Norman Geisler

A Moral Argument for God which Begs the Question against Theists

Reposting a comment I left on fellow Patheos blogger Bob Seidensticker’s blog, Cross Examined. Bob was writing about Geisler’s and Turek’s book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Bob quoted this passage from their book:  If the atheists are right, then we might as well lie, cheat, and steal to get what we want A Moral Argument for God which Begs the Question against <I>Theists</I>

What is Faith? – Part 9

Here are some key points from the first section (Relation of Faith to Reason) of Geisler’s article “Faith and Reason” (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 239; hereafter: BECA): If we take the second point in a straightforward manner, then there appears to be no conflict between faith and reason, at least in terms of the What is Faith? – Part 9

What is Faith? – Part 8

In the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (1999; hereafter: BECA), Geisler has written a fairly long and detailed article on “Faith and Reason”, and the entire article is basically an exposition of the views of Aquinas about faith and the relationship between faith and reason. There are nine bolded subheadings in Geisler’s article on “Faith What is Faith? – Part 8

What is Faith? – Part 7

I’m going to take a detour and temporarily set Mr. Swinburne’s characterization of the Thomist view of faith aside.  But I will continue to examine the Thomist view of faith, specifically as presented by Dr. Norman Geisler. As Jeff Lowder has recently shown, Dr. Geisler’s case for Christianity is a failure.  IMHO Jeff won that What is Faith? – Part 7

G&T Rebuttal, Part 6: Chapter 7

Chapter 7. Mother Theresa vs. Hitler In this chapter, G&T present a version of the moral argument for God’s existence which I call the “Moral Laws Require a Moral Lawgiver Argument,” which they formulate as follows. Like the earlier arguments, this argument is deductively valid. Like the earlier chapters about this argument, I plan to G&T Rebuttal, Part 6: Chapter 7

G&T Rebuttal, Part 5: Chapter 6

Chapter 6. New Life Forms: From the Goo to You via the Zoo? Drawing upon the work of sophisticated Intelligent Design (ID) theorists such as William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Jonathan Wells, this chapter uses many of the state-of-the art Intelligent Design (ID) arguments against evolution by natural selection. It also defends ID against various G&T Rebuttal, Part 5: Chapter 6

G&T Rebuttal, Part 4: Chapter 5

Chapter 5. The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe? In this chapter, G&T defend a design argument focused on the first life. They also present a variety of objections to scientism and materialism. I will provide a very brief summary of their points, before providing my critique. (i) Argument to Design of the First G&T Rebuttal, Part 4: Chapter 5