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
February 10, 2016 by Leave a Comment
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...]
Weighing Theistic Evidence Against Naturalistic Evidence
February 10, 2016 by Leave a Comment
In the next-to-last paragraph of his book, C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, Victor Reppert makes a very interesting statement: However, I contend that the arguments from reason do provide some substantial reasons for preferring theism to naturalism. The "problem of reason" is a huge problem for reason, as serious or, I would say, more serious, than the problem of evil is for theists. (emphasis mine) I think this is a very interesting statement for two r … [Read more...]
Does God Exist? Part 2
February 8, 2016 by Leave a Comment
Here is a third option for breaking down the question "Does God exist?" (click on the image below to get a clearer view of the chart): This is a variation on Option 2 (see the previous post in this series).In this analysis I stick with the process of simply adding on divine attributes to the creator in order to build up to the full traditional concept of God, or something close to the full … [Read more...]
What is Christianity? Part 8
February 7, 2016 by Leave a Comment
I have a cognitivist view of religions, and of Christianity in particular.1. Christianity is something that can be true (or false).2. An experience is NOT something that can be true (or false).3. A feeling is NOT something that can be true (or false).4. A commitment is NOT something that can be true (or false).5. A relationship is NOT something that can be true (or false).Therefore:6. Christianity is NOT an experience, or a feeling, or a commitment, or a r … [Read more...]
Does God Exist? Part 1
February 6, 2016 by Leave a Comment
The overarching question for my ten-year plan is:Is Christianity true or false?After I clarify this overarching question, the first major question to investigate is this:Does God exist?I will, of course, at some point need to address the traditional arguments for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments). But I want my investigation to be systematic, and to avoid the problem of BIAS in the selection of arguments and evidence to be c … [Read more...]
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 11
February 2, 2016 by Leave a Comment
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...]
What is Christianity? Part 7
January 30, 2016 by Leave a Comment
In the previous post in this series, I argued that the Christian apologist James Sire makes a fundamental mistake in his book Naming the Elephant, by defining "a worldview" as being a kind of commitment. A worldview is something that can be true (or false), but a commitment is NOT something that can be true (or false); therefore, a worldview is NOT a commitment.One can have a strong belief or "intellectual commitment" towards a worldview, but in that case the worldview is the OBJECT of the … [Read more...]
Follow Patheos
Atheist: