The logistics This post is a response to Feser’s recent article “The Neo-Classical Challenge to Classical Theism” (Philosophy Compass). The post is broken into two parts. The first part is written by Dr. Ryan Mullins and only reflects Mullins’s views. … Continue reading →

As Feser (2014, pp. 34-35) reads it, Parmenides’s argument against change runs: Change would require being to arise out of non-being or nothingness. But from non-being or nothingness, nothing can arise. So, change is impossible. Where does the argument go … Continue reading →

Enjoy! Author: Joe

In this post, I’ll comment on Feser’s recent Religious Studies article responding to Graham Oppy. Whether Oppy’s criticisms succeed does not matter to me; what matters to me is whether Feser says anything that might salvage the Aristotelian proof (and, … Continue reading →

This post is my comprehensive response to Feser’s response to my IJPR article. The purpose of this post is to include each post from my seven-part response to Feser in one place. There’s nothing in this post over and above … Continue reading →

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. This post is Part 7, which deals with everything Feser says in his section ‘An argument against EIT’. I have … Continue reading →

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. This post is Part 6, which deals with everything Feser says in his section ‘Theoretical vices’. I have now collected … Continue reading →

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. This post is Part 5, which deals with everything Feser says on the metaphysics of existential inertia. I have now … Continue reading →

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. This post is Part 4, which deals with the prior or intrinsic probability of P-EIT and EET as well as … Continue reading →

Feser has recently responded to my IJPR article. I will respond to his post in a series of blog posts. This post is Part 3, which deals again with Feser’s false (and misrepresentative, and uncharitable) claim that I claim that … Continue reading →