Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 19: The Whole Enchilada
In part 11 of this series of posts I reviewed the overall structure of Norman Geisler’s case for the existence of God, the case that he presented, along with coauthor Ronald Brooks, in When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA). In this present post, I will once again review the overall structure of Geisler’s case, and will summarize … Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 19: The Whole Enchilada
Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 11: The Structure of Geisler’s Case
I’m going to take a step back in this post and look at the overall structure of Geisler’s case for the existence of God, a presented in When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA). PHASE 1: GEISLER’s FIVE WAYS On pages 15 through 26, Geisler presents five arguments for five conclusions. I call this Phase 1 of … Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 11: The Structure of Geisler’s Case
Aquinas’ Argument for the Existence of God – Part 6
A key part of Aquinas’ argument for the existence of God in Summa Theologica is found in Question 14, Article 1: “Whether There Is Knowledge in God?”. In that article, Aquinas argues for the conclusion that “In God there exists the most perfect knowledge.” The word “God” here is a misleading translation, and I take … Aquinas’ Argument for the Existence of God – Part 6
Does God Exist? Part 2
Here is a third option for breaking down the question “Does God exist?” (click on the image below to get a clearer view of the chart): This is a variation on Option 2 (see the previous post in this series). In this analysis I stick with the process of simply adding on divine attributes to … Does God Exist? Part 2
Some Skeptical Thoughts on the Resurrection
I met a fellow skeptic at a Starbucks a month or two ago. We recently bumped into each other, had a brief chat, and I found out that he was also interested in questions about the historical Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the historicity of Jesus. He was especially interested in my thoughts about … Some Skeptical Thoughts on the Resurrection
Slicing Up the Metaphysical Pie
One basic question in metaphysics is this: How many gods exist? Atheism can be defined as the view that there are 0 gods. Monotheism is the view that there is just 1 god. Polytheism is the view that there are 2 or more gods. Thus all of the various answers to the metaphysical question above … Slicing Up the Metaphysical Pie
God as a ‘Necessary Being’ – Part 4
Previously, I argued that it is not possible to become eternal. Recall that a person P is eternal if and only if P has always existed and P will always continue to exist. Here is a step-by-step proof showing that it is impossible for a person to become eternal: <————|———–|————–> …………….t1………..t2 1. At time t1 … God as a ‘Necessary Being’ – Part 4
God as a ‘Necessary Being’ – Part 3
Richard Swinburne analyzes the concept of ‘necessary being’ into two implications (COT, p.241-242): 1. It is not a matter of fortunate accident that there is a God; he exists necessarily. 2. God is necessarily the kind of being which he is; God does not just happen to have the properties which he does. In his … God as a ‘Necessary Being’ – Part 3
God as a ‘Necessary Being’ – Part 2
Although there is an extensive discussion of the meaning of the claim ‘God is a necessary being’ by Richard Swinburne in his bookThe Coherence of Theism (revised edition, hereafter: COT), the main passages that I’m interested in understanding are found in a shorter and more popular book: Is There a God? (hereafter: ITAG), also by … God as a ‘Necessary Being’ – Part 2
God as a ‘Necessary Being’ – Part 1
In his book The Coherence of Theism (Revised edition, hereafter: COT), Swinburne defends the claim that the sentence ‘God exists’ makes a coherent statement. In Part II of COT, Swinburne defends the coherence of the concept of “a contingent God”, which is basically the traditional concept of God minus the attribute of ‘necessary being’. In … God as a ‘Necessary Being’ – Part 1