The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 5: Something Exists
Before I start an analysis and evaluation of Thomas Aquinas’s Unmoved Mover argument, I want to finish evaluating Norman Geisler’s Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA) in When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA). In Part 4 of this series, I showed that the very brief argument Geisler gives in support of the first premise of TCA is … The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 5: Something Exists
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
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #31: Evaluation of Phase 2 Continued
WHERE WE ARE AT In Phase 2 of Argument #6, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Peter Kreeft aims to establish two claims: 4. The cause of the coming into being of the universe is eternal. 5. The cause of the coming into being of the universe was a person. In Part 30, I argued that Kreeft’s … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #31: Evaluation of Phase 2 Continued
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #30: Phase 2 of the Kalam Argument
WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 29, I criticized Phase 1 of Peter Kreeft’s Argument #6: the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In this post, I will begin to analyze and evaluate Phase 2 of Argument #6. Phase 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument goes like this (HCA, p.58): 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #30: Phase 2 of the Kalam Argument
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #29: Evaluation of Premise (2)
Here is the second premise of Argument #6 (the Kalam Cosmological Argument) in Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God, from Chapter 3 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA): 2. The universe began to exist. (HCA, p.58) In order to be able to rationally determine whether this claim is true or false, we … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #29: Evaluation of Premise (2)
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #28: Did the Universe Begin to Exist?
WHERE WE ARE AT There is only one more argument in Kreeft’s case that we need to evaluate: Argument #6: the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In Part 24, I did an initial analysis of Argument #7, and I pointed out some significant problems with that argument. Argument #6 has the same set of significant problems: Furthermore, the conclusion … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #28: Did the Universe Begin to Exist?
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #27: The Universe and Time
I am starting to think about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Argument #6 in Peter Kreeft’s case for God, from Chapter 3 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). This is the final argument that we need to consider in Kreeft’s case for God.This is not the first time I have examined this argument. When I … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #27: The Universe and Time
Letter to Peter Kreeft
Dear Dr. Peter Kreeft, I have recently been studying your Argument #7, the Argument from Contingency: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#7 In the second premise, you provide a definition of “the universe”: 2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists. Although I appreciate the attempt to clarify the meaning of this phrase, the definition itself seems unclear … Letter to Peter Kreeft