Showing posts from March, 2019

Argument from Laws of Nature

(1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations. 
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.
(6) Thus we have a rational warrant for belief that Go exists

If you recall last time I posted a prolegomena to an argument from laws of nature. In other words, an argument for existence of God based upon laws of physics and nature. That article was just thinking getting ready to make such an argument, Here I am making it. I encourage the reader to go back and read th…

Skepie lies about my studies

He spends a lot of his  time writing lies about my work. He didn't have the guts to show me the list until it was a mile long. Here is one of his piles of drivel.

my response

Joe HinmanMarch 16, 2019 at 8:25 AM I an Joseph Hinman I did the interview in question. I want ayone who reads this to realize taht "I am skeptical" does not know anything. He is not a scholar, he's never been to graduate school He;s not published, he doesn't read most of what he criticizes,I doubt he read the interview.

I argue with this guy every day on my bogs. He is trying to get at me because I've beaten him so many times. The one thing I know from arguing with him is that he does not read anything he criticizes.

Look at his statement "The thesis of his book is to show that the scientific evaluation of empirical data relating to mystical experiences provides a…

Why There is no Empirical Proof That God Exists

Skepie says:

- Joe, most philosophers agree that the existence of God CANNOT be proven. Did you ever ask yourself why? You can only prove God if you make certain metaphysical assumptions. If you do, then the existence of of can logically follow from them. But it is not necessary to make those assumptions. Therefore, the existence of God cannot be proven. This is what philosophers understand, but you completely fail to understand.

I intersected that I don;t argue for proving God, I argue for belief as rationally warranted, to which he says:

- Joe, you are a liar. You make arguments that end with "Therefore God exists." This purports to be a logical proof, and you even said it was. Have you ever once heard me make an argument that ends with "Therefore God does not exist"? No, you haven't. Here  is part of a post from my blog on JANUARY 22, 2017

the excerpt:
From time to time atheists have…

Mucking Around in the Primordial Soup

The common understanding of the rise of life on Earth by the typical layman is pretty vague. Still, most will swear to the common understanding that life arose naturally using time, chance and evolution in a mixture of chemicals and amino acids in the primordial soup (or pre-biotic soup) of the early Earth … even though most scientists admit that they have no knowledge of how it actually occurred. But the popularizers of the belief of life arising by chance make it sound as if the case for this spontaneous arising of life is already beyond doubt.

For example, Live Science published an article entitled “How Earth’s Primordial Soup Came to Life” – which seems like a pretty strong affirmation that scientists know how life sprang forth from the primordial soup . But notice what the article actually says:
Life on Earth first bloomed around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sparked into life, scientists suspect. But what turned sterile …

Causal Necessity/Contingency is a Marker for Broadly Logical N/c

what   we learned from the last discussion  of the cosmological argument last week.

There seem to be two definitions of N/c: (1) based upon the dependence of an existent upon some prior condition or cause, or  (2) N =  That which cannot cease or fail to exist, c=that which case cease or fail.I am arguing these are the same one is a maker for the other,

There are different types of necessity and contingency,

Truth itself can be either necessary or contingent:

Distinction between kinds of truth. Necessary truth is a feature of any statement that it would be contradictory to deny. (Contradictions themselves are necessarily false.) Contingent truths (or falsehoods) happen to be true (or false), but might have been otherwise. Thus, for example: "Squares have four sides." is necessary. "Stop signs are hexagonal." is contingent. "Pentagons are round." is contradictory. This distinction was traditionally associated (before Kant and Kripke) with the distinctions b…