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
Why Nobody Should Believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead
First of all, extradordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but there is only weak evidence that Jesus rose from the dead: THEREFORE: 5. It is unreasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Nobody should believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because there is insufficient evidence for the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. … Why Nobody Should Believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead
William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 4
In the March Reasonable Faith Newsletter William Craig asserted this FALSE principle about valid deductive arguments that have premises that are probable: … in a deductive argument the probability of the premises establishes only a minimum probability of the conclusion: even if the premises are only 51% probable, that doesn’t imply that the conclusion is only … William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 4
William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 3
I had planned to discuss counterexamples (to Craig’s principle) that were based on dependencies existing between the premises in some valid deductive arguments. But I am putting that off for a later post, in order to present a brief analysis of some key concepts. It seems to me that an important part of understanding the relationship … William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 3
William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 2
I admit it. I enjoyed pointing out that William Lane Craig had made a major blunder in his recent discussion of the logic of deductive arguments (with premises that are probable rather than certain). However, there are a variety of natural tendencies that people have to reason poorly and illogically when it comes to reasoning about … William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 2
William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson
The March Newsletter from Reasonable Faith just came out, and it includes a brief lesson in logic from William Lane Craig. However, the lesson presents a point that is clearly and obviously WRONG, and it promotes bad reasoning that could be used to rationalize UNREASONABLE beliefs. It appears that WLC is himself in need of … William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 14
Here is my main objection to William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus: In order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But in most of William Craig’s various books, articles, and debates, he simply ignores this issue. He makes no serious attempt … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 14
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
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 13
In Part 10, I argued that Robert Funk was not as certain about Jesus’ death on the cross as Craig claims, and I pointed out that three of the seven groundrules proposed by Funk for investigation of the historical Jesus are skeptical in nature, showing that Funk has a generally skeptical view of the historical Jesus. … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 13