Showing posts from December, 2011

Feser on Dawkins

This is well worth the read.

Dawkins vs. Dawkins (Updated)
Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.2

Dieu existe-il?

     Est-ce qu’il y a un être suprême qui est la source de tout ce qui existe, et qui gouverne le fil du temps avec sa main puissant? Dieu existe-il? Souvent quand on entend cette question on pense au Dieu des Juifs et des Chrétiens. En fait, la Christianisme est seulement vrai, si Dieu existe. C’est-à-dire, si Dieu n’existe pas, alors la Bible n’est pas la Parole de Dieu, et, alors, Jésus n’est pas Dieu, il n’était pas né par une vierge, et il n’est pas né sur une croix comme sacrifice parfait pour tous les péchés du monde. Dans les paragraphes qui s’ensuite j’aimerais essayer de présenter plusieurs arguments pour prouver que Dieu existe. Avant que je présente ces preuves, on doit premièrement demander si c’est même possible de savoir que Dieu existe, ou si ce n’est qu’une question de la foi.

A)Est-ce qu’on peut « savoir » que Dieu existe?
     C’est nécessaire, pour répondre à cette question, de bien comprendre la distinction entre la foi et la connaissance. La Foi est d’…

Feser on Nothing

I just read this blog post by Edward Feser the other night, and greatly enjoyed it. So, I'm passing it on. Enjoy.

A defense of Plantinga's Argument from reason against Naturalism

I have always been interested in Arguments from Reason against Naturalism. In fact, I wrote my master's thesis in defense of C. S. Lewis's Argument From Reason (which is found throughout many of his articles, but which is exposed and defended primarily in his book "miracles"). I have also studied, and found interesting, Plantinga's argument from reason against Naturalism. As such, I found the following blog post, which is on the blog Quodlibeta, quite interesting. It is well worth reading.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.2

Oligarchy & Democracy: Some Thoughts

According to D. S. Hutchinson, in the article "Ethics" in the Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, a democracy "claims that all freely born citizens are equal partners in society, and oligarchs claim that the rich contribute more." The principle is that, justice demands that what an individual person puts into an enterprise will be rendered to them in the appropriate ratio. If two partners each put in 50%, then they each receive 50% of the profit. The democratic argument is that all citizens contribute equally to society, and, therefore, all citizens should receive equal benefits from society. The normal position of an Oligarchy is that the rich citizens put more into society, and, therefore should receive more benefits. It seems to me that neither side is right. It is not true that all citizens contribute equally to society, therefore it is unjust for society to give equal benefits to all citizens. On the otherhand it is not necessarily true that the rich people in s…

Bruxy Cavey on the Calvinism/ Arminianism debate

A friend of mine reminded me of a well-known preacher, Bruxy Cavey, who did a series on the Calvinism & Arminianism debate. I greatly enjoyed the first sermon in this series (I haven't had time to look at the others), which is entitled "Embracing Grace", it can be found at the following link, in the 2011 sermon series called "Chosen & Choosing: How God's Life Becomes Ours". Bruxy Cavey, as he says in the first sermon became for a number of years a Calvinist, but returned to Arminianism. He has some very interesting insights. Please take the time to look at these sermons, they are very informative.

    By the way all of his sermons can be downloaded in either mp3 format, or as videos in m4v format.

An Interesting Problem with Calvinism's doctrine of Total Depravity

In the book The Problem of Pain, C. S. Lewis says the following, concerning the goodness of God,

    "If God's moral judgement differs from ours so that our 'black' may be His 'white', we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say 'God is good', while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say 'God is we know not what'. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) 'good' we shall obey, if at all, only through fear -- and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity -- when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of God is worth simply nothing -- may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship. (p. 28-9)"

    Now, C. S. Lewis is one of the best authors that Christianity has ever known, and he uses Rhetoric better than most, however, we …