Why don't you go to his website and ask. There are plenty of recent posts on his blog that you can part take in and ask "what is god" without derailing the thread.

Have fun.

I don't think Dr. Fesser should carry the burden of explaining (in extensive detail) things that would be standard in a typical intro philosophy text (e.g., as you ask, what is God? What does it mean to exist?)

Hi David,

>It seems to me if a person is "virtuous" in order to earn an eternal reward, he or she may not be so virtuous after all.

The example of the Jews is a good one. I have a couple of relevant points:
- It's not so much about the reward or lack of reward that is the question in my mind. It's more about the standard (or perhaps authority or source of compulsion) that allows one to differentiate between good and evil. What is that standard for an atheist? I can only think it is either a) human flourishing (in which case, because we are able to "rise above" our instincts and the world around us, one might say 'to hell with human flourishing... i'll manipulate the world around me to suit me') or b) self-pleasure (in which case others can legitimately be used as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves).

I see serious problems with both. And I can't think of any other standard or authority that would guide moral judgement.

- If (from and atheist perspective) one is 'virtuous' in order to gain (a non-extant) eternal reward, then the atheist might conclude that that's selfish and not vituous. But as per my point above (see b) as the method for determining good-evil), if self-service or self-pleasure is what motivates us to do 'good' then I would have thought that the person's virtue is entirely legitimate. Perhaps even exemplary.

"It sounds as if what you are saying is that the presence of good and
evil in the world constitutes no evidence for the presence or absence of
God."

I would not say that. I'm only saying that the world, as it is, is a fact.

It sounds as if what you are saying is that the presence of good and evil in the world constitutes no evidence for the presence or absence of God. I agree with that.

Then let me re-phrase.

"To answer the request for a description of your faith journey with enough information to fill three blogs smacks of self-aggrandizement. Or an incredible lack of empathy for your listerner/reader. The hallmark of a boor."

"To alter one's position once, and to even further amend it, might be considered intellectual honesty. To alter it numerous times seems to indicate one lacks the courage of ones own positions."

Another point--if you think Dr. Feser is entitled to "some basic courtesy" I think that shows you haven't read much of Dr. Feser's work. If he wanted to be entitled to courtesy he needs to extend some.

Finally--might I suggest that courtesy would dictate that you use the gentlemen's title? Especially since "Dr. Feser" is how he styles himself.

This was a post taken out of Feser's blog, after people had specifically asked him about his faith journey. Vogt then posted Feser's post in three parts (I don't know why), so it seems like your charge of hubris is misplaced.
Further, what you call lack of convictions, others might call intellectual honesty (see Hilary Putnam). At the very least, I think some basic courtesy is warranted in thinking Feser simply found what he had seen more compelling than he previous beliefs w/o letting his opinions go with the wind.

And that, in a nutshell is how atheists become Christians.

Do you mean to imply that if atheists cut their studies short, they will remain atheists, but if the continue to study long enough, they will become Christians?

I simply do not see an edifice of naturalism. Sure, it is hubris to suggest a definition of natural and say nothing other than this can exist. Maybe some of the philosophers say this and they can enjoy debating their deductive proof in possible worlds.

But in the context of a discussion on theism, the position theists need to combat is "we agree a natural world exists, but I see no reason to accept that anything supernatural exists". Apologists need to start providing evidence for this claimed supernature rather than pointing to qualia and saying it is not material or natural. While such experiences may not be material, there is no reason to call them supernatural in the sense of theism.

No, not really. I would rather he tell me what he thinks a god is, what he thinks exists means, and why I should believe. As I understand it, this site is designed to further discussion on reasons for accepting or rejecting theism. All I can say in response here, "is I haven't read most of these philosophers, you have given me no reason to, and I still have little idea of why you converted back other than the argument from ignorance that naturalism hasn't been fully proven and feels unsatisfying to you."