Link: An Ontological Disproof of Anselmian Theism by Ex-Apologist

LINK … [Read more...]

My Recent Call-In Segment with Trent Horn on Catholic Answers Live

A few weeks ago Catholic Answers had a two hour radio show devoted to taking calls from nontheists only. I was the last caller. I had the privilege of having a brief, but very enjoyable and intellectually stimulating conversation with Trent Horn. A fan recently made me aware of a YouTube recording of it.LINKTrent, if you're reading this, thanks again for being such a gracious host. I look forward to talking with you again in the future! … [Read more...]

Randal Rauser’s Latest Book (with a Contribution from Yours Truly)

Randal Rauser has written a new book, Is the Atheist My Neighbor? Rethinking Christian Attitudes Towards Atheism. Rauser's book is a model of philosophical charity. In the book, Rauser argues against Christian stereotypes of atheists, on both empirical and Biblical grounds. For this reason alone, I think all atheists should want this book.Here is a link to the the book at Amazon:LINKIn the spirit of full disclosure, I am not a neutral reviewer of this book because I am a contributor t … [Read more...]

William Rowe’s Fawn

I spotted this fawn this morning while walking my dog. Judging by the size and the wet fur on the top of the head, I'd guess it was born in the last day. It's bigger than my cats but smaller than my dog.The mother was nowhere to be seen, presumably off foraging for food. Hopefully she returns soon so that William Rowe doesn't have a new instance of his evidential argument from evil. … [Read more...]

Link: “The End of the Teapot Argument for Atheism (and All Its Tawdry Imitators)” by Mark F. Sharlow

Abstract: Atheists sometimes use Bertrand Russell’s teapot argument, and its variants with other objects in place of the teapot, to argue for the rationality of atheism. In this paper I show that this use of the teapot argument and its variants is unacceptably circular. The circularity arises because there is indirect evidence against the objects invoked in the arguments. LINKDisclaimer: I haven't read, much less evaluated this paper. Feel free to debate in the combox! … [Read more...]

LINK: Daniel Howard-Snyder’s New Critique of J.L. Schellenberg’s Argument from Non-Culpable Nonbelief

LINK … [Read more...]

Geisler & Turek Rebuttal, Part 7: Chapter 8

Chapter 8. Miracles: Signs of God or Gullibility?  As I read them, Geisler and Turek (G&T) seek to establish four points: (1) If God exists, then miracles are possible; (2) Hume's argument against the credibility of miracle claims is a failure; (3) miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as acts of God to confirm a word from God); and (4) we don’t observe Biblical-quality miracles today because such miracles are not needed to confirm a new revelation from G … [Read more...]

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...]