Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)
WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. A key premise in their case for the resurrection is their claim to have refuted the Swoon Theory. Through a series of blog posts here at The Secular Frontier, I will carefully evaluate each of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory to show that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory and thus FAILED to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. (For clarification about what the Swoon Theory implies, see my post "Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory". ) In Part 2 of this series, I presented a clarified version of Objection #2 by Kreeft and Tacelli. In Part 3 of this series, I argued that premise (C) in the core argument for Objection #2 is FALSE, and thus that the argument was UNSOUND and thus that Objection #2 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. In this post, I will continue my careful evaluati ... Read Article
Jesus Is NOT God – Part 1: The Omnipotence Argument
THE OMNIPOTENCE ARGUMENT There are many good reasons to believe that Jesus is NOT God. One such good reason is that Jesus was NOT eternally omnipotent (all-powerful): 1. Something is God ONLY IF it is eternally omnipotent. 2. Jesus was NOT eternally omnipotent. THEREFORE: 3. Jesus was NOT God. PREMISE (1) IS TRUE Premise (1) is based on a definition of "God" that would be acceptable to most Christian philosophers and theologians: X is God IF AND ONLY IF: X is the creator of the universe, and X is a bodiless person, and X is eternally omnipotent, and X is eternally omniscient, and X is eternally perfectly good. There is a powerful motivation for Christian philosophers and theologians to insist that God is eternally omnipotent (eternally all-powerful). If God was less than eternally omnipotent, then God would not be able to guarantee eternal life to Christian believers. Something could happen in the future that threatens the existence of some or al ... Read Article
(2/2) No, Jesus Did Not Believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible: In Awe Of Jesus On The Cross
EDITED 8/3/2023 4:29pm Atlantic Canada Time by John MacDonald Previously: (Part 1) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 2) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 3) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 4) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 5) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 6) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 7) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Evaluation of Premises (C) & (D)
WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. A key premise in their case for the resurrection is their claim to have refuted the Swoon Theory. However, Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory, so their case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS. Through a series of blog posts here at The Secular Frontier, I will carefully evaluate each of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory to show that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory and thus FAILED to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. (For clarification about what the Swoon Theory implies, see my post "Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory". ) In Part 2 of this series, I presented a clarified version of Objection #2 by Kreeft and Tacelli. In this post, I will begin to evaluate that objection against the Swoon Theory. THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #2 Here is ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 20: Mark Chapter 10 and the Feeling-Superior Argument
WHERE WE ARE For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 3 through Part 15 of this series, see the “WHERE WE ARE” section at the beginning of Part 16 of this series. For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 16, Part 17, and Part 18, see the “WHERE WE ARE” section at the beginning of Part 19 of this series. In their second point against Jesus being a lunatic, Kreeft and Tacelli offer two similar arguments. I call the first argument the Feeling-Superior argument: 21. When a mentally healthy person meets an insane person (a lunatic), they feel uncomfortable, and they feel that way because they feel superior to the insane person. 24. When mentally healthy persons met Jesus, they felt uncomfortable and this was NOT because they felt superior to Jesus. THEREFORE: 5B. Jesus was not a lunatic. My current focus is on evaluating premise (24) of this argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. In Part 19 of this series, I reviewed thirteen examples o ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 2: Analysis of Objection #2
In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. They claim that there are only four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view: The Swoon Theory The Conspiracy Theory The Hallucination Theory The Myth Theory Based on that assumption they attempt to refute each of these skeptical theories in order to try to prove the resurrection of Jesus. They claim to have refuted all four of these skeptical theories in Chapter 8, and they conclude that this proves that the one remaining theory (the Christian view that God raised Jesus from the dead) is true. However, Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory, so their case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS. Through a series of blog posts here at The Secular Frontier, I will carefully evaluate each of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory to show that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theor ... Read Article
Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 1: Introduction
I have previously analyzed and evaluated the case against the Swoon Theory presented by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA): https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2020/02/defending-the-swoon-theory-index/ My conclusion was that all nine of their objections against the Swoon Theory FAIL, and that their attempt to refute the Swoon Theory FAILED. If I have already analyzed and evaluated their objections against the Swoon Theory, then why go back to evaluate their nine objections all over again? I am planning to publish a book defending the Swoon Theory against these objections, so I have been working to revise and improve my argument analysis of these objections (each objection constitutes an argument against the Swoon Theory). Now that I have revised and improved my analysis of their nine objections, I want to work my way through the objections again, to make sure that my previous responses to these objections still make sens ... Read Article
Craig’s Case for God – Part 1: Introduction
Dr. William Craig presents a case for the existence of God in his book How Do We Know God Exists? (Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA, 2022; hereafter: HDWK). In this short book of less than 100 pages, Craig presents two cosmological arguments, a moral argument, a teleological argument, and an ontological argument for the existence of God. Craig concludes that all five of these arguments are "good arguments". But in this book (HDWK), Craig never claims to KNOW that God exists, and he never claims that these "good arguments" provide sufficient grounds for KNOWING that God exists. In other words, the title of the book is a classic "bait and switch" swindle. The book says NOTHING in support of the view that Craig or anyone else KNOWS that God exists. Furthermore, it is clear from the very start of the book, that the five arguments will NOT be sufficient to give one KNOWLEDGE that God exists. Craig is clear about the main conclusion of his book: These [five arguments] are, I believe, good arguments fo ... Read Article
No, Jesus Did Not Believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible
Previously: (Part 1) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 2) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 3) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 4) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 5) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 6) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Jesus (Part 7) The Philosophy of History: Professor Bart Ehrman’s New Course Comparing and Contrasting The Apostle Paul With The Historical Je ... Read Article
The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – LINKS
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2020/02/the-complete-failure-of-peter-kreefts-case-for-the-resurrection-part-1-three-serious-problems/ https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2020/02/the-complete-failure-of-peter-kreefts-case-for-the-resurrection-part-2-many-skeptical-theories/ I also wrote a series of posts defending the Hallucination Theory against the objections raised by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of their Handbook of Christian Apologetics) over on my own blog (because The Secular Outpost was shut down and The Secular Frontier had not yet been set up): Defending the Hallucination Theory - SUMMARY ... Read Article
Geisler’s Case for the Existence of God – LINK
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2020/04/geislers-case-for-the-existence-of-god/ ... Read Article
Peter Kreeft’s Case for God – LINK
https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2020/04/peter-kreefts-case-for-god-2/ ... Read Article
Objective Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLfGh2b_me0 "Good is a point of view, Anakin" One thing I run into a lot is theists asking if secularists don't have God to stamp his authority on things being right and wrong, isn't morality just whatever strikes your fancy, like Roman spectators cheering christians being fed to the lions, or cultural cannibalism, or Palestinians celebrating 9/11? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqZBy09vCVk This issue is resolved somewhat when we think about how moral judgements are made and how we tell they are correct. It is not just "God says so," but God also would have to assess and evaluates according to criteria. Be it judging a UFC fight or a fine wine, judging is made according to criteria. The criteria are reliable, as they have been tested and refined over the years. And, while it's true not every judge is going to score a child's narrative writing in the same way, we have fairly objective and reliable guidelines: The Six Traits of Writing are rooted in more than 50 ... Read Article
Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Hallucination Theory.
In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. They claim that there are only four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view: The Swoon Theory The Conspiracy Theory The Hallucination Theory The Myth Theory Based on that assumption they attempt to refute each of these skeptical theories in order to try to prove the resurrection of Jesus. They claim to have refuted all four of these skeptical theories in Chapter 8, and they conclude that this proves that the one remaining theory (the Christian view that God raised Jesus from the dead) is true. I have examined their arguments against these four skeptical theories and my conclusion is that they have FAILED to refute ANY of these skeptical theories. Furthermore, it is clear that these are NOT the only four skeptical theories concerning the alleged resurrection of Jesus. So, their case for the resurrection of Jesus ... Read Article
Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory
In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. They claim that there are only four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view: The Swoon Theory The Conspiracy Theory The Hallucination Theory The Myth Theory Based on that assumption they attempt to refute each of these skeptical theories in order to try to prove the resurrection of Jesus. They claim to have refuted all four of these skeptical theories in Chapter 8, and they conclude that this proves that the one remaining theory (the Christian view that God raised Jesus from the dead) is true. I have examined their arguments against these four skeptical theories and my conclusion is that they have FAILED to refute ANY of these skeptical theories. Furthermore, it is clear that these are NOT the only four skeptical theories concerning the alleged resurrection of Jesus. So, their case for the resurrection of Jesu ... Read Article