Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 11: The Structure of Geisler’s Case

I'm going to take a step back in this post and look at the overall structure of Geisler's case for the existence of God, a presented in When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA).PHASE 1: GEISLER's FIVE WAYSOn pages 15 through 26, Geisler presents five arguments for five conclusions.  I call this Phase  1 of this case.  Here are the five conclusions of the five initial arguments:Something other than the universe caused the universe to begin to exist. Something is a first uncaused cause of … [Read more...]

Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 10: The Goodness of the Creator

REVIEW OF MY EVALUATION OF GEISLER'S CASE (SO FAR)In Phase 1 of his case for the existence of God, Norman Geisler presents five arguments for five different conclusions:There is exactly one being that caused the universe to begin to exist. There is exactly one being that has sustained the universe in existence until now. There is exactly one being that is the designer of the universe. There is exactly one being that is the supreme moral lawgiver. There is exactly one being that … [Read more...]

Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 9: The Supreme Moral Lawgiver

In Phase 1 of his case for the existence of God (in When Skeptics Ask, hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler argues for the existence of  a "supreme moral Lawgiver".  The argument goes like this (see WSA, p. 22):Geisler's Moral Argument32. There is an objective moral law.33. Moral laws imply a moral lawgiver.THEREFORE:34. There is a being that is the supreme moral lawgiver.Premise (32) is a controversial claim, and so a good reason or agument is needed to support this claim.   … [Read more...]

Does Theism Explain the Necessity of Moral Truths?

The book, Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew Debate, contains a transcript of the debate between William Lane Craig and Antony Flew, responses by eight commentators, and final responses by Craig and Flew. Many of the commentators, including some of the theists, sharply criticized Craig's moral argument for God's existence because, they argued, some moral truths are necessary truths and so do not need an explanation. Let's call this objection UNMT (for 'Unexplained Necessary Moral Truths').In his … [Read more...]

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...]

Quibbling over Semantics While Missing the Point

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm a linguistic relativist. I don't think words have objective meanings. I think the meaning of words is relative to time and place. So when I encounter someone who is adamant about defining a word in a different way than I do, I just shrug my shoulders. I'm much more interested in the concepts represented by certain labels than the labels themselves.I recently discovered (or re-discovered) an exchange on this site in which a Christian apologist … [Read more...]