http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/mitchell-leblanc-and-an-argument-for-atheism/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mitchell-leblanc-and-an-argument-for-atheism Proclaiming the truth of the gospel and the centrality of Christ in all things Sun, 20 May 2012 05:32:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/mitchell-leblanc-and-an-argument-for-atheism/#comment-909 Mitchell LeBlanc and a Disproof of God |:| The Aristophrenium Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:10:23 +0000 http://aristophrenium.com/?p=400#comment-909 [...] what he thought to be a possible disproof of the existence of God. The following day I had posted a rebuttal in response to his disproof. Given the exquisitely complex manner in which he formulated his [...] [...] what he thought to be a possible disproof of the existence of God. The following day I had posted a rebuttal in response to his disproof. Given the exquisitely complex manner in which he formulated his [...]

]]> http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/mitchell-leblanc-and-an-argument-for-atheism/#comment-606 Ryft Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:12:10 +0000 http://aristophrenium.com/?p=400#comment-606 <p>Yes, this is a normal thing to do in logical reasoning. As you accurately suspected, the reason why (1) is given in that way is precisely because LeBlanc is “dealing specifically with Christian theism” which posits a God that has the stated attributes necessarily (due especially to ‘divine simplicity’). It is “asserted just like that” presumably because LeBlanc recognizes the potential Straw Man fallacy of doing otherwise (i.e., predicating the argument on a God different from or weaker than that which Christian theism actually affirms).</p> Yes, this is a normal thing to do in logical reasoning. As you accurately suspected, the reason why (1) is given in that way is precisely because LeBlanc is “dealing specifically with Christian theism” which posits a God that has the stated attributes necessarily (due especially to ‘divine simplicity’). It is “asserted just like that” presumably because LeBlanc recognizes the potential Straw Man fallacy of doing otherwise (i.e., predicating the argument on a God different from or weaker than that which Christian theism actually affirms).

]]> http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/mitchell-leblanc-and-an-argument-for-atheism/#comment-603 Hermiene Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:26:37 +0000 http://aristophrenium.com/?p=400#comment-603 I don't see how (1) can be asserted just like that. Why must God necessarily be triune, if He exists? Or is LeBlanc assuming (1) to be true because he's dealing specifically with Christian theism? Is this a normal thing to do in logical reasoning? (I'm speaking from honest ignorance here.) I don’t see how (1) can be asserted just like that. Why must God necessarily be triune, if He exists? Or is LeBlanc assuming (1) to be true because he’s dealing specifically with Christian theism? Is this a normal thing to do in logical reasoning? (I’m speaking from honest ignorance here.)

]]> http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/mitchell-leblanc-and-an-argument-for-atheism/#comment-602 Ryft on “A Possible Disproof of God’s Existence” | Urban Philosophy Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:59:48 +0000 http://aristophrenium.com/?p=400#comment-602 [...] Smart, who goes by the handle Ryft Braeloch at The Aristophrenium has published a very brief response to my article entitled “A Possible Disproof of God’s Existence.” In his response, [...] [...] Smart, who goes by the handle Ryft Braeloch at The Aristophrenium has published a very brief response to my article entitled “A Possible Disproof of God’s Existence.” In his response, [...]

]]>