Weekend recap: my series on William Lane Craig is finished!

Wee! So I’m now completely done with my series on William Lane Craig, and also with the bigger series I began at the start of the month on arguments for the existence of God. Here’s the complete series on Craig:

  1. Next up: Everything I have to say about William Lane Craig
  2. A note on my sources for Craig’s arguments
  3. The Leibnizian cosmological argument
  4. Kalam I: Why the Big Bang isn’t evidence for God
  5. Kalam II: Philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe
  6. Kalam III: The very brief part that actually argues for God
  7. Two more revealingly bad cosmological arguments from Craig’s debates
  8. The fine-tuning argument
  9. The moral argument
  10. Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus
  11. Jesus’ resurrection: was Paul hallucinating?
  12. Why is Craig so dishonest?
  13. On Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig

The above list is in the order of posting, except the “note on my sources” which is probably worth reading at the beginning. Actually, the note may not have been explicit enough. I probably should have pointed out that it’s common for Craig’s “popular” works and his “academic” works to say the same thing, verbatim or near-verbatim.

The only argument for the existence of God in Reasonable Faith which I didn’t cover in the above posts is Plantinga’s ontological argument, which I had already dealt with here. Read that post in addition to the ones above if you want a fully complete takedown of Reasonable Faith.

The other big thing I did regarding arguments for the existence of God this week is begin collecting my non-Craig posts on the subject into a book chapter. One of the posts incorporated into that chapter was written just this week: “Privileging the hypothesis: the most common flaw in arguments for the existence of God.”

My lesser blog posts this week include a number of discussion posts on  what books you would recommend to get someone out of religion, what Christian blogs are worth interacting with, and on writing advice.

This week, I also published one very substantial piece of writing somewhere else: a post on neuroscience basics at LessWrong. It’s since been promoted to the front page of LessWrong, whoopee!

In the quick fun stuff category, there was my post “Saint vs. scientist” and my results on a political quiz. Finally, I wrote a post explaining to Rick Warren that humans are animals.