Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 12: The Argument for (3a)
THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT #1 SO FAR In Part 11 we saw that Argument #1 is UNSOUND, because it is based on the premise (F), and because Kreeft provides no support for (F), and because we have good reason to believe (F) to be FALSE. In this current post, I will examine the core argument in support … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 12: The Argument for (3a)
Problems With TASO: Part 1
INTRO TO TASO For several years, I have been working on an article about Richard Swinburne’s case for God. I’m currently revising the section of that article dealing with the third argument in Swinburne’s case: TASO (the Teleological Argument from Spatial Order). In working on that section of the article, I noticed that my favorite … Problems With TASO: Part 1
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1
THE CONTEXT Peter Kreeft and his co-author Ronald Tacelli open their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) with these words about their “reasons for writing this book”: Kreeft and Tacelli believe that heaven and hell are in the balance for every human being, when it comes to acceptance or rejection of “the Christian faith”. So, it … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 10: Analysis of Argument #1
ANALYSIS OF PHASE 1 In Part 9, I began to analyze and clarify the logic of Argument #1 (The Argument from Change) in Peter Kreeft’s case for God from Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). My analysis focused on the first phase of the argument. Here is my understanding of the logical … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 10: Analysis of Argument #1
Feser’s Case for God – Part 8: Actualization of a Potential
FESER’S ANALYSIS OF CHANGE A key idea in Chunk #1 of Feser’s Aristotelian argument is his analysis or understanding of change: A. The occurrence of any change C presupposes the actualization of a potential of some thing or substance S which changes. There are three phrases that constitute the key components of Feser’s analysis of change: the actualization of… …a … Feser’s Case for God – Part 8: Actualization of a Potential
2017 in the Rearview Mirror
I had hoped to answer the question “Does God exist?” in 2017, at least to my own satisfaction. No such luck. That was a bit too aggressive of a goal. However, I did make some good progress. I learned that Norman Geisler’s case for God (in When Skeptics Ask) is a steaming pile of dog … 2017 in the Rearview Mirror
Feser’s Case for God – Part 7: Feser’s Concept of Change
FOCUS ON CHUNK #1 We are examining the first few premises of Edward Feser’s lengthy (i.e. containing fifty statements) Aristotelian argument for the existence of God, in Chapter 1 of Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG). What I call Chunk #1 of this argument consists of the following premises and inferences: (FPEG, Location 477-493, p.35-36) Let’s … Feser’s Case for God – Part 7: Feser’s Concept of Change
Feser’s Case for God – Part 6: Ambiguity and Unclarity
LACK OF SPECIFICATION IN PREMISE (2) The more I examine Chunk #1 of Feser’s Aristotelian argument for God, in Chapter 1 of Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG), the more ambiguous and unclear this part of the argument seems to be. The problems begin with premise (2): 2. But change is the … Feser’s Case for God – Part 6: Ambiguity and Unclarity
Feser’s Case for God – Part 4: Coffee with Parmenides
THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (3) In his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG), Edward Feser presents an Aristotelian argument for God in Chapter 1. In Part 2 of this series I divided that argument into seven chunks. Chunk #1 consists of premises (1) through (14). The first sub-argument in Chunk #1 … Feser’s Case for God – Part 4: Coffee with Parmenides
Feser’s Case for God – Part 3: Actualization of Potential
FESER TAKES OWNERSHIP OF THE FIVE ARGUMENTS In Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG), Edward Feser presents five “proofs” or arguments, each of which was inspired by an historical philosopher (or two). However, Feser takes full ownership of these five arguments, so that none of these arguments is put forward as merely … Feser’s Case for God – Part 3: Actualization of Potential