LINK: Why The “Minimal Facts” Model is Unpersuasive

This is not new, but I just stumbled across this. It's a very interesting summary and critique of the "minimal facts" approach to arguing evidentially for the Resurrection.LINK … [Read more...]

Basic Structure of My Evidential Arguments

Epistemic Interpretation of ProbabilityIn this article series, when I refer to probability I shall be adopting the epistemic interpretation of probability. The epistemic probability of a statement is a measure of the probability that a statement is true, given some stock of knowledge. In other words, epistemic probability measures a person’s degree of belief in a statement, given some body of evidence. The epistemic probability of a statement can vary from person to person and from time to t … [Read more...]

A Brief Comment on Terminology

The purpose of this post is just to define terms used in my series on evidential arguments for naturalism.Before discussing specific arguments for and against atheism, I think it would be useful to define some terms. In doing so I will adopt the definitions put forth by Professor Theodore M. Drange in his excellent essay, "Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism." Consider the sentence, "God exists." Do you think that sentence is meaningful? In other words, do you think that sentence is either … [Read more...]

Index: Evidential Arguments for Naturalism

Preliminary Issues"A Brief Comment on Terminology" "Naturalism vs. Theism: An Apples to Oranges Comparison?" "Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of God Even Possible?" "Basic Structure of My Evidential Arguments" "Paul Draper, the Fallacy of Understated Evidence, Theism, and Naturalism" "20+ Questions for Theists" "Index: The Argument from Silence"Evidential Arguments for NaturalismThe Evidential Argument from Scale (AS) The Evidential Argument from the History of … [Read more...]

The Evidential Argument from the History of Science (AHS)

Informal Statement of the ArgumentIf there is a single theme unifying the history of science, it is that naturalistic explanations work. The history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones. Indeed, naturalistic explanations have been so successful that even most scientific theists concede that supernatural explanations are, in general, implausible, even on the … [Read more...]

LINK: Draper on Naturalism, Theism, and the Burden of Proof

http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/05/paul-drapers-burden-of-proof-for-theists.htmlHT: Ex-Apologist … [Read more...]

LINKS: Scientific American Summarizes the Cases For and Against the Multiverse

"The Case for Parallel Universes: Why the multiverse, crazy as it sounds, is a solid scientific idea" by Alexander Vilenkin and Max Tegmark (HT: Explicit Atheist)"Does the Multiverse Really Exist?" by George Ellis … [Read more...]

The Cases For and Against Christianity in 30 Minutes or Less

"The Case for Christianity in 15 Minutes or Less" by J.W. Wartick"The Case Against Christianity in 15 Minutes or Less" by A is for AtheistHT: Debunking Christianity … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X