G&T Rebuttal, Part 6: Chapter 7


Chapter 7. Mother Theresa vs. Hitler  In this chapter, G&T present a version of the moral argument for God's existence which I call the "Moral Laws Require a Moral Lawgiver Argument," which they formulate as follows. 1. Every law has a law giver. 2. There is a Moral Law.3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. Like the earlier arguments, this argument is deductively valid. Like the earlier chapters about this argument, I plan to briefly summarize G&T's defense of … [Read more...]

G&T Rebuttal, Part 4: Chapter 5

Chapter 5. The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe?  In this chapter, G&T defend a design argument focused on the first life. They also present a variety of objections to scientism and materialism.I will provide a very brief summary of their points, before providing my critique.(i) Argument to Design of the First Life: G&T argue that the origin of the first life is evidence favoring theism over naturalism. They emphasize the following points:  (1) all life, including … [Read more...]

Evolution vs. The Argument from Providence

In the Existence of God (2nd edition, hereafter: EOG) Richard Swinburne lays out a carefully constructed, systematically presented case for the the claim that it is more likely than not that God exists.  I have previously argued that there is a big problem with this case that arises with the third argument.  In order to know that the premise of the third argument is true, one must know a lot of information about science and about the evolution of life and the evolution of human beings.Here is … [Read more...]

An Incompatible-Properties Argument against Objective Values

In this post I want to sketch an argument against objective values (moral or otherwise).I shall first analyze the noun “value” and then the expression “moral value.” Finally, I will use these definitions to explicitly formulate an argument that objective values, so defined, have logically incompatible properties. In other words, the concept of an "objective value" is self-contradictory in the same way that "a married bachelor" or "a four-sided triangle" is self-contradictory.The Objecti … [Read more...]

Index: The Evidential Argument from Physical Minds (APM)

The purpose of this page is to provide an index for my blog series on the evidential argument against theism based on the dependence of human minds upon physical brains.Part 1: an overview of the argument Reply to "Bilbo" on APM Victor's Anti-Naturalistic Argument from PainSee also:Carrier and Wanchick debate: Argument from Mind-Brain Dysteleology … [Read more...]

Index: Draper’s Evidential Argument from Pain and Pleasure

The purpose of this page is to provide an index for my blog series on Paul Draper's classic 1989 article defending an evidential argument from evil which focuses on the biological role (and apparent moral randomness) of pain and pleasure.Part 1: summarizes key terminology for the argument, as well as the argument itself. Part 2: summarizes the first part of Draper's argument, which purports to show that facts about pain and pleasure are more probable on the hypothesis of indifference (HI) … [Read more...]

Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 4

This post is part of a series on Paul Draper’s classic version of the evidential argument from evil. In the previous entry, I summarized Draper's refutation of three theodicies which might be used as an objection to the claim that HI explains the facts about the biological role of pain and pleasure much better than T does. In this post, I'm going to review the final section of Draper's classic 1989 article on the evidential argument from evil.1. Darwin's Argument from EvilIn the final se … [Read more...]

Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 3


This post is part of a series on Paul Draper’s classic version of the evidential argument from evil. In the previous entry, I summarized Draper's first argument, which attempts to show that certain facts about the types, quantity, and distribution of pain and pleasure (P&P) are much more probable on the hypothesis of indifference (HI) than on theism (T), and so constitute strong evidence against T and for HI. In this entry, I summarize Draper's discussion of theistic explanations for those f … [Read more...]