Aquinas’ Argument for the Existence of God – Part 4
NOTE: I began to reconstruct Aquinas’ argument for the existence of God in the post I Don’t Care – Part 4, and continued that effort in I Don’t Care – Part 5, and I Don’t Care – Part 6. I am changing the title of this series to better reflect the content, so I … Aquinas’ Argument for the Existence of God – Part 4
I Don’t Care – Part 6
Aquinas is often thought of as a rigourously logical and systematic thinker. This is only half-true. There is a good deal of vaguness, ambiguity, and illogical thinking in his book Summa Theologica, as far as I can see. Here is a cautionary note from a philosopher who is an expert on Aquinas: From the concept of … I Don’t Care – Part 6
I Don’t Care – Part 5
The famous Five Ways passage by Aquinas in Summa Theologica does not contain five arguments for the existence of God. Rather, it contains ZERO arguments for the existence of God. There is actually only one argument for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica, and the reasoning in the Five Ways passage only represents a … I Don’t Care – Part 5
I Don’t Care – Part 3
According to the Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft, and many others, Aquinas gives five different arguments for the existence of God. In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (IVP, 1994; hereafter: HCA) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, there is a chapter that lays out twenty different arguments for the existence of God, and the first five arguments … I Don’t Care – Part 3
I Don’t Care – Part 2
OK. Maybe I care just a little bit. I summarized my complaint against Aquinas’ Five Ways this way (in response to a comment from Jeff Lowder): I’m just pointing out that (a) NONE of the Five Ways is an argument for the existence of God as it stands (in the section called “Whether God Exists?”), … I Don’t Care – Part 2
I Don’t Care
Thomas Aquinas pulled a classic BAIT-AND-SWITCH move in Summa Theologica: “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.” “Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” “Therefore we cannot but admit the existence … I Don’t Care
G&T Rebuttal, Part 4: Chapter 5
Chapter 5. The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe? In this chapter, G&T defend a design argument focused on the first life. They also present a variety of objections to scientism and materialism. I will provide a very brief summary of their points, before providing my critique. (i) Argument to Design of the First … G&T Rebuttal, Part 4: Chapter 5
G&T Rebuttal, Part 3: Chapter 4
Chapter 4. Divine Design G&T provide a brief introduction to what they call ‘the’ Teleological Argument, which they formulate as follows. 1. Every design had a designer. 2. The universe has a highly complex design. 3. Therefore, the universe had a Designer. (95) Like the cosmological argument, this argument is deductively valid. Again, my plan … G&T Rebuttal, Part 3: Chapter 4
Evolution vs. The Argument from Providence
In the Existence of God (2nd edition, hereafter: EOG) Richard Swinburne lays out a carefully constructed, systematically presented case for the the claim that it is more likely than not that God exists. I have previously argued that there is a big problem with this case that arises with the third argument. In order to know that … Evolution vs. The Argument from Providence
The Evidential Argument from Biological Evolution, Part 2: Is Evolution Evidence for Theism?
Let’s begin reviewing the logical form of the argument, as described in Part 1 of this series. (1) Evolution is antecedently much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than on the assumption that theism is true. (2) The statement that pain and pleasure systematically connected to reproductive success is antecedently much more … The Evidential Argument from Biological Evolution, Part 2: Is Evolution Evidence <I>for</I> Theism?