Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project

[Aetixintro]

Given the discussion of The over 100 Arguments for God's Existence, I think it's nice to add this book to the Book Club.

I haven't bought it, but clearly appeals due to the Apologetics issue. Great learning.

ABSTRACT
Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God expands Alvin Plantinga’s seminal article “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments.” Each of Plantinga’s original suggestions is developed by a wide variety of accomplished scholars. This collection both presents ground-breaking research and lays the foundations for research projects for years to come. Plantinga’s arguments—and the discussions in this book addressing his arguments—touch on theological and philosophical ideas of cosmology, metaphysics, epistemology, semantics, ethics, aesthetics and ontology. The book also includes discussions based on the phrase “(or so)” in Plantinga’s article. The book concludes with an interview between Trent Dougherty and Alvin Plantinga, as well as an appendix: Plantinga’s original lecture notes “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments.”

- From https://oxford.universitypressscholarsh ... 0190842215

Here are some links where you can find more on it:
Review: https://readingreligion.org/books/two-d ... uments-god

Please mind the original as well: https://web.archive.org/web/20080724042 ... uments.pdf, lecture notes, though.
Alvin Plantinga: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga.

Enjoy!

[John Bauer]

[Replying to Aetixintro in post #1]

Never heard of this book. I just bought it, thanks to your recommendation.

Edit: Hah! I like how W. L. Craig's kalam cosmological argument is relegated to the "or so" part of the book. Cheeky.

Neither supported nor refuted, the argument simply goes almost entirely unremarked. So its inclusion in the present volume can be justified only by taking it to be among the unnamed arguments in the catchall category "or so."

(p. 389)

[John Bauer]

Now that is interesting. As I understood it, the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument (KCA) went like this: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." But, according to this chapter on the KCA by William Lane Craig (pp. 389-405), he has changed his tune a bit? Apparently, Craig now prefers to reformulate the first premise:

The medieval Muslim theologian al-Ghazali presented the following simple statement of the argument: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."

We shouldn't stumble at Ghazali's deductive formulation of the argument. The evidence needn't render a deductive argument's premises certain in order for the argument to be cogent. But, if one prefers, the argument can be formulated inductively as an inference to the best explanation. I myself like to present the argument deductively because of the clarity and simplicity of such a formulation.

Ghazali's first premise, "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning," raises a number of questions that limitations of space preclude my discussing. Suffice it to say that I now prefer to reformulate the causal premise: "If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning."

(pp. 389-390)

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to John Bauer in post #3]

John Bauer, you and others are warmly welcome to write your own book recommendations and about other peculiar books you may come over. Alright? All the best.