Skip to main content

Blog Help Request

Dear readers:

I'd like to add a sidebar feature that displays clickable book thumbnails that take one to to look at or purchase books (inclusive 'or'). Any helpful advice would be greatly appreciated.



AIGBusted said…
If you're already an associate, then what you need to do is login, find the books you wish to link to, copy the html code for the book ad, and then:

Login to

Amongst Choices of 'Posting' 'Comments' 'Settings' and etc. Click on 'Design.' Then go to 'Add Gadget' and choose 'HTML/Javascript' and drag the box labeled 'HTML/Javascript' over to the side of the page. Then click 'Edit' button on the HTML/Javascript box. Then you shoud be able to copy and paste an amazon code.
exapologist said…
Thanks very much for your help, AIGBusted. I have now added a booklist in the sidebar.

AIGBusted said…
Glad I could help.

By the way, I'm writing a rebuttal to Timothy and Lydia McGrew's Bayesian defense of the resurrection. If you are familiar with Bayes' Theorem, I could really use some help in making sure I have my numbers straight.

I've gathered together the facts I need, so I just need to make sure I'm not confused on which values to plug in where. I *think* I have it right, but I'd like to make sure.

exapologist said…
I'm not the best person to ask about the finer points of Bayesian reasoning, but perhaps (ahem) some readers of this blog could offer their assistance.
exapologist said…
Btw: My own two cents on the McGrew's argument and those of their ilk: even if we grant arguendo that the evidence they discuss raises the probability of Christian theism above 1/2, the evidence for Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet (which is the mainstream view) deflates that probability right back down to at least 1/2 (or closer to zero, or so I would argue).

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…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 

The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at

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…