CADRE Comments

  Recently on Facebook, someone posted the following argument against the existence of God. He introduced it by saying that it was an argument that he had not seen very often, but he gave it the moniker “The Argument from Errancy.” The posted argument read: Premise 1. If the Christian God exists and wants to preserve His Word in the Bible, it is more probable than not that the Bible would be unambiguously inerrant and clearly of supernatural origin. Premise 2. The Bible is seemingly errant and man-made. Conclusion 1. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Bible is the inspired Word of God Conclusion 2. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Christian God would exist. The author then added these notes about Premise 1 and 2: P1 seems pretty straightforward. Jesus himself clearly saw Scripture as authoritative, and Paul says that all scripture is God-Breathed. Scripture would allow laymen to understand God. P2 requires more evidence on the skeptics’ part, but they can appeal to his

Scientism is the understanding that science is the only valid form of knowledge . It's an ideology and permeates real scientific circles. When thinkers whose understanding is colored by this ideology their defense of science against valid ordinary critique is ideological and programmed, We can always spot this kind of thinking immediately because they inevitably see any valid criticism as an attack upon the very notion of science, This tendency to think of science as some fragile sacred truth that dare not be questioned is emblematic of ideological reverence,  An example bof this attitude is found in the essay by Marcel Kuntz is at the Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire Végétale, CNRS/Université Joseph Fourier/CEA/INRA in Grenoble, The essay entitled "The Postmodern assault on Science" [1] Kuntz tells us "Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths; a disturbing trend that has gone unnoticed by a majo

I am very excited! Production has begun on the second Dr. Strange movie, Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness ! I loved reading Dr. Strange comic books as a child, and I loved the first Dr. Strange movie, so when it comes to this upcoming Dr. Strange movie, I am like a kid at Christmas staring at the animatronic characters in a department store window. Even more intriguing is the idea that Dr. Strange will apparently be adventuring across the multiverse – a concept introduced to movie-goers in previous Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies such as the first Dr. Strange, Ant-Man, the Avengers: Endgame and Spider-Man: Far from Home. The multiverse establishes a creative playground for endless adventures in alternative universes for the heroes of the MCU. The movie website, Cinemablend.com, explains the multiverse as used in the MCU :        In short, the idea is that reality as we know it is simply one of an infinite number – including those that are almost exactly the same as

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, whether it is dependent upon other things, whether 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 notions of c/e and the scholastic ones in the middle ages is not that great.

Earlier this month, an event happened that has very much dominated the news: protestors upset at what they viewed as election fraud protested outside the Capitol building. According to news reports as confirmed by photos, some illegally entered the Capitol building itself apparently intent upon disrupting the electoral college vote certification. During the protest, a Capitol policeman and a protestor were both killed. Three others died at the site. I am not here to debate about what exactly happened on that day, the motivation of the protestors, the reporting on the event, whether it should lead to the impeachment or resignation of President Trump, or any other political matter related to the event.   In fact, I will delete any comments made to this post about the event itself.   I am writing about this because, in response to the event, W heaton College in Illinois decided to issue a statement that I reproduce in its entirety below. Concerning the January 6 Attack on the Capitol

At some point in the past apologists have argued laws require a law giver. Thus natural law requires a creator.C.S. Lewis for example. [1] Lewis was arguing in terms of moral law, not natural law. Atheists are fond of arguing that law of nature are not like laws passed by legislatures: Those set by a law giver, like the ones passed by the legislative branch, are prescriptive, while the ones humans develop through observation and analysis are descriptive. As the laws of nature scientists have discovered are descriptive, it would be invalid to deduce that a law giver must exist.There's a difference between prescriptive and descriptive [2] ... Do the “laws of nature” or “physical laws” actually govern the way the universe behaves, or are these merely convenient descriptions of our observations about the way the universe behaves? Scientists, and atheists, sometimes write as if the former were true, and sometimes as if it were nonsense and the latter must be the truth. Others hav

  While I never served in the military, it is my understanding that basic military training, aka “boot camp” is one of the most arduous and grueling things one can go through. Or, to put it simply, it is hell. First, there’s the physical aspect – soldiers need to be in good physical shape to be able to perform the tasks expected of them. To that end, to get through basic training (not including specialized training for different services) requires the following: Two minutes of push-ups, two minutes of sit-ups and a timed, two-mile run. The Army bases scores on recruits’ age, gender, number of repetitions or amount of time taken for each component. To complete boot camp, recruits must score at least 50 points in each event, for a total of 150 points. For men ages 17 to 21, that means performing at least 35 push-ups and 47 sit-ups, as well as running two miles in no more than 16 minutes and 36 seconds. Male recruits ages 22 to 26 have to complete a minimum of 31 push-ups, 43 sit-ups

I am going to re explore this quote by Pixie,whichI used last time because I think it typifies most atheist's views of prayer: If you get cancer, you can either pray for God to cure you or go see a doctor. Today, going to see a doctor has a decent chance of leading to you surviving. Praying will not improve your chances at all. The original arguments of Christianity were the miracles; the healings performed by Jesus and later his apostles. Nowadays, these "miracles" are being done by science, and those doing it in Jesus' name are routinely shown to be charlatans. Is it any wonder young people are not impressed? [1] What I see here, in addition to out and out doubt, is the tendency to think of God's healing power as a competitor for  modern medicine. God did not set out to heal all sick nor did he offer his healing as a response to the human condition. Miracles are signs as Px says but he abandons this insight right away and sees them as an attempt to heal all si