Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 26: The Unclarity of Argument #7
WHERE WE ARE AT There are only two more arguments in Kreeft’s case that we need to evaluate: Argument #7 (the Argument from Contingency) and Argument #6 (the Kalam Cosmological Argument). In Part 24, I did an initial analysis of Argument #7, and I pointed out some significant problems with that argument, based only on … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 26: The Unclarity of Argument #7
Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 19: The Whole Enchilada
In part 11 of this series of posts I reviewed the overall structure of Norman Geisler’s case for the existence of God, the case that he presented, along with coauthor Ronald Brooks, in When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA). In this present post, I will once again review the overall structure of Geisler’s case, and will summarize … Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 19: The Whole Enchilada
Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 7: Argument #2 of Phase 2
Here is the second argument in Phase 2 of Geisler’s case for the existence of God: ARGUMENT #2 of PHASE 2 21. “…the design of the universe is far beyond anything that man could devise.” (WSA, p.26) 22. IF the design of the universe is far beyond anything that man could devise, THEN the designer … Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 7: Argument #2 of Phase 2
Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 5: The Gap Between Phase 1 and Phase 2
Here is my version of Geisler’s first argument in Phase 2 of his case for God: ARGUMENT #1 OF PHASE 2 10a. Only a being with great power could create the whole universe by itself, and only a being with great power could sustain the existence of the whole universe by itself (for even just one moment). 11a. There is a being that … Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 5: The Gap Between Phase 1 and Phase 2