cosmological argument

Dawkins’ FAILURE to Refute Aquinas

|

In his book The God Delusion (hereafter: TGD), Richard Dawkins ends the second chapter (“The God Hypothesis”) with these words: …before proceeding with my main reason for actively disbelieving in God’s existence, I have the responsibility to dispose of the positive arguments for belief that have been offered through history. TGD, First Mariner Books edition … Dawkins’ FAILURE to Refute Aquinas

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 12: What is Potentiality?

|

WHERE WE ARE In his book Philosophy of Religion  (hereafter: POR), Norman Geisler provides an argument in support of the second premise of his Thomist Cosmological Argument (see pages 194-197).  Here is my understanding of the argument that Geisler gives in support of that premise: 52. But no potentiality can actualize itself. THEREFORE: 53a. There … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 12: What is Potentiality?

Back to God and Leviticus

|

When Easter rolled around this year, I dove back into the questions “Did God raise Jesus from the dead?”  and “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”  These are issues that I have enjoyed thinking about for the past four decades, and will continue to think and write about for the rest of my life. DEFENDING … Back to God and Leviticus

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 11: The Argument for Premise (2)

|

WHERE WE ARE Norman Geisler has FAILED to show that premise (1) of his Thomist Cosmological Argument is true, but premise (1) is obviously true.  Since premise (1) is obviously true, we should not reject TCA just because Geisler FAILED to prove that (1) is true.  Since premise (1) seems to be obviously true, we should accept … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 11: The Argument for Premise (2)

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 10: Geisler’s Argument for Premise (2)

|

WHERE WE ARE In his book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler presents his general version of a Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA).  I analyze this argument in Part 2 of this series. The first premise of Geisler’s TCA is this: 1. Finite, changing things exist.  (WSA, p.18) Geisler provides a very brief argument … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 10: Geisler’s Argument for Premise (2)

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 9: Enhanced 2nd Argument for Changing Things

|

WHERE WE ARE In his book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler presents his general version of a Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA).  The first premise of Geisler’s TCA is this: 1. Finite, changing things exist.  (WSA, p.18) Geisler provides a very brief argument in support of (1) in WSA.  In Part 4 of … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 9: Enhanced 2nd Argument for Changing Things

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 8: 2nd Argument for Changing Things

|

In his book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler presents his general version of a Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA).  The first premise of Geisler’s TCA is this: 1. Finite, changing things exist.  (WSA, p.18) Geisler provides a very brief argument in support of (1) in WSA.  In Part 4 of this series I … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 8: 2nd Argument for Changing Things

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 7: 1st Argument for Changing Things

|

In his book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler presents his general version of a Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA).  The first premise of Geisler’s TCA is this: 1. Finite, changing things exist.  (WSA, p.18) Geisler provides a very brief argument in support of (1) in WSA.  In Part 4 of this series I … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 7: 1st Argument for Changing Things