religious experience

Hinman’s REMEC Argument: DOA

Joe Hinman has (allegedly) posted a second argument for the “existence of God”: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god-my.html Although Hinman believes that the claim “God exists” is NOT literally true (but is only “metaphorically true”, whatever that means), he has included the phrase “existence of God” in the title of this latest post, implying that his second argument is Hinman’s REMEC Argument: DOA

Does God Exist? Part 1

The overarching question for my ten-year plan is: Is Christianity true or false? After I clarify this overarching question, the first major question to investigate is this: Does God exist? I will, of course, at some point need to address the traditional arguments for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments).  But I Does God Exist? Part 1

What is Christianity? Part 7

In the previous post in this series,  I argued that the Christian apologist James Sire makes a fundamental mistake in his book Naming the Elephant, by defining “a worldview” as being a kind of commitment.  A worldview is something that can be true (or false), but a commitment is NOT something that can be true What is Christianity? Part 7

What is Christianity? Part 6

Evangelical Christians buy T-shirts and bumper stickers that proclaim this slogan: Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship with Jesus Christ. http://www.christianapparelshop.com/p-526-christianity-is-not-a-religion-christian-t-shirt.aspx? The problem with this slogan is that a relationship is NOT the sort of thing that can be true (or false): 1. If Christianity is a relationship, then Christianity is true What is Christianity? Part 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