Edited on 15-Feb-20 While some theistic arguments are “God of the gaps” arguments, many, including those defended by Christian philosophers, are not “God of the gaps” arguments. Before accusing a theist of trotting out another “God-of-the-gaps” argument, atheists should first verify that the argument actually is a “God-of-the-gaps” argument. Here is the basic structure of … An F-Inductive Argument from Consciousness for Theism, Revisited
In the spirit of my last post, I think it would be interesting to engage in some inquiry about whether the kalam cosmological argument is onto something. Rather than try to repair the kalam cosmological argument as it stands, I think it would be interesting to channel Richard Swinburne or Paul Draper and see if … An Experiment in ‘Steelmanning’: Let’s Try to Formulate a Good Argument from Cosmology Against Naturalism
The title of my post might come across as snarky, so I want to begin my making it clear that is not my intent. In fact, I want to go on record as saying I have great respect for Plantinga’s skill as a philosopher. Among other things, I think he succeeded in his attempt to … Plantinga Calls <I>This</I> A Good Argument for God’s Existence?
Abstract: In a popular article about general arguments from evil against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God, William Lane Craig raises objections to such arguments that are consistent with those he earlier raised against Paul Draper’s evidential pain-and-pleasure argument from evil in an oral debate with Draper in 1998. In this article … In Defense of an Evidential Argument from Evil: A Reply to William Lane Craig
My latest video, “The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics: The Things Apologists Falsely Say Depend on God, But, if God Exists, God Depends on Them,” is now available on YouTube. It is a narration of some of the many hundreds of PowerPoint slides I created in preparation for my recent debate with Frank Turek on naturalism vs. … The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics
I want to quickly sketch an evidential (aka “explanatory” aka “abductive” aka “F-Inductive“) argument from evil, one which focuses exclusively on natural inequality. The argument is not mine; it belongs to Moti Mizrahi. The key point of Mizrahi’s argument, which he credits to an insight of John Rawls, is this: … natural endowments are undeserved.Now, if … An Evidential Argument from Evil: Natural Inequality
In a recent post, Victor Reppert asks: Is there any theistic argument [from/in natural theology] that can’t be accused of being a god-of-the-gaps argument? Is this an all-purpose reply to all natural theology? My answers are “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second question. I think it would helpful if everyone would … When are Theistic Arguments “God-of-the-Gaps” Arguments?
Here is an F-inductive argument for theism based on ontologically objective moral values. Note that this argument assumes that such things exist. If you don’t think they exist, then you may want to skip reading this post. As usual, let B be our background information; E be the evidence to be explained (in this case, the existence of … An F-Inductive Moral Argument for Theism
I was waiting for someone to bring this up in the combox on my recent post on Swinburne’s cosmological argument, but no one did. The argument from consciousness (to theism) is a parallel argument to the cosmological argument against theism. In the cosmological argument against theism, I pointed out that naturalism entails a physical universe … A Good F-Inductive Argument for Theism based on Consciousness
In his extensive writings, the prestigious philosopher Richard Swinburne makes a useful distinction between two types of inductive arguments. Let B be our background information or evidence; E be the evidence to be explained; and H be an explanatory hypothesis. “C-inductive argument”: an argument in which the premisses confirm or add to the probability of the conclusion, i.e., … F-Inductive Arguments: A New Type of Inductive Argument