GDPR Cookie Consent by Free Privacy Policy
You can dismiss the support request pop up for 4 weeks (28 days) if you want to be reminded again. Or you can dismiss until our next donations drive (typically at the beginning of October). Before you dismiss, please consider making a donation. Thanks!
One Time
$5/month (US)
$10/month (US)
Support II via AmazonSmile Internet Infidels Needs Your Support!
dismiss for   28 days   1 year   info
2020 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive / $32,460.00 of $40,000.00
Failing to heed science and reason has real-world consequences. We need critical thinking now more than ever. Help us maintain a drop of sanity by donating to keep the Secular Web online today!

Eric Sotnak


Author Bio ]

Analysis of the Teleological Argument (1993)

The motivations of creationists are often more philosophical than scientific. In particular, creationists are often motivated to claim that evolution cannot be true because it fails to provide a satisfactory account of how the universe can display as much order and complexity as it does--one must, instead, resort to the hypothesis that such order and complexity is a result of intelligent design. This article, included in the Appendix of Alex Mattulich's "Commentary on D. James Kennedy's book Why I Believe," is devoted exclusively to an analysis of some of the more common manifestations of the argument from design.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Possibility of an Actually Infinite Future (1999)

Sotnak primarily critiques William Lane Craig's version of the Kalam cosmological argument, which relies on maintaining that an actual infinite collection of things cannot exist (and hence that an actually infinite regress of past events is impossible). Craig uses the claim that an actual infinite is impossible, in turn, to support a crucial premise of his Kalam argument--that the universe began to exist. Sotnak focuses his criticism on showing that, contra Craig, an actual infinite can exist.

Privacy and Cookie Policy