Peter Kreeft

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1

THE CONTEXT Peter Kreeft and his co-author Ronald Tacelli open their Handbook of Christian Apologetics  (hereafter: HCA) with these words about their “reasons for writing this book”: Kreeft and Tacelli believe that heaven and hell are in the balance for every human being, when it comes to acceptance or rejection of “the Christian faith”.  So, it Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 11: Evaluation of Argument #1

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 9: The Argument from Change

MY EVALUATION OF THE SECOND HALF OF KREEFT’S CASE In Part 1 and Part 2 I argued that eight out of ten (80%) of the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s collection of twenty arguments (from Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Chapter 3; hereafter: HCA) are AWFUL arguments that are not worthy of serious consideration, that we should thus toss them aside, and ignore Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 9: The Argument from Change

2017 in the Rearview Mirror

I had hoped to answer the question “Does God exist?” in 2017, at least to my own satisfaction.  No such luck.  That was a bit too aggressive of a goal.   However, I did make some good progress.  I learned that Norman Geisler’s case for God (in When Skeptics Ask) is a steaming pile of dog 2017 in the Rearview Mirror

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 8: Are Believers in God DELUSIONAL?

WHERE WE ARE AT I am in the process of evaluating Argument #19 (the Argument from Common Consent) from Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God (in Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics, hereafter: HCA): 1. Almost all people of every era have believed in God. A.  Either God DOES exist or God does NOT exist. THEREFORE: 2. Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 8: Are Believers in God DELUSIONAL?