What Happened to Philo?

Is it just me or has it been a while since a new issue of Philo was published? (For those who didn't know: Philo  used to be subtitled, "The Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers." It was subsequently re-subtitled as "A Journal of Philosophy.") Also, I see that its website is now significantly different than it had been. It now appears to be setup using the "Open Journal System" (OJS) software. … [Read more...]

An Invitation to William Lane Craig

An Invitation to William Lane Craig             On May 23 and June 9, respectively, the Secular Web published revised versions of two of my three essays on the kalam cosmological argument that had previously been published on that website. Today, I have sent an e-mail letter to Dr. William Lane Craig requesting that he publicly respond to these essays for the reasons set forth in that letter. A copy of that letter appears below. The reader will please note that I informed Dr. Craig in my letter … [Read more...]

The Case for the Death of Jesus

I have written several posts about William Craig's "case" for the death of Jesus in his book The Son Rises. In those posts I showed that Craig made about 81 historical claims, but failed to provide any historical evidence for 85% of those claims, and provided only weak and dubious historical evidence for the other 15% of claims. In short, Craig provided solid historical evidence for ZERO of the 81 historical claims he makes in his "case" for the death of Jesus. He completely failed to show … [Read more...]

Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 8

In the first three paragraphs of William Craig's "case" for the claim that Jesus died on the cross, Craig makes 60 different historical claims, but provides only ONE piece of actual historical evidence for just ONE of the 60 historical claims. Furthermore, the one piece of historical evidence provided by Craig is irrelevant to the historical claim it was supposed to support, based on a modern scholarly translation of the Major Declamations.In paragraph four, Craig makes 22 historical … [Read more...]

Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 7

In the first three paragraphs of William Craig's "case" for the claim that Jesus died on the cross, Craig makes 60 different historical claims, but provides only ONE piece of actual historical evidence for just ONE of the 60 historical claims.Furthermore, in part 6 of this series we saw that the one piece of historical evidence provided by Craig was CRAP. Based on a modern scholarly translation of the passage in question, the evidence is simply irrelevant to the historical claim it was … [Read more...]

Boghossian: Publishing in Phil of Religion = Childish

I confess I had to do a double-take when I read the following tweet from Peter Boghossian. Being published in the philosophy of religion should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table.— Peter Boghossian (@peterboghossian) June 15, 2014 Notice what Boghossian is claiming. Boghossian is not just claiming that theists who have had books or articles published in the philosophy of religion should be disqualified from sitting at the adult table. His claim applies equally to nontheists who … [Read more...]

Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 6

William Craig claims that Jesus rose from the dead. In making this claim, Craig takes on a heavy burden of proof, including the burden to prove that Jesus actually died on the cross on Good Friday. However, in most of his books, articles, and debates, Craig simply ignores the question of whether Jesus actually died on the cross. So, it appears to me that Craig's case for the resurrection is a complete failure.However, in The Son Rises (hereafter TSR), Craig does make a brief attempt, in … [Read more...]

Some Logic in Swinburne’s Cosmological Argument

I have been struggling for the past week or two to make clear the logic behind one premise of Swinburne's cosmological argument. Perhaps those readers of The Secular Outpost who have an interest in logic or in Swinburne's arguments will be able to help me with this task.Actually, his inductive cosmological argument is very simple:1. A complex physical universe exists. Therefore: 2. God exists.It is not this argument that I am struggling to understand and clarify, but rather … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X