The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 3

Logic of Resurrection Apologetic

The logic of the resurrection apologetic goes roughly like this: NOTE: This does not represent Swinburne's case for the resurrection.  It is a rough representation of a case for the resurrection that follows the general logic laid out by Swinburne (constituting a three-legged stool).==============KEY TO DIAGRAM(DOC) Jesus died on the cross on the same day he was crucified.(JAW) Jesus was alive and walking around (unassisted) about 48 hours after he was … [Read more...]

Link: Massimo Pigliucci’s “Reflections on the Skeptic and Atheist Movements”

LINK … [Read more...]

The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 2

Case for Resurrection

The two most important writings on the resurrection of Jesus are, IMHO, Richard Swinburne's book The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003; hereafter: ROGI), especially the Introduction (pages 1-6), and Theodore Drange's short article "Why Resurrect Jesus?" in the collection of skeptical essays The Empty Tomb, edited by Robert Price and our fearless leader Jeff Lowder (Prometheus Books, 2005; hereafter: TET).   [Please feel free to disagree, and/or to offer your own … [Read more...]

The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 1

In thinking about the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus, one needs to either determine an answer to this very basic question:Q1: Does God exist?Or else one needs to determine some sort of approach to how this question is to be dealt with in relation to the two key questions about the resurrection:Q2: Did Jesus rise from the dead?andQ3: Did God raise Jesus from the dead?If one determines that there is no God, then the answer to (Q3) is obviously: NO.  Also, i … [Read more...]

What is Faith? – Part 7

I'm going to take a detour and temporarily set Mr. Swinburne's characterization of the Thomist view of faith aside.  But I will continue to examine the Thomist view of faith, specifically as presented by Dr. Norman Geisler.As Jeff Lowder has recently shown, Dr. Geisler's case for Christianity is a failure.  IMHO Jeff won that match with a K.O. of Geisler in the very first round: Let’s suppose, but only for the sake of argument, that the following evidence favors theism over atheism, i.e. … [Read more...]

Some Thoughts on Naturalism and Morality

It is supposed, by some, to be difficult for naturalism to account for moral properties (both axiological properties like goodness and badness and deontic properties like rightness and wrongness). William Lane Craig and Paul Copan, have each argued incessantly that naturalism cannot account for moral properties. Craig has offered the following argument:If God does not exist, then objective moral value does not exist. Objective moral value does  exist. God exists.This argument has … [Read more...]

What is Faith – Part 6

I have noticed a problem of unclarity in my own thinking and writing about the Thomist view of faith.  Before I go further in discussing Swinburne's characterization of the Thomist view of faith, I want to briefly consider the point of unclarity or ambiguity in my previous discussion of this view of faith. I have been sliding too easily over the distinction between possibility and necessity concerning the role of reasons and arguments in the Thomist view of faith.Aquinas believes that it is … [Read more...]

What is Faith? – Part 4

We have looked at a simple and widespread understanding of 'faith in God':Definition 1Person P has faith in God IF AND ONLY IF  P believes that God exists.One problem with Def. 1 is that the devil himself would have 'faith in God' based on this definition, and thus this could hardly be considered  to be a virtue, to be the kind of faith that is commended by the Christian religion.According to Swinburne (in Faith and Reason, 2nd ed., hereafter: FAR), the Thomist view of faith is si … [Read more...]