Calling Randal Rauser: why won’t you answer some simple questions?
A response to Damian Peterson on the merits of being dogmatic.
An argument undercutting non-theistic attempts to defend their value systems, by demonstrating that value itself is incoherent in a universe without God.
A critical response to the accusation that teaching children beliefs which contradict secular science is a form of child abuse. This post is a reply to Ken Perrott’s article ‘”Biblically correct” child abuse?’
Continued from part 4 « This is my final statement in the debate, Does God exist? between myself and Angels Depart. Since my previous statements have been lengthy and comprehensive, and the conclusion of a debate should raise no new arguments or items of consideration, I’ll endeavor to keep this brief, taking the time merely [...]
Continued from part 3 « Click here for Angels Depart’s final statement; below is my response— As I see it, Angels, there are three main areas which I must cover in this final response so as to show convincingly that God must exist, and that the Bible is his revelation. The first area regards the [...]
Continued from part 2 « Click here for Angels Depart’s third statement; below is my response— Erratum; August 2, 2007: thank you Jim for pointing out that I incorrectly cited the covenant conditions relating to Judges 1. These are not from Leviticus 7, but Deuteronomy 7. As with my previous statement, Angels, I am going [...]