Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 8: The Design of the Human Brain

The third argument in Phase 2 of Geisler's case for God is another development of his argument from design, and it has many of the same problems as the second argument in Phase 2.   Here is the third argument, sticking closely to the words used by Geisler:ARGUMENT #3 of PHASE 2  26. God designed our brains. (WSA, p.26)  27. IF God designed our brains, THEN God knows everything there is to know about the way we think.  (WSA, p.26)THUS:  28. God knows everything there is to … [Read more...]

A Very Rough Sketch of an Objection to Quentin Smith’s Argument for Moral Realism

In his book, Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language, Quentin Smith defends an argument for moral realism which he calls the argument from veridical seeming. (1)  Ordinary ethical sentences and commonsense first-level moral beliefs imply moral realism (or “Moral realism tacitly seems to be true in ordinary commonsense moral attitudes”). (2)  There are no empirical or a priori reasons to believe that first-level moral beliefs are all false.(3)  Therefore, it is m … [Read more...]

G&T Rebuttal, Part 5: Chapter 6

Chapter 6. New Life Forms: From the Goo to You via the Zoo?  Drawing upon the work of sophisticated Intelligent Design (ID) theorists such as William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Jonathan Wells, this chapter uses many of the state-of-the art Intelligent Design (ID) arguments against evolution by natural selection. It also defends ID against various objections.(i) Objections to Natural Selection: G&T argue that macroevolution is defeated by the following objections: (a) genetic … [Read more...]

G&T Rebuttal, Part 4: Chapter 5

Chapter 5. The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe?  In this chapter, G&T defend a design argument focused on the first life. They also present a variety of objections to scientism and materialism.I will provide a very brief summary of their points, before providing my critique.(i) Argument to Design of the First Life: G&T argue that the origin of the first life is evidence favoring theism over naturalism. They emphasize the following points:  (1) all life, including … [Read more...]

G&T Rebuttal, Part 3: Chapter 4

Chapter 4. Divine Design  G&T provide a brief introduction to what they call ‘the’ Teleological Argument, which they formulate as follows.1. Every design had a designer. 2. The universe has a highly complex design. 3. Therefore, the universe had a Designer. (95)Like the cosmological argument, this argument is deductively valid. Again, my plan is to provide a very brief summary of G&T’s defense of this argument, before providing some critical comments of my own.(i) … [Read more...]

Index: Draper’s Evidential Argument from Biological Evolution

The purpose of this page is to provide an index for my blog series on Paul Draper's evidential argument against theism based on biological evolution.Part 1: a summary of the argument Part 2: a critical assessment of William Lane Craig's attempt to turn the tables on Draper and argue that evolution is evidence favoring theism over naturalism.See also:Summary and Assessment of the Craig-Draper Debate on the Existence of God (1998) "Religious Experience and the Evidential Argument … [Read more...]

Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 4

This post is part of a series on Paul Draper’s classic version of the evidential argument from evil. In the previous entry, I summarized Draper's refutation of three theodicies which might be used as an objection to the claim that HI explains the facts about the biological role of pain and pleasure much better than T does. In this post, I'm going to review the final section of Draper's classic 1989 article on the evidential argument from evil.1. Darwin's Argument from EvilIn the final se … [Read more...]

The Evidential Argument from Biological Evolution: Part 1

Many conservative Christians and lay atheists alike claim that if biological evolution is true, then God does not exist. Ironically, while many conservative Christians have attacked evolution because it supposedly entails atheism, only one contemporary atheist philosopher has argued that evolution is evidence for atheism: Paul Draper.Draper defends an evidential argument from evolution for naturalism. In other words, Draper's argument does not claim that evolution is logically inconsistent … [Read more...]