Hinman’s ABEAN & REMEC Arguments: INDEX
1. Joe Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/opening-argument-resolved-that-belief.html 2. My Criticism of Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God 3. Joe Hinman’s Responses to My Criticism of His ABEAN Argument http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/first-defense-of-god-argument-1.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god.html 4. Joe Hinman’s REMEC Argument for God http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god-my.html 5. My Criticism of Hinman’s REMEC Argument for God 6. Joe Hinman’s Responses to My Criticism of His REMEC Argument … Hinman’s ABEAN & REMEC Arguments: INDEX
Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 3: More Objections
ABEAN Contains Twelve Statements Although I cannot provide a comprehensive critique of Hinman’s ABEAN argument in just two blog posts (of reasonable length), I can at least briefly touch on each of the dozen statements in that argument. [NOTE: ABEAN is an acronym that refers to the claim that “some Aspect of Being is Eternal And … Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 3: More Objections
Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 2: Objections to (11) and (1)
I. The Conclusion of the ABEAN Argument is UNCLEAR. (ABEAN is an acronym for: “some Aspect of Being is Eternal And Necessary”, which is premise (4) of Hinman’s argument.) The first thing that I look at when analyzing an argument is the conclusion of the argument. Here is the conclusion of Hinman’s ABEAN argument: 11. … Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 2: Objections to (11) and (1)
Hinman’s Opening Argument for God
Joe Hinman has published his opening argument for God on his blog site: http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/opening-argument-resolved-that-belief.html Here is his argument in summary form: 1. All naturalistic phenomena are contingent and temporal. 2. Either some aspect of being is eternal and necessary unless or something came from nothing (creation ex nihilo) 3. Something did not come from nothing. … Hinman’s Opening Argument for God
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”
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 Jesus Argument
There have been many comments on my previous post God is a Person (Thank you all for your thoughts and contributions). I would like to narrow the focus of the discussion to deal with one argument at a time, so this post will only cover the first of my five arguments for the conclusion “God is … The Jesus Argument
God is a Person
INTRODUCTION Joe Hinman wants to debate the existence of God with me, but before we can have an intelligent debate on this issue, we need to come to some sort of mutual understanding about the meaning of the word “God”. In my view God is a person. In Hinman’s view God is NOT a person. … God is a Person
Chad Gross’s Review of my Debate with Frank Turek
Chad Gross at Truthbomb Apologetics has written a fair, open-minded review of my debate with Frank Turek: “Lowder’s debate style is very similar to that of William Lane Craig. He begins with the contentions he intends to defend and then supports them with his arguments. This should be modeled by all those who desire to debate successfully…. It … Chad Gross’s Review of my Debate with Frank Turek
Randal Rauser’s Most Excellent Review of the Lowder-Turek Debate
I think this just might be the best review ever written of a debate between an atheist and a theist. It’s comprehensive, thoughtful, irenic, fair, and well-written. I agree with almost the entire review, with the exception of Randal’s point about the definition of naturalism. I don’t consider that to be a flaw of the review in … Randal Rauser’s Most Excellent Review of the Lowder-Turek Debate