philosophers

Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 1: Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection

MCDOWELL’S CASE AGAINST THE HALLUCINATION THEORY I recently examined Josh McDowell’s case against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF), and I showed that each one of the seven objections that McDowell raised against this skeptical theory FAILS, and thus that his case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS. The Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 1: Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 12: What is Potentiality?

WHERE WE ARE In his book Philosophy of Religion  (hereafter: POR), Norman Geisler provides an argument in support of the second premise of his Thomist Cosmological Argument (see pages 194-197).  Here is my understanding of the argument that Geisler gives in support of that premise: 52. But no potentiality can actualize itself. THEREFORE: 53a. There The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 12: What is Potentiality?

Back to God and Leviticus

When Easter rolled around this year, I dove back into the questions “Did God raise Jesus from the dead?”  and “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”  These are issues that I have enjoyed thinking about for the past four decades, and will continue to think and write about for the rest of my life. DEFENDING Back to God and Leviticus

My First Book

I’m planning to write my first book this year: Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus Actually, a good portion of the book has already been written, at least in terms of the key ideas and arguments. The book will have two main purposes: The initial outline of the book follows the main premises of My First Book

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 7: The DOESN’T MATCH THE FACTS Objection (TRF7)

WHERE WE ARE In the previous six posts of this series, I have shown that at least five out of seven (71%) of Josh McDowell’s objections in The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL: McDowell has at most provided only two solid objections against the Hallucination Theory, NOT seven.  However, in this Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 7: The DOESN’T MATCH THE FACTS Objection (TRF7)

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 6: The NO FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES Objection (TRF4)

WHERE WE ARE In the previous five posts of this series, I have shown that the best case scenario (for Christian apologetics) is that MOST of Josh McDowell’s objections against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) are WORTHLESS CRAP: One problem that I pointed out with Objection TRF5 (No Expectancy) is Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 6: The NO FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES Objection (TRF4)

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 5: The Failure of NO EXPECTANCY Objection (TRF5)

WHERE WE ARE TRF5 is the fifth objection presented by Josh McDowell against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF). The objection TRF5 can be stated in terms of a brief argument: 1. Hallucinations REQUIRE that a person who has an hallucination of circumstance C previously had a hopeful expectation or wish Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 5: The Failure of NO EXPECTANCY Objection (TRF5)

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 4: More Problems with Objection TRF5

WHERE WE ARE TRF5 is the fifth objection presented by Josh McDowell against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF). The objection TRF5 can be stated in terms of a brief argument: 1. Hallucinations REQUIRE that a person who has an hallucination of circumstance C previously had a hopeful expectation or wish Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 4: More Problems with Objection TRF5

Feser’s Perverted Faculty Argument – Part 1: The Core Argument

HSIAO’S PERVERTED FACULTY ARGUMENT I have REJECTED Timothy Hsiao’s Perverted Faculty “Argument” against homosexual sex NOT because it was a bad argument, but because it was a FAUX argument, and not an actual argument.  The core “argument” by Hsiao consists of three declarative sentences that were so UNCLEAR that they cannot be rationally evaluated, and Feser’s Perverted Faculty Argument – Part 1: The Core Argument