Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 1: Defeating an OLD Apologetic Argument
At the NW Miracles Conference, I discussed the question “Is it ever reasonable to believe miracle claims?” with Christian thinker Hans Vodder, who has graduate degrees in both philosophy and theology. We were, however, just the warm-up act for the big closing event of the conference: a debate between Michael Shermer and Luuk van de … Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 1: Defeating an OLD Apologetic Argument
Belief in Miracles – Part 1: Summary
I was invited to be a speaker at the NW Miracles Conference, thanks to Bob Seidensticker who suggested to the conference organizer that I could represent a skeptical viewpoint on the question “Is it ever reasonable to believe miracle claims?” I came prepared with a PowerPoint presentation called “Belief in Miracles”, but because of time constraints … Belief in Miracles – Part 1: Summary
41,000 Denominations?
Bold Atheism recently tweeted the following meme: #atheist #god #religion #bible #faith #church #atheism #noreligion #religionfree #antireligion #freedomfromreligion #goodwithoutgod #nogod #godless #heathen #nonbeliever #skeptic #secular #humanist #freethinker #think #logic #reason #prayer #sin #atheis… https://t.co/C6MpS2iS9J pic.twitter.com/85cipxGvbH — Bold Atheism (@boldatheism) March 18, 2019 What should we make of this meme?
Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 3: Clarification of My Reasoning
WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, I have shown that Dr. Erasmus’ objection to my skeptical reasoning (a) attacks a STRAW MAN, and (b) is based on an INVALID INFERENCE. In doing so, I also argued that Dr. Erasmus does not have a good understanding of probability calculations, especially … Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 3: Clarification of My Reasoning
Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 2: Straw Man and Invalid Inference
In this post I will reply to an objection that was raised by Dr. Jacobus Erasmus against my reasoning in one of my skeptical posts about the resurrection of Jesus. DR. ERASMUS COMMITS THE STRAW MAN FALLACY The most basic problem with the objection raised by Dr. Erasmus is that he commits the all-too-common STRAW … Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 2: Straw Man and Invalid Inference
Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 1: Untrained in Probabilistic Logic?
MY UNDERSTANDING OF PROBABILITY Dr. Jacobus Erasmus has raised an objection to one of my posts on the resurrection. Before presenting his objection he takes a swipe at my credibility: …Bowen’s argument is an example of what happens when a blogger who is untrained in probabilistic logic tries their hand at probability. …Bowen does not … Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 1: Untrained in Probabilistic Logic?
The Logic of Miracles – Part 6: The Problem of Evil
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL The problem of evil is concerned with whether the existence of evil (or of particular kinds or amounts of evil) is logically incompatible with the existence of God or provides significant evidence against the existence of God. The “logical” problem of evil focuses on whether evil (or particular kinds or amounts … The Logic of Miracles – Part 6: The Problem of Evil
The Logic of Miracles – Part 5: Two Objections
WHY CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS IS DOOMED TO FAILURE I have previously argued in Part 2 that Richard Swinburne’s case for the existence of God depends on some assumptions about the PLANS or PURPOSES of God. I have also argued in Part 3 and in Part 4 that Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God depends … The Logic of Miracles – Part 5: Two Objections
The Logic of Miracles – Part 4: Kreeft’s Last Ten Arguments
WHERE WE ARE AT I am in the process of examining Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God, in order to test the following hypothesis: Classical Apologetics FAILS at Phase 1 because we are ignorant about the PLANS and PURPOSES of God, and this ignorance makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to SHOW … The Logic of Miracles – Part 4: Kreeft’s Last Ten Arguments
The Logic of Miracles – Part 3: Kreeft’s First Ten Arguments
WHERE I AM HEADED I am going to examine Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God, in order to test the following hypothesis: Classical Apologetics FAILS at Phase 1 because we are ignorant about the PLANS and PURPOSES of God, and this ignorance makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to SHOW that God … The Logic of Miracles – Part 3: Kreeft’s First Ten Arguments