Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 4

In this post, I'm going to comment on Schieber's' first rebuttal.Schieber's First RebuttalIn defense of his argument from divine lies, Schieber writes: As to my argument against Christian knowledge, Mr. Andrews replies that he knows God is essentially truthful – that it is impossible for God to lie because it logically contradicts his moral perfection. The problem here is that nothing about moral perfection logically entails always telling the truth. While lying is usually seen as a m … [Read more...]

Did Jesus Exit? – Part 13

I have taken a quick look at the L-source passages in Luke, and my conclusion is that the L source does represent Jesus as a flesh-and-blood person. So, Bart Ehrman is clearly the winner of the first round. But there are several more rounds to go before I will have enough facts and data to make a reasonable general conclusion about whether and to what extent the sources of the canonical gospels support the Minimal Jesus Hypothesis (MJH), and then after that we need to look at the non-canonical … [Read more...]

Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 1

Christian Max Andrews and Atheist Justin Schieber recently had a debate on the existence of the Christian god. Both audio and a transcript are available online. I think it's well worth listening to or reading. In what follows, I want to offer my initial impressions of both debaters' opening statements.Max Andrews' Case for Christian TheismAndrews offers three arguments for Christian theism: (1) the Thomistic Cosmological Argument; (2) a fine-tuning argument; and (3) an explanatory … [Read more...]

Did Jesus Exit? – Part 12

Back in Part 10, I took a look at Mark and (in the Comments section) Q, and determined that they both represent Jesus as a flesh-and-blood person. Now I'm looking into the M-source, the unique material used by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, to see whether M also represents Jesus as a flesh-and-blood person.One problem with M, at least in terms of the material that G.D. Kilpatrick concluded was from M (in Origins of the Gospel of St. Matthew, 1946), is that it does not include … [Read more...]

God as a ‘Necessary Being’ – Part 4

Previously, I argued that it is not possible to become eternal. Recall that a person P is eternal if and only if P has always existed and P will always continue to exist. Here is a step-by-step proof showing that it is impossible for a person to become eternal:<------------|-----------|-------------->................t1...........t21. At time t1 person P is NOT eternal AND at a later moment t2 P is eternal. (supposition for indirect proof/reduction to absurdity)2. At time t1 … [Read more...]

Richard Schoenig’s New Paper: “Objective Ethics Without Religion”

Abstract: Theists frequently aver that atheism is incompatible with moral realism (the view that there are objective moral facts). This paper defends a justifiable objective moral code, termed ethical rationalism (ER), that does not depend on the existence of any supernatural being. ER is a seven-principle moral code comprising two general prescriptions: do not harm others and help them whenever feasible. It is argued that ER (and hence objective morality) is justified by the fact that all moral … [Read more...]

Craig’s Defense of Moral Objectivity in his Moral Argument for God’s Existence

William Lane Craig's moral argument for God's existence is as follows.(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.(2) But objective moral values and duties do exist.(3) Therefore, God exists.In defense of (2), Craig offers an appeal to intuition. Here's an excerpt from one of his debate opening statements: But the fact is that objective moral values do exist, and we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective existence of moral … [Read more...]

Bobier’s New Paper on the Kalam Argument: “God, Time, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument”

Christopher Alan Bobier, "God, Time, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument", Sophia (May 2013).Here's the abstract:The Kalām cosmological argument deploys the following causal principle: whatever begins to exist has a cause. Yet, under what conditions does something ‘begin to exist’? What does it mean to say that ‘X begins to exist at t’? William Lane Craig has offered and defended various accounts that seek to establish the necessary and sufficient conditions for when something ‘begins to … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X