Monthly Archives: December 2011

Speaking ill of the dead

I strongly recommend Glenn Greenwald on Hitchens’ death, both for what it says about Hitchens specifically and an important general point: We are all taught that it is impolite to speak ill of the dead, particularly in the immediate aftermath of someone’s death. For a private person, in a private setting, that makes perfect sense. [...]

Plantinga’s ontological argument, take three

Rather than respond directly to comments on my previous post, I’m rewriting it, taking the issue “from the top” so to speak. The last four paragraphs are what I’d most like people to read and comment on, but the earlier parts are changed quite a bit too by adding a discussion of William Lane Craig. [...]

Soundness is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition being a good argument

I had been meaning to write something about this, but I decided to bump it up my to-do list after seeing this comment from Ashtad: If you aren’t denying its validity (and by your apparent admission in the comment I replied to above, you aren’t), then you’re admitting that it is, at least, “halfway good” [...]

It gets better, but sometimes it gets worse first

For several years now, I’ve been wondering if the United States could one day transform into, well, a totalitarian hellhole. But when I’ve had such thoughts, I usually tell myself, “It’s unlikely. When you look at history, the general trend is towards things getting better. That includes governments becoming more free. In the history of [...]

Why Alvin Plantinga’s ontological argument isn’t even halfway good

Someone asked me to write about Alvin Plantinga, so I’ve decided to write another explanation of who his ontological argument isn’t any good, due to not being satisfied with what I’ve previously written on this. Please tell me if the following is clear enough. If people understand it, it will appear more or less as [...]