Behe’s Continues to Ignore His Strongest Philosophical Critic

The blog Evolution News & Views just re-published a long essay written by Michael Behe in 2000 in which he responds to the philosophical objections of his critics. It's unfortunate, however, that Behe has never acknowledged his strongest philosophical critic, Purdue University philosopher Paul Draper. In 2002, Draper wrote a critique of Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, in the journal Faith and Philosophy. (Click here for a link to the paper's record at PhilPapers.org.) Draper's paper did ma … [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...]

Geisler’s First Argument

Norman Geisler's case for God appears to consist of five arguments for the existence of God.Here is my critique of the opening paragraph of Geisler's case, and my critique of his first argument for the existence of God:======================NOTE: I forgot that my plan was to put my posts on cases for God here at The Secular Oupost, and put my posts that are more specifically about Jesus and Christianity over on my own blog site.  So, I have moved my post about Geisler's first … [Read more...]

Cases for God

I'm thinking about which cases for the existence of God to focus in on, for my evaluation of Christianity.  Right now, I'm thinking about examining the cases of four well-known Christian apologists:Norman Geisler William Craig Peter Kreeft Richard SwinburneI just realized that two of these philosophers are Thomists, and two are not Thomists.Geisler is a conservative Evangelical Christian, but his favorite argument for God is a Thomist cosmological argument, and his concept of … [Read more...]

Is Christianity True?

As indicated in a previous post,  for the next four or five years I plan to focus on the question:Is Christianity true?I plan to do most of my Christianity-centered posts on my old Cross Examination blog site, where I have set up the initial logical structure of interconnected blog posts (including a number that only have titles and no content):https://crossexamination.blogspot.com/For the question "Does God exist?"  I will do most of the posts here at The Secular Outpost and wi … [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...]