In my humble opinion, the question “Does God exist?” is best answered by taking a particular approach: We should answer this question by means of philosophical investigation, especially by critical examination of philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. However, this is NOT the only way to approach the question “Does God exist?”. Here are a couple of alternative ways of answering this question: 2. Believe whatever religious or ideological ideas make you feel happy and content. 3. Try… Read more
March 30, 2020
Does God Exist? Part 3: Believe Whatever Makes You Happy
March 30, 2020 By Bradley Bowen
0 Comments
March 17, 2020
Does God Exist? Part 2: Believe What You Were Raised to Believe
March 17, 2020 By Bradley Bowen
0 Comments
In my humble opinion, the question “Does God exist?” is best answered by taking a particular approach: We should answer this question by means of philosophical investigation, especially by critical examination of philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. However, this is NOT the only way to approach the question “Does God exist?”. Here is an alternative way of answering this question: 1. Believe whatever religion or worldview you were raised to believe. Although this may seem like an… Read more
March 11, 2020
Does God Exist? Part 1: How Should We Answer this Question?
March 11, 2020 By Bradley Bowen
0 Comments
ANSWERING THE QUESTION “DOES GOD EXIST?” THROUGH PHILOSOPHY How should we answer the question “Does God exist?” ? Having studied philosophy as an undergraduate at Sonoma State University, and having studied philosophy as a graduate student at the University of Windsor, and then having studied philosophy for a number of years more at UC Santa Barbara, the way to approach this question seems obvious to me: We should answer this question by means of philosophical investigation, especially by critical examination… Read more
March 3, 2020
Arguments For God that are Arguments Against God
March 3, 2020 By Bradley Bowen
0 Comments
GOD AND CONFIRMATION BIAS There is a theme in Jeff Lowder’s case for Naturalism: the thinking of religious believers is often distorted by confirmation bias. They look for evidence that supports their belief in God, but ignore, or forget, or fail to notice, evidence that goes against their belief in God. When believers offer some reason or evidence for the existence of God, it is often the case that if you look a little closer at that evidence, or take a step… Read more
February 29, 2020
Three Ways to Approach Christianity
February 29, 2020 By Bradley Bowen
0 Comments
DIFFERENT WAYS TO APPROACH CHRISTIANITY There is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to divide a pie. There are three approaches to the analysis and evaluation of Christianity that I have noticed, and they each have different advantages and disadvantages: The Christian-Apologetics Approach The Philosophical Approach The Problem-Solving Approach I’m sure there are other approaches besides these three, but these three appear to be useful and worth knowing about. The Problem-Solving approach and… Read more
February 22, 2020
The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 2: MANY Skeptical Theories
February 22, 2020 By Bradley Bowen
0 Comments
WHERE WE ARE 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 history” 5. Swoon: … Read more
February 18, 2020
The Complete FAILURE of Peter Kreeft’s Case for the Resurrection – Part 1: Three Serious Problems
February 18, 2020 By Bradley Bowen
0 Comments
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
Defending the Swoon Theory – INDEX
February 15, 2020 By Bradley Bowen
0 Comments
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
An F-Inductive Argument from Consciousness for Theism, Revisited
February 11, 2020 By Jeffery Jay Lowder
0 Comments
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
Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 22: Swoon Theory Implies Other False Theories
February 8, 2020 By Bradley Bowen
0 Comments
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
get the latest from
The Secular Outpost
Sign up for our newsletter
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
