Encourage:
-
Recent Posts
-
Past President of The Christian Apologetics Alliance
Apologetics Daily
my goodreads profile
Categories
- Apologetics
- Apologetics Toolbox
- Epistemology
- Ethics & Metaethics
- God Particle
- Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics'
- Keller's Reason for God
- Ontological Argument
- Predestination
- Richard Dawkins
- Sam Harris
- Stephen Law's evil god argument
- Testimonies
- Tim McGrew
- Undesigned Coincidences
- William Lane Craig
- Youth Apologetics
- Bible Narrative Project
- Carnival
- Examiner.com Articles
- Freelancing Tips and Tricks
- Inventions
- Memories
- Neighboring
- News
- Poetry and Fiction
- Random
- Reviews and Interviews
- Apologetics
Archives
Meta
Category Archives: William Lane Craig
Ethics & Morality
Below is a collection of my thinking on the grounding and justification of moral truth. I am warming up for something. Divine Essentialism God wills it (right) because He is good — essentialism. 1/4/08 (Not mine. Precursor.) The Sword and the … Continue reading
Posted in Apologetics, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Gettier Problem, Golden Rule, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief, Keller's Reason for God, Moral Argument, Natural Law and Divine Command, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, William Lane Craig
3 Comments
Reply to WLC’s answer to my question regarding anti-realism (QoW #379)
I am saving my reply here, as it is already getting buried. Dr. Craig, thank you for answering my question. I am glad you are a realist about the Good and concede *that* much to the realist. Do you actually … Continue reading
Does Theism Foster Scepticism? | Reasonable Faith
Does Theism Foster Scepticism? | Reasonable Faith — These Q&A by Dr. William Lane Craig come right to my Inbox. I found this one particularly interesting. It mentions Plantinga’s argument against naturalism, Descarte’s evil demon (with a deceptive God version), as … Continue reading
Posted in William Lane Craig
Leave a comment
The Humean-Platonic tripartite (Ought-Is-Belief) theory of (moral) knowledge
The Humean-Platonic tripartite (Ought-Is-Belief) theory of (moral) knowledgeIt is possible to blend Hume’s is-ought distinction (1) in Ethics with Plato’s justified-true-belief theory of knowledge. Simply put, whatever sort of beliefs one is talking about, including moral beliefs, they must be ‘both’ … Continue reading
Philosophers’ Carnival #138
Welcome again to Philosophers’ Carnival, “which aims to showcase the best philosophical posts from a wide range of weblogs. We invite submissions from bloggers and readers, and collate the submitted posts into one big round-up (or ‘carnival’) every three weeks, … Continue reading
WLC makes plain the Ontological Argument
The ontological argument finally clicked for me. Thankyou Dr. Craig! Begin forwarded message: From: William Lane Craig <info@reasonablefaith.org>Subject: Question of the Week – Misunderstanding the Ontological Argument ———– Question: Good Day from Nepal. We badly need apologetics in Nepal so … Continue reading
Is-ought discussion with WLC
I had a discussion with Dr. Craig in a note I posted on Facebook, but I am deleting Facebook Sunday and the discussion was never resolved, so I am moving it to here. Hopefully he can reply here or in … Continue reading
Answering Stephen Law’s evil god argument
This is a reply to Stephen Law’s “evil god” argument he gave in his debate with William Lane Craig in October. I first posted a version of it in a comment to my blog post here, in reply to Jason … Continue reading
Christian Carnival
Welcome to the November 9, 2011 edition of christian carnival ii. I’d like to mention two pieces of news before you dig in to this feast. 1. Mark Deviny of Christian Apologetics Alliance has put together a new Christian apologetics … Continue reading
Posted in Carnival, Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig
1 Comment
Richard Dawkins: The Empty Chair
Pictured below is the Empty Chair that was reserved for Dawkins to follow the eighth commandment he quoted in The God Delusion: “Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree … Continue reading