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
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?
“More than that: you say that then science itself will teach man (though this, to my mind, is already a luxury) that he really does not possess, and never did possess, either a will or a whim of his own; that he is, in fact, no more than a kind of piano key or organ … Continue reading Philosophical Notes on the Underground: Three
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. The argument continues to interest philosophers and theologians. Its structure is simple: Whatever … Continue reading The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Part One
I closed Note One by calling Underground Man “grouchy.” 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
“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. 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
What religion or worldview possesses the “Ring of Truth?” It is definitely not Islam or atheism! To be sure, this is not a deductive argument like the Kalam, Freethinking, or Ontological Arguments. I am simply encouraging readers to pay attention to their intuition. Although we cannot always trust our intuition, I contend that it is … Continue reading “The Ring of Truth”
Scientists are valuable friends. As a philosophically inclined theologian I appreciate my colleagues who have immediate access to important scientific data in physics, chemistry, biology, and more. Mad scientists, on the other hand, I typically try to avoid! Be that as it may, these mad scientists, while scary, are often quite helpful when conducting important thought … Continue reading The Failure of Frankfurt?
Why think that Mere Molinism is true? If this view corresponds to reality, then two other propositions must also be true: (i) Logically prior to God’s decision to create the world, God knew everything that would happen in any possible scenario He could create (entails God’s middle knowledge). (ii) As beings created in God’s image, humans, like God, possess the categorical … Continue reading Maximal Greatness & Middle Knowledge
Question Dear Tim, I am in a discussion with a skeptic and it has basically come down to “why couldn’t God create a free moral creature with a morally perfect nature?” Basically if God can have free will and not do evil what limits Him from creating humans who do as well? My contention was … Continue reading Can God Create a Morally Perfect Creature?