Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 3
As a Christian apologist who defends the claim that ‘Jesus rose from the dead’, William Craig takes upon himself a heavy burden of proof. To meet the burden of proof Craig must put forward powerful historical evidence to prove that ‘Jesus actually died on the cross’. But in most of his books, articles, and debates … Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 3
Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
Although Christian apologists bear the burden of proof to show that ‘Jesus actually died on the cross’, William Craig usually ignores this issue in his books, articles, and debates defending the resurrection of Jesus. In my previous post, I pointed out that there is at least one book in which Craig does make a case … Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus
Anyone who asserts that ‘Jesus rose from the dead’ takes on a burden of proof, and because this is an extraordinary claim, the proof required is extraordinary proof. Make a miracle claim and you take on a heavy burden of proof. So, when William Craig asserts that ‘Jesus rose from the dead’, he takes upon … Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus
The Failure of William Craig’s Case for the Resurrection
According to the Christian apologist Norman Geisler: Before we can show that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to show that He really did die. (When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, p.120) After making this common-sense point, Geisler then proceeds to lay out eight points in support of the claim that “Jesus … The Failure of William Craig’s Case for the Resurrection
The Nature of Naturalism
Over the last year (or two?), I’ve had on-again and off-again exchanges on various blogs with reader “Crude” about the definition of metaphysical naturalism. I’d like to comment on his (?) recent objections in the combox on Victor Reppert’s blog start with the linked comment here and work your way down. Each time we’ve had an … The Nature of Naturalism
Critical Thinking – Part 1
What is ‘critical thinking’? Why is it important? Why should anyone try to be a critical thinker? What does critical thinking have to do with secularism and humanism and naturalism? There are two main ideas to consider behind the term ‘critical thinking’. First, and most obviously, we should consider the ordinary meaning of the word … Critical Thinking – Part 1
Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 5
The Cosmological Argument (TCA) is the first argument in Swinburne’s inductive case for the existence of God. The arguments are presented in a specific order, each argument adding one more contingent fact (or specific set of contingent facts) to the facts presented in the premises of the previous arguments. Since TCA is the first argument, … Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 5
Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 4
Richard Swinburne presents his inductive cosmological argument in Chapter 7 of his book The Existence of God (second edition, hereafter: EOG). I plan to start at the beginning of the chapter and go paragraph by paragraph, stopping to comment on each paragraph that includes either support for, or defense of, some part of the cosmological … Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 4
The Courtier’s Reply as Post-Theistic Attitude, Not Fallacy
Sam Sawyer, SJ, a fellow a Patheos blogger over at the new blog The Jesuit Post (in Patheos’s Catholic Channel) recently plugged the exchange between Edward Feser and Keith Parsons. (Thanks!) I’d like to return the favor by plugging a post on his blog: “Not Even Wrong: Answering the New Atheism with Better Belief, Not … The Courtier’s Reply as Post-Theistic Attitude, Not Fallacy
Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 3
I am exploring a concern about, or potential objection to, Swinburne’s inductive cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. The objection I have in mind is something like this, for the cosmological argument: Although the one factual premise of Swinburne’s cosmological argument is supposed to be the ONLY contingent factual claim or assumption … Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 3