Posts

What the Problem of Evil Quietly Concedes

Why blaming God undermines the strongest case for atheism The Problem of Evil is often treated as a free shot against theism. It isn’t. Hidden inside it is a concession—one so strong that, once noticed, the argument never looks the same again. This post is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an internal critique of atheism’s strongest argument. The question is not whether God exists, but: What must an atheist already assume in order to blame God at all? Once those assumptions are made explicit, the full cost becomes clear. 1. The argument assumes better worlds are genuinely possible When sceptics say things like: “God could have prevented this suffering” “God could have created a better world” “God could have made His existence clearer” they are not merely expressing outrage. They are making a modal claim about reality. They are assuming that there really are possible worlds—worlds that could have existed—in which suffering is reduced. This is not optional rhetoric. It is t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is It Fair to Be Judged for Adam’s Sin? A Christian Reflection

A common objection to Christianity is the claim that it is unfair for human beings to be held responsible for Adam’s sin, or to be judged for not loving a God who set up such a system in the first place. The concern feels intuitive; how can the actions of someone who lived so long ago truly represent me? However, the Christian story is far more nuanced and far more hopeful than this objection assumes. Adam as Representative: A Historical Figure and a Type of Humanity In Scripture, Adam functions both as the first human being and as a representative of humanity as a whole. His very name Adam, simply means man or humanity (Genesis 5:2). This dual role suggests that Adam is both: 1. Historically significant — the ancestral starting point of humanity. 2. Typologically significant, a picture of what any human being is like when faced with moral choice. Paul explicitly develops this representative role in Romans 5: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death throug...
1 comment
Read more

MOA Regained: A Critique of Symmetry Lost

Image
  Abstract In a recent paper by Fritz, Lo and Schmid(Fritz et al 2025), published in Noûs demonstrated that in lower modal logics e.g. KT and S4, a case for atheism can be lodged. I will demonstrate that while their case is logically valid in these lower modal logics, I have potentially an undercutting defeater for their central claim that non-existence of God can be established using the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument (RMOA) in these lower logics. If successful I will show that even in lower modal logics, using the law of non-contradiction, the Modal Ontological Argument can be prioritised. 1.    Introduction In Symmetry Lost: A Modal Ontological Argument For Atheism, the authors give a formal proof that on lower modal logics God (g) does not exist in the actual world. While this was logically valid in KT and S4 modal logics, their conclusion I will argue is metaphysically impossible. If successful, I will use the law of non-contradiction to show that if g is ep...
Post a Comment
Read more

A critique of B theory of time

Image
 Critique of B theory of time In the B theory of time, it is said this is some of the motivations for thinking time travel is possible is time has no inherent directionality, so theoretically at least you could move “forward” or “backwards” in time. However, if we take B theory of time seriously, if we take a theoretical fundamental particle 14.8 billion years in the later than direction, which for arguments sake comprises my 4D block (P2 in figures 1.1 and 1.2) in the present T1. If it were possible to travel back in time to say 50 years in the later than direction, before I was born, my “parts” that make my 4D block are now in potentially multiple different locations or blocks of other objects/individuals (see figures 1.1 and 1.2). More bizarrely, if I could travel in the past, does my 4D block then perdure in now two separate locations? So, it seems at least on the face of it, this would contain at least a paradox and more realistically a contradiction, as the things that consti...
Post a Comment
Read more

A critique of Symmetry Lost: By Peter Fritz, Tien-Chun Lo, and Joseph C. Schmid

Formal Proof: The RMOA At Best Establishes ¬□g in w0 Objective: My aim to prove that if g (an MGB exists) is metaphysically possible (◇g), the RMOA’s premises P1 (□(g → □g)), P2 (♢g), and P2* (♢¬g) in KT/S4 at best establish ¬□g (it is not necessary that God exists) in the actual world (w0), not ¬g (God does not exist in w0). The derivation of ¬g in w0 is formally valid but metaphysically overreaching, as ◇g implies g is possible in w0, making ¬g possibly false. The conclusion ¬g in w0 requires an unjustified assumption about w0’s metaphysical status, limiting the RMOA’s conclusion to ¬□g. Definitions and Notation: g: An MGB exists, with properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and Omni benevolence. w0: Actual world. w1: A possible world where g holds (for P2). w2: A possible world where ¬g holds (for P2*). ◇p: p is possible (true in some accessible world). □p: p is necessary (true in all accessible worlds). R(w, w’): Accessibility relation (w accesses w’).  KT: Modal logic with ref...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Incoherence of Lack-theism

Previously in " Can Non-Resistant Non-Belief be Compatible with Atheism " I write " as defined in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (SEoP) as "(A)n atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition." If you are a lack-theist, you are simply confused; the claim of atheism is the negation of the theistic claim! If you want to state your psychological state, that is, you lack belief in God (you don't possess the proposition God exists), that isn't a positive claim and frankly removes you from the debate. Your brain state, like a weather pattern, isn't a debatable position and doesn't demonstrate a rationally held position, it's just how your brain happens to be at this point. By this logic, a stone lacks belief in the proposition God exists. In principle this can't be a legitimate position of a NRNB, as that too is a brain state, not a rational position, in ...
Post a Comment
Read more

How Can Jesus Take On The Sins of The World: and Why Does It Matter?

Introduction In my previous posts " Did Jesus Really Suffer? " Arguing the Jesus’s sacrifice was more than 3 days of inconvenience and a infinite lowering of His power to reconcile man to God. And in " Can Finite Crimes Deserve Infinite Punishment? " Showing hell is firstly a place outside God's presence and secondly,  it's the logical consequence of the ultimate rejection of God's provision; God can not force you into His presence against your will. In this post I will try to tackle why Jesus’s death is sufficient to save humanity. The legal framework: In law, in particular employment law, a manager('s) or a managing director can be legally liable for mistakes employees made in certain extreme cases, even if the manager('s) or managing director had no knowledge or direct involvement in the negligent acts perpetrated by the employee. The very fact they were in charge and responsible at the time can be enough to condemn them to prison and or fi...
1 comment
Read more

Omnipotence, Omniscience and Freewill

An often used argument from some atheists, is that the typical theist understanding of God, who is omnipotent and omniscient leads to a contradiction where (according to their logic) God knows what any person will do, leading to them being determined. This is where the apparent contradiction comes, if they are determined, God is damning people to hell, for things He, appointed (determined) them to do, making God unjust, that is not omnibenevolent.  Clarifying terms. Before we continue, we should address what we mean by omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and freewill.  Omniscience: Knowing all true facts including moral truths.  Omnipotence: The ability to do anything logically possible . Omnibenevolence: Being morally perfect. Freewill: Being able to do otherwise, or having significant freedom.  Addressing the issue.  The fact no clear contradiction has been found in philosophical thought and even philosophically sophisticated atheists like Graham Oppy ...
1 comment
Read more

Can Non-resistant Non-belief be compatible with Atheism?

 In my rebuttal of Schellenberg’s Divine Hiddenness argument  I show that:  1. His ultimism doesn't logically entail perfect love. 2. That general (natural theology) and special (the evidence for Jesus Christ) revelation are sufficient for a belief in God. 3. Temporary hiddenness is compatible even within Schellenberg’s framework and only perpetual hiddenness is incompatible with God. My contention in this post is to suggest that the claim, no God exists or it is unlikely God exists, better known as atheism is incompatible with the claim they are a non-resistant non-believer (NRNB). A NRNB is Schellenberg’s notion for those who would believe, had they sufficient evidence to believe such a proposition. He (Schellenberg) gives numerous cases of apparent NRN-Belief; such as those who never even heard of Jesus or a personal God, say for instance 10,000 years ago, or individuals that are truly seeking, yet for no lack of trying, do not believe. I do not want to go over the sam...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dealing With Doubt

I became a Christian, or rather 'born again,' at age 12 when my dear sister spoke to me in my bedroom, and I made the confession of faith, giving my life to Christ. I felt a joy that I couldn’t express, and colours seemed more vivid and real than ever before. A few years afterward, I was baptised and, like many, experienced my metaphorical '40 days and nights in the desert,' where Jesus faced temptation by the devil. In my case, this seemed to last about two and a half years. I had depression, or more accurately, I had depressive thoughts and deep doubts about my faith. At that point, I didn’t want God to exist and actively sought reasons to disprove His existence. I think we all have an innate sense that we are good people, comparing ourselves to others and saying we’re not like ‘so-and-so’ (whose faults seem worse than ours). Or we say we may not be like Mother Teresa, but we’re nowhere near as bad as Hitler or Tony Blair. In other words, my point is that we tend to j...
Post a Comment
Read more