<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Craig on the Ontological and (Leibnizian) Cosmological Arguments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/03/08/craig-on-the-ontological-and-leibnizian-cosmological-arguments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/03/08/craig-on-the-ontological-and-leibnizian-cosmological-arguments/</link>
	<description>Best blog name ever</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 07:27:09 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why Alvin Plantinga&#8217;s ontological argument isn&#8217;t even halfway good &#124; The Uncredible Hallq</title>
		<link>http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/03/08/craig-on-the-ontological-and-leibnizian-cosmological-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-8255</link>
		<dc:creator>Why Alvin Plantinga&#8217;s ontological argument isn&#8217;t even halfway good &#124; The Uncredible Hallq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:09:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=1097#comment-8255</guid>
		<description>[...] explanation of who his ontological argument isn&#8217;t any good, due to not being satisfied with what I&#8217;ve previously written on this. Please tell me if the following is clear enough. If people understand it, it will appear more or [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] explanation of who his ontological argument isn&#8217;t any good, due to not being satisfied with what I&#8217;ve previously written on this. Please tell me if the following is clear enough. If people understand it, it will appear more or [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: More on Luke&#8217;s endorsement of William Lane Craig &#124; The Uncredible Hallq</title>
		<link>http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/03/08/craig-on-the-ontological-and-leibnizian-cosmological-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-6974</link>
		<dc:creator>More on Luke&#8217;s endorsement of William Lane Craig &#124; The Uncredible Hallq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 19:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=1097#comment-6974</guid>
		<description>[...] design argument, moral argument, argument for the resurrection, and even what he’s said about the ontological argument and Leibnizian cosmological argument. (You respond to those articles here, if you [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] design argument, moral argument, argument for the resurrection, and even what he’s said about the ontological argument and Leibnizian cosmological argument. (You respond to those articles here, if you [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: somethingFromNothing</title>
		<link>http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/03/08/craig-on-the-ontological-and-leibnizian-cosmological-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-6385</link>
		<dc:creator>somethingFromNothing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=1097#comment-6385</guid>
		<description>his cosmo argment has been already debunked here

http://hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>his cosmo argment has been already debunked here</p>
<p><a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig" rel="nofollow">http://hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig on the moral argument : The Uncredible Hallq</title>
		<link>http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/03/08/craig-on-the-ontological-and-leibnizian-cosmological-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-6043</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig on the moral argument : The Uncredible Hallq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Apr 2010 01:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=1097#comment-6043</guid>
		<description>[...] edition of William Lane Craig&#8217;s book Reasonable Faith. The previous posts in the series are Craig on the ontological and (Leibnizian) cosmological arguments and Craig on the teleological argument. Most of the rest of the contents of the book are covered in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] edition of William Lane Craig&#8217;s book Reasonable Faith. The previous posts in the series are Craig on the ontological and (Leibnizian) cosmological arguments and Craig on the teleological argument. Most of the rest of the contents of the book are covered in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

