theism

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 2: Tossing Out Four More Arguments

KREEFT’S CREDIBILITY PROBLEM To focus in on the alleged flaws and failings of an arguer, as opposed to the alleged flaws and failings of his/her arguments is generally to be avoided, and can amount to the fallacy of ad hominem. However,  the CREDIBILITY of an arguer can affect the persuasive force of an argument, so credibility should Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 2: Tossing Out Four More Arguments

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 1: Tossing Out Four Arguments

INTRODUCTION TO KREEFT’S CASE FOR GOD In this new series of blog posts, I plan to analyze and evaluate Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God. Peter Kreeft is a Catholic philosopher of religion and a Christian apologist.  He has published many books defending the Christian faith.  Kreeft co-authored Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 1: Tossing Out Four Arguments

Hinman’s Replies to My Objections to ABEAN and REMEC

I. HINMAN’S REPLIES TO MY OBJECTIONS TO ABEAN A. POSTS IN THIS DEBATE THAT DISCUSS ABEAN: Joe Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/opening-argument-resolved-that-belief.html My Criticism of Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God Joe Hinman’s Responses to My Criticism of His ABEAN Argument http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/first-defense-of-god-argument-1.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god.html B. MY MAIN OBJECTION: ABEAN IS VERY UNCLEAR My contention is not Hinman’s Replies to My Objections to ABEAN and REMEC

Podcast 5: How Should We Evaluate the Christian Worldview?

In Podcast 5, I briefly review some key points from Podcast 3 and Podcast 4, and then I discuss how to evaluate the Christian worldview: http://thinkingcriticallyabout.podbean.com/e/podcast-5-how-should-we-evaluate-the-truth-of-the-christian-worldview/ Some key points in Podcast 5: There is a PowerPoint (in a PDF) available with the content of the podcast: http://thinkingcriticallyabout.podbean.com/e/powerpoint-for-podcast-5-pdf/ My previous podcasts are available here: Thinking Critically About: Is Christianity Podcast 5: How Should We Evaluate the Christian Worldview?

Hinman’s REMEC Argument: DOA

Joe Hinman has (allegedly) posted a second argument for the “existence of God”: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god-my.html Although Hinman believes that the claim “God exists” is NOT literally true (but is only “metaphorically true”, whatever that means), he has included the phrase “existence of God” in the title of this latest post, implying that his second argument is Hinman’s REMEC Argument: DOA

Hinman’s ABEAN & REMEC Arguments: INDEX

1. Joe Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/opening-argument-resolved-that-belief.html 2. My Criticism of Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God 3. Joe Hinman’s Responses to My Criticism of His ABEAN Argument http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/first-defense-of-god-argument-1.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god.html 4. Joe Hinman’s REMEC Argument for God http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god-my.html 5. My Criticism of Hinman’s REMEC Argument for God 6. Joe Hinman’s Responses to My Criticism of His REMEC Argument Hinman’s ABEAN & REMEC Arguments: INDEX

Hinman’s Opening Argument for God

Joe Hinman has published his opening argument for God on his blog site: http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/opening-argument-resolved-that-belief.html Here is his argument in summary form: 1. All naturalistic phenomena are contingent and temporal. 2. Either some aspect of being is eternal and necessary unless or something came from nothing (creation ex nihilo) 3. Something did not come from nothing. Hinman’s Opening Argument for God