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...]

What Explains God’s Moral Grounding Power? Part II

In an earlier article, I wrote about a question for divine command metaethics, a question that I called the Moral Grounding Question.Moral Grounding Question (MGQ): In virtue of what do God’s commands ground moral obligations? (or, in virtue of what does God have MG-power?)In that previous post, I explained the moral grounding question and showed that it is a question that defenders of the Divine Command Theory (DCT) need to answer. I also argued that one possible answer to MGQ, namely t … [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...]

Spot the Fallacy #2: Fine-Tuning and the Prior Probability of Theism

Note: This post is another post in our series of articles designed to engage non-philosophers. Despite the title, you don't need to literally name a fallacy assuming there is one. What these posts are really designed to do is to get you to describe, in plain English, why the argument (or objection) presented isn't successful.Instructions:1. Read William Lane Craig's Q&A here.2. If you are not a philosopher, explain in the combox why his response doesn't work. … [Read more...]

What is Faith? – Part 5

We have been examining the Thomist view of faith, as characterized by Richard Swinburne in Faith and Reason (FAR).In order to avoid the implication that one must reason in a circle in order to have 'faith in God', a supporter of the Thomist view of faith can draw a distinction between beliefs about God that are implied by the statement 'God exists' and other beliefs about God that are NOT implied by this claim.  For a Thomist, belief in the existence of God is (or can be) based on reasons or … [Read more...]

On Atheism and Brightness

I'm often told that atheists are really smart when it comes to religion. Then I read their replies to moral arguments for God's existence and cry out, "WTF?"Take this argument: If no G, then no O. But O. Therefore, G.Why the f&*^ would anyone think it's even relevant to bring up X, Y, or Z?!?!?Unlike some religious apologists, I don't believe the explanation is either (1) atheists are willfully repressing the truth of God's existence, or (2) atheists are stupid. Rather, my … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X