(1999) Eyewitness Evidence | Documentary Evidence | Corroborating Evidence | Scientific Evidence | Rebuttal Evidence | Identity Evidence | Psychological Evidence | Profile Evidence | Fingerprint Evidence | Medical Evidence | Evidence of the Missing Body | Evidence of the Appearances | Circumstantial Evidence | Concluding Thoughts | Addendum | Related Resources This review was […]

A Discussion of the Kalam Argument (1999) Greg Scorzo Abstract This paper is a critique of the kalam cosmological argument as defended by William Lane Craig in his books, internet publications, and transcribed debates. This thesis of this paper is that the existence of God cannot be deduced on the basis of the universe having […]

Secular Web Feature Article Archive Looking for more recent Feature articles? See the Secular Web Kiosk Looking for scholarly papers? Visit the Secular Web Library. 2001 2000 1999

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Possibility of an Actually Infinite Future (1999) Eric Sotnak This article was originally published in Philo, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1999), pp. 41-52. A skeptic died and to his surprise he found himself before the Pearly Gates facing none other than St. Peter. “Is this heaven?” he asked. “As […]

In his chapter on "The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience" (a chapter that McDowell or his editorial staff chose to delete from the latest edition of Evidence That Demands a Verdict), he made a variety of sweeping claims about the "Christian Experience," and also argued for the uniqueness of the Christian experience in history, but McDowell did not investigate history very deeply, nor the lives and writings of the Christians whom he cited, some of whom came to hold different views on a wide variety of theological subjects. Lastly, McDowell seems to have only examined superficially his own youthful conversion experience (any reasonable analysis of which would seem to confirm how young and emotionally unstable he was when he converted).

The Moral Argument from Evil (1999) Dean Stretton I. Introduction Theistic responses to the evidential argument from evil usually contend that God has morally justifying reason for allowing evil to occur.[1] There are, of course, many cases where we cannot think what that morally justifying reason might be. But, it is argued, this at most […]

The Bible in the Book of Mormon (1999) Curt van den Heuvel Introduction To the ardent follower of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is the surest proof of his prophetic office. It is the one undeniable sign of his divinely given gifts of translation. To the skeptic, the Book of Mormon is an interesting […]

Cosmology and Atheistic “Fundamentalism” (1999) by Bill Schultz I am a regular participant in various informal debates between atheists and Christians using the medium of Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Frequently in such debates, the Christian participant will cite the scientific evidence in favor of the so-called “Big Bang” as clear evidence of an “act of […]

(1998) Victor Reppert When we hear of some new attempt to explain reasoning or language or choice naturalistically, we ought to react as if we were told that someone had squared the circle or proved the square root of 2 to be rational: only the mildest curiosity is in order-how well has the fallacy been […]

(1998) Victor Reppert I. Hume’s Argument Bertrand Russell was reportedly once asked what he would say to God if he were to find himself confronted by the Almighty about why he had not believed in God’s existence. He said that he would tell God “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!”[1] But perhaps, if God […]

(1998*) Theodore Schick Jr. Abstract: Some believe that evidence for the big bang is evidence for the existence of god. Who else, they ask, could have caused such a thing? In this paper, I evaluate the big bang argument, compare it with the traditional first-cause argument, and consider the relative plausibility of various natural explanations […]

This is the second of a three-part series of essays composed during a three-year spirited discussion between Glenn Miller of Christian Thinktank and James Still. Together, the three essays reveal more than anything that there still exists an enormous gulf between the conservative and liberal views of the New Testament.

This is the third of a three-part series of essays composed during a three-year spirited discussion between Glenn Miller of Christian Thinktank and James Still. Together, the three essays reveal more than anything that there still exists an enormous gulf between the conservative and liberal views of the New Testament.

This is the first of a three-part series of essays composed during a three-year spirited discussion between Glenn Miller of Christian Thinktank and James Still. Together, the three essays reveal more than anything that there still exists an enormous gulf between the conservative and liberal views of the New Testament.

Keith Parsons refutes seven popular misconceptions about atheism.

In this article, Keith Augustine responds to Theodore Schick, Jr.'s arguments against the subjectivity of moral values in his Free Inquiry article "Is Morality a Matter of Taste?"

In this paper (originally presented as a talk) Theodore M. Drange seeks to improve upon J. L. Schellenberg's watershed argument that a perfectly loving God would reveal his existence clearly to people in order to get them to believe in him. Schellenberg's argument maintains that the existence of a large number of nontheists provides good reason to deny the existence of such a perfectly loving God. But Drange argues that a stronger version of the argument would add to God's attributes a strong desire for humanity's love. Since one cannot love God if one does not believe in him, God would more clearly desire widespread belief in his existence under Drange's revised formulation. Drange then responds to objections to this line of reasoning, particularly those couched in terms of a free-will or unknown-purpose defense, including Daniel Howard-Snyder's inappropriate-response defense. To this day Drange is unaware of any response by either Schellenberg or Howard-Snyder to his objections to their arguments.

(1998) In Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig makes a sharp distinction between knowing that God exists and being able to show this. He maintains that one knows that Christianity is true “by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit.”[1] One can show that God exists, that Jesus is his Son, and that other alleged Christian […]

A common objection to atheism—one stated by many scholars and laymen, theists and nontheists—is that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of God. Yet there are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because its very concept is self-contradictory (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). The other way is by carefully looking and seeing. Both of these methods can and have been used to disprove various conceptions of God.

Niclas Berggren argues against the existence of objective moral values. Along the way, he states an interesting "moral knowledge argument for atheism."

Montgomery asserts that Christianity's claims survive examination using the legal tests for evidence. He does this only by misstating and twisting the rules of evidence and the facts.

The reasons for being moral depend on what it means "to be moral." On some possible definitions, the question, "Why be moral?" is meaningless. But in the case of the other definitions, it is possible to understand the question and even to answer it. Moreover, on the definitions which make the question meaningful, the atheist can answer the question just as well as the theist. Indeed, with respect to specific moral questions (e.g., "Why should people not rape?"), the atheist can provide a better answer than theists who accept the Bible as God's Word.

Currently, a very popular theistic argument is the so-called "fine-tuning argument," the argument that God is the best explanation for the combination of physical constants which allow life. Drange argues that (1) God is a poor explanation, and that (2) there are better explanations than God for the combination of physical constants.