CADRE Comments

In light of the discussion in the comments of the previous post I thought it would be good to examine a key point upon which all of Im Skeptical's arguments, indeed all of Naturalist arguments, are predicated: that QM particles prove something can pop up out of nothing with no cause. Quantum theory seems to confirm the notion that it is possible for the universe to begin with no cause. In terms of the TS argument that would mean that no organizing principle is necessary to explain order. The second contender for a theory of initial conditions is quantum cosmology, the application of quantum theory to the entire Universe. At first this sounds absurd because typically large systems (such as the Universe) obey classical, not quantum, laws. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a classical theory that accurately describes the evolution of the Universe from the first fraction of a second of its existence to now. However it is known that general relativity is incon

[Note: This post is an excerpt from the draft of a book I hope to have published sometime next year.]   Naturalism has been described as belief that the universe is a self-contained system, consisting of strictly natural, material or physical phenomena, constituting all of reality that is knowable in principle. As C.S. Lewis remarked, naturalism means nature is "the whole show": there are no agents external to the natural system (or if there are such agents, they are incapable of interacting with or influencing the system). This belief is commonly said to enjoy two major strengths relative to Christian theism: (1) It is more consistent with observable  evidence , since we at least know that nature exists; and (2) in keeping with the principle of Occam's Razor, it is more parsimonious  (it contains fewer explanatory elements), since we do  not  know with any certainty that any entity outside  of nature exists.   Those certainly sound like reasonable assumptions at

this is from the comment section on  secular outpost  where Bowen responded to the post below that I made on this blog. the previous post on this blog here B radley Bowen    Joe Hinman   •   2 days ago I said: I think that discussions about the "communities" behind the gospels are highly speculative and of little historical value. The author of Mark never discusses "the community" that is allegedly the true author of his gospel. Joe responded: every bible scholar there is even the atheists regard that as a given ============= Comment: What "every bible scholar" assumes to be true is NOT historical evidence. I am asking for historical evidence, not opinion polls of biblical scholars. 1     • Reply • Share ›   Joe Hinman    Bradley Bowen   •   2 days ago I think you have been around academia long enough to know how that plays out. there is a reason why it's Consensus.