arguments for theism

Why the moral argument fails

Of all the arguments for the existence of God, there is one argument (or one style of argument) that I have never had any sympathy with and never understood why anyone has any sympathy with, and that is the moral argument. It seems to me and has pretty much always seemed to me (at least Why the moral argument fails

Hinman’s REMEC Argument: DOA

Joe Hinman has (allegedly) posted a second argument for the “existence of God”: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god-my.html Although Hinman believes that the claim “God exists” is NOT literally true (but is only “metaphorically true”, whatever that means), he has included the phrase “existence of God” in the title of this latest post, implying that his second argument is Hinman’s REMEC Argument: DOA

God’s nature does not make his commands non-arbitrary

Many modern defenders of the divine command theory frequently claim that God’s commands are not arbitrary because they flow from his essential nature. Their argument is bad. That a commander issues consistent commands based on his/her own character does not mean that those commands are not arbitrary. Whether a command is arbitrary depends on whether God’s nature does not make his commands non-arbitrary

Hinman’s ABEAN & REMEC Arguments: INDEX

1. Joe Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/opening-argument-resolved-that-belief.html 2. My Criticism of Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God 3. Joe Hinman’s Responses to My Criticism of His ABEAN Argument http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/first-defense-of-god-argument-1.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god.html 4. Joe Hinman’s REMEC Argument for God http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god-my.html 5. My Criticism of Hinman’s REMEC Argument for God 6. Joe Hinman’s Responses to My Criticism of His REMEC Argument Hinman’s ABEAN & REMEC Arguments: INDEX

Hinman’s Opening Argument for God

Joe Hinman has published his opening argument for God on his blog site: http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/opening-argument-resolved-that-belief.html Here is his argument in summary form: 1. All naturalistic phenomena are contingent and temporal. 2. Either some aspect of being is eternal and necessary unless or something came from nothing (creation ex nihilo) 3. Something did not come from nothing. Hinman’s Opening Argument for God

Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 1: “Eternal and Necessary”

Joe Hinman wants me to seriously consider two arguments for the conclusion that “God is real”.  I’m going to focus on his ABEAN argument for a number of posts, before I examine his argument from religious experience. I have attempted to summarize Hinman’s  first argument in a brief standard form argument: Hinman’s ABEAN Argument 1. Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 1: “Eternal and Necessary”

How NOT to Argue for Agnosticism

I recently purchased a couple of introductory books on the philosophy of religion.  One of the books is by a contemporary analytic philosopher of religion, Richard M. Gale, titled: On The Philosophy Of Religion (Thompson Wadsworth, 2007).  The other is by a philosopher named Gary Cox, who is not a specialist in philosophy of religion: The How NOT to Argue for Agnosticism

Is Necessary Existence Necessary?

Consider the following argument for the existence of God. 1. Something exists. 2. Anything that exists must either exist contingently or necessarily. 3. It is impossible that everything that exists is contingent. 4. Therefore, there must exist at least one necessary being. 5. Only God could be a necessary being. 6. Therefore, God exists. I Is Necessary Existence Necessary?