The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 4: Finite Changing Things Exist?
In his book When Skeptics Ask (1990), Norman Geisler presents a Thomist Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (although he FAILED to conclude the argument with the claim that “God exists”!). I am now going to start evaluating the first premise of this argument: 1. Finite, changing things exist. (When Skeptics Ask, p. 18; hereafter: WSA.) … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 4: Finite Changing Things Exist?
The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 3: Norman vs. Bradley
I’m having fun with critical examination of Norman Geisler’s Thomist cosmological argument in When Skeptics Ask. There is also a more detailed and in-depth presentation of this argument in Chapter 9 of Geisler’s much older book The Philosophy of Religion (1974). I previously thought that the first premise of his Thomist cosmological argument was obviously … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 3: Norman vs. Bradley
The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 2: Geisler’s Thomist Argument
I plan to analyze and evaluate Ed Feser’s Aristotelian proof of the existence of God (in Five Proofs of the Existence of God). But first I want to analyze and evaluate Aquinas’s Unmoved Mover proof. And before I do that, I wanted to warm up by doing an analysis and evaluation of Peter Kreeft’s Unmoved-Mover … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 2: Geisler’s Thomist Argument
Peter Kreeft’s Case for God
KREEFT’S CASE FOR GOD In September of 2017, I began to analyze and evaluate Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God in Chapter 3 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (co-authored with Ronald Tacelli). In July of 2018, I finished examining his case for God, which consists of 20 arguments for God. Here are … Peter Kreeft’s Case for God
Geisler’s Case for the Existence of God
GEISLER’S CASE FOR GOD In October of 2016, I began to analyze and evaluate Norman Geisler’s case for God in his book When Skeptics Ask, and to present my criticism of his case in posts here at The Secular Outpost. Over a period of several months, I wrote 18 posts focused on various phases and arguments … Geisler’s Case for the Existence of God
Critiques of Craig
I have previously criticized the case for the existence of God by the Christian philosopher Norman Geisler (When Skeptics Ask) and I have also criticized the case for the existence of God by the Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft (Handbook of Christian Apologetics). The next case for God that I plan to analyze and evaluate is … Critiques of Craig
The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 2: MANY Skeptical Theories
WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft identifies FIVE Theories concerned about “what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday…” : 1. Christianity: “the resurrection really happened” 2. Hallucination: “the apostles were deceived by a hallucination” 3. Myth: “the apostles created a myth, not meaning … The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 2: MANY Skeptical Theories
The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 1: Three Serious Problems
FIVE THEORIES ABOUT JESUS’ ALLEGED RESURRECTION In Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft identifies Five Theories concerned about “what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday…” : 1. Christianity: “the resurrection really happened” 2. Hallucination: “the apostles were deceived by a hallucination” 3. Myth: “the apostles created a … The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 1: Three Serious Problems
Defending the Swoon Theory – INDEX
OVERVIEW In Chapter 8 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft (and his co-author Ronald Tacelli), makes a case for the resurrection of Jesus. He does so by attempting to “refute” or “disprove” four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view that God raised Jesus from the dead: Hallucination: … Defending the Swoon Theory – INDEX
Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 22: Swoon Theory Implies Other False Theories
WHERE WE ARE Kreeft provides six sub-arguments in Objection #7. Three sub-arguments are given to support the key premises (B), (C), and (D), and in Part 20 I showed that those three sub-arguments FAIL to establish either (B) or (C) or (D), giving us three good and sufficient reasons to conclude that Objection #7 FAILS. … Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 22: Swoon Theory Implies Other False Theories