Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #30: Phase 2 of the Kalam Argument
WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 29, I criticized Phase 1 of Peter Kreeft’s Argument #6: the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In this post, I will begin to analyze and evaluate Phase 2 of Argument #6. Phase 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument goes like this (HCA, p.58): 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #30: Phase 2 of the Kalam Argument
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #29: Evaluation of Premise (2)
Here is the second premise of Argument #6 (the Kalam Cosmological Argument) in Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God, from Chapter 3 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA): 2. The universe began to exist. (HCA, p.58) In order to be able to rationally determine whether this claim is true or false, we … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part #29: Evaluation of Premise (2)
Geisler’s First Argument
Norman Geisler’s case for God appears to consist of five arguments for the existence of God. Here is my critique of the opening paragraph of Geisler’s case, and my critique of his first argument for the existence of God: ====================== NOTE: I forgot that my plan was to put my posts on cases for God … Geisler’s First Argument
I Don’t Care
Thomas Aquinas pulled a classic BAIT-AND-SWITCH move in Summa Theologica: “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.” “Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” “Therefore we cannot but admit the existence … I Don’t Care