One Problem with Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 2
In a previous post I pointed out three different problems related to the third argument in Richard Swinburne’s systematic case for the existence of God. The third argument is the final argument of his arguments from the nature of the universe. It is his Teleological Argument from Spatial Order (hereafter: TASO):(e3) There is a complex physical … One Problem with Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 2
Secular Humanism: why it’s a strategic mistake to define as requiring naturalism
What does secular humanism (or, as we say in the UK, humanism) involve? In Humanism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP 2011) I suggest that most of those who sign up to secular humanism sign up to following: Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
The End of PoR – Part 2
John Loftus has begun laying out his views on PoR in greater detail on his website. I’m going to comment on a few key points that he makes in a recent post: What Exactly is My Proposal For Ending the Philosophy Of Religion Discipline in Secular Universities? It will probably take me a few posts … The End of PoR – Part 2
One Problem with Swinburne’s Case for God
In The Existence of God (2nd edition, hereafter: EOG), Richard Swinburne lays out a systematic cumulative case for the claim that it is more likely than not that God exists. I have a specific objection to the third argument in this case, but I believe this objection throws a monkey wrench into the works, and … One Problem with Swinburne’s Case for God
Why I am Not Concerned about Christian Theist Philosophers of Religion
One reason I am not concerned about the prevalence of Christian theists in the field of philosophy of religion is that they do a nice job of arguing against each other. William Lane Craig’s favorite argument for the existence of God is the Kalam cosmological argument. I’m happy that there are some atheist philosophers who … Why I am Not Concerned about Christian Theist Philosophers of Religion
Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 3
In previous posts I have argued that only two of Geisler’s eight reasons for the claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross” are worthy of serious consideration. One of those two reasons is based on the spear-wound story, which is found ONLY in the historically unreliable Fourth gospel (John 19:31-37). There are many reasons … Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 3
New by Paul Draper: God and the Burden of Proof
See the attachment below.“God and the Burden of Proof” by Paul Draper (2014) Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
In When Skeptics Ask, Norman Geisler presents eight reasons in support of the claim that Jesus actually died on the cross. In my previous post on this subject I argued that six of those reasons should be quickly set aside as weak or defective reasons. In my view, only two reasons out of the eight … Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
The Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
A challenge (or two) to my previous post “The Case for the Death of Jesus” came from a reader “hardindr”. Another reader, Tom Hanson, commented “Personally I’m with hardindr.” So in this post I will respond to comments from hardindr, with the intention of also responding to Tom Hanson’s concerns. Here is the first comment … The Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus
Let me cut to the chase: Geisler’s case for the claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross” is crap. It might be marginally better than William Craig’s case, but it is most definitely a hot steaming pile of crap. As with Craig’s case, part of the reason Geisler’s case fails is that he tries … Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus