Naturalism Next

1. God and Magicians     Yesterday,  Micah Ministries released an article defending William Lane Craig's modal ontological argument from the "misunderstandings" of its detractors. It is apparent to me that Micah Ministries fares no better in their evaluation of the argument than they suppose the common atheist does. I've had a post on ontological arguments in the works for a couple weeks and I still plan to release that at a later date, but  in the meantime  I thought this would be a good opportunity to apply some of the ideas from that post.      Micah Ministries (hereafter referred to as 'MM') gives the following syllogism: (1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. (3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. (4) If a maximally great being exists in every po...

I recently posted a video critiquing capturingchristianity’s take on the problem of animal suffering. In that video, I argued that Cameron’s responses are impotent in response to a properly stated abductive argument from evil. Recently, Cameron let me know on facebook that one of his writers (Seth Hart) responded to my video on Cameron’s website . Imagine my puzzlement, then, when I opened up the article and found that nothing I said in the video was cited in the article. A few of the topics I brought up in the video were referenced, but I honestly had a hard time reconstructing exactly how the article was meant to be a response to my specific points. It seemed more like the author’s personal contribution to the general debate, which largely brought up new points that neither I nor Cameron nor Alex mentioned in any of our videos. Nevertheless, since this is billed as a ‘response’ we might as well see how it fares as one. The first point I responded to in the video was Cameron’s asse...