Skip to main content

Index: Assessing Theism in General and Christianity in Particular

Note: This is a work in progress.

0. Preliminaries:
0.1 On caring about and pursuing truth: here
0.2 On faith and reason: here and here.
0.3 On the theistic conception of God: here
0.4 On a Common Apologetic Strategy: here
0.5 On a Common Apologetic Fallacy: here
0.6 On Theism and the Burden of Proof: here.

1. Evaluation of Arguments for Theism
1.1 Cosmological arguments
1.1.1 The Leibnizian cosmological argument: part 1, part 2, part 3. Also: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
1.1.2 The kalam cosmological argument: here, herehere, here, here, here, here, here, and here (scroll down to the comments), here.
1.1.3 Thomistic cosmological arguments (and others): here, here.
1.1.4 O'Connor's abductive cosmological argument: here.
1.2 Design arguments:
1.2.1 Paley-style versions and fine-tuning versions: Here, here, here, here, here. See also here, here, and here, here, here, here, here.
1.2.2 Behe's irreducible complexity version: Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6. See also here, here.
1.2.3 Dembski's explanatory filter version: here, here, here.
1.2.4 Meyer's DNA version: here.
1.3 The ontological argument: here, herehere, here, here.
1.4 The moral argument: here, here, here, here.
1.5 Arguments from religious experience: here, here, here.
1.6 Arguments From Consciousness: Here, here, here.
1.7 The argument from abstract objects: here, here, here.
1.8 The argument from reason: here.
1.9 The argument from the effectiveness of mathematics: here.
1.10 Plantinga's argument from anti-realism: here.
1.11 Plantinga's argument from proper function: here, here, here, here.
1.12 Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology: herehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
1.13 Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN): here, herehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, see the comments section here, here, here, here.
1.14 Craig's Reformed Epistemology: here
1.15 Presuppositional apologetics: here, here.
1.16 Moser's case for rational belief: Here.
1.17 The argument from common consent: here.
1.18 Cumulative case arguments:
1.18.1 a general point: here
1.18.2 Swinburne's version: here, here, here.
1.19 Pragmatic arguments (overview here)
1.19.1 Pascal's Wager: here, here.
1.19.2 James' Will to Believe argument: here (skip down to section 1.3 of the outline), here, here.
1.19.3 Craig's arguments against atheistic morality, moral motivation, meaning, and purpose: here, herehere, here, here.

2. Evaluation of Arguments Against Theism
2.1 The Logical Problem of Evil: herehere, here, herehere, here, here, here, here.
2.2 The evidential problem of evil: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
2.3 The argument from religious diversity: here
2.4 Arguments from divine hiddenness, religious ambiguity, and reasonable non-belief: here, here.
2.5 The argument from evolution: here
2.6 The argument from the mind's dependence on the brain: here
2.7 The argument from the demographics of theism: here, here.
2.8 The argument from unreliable mechanisms for religious belief: here.
2.9 The argument from reasonable religious disagreement: here, here.
2.10 The argument from the impropriety of worship: here.
2.11 Arguments from the impropriety of belief: here, here.
2.12 The argument from ordinary morality: here, here.
2.13 The argument from material causality: here, here, here, here.
2.14 The argument from abstract objects: here.
2.15 The from revulsion/ugliness: here, here.
2.16 The argument from environmental mismatch: here.
2.17 The argument from meaning in life: here, here.
2.18 Ontological arguments against theim: here, here.
2.19 The argument for matter's necessity: here.

3. Evaluation of Arguments for Chrisitanity
3.1 Arguments for the reliability of the New Testament: here, here, here
3.2 Arguments for the deity of Jesus: here
3.3 Arguments for the resurrection of Jesus: here, here
4. Arguments Against Christian Theism
4.1 The argument for Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet: here and here (scroll down to the comments -- not the post)
4.2 Arguments against the reliability of the New Testament
4.3 Arguments from divinely-caused and/or mandated evil in the Old Testament: here, here, here, and here here
4.4 The argument from the doctrine of everlasting punishment: here, here.
4.5 The argument from evolution: here
4.6 Hume's argument against the rationality of belief in miracles: here, here, here, here, here, here, here,
4.7 The problem of identifying miracles given the Bible's hypothesis of "the Devil's Lying Wonders": here.
4.8 The argument from scientific evidence for the ineffectiveness of prayer: here, here, here. here.
4.9 The argument from the powerlessness of the gospel
4.10 The argument from non-obviousness: here.
4.11 The argument from material causality: here.
4.12 The argument from abstract objects: here.

Comments

John D said…
Definitely adding this to my bookmarks. Great stuff.
exapologist said…
Thanks, John.
Mitaad said…
Very nice indeed, thank you
Matt McCormick said…
This is a really useful list, Ex. Consider building this into the template of your site somehow so that this is quickly accessed. I have been putting links to all of my posts under general headings on the side of my site (www.atheimblog.blogspot.com) and it seems to get people to look at older posts a lot more than having to browse posts by their chronological order. MM
exapologist said…
Thanks, Matt. Great idea. I think I'll take up your advice on that.
Angra Mainyu said…
Great list, thanks.

FYI: It seems that the first link to the moral argument doesn't work.
exapologist said…
Thanks, Angra. Fixed.

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…