a tippling philosopher

Browsing Archive: April, 2011

Part II to Reasonable Faith critique

Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Monday, April 25, 2011, In : Books 
I have just rushed off the second part to the critique of William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith. It can be found here. Any comments abou tthe critique, please feel free to reply to this blog post.
Continue reading ...

God has no free will. The universe is immutably set in stone.

Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Saturday, April 16, 2011, In : Religion 

I was wondering recently about the issue of God’s foreknowledge. It has long been understood that with God’s omniscience, he could not be contrary to his own predictions. This means that if God predicted beforehand that he would make himself a spaghetti bolognaise for supper on Friday, then when it came to making Friday’s supper, he would have no choice but to make the spaghetti bolognaise. This is because if he decided to be contrary to his own prediction and cook, say, pizza, then his...

Continue reading ...

New essay about vegetarianism

Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Friday, April 15, 2011, In : Philosophy 
I've just finished rushing off an essay about vegetarianism and veganism. This was in response to my partner's daughter who has just decided to become a vegan. This inspired me to think about the philosophical implications of such a decision.

The essay can be found here. Please feel free to comment on it by posting comments to this post.

Continue reading ...

The free will theodicy

Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Wednesday, April 13, 2011,
An excerpt from my upcoming book:

One fruitful theme that I wanted to explore here was that heaven and the existence of free will without suffering and evil is incoherent. We are often given the free will theodicy as (at least partly) the answer to why evil exists on earth. However, if heaven can exist with free will and no evil, then this should surely be an option on earth, especially if God is as loving as he is purported to be. This very simple logical argument has devastating effects on w...

Continue reading ...

Objective ideas don't exist.

Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Tuesday, April 12, 2011, In : Philosophy 

I am a conceptualist who does not believe in objective existence. The burden of proof would be on Craig to prove objective existence. Without this, his whole argument of objective morality falls apart. This is why he needs to debate a good philosopher who would take him to task on his foundational assumptions.


There is no such thing as objective morality, because any idea is subjective. Abstract ideas do not and cannot exist objectively.


It is anthropocentric. Imagine a more intellige...

Continue reading ...

William Lane Craig vs Laurence Krauss. Grrr.

Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Monday, April 4, 2011, In : Religion 
What annoys me is the fact that by now people should know how to debate Craig. Price and Ahmed pretty much tried the right tack with some success. It sounds close to ad hom, but you need to set your stall out by attacking Craig's methodology. I lie in bed at night sometimes dreaming of how I would debate Craig. This is the definition of sad, I know. He puts himself in an unassailable position in debate terms because he

1) uses a scatter-gun approach that means that you have to answer about 100...
Continue reading ...

By searching and buying from these Amazon widgets, you are helping me to continue my work blogging and writing, fighting the good fight for reason. 

Free counters!


blog comments powered by Disqus

This free website was made using Yola.

No HTML skills required. Build your website in minutes.

Go to www.yola.com and sign up today!

Make a free website with Yola