The Empty Tomb: Reply to Josh and Sean McDowell

A friend informed me that Josh and Sean McDowell, in the new (revised?) edition of More Than a Carpenter (MTAC) on page 134, have offered a critique of the relocation hypothesis, which I defended in The Empty Tomb (TET). I have reviewed what they wrote. Here is a rough sketch of how I would respond.First, I could not help but notice similarities between the wording of their comments and the wording of Stephen Davis's review in Philosophia Christi. The similarities make me wonder if the McDowells … [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 postin 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...]

LINKS: Dishonesty and Possible Craig-Lowder Debate

I just posted the following on my personal blog."How to Argue that Someone Lied""Craig-Lowder Debate?" … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X