Modern Christian Philosophy

[magellan004]

You snake. Don't turn this thread into a rough house. I've already asked you to cool it on the thread I referred Kane to and now you seize the moment to go ape here too.

In that thread I mentioned the Bible. I wasn't insulting, I wasn't aggressive. I simply mentioned the Bible.
Look at your reaction.

I asked Kane a question because I was interested in what Kane said. Look at your reaction.

I quite like you (Headheart) - you are sincere and have a good sense of humour. I would appreciate you not jumping down my throat.
Thank you.

Magellan

[magellan004]

To make things less murky, I'm behaviourly an atheist. Epistemologically, I'm an agnostic.

Thank you. That's what I was wondering.

Magellan

[headheart]

In that thread I mentioned the Bible. I wasn't insulting, I wasn't aggressive. I simply mentioned the Bible.
Look at your reaction.

I asked Kane a question because I was interested in what Kane said. Look at your reaction.

I quite like you (Headheart) - you are sincere and have a good sense of humour. I would appreciate you not jumping down my throat.
Thank you.

Magellan

I guess you show such aggressive behaviour elsewhere I did not expect you to suddenly change your spots. Hey, well I was wrong. Nice form.

Peace,
Eric

[David Hayward]

Who are the really engaging Christian philosophers today and what are they saying that's edifying? I want to be bowled over by a good strong speaker or writer. Plantinga and Moreland don't count mainly because of what's in my signature, and because from essays I've read of theirs they are boring.

Edward Feser isn't boring. Here's his blog, and you can judge wherther or not he understands science from his criticisms of Rosenberg. If you find you like Feser, try his book, "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism".

David

[shunyadragon]

Edward Feser isn't boring. Here's his blog, and you can judge wherther or not he understands science from his criticisms of Rosenberg. If you find you like Feser, try his book, "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism".

David

Edward Feser isn't boring. Here's his blog, and you can judge wherther or not he understands science from his criticisms of Rosenberg. If you find you like Feser, try his book, "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism".

David

I have read the material and I consider Feser work to be his argument against Rosenberg and not a refutation. I do not believe that traditional theists nor Feser have offered an effect counter argument.

Rosenberg does present a good coherent argument, but I do not agree with some of his conclusions, such as 'the implications his conclusions are 'utterly bizarre.' Feser takes to an extreme 'worthless' biased view calling Rosenberg's work 'worthless.'

I am a theist, and consider Rosenberg's works and that of other physicalists as good as far as applying it to the nature of our physical existence, but that is where the story ends. As far as I am concerned it does not address the real questions concerning if Theistic Intentionality is necessarily or even a viable argument based on the evidence.