Apollos.ws is a rich source of articles in all subfields of the philosophy of religion. Papers are in PDF format. My Could the Universe Cause Itself to Exist? is here.
Civil e-mail containing comments, constructive criticisms, and the like is gladly received, although I cannot promise to answer everything. I will, however, make an honest attempt. Offensive e-mail is deleted unread. Choose your subject headings carefully as I sometimes decide to delete from them. I do not open attached files from unknown parties. If you send a message not addressed to me in particular, I will be tempted to let someone in general answer it. Pith is king and neatness counts. E-mail is subject to posting in whole or in part at my discretion unless the sender requests otherwise.
Comments Policy
You must be pre-approved to leave comments on this site. If I know you and you have already established your bona fides, then you are in like Flynn, whether or not you hide behind a pseudonym. But if I don't know you, or you have proven yourself to be offensive in the past, then you are out like Stout — unless you reveal your real identity and provide me with some way of verifying it. In other words, no one I don't know will be approved who comments anonymously or pseudonymously. Full statement here.

It could be a quirk of my Mac (a Mac G4 with OS 10.3.9) and its browser (Mozilla Firefox), but I'm unable to open any of the PDFs. I tried to open a paper on the Ontological Argument, but was thwarted by a warning that the PDF was password-protected. I then attempted to subscribe to the site, but received a message that "subscriptions are not yet open." The message also noted that the COST of subscription was yet to be decided, which I suppose means this will be a paying site.
I also tried to access your "Could the Universe Cause Itself to Exist?" paper (which I've read elsewhere-- probably on your older Independent Philosopher blog), but when I opened it, I saw nothing but electronic gibberish. I'm wondering whether this document isn't also password-protected. Apollos.ws is ostensibly a Christian site. Where's the charity, dammit?
Have you had any luck opening the site's documents?
Kevin
I opened Bill's paper without any trouble on my PC, using the Acrobat Reader 7.0. The Baggaley paper on the ontological argument gave me a password-protected message, so that doesn't seem to be a problem with your setup.
Thanks for these comments. I can't seem to get Adobe Acrobat to work on my machine, so I haven't looked at these files.
I'll fire off an e-mail to the proprietor of the site. I became aware of the site when he asked me if he could upload my paper to it.
When it comes to seeing your paper, it sounds like Kevin just needs to check for updates on his Adobe Acrobat reader or get the latest version. There are no problems with the formatting on your paper.
The problem both Kevin and Tim are having with other articles is that they are clicking on the author’s name. What they need to do is click on the link *below* each of the abstracts. The link reads “Read Article (External Site)”.
Now – why, on some papers, is the author’s name a hyperlink that does not open up the file as well? And why does it ask for a password? This feature leads to a cached backup of every article that only the site administrator is allowed to view. It is sort of like how Google has a cached version of everything they link to. We can’t give access to that link because it is a copy that our site hosts as a backup on the web-designer’s computer. There could be issues with copyright. We cannot host someone’s article on our server without permission. As author’s give us permission to host their articles however, we take off the password protection and, as is the case with your article, both the hyperlinked name and the “Read Article” link can be accessed – and they both lead to the same paper.
This may seem a bit confusing. We’re looking into how to simplify this. The bottom line is that every article on the page is accessible to the general public. If the “Read Article” link does not work, its because the site we are linking to is down -- like FaithQuest which hosts great articles but is notorious for crashing. What we are doing is trying to get permission to host every article we have in the manner that you have allowed us to. That way we don’t have to rely on someone else’s waning interest, inability to pay hosting fees, vulnerability to hacking or faulty server. It is our goal to have permanence for every piece we host. We’re trying to create a reliable research tool, not a link-graveyard like many other philosophy of religion sites on the web.
Also - the “subscribe” feature that Kevin mentions is for a “virtual classroom” project we are working on where NT scholars and philosophers will be giving us audio and video recordings of entire lessons.
Thanks for clearing that up!
I like John Sabatino's description of his plans for the site. It sounds like an ambitious and worthy project.
Tim
Kevin
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.