Note to Dr. William Lane Craig

  Dr. William Craig, Thank you for reading my blog posts criticizing your case for the resurrection, and for your comments on those posts: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establishing-the-crucifixion-of-jesus I have written two posts (so far) responding to your comments. Concerning the issue of my scholarship and educational background: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/10/30/response-to-dr-william-lane-craig-part-1/ Concerning your main point about the death of Jesus … [Read more...]

Response to Dr. William Lane Craig – Part 2

In my previous post on this topic, I argued that although I do not consider myself to be a scholar, I do have an extensive background in philosophy that qualifies me as being a well-informed intellectual (BA in philosophy from Sonoma State University, MA in philosophy from the University of Windsor, and completion of all requirements for a PhD in philosophy, except for the dissertation, at UC Santa Barbara).William Craig's Main PointI'm now going to respond to the main point made by … [Read more...]

Response to Dr. William Lane Craig – Part 1

Dr. William Craig –Thank you for reading some of my blog posts criticizing your case for the resurrection of Jesus.  Although you object to the tone of the blog posts as using “vitriolic language”, you nevertheless took the time not only to read what I had to say, but also to respond to some of my points:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establishing-the-crucifixion-of-jesusIn doing so, you demonstrate the virtue of scholarship and are following in the footsteps of Thomas Aquinas, who al … [Read more...]

William Craig’s Response to My Objections on the Resurrection

I just found out (purely by accident) that William Craig has read one or more of my posts criticizing his case for the Resurrection and responded to some of my objections:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establishing-the-crucifixion-of-jesusSo, now I need to take a look at his responses, and see whether they are clear, relevant, accurate, etc.Here are the blog posts of mine that Craig … [Read more...]

The Slaughter of the Canaanites – The Grand Inquisitor Jones – Part 3

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." Carl Sandburg, in The People, Yes (1936) One response to my sixty objections against Clay Jones's attempt to defend Jehovah's command to the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children), is that my my objections "argue the law" thus betraying a reluctance to "argue the facts".  There is some truth to this po … [Read more...]

What is the Conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? – Part 5

In this post I will examine the presentation of the kalam cosmological argument (KCA) found in Chapter 23 of  Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (hereafter: PFCW) to see whether it supports my view that the conclusion of KCA is: GOD EXISTS, as opposed to the less specific conclusion: THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE.Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview (by William Craig and J.P. Moreland, InterVarsity Press, 2003) Chapter Title KCA is the primary argument presented in … [Read more...]

The Slaughter of the Canaanites – The Grand Inquisitor Jones – Part 2

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." Carl Sandburg, in The People, Yes (1936) One response to my sixty objections against Clay Jones's attempt to defend Jehovah's command to the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (men, women, and children), is that my my objections "argue the law" thus betraying a reluctance to "argue the facts".  There is some truth to this po … [Read more...]

Six Findings from Experimental Science Which Disconfirm Theism

This post is a sequel to my 2013 post, "Scientific Discoveries, Theism, and Atheism: Reply to Wintery Knight." In that post, I showed:Wintery Knight misuses the word "compatible" when he he claims that "four basic pieces of scientific evidence" are "more compatible with theism than atheism." The creation/design hypothesis is, at best, an incomplete explanation for his four putative lines of evidence. Or to put the point another way, in the words of Sean Carroll, the creation/design … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X