Eastwooding Richard Dawkins - YouTube
I don't think that Eastwooding was really effective in this situation. I doubt it will make Dawkins come up debate Craig, but it is interesting to see how Craig understands Dawkins' argument.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Eastwooding Richard Dawkins - YouTube
Eastwooding Richard Dawkins - YouTube
I don't think that Eastwooding was really effective in this situation. I doubt it will make Dawkins come up debate Craig, but it is interesting to see how Craig understands Dawkins' argument.
Apologist Interview: Douglas Wilson - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Douglas Wilson - Apologetics 315
Felix Baumgartner's 23-Mile Jump
The Best Memes Inspired By Felix Baumgartner's 23-Mile Jump
The thing that blows me away the most is that it ends this way:
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Answering Muslims: Lara Logan: On the Lies about al-Qaeda and the Taliban
I doubt any of this will change who ever becomes President of the US in November. I think Lara Logan is making good point and given her experiences and years of reporting in the Middle East, we should pay her some attention.
Answering Muslims: Lara Logan: On the Lies about al-Qaeda and the Taliban
Debate: Hugh Ross vs. Lewis Wolpert: Is there Evidence for a Cosmic Creator? - Apologetics 315
Debate: Hugh Ross vs. Lewis Wolpert: Is there Evidence for a Cosmic Creator? - Apologetics 315
Hugh Ross does a great job in arguing for why there is enough evidence to believe that there is a cosmic creator. Lewis Wolpert 's argument appalled me. It broke down to: "I am not a physicist. I do not understand the evidence Hugh Ross is bringing. There is no evidence for the existence of God." In other words, Wolpert said: I've made up my mind, so do not bother me with facts. Really close-minded. He really lost this debate.
One of the points of evidence Ross uses is about what we have learned about Dark Matter over the past 12 years. Here is a video that presents some information about Dark Matter and some of the conclusions that are being drawn. I don't agree with everything in the video about multiple universes but there is a lot of good science in it representing many view points today.
The New NA28 and the Preservation of Scripture
The New NA28 and the Preservation of Scripture
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Klingon Style Lyrics - Comediva
I posted this video a few days ago but I recently found out that lyrics in the video actually make this a lot more funny.
Read the lyrics at:
Klingon Style Lyrics - Comediva
Read the lyrics at:
Klingon Style Lyrics - Comediva
Kinect Inspires Wrist-Mounted Controller: The Future Of User Interface - G4tv.com
Monday, October 8, 2012
Answering Muslims: Eastwooding Muhammad
"Eastwooding" has become a meme. You can learn more here:
Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair Speech / Eastwooding / Invisible Obama
Answering Muslims: Eastwooding Muhammad
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Calvinistic Cartoons: In Search of a New Robin
That would be
Arthur Pink once wrote:
An ineffably holy God, who has the utmost abhorrence of sin, was never invented by any of Adam's descendents.Looks like Batman has a point.
Calvinistic Cartoons: In Search of a New Robin
“You Shoulda Put a Ring on It”: Witnessing to Cohabiting Couples | CRI
“Aren’t you engaged, Joe?” someone then asked, and all eyes turned to me, wondering how I was going to defend my jumping into an institution they’d just essentially trashed.
“Sure am,” I smiled, “and looking forward to being a husband.”
“That’s nice,” a waiter responded, regarding me the way one considers a quaint little relic. “But is it really necessary? Don’t you love each other with or without a ring?”
“Yeah,” I nodded, “but we’re both looking for commitment, too.”
“We’re just as committed as you!” another waitress retorted, as though I’d just criticized her arrangement with her live-in boyfriend. “A ceremony and a license don’t make a commitment.”
“No,” I conceded, “they don’t. But they put teeth into it. And I guess it’s the teeth we’re looking for.”
How would you respond? Joe Dallas relates in the article how he responded. The article is really important because it points out a very important point: Denying the important of marriage has lead us to the mess we have today where people are confused about what marriage is. People think that they can make marriage mean whatever they want marriage to mean - that is if it is "only a ring".
“You Shoulda Put a Ring on It”: Witnessing to Cohabiting Couples | CRI
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Answering Muslims: Eric Allen Bell: "Islamophobia or Islamo-Reality?"
I especially liked the contrast he gave for how Christians react to being mocked and insulted to how Muslims react to criticism.
Answering Muslims: Eric Allen Bell: "Islamophobia or Islamo-Reality?"
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Need Some Good Sci-Fi Storytelling?
Today, If you have a good idea and some talent you can make some top notch, high quality. Here are a couple of really good examples. You have to see theseMust Watch Sci-Fi Short: Plurality [Video]
Featured Sci-Fi Short: Tears of Steel [Video]
Monday, October 1, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: I Could Conceivably Be Wrong. So?
Randal Rauser repeatedly tells us that, "Faith consists of assent to a proposition that is conceivably false." I have repeatedly said that faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities, and as such, we should think exclusively in terms of probabilities. He claims I'm ignorant. I cannot hope to convince the deluded mind, but maybe more reasonable people can see what seems obvious to non-believers.
I disagree that faith is believing something despite the fact that it could be false. This is no different that believing something just because it seems more probable to you. This is not how the Bible describes or defines "faith". It makes sense to live this way if you don't have any other information. No one in the Bible was commended for their faith because they just believed something that they could have been wrong about. They believed God because of what God said to them despite their circumstances. For example, Abraham believed God would give he and Sarah children despite them both being well beyond child-bearing age because that is what God told him.
16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.
18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:16-25
Let's take just one example, the fact that the sun will rise this morning over the horizon where I live in Indiana. It's hard for me to calculate how many mornings the sun has risen but let me take a good guess. Given that the earth has existed for about 4.5 billion years multiplied by 365 days per year or so, the odds that it will rise today are about 1,642.5 billion to one (or something like that). So when I say I know the sun will rise today I can say this with a great deal of certainty. The odds are virtually certain the sun will rise over the horizon (even if clouds might hide it from view).
Notice how Loftus desires to equate concluding that the sun will rise tomorrow, based on the fact that it rose everyday for the past 4.5 billion years. The problem is that God did tell us about the sun and the seasons. They will never stop as long as the earth exists.
22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and nightwill never cease.” - Genesis 8:22
Therefore we can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow - not just because of Physics but also because God says so.
The question is whether I need to be certain the sun will rise this morning and if faith is required to fill in this gap so I can know that it will. I think not, obviously so. I don't need this gap to be filled. I don't need to be certain the sun will rise today. I can be quite comfortable to go with the odds, the probabilities. Probabilities are all that matter. We should think exclusively in terms of them.
We don't conclude that the sun rises because of faith. Bad example. One might be comfortable with not being certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning but I would not want to bet that Christianity is wrong, based on the overwhelming evidence of what God has said
This goes for everything else I think is probably true. It doesn't change anything if the odds become different for other things I think are probably true, so long as I conclude they are probably true.
Concluding that something is probably true does not make it true. Same is true in reverse.
But wait!
Oh yeah! More fail!!!
Is faith used to calculate the very probabilities I use to conclude the sun will rise today? How so?
It doesn't.
That a great deal of background knowledge from personal experience is used to calculate the probabilities is granted, and most all of it could conceivably be false too. So? This background knowledge has the weight of probability to it, at least, we accept it as more probable than not over-all. We cannot do otherwise. What else do we have to judge our background knowledge by except in terms of the probabilities? The reason I trust my background knowledge is not because of faith but rather because it is built up based on the probabilities of personal experience one layer at a time from birth. Trust is based on the probabilities, that's why faith is not trust. If it were the same thing then Rauser would be found equivocating on the word "faith." For "faith" would become equivalent to trusting the probabilities which is the very thing I argue for leaving faith undefined. Given this fact, it's no wonder Christians cannot even agree on how to define faith, because it cannot reasonably be done apart from the probabilities.
Of course accepting Christianity can be done outside of probabilities. It's called trusting what God has revealed to you and making sure you examine facts to make sure you are not just making things up.
Could we be wrong? Yes. So what? What's faith got to do with this process?
If you are wrong, you are going to hell. Applying faith helps you believe God's revelation when there is no way you could have believed it on your own.
Therefore, to say we need faith to think the sun will rise today, at best, is superfluous, completely unnecessary, utterly irrelevant, and at worst irrational.
Yeah and pointless as to whether or not you need faith to live.
There is more!
Steven Garmon said, "Faith is what is required to uphold the things we believe are most probable."
How does faith do that?
Biblical faith is required to believe what God has said because we cannot without God's help.
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6
Picture flipping a quarter. The odds are about equal that you'll get a heads or a tails. Where is faith? What does it do here? How does having it change the odds?
Faith isn't about flipping a quarter. With regards to salvation, faith makes salvation assured.
Picture a lottery where you have a one in 80 million chance of winning. Where is faith? What does it do here? How does having it change the odds?
Salvation is not about winning a lottery. Everyone is going to hell as default. Saving faith is what changes you from being hellbound sinners into children of God.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
Picture a sports contest, say a boxing match. Gamblers place their bets on who will win based on the odds. Where is faith? What does it do here? How does having it change the odds?
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. - Proverb 16:33
Ahhhh, morning has broken! Whew, that was a lucky guess, right? ;-)
Has nothing to do with luck. It's all about God's mercy.
Debunking Christianity: I Could Conceivably Be Wrong. So?
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Fistbump of the Day: Yes, We Are Still Fighting Gnosticism
The past several weeks I've head of a manuscript fragment that people are suggesting sheds light on the early history of Christianity. It's just a scrap of papyrus written in coptic but what is putting the world up in arms is one of the phrases written on it:
Jesus said to them, my wife,
This is basically making people remember that some people believe that Jesus was married. Before people tried to use the gnostic text "Gospel of Thomas" to substantiate the claim but the text itself does not explicitly say that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene people infer it. The interesting thing is that neither this scrap of papyrus or the Gospel of Thomas have either the historical evidence or validity of the four canonical gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are people who don't see the Gospels as historical true or that there is historic and identifiable Christianity and they seem to want to give alternate gospels and texts equal weight.
[Dr Karen] King said that it was not until around 200 A.D. that claims started to surface, via the theologian known as Clement of Alexandria, that Jesus did not marry.
"This fragment suggests that other Christians of that period were claiming that he was married" but does not provide actual evidence of a marriage, she said.
"Christian tradition preserved only those voices that claimed Jesus never married. The 'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' now shows that some Christians thought otherwise." [Source]
Dr King and others are clear in telling that this does not prove that Jesus did indeed have a wife. However they think that there were Christians [the Gnostics] who did think that Jesus had wife and the reason why traditional Christianity does not is because the poor Gnostics were silenced. It's amazing to me that people would even try to make Gnostics Christians. The Mormons have more in common with historic traditional Christianity than the Gnostics did! I mean really. The only way you could really think that the Gnostics would have been recognized as Christians by Peter, James, John, Paul, and the other first century Christians is if you don't know what the Bible teaches and/or what the many Gnostic flavors taught.
Added to this Dr Dan Wallace has posted the following piece of information:
Dan Wallace just posted this:
“News flash: Harvard Theological Review has decided not to publish Karen King¹s paper on the Coptic papyrus fragment on the grounds that the fragment is probably a fake.” This from an email Dr. Craig Evans, the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University and Divinity College, sent to me earlier today. He said that Helmut Koester (Harvard University), Bentley Layton (Yale University), Stephen Emmel (University of Münster), and Gesine Robinson (Claremont Graduate School)–all first-rate scholars in Coptic studies–have weighed in and have found the fragment wanting. No doubt Francis Watson’s comprehensive work showing the fragment’s dependence on the Gospel of Thomas was a contributing factor for this judgment, as well as the rather odd look of the Coptic that already raised several questions as to its authenticity.It's a forgery.
What I find interesting is that while we have people trying to water down Christianity and say things about Jesus that they cannot prove over a forgery and no Christian killing over the situation, we have three countries protesting and killing over a movie on YouTube that insult Muhammad based on Islamic sources! God is straight up showing us a difference between those who follow Christ and those who follow Muhammad.
It's nothing but the hand of God. The best thing is that God has called up brothers in Christ in every generation for when this kind of crap gets raised up. Here is a list of links regarding the way Dr James White, Mariano Grinbank, and Matthew Dowling have addressed this issue. Fistbumps to them all.
The Gospel of Jesus' Wife and Update: The Gospel of Jesus' Wife by Matthew Dowling
Was Jesus married? Manuscript says yes by Mariano Grinbank
Check these out by Dr James White
Get Ready for A Wave of Gnostic Looniness Once Again
A Note to the Secular World: Do Your History
Calling the MSM---Anyone Home?
Tim McGrew's Recommended Apologetics Reading - Apologetics 315
Tim McGrew's Recommended Apologetics Reading - Apologetics 315
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)