Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 8: Are Believers in God DELUSIONAL?

WHERE WE ARE AT I am in the process of evaluating Argument #19 (the Argument from Common Consent) from Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God (in Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics, hereafter: HCA): 1. Almost all people of every era have believed in God. A.  Either God DOES exist or God does NOT exist. THEREFORE: 2. EITHER almost all people of every era have believed in God and God DOES exist, OR almost all people of every era have believed in God but God… Read more

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 7: The Natural Capacity Argument

WHERE WE ARE AT I have been analyzing and evaluating Peter Kreeft’s Argument #19 (the Argument from Common Consent): 1. Almost all people of every era have believed in God. A.  Either God DOES exist or God does NOT exist. THEREFORE: 2. EITHER almost all people of every era have believed in God and God DOES exist, OR almost all people of every era have believed in God but God does NOT exist. 3.  It is FAR MORE LIKELY that almost all people of every… Read more

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 6: More on Premise (1)

  WHERE WE ARE AT I am in the process of evaluating Argument #19 (The Argument from Common Consent) from Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God (in Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics, hereafter: HCA). One key premise of Argument #19, is this: 1. Belief in God…is common to almost all people of every era. In Part 5, I argued that Argument #19  is UNSOUND, because premise (1) of that argument is FALSE. In this post, I was planning… Read more

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 5: The Argument from Common Consent

WHERE WE ARE AS OF PART 4 In Part 1 and Part 2 I argued that eight out of ten (80%) of the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s collection of twenty arguments (from Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Chapter 3) are AWFUL arguments that are not worthy of serious consideration, that we should thus toss them aside, and ignore those eight arguments. In Part 3, I analyzed the logical structure of Argument #12 (The Argument from the Origin of the… Read more

Roy Moore and the Tide of Irrationality

As you may have noticed, it looks like the next U.S. Senator from Alabama, taking the seat vacated by Jeff Sessions, will be former judge Roy Moore. Moore won the Republican primary, defeating the appointed incumbent, Luther Strange. Strange, an obsequiously loyal Trump supporter, was apparently not conservative enough for Alabama voters. Moore was twice elected as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and twice removed from office because of his disrespect for the law. On the first occasion,… Read more

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 4: Evaluation of Argument #12

WHERE WE ARE AT WITH EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENT #12 In Part 3 of this series I analyzed the logical structure of Argument #12 in Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God from Chapter 3 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA). My initial criticism of this argument is that much of it is devoted to support for premise (14), but premise (14) is irrelevant to the argument; it plays no role in the deductive reasoning that is the… Read more

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 3: The Origin of the Idea of God

MY DIVIDE-AND-CONQUER STRATEGY I have argued that Peter Kreeft puts forward what he takes to be his strongest and best arguments for the existence of God in the first half of his list of twenty arguments (Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft  and Ronald Tacelli, Chapter 3), and then puts forward his weakest and most flawed arguments in the second half (the last ten arguments in his list).   Furthermore, in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, I… Read more

The Laws of Physics and the Laws of Logic

I recently conducted a typically inconclusive discussion with Victor Reppert in the comments section of my post “Can Brains Think?” While I doubt that we will ever agree (each of us in in his mid-sixties), I think I can identify one issue that keeps coming up again and again. Repeatedly Victor pointed to the difference between the laws of physics and the laws of logic. Physical things, like the brain, operate in accordance with the laws of physics. Rational thinking… Read more

Richard Dawkins and Moral Realism

Christian apologists who love to substitute quote-mining for actual argumentation are fond of quotations like the following, in order to conclude that atheism somehow undermines morality. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, or any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the… Read more

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 2: Tossing Out Four More Arguments

KREEFT’S CREDIBILITY PROBLEM To focus in on the alleged flaws and failings of an arguer, as opposed to the alleged flaws and failings of his/her arguments is generally to be avoided, and can amount to the fallacy of ad hominem. However,  the CREDIBILITY of an arguer can affect the persuasive force of an argument, so credibility should not be completely ignored.  Part of the reason why I have chosen to focus on Peter Kreeft’s case for God, is that he is a… Read more

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives