Showing posts from November, 2020

Puddle v Fine Tunning

A poster on YouTube calling himself "Genetically Modified Skeptic''(GMS) defends the "Puddle argument." [1] This is an atheist refutation of design arguments and just says we mistakenly think the world is designed for us because we fit into it;s scheme so well. Why "puddle?" The oringal version says an orgnaism crawls out of a puddle and sees how well it fits into the world. Christian apologist Frank Turek argues the fine tunning arguent (FT) He is  making a basic istae with the argument. GMS reduces the argent to one issue, perspective. Huge mistake because that is not it.FT does not take the same perspective as a regular design argument. GMS wants you to think it does; he even says this "just the old Palley argument." The difference is profound. The old argument did not have target levels that quantify the probability each target being met. FT only takes fitedness as a basic assumption but it does not stop there.  It says we have numbers

Atheist reduction of knowledge to science part 1

The Scientistic movement cuts across many boundaries. It includes, but is not limited to, atheism. One major facet of its ideology which has been especially important to atheism is the transformation of knowledge to technique. I refer to Barrett’s concept of the illusion of technique, of which I spoke in chapter one. The first move is a reduction of knowledge from a multiplicity of forms to one thing only, scientific knowledge. Then scientific knowledge lends itself to the working of technique in shaping our understanding by manipulating reality and thus truth. This reduction of knowledge to scientific data, is reflected on the popular internet site One such question asked: “is science the supreme form of knowledge?” The answer it gives us is, “Science is the only form of knowledge. There is no way to know something without it being scientific in some way.” [1] It goes to ask “what is science knowledge the answer is “science knowledge is the understanding of everything ar

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 Argument: (1) We recognize the same primary ontological qualities in being itsel that we recognize in God: necessary, Reity, Eternal. (2)We can grasp this association

Thomas Reid Argument or from epistemic Judgment

This is one of my favorite God arguments and its my origonal. Argument: (1) we trust perceptions that work for us in navigating the world (2) we juge by criteria "Regular.consistant, shared" *(RCS) (3) Reliious Experience fits this criteria (4 )enables navigation (5) :. we are warranted to trust RE as indicative *We assume reality by means of a Jugement *we make such jugements based upon criteria *Because RE fits the same criteria we are justfied in making the same assumption; ie that these experinces are idicative of a reality. The criteria: If our experiences are: *Regular *consistant *inter=subjective ("shared") *navigational Then we assume our eperience3s reflect reality. VIII. The Thomas Reid Argument. A. How do we Know the external world exists? Philosophers have often expressed skepticism about the external world, the existence of other minds, and even one's own existence. Rene Descartes went so far as to build an elabor

Comments On The Sermon On The Mount

The Sermon on the Mount is the first of five great discourses in Matthew (chs. 5-7; 10; 13; 18; 24-25). It contains three types of material: (1) beatitudes, i.e., declarations or blessedness (5:1-12), (2) ethical admonitions (5:13-20; 6:1-7:23), (3) contrasts between Jesus’ ethical teaching and Jewish legalistic traditions (5:21–48). The Sermon ends with a short parable stressing the importance of practicing what has just been taught (7:24–27) and an expression of amazement by the crowds at the authority with which Jesus spoke (7:28–29). Opinion differs as to whether the Sermon is a summary of what Jesus taught on one occasion or a compilation of teachings presented on numerous occasions. Matthew possibly took a single sermon and expanded it with other relevant teachings of Jesus. Thirty-four of the verses in Matthew’s Sermon occur in different contexts in Luke than the apparently parallel Sermon on the Plain (Lk 6:17–49). The Sermon on the Mount’s call to moral and ethical living is s

Hartshorne's Modal Argument.

Argument: (1) If God exists, he must exist necessarily, if God does not exist his existence is impossible. (2) Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible. (3) God can be conceived without contradiction (4) therefore, God is not impossible (5) Since God is not impossible he must be necessary. (6) Since god is necessary he must exist. The assumption that God cannot be contingent is implicit in the concept of God itself.Therefore God cannot exist contingently. A. The logic of the 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 i