Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 4: Skepticism about God
WHERE WE ARE Should we view homosexual sex as morally wrong because it is (allegedly) condemned in the book of Leviticus? In Part 1 of this series I outlined a dozen reasons to doubt this viewpoint. Here is the first reason: 1. God does NOT exist, so no prophet and no book contains truth or … Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 4: Skepticism about God
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 #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
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 24: The Argument from Contingency
WHERE WE ARE AT There are only two more arguments for the existence of God left to consider out of the twenty arguments in Peter Kreeft’s case for God from Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). In this post I will analyze Argument #7: the Argument from Contingency. THE CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENT … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 24: The Argument from Contingency
Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 19: The Whole Enchilada
In part 11 of this series of posts I reviewed the overall structure of Norman Geisler’s case for the existence of God, the case that he presented, along with coauthor Ronald Brooks, in When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA). In this present post, I will once again review the overall structure of Geisler’s case, and will summarize … Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 19: The Whole Enchilada
An Experiment in ‘Steelmanning’: Let’s Try to Formulate a Good Argument from Cosmology Against Naturalism
In the spirit of my last post, I think it would be interesting to engage in some inquiry about whether the kalam cosmological argument is onto something. Rather than try to repair the kalam cosmological argument as it stands, I think it would be interesting to channel Richard Swinburne or Paul Draper and see if … An Experiment in ‘Steelmanning’: Let’s Try to Formulate a Good Argument from Cosmology Against Naturalism