Matthew Ferguson: Knocking Out the Pillars of the “Minimal Facts” Apologetic (2013)
I have only skimmed this article, but it appears to be a very comprehensive rebuttal to the “minimal facts” apologetics favored by several Christian apologists, including Licona, Habermas, and Craig. LINK Note: as always, links do not necessarily constitute endorsement. We’d love to know what you think of the article. Please feel free to debate … Matthew Ferguson: Knocking Out the Pillars of the “Minimal Facts” Apologetic (2013)
The Evidential Argument from Biological Evolution, Part 2: Is Evolution Evidence for Theism?
Let’s begin reviewing the logical form of the argument, as described in Part 1 of this series. (1) Evolution is antecedently much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than on the assumption that theism is true. (2) The statement that pain and pleasure systematically connected to reproductive success is antecedently much more … The Evidential Argument from Biological Evolution, Part 2: Is Evolution Evidence <I>for</I> Theism?
Christian Debaters
Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
William Lane Craig Complains Dawkins Won’t Debate Him, but Touts Debate in Credentials?
It’s well known that William Lane Craig attempted to arrange a debate with Richard Dawkins in England; Dawkins refused; and then Craig, not to mention numerous others, criticized Dawkins for his refusal to debate Craig. I recently discovered this page on the website of Houston Baptist University. It appears to be a press release dated … William Lane Craig Complains Dawkins Won’t Debate Him, but Touts Debate in Credentials?
William Lane Craig’s Silly Response to the Hostility of Life
In his most recent post on the Q&A section of his website, William Lane Craig responds to an objection to his version of the fine-tuning argument. Talking about the fine-tuning argument, Tyson said: Most places in the universe will kill life instantly – instantly! People say, ‘Oh, the forces of nature are just right for … William Lane Craig’s Silly Response to the Hostility of Life
Massimo Pigliucci on Metaethics, Part 1
William Lane Craig and Massimo Pigliucci debated the existence of God in 1998. (Click here to read the transcript.) In his opening statement, Craig presented his standard moral argument for God’s existence. (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (2) Objective values do exist. (3) Therefore, God exists. In his … Massimo Pigliucci on Metaethics, Part 1
Hard-Hitting Critique of WLC’s Moral Argument by John Danaher “Necessary Moral Truths and Theistic Metaethics”
To be precise, this paper applies to WLC’s moral argument for God’s existence as follows. 1. WLC argues that God exists because objective moral values and duties exist. 2. Critics (theist, agnostic, and atheist) of WLC’s moral argument have pointed out that, according to one version of moral realism, moral truths are necessary truths. Necessary truths neither … Hard-Hitting Critique of WLC’s Moral Argument by John Danaher “Necessary Moral Truths and Theistic Metaethics”
WLC’s Debate Quotation of Anthony Kenny
Here is WLC’s quotation of Kenny: A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing. And here is a critique: LINK Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
The Holy Spirit and the Affect Heuristic
I’ve been re-reading Daniel Kahnman’s wonderful book, Thinking, Fast and Slow and came upon the section in which he discusses the ‘affect heuristic’. The affect heuristic is the notion that people often make decisions based on their feelings or emotions about the topic at hand. It is an example of “substitution”, in which “the answer … The Holy Spirit and the Affect Heuristic
From Keith Parsons: Response to Steve Hays
Steve Hays asks whether atheists contradict themselves, saying, first, that no evidence would convince them of a miracle, and, second, that God is to blame for doubters’ lack of belief because he could have performed spectacular public miracles that would have convinced anybody and everybody. If I declare that nothing will convince me that a … From Keith Parsons: Response to Steve Hays