Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 1: Defeating an OLD Apologetic Argument
At the NW Miracles Conference, I discussed the question “Is it ever reasonable to believe miracle claims?” with Christian thinker Hans Vodder, who has graduate degrees in both philosophy and theology. We were, however, just the warm-up act for the big closing event of the conference: a debate between Michael Shermer and Luuk van de … Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 1: Defeating an OLD Apologetic Argument
The Logic of Miracles – Part 6: The Problem of Evil
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL The problem of evil is concerned with whether the existence of evil (or of particular kinds or amounts of evil) is logically incompatible with the existence of God or provides significant evidence against the existence of God. The “logical” problem of evil focuses on whether evil (or particular kinds or amounts … The Logic of Miracles – Part 6: The Problem of Evil
The Logic of Miracles – Part 5: Two Objections
WHY CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS IS DOOMED TO FAILURE I have previously argued in Part 2 that Richard Swinburne’s case for the existence of God depends on some assumptions about the PLANS or PURPOSES of God. I have also argued in Part 3 and in Part 4 that Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God depends … The Logic of Miracles – Part 5: Two Objections
The Logic of Miracles – Part 4: Kreeft’s Last Ten Arguments
WHERE WE ARE AT I am in the process of examining Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God, in order to test the following hypothesis: Classical Apologetics FAILS at Phase 1 because we are ignorant about the PLANS and PURPOSES of God, and this ignorance makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to SHOW … The Logic of Miracles – Part 4: Kreeft’s Last Ten Arguments
The Logic of Miracles – Part 3: Kreeft’s First Ten Arguments
WHERE I AM HEADED I am going to examine Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God, in order to test the following hypothesis: Classical Apologetics FAILS at Phase 1 because we are ignorant about the PLANS and PURPOSES of God, and this ignorance makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to SHOW that God … The Logic of Miracles – Part 3: Kreeft’s First Ten Arguments
The Logic of Miracles – Part 2: Showing that God Exists
CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS FAILS IN PHASE 2 Classical Christian Apologetics organizes the case for Christianity into three phases: In my previous post on The Logic of Miracles, I argued that Classical Apologetics FAILS at the second phase because SHOWING that a particular event is a miracle, i.e. an event caused by God, requires that one first … The Logic of Miracles – Part 2: Showing that God Exists
Kreeft’s Case for God: Summary of My Critique – Part 3
In Part 23 I begin to analyze and evaluate the five remaining arguments in Kreeft’s case for God. FIVE REMAINING ARGUMENTS Although I have already shown that Kreeft’s cumulative case for God is a complete failure, I would still like to make a few comments and objections concerning the remaining five arguments: I quickly toss … Kreeft’s Case for God: Summary of My Critique – Part 3
Kreeft’s Case for God: Summary of My Critique – Part 2
In Part 15 I begin to analyze Argument #4 of Kreeft’s case: 4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection In Argument #4, Kreeft argues for the existence of an “absolutely perfect being”. He does strongly hint at the single most important premise of this argument: This absolutely perfect being…is God. (HCA, p.55) The most important premise of this argument is best stated as … Kreeft’s Case for God: Summary of My Critique – Part 2
Kreeft’s Case for God: Summary of My Critique – Part 1
DOES GOD EXIST? One way to approach this question is to critically examine some cases for the existence of God. I am especially interested in cases for God made by Christian philosophers in the late 20th century or the early 21st century. One such case was made by Peter Kreeft: Twenty Arguments for the Existence … Kreeft’s Case for God: Summary of My Critique – Part 1
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