High Five of the Day - Stand to Reason | Unstringing the Violinist

Greg Koukl wrote a very good response to the following argument supporting Abortion. 

But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,^[2] which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

The argument is designed to give people the dilemma of agreeing that in a particular circumstance it is okay to end the life of a person and that it's no different than when it comes to abortion. It's a clever argument designed to make you scratch your head and at first blush agree to it. However with a little bit of thought it is plain to see that the violinist metaphor fails on several levels. Follow the link to see Greg Koukl's answer.

Stand to Reason | Unstringing the Violinist

High Five of the Day - Calvinistic "Quotes": Man's idolatrous estimation of his self as

This is an awesome quote:

Nothing quite reveals man's idolatrous estimation of his self as being preeminent then his acceptance of Christ dying for sins of others while he refuses to accept that men should die for their own sins!

~ Julius Mickel

This point is what separates born-again Christians from all other people - it is the recognition that salvation is not because we deserve it - we deserve death (physical death and eternal separation from God) because of our sins. Jesus saved us from the consequences of what we did, do, and will do.

Calvinistic "Quotes": Man's idolatrous estimation of his self as

High Five of the Day - God and the Applicability of Mathematics | Reasonable Faith

In his recent debate with Dr Rosenberg,  William Lane Craig touched an argument for God's existence using the applicability of mathematics to the natural world. On the his website, Dr Craig was asked the questions:

Isn't it the case that mathematics could, and in my opinion does seem to be, just a useful fiction as you mentioned in your debate? You say something along the lines of "this wouldn't explain how nature seems to be written in the language of mathematics". Isn't it also the case that if mathematical concepts are useful fictions, then they would describe (accurately if well thought out) the universe as apprehended by our perceptions? Shouldn't we expect that our useful fictions would be useful precisely because they accurately describe our observations?
I have thought that perhaps I am missing the point of the argument though. Perhaps it is the case that you aren't saying God must exist because our useful fictions, particularly those of mathematics describing reality, would just be happy coincidence. Indeed, what kind of coincidence would it be that our tools were designed for the purpose they serve? Perhaps you are making the point that without God the universe wouldn't necessarily exhibit these extremely logical properties.
Maybe I'm just completely wrong headed on this. Could you please set me straight?

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-applicability-of-mathematics#ixzz2Ll8hldKh

Here is a quote from Dr William Lane Craig's Answer:

Your question is about the argument from the applicability of mathematics to the physical world. Question of the Week #277 is about the only place where I have reflected on this question, and I refer you there. Again, it was reading Rosenberg’s own book that prompted me to put this into the form of the theistic argument. For mathematics lies at the foundation of physics, at whose altar Rosenberg bows. Given his scientism (epistemological naturalism), he cannot dismiss applied mathematics as illusory. Rosenberg also emphasizes that naturalism simply cannot tolerate cosmic coincidences. But then what explanation can the naturalist offer for why mathematics is applicable to the physical world, that is to say, for why the physical world is imbued with the complex mathematical structure that physics discovers. Naturalism founders in this regard, whereas theism has an easy answer: God created the universe on the mathematical structure that He had in mind.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-applicability-of-mathematics#ixzz2Ll4vYMXw

I think reading the full response is  a good idea. I have to say that I have often thought that the fact that we can use mathematics to model the universe is good evidence that there is a rational mind that not only brought the universe into being but holds it together. I've been fascinated by the fact that so many physical constants contain numbers and multiples of  Pi, 2, and 3. It seems beyond rationality to concluded this is just a coincidence not a fingerprint or a signature.

God and the Applicability of Mathematics | Reasonable Faith

High Five of the Day - Theology and atheism at the movies with Leonardo Dicaprio’s Shutter Island - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

Mariano Grinbank has written an awesome article about the image of God put into the movie Shutter Island. The movie explores the nature and source of morality and unfortunately does not take a Biblical view. But that's all right because God blessed Marianao for setting them straight! Mariano wrote:

God gave us “moral order” which means that He is not subject to the moral order prescribed for humans and that moral order contains moral violence such as self-defense, capital punishment, etc.
In fact, without that moral order we would have no basis upon which to condemn violence (any basis beyond personal preferences that are plagiarizes from the Judeo-Christian moral order to begin with).

Read the whole article at the following link:

Theology and atheism at the movies with Leonardo Dicaprio’s Shutter Island - National Messianic Jewish | Examiner.com

Related articles

• The Shutter Island rat scene (ask.metafilter.com)
• Leonardo DiCaprio Brings His Sexy, Tan Self to the Critics' Choice (popsugar.com)
• Leonardo DiCaprio Is The Ultimate Modelizer: A Retrospective (stylecaster.com)
• Media 9 shot analysis shutter island (slideshare.net)

High Five of the Day: Faithful Thinkers: Multiverse and Rationality

Here is a quote from an article recently published by Luke Nix. I think he summarizes quite well the problem with the concept of multiple universes...besides the part of there being no conclusive proof nor consenus.

The less and less probable something is to happen, the fact that it did happen points more and more towards its happening being the product of a mind, not chance. Since we do not have evidence that necessarily demands the existence of these multiverses, the only consistent and rational explanation is still a Designer. If that conclusion is actually false, then that is a continued reason why we should still not trust our own minds to ever discover the truth of naturalism, and the multiverse provides exponentially less hope that we ever will. Ironically, if naturalism is true, God is still the best explanation for all the facts we have.

Faithful Thinkers: Multiverse and Rationality

Related articles

• Multiverses (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
• Multiverses [EvolutionBlog] (scienceblogs.com)
• Does the Multiverse Really Exist? (preview) (scientificamerican.com)
• Making the Case for Parallel Universes (bigthink.com)
• The Case for Parallel Universe (scientificamerican.com)

High Five of the Day - An Answer from the Grave

Dr. Claude Mariottini has turned what could have easily been a facepalm into a high five! John Loftus posted the following on his blog:

Read and respond to two similar stories, one by Antony Flew, and the other by Carl Sagan. They both have to do with the OTF:

Antony Flew, in his classic Parable of the Invisible Gardener, asks this question:

At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"...What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?

Carl Sagan wrote about The Dragon In My Garage and asked:

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

Well, what of it?

Debunking Christianity: Two Questions From the Grave, by Antony Flew and Carl Sagan

Before, I provide the link to Dr. Mariottini, I feel the need to point out that both Sagan and Flew have died and now know beyond any shadow of doubt if God exists or not. How do you think it worked out for them? Second, I fail to see how their statements relate to OTF given that the God of the Bible is neither elusive nor imperceptible. The God of the Bible has gone out of His way to provide a means of relating to us! As for Mariottini's answer, I think it's genius. Not only does he focus on Flew's work, and cites what he references, (because the answer simultaneously works for Sagan), but he points out the Flew himself answered his own question before he died! Take a look at Dr. Mariottini's post!

An Answer from the Grave

Related articles

• Carl Sagan: The Frailty of Knowledge (milkandcookies.com)
• Carl Sagan: Scaling Heaven (milkandcookies.com)
• The miseducation of Carl Sagan (malbell.wordpress.com)
• Carl Sagan: The Great Demotions (milkandcookies.com)
• HAARP - Holes in Heaven (smpa.wordpress.com)