cosmological argument

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

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: it does NOT Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #28: Did the Universe Begin to Exist?

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