philosophy

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 18: Interpretation of Argument #4

In Part 17, I analyzed the logical structure of Peter Kreeft’s Argument #4, the Argument from Degrees of Perfection.  That clarification of the logic of this argument, however, is not sufficient to make it possible to rationally evaluate this argument.  The meanings of each and every premise in Argument #4 are UNCLEAR, making it impossible Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 18: Interpretation of Argument #4

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 17: Analysis of Argument #4

MOVING ON TO KREEFT’S VERSION In Peter Kreeft’s case for God, in Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), his fourth argument is based on the fourth way of Aquinas.  Kreeft’s Argument #4 is the Argument from Degrees of Perfection.  Because Aquinas’s version of this argument is clearer and more straightforward than Kreeft’s Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 17: Analysis of Argument #4

Problems With TASO: Part 1

INTRO TO TASO For several years, I have been working on an article about Richard Swinburne’s case for God. I’m currently revising the section of that article dealing with the third argument in Swinburne’s case: TASO (the Teleological Argument from Spatial Order). In working on that section of the article, I noticed that my favorite Problems With TASO: Part 1

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1

THE CONTEXT Peter Kreeft and his co-author Ronald Tacelli open their Handbook of Christian Apologetics  (hereafter: HCA) with these words about their “reasons for writing this book”: Kreeft and Tacelli believe that heaven and hell are in the balance for every human being, when it comes to acceptance or rejection of “the Christian faith”.  So, it Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1