philosophy of religion

Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 3: The Witnesses Were Qualified

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft’s first three objections against the Hallucination Theory in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter HCA) can be summarized this way: Objection #1:  There were too many witnesses.  (HCA, p.186, emphasis added) Objection #2: The witnesses were qualified. (HCA, p. 187, emphasis added) Objection #3: The five hundred [eyewitnesses] saw Christ Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 3: The Witnesses Were Qualified

Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 2: “Witnesses”

THE “WITNESSES” OBJECTIONS In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) the first three objections that Peter Kreeft raises against the Hallucination Theory are all about “witnesses”: Objection #1:  There were too many witnesses.  (HCA, p.186, emphasis added) Objection #2: The witnesses were qualified. (HCA, p. 187, emphasis added) Objection #3: The five hundred [eyewitnesses] saw Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 2: “Witnesses”

Craig’s Dismissive Attitude Towards Arguments from Evil

On Twitter, user @BissetteHunter tweeted this fifteen second video clip of William Lane Craig discussing arguments from evil: Another bad take from Craig given during the Law debate. �‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/SycXWzMptW — yourtypicaltheist (@BissetteHunter) July 19, 2021 In the case the link doesn’t work, here is the transcript: “Therefore, this problem of evil, I think, though Craig’s Dismissive Attitude Towards Arguments from Evil

Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 1: Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection

MCDOWELL’S CASE AGAINST THE HALLUCINATION THEORY I recently examined Josh McDowell’s case against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF), and I showed that each one of the seven objections that McDowell raised against this skeptical theory FAILS, and thus that his case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS. The Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 1: Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection

Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 13: False Claims and Assumptions in Leviticus

WHERE WE ARE One important reason for rejecting the view that Leviticus was inspired by God is that this book contains several FALSE claims and assumptions.  I have already argued that Leviticus contains FALSE historical claims and assumptions and that it also contains logical contradictions, so I have already shown that Leviticus contains FALSE claims Leviticus and Homosexuality – Part 13: False Claims and Assumptions in Leviticus

The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 12: What is Potentiality?

WHERE WE ARE In his book Philosophy of Religion  (hereafter: POR), Norman Geisler provides an argument in support of the second premise of his Thomist Cosmological Argument (see pages 194-197).  Here is my understanding of the argument that Geisler gives in support of that premise: 52. But no potentiality can actualize itself. THEREFORE: 53a. There The Unmoved Mover Argument – Part 12: What is Potentiality?

Back to God and Leviticus

When Easter rolled around this year, I dove back into the questions “Did God raise Jesus from the dead?”  and “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”  These are issues that I have enjoyed thinking about for the past four decades, and will continue to think and write about for the rest of my life. DEFENDING Back to God and Leviticus

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 11: Five Hundred Witnesses

WHERE WE ARE In Parts 1 through 7 of this series,  I argued that at least six of Josh McDowell’s seven objections (in The Resurrection Factor; hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL. In Part 8 of this series, I began to examine McDowell’s one remaining objection: Objection TRF2 (“Very Personal”).  McDowell presents this objection Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 11: Five Hundred Witnesses

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 10: Looking at Luke 24

WHERE WE ARE In Parts 1 through 7 of this series,  I argued that at least six of Josh McDowell’s seven objections (in The Resurrection Factor; hereafter: TRF). against the Hallucination Theory FAIL. In Part 8 of this series, I began to examine McDowell’s one remaining objection: Objection TRF2 (“Very Personal”).  McDowell presents this objection in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part 10: Looking at Luke 24