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...]

William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson

The March Newsletter from Reasonable Faith just came out, and it includes a brief lesson in logic from William Lane Craig. However, the lesson presents a point that is clearly and obviously WRONG, and it promotes bad reasoning that could be used to rationalize UNREASONABLE beliefs.  It appears that WLC is himself in need of some basic lessons in logic.William Craig recently debated a professor of philosophy named Kevin Scharp at Ohio State University, and in the current Reasonable Faith … [Read more...]

Wes Morriston’s God and the Ontological Foundation of Morality

(Redated post originally published on 7 September 2012)Ouch!LINK … [Read more...]

I Don’t Care – Part 6

Aquinas is often thought of as a rigourously logical and systematic thinker.  This is only half-true.  There is a good deal of vaguness, ambiguity, and illogical thinking in his book Summa Theologica, as far as I can see.Here is a cautionary note from a philosopher who is an expert on Aquinas:From the concept of God as ipsum esse subsistens, Thomas deduces certain other properties which must belong to God [i.e. in order to prove that "God", in the ordinary sense of the word, exists].  T … [Read more...]

How Not to Debate ‘the’ Moral Argument: Reply to PZ Myers

(Redated post originally published on 8 June 2012)In a recent post, PZ Myers complains that a couple of atheists botched their response to 'the' moral argument for God's existence.[1] He writes: There is a common line of attack Christians use in debates with atheists, and I genuinely detest it. It’s to ask the question, “where do your morals come from?” I detest it because it is not a sincere question at all — they don’t care about your answer, they’re just trying to get you to say that you … [Read more...]

Christian Apologists Ignore the Best Objections to the Moral Argument

(Redated post originally published on 2 August 2014)To be precise, there are many kinds of moral arguments for theism. The question in the title is really talking about what we might call "ontological" or "metaphysical" moral arguments, the kind which claim that we need God in order to have an "ontological foundation" for objective or absolute morality.People who defend a version of this kind of argument include a veritable "Who's Who?" of contemporary Christian apologists: C.S. Lewis … [Read more...]

For Victor Reppert: The Metaethical Objections to Craig’s Moral Argument Which His Sophisticated Critics Use, But Craig Never Acknowledges in Debate Opening Statements

(Redated post originally published on 21 June 2012)This is a quick follow-up to my last reply to Victor Reppert. The title of Reppert's post is, "The Moral Argument that Christians don't use, but atheists always rebut." In reply, we can point to "The Metaethical Objections to Craig's Moral Argument Which His Sophisticated Critics Use, But Craig Never Acknowledges in Debate Opening Statements."LINK … [Read more...]

I Don’t Care – Part 5

The famous Five Ways passage by Aquinas in Summa Theologica does not contain five arguments for the existence of God. Rather, it contains ZERO arguments for the existence of God.  There is actually only one argument for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica, and the reasoning in the Five Ways passage only represents a tiny piece of that very long and complicated argument.The Five Ways passage presents arguments for these five metaphysical claims:(MC1) There exists a UFC being.   … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X