Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 2
I want to continue where I left off in part 1 of my response to Metacrock on the use of Bayes’ Theorem (BT) to measure evidence about God. Here is Metacrock: Bayes’ theorem was introduced first as an argument against Hume’s argument on miracles, that is to say, a proof of the probability of miracles. … Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 2
Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 1
Over at the Christian Cadre, “Metacrock” has written a post entitled, “Bayes Theorum [sic] and Probability of God: No Dice!” Metacrock makes a number of points regarding the use of Bayes’ Theorem (BT) with evidence about God’s existence. I want to comment on many of those points. It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy … Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 1
Implication vs. Entailment
In my recent post “The Perfect Goodness of God – Again” I used conditional derivation to prove a conditional statement, and took that to be sufficient to prove that the antecedent of the conditional statement entailed the consequent. Then I had second thoughts about that approach to proving an entailment. Penance for my possible sin … Implication vs. Entailment
Thoughts on the “Logical vs. Evidential” Distinction
Chris Hallquist recently questioned the significance of the distinction between logical arguments from evil and evidential arguments from evil. He writes: In general, the insistence of people who follow these issues on classifying versions of the problem of evil as either “logical” or “evidential” is weird. It isn’t something you see with any other kind … Thoughts on the “Logical vs. Evidential” Distinction
The Perfect Goodness of God – Again (Part 2)
In my previous post on this topic, I used conditional derivation to try to prove that one statement entailed another statement, to show that ‘There is a person who is omniscient and perfectly free’ entails ‘There is a person who is perfectly good’. But because I’m a bit unclear on how the logic of conditional … The Perfect Goodness of God – Again (Part 2)
When is a Debate “Win” Significant?
A reader asked me if I had watched the debate between William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg. Here is my reply. No, I haven’t seen it. I’ve read some of Rosenberg’s book, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, however. My prediction is that WLC not only “won” the debate, but that Rosenberg did awful. Why would … When is a Debate “Win” Significant?
Feser Insults (Insulted?) Parsons Again
If Edward Feser is not yet the JP Holding of theistic philosophers, he seems to be well on his way. I don’t always read his blog, but his latest item caught my attention. “God and Man at HuffPro“ In that brief article, he links to this older article: “So you think you understand the cosmological … Feser Insults (Insulted?) Parsons Again
How the Distinction between Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments Can Mask Uncertainty
Everyone who has taken a philosophy 101 class has learned the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments. It goes like this. Only deductive arguments may be valid; an argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its premises. Otherwise, the argument is invalid. If an argument is … How the Distinction between Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments Can Mask Uncertainty
Ontology 101 part 3
The following three criteria can be used to generate a set of categories of kinds of entities: C1. Is this entity a natural entity? C2*. Is this entity able to affect a natural entity? C3. Is this entity a person? We are looking at various pairings of these criteria to see whether some combinations can be … Ontology 101 part 3
Ontology 101 part 2
The following three criteria can be used to generate a set of categories of kinds of entities: C1. Is this entity a natural entity? C2. Is this entity able to affect nature? C3. Is this entity a person? I modified the second criterion slightly, to avoid dragging in a fourth criterion: (C2*) Is this entity … Ontology 101 part 2