February 18, 2020

FIVE THEORIES ABOUT JESUS’ ALLEGED RESURRECTION In Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft identifies Five Theories concerned about “what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday…” : 1. Christianity: “the resurrection really happened” 2. Hallucination: “the apostles were deceived by a hallucination” 3. Myth: “the apostles created a myth, not meaning it literally” 4. Conspiracy: “the apostles were deceivers who conspired to foist on the world the most famous and successful lie in… Read more

February 15, 2020

OVERVIEW In Chapter 8 of his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA),  Peter Kreeft (and his co-author Ronald Tacelli), makes a case for the resurrection of Jesus.  He does so by attempting to “refute” or “disprove” four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view that God raised Jesus from the dead: Hallucination: “the apostles were deceived by a hallucination” Myth: “the apostles created a myth, not meaning it literally” Conspiracy: “the apostles were deceivers who conspired to… Read more

February 11, 2020

Edited on 15-Feb-20 While some theistic arguments are “God of the gaps” arguments, many, including those defended by Christian philosophers, are not “God of the gaps” arguments. Before accusing a theist of trotting out another “God-of-the-gaps” argument, atheists should first verify that the argument actually is a “God-of-the-gaps” argument. Here is the basic structure of a “God-of-the-gaps” argument: Some odd or puzzling thing, E, occurs or exists. Science is unable to offer a plausible, God-free explanation for E. Therefore, God… Read more

February 8, 2020

WHERE WE ARE Kreeft provides six sub-arguments in Objection #7. Three sub-arguments are given to support the key premises (B), (C), and (D), and in Part 20 I showed that those three sub-arguments FAIL to establish either (B) or (C) or (D), giving us three good and sufficient reasons to conclude that Objection #7 FAILS. The remaining three sub-arguments are given to support the key premise (E), and in Part 21 I showed that all three of those arguments FAIL… Read more

February 2, 2020

WHERE WE ARE In Part 20 of this series of posts I showed that Kreeft’s three sub-arguments supporting key premises (B), (C), and (D) of his core argument constituting Objection #7 (against the Swoon Theory) all FAIL, and that the failure of just one of those three sub-arguments is sufficient reason to conclude that Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory FAILS.  Thus, we have three good reasons, each sufficient by itself, to conclude that Objection #7 FAILS, just like Kreeft’s Objections #1,… Read more

February 1, 2020

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 I argued that three of the “six key facts” presented by Trump’s defense team are IRRELEVANT, and that another of the “six key facts” is relevant but INSIGNIFICANT, because based on the statements of politicians who had a strong vested interest in NOT telling the truth on this issue. In Part 2 I argued that one of the two remaining “key facts” is IRRELEVANT, so that at least four of the “six key facts”… Read more

January 28, 2020

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 of this series,  I argued that AT LEAST three out of  the “six key facts” that Trump’s defense team were focusing on in their case for Trump are IRRELEVANT to the main questions at issue, and that a fourth of those “six key facts” was relevant but INSIGNIFICANT because it is based on the statements of politicians who have a strong vested interest in not telling the truth on this question. In this post… Read more

January 27, 2020

This is not ENTIRELY off topic, because it involves thinking critically about reasons and arguments. I have extensive education and experience related to criticism of arguments, especially of really crappy arguments presented by Christian apologists. In this post I will criticize some really crappy arguments presented by Trump’s defense team. Here is a CNN article that I’m drawing quotes from: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/25/politics/fact-checking-opening-statements-by-trump-legal-team/index.html Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura focused on “six key facts”: President Donald Trump’s legal team kicked off their… Read more

January 24, 2020

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft has raised nine objections against The Swoon Theory, as part of his case attempting to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. In previous posts I have argued that his Objection #1, Objection #2, Objection #3, Objection #4, Objection #5, Objection #6, and Objection #8 all FAIL as objections against The Swoon Theory, and also FAIL as objections against the more general view that I call The Survival Theory.  None of those objections prove that the Swoon Theory is… Read more

January 21, 2020

KREEFT’S STATMENT OF OBJECTION #7 Here is Peter Kreeft’s statement of his Objection #7 against the Swoon Theory from Chapter 8 of  his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter referred to as HCA): How could a swooning half-dead man have moved the great stone at the door of the tomb? Who moved the stone if not an angel? No one has ever answered that question. Neither the Jews nor the Romans would move it, for it was in both their interests to… Read more

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives