Adamson’s Cru[de] Arguments for God – Part 2

If you are meeting someone for the first time, it is a good idea to put your best foot forward, to be polite, kind, positive, and friendly.  If you are trying to persuade someone to take the idea that there is a God seriously, it would be a good idea to put your best foot forward, to lay out some of your best and strongest arguments right up front.But in her article "Is There a God?" Marilyn Adamson puts forward some obviously illogical and defective arguments for the existence of God at the … [Read more...]

Adamson’s Cru[de] Arguments for God – Part 1

I was bored one night a few weeks ago and did a Google search on "Does God exist". One of the top hits that came back was for this webpage:http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.htmlThis webpage contains an article written by Marilyn Adamson, called "Is There a God?", which according to the sub-title presents "six straightforward reasons to believe that God is really there."  According to the "About" page the EveryStudent.com website is sponsored by "an interdenominational C … [Read more...]

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...]

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...]

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...]

William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 2

I admit it.  I enjoyed pointing out that William Lane Craig had made a major blunder in his recent discussion of the logic of deductive arguments (with premises that are probable rather than certain).However, there are a variety of natural tendencies that people have to reason poorly and illogically when it comes to reasoning about evidence and probability.  The fact that a sharp philosopher who is very experienced in presenting and analyzing arguments could make such a goof just goes to sh … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X