SKEPTICISM Skepticism is the denial of knowledge.  Universal skepticism denies the possibility of any kind of knowledge, or the actual existence of any kind of knowledge.  Qualified forms of skepticism deny the possibility of knowledge in particular areas, or the actual existence of knowledge in particular areas, such as religious knowledge or knowledge of the future. Knowledge is traditionally understood to be Justified True Belief, because one can have a true belief by accident or luck, but such true beliefs… Read more

SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE RESURRECTION 1. Nobody KNOWS that supernatural beings exist. 2. Nobody KNOWS that supernatural events occur. 3. Nobody KNOWS that God exists. 4. Nobody KNOWS that miracles occur. 5. Nobody KNOWS that Jesus existed. 6. Nobody KNOWS that Jesus died on the cross. 7. Nobody KNOWS that Jesus was alive on Easter morning. 8. Nobody KNOWS that Jesus rose from the dead. 9. Nobody KNOWS that God raised Jesus from the dead.   IMPROBABILITY OF THE RESURRECTION 10…. Read more

THE INITIAL INFERENCE IN ARGUMENT #4 In Part 19,  I argued that the initial inference or sub-argument in Argument #4 (the Argument from Degrees of Perfection) of Peter Kreeft’s case for God is very unclear, and that based on my best guess at what the premises of that sub-argument mean, one premise begs the question at issue by assuming that God exists, and another premise is too vague to be useful in a proof of the existence of God.  So,… Read more

The initial inference or sub-argument in Argument #4 of Peter Kreeft’s case for God is based on three premises, and all three premises are very UNCLEAR: A. These degrees of perfection pertain to being. B. Being is caused in finite creatures. 1a. IF these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, THEN there exists a source and real standard of all the perfections that pertain to being. THEREFORE: C. There exists a source and real… Read more

Unless you’ve been in a cave, you’ve heard by now the news that Stephen Hawking died. Richard Dawkins recently tweeted about an alleged Christian, going by the pseudonym positiva.tea, who described Hawking’s suffering in Hell. Hate at this pathological level demands explanation beyond the obvious low intelligence. I suggest that Godnuts are secretly unconfident of their beliefs & mortally terrified they might be wrong. This translates into hyper-extreme hate of anyone who credibly boosts their doubts. — Richard Dawkins… Read more

William F. Buckley Jr. died ten years ago last week. For decades, his polysyllabic punditry set the gold standard for conservative controversialists. As a true-blue liberal, I generally disagreed with him, often passionately, but I always admired and appreciated his trenchant intelligence. He might have described his own style as “Often mordant; occasionally vituperative; never opprobrious.” (Actually, he got pretty opprobrious in his infamous exchange with Gore Vidal!) Surely Buckley is spinning in his grave considering what has happened to… Read more

In Part 17, I analyzed the logical structure of Peter Kreeft’s Argument #4, the Argument from Degrees of Perfection.  That clarification of the logic of this argument, however, is not sufficient to make it possible to rationally evaluate this argument.  The meanings of each and every premise in Argument #4 are UNCLEAR, making it impossible to rationally evaluate the argument as it stands.   SERIOUS UNCLARITY IN PREMISES (A) and (B) Consider premise (A): A. These degrees of perfection pertain… Read more

MOVING ON TO KREEFT’S VERSION In Peter Kreeft’s case for God, in Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), his fourth argument is based on the fourth way of Aquinas.  Kreeft’s Argument #4 is the Argument from Degrees of Perfection.  Because Aquinas’s version of this argument is clearer and more straightforward than Kreeft’s version, I began by analyzing and evaluating Aquinas’s fourth way (see Part 16 of this series).  I discovered some serious problems with Aquinas’s version of… Read more

WHERE WE ARE AT WITH THE FIRST FIVE ARGUMENTS For the first five arguments in his case for God, Peter Kreeft makes use of the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas.  Kreeft’s versions of four of those Five Ways are complete failures, because he does not bother to provide any support for the most important premises of those arguments.  Thus, we can reasonably toss aside Argument #1, Argument #2, Argument #3, and Argument #5, for this reason alone. Kreeft does slightly… Read more

EVALUATION OF KREEFT’S CASE SO FAR In Part 1 through Part 8, I reviewed the last ten arguments in Peter Kreeft’s case for God in Chapter 3 his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), and I concluded in Part 9 that they provided ZERO evidence for the existence of God: Of the last ten arguments in Kreeft’s case,  I have shown that eight arguments (80%) were AWFUL arguments that are unworthy of serious consideration.  Only two of these ten arguments seemed worthy of… Read more

Follow Us!

Browse Our Archives