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...]

Response to William Lane Craig – Part 14

Here is my main objection to William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:In order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But in most of William Craig's various books, articles, and debates, he simply ignores this issue. He makes no serious attempt to show that it is an historical fact that Jesus died on the cross.  For that reason, Craig's case for the resurrection is a complete failure.Here is WLC's main reply to my … [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...]