Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 1: “Eternal and Necessary”
Joe Hinman wants me to seriously consider two arguments for the conclusion that “God is real”. I’m going to focus on his ABEAN argument for a number of posts, before I examine his argument from religious experience. I have attempted to summarize Hinman’s first argument in a brief standard form argument: Hinman’s ABEAN Argument 1. … Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 1: “Eternal and Necessary”
Is Necessary Existence Necessary?
Consider the following argument for the existence of God. 1. Something exists. 2. Anything that exists must either exist contingently or necessarily. 3. It is impossible that everything that exists is contingent. 4. Therefore, there must exist at least one necessary being. 5. Only God could be a necessary being. 6. Therefore, God exists. I … Is Necessary Existence Necessary?
Hinman’s Two Ways – Part 1: Outline of Argument #1
Joe Hinman wants me to set aside Mr. Geisler’s pathetic case for God, and to give serious consideration to his case for God, which includes at least two arguments: Argument 1: an Aspect of Being is Eternal And Necessary (ABEAN), and Argument 2: Religious Experience Meets Epistemic Criteria (REMEC). In this first post, I will … Hinman’s Two Ways – Part 1: Outline of Argument #1
The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics
My latest video, “The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics: The Things Apologists Falsely Say Depend on God, But, if God Exists, God Depends on Them,” is now available on YouTube. It is a narration of some of the many hundreds of PowerPoint slides I created in preparation for my recent debate with Frank Turek on naturalism vs. … The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics
I Don’t Care – Part 6
Aquinas is often thought of as a rigourously logical and systematic thinker. This is only half-true. There is a good deal of vaguness, ambiguity, and illogical thinking in his book Summa Theologica, as far as I can see. Here is a cautionary note from a philosopher who is an expert on Aquinas: From the concept of … I Don’t Care – Part 6
I Don’t Care – Part 5
The famous Five Ways passage by Aquinas in Summa Theologica does not contain five arguments for the existence of God. Rather, it contains ZERO arguments for the existence of God. There is actually only one argument for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica, and the reasoning in the Five Ways passage only represents a … I Don’t Care – Part 5
I Don’t Care – Part 3
According to the Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft, and many others, Aquinas gives five different arguments for the existence of God. In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (IVP, 1994; hereafter: HCA) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, there is a chapter that lays out twenty different arguments for the existence of God, and the first five arguments … I Don’t Care – Part 3
I Don’t Care – Part 2
OK. Maybe I care just a little bit. I summarized my complaint against Aquinas’ Five Ways this way (in response to a comment from Jeff Lowder): I’m just pointing out that (a) NONE of the Five Ways is an argument for the existence of God as it stands (in the section called “Whether God Exists?”), … I Don’t Care – Part 2
I Don’t Care
Thomas Aquinas pulled a classic BAIT-AND-SWITCH move in Summa Theologica: “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.” “Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” “Therefore we cannot but admit the existence … I Don’t Care
Weighing Theistic Evidence Against Naturalistic Evidence
In the next-to-last paragraph of his book, C.S. Lewis’ Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, Victor Reppert makes a very interesting statement: However, I contend that the arguments from reason do provide some substantial reasons for preferring theism to naturalism. The “problem of reason” is a huge problem for reason, as serious or, I … Weighing Theistic Evidence Against Naturalistic Evidence