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...]

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...]