| oxford_analytic_theology_-new_essays_in_philosophy_of_theology1.pdf |
|
3 Comments
Alvin Plantinga: Two (Or More) Kinds Of Scripture Scholarship:
Nice overview of the different views http://www.iep.utm.edu/resurrec/#H3 Here is what I would say if I was a materialist: One might be able to shift the burden of proof away from the proponent of the Christian Doctrine of the Resurrection (CDR) by denying that there is any criterion of personal identity. Merricks does just this. He denies that there are any criteria of identity over time for any object. Further, he claims that he does not have an account of resurrection and that lacking such an account is no problem for the believer in the CDR. It is now up to the opponent of CDR to say why CDR is impossible. Since there are no criteria of personal identity, this task will prove difficult if not impossible. Of course, the anti-criterialist might wish, along with the rest of us, that we knew how God will resurrect us. But this lack of knowledge merely shows that we are ignorant of how resurrection occurs, not that resurrection is impossible. Watch Dennet's interview below for support of Merricks position: http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/How-do-Persons-Maintain-Their-Identity-Daniel-Dennett-/605
Other Theories on the Mode and Extent of Inspiration by M.A. Wilcox: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3135386
According to William Rowe:
1) If God is perfectly good, then He must under all circumstances do the very best thing it is possible for Him to do. 2) If God creates a world, then that world must be the best creatable world. 3) But, if that is so, then God is not free with respect to His act of creation, and is deserving of neither thanks nor praise for so creating since He could no more help doing this than you and I can help breathing. 4) Therefore, God is not free. 5) Suppose that there is no such thing as the best creatable world because there is an endless series of better and better worlds. 6) That would mean that any world God creates, there would always be another better world that He could have created, and hence, God wouldn’t do his best. 7) If God exists, then He created the actual world. 8) Not only is it obvious that this world is not the best, but God could have created a different world that would have been better. 9) Therefore, If a God created this world , He is not morally perfect Response: It seems that God would have done something wrong in creating this world were one or more of the following principles true:
1) It is wrong to bring into existence, knowingly, a being less happy than one He could have brought into existence. 2) On average, a person's life is so miserable that it is not worth having. If God has not wronged anyone in the above two ways, then it is not the case that suicide annihilationism is a right held by anyone whereby a right to suicide annihilationism I mean: Since nobody chooses to exist, suicide annihilationism (ceasing to exist forever) is a legitimate matter of personal choice and a human right for those who have rationally and conscientiously made a decision to end their own lives. |
Categories |
||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed