Showing posts from September, 2019

now for something completely different: Hartshorne' s modal argument

Charles Hartshorne 1897-2000 Modern Champion of the modal argument What follows is one of the most challenging subjects you will ever hear about. It is the best way to get a head ache, but I think it proves the existence of God. The problem is it requires a very specialized background to understand it. First you have to understand  modal  logic. Modal Logic is so called because it turns upon the use of so called "modal operators." It's called "modal" because it is the logic of modes of being. "modes" as in what type of existence something exits in, weather it is dependent upon other things, weather it can cease or fail to exist and so forth. The modal operators are "necessity," "contingency" "impossibly," "possibility." Necessity and contingency lie at the base of our modern understanding of cause and effect. They come from scholastic notions of logic, but the distinction between the notion our modern no

One Resurrection, One Body

There are actually those who think God gives us a totally separate body as a  resurrection body. Not to put anyone down but that strikes me as a bizarre idea. I've never heard it before,the vast majority of Christians have been understanding it as a renovation or renewal of the old body that dies. In discussion on the comment section of this blog Pixie asserts:  "The early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body. That is what Daniel describes. That is what Paul saw. Mark is neutral on it. It is only by the time of Matthew and Luke that it changes." I responded: -- there is no evidence of that belief none at all, it contradicts Thomas testimony of placing his fingers in the nail prints: To which he responds: " Paul wrote what he believed, that Jesus was resurrected in a new body, " [1] I disagree because the clear and dominating  image in this regard (Paul's view of resurrection body) is a seed being burred and rising up from the gro

The Resurrection as Apology and as Doctrine

I take this opportunity to answer a comment by our loyal opponent Pixie So like the resurrection. The over-arching point here is that you are trying to support a claim that is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment. I appreciate you see it differently, but you start from the assumption the resurrection happened, and filter everything through that. I do not. [1] The thing that struck me the most about this comment is his assertion that I start with the assumption the resurrection happened. I have two responses for this. They will seem like contradictions but I think this points  up the paradox of apologetic.  On the one hand, my initial feeling was to respond: "of course I assume it happened because that assumption has made the biggest difference in my life. But on the other hand, I w

Metacrock makes good

getting some recognition after all these  years My name is Anuj Agarwal, I'm the Founder of Feedspot. Thanks for submitting your blog  Metac rock's Blog  on Feedspot. I would like to personally congratulate you as your blog  Metacrock's Blog  has been selected by our panelist as one of the  Top 15 Christian Philosophy Blogs  on the web. christian_philosophy_blogs/ I sent in link for cadre blog 

My Answer to Bradley Bowen on Blood and Water

my answer to Bowen's 10 points on historicity of John are right after the foot note not in the consent section but right after the notes, Bradley Bowen wrote a post on  Secular Outpost  blog responding to my criticisms of his defense of the "swoon theory." He gives it the mature adult title: "Hinman's Pathetic Defense of his Sad Little Argument. "  . [1]     I feel like I'm back on the Carm board.  Oddly enough he did not read and makes no reference to my post" Blood and Water from Jesus Side ,"[9/1/19]  [2]  which should have known about because I put  the link in the comment section of  SOP . So attacks upon my argument are out moded and ignore  my major work. His whole first section assumes the wrong idea.     In response to my criticism of Peter Kreeft’s  weak and pathetic objections against the Survival Theory, Joe Hinman wrote the following in  one of his blog posts : [ note the link is to "Bread and Butter Apologetics Aug