The Moral Argument: A Short Dialectic

The Argument There are several versions of the moral argument for theism.[i] One goes like this: If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist. Objective morality exists. Therefore, God exists. (This argument is deductively valid by modus tollens.) The Dialectic Suppose a friend asks you why he should believe in God. You … Continue reading The Moral Argument: A Short Dialectic

The Existentialist Argument

“What sacred games shall we have to invent?” (Nietzsche, The Parable of the Madman, The Joyful Wisdom) “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13)   Introduction In this article, I provide an argument from … Continue reading The Existentialist Argument

“Stupid Round Things,” Other Contingent Things, & the Existence of God

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a German philosopher, mathematician, a metaphysician and an expert in logic who is recognized for his independent invention of the differential and integral calculus (imagine being able to include “I invented calculus” on your resume)! To put it bluntly, Leibniz was a smart dude! While it is impressive to be able to “invent calculus,” in my opinion, … Continue reading “Stupid Round Things,” Other Contingent Things, & the Existence of God

The Probabilistic Argument from Gratuitous Evil and the Bracketing of Evidence

Introduction In this article, I argue that when considering the existence of God, it is unreasonable to bracket background evidence in the manner described below. First, this move is methodologically insufficient. Second, it is conceptually questionable. The Argument from Gratuitous Evil and the Bracketing Method The argument from gratuitous evil is usually articulated as a … Continue reading The Probabilistic Argument from Gratuitous Evil and the Bracketing of Evidence

Thinking About Free Thinking

Question: Dear Tim, This is a three-pronged question: What is The FreeThinking Argument? What are the premises of the argument? And what reasons are there to believe that the premises are true? Please lay out a defense of all of the argument’s steps. – Evan Tim’s Response: Thank you for the question, Evan.[1] Before I … Continue reading Thinking About Free Thinking

Why Anselm’s Argument in Chapter 2 of Proslogium has Modal Significance

It is commonly held that Anselm’s argument in Chapter 2 of Proslogium is not a modally-significant argument, but that his argument in Chapter 3 possesses such significance. For example, in the first paragraph of Anselm’s Neglected Argument, Brian Leftow refers to the argument in Chapter 2 as “non-modal” and to the argument in Chapter 3 … Continue reading Why Anselm’s Argument in Chapter 2 of Proslogium has Modal Significance

Does Anselm’s Ontological Argument in Proslogium Two Presuppose that Existence is a Property?

Introduction In this article, I will briefly argue for the following theses: (a) it is not clear that Anselm’s ontological argument in Chapter Two of Proslogium presupposes that existence is a property, and (b) Anselm’s argument presupposes that objectivity and subjectivity are properties. Argument It is commonly held that, in Chapter Two of Proslogium, Anselm … Continue reading Does Anselm’s Ontological Argument in Proslogium Two Presuppose that Existence is a Property?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Part One

Introduction The kalam cosmological argument is both historically and currently significant. William Lane Craig, the leading contemporary advocate of the argument, has dubbed it the kalam argument in recognition of its origin in the work of Medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Ghazali.[1] The argument continues to interest philosophers and theologians. Its structure is simple: Whatever … Continue reading The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Part One

Philosophical Notes on the Underground: Two

I closed Note One by calling Underground Man “grouchy.”[1] That is an understatement. The man admits to being spiteful. He hates his neighbors, practices cruelty, and delights in the misfortune of others. He even claims to take pleasure in his own pain and bitterness, some of which is self-induced. For example: “I reached a point … Continue reading Philosophical Notes on the Underground: Two

Philosophical Notes on the Underground: One

“Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2)   In Part 1 of Notes from Underground, Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man claims that consciousness is a disease.[1] In a loose sense, given certain assumptions, Underground Man makes a significant point. In a strict sense, however, he is wrong. Let me explain. First, we … Continue reading Philosophical Notes on the Underground: One