The Scientific Consensus and the Pro-Life Position

I have been told that I need to accept “scientific consensus” as fact. Think, for example, about climate change. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for the great State of California, “The scientific community has reached a strong consensus that global temperatures are rising rapidly as a direct result of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human-made sources.” The Governor’s web-page then provides me with summaries of reports on climate change supporting that assertion.

As defined by RationalWiki (a web-page that contains information fashioned for those who think themselves intellectually superior because they are atheists), the scientific consensus is “what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant. The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research.”

Despite the indisputable fact even in the ey…

An Ontological Argument from the Nature of Being Itself

"The name of infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of our being is God. That depth is what the word God means. And if that word has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself. For if you know that God means depth, you know much about Him. You cannot then call yourself an atheist or unbeliever. For you cannot think or say: Life has no depth! Life itself is shallow. Being itself is surface only. If you could say this in complete seriousness, you would be an atheist; but otherwise you are not."

--Paul Tillich, The Shaking of The Foundations

This arguement will make a lot more sense if you read this priliminary page first:God as The Ground of Being

(1) We recognize the same primary ontological quali…

Adolf Hitler's Apparent Hatred of Christianity

Embarrassed at the murderous legacy of atheist Communist regimes in the twentieth century, leading atheists seek to even the score with believers by portraying Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime as theist and specifically Christian. Atheist websites routinely claim that Hitler was a Christian because he was born Catholic, he never publicly renounced his Catholicism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf, “By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Atheist writer Sam Harris writes that since “the Holocaust marked the culmination of…two hundred years of Christian fulminating against the Jews,” therefore “knowingly or not, the Nazis were agents of religion.” ~ Was Hitler a Christian? By Dinesh D'Souza Nearly 75 years after his suicide in his Berlin bunker, people still debate about Adolf Hitler – his life, his death and his beliefs. It isn’t surprising because Hitler is the universal go-to for the example of evil. And while he wasn’t the greatest mass murderer …

Our Prayers for Professor Larry Hurtado

I don't know how many people read the blogs we reference on the side of this blog, but some of them are really excellent. Sadly, I will shortly be removing one because it will soon become a site with no new material.

As stated on Larry Hurtado's blog, Prof. Hurtado is "a scholar of the New Testament and Christian origins, with posts in higher education since 1975. In August 2011, I retired from my post as Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology (University of Edinburgh) in which I served from 1996. Prior to that, I was in the Department of Religion, University of Manitoba (Winnipeg). My own research over the decades has focused mainly on the origins and development of 'devotion to Jesus' in earliest Christianity, and also on textual criticism and the study of earliest Christian manuscripts as informative artefacts of ancient Christianity." Prof. Hurtado has posted some really excellent articles over time about various NT fragment…

Psalms 14:1 and 53:1: Do Non-Believers Really Do No Good?

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. Psalm 53:1 - The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good. In my last two posts, I have looked at the question of whether Christians have weaponized Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 (they have) but whether the Biblical concept of fool means stupid or silly (it doesn’t). But now I want to turn to the remainder of these two verses because the verses add additional information that Mr. Cline found objectionable in his article, Myth - Atheists Are Fools Who Say "There Is No God": Are Atheists Foolish? Are Atheists Corrupt? Do Atheists Do No Good? Mr. Cline kicks up a great deal of dust over the fact that Christians only like to quote the first part of Psalm 14:1 but not the remainder.

Mr. Cline writes,
Calling someone a fool simply because they don't agr…

Th Religious A priori: a tool in answer to God disproving industry

answering bogus atheist social science

Please book mark this site, link to it, know it and USE It! The Religious a priori

This is a huge site and the core data base is the material from my old site Doxa. This is Doxa updated. It's newly researched, no older than 2010. My research is on going and I'm always adding new stuff I answer all the atheist standards (Occam's razor and how they misuse it, Euthephro, Scotsman) the atheist's greatest hits. Plus a lot of new and advanced stuff  such as Philipse, Lowder and Carroll. My God argument list has been parried down to just the best. Doxa had 42 God arguments because I  was obsessed with making the hitchhiker's guide joke (42). But now I have 12 really good battle tested arguments that have survived 15 years of posting on CARM, Theology, secular web.

The site is divided tino three major sections. It's a blog and laid out like a stationary website. So you can follow newly posted s…

How Should the Hebrew Word Translated “Fool” in Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 be Understood?

Psalm 53:1 - The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.The Hebrew word translated as fool in Psalm 14:1 and 53:1

There is more than one word translated as fool in the Old Testament. The word used in Proverbs 1:7, for example, is the Hebrew word ‘eviyl (and while I don’t see that it is in the etymology of the English word “evil,” the similarity is appropriate, as we shall see). According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon (Gesenius), the Hebrew word ‘eviyl relates to opposition to wisdom and importantly includes the notion of impiety, i.e., lack of reverence; especially for God.

But the word used in Psalm 14:1 and 53:1 is a different word which communicates a lot about what the two Psalms are communicating. The Hebrew word used in these two Psalms is “נָבָל” (nabal). While the primary definition of nabal is “stupid, foolish” according to the Gesenius, the word is more often defined…

Warrant and the Atheist game of proving

Pixie is fussing over my use of the term "warrant but he can't seem to understand it, Let's just take out the bothersome Toulmin stuff and say this. Warrant means there is a good reason to believe in God. I have a good reason to believe in God even though I can't prove God exists.  

Pixie asserts that I have to use the term to make the arguments, but  here here are two of my arguments that do not use the term  to make the argument function.

Version A: CA for Eternal, Necessary Being

1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'6. Therefore God exists.[1]

On that argument you can see I do not use the term Warrant at all. Now I still say that argument  warrants belief. That  is the way I use the term not to make an  argument function but as the goal…

Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 – How Should the word “Fool” be Understood?

Psalm 14:1: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.Last time, I wrote about the inappropriate weaponization of the phrase “The fool has said in his heart ‘There is no God.’” This phrase can be found in Psalm 14:1 and again in Psalm 53:1. Too many Christians use the word “fool” as a pejorative consistent with the current dictionary definition which defines “fool” as being “stupid” or “silly,” and apparently non-believers understand it in that context as well.

While the Hebrew words translated as “fool” or “foolish” do not mean “silly” or “stupid,” they are not complimentary. In Old Testament times as today, being foolish is not something to be embraced. That, however, is not the way that the Bible uses the word “fool” in these two Psalms. In this post, I will focus on the broad usage of the term, and in the next I will focus on the Biblical word translated “fool” in both Psalms.

Foolishness as the antonym of…