philosophy

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 18: Why Objection #5 Cannot Be Repaired

THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH OBJECTION #5 The main problem with Objection #5 is that a key premise of the core argument for this objection is FALSE. Specifically, the key premise (E) is FALSE. Here, once again, is the core argument for Objection #5: E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 18: Why Objection #5 Cannot Be Repaired

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 17: Continued Evaluation of Premise (E)

THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #5 As we saw in Part 14 of this series, the core argument for Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory has two premises: E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 17: Continued Evaluation of Premise (E)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 16: Evaluation of Premise (E)

THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #5 As we saw in Part 14 of this series, the core argument for Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory has two premises: E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 16: Evaluation of Premise (E)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 15: The Sub-Argument for Premise (D)

THE CORE ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #5 As we saw in Part 14 of this series, the core argument for Objection #5 against the Swoon Theory has two premises: E. IF the Swoon Theory is true, THEN sometime after Jesus had been crucified, the eleven remaining disciples each had experiences that they believed were experiences of seeing a Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 15: The Sub-Argument for Premise (D)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 14: A Careful Analysis of Objection #5

OBJECTION #5: THE SICKLY JESUS OBJECTION Here is the fifth objection by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli against the Swoon Theory: The post-resurrection appearances convinced the disciples, even “doubting Thomas,” that Jesus was gloriously alive (Jn 20:19-29). It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 14: A Careful Analysis of Objection #5

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 13: An Attempt to Repair Objection #4

In Part 12 of this series, I concluded that Peter Kreeft’s Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory FAILS, because the core argument for Objection #4 consists of two DUBIOUS premises and one FALSE premise. Before I move on to Objection #5, I would like to consider a possible way to repair Objection #4 which attempts Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 13: An Attempt to Repair Objection #4

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 12: Evaluation of Premise (C)

WHERE WE ARE In Part 8 of this series, I presented a careful analysis of Peter Kreeft’s Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. In Part 9 of this series, I argued that the key premise (1b) in Objection #4 is supported by an argument consisting of two FALSE premises: premise (B) and premise (3b). Thus, Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 12: Evaluation of Premise (C)

Dawkins’ FAILURE to Refute Aquinas

In his book The God Delusion (hereafter: TGD), Richard Dawkins ends the second chapter (“The God Hypothesis”) with these words: …before proceeding with my main reason for actively disbelieving in God’s existence, I have the responsibility to dispose of the positive arguments for belief that have been offered through history. TGD, First Mariner Books edition Dawkins’ FAILURE to Refute Aquinas

An Example of Poor-Quality Thinking by Dawkins in THE GOD DELUSION

I have recently made some comments about Richard Dawkins’ case against the existence of God in his book The God Delusion (hereafter: TGD). I made the comments in response to an article posted by John Loftus on his Debunking Christianity website: “In Defense of Richard Dawkins“. Here is the main comment I posted on this An Example of Poor-Quality Thinking by Dawkins in THE GOD DELUSION

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The Sub-Argument for Premise (2a)

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (2A) Premise (2a) is a key premise in the core argument for Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli provide a sub-argument in support of premise (2a), so we need to consider that argument: 4a. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 19:38-42), on Friday Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The Sub-Argument for Premise (2a)