Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 21: Bait and Switch?
WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 1 through Part 8, I argued that the last ten of Peter Kreefts twenty arguments for God in Chapter 3 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) are all bad arguments and fail to provide us with any good reason to believe that God exists. In Part 9 … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 21: Bait and Switch?
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 15: Three More Thomist Arguments
EVALUATION OF KREEFT’S CASE SO FAR In Part 1 through Part 8, I reviewed the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s case for God in Chapter 3 his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), and I concluded in Part 9 that they provided ZERO evidence for the existence of God: Of the last ten arguments in Kreeft’s … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 15: Three More Thomist Arguments
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 14: Evaluation of Argument #2
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT #2 In Part 13, I clarified and analyzed the logical structure of the Argument from Efficient Causality, Argument #2 in Kreeft’s case for God. Here is the clarified version of Argument #2: 1a. IF there is no thing which is such that its present existence is uncaused, THEN all things need a … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 14: Evaluation of Argument #2
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 13: Analysis of Argument #2
EVALUATION OF KREEFT’S CASE SO FAR I began this series by considering the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s case for God in Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). Those arguments appear to be ones that Kreeft viewed as weaker than his earlier arguments. NONE of those last ten arguments turned out … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 13: Analysis of Argument #2
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 12: The Argument for (3a)
THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT #1 SO FAR In Part 11 we saw that Argument #1 is UNSOUND, because it is based on the premise (F), and because Kreeft provides no support for (F), and because we have good reason to believe (F) to be FALSE. In this current post, I will examine the core argument in support … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 12: The Argument for (3a)
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1
THE CONTEXT Peter Kreeft and his co-author Ronald Tacelli open their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) with these words about their “reasons for writing this book”: Kreeft and Tacelli believe that heaven and hell are in the balance for every human being, when it comes to acceptance or rejection of “the Christian faith”. So, it … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 10: Analysis of Argument #1
ANALYSIS OF PHASE 1 In Part 9, I began to analyze and clarify the logic of Argument #1 (The Argument from Change) in Peter Kreeft’s case for God from Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). My analysis focused on the first phase of the argument. Here is my understanding of the logical … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 10: Analysis of Argument #1
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 9: The Argument from Change
MY EVALUATION OF THE SECOND HALF OF KREEFT’S CASE In Part 1 and Part 2 I argued that eight out of ten (80%) of the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s collection of twenty arguments (from Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Chapter 3; hereafter: HCA) are AWFUL arguments that are not worthy of serious consideration, that we should thus toss them aside, and ignore … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 9: The Argument from Change
Feser’s Case for God – Part 8: Actualization of a Potential
FESER’S ANALYSIS OF CHANGE A key idea in Chunk #1 of Feser’s Aristotelian argument is his analysis or understanding of change: A. The occurrence of any change C presupposes the actualization of a potential of some thing or substance S which changes. There are three phrases that constitute the key components of Feser’s analysis of change: the actualization of… …a … Feser’s Case for God – Part 8: Actualization of a Potential
2017 in the Rearview Mirror
I had hoped to answer the question “Does God exist?” in 2017, at least to my own satisfaction. No such luck. That was a bit too aggressive of a goal. However, I did make some good progress. I learned that Norman Geisler’s case for God (in When Skeptics Ask) is a steaming pile of dog … 2017 in the Rearview Mirror