Matthew Ferguson: Knocking Out the Pillars of the “Minimal Facts” Apologetic (2013)

I have only skimmed this article, but it appears to be a very comprehensive rebuttal to the "minimal facts" apologetics favored by several Christian apologists, including Licona, Habermas, and Craig.LINKNote: as always, links do not necessarily constitute endorsement.We'd love to know what you think of the article. Please feel free to debate in the combox below. … [Read more...]

The Evidential Argument from Biological Evolution, Part 2: Is Evolution Evidence for Theism?

Let's begin reviewing the logical form of the argument, as described in Part 1 of this series. (1) Evolution is antecedently much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than on the assumption that theism is true. (2) The statement that pain and pleasure systematically connected to reproductive success is antecedently much more probable on the assumption that evolutionary naturalism is true than on the assumption that evolutionary theism is true. (3) Therefore, evolution … [Read more...]

Christian Debaters

[Read more...]

William Lane Craig Complains Dawkins Won’t Debate Him, but Touts Debate in Credentials?

It's well known that William Lane Craig attempted to arrange a debate with Richard Dawkins in England; Dawkins refused; and then Craig, not to mention numerous others, criticized Dawkins for his refusal to debate Craig.I recently discovered this page on the website of Houston Baptist University. It appears to be a press release dated February 4, 2014. I have no idea how much input Craig had into the content of the release and if he approved it before it was published, but I read the … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig’s Silly Response to the Hostility of Life

In his most recent post on the Q&A section of his website, William Lane Craig responds to an objection to his version of the fine-tuning argument. Talking about the fine-tuning argument, Tyson said: Most places in the universe will kill life instantly - instantly! People say, 'Oh, the forces of nature are just right for life.' Excuse me. Just look at the volume of the universe where you can't live. You will die instantly.” In response to Tyson, Craig calls this objection "silly" and c … [Read more...]

Massimo Pigliucci on Metaethics, Part 1

William Lane Craig and Massimo Pigliucci debated the existence of God in 1998. (Click here to read the transcript.) In his opening statement, Craig presented his standard moral argument for God's existence. (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (2) Objective values do exist. (3) Therefore, God exists. In his opening statement, Pigliucci denied (2). Finally, the problem of morality, which I'm sure we'll have more to say about--oh yeah, I agree with Dr. Craig when he … [Read more...]

Christian Apologists Ignore the Best Objections to the Moral Argument

To be precise, there are many kinds of moral arguments for theism. The question in the title is really talking about what we might call "ontological" or "metaphysical" moral arguments, the kind which claim that we need God in order to have an "ontological foundation" for objective or absolute morality.People who defend a version of this kind of argument include a veritable "Who's Who?" of contemporary Christian apologists: C.S. Lewis (see here and here), Alvin Plantinga (see here and here), W … [Read more...]

Hard-Hitting Critique of WLC’s Moral Argument by John Danaher “Necessary Moral Truths and Theistic Metaethics”

To be precise, this paper applies to WLC's moral argument for God's existence as follows.1. WLC argues that God exists because objective moral values and duties exist.2. Critics (theist, agnostic, and atheist) of WLC's moral argument have pointed out that, according to one version of moral realism, moral truths are necessary truths. Necessary truths neither have nor need an explanation. Therefore, God isn't needed to explain necessary moral truths and, hence, isn't needed to explain o … [Read more...]