Straw Manning the Opposition: a Christian Apologist on Two Common Atheist Arguments

Robin Shumacher at The Christian Post recently wrote an article entitled, "A Look at Two Common Atheist Arguments." I want to quote the first two paragraphs of the article in full.Behind my desk is a huge binder containing essays and meaty book excerpts of atheist literature. The likes of Russell, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, and many more scientists and philosophers make up this hefty collection of anti-Christian thought. Part of my Master’s requirement was that I read the binder in its e … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig on the Prior Probability of the Resurrection

Prior to examining the specific evidence for and against Jesus' resurrection, how probable is it that God raised Jesus from the dead? According to many Christian apologists, the answer is "not low" -- at least, the answer is "not low" for theists. Are they right?For example, here is William Lane Craig:Dr. Ehrman just assumes that the probability of the resurrection on our background knowledge [Pr(R/B)] is very low. But here, I think, he’s confused. What, after all, is the resurrection h … [Read more...]

New Chick Tract

[Read more...]

William Lane Craig: “Animals aren’t aware that they’re in pain”

Recently, some theists have attempted to deal with that part of the problem of evil generated by horrendous animal suffering found in nature - including hundreds of millions of years of animal suffering before we humans even showed up - by saying that animals aren't aware that they are in pain. They maintain this is what "science" has shown. That helps bring the problem of suffering down to size!Indeed, that animals aren't aware that they are in pain is a remarkable "recent scientific … [Read more...]

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (ECREE), Part 6: Is ECREE False? A Reply to Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner (continued)

(continued from Part 5)Penner's Third Rebuttal: A third response to the demand recognizes that very extraordinary events happen all the time if the co-occurrence of several features in a state of affairs is evaluated probabilistically.I agree with this sentence (if "extraordinary events" means "improbable or very improbable events"), but this does not in any way undermine ECREE.Penner also writes: "So no matter how extraordinary the event, no explanation is needed because extraordinary events … [Read more...]

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (ECREE), Part 5: Is ECREE False? A Reply to Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner

In my first post in this series, I offered a Bayesian interpretation of the principle, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE). Greg Koukl, however, disagrees with ECREE. He recently explained why on his radio show (click here for audio); also, Melinda Penner, a member of Koukl's staff, has written on the issue here and here. In this post, I want to explain why I think Koukl's and Penner's objections to ECREE, like those of William Lane Craig and T. Kurt Jaros, are … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig’s Defense of Akin

LINK … [Read more...]

The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 4: Reply to ‘cl’

IntroductionTheists hold that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person (God) who created the universe. Metaphysical naturalists, on the other hand, hold that the universe is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it. Metaphysical naturalism (N) denies the existence of all supernatural beings, including God. Therefore, N entails that any true scientific explanations must be naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) … [Read more...]