Edited on 15-Feb-20While 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 a “God-of-the-gaps” … An F-Inductive Argument from Consciousness for Theism, Revisited
Although I’ve recently been too busy to spend any time writing original content for this blog, I’ve decided to post my opening statement from my 2016 debate with Frank Turek. Enjoy! Introduction Good evening! I’d like to thank Craig Freerksen for organizing this debate. I’d also like to thank Dr. Turek for agreeing to participate. … Opening Statement from My Debate with Frank Turek
Yesterday I blogged about a “recommended apologetics reading” list created by Western Michigan University philosopher Tim McGrew. After several cordial exchanges with Tim, I’ve decided that, despite my best attempts to be charitable, I failed. Contrary to what I had suggested, Tim stated, “I certainly would not recommend that anyone with a serious interest in the truth of … Genuine Inquiry vs. Partisan Advocacy: Philosophy of Religion vs. Apologetics
Victor Reppert recently linked to an article on the blog Saints and Sceptics (S&S), “Why Science Makes Theism Likelier than Atheism.” In this blog post, I’m going to critically assess that article. 1. What is the Evidence to be Explained? S&S begin their article as follows: Should we view the order of the universe, and our ability … Does “Science” Make Theism Likelier than Atheism?
A Christian apologist writing under the pseudonym ‘InvestigativeApologetics’ stated the usual objection to atheism, namely, that it’s impossible to prove or give evidence for the non-existence of God. The fact is that atheists who yell that “there is no evidence for God (or Christianity)” are protesting too much, so to speak, and they are, in … Here’s One Way to Resist Naturalistic Arguments: Lack Belief that Matter Exists!
One objection to fine-tuning arguments for God’s existence goes like this: simply showing that so-called ‘fine-tuning’ is more probable on theism than on atheism isn’t enough to show that God exists. One must also take into account the prior probability of theism. William Lane Craig responds to this objection in a recent Q&A on his … William Lane Craig on the Prior Probability of Theism and the Fine-Tuning Argument
A few weeks ago Catholic Answers had a two hour radio show devoted to taking calls from nontheists only. I was the last caller. I had the privilege of having a brief, but very enjoyable and intellectually stimulating conversation with Trent Horn. A fan recently made me aware of a YouTube recording of it. LINK … My Recent Call-In Segment with Trent Horn on Catholic Answers Live
On my Twitter timeline, I saw the following: “Atheism does not require certainty. But we can be as certain the Christian god does not exist as Christians are that Thor does not exist.” If I were to reword the tweet, albeit in a way that is too long for twitter, I would have offered something … Yahweh vs. Thor
This post is part of a series on Paul Draper’s classic version of the evidential argument from evil. In the previous entry, I summarized Draper’s refutation of three theodicies which might be used as an objection to the claim that HI explains the facts about the biological role of pain and pleasure much better than T … Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 4
Philosopher Greg Welty wrote a brief response to Paul Draper’s brief summary of his position regarding God and the burden of proof. Here is Draper’s reply to Welty. Greg Welty has written an interesting reply to my post on “God and the Burden of Proof”. He does a very good job of explaining my argument (for … Draper’s Reply to Welty