LINK: Stairs on Parsons on Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on October 18, 2011. It was republished here on November 8, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date. The link was also updated to its current location.]

Some (Very Incomplete) Thoughts on Luke Muehlhauser's "How to Debate William Lane Craig"

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on October 12, 2011. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date. The link was also updated to its current location.]

After writing a post about William Lane Craig and John Loftus debating, I remembered that Luke Muehlhauser (Common Sense Atheism) posted an article in April 2009 about debating William Lane Craig. (LINK) Here are some very incomplete thoughts about Luke's article.

1. I agree with Luke that many of Craig's debate opponents were unqualified, in the sense that they did not have both (a) the relevant knowledge (e.g., of philosophy of religion, metaethics, etc.); and (b) suitable debating experience.
2. I strongly disagree with Luke's assumption that Craig has 'won' literally "all" of his debates, but I do think he has 'won' most of them. Off the top of my head, I think the following opponents 'won' their debates with Craig:
   • Paul Draper
   • Doug Jesseph (the first debate, not the second debate which I consider a draw)
   • Shelly Kagan
   • Keith Parsons (both the debate on God and the debate on Christianity)
   • Michael Tooley
3. I agree with the five specific points in his section, "How to Win." On the other hand, in my experience, the people who would most benefit from following Luke's advice tend to be the same people least likely to follow it.

The Possibility of Proving the Non-Existence of Something

[This post was originally published on The Secular Outpost on February 1, 2006. It was republished here on November 7, 2021 with the date manually adjusted to reflect its original publication date.]

In a recent blog entry, theistic philosopher William Vallicella criticizes a statement made by psychologist Paul Vitz, in which Vitz asserted that it is "intrinsically impossible" to "prove the non-existence of anything." As Vallicelli correctly points out:

"But surely there are things whose nonexistence can be proven. The nonexistence of a round square can be proven a priori by simply noting that something that is both round and nonround cannot exist."

What Vallicelli writes is consistent with my own essay on the subject, where I made the following observation.

Indeed, there are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). ...

The other way to prove the nonexistence of something is, in the words of Keith Parsons, "by carefully looking and seeing."

I could not agree with Vallicelli more when he concludes that Vitz's assertion is "plainly false."