Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 3: Just ONE Argument

Although, as I have previously argued, Geisler characterizes his case for God as consisting of multiple arguments for the existence of God,  this is a mischaracterization of his case for God.   Geisler's case for God rests upon five claims, and he gives an argument for each  of those five claims, but each of those five claims plays a critical role in Geisler's case.  If one of the five claims is false, then Geisler's case for the existence of God FAILS.  Thus, Geisler's case for God consists of … [Read more...]

Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 2: How Many Arguments for God?

In Chapter  2 of When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler appears to present five different arguments for the existence of God.  However, there are some significant problems with this characterization of Geisler's case for God.   NONE of the five arguments end with the conclusion that "God exists".  In fact, only his first argument even mentions the word "God", and it is precisely the reference to "God" in the conclusion of his first argument that makes that argument logically invalid … [Read more...]

Geisler’s Five Ways

Norman Geisler is a Thomist.  His case for the existence of God is basically a simplified, clarified, and somewhat modified version of the case for God made by Thomas Aqinas in Summa Theologica.  Geisler borrows the basic logical structure of the case for God made by Aquinas, as well as some of the specific sub-arguments of Aquinas.The standard view of Aquinas has it that Aquinas presents Five Ways or five arguments for the existence of God.  Geisler apparently accepts this standard view of A … [Read more...]

Geisler’s First Argument

Norman Geisler's case for God appears to consist of five arguments for the existence of God.Here is my critique of the opening paragraph of Geisler's case, and my critique of his first argument for the existence of God:======================NOTE: I forgot that my plan was to put my posts on cases for God here at The Secular Oupost, and put my posts that are more specifically about Jesus and Christianity over on my own blog site.  So, I have moved my post about Geisler's first … [Read more...]

Was the Buddha Enlightened? (part 2)

A previous post (part 1) raised the question of whether or not there is good reason to think that the Buddha was enlightened. In that post, I mainly focused on the doctrine of karmic rebirth, pointing out that at least in early Buddhism, liberation from karmic rebirth is one of the things that the Buddha is said to achieved at the moment of his enlightenment. But if there is no karmic rebirth, then the Buddha was not enlightened — at least not in the sense in which his enlightenment was p … [Read more...]

Cases for God

I'm thinking about which cases for the existence of God to focus in on, for my evaluation of Christianity.  Right now, I'm thinking about examining the cases of four well-known Christian apologists:Norman Geisler William Craig Peter Kreeft Richard SwinburneI just realized that two of these philosophers are Thomists, and two are not Thomists.Geisler is a conservative Evangelical Christian, but his favorite argument for God is a Thomist cosmological argument, and his concept of … [Read more...]

What is Christianity? Part 17: Worldviews as “Master Stories”?

James Sire comes from an Evangelical Christian point of view, so for him the miracle stories in the Gospels are crucial to the Christian worldview, especially the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Jesus.  Belief in such miracles are indeed part of ancient Christian Creeds that are still used in most Protestant and Catholic worship services and are part of many catechisms, both Protestant and Catholic.In Chapter 5 of Naming the Elephant (hereafter: NTE), Sire points to the Apostles' Creed … [Read more...]

Debate: The Evidence for Jesus from the Talmud – Wrap-Up Comments

I summarized Joe Hinman's argument from the external evidence of the Talmud this way:1. There are MANY references to Jesus in the Talmud that were censored but that were preserved in some texts. 2. There are A FEW references to Jesus in the Talmud that were not censored. 3. ALL of the references to Jesus in the Talmud speak of Jesus in a way that assumes or implies that Jesus was a flesh‐and‐blood historical figure. 4. IF (1), (2), and (3) are true, THEN the external evidence from the Talm … [Read more...]