Articles are cluster-level syntheses drawing on several episodes. More are being written.
The two standard debunkings of the argument from improbability — "all outcomes are equally unlikely" and "who designed the designer?" — would, applied consistently, abolish fraud detection, archaeology and a good part of science.
Every lesion study, drug effect and dementia scan cited against the soul is predicted just as well by a brain that receives consciousness as by one that produces it — and one of my atheist guests conceded exactly that on air.
Craig's free-will particularism answers how many might be lost; my question, the one it never touches, was about the criteria God judges by.
Nearly every standard objection to karma attacks a cosmic courtroom my tradition never built; the doctrine I actually defend is a classroom, and specifying it is most of the work of defending it.
Christian apologists concede on camera that they have no good answer to animal pain — and an agnostic philosopher has already named the criterion that any real answer must meet.
Joe Schmid was raised Catholic, spent ten years away from the faith, and became the internet's most careful agnostic. In August he returned to the Church on the strength of the miracles. Here is his argument at its strongest, and why a Vaishnava thinks the miracles establish less than his conclusion needs.
No articles match this topic.