Ramified Natural Theology And The Ascension of Christ

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 …

Advertisement

Philosophy of Religion vs. Theology

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 …

Are Religious Experiences “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”?

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 …

What Can Arguments Do?

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 …

The Convenient ‘Special Pleading’ of Skeptical Theists

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 …

Alternative concepts of God

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 …

How Aquinas and Feser rely on incomplete premises

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 …

Non-supernaturalism vs. naturalism

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 …

Does atheism generate predictions about the world?

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, …

The Argument from Biblical Confusion against Christianity

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 …

Stop saying that it’s ‘obvious’ that God exists

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 …

Beauty as evidence for and against God’s existence

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 …

Evolution, Metaphysics, and Naturalism

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

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 …

Response to Alvin Plantinga on Evolution and Theism

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 …

Skeptical Theists admit defeat

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 …

Divine Command Theory and Moral Arguments for the Existence of God

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, …

Consciousness as evidence for and against 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 …

Response to Timothy Perrine on Skeptical Theism and Humean Arguments from Evil

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 …

An Evidential Argument from ‘Non-God Objects’

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 …

Blocking the problem of evil with arguments for God’s existence

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 …