Scientific Discoveries, Theism, and Atheism: Reply to Wintery Knight

I'm going to offer some comments on a recent post by Wintery Knight. He writes: When people ask me whether the progress of science is more compatible with theism or atheism, I offer the follow four basic pieces of scientific evidence that are more compatible with theism than atheism. [italics are mine] The following point is nitpicky, but it's worth mentioning just because so many non-philosophers, including both theists and nontheists, misuse words like "compatible" and "consistent." … [Read more...]

Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 4

In this post, I'm going to comment on Schieber's' first rebuttal.Schieber's First RebuttalIn defense of his argument from divine lies, Schieber writes: As to my argument against Christian knowledge, Mr. Andrews replies that he knows God is essentially truthful – that it is impossible for God to lie because it logically contradicts his moral perfection. The problem here is that nothing about moral perfection logically entails always telling the truth. While lying is usually seen as a m … [Read more...]

Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 3

In parts 1 and 2 of this series, I reviewed each debaters' arguments for or against Christian theism. In this and future posts, I want to selectively comment on statements from their rebuttals which caught my eye. I'm emphasizing the word "selectively" because I'm not simply not going to be able to parse the rest of the debate transcript with the same level of detail found in parts 1 and 2. In this post, I'm going to comment on Andrews' first rebuttal.Andrews writes takes issue with (23), … [Read more...]

Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 2

(Continued from Part 1)Justin Schieber's Case against Christian TheismSchieber presents three arguments against Christian theism: (1) the GodWorld argument; (2) the soteriological argument from evil; and (3) an argument about the possibility of divine lies in the Bible. Let's each argument in turn.The GodWorld ArgumentSchieber defines "GodWorld" as "that possible world where God exists alone (AND nothing else exists) for eternity." The arguments runs as follows.(17) If the … [Read more...]

Another Paper by Moti Mizrahi: “New Puzzles About Divine Attributes”

European Journal for Philosophy of Religion (forthcoming)Abstract: According to traditional Western theism, God is maximally great (or perfect). More explicitly, God is said to have the following divine attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. In this paper, I present three puzzles about this conception of a maximally great (or perfect) being. The first puzzle about omniscience shows that this divine attribute is incoherent. The second puzzle about omnibenevolence and … [Read more...]

Moti Mizrahi’s New Paper: “The Problem of Natural Inequality: A New Problem of Evil”

Forthcoming in Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel. Pre-publication copy available here. Abstract. In this paper, I argue that there is a kind of evil, namely, the unequal distribution of  natural endowments, or natural inequality, which presents theists with a new evidential (not logical or incompatibility) problem of evil. The problem of natural inequality is a new evidential problem of evil not only because, to the best of my knowledge, it has not yet been discussed in the l … [Read more...]

The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 5: Reply to RD Miksa

In the combox on Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea blog, RD Miksa posted a thoughtful, four part assessment of the evidential argument from history of science (AHS). In this post, I want to reply to Miksa. Miksa's Reply to the Informal Statement of the Argument The Definition of "Science" Miksa correctly points out that my post did not provide an explicit definition of the crucial term "science." Following Paul Draper, let's define two kinds of sciences.nomological or inductive science: the … [Read more...]

Christianity Today asks, “Are Birth Defects Part of God’s Plan?”

LINKIf Christianity is true, then, of course, the answer has to be, "Yes." But is it true?The philosophically significant question, however, is this: "Does naturalism or theism, including Christian theism, provide the best explanation for birth defects?"Here is an excellent by Paul Draper, taken from a lecture he recently gave at the University of Notre Dame. [I]magine two alien beings who are much like us in intellectual ability and who are gradually learning everything we know … [Read more...]