Is a triune God like a square circle?
Yes—if you’re a two-dimensional being who is trying to understand a cylinder.
Thorny problems with Molinism #3: the theological grounding objection
Molinism removes the metaphysical machinery that underwrites God’s knowledge of free actions (i.e., his knowing what he will cause), but does not replace it with anything. Thus, middle knowledge is a just-so story; an assertion we are supposed to accept “because reasons.” Only…there are no reasons.
Why God can’t be evil
An exceptionally tardy response to Stephen Law’s inept challenge.
NY Times twists on horns of secular free will dilemma
A critical look at a New York Times article that discusses the tension between the idea that all the events in the universe are caused deterministically by physical laws, and our deep-seated intuitive belief that this cannot be so because we have free will.
What to do when skeptics attack libertarian free will—become a Calvinist
This is a continuation of the discussion started with Stuart McEwing in his article ‘Openness Theology (Part Two)’, exploring the ramifications of libertarian free will, the principle of alternative possibilities; and how an Arminian theology ultimately collapses into either a Reformed or Open theology, depending on how you push it.
Determinism and the authorship of sin in Calvinism and Arminianism
Arminians object to determinism because it makes God the “author of evil”—but does their own system avoid it? In this post, I argue that although they disagree with Calvinists about the nature of God’s sovereignty, their own theology commits them to an equally deterministic view.
Whence Cometh Value?
An argument undercutting non-theistic attempts to defend their value systems, by demonstrating that value itself is incoherent in a universe without God.
A discussion of how Occam’s Razor is sometimes used as a basis for objecting to Christianity, highlighting some serious philosophical problems with this approach.
Is intelligent design science? A response to Ken Perrott
A continuation of my previous commentary on the question of whether intelligent design is a scientific inference. Here, I respond to some objections by kiwi atheist Ken Perrott, pointing out the hypocrisy of secular scientists in labeling the anti-ID thesis as scientific, while denying the same standing for ID itself.
Is intelligent design scientific?
The question of whether intelligent design is a scientific or philosophical inference is a contentious and oft-debated one. Using a recent discussion on Ken Perrott’s blog as a kick-off point, I offer a brief commentary on this issue, giving reasons for why it is arbitrary to dismiss ID as unscientific.