God is based on three premises, and all three premises are very UNCLEAR: A. These degrees of perfection pertain to being. B. Being is caused in finite creatures. 1a. IF these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 19: Premise (B)
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 18: Interpretation of Argument #4
In Part 17, I analyzed the logical structure of Peter Kreeft’s Argument #4, the Argument from Degrees of Perfection. That clarification of the logic of this argument, however, is not sufficient to make it possible to rationally evaluate this argument. The meanings of each and every premise in Argument #4 are UNCLEAR, making it impossible … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 18: Interpretation of Argument #4