Are Atheism and Moral Realism Logically Incompatible?

I am a regular reader of Victor Reppert's blog, Dangerous Idea. In the combox for one of his recent posts, Steve Hays claimed that atheism and moral realism are logically incompatible. I wrote a lengthy reply to Hays in the combox and have decided to republish it here.Before I republish my comments, I will make one general observation about moral arguments for God's existence.Theists often claim that the so-called 'problem of evil' (read: arguments from evil for atheism) and the o … [Read more...]

Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman’s Complete Failure – Part 1

I was recently asked to participate in a public discussion/debate about the question "Did Jesus Exist?".  I don't plan to argue in favor of the mythicist position, just because I don't think I would do it justice.  I'm not a mythicist, and I have not studied any mythicists in recent years (I read some of G.A. Wells books years ago, and I read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle some years ago).  But I do have significant doubts about the existence of Jesus, and especially about the strength of the hi … [Read more...]

Draft Paper on the Jewish Hearsay Testimony and the Empty Tomb

I wrote this about 10 years ago but never finished it. In light of recent discussions, however, I thought it might be of interest to some readers.Please do not cite without my permission.Jewish_Hearsay_Evidence_v1.0_DRAFT_1 … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig Admits that His Fine-Tuning Argument is Based Upon Speculation

In my last post, I reported that WLC has reached the same conclusion I have regarding the scale of the universe as evidence against theism. After re-reading his article, I realized I missed an even more important announcement. Although he would deny it, in the same article he also admits that his fine-tuning argument is based upon speculation. Here's the money quote: Indeed, once we launch into speculating about universes operating according to different laws of nature, then we have completely … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig Endorses My Argument from Scale against Theism!

He doesn't mention by name, of course, and may not have even had my argument in mind, but the sort of Bayesian considerations he raises support my Bayesian argument from scale, in two ways. First, he agrees with me about the "direction" the evidence points (against theism). Second, he agrees with me about the "magnitude" of that evidential support (very weak). (The words "direction" and "magnitude" are not Craig's words, but were inspired by David Schum, who pointed out long ago that evidence … [Read more...]

Naturalism, Theism, and Moral Ontology: A Reply to William Lane Craig

(Reposting since this seems to be so popular. So far as I am aware, neither WLC nor anyone else has responded to this.)Abstract: This paper considers William Lane Craig’s metaethical argument for God’s existence. Roughly, the argument is that the existence of objective moral values provides strong evidence for God’s existence. I consider one by one Craig’s various reasons in support of the argument’s major premise, namely, that objective moral values and the nonexistence of God are at odds wi … [Read more...]

Response to William Lane Craig – Part 15

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...]

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...]