A while ago, I wrote about Swinburne's case for the existence of God, particularly as set out in his 1979 book. I shouldn’t have called his case “ridiculous” because that’s hyperbolic and unprofessional. In fact, I was technically incorrect to an extent, even though I think part of my objection still stands. I said that Swinburne …
Of all the attributes of God, I don’t know of one that’s more gratuitously controversial than divine impassibility (with the possible exception of divine simplicity). What I’ve found among many theologians is that they never define their terms, and this is also seen in popular theological and philosophical debates. This leads to awkward and angry …
I’ve previously brought up an objection to “the” Argument From The Resurrection, specifically as it relates to William Lane Craig’s version of the argument. My objection centered on the fact that Craig cherry-picks or ignores facts that don’t fit his resurrection hypothesis–or don’t fit the resurrection hypothesis better than an alternative hypothesis. One such fact …
Continue reading Ramified Natural Theology And The Ascension of Christ
Naturally, I’m skeptical of logical/deductive arguments for and against the existence of God. One such argument, against the existence of God, alleges that:1). If God exists, then other omnipotent/omnibenevolent beings are the only beings that exist2). Other omnipotent/omnibenevolent beings are not the only beings that exist3). Therefore, God does not existThe obvious objection is that …
Continue reading Can God Create Another Omnipotent & Omnibenevolent Being?
An inference to the best explanation case against Platonism.
I've picked on Protestant apologist Alvin Plantinga a lot before for his asinine claims and Roman Catholic apologist Edward Feser for his claims that have more gall than a gallbladder, but I haven't addressed Eastern Orthodox apologist Richard Swinburne as much. They're all supposed to be professional Philosophers, but often they read like Christian apologists. …
Continue reading Swinburne’s Ridiculous Probability Argument for the Existence of God
I don't have a Ph.D., nor do I claim that I have some special knowledge. But it is interesting when I hear laymen talk about certain philosophical topics like abortion or God. I say it's interesting because a lot of the public discourse around these topics seems to be outdated by 50 years, as if …
Firstly, I don't think character-building is a good thing in itself. I think it's only instrumentally good. But let's give the character-building theodicy a bit of a break and see where it takes us.It doesn't explain instances of suffering where someone is crushed by suffering.It doesn't explain instances of suffering caused by nature-i.e. natural evil.It …
Continue reading Some quick thoughts on the “character-building” theodicy
I've been critical of Edward Feser and his sycophants a lot in the past (for good reasons). While I've been too lazy to write a book on Edward Feser's philosophy, others were kind enough to do so, like Gunther Laird. Laird brilliantly and humorously demonstrates that, contrary to what Feser and his followers claim, natural …
Continue reading A Review of ‘The Unnecessary Science: A Critical Analysis of Natural Law Theory’
Amidst all that is going on now with Covid-19 and the markets/economy, I feel this post is timely (1). Also, I found this forum recently discussing my original article that I wrote over two years ago about the omnipotence of God and economic competition. As a reminder, here is my argument: 1. It is a …
J.L. Schellenberg has written about the pragmatic benefits of 'not' believing that God exists (where 'believing that' God exists is to be understood propositionally, and 'not' is to be understood disjunctively in terms of propositional attitudes). In other words, the supposed benefits that Pascal and William James say can only come when one believes that …
Continue reading The Problem of God and the Problem of Belief
Lowder has written a post on the argument from consciousness for the existence of God. His argument, if sound, would establish consciousness as being a piece of evidence that lowers the probability of naturalism; however, it would not show that theism gets a boost in probability because theism and naturalism are not the only hypotheses …
Continue reading Response to Jeffrey Jay Lowder on God and Consciousness
Sharing is caring https://youtu.be/EpMfZvbmO0c
I'm back posting again after a long break...I guess I needed it. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a little tired of the God-debate (i.e. whether God exists). Nevertheless, there are other things to discuss in the Philosophy of Religion, and other interesting questions in life, besides whether an Omni-God exists (1). For example, I …
Continue reading How Can Atheists Find Meaning and Purpose???!
I've grown tired of discussing 'omni-theism'(i.e. OT). By 'omni-theism', I mean the position that there exists an entity which is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and all-loving. Even if you want to water down OT, I'm tired of that too. By 'water down' I mean a position like- for instance- that there exists an entity that is …
In a recent survey, the results found that a lot of philosophy of religion is being done in seminaries. The takeaway? Seminaries inevitably 'view' philosophy of religion as apologetical in nature, which is not shocking. That's not philosophy: that's theology. Even philosophical theology is theology. Now, I'm not here to give my opinion on the …
Hypotheses don't get many more bonus points-or any bonus points- if what's being predicted is something we already knew anyways (i.e. something that is already part of our background knowledge). For example, we already know that gravity exists so that hardly confirms (or more strongly confirms) a newly proposed hypothesis. One of the reasons evolution …
Continue reading How Darwin Made The Problem Of Evil So Much Worse For Theism
This is a creative/clever post I wrote a couple of years ago…while I was high on caffeine :p
In terms of non-human animals, nothing has been said about them with regards to the problem of divine hiddenness. At least, nobody has formed formulated the hiddenness argument in terms to include animals. Here, I want to show that the problem of divine hiddenness includes animals.
Non-human animals in our actual world aren’t resistant to God. In fact, it’s hard to see how they could be. The main reason is because animals are moral patients and not moral agents. It’s not like they have the ability to be resistant to God. And even if they could (which they can’t) it wouldn’t be their fault because it would just be pure instinct.
But what about belief? Do animals in our actual world believe that there is a God? Well, first it needs to be said that in the most basic sense some animals can have beliefs. They are conscious creatures so…
View original post 1,118 more words
Academic Philosophy can be a breeding ground for people with nonsense ideas. Hell, where else are they going go? If you know of other departments that produce as much nonsense in terms of quality and quantity, let me know! With that being said, let's get into a branch of philosophy known as ethics. One idea …
Evil god is an entity of which none worse can be conceived. If you could imagine an entity worse than evil god, then that being would be evil god. By definition, a maximally evil entity would be maximally hateful, maximally cruel, and maximally selfish. (1) Evil isn’t a privation of good; rather, evil is identical …
Continue reading A Cumulative Case For The Existence of Evil God
By, 'non-physicalist', I mean the rejection of the physicalist view (of the mind). Obviously, this includes a lot of views in the philosophy of mind. The most well-known rival of physicalism, when it comes to the mind, is probably dualism about the mind. Dualism itself includes positions like substance dualism and property dualism. Substance dualism …
Continue reading Non-Physicalist Views Of The Mind: Meet The New Vitalism, Same As The Old One
Experimental studies have been done on intercessory prayer. The results are tantamount to prayer being a failed hypothesis. Implications If we expect certain gods to answer prayers, these experiments are clear evidence against their existence. If we expect the God of classical monotheism to answer prayers-as theists insist-then failed prayer is strong evidence against the …
Throwback!
If God doesn’t exist, then is life meaningless?
But, what do we mean by “life”? Does that just mean my individual life? Does that mean humanity as a whole? The universe? All of the above?
The simple truth is that it doesn’t seem logically impossible (i.e. no contradiction) that meaning can exist without God existing. In fact, it seems implausible to suggest that it would be impossible for meaning to exist without God. However, for theists like Thomists, they would say that meaning is related indirectly to God because the cosmos is dependent on God, but this is quite a different point than saying it’s logically impossible that meaning exists without God. Thomists would be in agreement with my thesis that there is no contradiction in asserting the existence of meaning without God.
Still, a theist could try and argue (and probably would argue) that God is a better explanation…
View original post 403 more words
What is the difference between philosophy and pseudophilosophy?
At one point in my life I took the position that one's religious experience gives that same individual prima facie justification/reason to think God exists. Now, however, I'm not quite sure what to think of the matter. In other words, I'm not sure we should treat religious experiences as innocent until proven guilty. And even …
Continue reading Are Religious Experiences “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”?
Why do people give arguments? When should people give arguments? What are the limits of arguments? These are important questions, and there seems to be a lot of confusion among scholars and laypersons about logical arguments. Arguments are mainly for convincing other people of some claim. One idea of giving arguments is that one should …
Skeptical theism is a double-edged sword. As any honest and consistent skeptical theist would tell you, skeptical theism would undermine (some/all) arguments for the existence of God. (And as Michael Tooley, and one commenter on this blog have noted, the Bible seems to tell us some of Yahweh's reasons for allowing suffering; therefore, we are not …
Continue reading The Convenient ‘Special Pleading’ of Skeptical Theists
The alleged 'Problem of Good' refers to the fact that if a good God doesn't exist, then why is there so much pleasure, beauty, and good-will in the world? And aren't all the good things in the world evidence that an evil god doesn't exist? I do think that the existence of pleasure and experience …
In a previous post I talked about how any non-God object (and/or objects) is evidence against classical theism. My argument is as follows: 1. It is a known fact that (concrete) reality consists of some thing(s) that is/are not God 2. (1) is more expected on the hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism than on the hypothesis of …
Continue reading An Evidential Argument from Non-God Objects: Part 2
Of Naturalistic Religion
It is common to hear some atheists make blanket statements about religion, which is usually about how bad religion is for society or how religion is filled with irrationality. Assuming these things are true, the tendency to label religion this way is mainly looking at what religion has been in the past or what religion currently is in the present. But, that doesn’t mean that religion has to have the undesirable characteristics that critics point to.
For example, we could conceive of a naturalistic religion. Naturalistic religion wouldn’t include gods nor supernatural beings. We could also combine humanism with naturalistic religion to yield a religion that places focus on rationality, empathy, and science.
One might object by saying this wouldn’t really be religion; however, this would beg the very issue at hand. The fact is that it is very difficult to pin down a precise definition of “religion”. Some like to…
View original post 402 more words
Generally when one looks at general overviews or outlines of the various arguments for and against God, the arguments are classified in a neat order. However, I have found that the classifications for theistic arguments (in particular) are often prone to counter-examples. For example, it is often said that what makes ontological arguments what they …
Continue reading How would I classify arguments for and against God’s existence?
On this blog I mainly talk about classical/traditional theism. Classical/traditional theism, at bottom, claims that there exists a Being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. More specifically this Being is all-loving, personal, timeless, spaceless, uncaused, immaterial, immutable, etc. This position is also known as "Anselmian theism", "Perfect Being Theism", or "Theism". Saint Anselm held that …
#Throwback post
One common argument for the existence of the God of classical theism is the argument from desire. If the argument is construed in an inductive manner, the claim is that it’s not surprising that many people would have a desire for God on the hypothesis that theism is true.
However, this is not the whole story. If classical theism were true, it does indeed seem that many people would desire God. However, one can easily see why we would expect everyone to desire God. The problem is that this is not what we observe. Not only do we see people who lack a desire for God in the world, but we also see people that desire for there to not be a God.
If God exists, God could have easily made it that case that everyone desires God.
Also, what I mean by “desire” is simple. All I mean is…
View original post 1,073 more words
We’ve all had our views or arguments misrepresented at some point. Typically, if you (mis)represent your opponent as giving a deductive argument, then you can easily find a fallacy. Conversely, when certain arguments are, for example, properly represented as abductive arguments, some of those same fallacies just don’t apply.
One argument against the existence of God has to do with the evolutionary origin of belief in God. If one interprets an atheist here as presenting a deductive argument, then one can see how an atheist is committing a genetic fallacy. However, we should always be charitable when interpreting someone’s argument; get into the habit of steal-manning your opponent’s argument instead of attacking strawmen.
Here’s how the argument actually goes:
It is a known fact that belief in God is (in part) the product of evolutionary mechanisms. This fact is not surprising on the hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism. That’s because the range of…
View original post 163 more words
It's no secret that traditionally speaking God has been referred exclusively as "he". Most of the time people don't really think of why they refer to God only as a 'he'; it's more of a custom or tradition. What's more, everyone agrees that God isn't male or female. Given that this is the case, I …
It's no secret that Edward Feser is a big fan of Thomas Aquinas. One could even say that Feser is somewhat of a 'popularizer' of Aquinas. In particular, Feser specializes in Aquinas's natural theology (i.e. arguments for God's existence). Feser himself believes that Aquinas' arguments are airtight arguments. Naturally, I would say that I am …
Continue reading How Aquinas and Feser rely on incomplete premises
Most of us in Western society have heard of the term 'naturalism'. Metaphysical naturalism is the position that the only entities that exist are natural entities, and anything that is mental depends on the physical. Supernaturalism, however, gives priority to the mental, and anything that is physical is dependent on the mental. Non-supernaturalism is the …
The Principle of Sufficient Reason (or PSR) states that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. As Sean Carroll points out, "The PSR is kind of like that bumper sticker that says 'Everything Happens For A Reason' ". Defending the truth of the PSR has not been easy for those that endorse it. …
Continue reading Some New Arguments for the Principle of Sufficient Reason?
This past Saturday, the Unbelievable? podcast hosted a debate between Cosmic Skeptic and Cameron Bertuzzi on the subject of the argument from contingency (for God's existence) [1]. That got me to thinking about writing another post on the argument, and this post is just going to list and discuss just some of the problems I find …
Continue reading Some more thoughts on the argument from contingency
By 'atheism', I mean what is commonly referred to as 'strong atheism'. Strong atheism is the position that gods do not exist. Specifically, strong atheism can also be local. In other words, classical strong atheism is the denial of classical/traditional theism. And classical/traditional theism is the position that there exists a God who is all-powerful, …
Continue reading Does atheism generate predictions about the world?
What exactly do I mean by biblical confusion? Basically, I mean that Christians have varying interpretations (i.e. disagreement) about what the Bible says. Moreover, there are some/many passages in the Bible that are ambiguous and vague. The fact that there is so much confusion around the Bible is surprising if Christianity is true; however, this …
Continue reading The Argument from Biblical Confusion against Christianity
One of the problems with claiming that something is obviously true is that it's basically a non-starter. That is, just because you saying something is just obviously the case, that does not mean that it really is. But what is the claim being made? Saying that something is obvious must mean that it is obvious …
Continue reading Stop saying that it’s ‘obvious’ that God exists
Over the past couple of centuries, there has been a lot of skepticism with regards to the concept of 'objective' beauty. I must admit that I myself am skeptical that there is (or could be) such a thing as objective beauty. In other words, beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Do you …
Continue reading Beauty as evidence for and against God’s existence
Those who are autistic (like me) tend to have a harder time believing that God exists than the general population. As I was thinking about this interesting fact, I recalled what Alvin Plantinga (yes, him again) has said in his writings about people who don't believe that God exists. In his writings on Deformed Epistemology …
Alvin Plantinga argues that if evolution and metaphysical naturalism are both true, then we have no reason to trust our judgments when it comes to metaphysics. Actually, whether or not metaphysical naturalism is true, we shouldn't trust most of the conclusions we reach in metaphysics (or a priori methods; more on that below). One only …
The resurrection hypothesis states that 'God raised Jesus from the dead'. However, there is nothing about the claim "God exists" that predicts a resurrection. One must also add the claim that God wants to raise Jesus from the dead. But the problem is that there is nothing in our background knowledge that expects that God …
Philosopher Edward Feser has argued on his blog that the prior probability of a miracle occurring has to do with our background knowledge of the world; therefore, there isn't an absurdly low prior probability of a miracle occurring if: God exists, supernaturalism is true, God wants to perform miracles, God wants to raise Jesus from the dead, …
In his book, Where the Conflict Really Lies, Alvin Plantinga argues that evolution does not conflict with theism, specifically classical theism. Plantinga looks at a few different arguments and concludes they don't work. One of the arguments that Plantinga looks at is an argument from Paul Draper. Draper argues that evolution counts as some evidence against …
Continue reading Response to Alvin Plantinga on Evolution and Theism
Appealing to God's 'mysterious ways' is nothing new. I'm sympathetic to the idea that skeptical theism is just a more dressed up version of appealing to God's mysterious ways. Whether or not that is the case, I do not think skeptical theism is plausible in its own right. I think skeptical theists admit defeat. What …
In general, moral arguments for God presuppose divine command theory (DCT). What I've noticed, however, is that philosophers tend to make a few mistakes when it comes to the relationship between DCT and moral arguments for God (MAFG). Common Mistakes One mistake is to assume that if DCT is false, then all MAFG fail. However, …
Continue reading Divine Command Theory and Moral Arguments for the Existence of God
The existence of consciousness has been argued to be evidence for God. That's because on classical theism we already start with a mind, which is the mind of God. But would God create minds? Would God create finite minds? Would God create human minds? These are good questions. However, even if we grant that theism …
Continue reading Consciousness as evidence for and against the existence of God
It's no secret that Christian apologetics is not the same thing as Philosophy or Philosophy of Religion. If there is one thing that can get under my skin about apologetics, it is the fact that many apologists will present arguments for God's existence in an intellectually dishonest way. What's the dishonest way? Well, I think …
If the God of classical theism exists, then God is omnipotent (all-powerful). Given that God is all-powerful, would God set up the world in such a way where humans compete for resources? The upshot is that an omnipotent Being doesn't need competition in order for humans to survive and thrive; God can bring about human …
Continue reading The Omnipotence of God and Economic Competition
In previous posts, I've discussed skeptical theism and certain types of arguments from evil (i.e. Humean arguments from evil). My contention has been that it is plausible that skeptical theism doesn't apply to certain Humean arguments from evil, particularly Draper-style arguments from evil. Recently, however, Timothy Perrine released a paper where he contests this by …
Continue reading Response to Timothy Perrine on Skeptical Theism and Humean Arguments from Evil
In his article, "The Limitations of Pure Skeptical Theism," Paul Draper argues that skeptical theism can't be applied to Humean arguments from evil (like Draper's own argument). To be sure, Draper repeats some of the points that he has made before. Nevertheless, it seems that (many) skeptical theists needed a refresher. Definitions As a reminder, …
Continue reading On “The Limitations of Pure Skeptical Theism”
If God exists, would God create anything at all? The problem of non-God objects (PONGO) has to do with the fact that anything exists at all besides the God of classical theism. In other words, if God exists, then only God should exist; God wouldn’t create anything. From Problem to Argument Obviously, this alleged problem can …
Continue reading An Evidential Argument from ‘Non-God Objects’
Cameron Bertuzzi of "Capturing Christianity" recently wrote an interesting post on the alleged conflict between skeptical theism and natural theology (i.e. arguments for God's existence). Undergirding the skeptical theist position is the idea that (on classical theism) God's reasons for allowing and doing various things, especially in particular instances, are unknown. There are various forms of skeptical …
In the literature, 'divine hiddenness' doesn't mean that God exists and is hiding. Rather, what it primarily means is that there are some individuals who don't believe that God exists, and their nonbelief isn't merely the result of emotional factors towards the concept of God. In addition, 'divine hiddenness' is sometimes used to refer to …
Continue reading A Probabilistic Argument from Divine Hiddenness
Obviously, the problem of evil is one of the greatest challenges to traditional theism. If suffering exists, how can an all-powerful and all-good God exist? Doesn't evil make God's existence unlikely? One response to (this version of) the argument from evil says something like the following: "Okay, let's grant that God's existence is unlikely relative …
Continue reading Blocking the problem of evil with arguments for God’s existence
Nobody denies that there are some people who don't find life to be meaningful and/or purposeful. But if God exists, why is this the case? Wouldn't God be concerned with us wanting to find purpose and meaning? Wouldn't God want us to think that there really is purpose and meaning? (1)(2) On classical theism, meaning and purpose …
Continue reading The Existential Argument Against God’s Existence
If God exists, why are there so many religions? In other words, if God is all-powerful and all-good, then is it not surprising that we have so much confusion when it comes to religion? This problem is 'up there' with the problem of evil and problem of divine hiddenness. The Issue The problem of religious …
When we talk about sensory experiences, we sometimes talk about how such experiences can give justification to a belief. For example, me seeing a cat with my eyes provides a reason/justification for me to believe that there is a cat in front of me. This same move is commonly made when it comes to religious belief/experiences. …
Continue reading Religious experience as an argument for and against God’s existence
What does it mean to be all-knowing? Can an Omniscient Being know what it's like to feel sick? Can such an entity know what it's like to feel lust? These would be examples of knowledge by experience. In my experience, theologians say that God's knowledge is merely propositional. In other words, God doesn't have experiential …
Continue reading Would God give creatures knowledge via the senses?
Would God create non-human animals? I am not merely wondering why God would create animals. What I am wondering is that, if God exists, would God* really create animals? At the very least, assuming that God would create animals, would they look like animals in the actual world? So, we can easily imagine how non-human …
Often one will get the impression that when looking at different worldviews, the competition is between classical theism and metaphysical naturalism.
Recently, I thought about why I haven't really written about Pascal's Wager. One might expect me to talk about it because I talk about belief in God (a lot) on this blog. The reason I haven't talked about the Wager is because Pascal's Wager is more concerned with pragmatic reasons for believing that God exists. That …
When it comes to God and suffering, it's rare that you do not hear the subject of free will come up. It's common to hear something along the lines of, "If humans don't have free will, then we're just puppets. Do you think God wants us to be puppets?" In fact, in some instances, one gets …
Continue reading Free will and monotheism: Can’t live with it or without it
The God-debate mainly focuses on whether or not God exists; it also focuses on what God's nature is like. This blog discusses classical/traditional theism, which says that if God exists, then God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. If that sort of God exists, wouldn't it obviously matter? Wouldn't God's existence make a difference? At first …
Modality has to do with what is possible and impossible. Modal arguments utilize modal logic to draw inferences to various conclusions, based on what is possible and impossible. Today I was thinking of modal arguments for God's existence, and I decided to turn William Lane Craig's moral argument into a modal argument; let's call it …
In discussions on the existence of God, particularly the Christian God, it is common to hear the argument from the resurrection. The argument, in a common form, states that the hypothesis that "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of some historical facts. There are many ways one can attack this argument. A …
Continue reading The Historical Argument Against Christianity
The modal ontological argument is a popular argument for the existence of God. The key premise in that argument is the claim that it is possible that God exists. Modal arguments start with a possibility claim and end with a conclusion that is necessarily true. When thinking about modal arguments, the options are not just limited …
If you've discussed the existence of God, you've most likely come across the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" or "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence." The truth is that both of these statements are incorrect. The correct principle is something like the following: The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence …
Continue reading Absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence
If God doesn't exist, then is life meaningless? But, what do we mean by "life"? Does that just mean my individual life? Does that mean humanity as a whole? The universe? All of the above? The simple truth is that it doesn't seem logically impossible (i.e. no contradiction) that meaning can exist without God existing. …
It is common to hear some atheists make blanket statements about religion, which is usually about how bad religion is for society or how religion is filled with irrationality. Assuming these things are true, the tendency to label religion this way is mainly looking at what religion has been in the past or what religion …
Alvin Plantinga has an argument for God's existence called, "The Argument from Play and Enjoyment". Here's what Plantinga says: Fun, pleasure, humor, play, enjoyment. (Maybe not all to be thought of in the same way.) Playing: evolution: an adaptive means of preparing for adult life (so that engaging in this sort of thing as an …
One common argument for the existence of the God of classical theism is the argument from desire. If the argument is construed in an inductive manner, the claim is that it's not surprising that many people would have a desire for God on the hypothesis that theism is true. However, this is not the whole …
Skeptical theism is commonly pulled out as a response to the argument from evil. The skeptical theist says that just because we can't think of a good reason for why God allows a particular evil, doesn't mean there isn't such a reason. The issue for the skeptical theist is that they need to come up …
The main question, with regards to miracles, is not whether they are (logically) possible. Rather, a bunch of other issues arise once we think about miracles. Let's look at some potential worries and issues. 1. Does the supernatural exist? And, do we need to also establish that God probably exists before establishing a miracle claim? 2. If …
My goal here is to present an epistemic argument similar to Plantinga's evolutionary argument naturalism (EAAN). The idea is that the truth of evolution undercuts belief in theism. In other words, it makes belief in God's existence unreasonable. I call this argument "The Evolutionary Argument Against Theism" (EAAT). My goal is not to argue that …
Okay, the philosophical arguments for God's existence aren't irrelevant in every sense, but they are irrelevant in some senses or in a lot of ways. In other words, the philosophical arguments for God's existence can be irrelevant. For one, most people don't believe in God based on philosophical arguments. Most people will appeal to something like …
Continue reading Why philosophical arguments for God’s existence are irrelevant
I must say that I quite enjoyed "Five Proofs of the existence of God". The book is not too long, but it's not too short either. Feser himself can be quite clear in his writing, especially considering he is dealing with complex language and metaphysics. Even though I still have serious doubts about these arguments, …
Continue reading Five Proofs of the existence of God by Feser: Book Review
The fine-tuning argument for God's existence is a very popular argument these days. One of the problems with the argument that is often overlooked is what I will call the "gap problem" or problem of alternative explanations. Roughly speaking, even if we grant that design best accounts for the fine-tuning problem, it's not clear that …
Continue reading The fine-tuning argument and alternative design explanations
The problem of non-God objects (PONGO) has to do with the fact that anything exists at all besides God. In other words, if God exists, then only God should exist; God wouldn't create anything. Obviously, this alleged problem can be turned into an argument (and indeed it has). Here is the argument: Proposition P1: If the …
Lately, I've noticed that there are some Christian apologists (and apologetic websites) who are coming out against street epistemology [1]. Apparently, they are displeased with it, which is weird because street epistemology is essentially the Socratic method. It's true that a lot of atheists are using street epistemology, but that doesn't make the Socratic method/street epistemology …
I commonly refer to reformed epistemology as "deformed epistemology" because it quite apparently lowers the bar for what constitutes epistemic justification/warrant. For one thing, it appears to be more of a defensive posture that isn't out to seek the truth, or it isn't out to look for what are the most reliable ways of coming …
Continue reading Deformed Epistemology, confidence, and reflective awareness
Alvin Plantinga defends the notion that if God exists, then God can probably be known in a properly basic way. Moreover, if Yahweh exists, then Yahweh can probably be known in a properly basic way. Crucial to Plantinga's model of warrant (i.e. the property that makes true belief knowledge) is epistemic externalism. However, for all …
Reformed epistemology emphasizes that a theist (or Christian in particular) can have epistemic justification for their belief in God, but the justification doesn't have to be by way of argument or external/independent evidence. I say "external evidence" because reformed epistemology is not fideism; it might be better to describe one as having "grounds" for their …
Continue reading The superfluousness of reformed epistemology and other problems
We've all had our views or arguments misrepresented at some point. Typically, if you (mis)represent your opponent as giving a deductive argument, then you can easily find a fallacy. Conversely, when certain arguments are, for example, properly represented as abductive arguments, some of those same fallacies just don't apply. One argument against the existence of …
Continue reading An evolutionary explanation of the belief in God and the (supposed) genetic fallacy
How does Anselm's (and Descartes') ontological argument not assume that the concept of God is possible? Leibniz argued that that the ontological argument assumes this. For all I know, I have a concept of something that is impossible. Or, I could draw contradictory conclusions. I have a concept of God, but, for all I know, …
Continue reading Leibniz’s critique of the ontological argument
There's something that's wrong with saying atheism is just a lack of belief in God. The problem is that one can have a confidence level of 51% that God exists. But would we say that they believe that God exists? No. If I have a confidence level of 51% that it is going to rain …
Continue reading Lacktheism or “atheism is just a lack of belief in God’s existence”
The Hiddenness Argument claims that if God exists, then there will not exist any instances of nonresistant nonbelief. Since there are such instances of nonbelief, it follows that God does not exist. One particular objection to this argument that I find really bad is a move that appeals to free will. The main reason I …
Global anti-natalism is the position that it is always morally wrong to have children. It's not wrong to adopt, but it is wrong to bring new people into the world. There have been various arguments for this conclusion; however, contrary to what some groups on the internet think, none of the arguments for global anti-natalism …
Ed Feser claims that the mind-body problem is something that essentially began with Descartes. But, while it's true that the mind-body problem as is understood today began with Rene Descartes, it's not totally accurate to say that the issue began with him. To be sure, things changed a lot when Descartes came onto the scene. …
Paul Draper is an atheist philosopher. But despite the fact that he's an atheist, he still thinks there is some evidence for God. In particular, he has come up with a moral argument for God's existence (i.e. an inductive argument). The argument runs as follows: 1. There are moral agents in the world, i.e., us. By …
Continue reading Paul Draper’s moral argument for the existence of God
There are some fine-tuning arguments that argue for God's non-existence. One argument was formulated by Sean Carroll in a debate with William Lane Craig. The argument is as follows: 1. If theism is true, we would expect there to be just the right amount of fine-tuning necessary for life to exist. 2. If naturalism is …
Continue reading Fine-tuning arguments against God’s existence
The contingency argument is an argument for the existence of God. The argument is as follows: 1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being. 3. The universe is a contingent thing. 4. Therefore, the universe has …
The fallacy fallacy is a fallacy that asserts that because an argument is fallacious, the conclusion of the argument is false. Examples: 1) Person A: 1) If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal 2) Socrates is mortal 3) Therefore, Socrates is a man Person B: That's a fallacious argument; therefore, Socrates was not …
It's common these days to hear things like, "Philosophy is useless. It doesn't answer questions, and it doesn't give us cool toys like natural science does." There are a few problems with statements like this. First off, just because a subject of study doesn't build things like i-phones, that doesn't mean it is useless. That's …
The fallacy of division occurs when one concludes that because something is true of the whole, therefore, it is also true of the parts. Examples: 1. That NBA team is the best all-around team, therefore, every individual player on that team is the best. 2. My flock of sheep is well behaved, therefore, every single …
The short answer is, yes, theists (and Christians) should grant that there is some evidence against God's existence. To clarify, this does not mean that theists think this evidence is very good, nor that it is sufficient to warrant belief in God's non-existence. One reason a theist should be motivated to accept that there is …
Continue reading Should theists grant that there is some evidence for God’s non-existence?
There are many claims that turn out to be false, but that does not mean there wasn't some evidence for the claim in question. So, even if one thinks that God does not exist, that doesn't mean that there isn't any evidence for God's existence. Therefore, I think there is a subtle shift from some …
In his new book dealing with arguments for God's existence, Edward Feser claims that his arguments demonstrate that God exists with certainty. One can interpret this in two ways. The first interpretation isn't saying anything substantial, and the second interpretation is extremely implausible. The first interpretation says something like, "My arguments are deductive arguments for God's existence. …
Continue reading Edward Feser claims he has demonstrated God’s existence with certainty
Edward Feser recently came out with a new book on arguments for God's existence. In the book, he has a brief section where he responds to the argument from divine hiddenness. But, Feser objections seemed to be based on total misunderstandings at worst, or they are weak objections at best. The former is ironic because …
Continue reading Edward Feser’s bad objections to the Hiddenness argument
It's common these days to hear that one can be both an atheist and an agnostic. However, even though this position appears nuanced, it actually ends up causing more confusion! When atheism and agnosticism are understood as being mutually exclusive, as they were originally intended, it's my opinion that there is less confusion in conversations about …
Continue reading Can you be both an atheist and an agnostic?
Plantinga says that in order to say that theism is irrational, one must first show that theism is false or that Plantinga's own model of warranted religious belief is false. Hence, Plantinga is saying that the question of rationality is not independent of the question of truth, according to his model. One problem I have …
Continue reading Is saying that some theists are irrational dependent on whether theism is true?
The evidential argument from evil says that the evils we see in our actual world count as good evidence against the existence of God. Rowe's argument, in particular, says that the existence of gratuitous suffering, if it exists, would count as good evidence against God's existence. Skeptical theism is a response to Rowe's argument which …
Continue reading The evidential argument from evil, skeptical theism, and the threshold problem
Abstract The aim of this paper is to argue that Michael Murray has not offered a successful justifying explanation (or what he calls “CD”) for why God allows animal suffering as it relates to Satan. In other words, Murray’s explanation of animal suffering that invokes Satan is an unsound explanation. The Problem of Animal Suffering …
Continue reading THE PROBLEM OF ANIMAL SUFFERING AND SATAN: RESPONSE TO MICHAEL MURRAY
Plantinga’s EAAN (Evolutionary argument against Naturalism) is an argument which tries to show that one cannot rationally belief both in the truth of metaphysical naturalism and the truth of evolutionary theory. The EAAN does not try and argue that naturalism is false[1], just that it cannot be rationally believed, specifically when combined with the truth …
Does naturalism better explain the fact of ethical disagreement in the world better than theism does? There can be no doubt that there is much disagreement when it comes to ethics. When it comes to normative ethics and meta-ethics, ethicists disagree on a lot of things (i.e. moral realism, divine command theory, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, …
Continue reading An abductive moral argument against God’s existence
There are many dysteleological arguments against the existence of God. Dysteleological arguments are usually put forth against design arguments for God's existence. The project isn't so much to show that God does not exist from these arguments, rather, the point is supposed to be that design arguments aren't any good (or are undermined). Why accept design arguments but …
Continue reading Dysteleological Arguments against God’s existence
In his book, The Hiddenness Argument, J.L. Schellenberg argues that the hiddenness argument trumps arguments for God's existence because the hiddenness argument is a deductive argument. However, according to Schellenberg, arguments for God's existence tend to be inductive. Since the conclusions of deductive arguments necessarily follow from the premises, this trumps the structure of inductive …
Continue reading The argument from divine hiddenness as a deductive argument
On a previous blog post, I talked about the relationship between skeptical theism and the problem of divine hiddenness. Particularly, I argued that skeptical theism (by itself) will not work as a response to the argument from divine hiddenness (i.e. it fails). In that post, I didn't consider every objection, but I have since thought …
Continue reading Skeptical theism and Divine Hiddenness Part 2
Travis Dumsday has recently published a paper arguing that the argument from evil undermines the argument from divine hiddenness. Dumsday's point is that the existence of vast amounts of suffering in the world will possibly make it to where some nonbelievers can't be convinced of God's existence no matter how much evidence God presents to them. Thus, …
Atheist Philosopher Paul Draper seems to not have bought into J.L. Schellenberg’s hiddenness argument. Schellenberg’s argument is that if God exists, then nonresistant nonbelief will not exist. Why? Because if God exists, God would always be open to a relationship with God’s creatures, and the belief that "God exists" is necessary in order to have …
Continue reading Paul Draper and the argument from divine hiddenness
In terms of non-human animals, nothing has been said about them with regards to the problem of divine hiddenness. At least, nobody has formed formulated the hiddenness argument in terms to include animals. Here, I want to show that the problem of divine hiddenness includes animals. Non-human animals in our actual world aren't resistant to …
Continue reading Applying The Hiddenness Argument to Animals
The evidential argument from hell argues that the existence of hell (if it exists) makes God's existence improbable. The first argument will assume that hell exists. In other words, it will operate on what theists, particularly Christian theists, already believe. The argument grants what a certain Christian theist believes and tries to reach a conclusion. The …
Continue reading Evidential/Probabilistic Argument from Hell
C.S. Lewis has an argument for the existence of God known as the argument from nostalgia. Alvin Plantinga sums up the argument with, "Lewis speaks of the nostalgia that often engulfs us upon beholding a splendid land or seascape; these somehow speak to us of their maker. Not sure just what the argument is; but …
If you look through the philosophy of religion literature, you will probably notice that most of the papers have to do with either classical theism or naturalism. With theism, more specifically, you'll notice that most of those papers are by Christian theists. But, I think there is a much larger world outside of theism vs. …
"Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong." "It's possible that my Mom's real name isn't Anna; therefore, her real name isn't Anna." "It's possible that I will win a million dollars; therefore, I will win a million dollars." "It's possible that unicorns exist; therefore, unicorns exist."
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause Problems with the Kalam Cosmological Argument: 1. It assumes the A-theory of time, which is not obviously true. In fact, it's very controversial. 2. It assumes that …
Continue reading A summary of the problems with the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Abstract: In this paper, I will first be explaining, in detail, J.L. Schellenberg's argument from divine hiddenness (also known as the argument from nonresistant nonbelief). Schellenberg's argument is commonly misunderstood, as such, I want to do the best I can in understanding his argument correctly, not only for my sake but for the sake of …
All people experience suffering at some time. One of the main questions regarding suffering is, “Should there be suffering if God exists?”. This is known as the problem of evil, and one can turn the problem into an argument against the existence of God. One of the modern philosophers who is often overlooked on the …
Continue reading Voltaire and his evidential argument from evil
Abstract In this paper, I will be surveying the arguments against the "Principle of Credulity" relative to religious experience in order to see which appear to succeed and which fail. Religious experience is not the same as the principle of credulity; however, the principle of credulity is a large piece of evidence in favor of …
Continue reading THE PRINCIPLE OF CREDULITY AND A NEW PRINCIPLE OF CREDULITY
Ethical Theory is a subject that has had many debates and discussions, but it is also something that is seemingly very important to our ethical lives. In this paper, I want to do several things. First, I’m going to discuss two ideas from two philosophers respectively. The authors are Dr. Brink and Dr. Hare. Dr. …
Continue reading ETHICAL THEORY: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MORAL GAP/DEMAND AND UTILITARIANISM
One commits the fallacy of equivocation when one is guilty of using a word/term in misleading ways, namely because the term has/can have multiple meanings. Now let's look at some examples. 1. God is Light 2. Light exists 3. Therefore, God exists The problem with this argument is that the term "light" is being used in …
Let's look at this fallacy by giving a definition by example(s). Examples of the fallacy: 1. "Pol Pot was a killer. Pol Pot was a male. Therefore, people who are males are killers." 2. "Stalin had a mustache, and Joe has a mustache. Stalin was evil. Therefore, Joe is evil." 3. "Hitler had white skin, …
The false authority fallacy, or a version of the argument from authority fallacy, is appealing to an authority on a subject who isn't actually an authority on the subject. For example, appealing to Stephen Hawking as an authority on the subject of ethical theory is fallacious. Why? Because he isn't an authority on the subject. …
I don't understand how some Christians think that every atheist somehow really believes in God (which would seem to entail that there really aren't any atheists) and is resistant to God. How could they possibly know? This is a hyper-skepticism with implausible consequences. How are we to take somebody's word for other similar things? You …
Continue reading “There are no atheists who are non-resistant unbelievers in God”
Theodicy: A plausible reason why God would allow evil/horrendous evil, not a possible reason. I think we can all agree that there are some really terrible theodicies that have been used and are still being used to explain why there is horrendous suffering in the world if God exists. This post isn't about me (or …
In a recent podcast, the defenders podcast, Craig has objections to the argument from divine hiddenness. The troubling thing is that Craig seemed to be responding to more arguments from non-belief (Drange) or lack of evidence, which aren't quite the same as Schellenberg's argument from divine hiddenness. I'm not saying that Craig was intentionally attacking …
Whenever I read articles or books about Aquinas' five arguments for God, I never see much elaboration on his argument from degrees. Perhaps the authors don't find the argument sound, or they don't find it to be persuasive to general audiences. It certainly seems to be an argument that is very different from the other …
Continue reading Aquinas’ argument from degrees, its persuasiveness, and whether it is sound
William Rowe originally responded to skeptical theism with a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Rowe said that skeptical theism commits us to not being able to conclude that the inductive premise of his argument is true, even if our world was only filled with never ending horrendous suffering, which if a sound objection, shows that …
Continue reading Rowe’s original response to skeptical theism
Really the only objections I've seen to Tooley's evidential argument from evil is for theists to challenge Tooley's use of inductive logic (but as a side note, Tooley points out that most Philosophers of Religion haven't done their homework when it comes to inductive logic, and this is true) Let's just assume that Tooley's inductive …
Continue reading Objections to Tooley’s inductive argument from evil
Kevin Scharp recently had a debate with William Lane Craig, and in the debate, Kevin raised an objection known as 'divine psychology', which is about what God would do/want. But, I don't see why Scharp seemed to think divine psychology was some sort of devasting objection, but perhaps he didn't and was just saying that …
I'm going to first give an example of the suppressed evidence fallacy. Here’s an example: 1. Most people who live in the state of Oregon like chocolate 2. Jones lives in the state of Oregon 3. Therefore (probably), Jones likes chocolate But there's a problem. Either intentionally or not, I have left out important facts. …
Continue reading The resurrection argument and the fallacy of suppressed evidence
A genuinely pluralistic model should (1) recognize the clear differences in fundamental beliefs among the religions; (2) affirm the different religions as roughly equally effective ways of responding to the one ultimate reality, so that no single tradition is privileged; and (3) provide a coherent explanation of how (1) and (2) can be simultaneously maintained. …
Continue reading The failure of Hick’s religious pluralism model
The pooh-pooh fallacy consists of dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration. Example: 1. The Proponent of the claim/argument "Horrific evil seems to count as at least some evidence against God because it seems that if God exists, then he would not allow horrific suffering. Why? Because horrific suffering is not necessary in order to …
Here's his argument: 1. If God exists, then horrific suffering does not exist 2. Horrific suffering does exist 3. Therefore, God does not exist The key support for premise 1 that Schellenberg uses is to note that our greatest good is to be in a relationship with God. But the problem is that horrific suffering …
Continue reading Schellenberg’s deductive argument from horrific suffering
The problem of evil is seen as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, obstacles to believing in the traditional concept of God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. The logical argument from evil argues that it is impossible for God and evil to both exist.[1] The logical argument from natural evil is a …
Continue reading A Response to David Johnson’s logical argument from natural evil
J.L. Schellenberg has crafted an argument that is an updated version of the logical problem of evil; it's a new logical argument from evil that proposes to show that God and evil can't both possibly exist. This version tried to get around objections to versions of the logical argument from evil like those of Mackie …
1. If God exists, God is the grounding of objective morality --the theist grants this. If God exists, God's nature provides the basis for objective morality. Without that nature, the theist maintains in his moral argument that there is no grounding for objective morality, which brings us to our next premise 2. [Assumption] If …
Continue reading Moral Argument for God’s non-existence (Reverse moral argument)
© [Jonathan Garner] and [Wordpress], [2016]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to [Jonathan Garner] and [Philosophy of Religion by Jonathan Garner, https://wordpress.com/post/jonathandavidgarner.wordpress.com/1277%5D with appropriate and …
The claim that "If there is a God who is always open to a personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists," is a necessary truth. But what's the evidence that it's true? The greatest good for a human person is to be in a relationship with …
Continue reading If there is a God who is always open to a personal relationship with each human…
It seems that the fine-tuning argument might commit the fallacy of ignoring relevant background knowledge that we have regarding design and intelligence. Many times in history, we have seen that we tend to impose design or intelligence on things in nature that can be explained eventually by natural processes. Given this fact, it seems like …
Continue reading Fine-tuning argument commits the fallacy of ignoring background information
Thomas Aquinas' 1st way to the existence of God: 1. Some things are in motion (i.e. changing). (e.g. my water going from hot to cold, going from healthy to sick) 2. A thing cannot, in the same respect and in the same way, move itself: it requires a mover. 3. A regress of movers cannot …
Brian Leftow proposes a certain type of evidence in favor of the possibility premise of the modal ontological argument, which is the key premise in the modal ontological argument. Leftow says that people report having experiences of God (religious experiences). He says this serves as evidence that it is possible that a Maximally Great Being …
Continue reading Response to Leftow on the Ontological Argument
E Pr (HI)= Pr (T) Pr (E|HI)> Pr (E|T) Therefore, all things being equal, Pr (T)<.50 E=The distribution of pain and pleasure in biological organisms by means of Darwinism. HI=The Hypothesis of Indifference. The distribution of pain and pleasure in the world is best explained by the result of purely natural processes or finite supernatural …
There can be no doubt that John Hick’s An Interpretation of Religion has already made a huge impact in the field of Philosophy of Religion. Perhaps what John Hick is most known for is his pluralistic hypothesis. This pluralistic hypothesis is mainly a philosophical examination of Religious Pluralism. In this paper, I’m going to look …
The problem of evil is one of the oldest arguments against the existence of the traditional concept of God. The traditional concept of God is of a being who is all-powerful and all-good[1]. In this short paper, I’m going to be examining an exchange between Philosophers, Dr.Sinnott-Armstrong and Dr. Craig. on the problem of evil, specifically the …
Continue reading The Problem of Evil: An Exchange Between Two Philosophers
Philosophy of Religion blog 