Summary of the Craig-Parsons Debate, “Why I Am/Am Not a Christian”

(Redated post originally published on 14 October 2011)This is a repost of a debate summary I wrote a long time ago. (I think I wrote this in 1998.) While I tried to be accurate, I don't claim this summary is perfect. If anyone identifies any errors, omissions, or anything else that requires editing, please feedback alerting me so I can fix the summary accordingly.One thing you will notice is that I tried use a consistent numbering scheme throughout the different speeches, to make it … [Read more...]

RESPONSE TO STEPHEN T. DAVIS ON RESURRECTION AND HALLUCINATION

(Redated post originally published on 13 October 2011)I don't recall whether I ever posted this on SO. Prof. Stephen T. Davis did a review of The Empty Tomb edited by Jeff Lowder and Bob Price (Prometheus Books, 2005). In this review, he made some critical remarks about my contribution to the book, and the following is my response to Davis:The portion of Stephen T. Davis’s review that relates to my “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” is the fourth critique of th … [Read more...]

Botched Response to The Empty Tomb

(Redated post on 24 October 2011)(This article was written in 2005 or 2006, but sat in my Drafts folder while I was inactive.)Robert M. Price and I are the co-authors of a skeptical anthology on the alleged historicity of the resurrection of Jesus entitled The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. Steve Hays recently wrote a book-length rebuttal to our book entitled, This Joyful Eastertide. When I first heard about this rebuttal, I have to confess I skipped directly to Hays' rebuttal … [Read more...]

Response to William Lane Craig – Part 12

Here is my main objection to William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:It is not possible for a person to rise from the dead until AFTER that person has actually died. Thus, in order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But in most of William Craig's various books, articles, and debates, he simply ignores this issue. He makes no serious attempt to show that it is an historical fact that Jesus died on the cross.  For that reason, … [Read more...]

I Don’t Care – Part 4

I have previously argued that, contrary to popular opinion, there are ZERO arguments for the existence of God in the famous Five Ways passage by Aquinas in Summa Theologica (Part I, Question 2, Article 3: Whether God Exists?).Now I'm getting into what I do care about, namely the ACTUAL argument(s) that Aquinas gives to prove the existence of God.  Here is one argument (possibly the only one) for the existence of God from Summa Theologica:THE IES ARGUMENT(MC3) There exists an IES be … [Read more...]

I Don’t Care – Part 3

According to the Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft, and many others, Aquinas gives five different arguments for the existence of God.  In the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (IVP, 1994; hereafter: HCA) by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, there is a chapter that lays out twenty different arguments for the existence of God, and the first five arguments are versions of Aquinas' Five Ways:A word about the organization of the arguments.  We have organized them into two basic groups: those wh … [Read more...]

I Don’t Care – Part 2

OK. Maybe I care just a little bit.I summarized my complaint against Aquinas' Five Ways this way (in response to a comment from Jeff Lowder):I'm just pointing out that (a) NONE of the Five Ways is an argument for the existence of God as it stands (in the section called "Whether God Exists?"), and (b) in order to make use of any of the Five Ways as an argument for the existence of God, there is a serious amount of intellectual effort required to fill the logical gap that is located in the … [Read more...]

I Don’t Care

Thomas Aquinas pulled a classic BAIT-AND-SWITCH move in Summa Theologica: “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”“Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” “Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X