Aquinas’ Argument for the Existence of God – Part 6

A key part of Aquinas' argument for the existence of God in Summa Theologica is found in Question 14, Article 1: "Whether There Is Knowledge in God?".  In that article, Aquinas argues for the conclusion that "In God there exists the most perfect knowledge."  The word "God" here is a misleading translation, and I take this claim to mean the following:(MPK) In the first principle there exists the most perfect knowledge.Aquinas provides only ONE argument for this conclusion (at least in Summ … [Read more...]

Response to William Lane Craig – Part 15

Here is my main objection to William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus: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, Craig's case for the resurrection is a complete failure.Here is WLC's main reply to my … [Read more...]

Aquinas’ Argument for the Existence of God – Part 5

In order to prove that God exists, Aquinas must prove that there exists a being that has ALL of the following divine attributes:a person who is the creator of the universe an eternally bodiless person an eternally omnipotent person an eternally omniscient person an eternally perfectly morally good personI don't believe that Aquinas actually proves that there is a being with even just ONE of these key divine attributes, so I certainly don't believe that Aquinas proves that there i … [Read more...]

Aquinas’ Argument for the Existence of God – Part 4

NOTE: I began to reconstruct Aquinas' argument for the existence of God in the post I Don't Care - Part 4, and continued that effort in  I Don't Care - Part 5, and I Don't Care - Part 6.   I am changing the title of this series to better reflect the content, so I consider the previous posts numbered as Parts 4, 5, and 6 to constitute Parts 1, 2, and 3 (respectively) of this new series called "Aquinas' Argument for the Existence of God".  That is why I'm calling this post "Part 4".The first "h … [Read more...]

How to Think about Historical Evidence about Anything, Part 1: The Credibility of Testimony

Note: So far as I know, no one working in New Testament scholarship, apologetics, counter-apologetics, or ancient history is applying the concepts in this blog post. As will soon become obvious, most of the ideas in this blog post are not mine, but if other people find these techniques useful, I would appreciate being given credit for the idea to apply them outside of their source discipline. 1. Schumian Framework for Decomposition of the Credibility of Testimony Suppose witness W testifies E* … [Read more...]

Why Nobody Should Believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead

First of all, extradordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but there is only weak evidence that Jesus rose from the dead:The evidence that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and died on the cross on the same day he was crucified is weak. The evidence that Jesus was alive and walking around in Jerusalem less than 48 hours after he was crucified is weak. IF the evidence that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and died on the cross on the same day he was crucified is weak and the e … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 4

In the March Reasonable Faith Newsletter William Craig asserted this FALSE principle about valid deductive arguments that have premises that are probable:... in a deductive argument the probability of the premises establishes only a minimum probability of the conclusion: even if the premises are only 51% probable, that doesn’t imply that the conclusion is only 51% probable. It implies that the conclusion is at least 51% probable.There are a variety of natural tendencies that people have t … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 3

I had planned to discuss counterexamples (to Craig's principle) that were based on dependencies existing between the premises in some valid deductive arguments.  But I am putting that off for a later post, in order to present a brief analysis of some key concepts.It seems to me that an important part of understanding the relationship between valid deductive arguments and probability is keeping in mind the distincition between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. So, I'm going to d … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X