Blog Archives

Vexing Links (8/12/17)

Check them out:

  1. My review of Jaworski’s Structure and the Metaphysics of Mind: How Hylomorphism Solves the Mind-Body Problem is on JBTS.
  2. Paul Draper has updated the “Atheism and Agnosticism” page on the SEP.
  3. Koji Tanaka has co-authored an excellent article on “Paraconsistent Logic” along with Graham Priest and Zach Weber on the SEP.
  4. Plantinga’s EAAN in a nutshell
  5. New article on “Religious Language” on the SEP
  6. Josh Rasmussen’s Worldview Design is one of my new favorite YouTube channels.
  7. New interviews of Eleonore Stump are on Closer to Truth: 1) Do Heaven and Hell Really Exist? 2) What is God’s Eternity? 3) What are Persons? 4) Do Persons have Souls?
  8. Alex Wallo explains the difference between Classical Theism and Theistic Personalism
  9. Pruss says that Naturalists should be Aristotelians (I agree).
  10. Read the first chapter of Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable? the Book.

A quick argument that I’ve been thinking about:

P1) There is a real distinction between metaphysical and nomological modalities.

P2) If there is a real distinction between metaphysical and nomological modalities, there is a metaphysically necessary, non-natural, indeterministic explanation that makes the distinction between metaphysical and nomological modalities intelligible.

P3) If there is a metaphysically necessary, non-natural, indeterministic explanation that makes the distinction between metaphysical and nomological modalities intelligible, then God exists.

C) God exists.

Some fun memes:


A More Iconic Trio?

Merry Christmas!  Happy New Year!  Here is a meme for you!

Calvin’s basket is full

The Outsider’s Test Passed

π = 3?

Occasionally you will hear an anti-theist mock the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture by arguing that the Bible says that π = 3. They cite 1 Kings 7:23:

Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.

or 2 Chronicles 4:2:

Also he made the cast metal sea, ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits and its circumference thirty cubits.

Now let’s leave aside that this is a) a description of a real physical bowl and not a treatise on abstract Euclidean circles (so perhaps the object wasn’t a perfect circle), and b) the point of these passages is to describe physical objects in terms that the people of the time would have understood. So if they didn’t know π or that every circle has the same ratio of circumference to diameter, they would have had an incomplete description without being informed of rough approximations of both. I think the best response to this “Bible contradiction” is this:


I don’t really take such an objection seriously. I think it betrays some basic ignorance about what the doctrine of inspiration means and what we should expect an inspired text to look like. For the anti-theist who cites this, the expectation is that God should have handed down a math treatise and a few books on general relativity and quantum mechanics (assuming those theories are not overturned by some new paradigm in physics). But why would God do that? Why would God spend pages explaining geometric and arithmetic relations when he gave us the intelligence to do these things ourselves? This only reinforces the pet-hamster view of humanity’s relationship to God. His role is just to satisfy out every need so that we don’t have to stretch ourselves in any way. I’m sorry, but I disbelieve in that sort of God too.

File “π = 3 in the Bible” under really really bad arguments against Biblical inspiration.

Oh, and in case you don’t get the joke, Lawrence Krauss once tried to refute William Lane Craig in a debate by arguing that 2 + 2 can equal 5: here.

Circular Reasoning, the Bible, and Atheism

I had a discussion the other day in which my interlocutor cited “reading the Bible” as the cause of his atheism. This perplexed me. And he is not the only one who has said this.  Here is a common meme expressing the same sentiment:

So, here is my response, in meme form:


If you are interested in how to approach scripture, I recommend reading Dei Verbum.

Problem of Induction

Inspired by my recent little debate: IMG_0937.JPG

Unsharing Poster


Think of “sharing” as a form of efficient causality that brings the potentiality of a posted article on one’s social media page into the actual shared article. Intuitively, we know that a proper explanation of an article is always going to include an author and/or original poster, who did not share the article from someone else’s page. That is, the existence of the article cannot be explained by some endless chain of sharing. Likewise, our contingent universe cannot be explained by an endless chain of efficient causers that “share” their actuality so as to change potential effects into actual effects. There must be an original author, an uncaused causer, and an unsharing poster. And when it comes to the universe, everyone calls this “God”.




Nothing = not anything

%d bloggers like this: